Wikipedia:Peer review/August 2006

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

---

History of the Philippines

I've done a lot of work on this article over the past few weeks, taking it from a monolithic 80KB [1], spliting it into 6 sub-articles by time period, and practically rewriting the main article into a relatively lean 37KB. I'd like this peer review to just focus on the main History of the Philippines article, and what it needs to meet FA criteria. If this peer review turns out nicely I would really like to take the article all the way to FA status. :) Coffee 06:21, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

A quick skim revealed a couple of problems from my perspective:

1. There are duplicate links to the same article. Cebu, for example, and both Spain and Spanish link to Spain in the same paragraph. There are many more examples. The style guide prefers linking only once, typically the first appearance in the article.
2. New Spain is noted as Mexico the second time it appears; shouldn't the note be with the first occurance? And this is another example of duplicate linking.
3. Can you put at least an introductory paragraph at the beginning of "American colonial period (1898-1946)" so that the first subcategory, "Philippine-American War" doesn't follow immediately? It flows better that way.
4. I prefer the end sections of See also / Notes / References / Further reading / External links, which is consistent with most articles. Most of your "General references" appear to be external links and none seem to be cited in the notes section, so perhaps it more accurately a "Further reading" section. Using another encyclopedia for a reference doesn't seem optimal to me; I would prefer to see a stronger source. I'm not sure how FAC reviewers will respond to these end section issues.

JonHarder 21:40, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Thank you very much for the comments. I've fixed points #1, 2 and 3 that you mentioned. As for #4... all of those links were used as references, and I'm working on converting all of them to footnotes so perhaps the "General references" part could later be done away with. Coffee 16:21, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Summary of the automated suggestions: (1) Wikilink dates, (2) headings don't start with "The", (3) weasel words, (4) watch for redundancies, and (5) copyedit. I've taken care of #1 and #2. All the obvious weasel words have citations (and if any others remain, I'd appreciate someone pointing them out). As for #4 and #5... I've looked over the article many times, so I guess I've done what I can do. Coffee 16:51, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Indian Standard Time

I'd like some suggestions in expanding this page. Please ignore the inline reference issue for now (I'll add them once the copyediting is done). Any suggestions for what sort of free images I can add here? Regards, =Nichalp «Talk»= 18:06, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Review by - Aksi_great (talk - review me)

I read through the article. There are only few points which I could come up with.

• In the lead - "The Indian observatory however, is located in the town..." - I could not make out which Indian observatory is being talked about. A wikilink would help.
• In the history section - "Bombay time was maintained until 1955". But the very next sentence says that the Indian government established IST as the official time in 1947. So does that mean that Bombay did not follow IST for 8 years after independence?
• In the Problems section - Who were the researchers in 1980? Independent or government? What happened to the suggestion made by them?
• In the Time signals section - ATA is linked to a disambiguation page.

That's all I could come up with. This is my first comment at a peer review of an article. Hope some of the points raised by me are valid. - Aksi_great (talk - review me) 18:37, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your review. Yes, the points are perfectly valid. I'll reply to each:

• Indian observatory – I'm still to get credible data on this... will try and fix soon
• Yes, Bombay did not use IST till 1955. I'll try and word it better.
• Unfortunately my source [2] does not mention who the researchers were. Nothing concrete emerged out of it, and I've added it to the text. Thanks!
• ATA is a call sign, I've remove the wikilink.

Regards, =Nichalp «Talk»= 00:05, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

• Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, AZ _t 18:55, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

• The locator map overlaps the lead text on my browser. Please check. As for the images, perhaps an enlarged crop of Image:Timezones.png? Also, you could add something about how the correct time is transferred to the people - about 174 on BSNL et al.-- thunderboltz^{a.k.a.Deepu Joseph |TALK}06:25, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

  Made a new map. Added a cropped version, added some info on phone and times. =Nichalp «Talk»= 18:50, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Battle of Moscow

Hello all. I just finished a big overhaul of this article, dealing with an important battle of the Soviet-German front during WWII. All kind of help and comments are very welcome. :)

Thanks in advance, Grafikm ^(AutoGRAF) 18:54, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

• A well-written article, however the infoboxes could be better, in design terms. --TheM62Manchester 11:28, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Well, these are standard WP:MILHIST infoboxes, so if you have suggestions for design improvement, you're more than welcome to take them to the project talk page :) -- Grafikm ^(AutoGRAF) 11:30, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

• Automated suggestions are provided here, that you may wish to refer for some useful style guidelines. - Mailer Diablo 17:24, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Toledo War

Hello, This article was given a peer review about two months ago, GA status, and based on suggestions, was submitted to FAC, where it failed in early June. The main objection at that time was that the article was poorly written, and needed more copy-editing. Since then, I have put in a lot of effort, and the article has been added to, revised, and copy-edited. The goal is another (this time hopefully successful) FAC, and I was just wondering if you had any suggestions or comments about making this article better. I look forward to addressing your concerns, and thanks for all of your help! Hotstreets 04:56, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't think there's a lot to suggest to you except wow, this article is great. The fact that two of our states had a war amuses me greatly and the article just gets funnier as it goes on. I did change two sentences that I thought could be better. The first in the lead I was worried that people would think the federal and state government had argued as those were the two governments listed in the preceeding sentence. The only thing that bothered me was that one paragraph in the 'Prelude to Conflict' section lacks any citations at all. That seems like it should be easy to fix. Again, I can't wait to see this article on the main page. It's a great article.--Dekkanar 00:38, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your kind words and suggestions. I will definitely add those citations back sometime in the next day. Once again, thanks for the feedback! Hotstreets 00:06, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

• Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, AZ _t 01:36, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

I edit a lot of articles for prose and this is one of the best I've found. Well done! Here are a few minor thoughts I had:

• "U.S. state" Unabbreviated that's United States state and sounds redundant but maybe this is used commonly? I'm not sure.
• There are some one sentence paragraphs like "Ohio would thus be granted access to the entire western Lake Erie shoreline, and the other new states would have access to the Great Lakes via Lakes Michigan, Huron, and Superior.[4]" that could probably be integrated.
• The state legislature would eventually name the county in which Toledo sat, Lucas County" When did this happen? I'm confused by its placement in the timeline and the words "would eventually"
• "notoriously hot-headed Mason" need a cite for this subjective descriptions
• "The line is identified on USGS topographical maps as the South [Boundary] Michigan Survey, and on Lucas County and Fulton County, Ohio road maps as "Old State Line Road."" Why is one italicized and one in quotes?

I've made many quite minor edits to the article, often eliminating what appeared to be slight redundancies. I apologize if I removed anything necessary. Let me know when this is up for FAC and I'll definitely give it my support. Best, MarkBuckles (talk) 19:44, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Thank you very much for the feedback. I have worked on each of your points, but on a few I just wanted to explain below:

- I left "U.S. state" as it is, due to the redundancy issues as well as the fact that the article that it links to is formally titled "U.S. state". I do agree that is it strange, though.

- The one sentence paragraph you mentioned was actually the result of the Wikisource boxes: it inadvertently broke the paragraph apart. I have fixed the problem so it no longer does that.

- I played with the paragraph regarding Lucas County, and I think I have improved it a bit. Unfortunately, that sentence provided the introduction to Governor Lucas in the prose, so moving it around proved awkward. Please let me know what you think of this; I did try to clarify the timeline as best as possible.

Once again, thank you very much for your feedback, and I will definitely let you know when this becomes FAC. Hotstreets 06:11, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Green and Golden Bell Frog

Hopeing to get this article to FA. It is longer than the White's Tree Frog which is also FA, and there is a lot more info around about the White's Tree Frog than the Green and Golden Bell Frog, so I think that you couldn't put very much more in to this article. It needs a few more reference, could you please add {{fact}} where you think references are needed. If someone is willing to give it a copyedit/grammar check that would be great too. Thanks -- Froggydarb ^croak 00:07, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

I have to disagree with you on the amount of information available. There is so much published on this species you would think it was Australia's only endangered species! The normal sections of taxonomy, physical description and distribution are good content wise (though need a serious copy-edit and lots of citations). The Conservation status is the one I am worried about. Although management is mentioned, it needs further elaboration. Salinity, and its effects on both chytrid and the frog are not mentioned, and the use of saline ponds to help conserve the species. Also, there is a lot of information on their ecology and behaviour. I read an article recently about their preferred winter habitat, which should be included. It also seems to be missing some other things, but I can't pin down what; I will get back to you on that. I will try and copyedit this, but I am currently working on quite a few articles, and may not get the time. One thing which is throughout the article which is annoying me. Try to use "The Green and Golden Bell Frog" at the start of paragraphs instead of "This species". Thanks --liquidGhoul 00:35, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I was thinking about creating a whole new section called "Management". Cheers -- Froggydarb ^croak 01:30, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Paras now start with "Green and Golden Bell Frog" where appropriate. -- Froggydarb ^croak 01:55, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

I've done the effects of salinity on the tads and chytrid (still a bit dodgey) but can't find anything about using saline water as a measure to help and conserve the species. -- Froggydarb ^croak 07:03, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

The Recovery Plan has some good stuff, but it only glances over the salinity thing (page 39), as research hadn't occured when it was written. I will look some things up for you. --liquidGhoul 08:22, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

For your grammar check, please see Wikipedia:Spellchecking. Word processors are not the answer, but they can help by pointing out the most common problems (e.g. singular/plural disagreement between noun and verb). - Samsara (talk • contribs) 11:59, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

I also suggest this article written by Tony1, it is very good even though it is currently incomplete. --liquidGhoul 12:25, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

The similar species section seems like it sould be mentioned in taxonomy rather than in its own section. Reproduction is probably long enough to stand on its own as per the layout of White's tree frog.--Peta 05:39, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

I've moved reproduction out of ecology and behaviour, but when similar species is moved under taxonomy the pictures are all bunched, maybe have it like reproduction was, a separate section under taxonomy. Thanks for all the helpful info. -- Froggydarb ^croak 06:25, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

The similar species paragraph is just a description of where this species fits into the complex - which is exacly the sort of thing that should go in the taxonomy section of an article, it doesn't need to be a subsection in the taxonomy.--Peta 13:53, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

I have refs for almost all of comments where you requested a ref. Just need to added them, I'll do it later this afternoon. -- Froggydarb ^croak 00:34, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I think I have fixed up all the refs and queries. It still needs a bit more on management and a grammar/copyedit check. Thanks all :) -- Froggydarb ^croak 07:05, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

• Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, AZ _t 17:07, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

• Do we need to put any more citations in to the article? -- Froggydarb ^croak 07:26, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Alexander Coe

I'm trying to get this good article status and maybe eventually FA status. I've put in a good deal of work into this including finding a bunch of references. I'd like to know if my references/citations are properly formatted and sufficient. Other subjects of interest that I would specifically like to hear about are encyclopedic tone and concise language. What else do editors think needs to be done here? Wickethewok 04:02, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

• Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, AZ _t 14:09, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
• Thanks for the automated notes - the technical stuff especially about headings and stuff is useful. I'll make those changes later today. If anyone would like to help out with removing "redundancies" and copyediting in general would be great, as I think it needs a second set of of eyes. If anyone would like to expand on the automated stuff regarding "how to satisfy 2a" that'd be great, too! Also, if anyone can judge how "complete" the article is, that'd be cool as I'm concerned about people's perspectives who don't really know anything about Sasha or electronic music in general. Wickethewok 15:44, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
• Okay, taking a shot based on my limited knowledge of the subject...
  • One aspect where this article has exceled so far, I think, is presenting information in context. Explaining the artists' influence and stature in their musical fields is something that's not always easy to do, so good job on that. One thing, though — I seem to recall some criticism about the musical direction he's taken more recently, particularly post-Digweed. Any substance to that? Worth discussing?
    • Yeah, I agree. Pretty much all of the reviews and such I seem to find don't really have an criticisms of Sasha. I realize that some fans don't like the direction he has gone musically, but I haven't found any reliable sources discussing this (yet). If you find any discussing criticism, I'd love to integrate them into the article. I will continue looking myself as well. Thanks for all the feedback btw, its much appreciated! Wickethewok 03:34, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
      • I couldn't really think of any obvious major sources. Actually, I get the feeling sometimes that public opinion like this, particularly regarding dance music, is all just concentrated in forums — it can't really be pinned down to a solid, reliable source, which is what worries me.
      • Thought of another topic — the Allmusic review of GU013 kind of puts things into perspective regarding Sasha's place in the "rise and fall of trance music", so to speak. The first half of that has somewhat fallen out of public memory, while the second half of that I don't think many people are even aware of. Might be worth expanding. –Unint 22:25, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
  • I would suggest sorting the discography by release types, as seems to be the widespread practice. Also, maybe awards could be sorted by won/nominated rather than using bold, though I wouldn't know where to find a specific citation on that; this is mainly based on the policy discouraging people from bolding #1 chart positions. –Unint 21:08, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
    • I fixed the discogs as you suggested. I'm not quite sure how to format the awards section as I think sorting by won/nominated might look a little awkward (unless anyone can find a good example of how to do this). I think I might change the "Awards" section into prose instead of a list. Do you think thats a good idea? Wickethewok 03:34, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
      • I looked at featured articles on films for ideas. The trend seems to be that major, award-heavy subjects get awards sections, while lesser-known subjects list awards with prose in a section like "Reception" or "Influence". (Of course, the significance of the award itself is going to be factor here.) Make what you will of that. –Unint 22:25, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
• Thanks for the feedback, Unint. When I get a chance I'll add the Allmusic review stuff in and write the awards section in prose. Thanks for the feedback! Wickethewok 02:50, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Micro Mart

I have recently been rewriting this and many othe UK PC mag articles - as well as the list of PC magazines and have created the PC Magazines template. I am basically trying to improve them to a levle where thay can be featured content.

Basically this article is still very much in development and has much more content to be added, plus of course wiki links need adding to this new version. In this context the article is very incomplete.

What I am looking for is guidance and ideas on the format and layout of the article. Unfortunately many magazine articles on wikipedia are not very good and there isn't much in the way of a general layout. Which is a shame. So any ideas of how I can lay this article out / improve / add to it will be much much appreciated

Let the flaming commence :D -- Errant  ^talk(formerly tmorton166) 21:53, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

A few suggestions:

• There is currently no lead section - the article launches straight into what would usually be included in the main body of the article.
• Avoid opinion based statements, such as "unfortunately a lack of response has made this section very intermittent", as this expresses a particular point of view.
• The article currently lacks references or citations, other than forum postings, which are not generally viewed as reliable sources. Existing references should be converted to use the m:Cite format. It is not necessary to include Dennis Publishing's website inline - the wikilink to Dennis Publishing Ltd. is sufficient.
• The article is biased towards the present - Micro Mart was very different 5 or 6 years ago, never mind 15 or 20 years ago. IIRC it was very much an Auto Trader type publication. The development of the magazine format - and the way that it was (and still is) bought for its advertising content by many people - should be covered in more depth.

Hope this helps. Oldelpaso 19:37, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Hey thanks for that, I agree about needing more on the past of MM, I am currently trying to get the current editor to provide any info he may have access to plus I am trying to pick the brains of older users on the forum.

As to the other things, thanks I have noted them down as I rewrite :D I forgot all about the lead and stuff so it will be useful. Thanks for pointing out the NPOV as well, it's always hard when your writing (I find) to write impartially and even harder to spot the POV bits afterwards. I will take a good look through and see what I can change.

Thanks for the input :D -- Errant  ^talk(formerly tmorton166) 08:34, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Be careful not to step into the realms of original research, particularly if you are getting information from other people. Good luck with your search for more information! Oldelpaso 18:11, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

WilliamsF1

I've been working on expanding and referencing the article during the last 3 days and I'm stuck...so I'm hoping this Peer Review will give me a better idea on what needs to be done...such as sentances that need referencing...and the dreaded Weasal Words...Any suggestions would be appriciated ;). --Skully Collins 14:30, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

• Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, AZ _t 14:10, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

• Hi, Skully. I hate to mention it, but Frank Williams Racing Cars is a totally different team to Williams F1 - they shouldn't be part of the same article (IMHO, of course!). Frank himself was about the only common factor between the two. I'll take up the discussion on the talk page. Cheers. 4u1e 18:40, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

• One other thing that worries me with the constructor articles - for the teams with a long history at least - is that it can read like "just one damn thing after another" to misquote someone or other on history. One approach that may work is to split out the article into more sections, as I am trying to do with Brabham, so different kinds of topics, like technical innovation (a good category for Williams!), notable drivers etc form separate sections. Just a thought. 4u1e 18:40, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

• Oh, and it's really worth trying Andy's automated suggestions, by the way. They helped me with the Fittipaldi (constructor) article. 4u1e 18:40, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Walk to Canossa

I wrote this article using German sources. Most of the things listed here are more or less considered accepted fact in German history, and therefore not particularly worthy of citations. I tried, however, to cite a couple of things I thought might be curiosities. Is there anything else here that anyone feels needs to be cited or supported? - Che Nuevara: ^{Join the Revolution} 16:27, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

• Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, AZ _t 19:49, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
  • What is there is fine, but it seems like it could have more context earlier in the article. The lead paragraph / section could be longer and needs to summarize the article better. It does not specifically say Henry IV was the Holy Roman Emperor, and makes no mention of the Pope(!), whom Henry walked to Canosa to see. It might also help to give the length of the journey and locate it better (a map? more description of where Canossa and Augsburg etc. are?). Where did Henry start from? If someone does not already know a lot about the topic, the article could be confusing at first read. Not everyone knows what investiture is or why excommunication was such a dreaded outcome at the time and explaining these succinctly might make everything clearer and explain why Henry did what he did. I liked the section on Canossa in German culture especially. Hope this helps, Ruhrfisch 01:58, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
    • Thanks :) - CheNuevara 08:33, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

New England

I would appreciate a peer review of this article. Specifically:

1. Where are references most needed?
2. Where is the fluff, and can it be cut? This applies especially to the politics, education, and culture sections (where us New Englanders can be a bit too proud, I'm afraid).
3. What statements need references? Of course all claims should be cited. But which ones stick out as being especially in need of citation?
4. How's the grammar and writing style?
5. Should we keep the infobox, or get rid of it?
6. How's the length?
7. Most important: What is currently preventing this article from achieving featured status, in your opinion?

Any help with the following would be great:

• Copyediting
• Reference hunting
• Fluff trimming
• Fat cutting

Thanks, all! --AaronS 18:20, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

• The section Notable New Englanders has no entries, but only a link to the main article. How would you feel about adding a few really significant people, like U.S. presidents? I know how hard it can be to keep the list down to a small number, but having a criterion can help. Fg2 02:15, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

• The sports section is strong. Would mentioning minor-league teams strengthen it further? As it stands, it's top-heavy with Massachusetts teams. Also, Boston has a reputation for sports writing. Present and former reporters for the papers, and perhaps announcers, especially any who became famous nationwide, would be a possible direction for expanding the section. 07:10, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

• There are also individual sports such as boxing, golf, tennis. Rocky Marciano and Marvin Hagler come to mind, and lists in articles on states would probably turn up more. Again, limiting the discussion to people who have won nationwide titles can help prevent it from growing out of hand. This is important because there are lots of individuals in sports (though few minor-league teams). 07:26, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

• Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, AZ _t 14:09, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

• The Education section begins with a long list of colleges and universities. The following Culture and education section repeats much of the earlier section. Then Academic publishing contains just one paragraph. I suggest consolidating all three heads and rewriting to eliminate repetition.

• Later, Urban New England contains two lists, which are not both necessary. The first is for Greater Boston, and belongs in the article Greater Boston. The second is the one to keep for New England.

Fg2 08:01, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

• The two paragraphs on the Patriots' proposed move to Connecticut can probably be replaced by a single-sentence summary. There's similar material in the article on the Patriots.

• In the Economy section you mention dairy production. This might be an opportunity to name Ben & Jerry's, a brand with widespread recognition. Also to name the crops that farmers produce, including tobacco (Connecticut ranks 7th, which might surprise many readers). Potatoes, Christmas trees. There are also local traditions such as maple sugar production. Cranberries.

Blueberries 07:44, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Related to shellfish digging is the quahog, which might deserve mention (or it might not). Likewise "The Perfect Storm." And WHOI. This USDA page on Massachusetts and similar ones for the other states (just type the two-letter abbreviation in place of "MA") could be valuable references.

Fg2 10:33, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

• In publishing, there's Merriam-Webster in Springfield. Yankee Magazine in New Hampshire. The defunct Byte Magazine, formerly in NH, had worldwide circulation and was translated into foreign-language editions. Fg2 07:44, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Update

Thanks a lot for your helpful comments. I've tried to adhere to as many as possible. Take a look at the changes in the article. What do you think, now? Do you think it might be ready for FA status? --AaronS 12:48, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Oceanic whitetip shark

This was a featured article candidate some time back and has been improved considerably since. Any suggestions for improvements with a view to getting it featured status are appreciated. Yomangani 12:09, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

• Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, Andy _t 23:55, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
• Two minor things:

• The single sentence paragraph in the lead. Any chance you could incorporate that into one of the other two paragraphs?
• I think you should seperate the notes and references a bit. A new section shouldn't be necessary though.

Cheers, --darkliight^[πalk] 07:48, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

• A few points.
  • The line Some cultures fish for the oceanic whitetip shark as a delicacy or for its fin. suggests that the oceanic white tip is specifically hunted, in fact just about every shark is. It could be clearer.
  • The line the most common shark in its range, and perhaps the most abundant large animal in the world. is somewhat at odds with it's vulnerable status - care to cite where it came from?
    • I was worried about that too, I think it comes from a 1969 publication by Lineaweaver and Backus but I haven't been able to track it down further yet. If it is from there it's obviously 37 years out of date (eek) Yomangani 18:12, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
  • There is no information in the article about it's conservation status - given that the taxobox identifies it as vulnerable there probably is some information out theer about its threats (the fishing trade) and its prognosis. Like many pelagic sharks it may have declined masively (some species by as much as 95%) and this is important info to include. Information on it's popluations should be possible to find on Google Scholar [3] [4]. The IUCN report says This formerly widespread and abundant large oceanic shark is subject to fishing pressure virtually throughout its range. It adds that for the North Atlantic it is the oceanic whitetip shark is assessed as Critically Endangered in the Northwest and Western Central Atlantic because of the enormous declines that have been reported. [5]
  • C. longimanus has a 'typical', although somewhat flattened shark body. Typical for a requiem shark, perhaps?
  • Oceanic whitetips are a draw for divers - so perhaps a mention in the human section regarding their value for tourism?

It's heading in the right direction. I mighttry and squeeze in time to insert some infor from journasl unavaliable on google. Sabine's Sunbird talk 06:05, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

The article would benefit from fewer redlinks to not-yet-notable authors, and page numbers in the reference section as appropriate - it is simply not courteous to force someone to dig through a large book to find a single statement that may be supported there. Inline references would really be ideal. You may wish to consider Harvard referencing, see e.g. saffron. Best wishes, Samsara (talk • contribs) 08:24, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

• Per WP:CONTEXT and WP:MOSDATE, months and days of the week generally should not be linked. Years, decades, and centuries can be linked if they provide context for the article.
• Per WP:MOSNUM, when doing conversions, please use standard abbreviations: for example, miles -> mi, kilometers squared -> km², and pounds -> lb.
• Per WP:CONTEXT and WP:BTW, years with full dates should be linked; for example, link January 15, 2006, but do not link January 2006.
• There are a few occurrences of weasel words in this article- please observe WP:AWT. Certain phrases should specify exactly who supports, considers, believes, etc., such a view. For example,
  • is considered
  • might be weasel words, and should be provided with proper citations (if they already do, or are not weasel terms, please strike this comment).
• Watch for redundancies that make the article too wordy instead of being crisp and concise. (You may wish to try Tony1's redundancy exercises.)
  • Vague terms of size often are unnecessary and redundant - “some”, “a variety/number/majority of”, “several”, “a few”, “many”, “any”, and “all”. For example, “All pigs are pink, so we thought of a number of ways to turn them green.” AZ _t 14:18, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Daft Punk

This article has evolved a lot in the past year. Several of the contributors to the article have provided good info about the band for the past few months. I just wanted to know if there's anything that needs to be fixed or tweaked or even added into the article. Perhaps areas where a more in depth description can be made. Douglasr007 07:40, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Hey, this is right next to the other article I'm commenting on. Here goes...

• Improve the lead section; it should be able to stand on its own. See Wikipedia:Lead section and next comment.
• Try to put the article in context. Could the style of the music be described in more detail? What is their place within their genre / related genres, or the music scene in general? (What will they be remembered for, historically?) What about musicians they were influenced by / have influenced? I would think entire new sections could be created discussing these.
• Please, please, please no trivia sections. See Wikipedia:Trivia and Wikipedia:WikiProject Music/MUSTARD as guidelines continue to develop. Work relevant information into the context of other sections.
• So you've bought into the "band logo in infobox" trend? In the long run, I'm fairly certain there is going to be backlash against this. Just a heads-up. –Unint 23:16, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

• Please elabourate on this "backlash". To me it seems like the lead infobox is the perfect place for a logo. —(chubbstar) ^{— talk | contrib | 00:30, 7 September 2006 (UTC)}

Ok, I changed the infobox for the band info but I have no idea what to do with the Trivia section. Could a section of cultural references be made for some of the trivia? I know I could delete some of the trivia bits since it's just refers to one of the artists and not the group itself. Douglasr007 09:09, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

If you could expand the article to discuss some of the things I suggested, I think you would be able to find natural places for the more important information among the trivia. I would seriously place that as the greater priority. –Unint 03:27, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

• Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, AZ _t 15:38, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Superman Returns

Hi, any suggestions that could get this to FA level would be much appreciated. Thanks. Versitywater 00:49, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Ok, then:

• Cast. It's no good. It just won't do. See Richard III (1955 film), or Casablanca (film) for ideas on how to make it not suck.

• Trivia. FA no likey Trivia. Intergrate the most interesting and important parts of the Trivia section into the body of the article, and to hell with the rest.

• Plot. Intergrate the sub-plot section into the the main plot. If every film article had a seperate section for each sub-plot, well, the Revenge of the Sith article would be a mess.

• Trailers and TV spots. Don't list and provide links to every single goddamned one. Just write a summary about "Promotion" or "Release". Get rid of this section

• Connections to SII. Prosify. Lists are bad for FA

• Allegories and Allusions (specific to other lore). Rename to Cultural Allusions, and prosify.

• Back-References. What is this? Get it out of here!

• Spin offs. No. Get rid of this, maybe have seperate sections on Video game, novel, ect, with each section providing a link to the respective main article

Get right onto the things I've suggested, get it looking more like Revenge of the Sith (see that in terms of how to structure the article), Richard III (1955 film) (my own FA), or, in my opinion, the best Film article around, Casablanca (film). Once you've done that, well, you might have an FA on your hands. The hard part (the citing) has been done, so in reality, you're on easy street. ...._(Complain)^{(Let us to it pell-mell)} 10:02, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

• • I agree with alot of what the above user said, but I have some suggestions:

Is it standard to have an All Movie Guide profile link in the infobox?

Make sure there are no lone lines/short stub-like paragraphs, e.g the final line of the plot.

Sub-plot is okay to keep, though turn it into paragraphs, and make it less speculative.

Cast, see V for Vendetta, this is a must.

Production needs more references, I would merge Marlon Brando's role into the cast description, once you model the section after other FAs.

Deleted scenes needs to be expanded and referenced.

Trailers and TV spots is no good, create a section on promotion or something. Get rid of as many ex.links in the text as possible.

Reactions is not very good. See other FAs.

Box office results needs tyo be expanded or moved into a cleaned up Reactions.

Merge IMAX 3D release into my proposed Promotion/Release section.

Connections to Superman and Superman II must be turned into paragraphs, and have a few references.

Same goes for Allegories and Allusions (specific to other lore).

Trivia, removeentirely, and grab what is actually useful content, merge it into appropriate sections.

Other back-references, merge into Ref. to Sup. I and II (change title to ref. to other Sup. media?)

Change the title of Spin-offs, though keep them together, as if you seperate them, they will all be too short. No dot points. Perhaps merge Documentary into here as well, or more appropriately, into Promotion/Release.

Take ? out of Sequel? title. Expand andf reference. Cvene64 04:49, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

• Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, AZ _t 15:39, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Coonskin (film)

Alright- how'd I do? (Ibaranoff24 23:04, 14 July 2006 (UTC))

Its very good for an obscure film. All the images need fair use rationale, and the image gallery should be removed as its extraneous copyrighted material. The first sentence needs to be rewritten; it may be uncommon but I don't think its "unqiue" to combine live action and animation and "for adults only" should be removed. At least rewrite it to say its an "adult film". The word "recently" (with clasified as a cult film) and "young" (with Al Sharpton) should be removed as those are time sensitive words. The only other issue I had is with the long Roger Ebert sentence in parenthesis in the intro. It would best if that was turned into its own seperate sentence. Good work. Medvedenko 06:06, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

• Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, AZ _t 15:39, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Command & Conquer 3: Tiberium Wars

As has been raised in the articles talk page, there is a lack of good sourcing, a vast amount of speculation and a large section of the article which has questionable POV. I'd like to open up the discussion a bit more since I believe that the existing bad habits are going to continue to grow as the article develops. S.Skinner 22:59, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

• Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, AZ _t 15:39, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Speciation

I've taken this very important article concerning evolution (which was a real mess) pretty far in the past couple of days, but I'm not sure where to go from here. Any ideas will be appreciated. BenB4 01:53, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

• First off, unfortunately "this is the only illustration I could find, and I can't draw" isn't a legitimate fair use rationale. Try the {{reqimage}} or {{reqdiagram}} templates instead.

  Why isn't that a legitimate fair use rationale? BenB4 23:15, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

  that has been explained on the talk page. pschemp | talk 23:26, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

  I respectfully disagree. BenB4 23:38, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

  (edit-conflicted explanation) For essentially the same reason that, as described in the fair use policy, it's not legitimate to use a copyrighted photo of a person to illustrate an article about the person rather than one about the specific photograph in question. It's also considered important to use or create a free image where possible rather than using a fair-use one. The image and diagram request templates can attract good diagram-creators who can help - I'd try it myself, but my previous image efforts have been... rather bad :) looks like you've attracted a few. Opabinia regalis 23:49, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

  asked on WP:FU talk BenB4 00:59, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

• I think it's buried somewhere in the MoS that headers shouldn't repeat the title, but the sections would read much better as "natural speciation" and "artificial speciation".

  Done. BenB4 23:48, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

• A more extensive discussion of the Galapagos would be useful, as it's the best-known example of the phenomenon.
• The "observed examples" link to talk.origins is well-researched and useful as an external link, but surely there's a more academic compilation somewhere?

  I don't think so. I've looked. If there is, I can't find one. The talk.origins faq is pretty well sourced, with plenty of peer-reviewed science citations. BenB4 23:49, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

• A discussion of phylogenetics and the measurement of species coalescence times might be a good expansion.

Opabinia regalis 16:56, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your helpful comments; I am adding the remaining ones to a todo list. BenB4 23:50, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

• Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, AZ _t 15:37, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

The Ren and Stimpy Show

I haven't worked on this article much, but as a fan of the series, I find it extremely disappointing that other fans couldn't have done better in certain spots of the article. You know, not enough citations, that type of thing. If there's anything else in the article that needs to be improved, mention it here and/or on the series' talk page. Perhaps you, I, and some other fans of the series can try and whip this article into top shape. (Ibaranoff24 23:14, 15 July 2006 (UTC))

• Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, AZ _t 15:37, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

The History of Arte Mecco

Please provide me feedback on related articles and also Wikipedians who can contribute to the article.

Please check grammar. Remove first and second person grammar. Make contributions which shall add to the text. I need help with references, etc.

Thank you for the start you made in structuring my text, with a table of content, etc...

Kind regardsHugeaux 23:04, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

I would like the article to be a candidate for The feature article. After proper cleanup can someone translate the article in french, spanish and german.Hugeaux 05:34, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

• Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, AZ _t 15:37, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Leonard Cohen

I'd like to get this artice up to featured article status.

Please respond with any ideas. Thanks -- Funky Monkey  (talk)  21:27, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Get a freely-licensed image! Try fan forums and email lists. See Wikipedia:Boilerplate requests for permission for ideas on how to ask for images from fan websites. Good luck. Jkelly 04:44, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Let's see...

• There's a bit of info in the biography that could be moved out into other sections: the part that discusses some songs in detail, and the "family life" section, which doesn't fit chronologically.
• The extensive thematic analysis could certainly use some references — surely enough professionally-written reviews and essays can be found on someone like him, especially in print? Also, it's primarily an analysis of his songs — what about the other material? And if you're going to analyze the songs, why not go into the music in more detail as well? (Instrumentation, style, composition...)
• In fact, create an actual list of references per style.
• Long lists are generally not a good idea on Wikipedia. Particularly, Wikipedia is not a repository of lists of quotations. If the quote is relevant, use it to back up other text; otherwise take it away to his Wikiquote page.
• Don't link to a word in the middle of a song title; expand on the info outside of the quotation marks.
• Try not to phrase parenthetical asides with words like "note".
• Clip down the external links a bit; individual YouTube clips can go. For articles containing useful information, use them as references and include them that way.

–Unint 01:28, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the replies. I'll get to work on this over the weekend. -- Funky Monkey  (talk)  12:06, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

• Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, AZ _t 15:40, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Mitochondrion

For the previous Peer Review, please see Wikipedia:Peer review/Mitochondrion/archive1.

Sedmic 21:12, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

• A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style. If you would find such a review helpful, please click here. Thanks, APR _t 02:42, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

TransLink (Vancouver)

I think the page is not bad, but can get alot better. Perhaps it can be reordered, or it's missing key information.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Selmo (talk • contribs) 06:24, July 15, 2006 (UTC)

• Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, AZ _t 15:38, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Eurovision Song Contest

I have been trying to get this article up to Featured Article standard, and believe that so far I've been pretty successful: it's been approved as a Good Article, after having had a complete re-write by myself last month. I nominated it as a Featured Article Candidate recently, but the nomination failed - primarily because there weren't enough references, and some sections did not have enough detail. I was holding back on some of the detail because I believed that Featured Articles had to be limited in length to max 30k, but was since told that a large article was not a barrier to being featured. I have re-written some things, improved them, and added many references - even going to the extent of buying a hard-copy book in order to use it for offline reference. I believe that the article is excellent, and should be featured - but before I re-submit it for candidacy, I request a Peer Review so that perhaps others may see things which I don't. Ten heads are better than one, when it comes to these things :)

Please give me your feedback on this article's readiness to be re-submitted as a Featured Candidate. I have addressed all the addressable points in the first FA nomination, but want more people to give their opinions before I try again. Thanks! EuroSong ^talk 14:51, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

• First of all, do accept my apology for not replying to your request for review earlier. I have actually injured my hand and typing takes me a lot more time, which in turn made me develop a singificant WikiBacklog... Furthermore, I want to express my deep appreciation for the extensive efforts you have undertaken to further improve this article and your dedication to this task. Please, however, note that it is my opinion that all articles should be appraised against the same criteria, and not the author's efforts. Some topics are simply broader and tougher to write a comprehensive and all-round-good article on, and therefore will require much more effort from the editors. On the other hand, I believe that the satisfaction from finally reaching the FA target with such articles is greater.
  Let me review this section by section:

Lead section

1. I am still not convinced that Al-Jazeera and the other site I commented on the last time are the best references for ESC viewing figures. I think EBU released some official info as to the ESC viewership this year, and more historic data can perhaps be found in the EBU archive.
2. Even though the participants are commonly referred to as "countries", even during the show and by the organisers, the lead section should explains who the participants actually are and what is meant by "countries" (e.g. brodcasters, jury/televoting etc.)
3. The last paragraph does not fit in well, I believe - first of all, it doesn't really summarize any section of the text, secondly, the current lineup displayed there is quite disputable (were Mocedades really such big format international superstars like ABBA?), and you will have fans perpetually "promoting" their favorites by adding them to the list (e.g. Lordi's or Anna Vissi's main claim to international fame is actually appearing on ESC rather than anything else). It's going to be controversial, I'd simply do away with it, as it doesn't really provide the casual reader with much insight into the contest.

Origins

1. Very good section, as it was before. I really appreciate the realiable-looking references, though I actually haven't checked them thoroughly... I'd say the middle paragraph could use a reference too - even a trivial one - to keep up with the standard.

Format

1. This section could still use some development. It doesn't read to well, especially the first paragraph. It's more like a collection of facts dumped together - I think for the casual reader the description might not be that informative. It would be sensible to explain the contest format by discussing the idea behind it.
2. Again "countries" should be explained.
3. Postcards and interval acts deserve are kind-of mentioned by the way, while the fact that the event is opened by a presenter is highlighted - I guess the accents are a bit misplaced. I guess presenters, postcards and interval acts all deserve short descriptions - minisections or just paragraphs.
4. Sadly, no references in this section.

Participation

1. Another rather good section here, but insufficient references! What in the world is the "European Broadcasting Area"?

Rules

1. The introductory sentences are both pretty tautologic to me and quite redundant.
2. Some "hosting rules" and all "other rules" are not referenced. The existance of "other notable rules" section makes me wonder whether there are any non-notable rules.
3. It is still not explained why would BBC or, in one case, NOS step in as the organiser when the winner declined.
4. For clarity and better reading I would start the "live music" section with the rules about vocals and then proceed to the discussion of the orchestra. There is no mention of the countries supplying their conductors along with singers in the "orchestra period".
5. Again, I would start the language section with saying that "songs can now be sung in any language" and only then discuss the historic divertions from the rule. This section is also quit choppy and there is no explanation as to why would the rules go back and forth, and the perceived better chances of songs sung in English. I am also not that happy that there is no mention of imaginary and rare languages any longer - I know somebody was fussy about the rumblings on what language could UK use, but the rest of that section was perfectly legitimate.
6. Broadcasting rules - reference needed for the rule, as well as formal consequences for the broadcaster. It would also be interesting to discuss, here or elsewhere, NON-participating brodcasters who show the Contest, like the mentioned one from Jordan, or I recently heard about even an Australian one!
7. I remember Lys Assia said in an interview [6] that in the beginning all the artists, incl. composer, lyricist, singers etc. had to be from the country they represented. It would be good to try to dig out how it was applied in practice and when the rule was abolished.

Selection procedures

1. Missing references again :(
2. First and last paragraphs belongs in the previous section
3. I believe a more systematic discussion of the preselection events/procedures in participating countries and their evolution would be better here - like the influence of Melodifestivalen and later Operacion Triunfo on other countries, the prevailing types of preselections and their historic development (like when did the televoting era begin).

Voting

1. The first paragraph is one of the few places in text where phrases like "the system which people are most familiar with" appears - this is something of a weasel phrase, and as such statement doesn't really change much, I would avoid that to fend off criticism during prospective FA candidacy.
2. Missing references again, I am especially interested in how was the televoting experiment a success (I mean how was the "successfulness" determined?)
3. Are there any countries other than Monaco that still use juries? Is there a country that uses a mixed system?
4. The first sentence of the "presentation of votes" subsection might not be understand correctly by readers unfamiliar with the show.
5. I recall seeing a footage of all juries sitting in the studio where the contest was staged and just giving out votes live, so I think it wasn't given by telephone everytime before satellite transmission.
6. I think that countries have been giving out votes by order of performance, and later when also countries whose songs didn't participate in the final were voting, in alphabetical order, and only this year a special draw of "voting order" was introduced.
7. I think that Scandinavian countries boycotted the 1970 ESC because of the tie, and this is why EBU was forced to devise tie-break rules.
8. Discussing what-if in case of the 1991 tie-break is unnecessary.

Expansion of the Contest

1. First paragraph belongs in the "Participation" section, the second in the "Format" section.
2. The remaining three subsections are actually rules and belong in this section.
3. Did I mention insufficient referencing? :D

Semi-Final

1. Oh, OK, now I understand, more or less, some structuring peculiarities here. I have a proposition of a general rule that would make the article more reader-friendly - discuss the event as is today, and then proceed to go through the historic developments. For example, the semi should be discussed in the format section, then the rules of qualification with the historic perspective in the rules section.
2. Although I think it never happened, if one of the Big 4 was in the top ten, they wouldn't be counted and the following country, like 11th etc, would gain the right to go straight to the Final next year - this should be clarified.

Hosting

1. The second and third paragraphs desperately need references!
2. Otherwise, a very nice section.

Comentators

1. This section unnecessairly breaks up the nice flow between "Hosting" and "Eurovision Week". I would move it somewhere upwards.
2. I guess presenters, interval acts, postcards, composers, conductors, lyricists etc. could be considered for such sections too.
3. It just occured to me, and I think it is not mentioned anywhere (or perhaps I am that unconscious at 4 AM) that the prize was actually originally meant more for the authors of the song than the artist - somehow this got lost along the way, I still remember the composer of Sweden 1999 getting the prize on stage (a memorable moment for some other reason ;) ). This year, Mr. Lordi got the award - was he the composer and lyricist, or were the authors deprived of the prize sometime earlier?

Eurovision week

1. I have commented on it already the last time, it is still a very nice section, even though it lacks references (which obviously needs to be rectified). The last subsection is a little choppy.

Winners

1. The first paragraph actually only pertains to the artists, so it should go into that section.
2. Other than the lack of references, another really good section!

Criticism

1. The discussion of musical styles and typical performance styles thorugh the years deserves a separate section, not only devoted to criticisms.
2. Block and political voting should be discussed alongside voting in general, it is not only a subject of criticism, it's simply a matter of fact. For many people, it is an interesting feature rather than a reason for criticism. So, confining this to a "criticism" section only narrows the issue unnecessairly.
3. I am, in general, opposed to "criticisms" sections, as their existence might imply that there are no "criticisms" of the subjects whose articles do not contain such sections, and also this relegates the comments on some various issues to an obscure section at the end of the article, rather than them being located directly where the issues are discussed. I believe it is more natural for them to be discussed there. For example the criticism of different entry selection systems is more or less discussed in that section, and I believe it is much more comprehensible for the common reader that way.
4. Moreover, the "Criticisms" sections can be accused of being attempts by the editor to smuggle some POV by downplaying them or supplying counterarguments. This can be an obstacle during FA candidacy.

To sum it up - the article has surely improved and is getting really close to the FA status. I understand that it took some very tiresome work and it can really be disheartening to read that people still have some many gripes about it. But please don't dismiss them, as they will be popping out later during FAC. I believe you need more editors to help you, I am sorry I can't contribute that much at that moment, as it already took a sleepless night to type all that with the fingers I have available at that moment :D
I think you might ask guys who put together fan sites like esctoday for assistance - if not with editing articles directly, than at least with helping finding out some peculiarities, like the ones with the rules, and sources. I already have some experience with asking enthusiasts of other subjects for help, and I can tell you it works (not 100%, but still).
Again, I want to reassure you that I want to see this article become an FA as much as you do, and I really appreciate your really extensive efforts in that direction! I hope you won't let fatigue get you so close to the finish line! I hope to be able to be more helpful soon. Regards, Bravada, talk - 02:46, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Responses to Bravada's comments

Hi Bravada, thank you very much - again - for your comments. I especially appreciate it because you obviously spent a long time reviewing the article, and it must have taken you even longer to type this all out - especially with an injured hand! I hope it gets better soon. I am replying to your comments here below, because you used numbered lists in your critique - as you did in the previous FAC. In order to preserve those numbers, I was forced to write in bold, because if I were to have started new lines with indents after each comment (which would have been prefereble), then the numbered lists would have gone wrong. So.. here goes:

Lead section

1. Re: viewing figures, perhaps you could help me? I find references on the EBU's site to "over 100 million viewers", but nothing other than that. I do know that people have quoted the figures as vastly higher than that, however - once I heard "one billion viewers", but I think this was just a poor guess. However, the figure of 600 million has been heard fairly often. Perhaps the Aljazeera site is not the best source, but it is a source - at least to show the reader, and to back up the article's statement that these figures have been quoted. As the article says, the figures are quoted.. it is not giving a definitive figure, simply because there are a lot of contradicting sources out there. There is surprisingly little of use that I can find on the EBU's site. If you can find something better, please let me know - or edit it yourself :) - Aljazeera is actually a good reference: it's the largest news network which spans Arab countries. Just because it's not European, that doesn't mean it's not relevant :)
2. Re labelling participants as "countries". Hmm... ok, I shall think about this, and try to make it clearer through the whole article. - Addressed
3. Re: list of stars to have graced the stage. You're quite right about this list being open to edits by fans wishing to "promote" their favourite artists into it. It has already been happening. However, I do think that there should at least be some mention, in the article's lead, of some of the biggest stars who have participated in the Contest. As the WP guidelines say, "Don't hide the important facts". To the casual reader who does not know much about the Contest, it is important that they realise exactly how big the thing is: that it's not just some obscure talent show full of nobodies. Perhaps you can suggest an alternative, to be included in the lead? Addressed: removed this list from the lead. Replaced with a mention of musical styles.

Origins

1. Re: reference in the middle paragraph. Hmm, ok... I shall include one. - Addressed

Format

1. Re: discussing "the idea behind it" in the "Format" section. Isn't the idea behind the Contest discussed already in the "Origins" section? In this Format section, I am trying to mention the things which have always been the case - the bare-bone basics of the Contest. The things quintessential to the idea of the Contest which, if changed, would make it no longer the Eurovision Song Contest. More minor format developments, such as the way in which voting is conducted exactly, and the presence of the semi-final, have changed over the years. I have tried to make this "basic format" section static, to show what is the case every single year, no matter what.
2. Re: countries. Shall be looked at. - Clarified
3. Re: weight given to presenter, postcards and interval acts. I shall think about this one.
4. Re: references. See my comments below about references.

Participation

1. Re: European Broadcasting Area. Good point. I created a (red) Wikilink to it, with the thought of sometime creating that article.. but you're right: the area should be briefly defined right here in this article. I shall address this, thank you. - Addressed and referenced.

Rules

1. Re: redundant introduction. That is there because all the rules I have mentioned fall into some sub-category, and without some kind of introductory sentence, the sub-heading would immediately follow the section heading, which looks a bit strange. I don't know how you feel about that. Is that acceptable? If not, then... what else should I write as an introduction to the section? - Addressed: wrote better, more relevant introduction
2. Re: notable rules. There are very many rules of the Contest - but many of them deal with things which are non-essential to the workings of the Contest, such as rules which specify exactly how many seconds of screen-time sponsors are allowed to display their logos, and when participating broadcasters must make a back-up recording of the transmission feed of the rehearsals, etc. I classify these as non-notable... because if they were all to be included, then we may as well have the entire text of the rules included here, mentioning every single little rule. Hmm.. Perhaps I can make a mention of this in the intro. I shall see about references. - Addressed, as above
3. Re: explanation of why the BBC and NOS stepped in. I shall try to find appropriate references. - Addressed and referenced
4. Suggestions about live music section. Thank you - I shall look into this. - Addressed
5. Re: language rules. I shall look into this. Thanks for reminding me about the made-up languages: a good example of where two heads are better than one, and you could think of something I forgot about :) - Addressed (still the other bit to be addressed)
6. Re: references and consequences for broadcaster. I shall look into this. Also - yes, thanks for reminding me about non-participating broadcasters. This definitely needs a mention. - Addressed: non-participants mentioned now in the lead. Refs made in Broadcasting Rules section. With regards to mentioning "how the rule is now" (freedom of language mentioned first), I disagree. See my note above about wanting the article to be static, and to make as few references to "this is how it is today" as possible.
7. Re: older requirement for participants to come from that country. Good point. I shall try to, as you say, dig out this information. - I never actually heard of a nationality restriction before I saw that interview with Lys Assia you mentioned. I tried to find any other references to it, but there are none. I then asked the Eurovision fan community if they had any references to it, and I was reminded that the German entrant in 1956 was actually Austrian - and Lys herself had entered the German final! That rather shows that there was never a rule restricting the nationality. Perhaps Lys got confused when quoting that, referring instead to some Swiss pre-selection rules? Individual countries may impose any further rules they wish, but here we are discussing the EBU's general rules. Good point: this has now been mentioned!

Selection procedures

1. Re: missing references. I shall have a look.. but again, see my note below.
2. Re: first and last paragraphs. I disagree. See my note below about rules and sections.
3. Re: expansion/further detail on selection procedures. Hmm... I shall give this some thought.

Voting

1. Re: weasel words. You're right. I shall remove this, thank you. Addressed
2. Re: references about televoting success. Again, I shall try to find something - but see the point below :) - Addressed. It's mentioned in the hard-copy book that it was a success
3. Re: juries still in use. I shall try to find out. - Can't find any reliable sources saying that any particular countries used backup juries in 2006. The rule is that televoting shall be used, anyway.. and nothing is mentioned otherwise. Backup juries are only there as a backup. The article gives this information as it stands. Nothing to address
4. Re: confusion of first sentence by readers unfamiliar with the show. People are supposed to be reading the article in order. If they don't, I can not be blamed for their non-understanding, when a later part of the article makes reference to something already established earlier. I presume you're talking about the bit where I mention the interval act, yes? If not, please elaborate.
5. Re: on-stage juries in 1973. Good point to mention, thank you :) - Addressed and referenced
6. Re: order of voting. Another good point. It shall be mentioned, thank you. - Addressed (and referenced!)
7. Re: boycott by Scandinavian countries. Thanks for reminding me. I will try and find a suitable reference for this, and include it. - Addressed and referenced.
8. Re: "what if" in 1991. Okay, this can be removed. - Addressed

Expansion of the Contest

Re: your proposal to move these paragraphs elsewhere

Okay, this needs a much longer reply. I very strongly disagree with you here. Technically speaking, almost everything in the article could be discussed also under other sections, as there is considerable overlap. However, the expansion of the Contest is a very big deal in its own right. The Contest was pretty stable until 1993, and only then - after there became more countries wishing to participate than there was time in the Contest for - did the rules start changing almost every year, in order to try and find the best system to solve the problem. The expansion of the Contest has been a major theme in the past 13 years of Eurovision's history. It needs its own section, including an explanation of exactly how, why and when the relevant rule and procedure changes came about. To dissolve this section, and incorporate the information into other sections would fail to highlight to the reader the importance of the theme of the Contest's expansion, and the impact which the new countries have had on it.

Semi-Final

1. Re: your proposed changes to the layout of the article. I'm not too sure about this. One of the things I had in mind, when I completely re-wrote the article, is that I wanted to keep it as static as possible. If the article were to be included on the proposed Wikipedia CD, for example, then I want it to remain relevant and true for as long as possible. The fact is, the rules and format of the Contest have been changing almost every year, for the past ten years! Therefore I didn't want to write an article which starts off saying "this is how the Contest is today" - and then that text would be hopelessly out-of-date a couple of years down the line. That's why I have tried, as much as possible, to focus on the basic evergreen principles of the event, which do not change over time - and the discuss the changing history under relevant, topical section headings. You'll notice that a few times I say things like "as of 2006", instead of "to date" (or similar). With this in mind, do you still propose that the article starts off by explaining how the Contest is today? When it could be included on a WP CD, and then two years later it's inaccurate?

#Re: clarification of Big-Four qualification places. Good point. Yes, I shall explain this. - Addressed

Hosting

1. Re: The second and third paragraphs desperately need references!. Yes, they do. I shall try to find some. - Addressed

Comentators

1. Re: proposed moving of section. I shall think about this. Okay.. - Moved
2. Re: sections on interval acts, postcards, composers, conductors, lyricists etc. Wouldn't the article then just get too bloated and/or unnecessary? I mean... what can one really say in a "lyricists" section? - Mentioned all the delegation elements in "Eurovision Week" section, alongside a referenced description of Head of Delegation. We don't need a whole separate section on composers.. any notable composers of notable songs should by mentioned in that song's article.
3. Re: prize going to songwriters. This is still (and has always been) the case. Mr Lordi got the award this year because he wrote the song, not because he performed it. The fact that he was also a performer is not relevant. Yes - the trophy is awarded to the winning songwriter. This never got lost along the way :) This is mentioned in the article. - Answered your question right here :) Nothing to change in the article, it's correct as it is.

Eurovision week

1. Re: references in this section. Please see my note about references below. How is the last subsection "choppy"? - Added references to this section

Winners

1. Re: first paragraph. You're right, it does only pertain to the artists. However, again - if it were not there, then there would be nothing to separate section headings. Perhaps I should then also mention something about winning countries in that paragraph.

Criticism

1. Re: discussion of musical styles (Addressed in lead) and typical performance styles thorugh the years. What would you write, in a separate section here? The music is vastly diverse - it's impossible to "define" a Eurovision song in an encyclopædia. Unless you want to write such things as "The first rap song in the Contest appeared as late as 1995"...
2. Re: "Block and political voting should be discussed alongside voting in general". Disagree. I have tried to keep the "voting" section concentrated simply on the voting procedures and presentation, as per the format and rules of the Contest. Not to go into actual examples of voting patterns. Those belong in the separate sub-article. If I were to start discussing voting patterns in the main article, then the section could be expanded to be as long as the whole rest of the article!
3. Re: your objection to "criticisms" sections. Where in the WP guidelines does it say the things you said? You said that their existence might imply that there are no "criticisms" of the subjects whose articles do not contain such sections. Well... there are really no notable (and certainly not referenced!) criticisms of other aspects of the Contest, are there? What would you have me include? A note about how some fans bemoan the loss of the orchestra? Such things are relatively minor, and there are no good references for such things. However, the Contest is well-known for being accused of political voting bias, and there are many references to back up this criticism.
4. Re: possible accusations of downplay of criticism. You seem to contradict yourself here. On one hand you're saying that having a criticisms section could be construed as downplaying them. However, in the preceding point you said it is more natural for criticisms to be discussed in their relevant sections. Surely to have a whole separate section entitled "Criticisms" serves to highlight these points! To downplay them would be to "smuggle them in" to the relevant sections.

The "see below" reply to references

I think I mentioned this in my response to the FAC points, but no-one gave me a counter reply. There is surprisingly little which has actually been published in hard-copy about Eurovision over the years (in English, anyway!). This makes it hard to find references for every little thing. I have tried my best to include decent web references for many things, but... it seems like you are picking holes in many paragraphs and sections, accusing them of having no references. Not every little statement needs references, though. Surely the purpose of references is so that any major statement of fact can be checked, if it might otherwise be disputed - or any sentence involved in the quotation of statistics. Obviously such statements as the fact that Melodifestivalen is the most-watched TV programme of the year in Sweden, do need references.. as they're bold statements, and should definitely be verifiable. As indeed I have included a reference for this. However, there are other statements which are made which are a) not bold, disputable statements and b) simply do not have published references. You say that "sadly there are no references" in the "Format" section. Well... does it need any? Which statements need references? There are no bold, questionable statements here. The "verifiability" of the format can be seen simply by watching one of the Contests! Just because there are no references in a whole section, that does not mean that the section is bad - and therefore it is a barrier to the article attaining Featured status. Perhaps the section in question simply does not need references? There are many Featured Articles which I have seen, which have very few references. See Supply and demand, for example. I do accept your point that some articles require a lot more in order to attain Featured status than others - and yes, Eurovision is a big topic which needs a lot of work. But still, it does get tiresome when the major knockbacks of a nomination come from people saying that there are not enough references. A complaint about references should only be made if someone sees a statement which surprises them, and which they may dispute, but the statement is not referenced (and therefore could have been inserted into the article by a troublemaker wishing to mislead). The entire lead section to Supply and demand contains not one single reference, although it includes several statements which could possibly be questioned.

You suggested that I use esctoday for references. Well, as I stated in the FAC, I am reluctant to use fan sites as reference points. The reason for this is simple: I am Chris Melville, webmaster of eurosong.net. I have my own unofficial fan site, and consequently, if I wanted to, I could just make up all the references I ever wished to do, by publishing anything I liked on my own site, and then using it as a reference in an encyclopædia article! I strongly believe that fan webmasters should be discouraged from using fan websites as reference points, for any article on Wikipedia. Fans - especially Eurovision fans - have a certain way of seeing things, which is rarely encyclopædic. I am discounting myself here, when writing this article, as I am writing in as encyclopædic style as I can. If I wanted to push my POV, then I would write "Eurovision is the greatest thing in the whole world" :)

So, to sum up: please do not dismiss the article simply because some paragraphs and sections do not have references per se. If there is a single, disputable statement which is unreferenced, then please let me know about it. In the Featured Articles candidates page, I see an increasing number of reviewers dismissing articles due to lack of references, without actually saying which statements need them. This is a trend that I think we should be getting away from.

And, to sum up more finally - thank you for your comments. I really do appreciate them, especially because they have been written with an injured hand! I have marked the points I will address in the article. But please respond to my other comments too. Some of the things you said, especially about layout of the article, seem to be simply your own POV, in the way that you would have written the article had it been yourself working on it recently. These are not WP guidelines, and it should not be a barrier to an article attaining featured status, just because another editor would have written it differently. I am glad that you appreciate my efforts: the article is certainly a lot better now than it was before I re-wrote it, when I had slapped a cleanup tag on it because it was in a terrible state! Thanks :) EuroSong ^talk 14:21, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, hello Chris!

Nice site you've got there, though your visitors obviously know nothing about song quality - Serteb in the first place? ;)

Thanks :) Sertab's in first place because just before ESC2006, I had thousands of Turks registering and giving Turkish entries 10/10. It's a problem I need to deal with... I do allow people to vote for their own country, but only after I make them "sign" an honesty pledge which states that they will only vote with their heart according to how much they like the song, and not just support their own country. Unfortunately it looks like many people ignore it, but it's impossible for me to prove that any one individual is not voting with their heart! I'm working on it :)

OK, we've only had one review her by a person injured in more ways than one (does ego count?) and a reply and we're already over 30k! Let's get back to business...

Your ego is injured? How do? I hope it's nothing I said. Again, I do greatly appreciate your input here: it's already made the article improve a lot!

Where do I start? Ok, let's do references first:

• References

I do believe an article needs references - it is the only proof it does not contain original research (it is also a good self-check). I know it's hard, tedious and annoying to have to find references for absolutely obvious stuff, but, well, that's how the whole encyclopedia thing works. The old Featured Articles are sometimes missing references, it's because WP has been evolving. If you notice one w/o references, you should probably nominate it for delisting. That said, it should probably be quite easy to find good references for Supply and demand and I feel quite guilty for not doing that now given my background...

What is your background? Are you an economist? :) At this point I'd like to draw your attention to today's FA, Final Fantasy X. See the list of references at the bottom. Over half the so-called "references" are quotes from the actual game itself. In order for the casual reader to be able to use these references to verify facts, then they would have to go and actually play the game and familiarise themselves with the characters. And this is a FA... what difference, then, to simply make use of such references as "Watch the Eurovision Song Contest and you'll see!"? I could easily just say such things. Final Fantasy X is good enough to be a FA when half the references are self-references.

As concerns ESC fansites, there are many, but some are better than others. ESCtoday seems quite professionally edited and I have even learned the guy behind it is now employed by the EBU itself to revamp the official Eurovision site. If you have a problem with a reference, I think this might be a good bet, so many sources actually cite it - I even see your own site is using their news feeds!

Yes, Sietse (the webmaster) has been offered a job with the EBU, which is great for him. However, there is one caveat I should mention. ESCtoday is indeed a very good site, and the editors do a lot of good work. It also looks very polished and professional, with slick graphics. However, a lot of the time, the English used is a bit dodgy. The writing style is also often somewhat less-than-formal, with sensationalist exclamation marks peppered around the place, and this is not exactly what one would hope for when seeking a formal reference. Such words as "newsitems" do not exist in English. You see, I put a great deal of importance in correct English, and much of my activity on Wikipedia involves correcting mistakes. Therefore I am reluctant to refer to sources which are not written as I would wish them to be. I have also come across several facts referenced at partyvision.co.uk: a site which could have been used as a reference, but I decided not to because it does not have the look and the feel of a formal, reliable source (even though the information is correct).

But ultimately the solution I tried to suggest to you is to turn to people who run really information-rich sites to chip in their knowledge and years of devotion to ESC to help you find references (and perhaps also enrich the article with more info). I think it's always better to get some help, and I think at least some of them can help you immensely with this article.

Hmm. How much bigger can the article get? It's already 53k. I have expanded it a lot, after you told me that there was no barrier on FAs being over 30k. However, surely there must be some reasonable limit. I mean, if there were really no limits then I could write ten times the amount which is currently there, giving an extremely detailed complete history of the Contest! But that's what sub-articles are for. In the main article, I believe that a concise and informative overview of the whole Contest should be given, including as much detail as it required in each of the sections to leave the reader feeling that they have a complete understanding of what the ESC is and how it works. Matters such as detailed voting patterns - who gives 12 points to who else most frequently, etc - do not belong in the main article

Over for now, will get back to that later, please bear with me... Bravada, talk - 01:51, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Bearing with you :) EuroSong ^talk 13:52, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

• Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, AZ _t 15:36, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Pikachu

This article really needa a lot of help, it has been on FAC two times, both of which have failed, and it seems full but there seems also to be a lot of things to do, please help make it better, cheers —M inun ^(Spiderman) 19:20, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

The problem is the very in-Universe perspective. Pikachu is a major cultural icon, so needs to be handled as such. "Cultural impact" needs major expansion and probably moving up the article. This article needs a lot of work before FAC. —Celestianpower ^háblame 17:30, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

• Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, AZ _t 15:35, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks —M inun ^Spiderman 15:54, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

List of fiction that breaks the fourth wall

This article is 149KB long. It is excessive and keeps growing due to its vague subject. It had an AfD and was kept. This article needs input, badly. -- Wikipedical 03:06, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Hi Wikipedical,

Some suggestions are to explain in greater detail what the fourth wall is in the lead of the page. And to look into some atypical formatting so that list is easier to read. For example you might consider making the titles of the works larger than the description of how the effect was broken, placing the two on separate lines and increasing the paragraph separation between different titles. Are you planning to work on this article yourself?

Yes, I am willing to help out this article. I'd like to use this peer review so I can help maintain the article. -- Wikipedical 21:51, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Cedars 05:45, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

• Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, AZ _t 15:35, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Bay Area Rapid Transit

This article failed Featured status over a year back, and has also been rated as a "good" article. I think a bunch of the initial FA concerns have been addressed, but I figure a peer review will be good to double check! lensovet 22:11, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Some suggestions, with FAC in mind:

• The lead is too short, for an article of this size it should be about three paragraphs. See WP:LEAD.
• Try to convert some of the bulleted lists to prose, this is a common objection on FAC.
• There are a few one paragraph subsections in the later stages of the article, try to merge some of these where possible.
• There is a mix of referencing styles. Convert the inline external links to the format used elsewhere in the article.
• The article needs going over with a fine-toothed comb to smooth out awkward prose. Taking the first paragraph of the first section as an example:
  • As of the 22 June 2003, opening date of the extension to San Francisco International Airport and Millbrae, the BART system comprises 104 miles (167 km) of track and 43 stations. reads awkwardly - something like "Following the opening of an extension to San Francisco International Airport and Millbrae on 22 June 2003, the BART system comprises 104 miles (167 km) of track and 43 stations." would be better.
  • 2nd and 3rd sentences - the fact that the guage is non-standard is repeated.
  • Last sentence - the words "This" and "relatively" are redundant. I've made changes to this paragraph, but the whole article needs to be examined thoroughly.

Hope this helps. Oldelpaso 19:32, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks! Any other takers? lensovet 19:19, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

• Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, AZ _t 15:34, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Al Gore

How can this be a better article? Please tell. 11kowrom 18:33, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

A few points, mostly focusing on style rather than content:

• Subheadings are overused. For example, the "Education" subheading is unneeded as education fits under "early life" without it. See Wikipedia:Manual of Style/(headings). Several subsections should be merged in the Vice president section, and from the Private citizen section onwards. Ideally, the TOC should be half its current size.
• On a similar note, one paragraph sections should be avoided where possible.
• The article could do with a thorough copyedit, to improve akward sentences such as "Gore switched majors and worked hard in his government courses and graduated from Harvard in June 1969 with a Bachelor of Arts degree in government."
• Try to convert bulleted lists to prose as much as possible.
• The section on the 2004 election looks disproportionately long, given that he was not a candidate.
• The "Internet and the Webbys" section is a mess, and should be continuous prose rather than small chunks of trivia. This section uses a different referencing style to the rest of the article.

Hope this helps. Oldelpaso 19:39, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

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

Islamic Cultural Revolution

How did the United Nations and politicians in foreign nations reacts to this movement back to the 600s CE and executions of dissenting scholars in Iran?--Patchouli 07:39, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

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

Jigsaw Killer

I think the article is pretty indepth in its subject but it might need more work. Any help is appreciated...--CyberGhostface 16:21, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

• Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, AZ _t 15:28, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Mudkip

I seriously need help, it was once on FAC, but as a result, it ended up failing, so i'll need help to get it to the appropriate status, cheers —M inun ^Spiderman 10:55, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

The lead section has still not been changed, as noted in its FAC. This issue needs to be corrected, as it'd be just like reading the intro for Torchic all over again. ♠ SG →Talk 14:12, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Actually, according to the pokemon style guide, all Intro's are supposed to be like that.--Ac1983fan^{(yell at me)} 14:57, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

That's right, but that's all the Mudkip article has. Take a look at Torchic and Bulbasaur, they have a third, original introduction paragraph, which Mudkip is lacking. I don't profess to be very knowledgable about Pokemon, though; I just like a little flavor in articles. ♠ SG →Talk 05:20, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

• Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, AZ _t 15:30, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Stade Français

Any suggestions that could help develop this article would be greatly appreciated. I already plan on referencing properly, and adding a lot more citations in. Cheers. Cvene64 08:51, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

• Obviously the referencing is an issue as you've noted - there are lots of 'weasel words' which will benefit from citations.
• You might want to create an article on Max Guazzini or delink his name.
• There are references to 'the south' but no explanation to what this means, what the connection to the south is etc.
• There is a sudden name change to Paris Rugby halfway through, again with no explanation
• 'Jonny Wilkinson even made an appearance at Town Hall' - should that be 'the town hall' or is Town Hall a locale associated with the club (in which case it needs explanation)?
• I made some copy edits for readability - Yomangani 12:07, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks a lot for the help. Cvene64 02:59, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

• Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, AZ _t 15:32, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

• Hi! I'm a French Stade Français fan and I took the liberty of working on your contribution. I hope you won't mind... :¬) I removed the following sentence: "Stade still captured the French championship, sitting at the top of the league table." The "phases finales" as we called the knock-out phases are what matter here here. Finishing first of the regular season is irrelevant in France and it doesn't appear on records. Only the winner of the final can be said to hold the French championship. I added a couple of things about recent history (how the players got rid of their coach in 2000, e.g.). I also took care of this North/South stuff underlined by Yomangani. Tell me what you think. Take it all out if you think it's irrelevant.
• I also have a couple of suggestions: Stade Français is first and foremost a "multisports" club (22 sections including sailing and bridge!). It was first an athletics club (many Olympic medallists, including Marie-José Pérec) and also had a fairly successful football side in the 60s-80s. I think a disambiguation page and a change of the article's name (to Stade—Français_CASG) is needed. I'm of course ready to contribute an article on Stade Français (the multisports one). The same is true of Racing Club de France, another multisports club, also famous for its athletics and football sections, whose rugby section merged with US Metro a few years back. I'm going to add a few lines about this in the Racing Club de France article.

That's it! I look forward to hearing from you. All the best from Beru91 13:51, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Winston tastes good like a cigarette should

I started this article last weekend and it was made "good article" after one day, which definitely exceeded my expectations. Can anyone give me some feedback, and do you think it's on its way to becoming a possible featured article? I would like some good constructive comments. Thanks! Mike H. I did "That's hot" first! 05:16, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Great start as ever. I'm not surprised that it made "good article" after one day. Some comments on content. Please bear in mind that I abhor long articles so I won't comment on anything after the first three paragraphs or so because I won't normally read beyond that point.

• Advertising Age ranked the jingle in the top 10, not the campaign.
• Advertising Age gives a couple of copyright dates on that page, 1999 and 2005; from this it's reasonable to infer that the list was compiled in 1999. Give that date.
• The content of the second paragraph is weakly supported; it shows black people and the article content infers that they were targeted. This is reasonable but it would be nice to have a more definitive source for that. It doesn't necessarily convey targeting.
• I'd hate to have to edit this because it contains the new "ref" tags which embed vast amounts of unnecessary clutter amid the content. I do hope somebody will come up with a more sensible way of putting references into a Mediawiki article.

But it's a great article and I think it's fine as it is, really. Perhaps now it's time to write another one. --Tony Sidaway 04:14, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

I fixed the first two qualms. The third one needs some more research and I'll try to do that in the next couple of days. I don't know anything about Mediawiki so the refs will have to stay the way they are unless someone else who knows more can fix them. Thanks for the input! Mike H. I did "That's hot" first! 08:24, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

There's been an ongoing argument about the m:Cite.php system versus the {{ref}} and {{note}} system, where supporters of Cite.php say that it's the new and improved way of doing things, while supporters of {{ref}} and {{note}} say that it doesn't clutter text. Personally, I prefer Cite.php since there's no possibility of writing a ref that doesn't have a corresponding note or vice versa. The argument about article clutter is probably not going to stop, though.

As far as the article itself goes, I'd like to see an analysis of how Fred Flintstone can continue to power his car with his feet after he's smoked a pack of Winstons. I suspect nobody has researched that, though. To be serious, the article is interesting and well-written. One thing that comes to mind is whether this slogan specifically had any impact on the FCC's decision to end cigarette advertising on television. Are there any other lasting effects of the jingle, besides those mentioned in the intro? --Elkman - (Elkspeak) 18:27, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

I know the "Winston" jingle was referenced in The Manchurian Candidate, which would be a citation for popular culture. It has been mentioned in other places but I can't name them off the top of my head. As for the FCC, Congress discussed the Winston jingle as well as "Us Tareyton smokers would rather fight than switch!" at length, because they were the catchiest ads seen on TV, and could target the most smokers. Mike H. I did "That's hot" first! 01:41, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

One point I know of (and endorse, as a grammatical descriptivist!) is that some grammarians have defended "like a cigarette should". Right now you've got Malcolm Gladwell and a dictionary. I think there's a glaring omission, though, in that there's nothing in the article about the actual taste of Winstons (not that I would know). Why did they choose this selling point, and how did it fit into the cigarette advertising climate of the day? Were Winstons considered a better-tasting cigarette before the campaign? That would add helpful context. --Dhartung | Talk 19:53, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Winstons were two months old when the "Winston tastes good" campaign started. I believe I read somewhere that what set Winstons apart from other cigarettes was that they were only carried in filters, while most cigarettes were only starting to switch from unflitered. The full Winston jingle song describes the filter advantage as "The filter lets the flavor through!" I am at a loss as to where to put that, though. Mike H. I did "That's hot" first! 01:39, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

• Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, AZ _t 15:32, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Star Trek: Titan

Besides references, I'm trying to find out what else this article needs. I feel it needs an outside opinion, as I and others have an old perspective on this, and a new one may be needed. Thank you for any criticism, Newnam^(talk) 02:23, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

• Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, AZ _t 15:26, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Sheryl Crow

Article is very well along, but needs refining before submitted for good for featured article status. I definitely see some structuring issues. Anymore suggestions?--Esprit15d 16:46, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

• Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, AZ _t 14:49, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
• It looks nice overall. The article could do with a slightly longer introduction. It also needs in-line citations, particularly for personal comments and observations from witnesses. In locations where there are external web links, please use the {{cite web}} template in reference tags. "Grammy Award for Best Song Written for a Motion Picture, Television or Other Visual Media" can be linked. There are more categories than there normally should be; perhaps some can be weeded out? Thanks. — RJH (talk) 19:00, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Outward Bound Singapore

This article seems a bit short for me so I need to know what to add to it. Comments are welcome too. --Leidiot 14:03, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

• Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, AZ _t 15:26, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Solar System

Modifications made as per previous peer reviews. Please let me know what you think. Also, could someone please tell me why ref #40 isn't working? Thanks. Serendipodous 10:59, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Number 40 seems fine. I think I see link spam :O #See also is a bit large. When placing refernces in the form of <ref> or {{ref}} - whatever you use, I haven't checked - when it is being used after a period, there should be no space after the period and then cite the quote. So: "[...] and then it exploded.<ref>Blah blah blah</ref>. Heading "Discovery and Exploration" should be renamed to "Discovery and exploration". "See main article: extrasolar planet" should be below the heading "Extrasolar planetary systems" by using template {{main}}. Heading "The heliopause" should be renamed to Heliopause per WP:MOSHEAD and mentioned above. Heading "The scattered disc" should be renamed to "Scattered disc". Things like "see also: [Article]" shouldn't be at the bottom of the paragraph, but at the top using template {{main}}. Mainly formatting issues. Regards, Iolakana|^T 20:49, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks! Duly edited :-) Not sure about the link spam though; all the sites seem reputable to me, but then maybe I'm just naively trusting...:-). Serendipodous 21:12, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

The latest SciAm (Scientific American) had a nice article on planetary satellites in the solar system. They sub-divide the satellites into regular and irregular, with most of the main satellites being regular and all the smaller ones being irregular. They also pointed out that many new irregular satellites are still being discovered, so the counts on this page are definitely subject to change. You might want to take a look at that article for some interesting material. It also has some good references listed at the end. (see also http://www.ifa.hawaii.edu/~sheppard/satellites/) Thanks. — RJH (talk) 14:34, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for that. Added it to my references. It will be a useful site to check on to see if the page needs updating. I'm a bit cash-poor at present but I'll probably check out SciAm anyway :-)Serendipodous 16:14, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

It should be in the local library. — RJH (talk) 22:19, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

• Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, AZ _t 01:46, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
• (1) Having the "Formation and evolution of the solar system" be a one-line entry in italics at the top of the article doesn't seem to be doing it justice. I thought there used to be a section on the origin, but now it seems to have vanished. It would be beneficial to have a two paragraph summary of the system origin somewhere on the page. (2) Also you might make a brief mention of possible stellar encounters with the Oort cloud.[7] The comet section doesn't appear to make mention of perturbations as a source of orbital displacement. (3) Oh yeah, one more thing--per the WP style guide, the external links section should be at the very end. — RJH (talk) 22:18, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Eritrea

Old PR

• Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, AZ _t 01:37, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Shadow of the Colossus

Essentially, we've been writing this article with FA status in mind, and after a small CVG peer review, we'd like some additional feedback before taking this to FAC. Thanks. -- Steel 13:01, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

• The two pictures of box are are both listed as screen shots
• When you say in the lead that the game got a 91% ranking, I wanted to know how that would compare to an average game ranking, or maybe a ranking for some widely known game
• You briefly mention that both Shadow and Ico use a fictional language, is it the same fictional language?
• I really like having the track listing in a scroll box, it seems like a good way to present something that on other pages often becomes a distracting list. I guess I wonder though whether or not it's 'acceptable' for a featured article. I only wonder because I've never seen it in any article before and that makes me think that people might object to it.
• It appears that all of the game reviews are from North American sources. Would it be possible to get a japanese comment in there? I know(from reading wikipedia) that Famitsu is notoriously critical. It would be interesting to know how this generally stellarly reviewed game was recieved by the harsh critic. Although, this is again just something that seems like it would be interesting to know.

I hope these comments help you.--Dekkanar 17:19, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback, and the work you've already done sorting out grammar and such. The scroll box was added after someone saw it being used in featured article Half-Life 2, so we thought it was a good idea. I'll look into your other points. -- Steel 17:24, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

OK, the boxarts are no longer tagged as screenshots. -- Steel 17:29, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

If it's already in a featured article, then I guess I wouldn't worry about it. Thanks for pointing that out to me though.--Dekkanar 17:30, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your input. I'll see if I can make productive implementation of it. Ryu Kaze 17:40, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

By the way, we do have a European site as one of the critics, but the one I'd really like to have the review from is EDGE magazine. They are far more notorious for being hard-assed than Famitsu to be honest. They actually did like the game, though, and gave it a 8 out of 10. That's all I know, sadly. I don't know what they specifically liked or disliked. Ryu Kaze 17:42, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

By the way, forgot to answer your question about the language. Ico had two fictional languages, actually, though neither was based on a real language exactly. The lead game designer for both Ico and Shadow has said that one might say Ico's two languages are similar to Chinese and French,[8] while Shadow's single language is based partly upon the romanization of Japanese.[9] Ryu Kaze 18:08, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

I edited that particular sentence to be less ambiguous. As it was, it seemed to imply that the two games shared the same fictional language "Both games use a fictional language".--Dekkanar 18:29, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. I also went ahead and made sure we had seperate references there for both languages. Ryu Kaze 02:18, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

By the way, the game got a 37/40 from Famitsu, as seen here. Since that's a rather nice score from Famitsu, it may be a good idea to give that a mention somewhere. --Onlynameicanget 03:00, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for that information. I wish it was something other than a forum thread, though. :( We can't use that as a reference unfortunately. I can't find any well known gaming sites with info on the Famitsu rating. Ryu Kaze 12:24, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Ah, just now found one! Here's the info on Games Are Fun, a gaming news/reviews site that lists Famitsu scores regularly. Can't believe I didn't see that earlier. --Onlynameicanget 14:04, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Good show, lad. I was just about to report that I'd also found on the official Japanese site that Shadow apparently won some "Special Prize (Rookie Grand Prix)" award in the Famitsu Awards for 2005. Also, as I understand it, Steel might be able to get us some info on EDGE's treatment of the game. Though we won't have any of the specifics concerning what Famitsu liked or didn't like, if we can get them for EDGE and supply the score from Famitsu (which is really what most people seem to care about anyway; they ask "What did Famitsu rate [insert game here]?" not "What did Famitsu like about it?"), we'll have a solid critical response section, I believe. Which is not to say that having specific details on Famitsu's review wouldn't be nice (:D). Again, well done. Ryu Kaze 14:11, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

All three of you are doing a really impressive amount of work and collaboration on this. It's impressive to watch.--Dekkanar 14:13, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Thank you. ^^ Ryu Kaze 14:16, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

I've got us an English reference for the Special Rookie Award now, as well as a reference off of Famitsu's own site. I'll just use all three for the reference. I'm going to go ahead and add the Famitsu award to the page. Ryu Kaze 14:23, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Hm. Better reference for it off of Famitsu's site. Ryu Kaze 14:35, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Steel, remember how we were discussing replacing the Gaius image with one of #2 if we could get a good one that wasn't so vertical? How's this one? It's not quite as high-quality, perhaps, but it doesn't look as beta-ish as the Gaius image (since this is from the final version). I can get rid of the IGN logo on it if you think this one would be better. Ryu Kaze 14:58, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Gah, I really wish we could use this one, but it's vertical too. Ryu Kaze 15:13, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

What's wrong with vertical images anyway? -- Steel 15:17, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Sometimes nothing, but people are often uneasy with them because of potential layout issues. Personally, I don't mind using them. If they screw up the layout on someone's monitor, usually it can be expected that they'll post on the talk page and say "That vertical image really screws up the layout on my monitor". If you want to go ahead with it, we can use either the one you were looking at a few days ago (though that's a beta picture too, actually), or the one of Gaius I just found. Ryu Kaze 15:23, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm going to keep looking. I remember seeing a good image for #13, and that colossus really is colossal. I'll see if I can find it again -- Steel 15:28, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Wouldn't be this one, would it? When I think of an image that really shows off how big he is, that's the one that comes to mind. Ryu Kaze 15:30, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

I can't remember, but I think it mught have been this one, though the one you provided shows off the scale much better. There's also this one, but it's not that good. Let's use your one. -- Steel 15:44, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Alright, I'll go ahead and shrink it a little bit so that it isn't seen as a fair-use vio, and then upload it. Ryu Kaze 15:52, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Apparently, it's confirmed that Shadow is a Greatest Hits title now, but I still can't find an online article that we could actually cite on the subject. We'd need one that came out after the price drop on August 1 (all the ones prior didn't mention a date for it or talked about it like it was a rumor) and that made note of it happening on August 1 or in August 2006. Ryu Kaze 17:30, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Steel's gotten the review from EDGE now and added a little more info. If no one else can think of anything to add beyond this point, I think we might be ready for FAC. How's everybody else feeling about this? Ryu Kaze 21:12, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

FAC sounds good, though I'd like to wait until Onlynameicanget gets back (unless he's Ok with us ploughing ahead). -- Steel 21:20, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

I think we're good to go. Did you guys decide on the issue with the PAL cover though? Tani unit 21:29, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Nobody's raised any issues with it so it looks like it has survived. At least for now. -- Steel 21:31, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Hell, why don't we just take this to FAC now? It won't be done for a few days anyway. -- Steel 22:05, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Be bold and keep the train rolling, I say. Ryu Kaze 22:13, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Alright, guys, it's time to fly. Ryu Kaze 22:43, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Boa vs Python

I want to prove that any entry, even about the weirdest of subjects, can be graded as a GA and become an FA with the help and input of the Wikipedia community. . Hence, I have chosen one of my favorite bad movies of all time to test my theory. I am looking for pointers and advice for all areas on the entry page. I believe with a lot of hard work, this article, about one of the worst films ever made, can blossom into a well written, peer reviewed masterpiece and one day achieve FA status.

TruthCrusader 15:53, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Hee, well... Even though I have my doubts of such like this attaining that, it's really worth the work to see one of these SciFi original movies.

Firstly, the film's called Boa vs. Python. Though, the main problem with all these films is that there's primarily not a whole lot of information on them, i.e. Black Hole.. But I think we could try proving that fact wrong with Wikipedia. If you happen to actually have a DVD thereof, that would prolly be a tremendous help. DrWho42 19:07, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

yeah I have the DVD TruthCrusader 19:19, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

• Okay, expanding/improving the bit on the plot/synopsis would be helpful. Getting rid of the Cast segment should be done, I think, since we could always look it up on IMDb and alot of the actors don't seem as notable as others. If there's director's or so-and-so's commentary thereon, that would prove useful for a Trivia section or for something concerning the Production aisle. And possibly critical reception if there is any.. Anything that's notable should be noted and a screenshot would be neat. DrWho42 19:45, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Dr.Who except you should not put a Trivia section in, those are unencyclopedic. Also the cast section needs to stay in. Most importantly the article needs a Production and critical reception sections. Also see if you see how many people watched it the night it was on. Maybe a SciFi channel press release, or one of the orginizations that track TV ratings might have the info. And of course you need references and footnotes. Medvedenko 05:47, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

• The cast section should be cut down. Not entirely now that you mention it, but downsized well-enough with some notes as to who-and-who was cast. I don't think we really need to know who plays Soldier No.1 through 3... Don't you? Didn't think so.. Unless they're pretty major, otherwise if they're simply minor characters whose appearance is little less than a special cameo don't include them. It's like saying who played "Fat Zombie" or "Hare Krishna Zombie" in Dawn of the Dead. I quite agree with you though. These B-movies seem to deliver good enough ratings for SciFi to sign on for a deal of having the most of them in a year.. With Alien Apocalypse being the highest rate, s'posedly.. Some year or so ago, anyways. Also, how 'bout try to create articles for corresponding things, like the director? What other films did he do and what inspired him or tempted him to do this? DrWho42 06:21, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

• You're right, the cast section should ony include the notable cast. Medvedenko 06:29, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

• Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, AZ _t 19:19, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks to everyone so far, I will begin cutting down the cast section. As far as ratings go, I don't know where to find them. I will dig. TruthCrusader 08:30, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Ok I have cut the cast list down and expanded the synopsis into more detail. How does it look so far? TruthCrusader 22:02, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Jean Charles de Menezes (first peer review)

Hello, I am requesting another peer review of this article, nearly one year on from the incident. The article's looking great, the facts are fairly "stabilized", and the story is no longer much of a current event, though the article may be a point of interest when the anniversary of the shooting comes about on the 22nd. KWH 05:36, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Very good well-researched NPOV article. I made some minor changes which I hope make it easier to understand.

Some comments from my read through:

• "The officers were watching three men who they claimed were Somali or Ethiopian in appearance." - this doesn't appear to make sense in the context - "watching for" , perhaps? (or needs some further clarification)
• The section on the killing is confusing because of the use of "their" rather than "his" or "hers" (Difficult call as I assume we don't know the sex of the officer and "his/her" is ugly), "officers" to refer only to firearms officers (so you end up with "...officers and the surveillance officer...") and the interchangable use of Hotel 3 and surveillance officer. It also reads badly as Hotel 3 is 'dragged' 3 times.
• The timeline of the article has the police revealing the reason for the shoot-to-kill policy before the Muslim Council demanding to know the reason.
• The section on "controversy over police procedure" has no inline references which lets it down. It reads as much more POV and WP:OR than the rest of the article as a result.

Personally, I'd leave it a while before going for FA status (although I'm sure it would qualify) because it is still current enough to need further work. - Yomangani 11:19, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Yomangani... for what it's worth, I don't like the whole "Hotel 1,2,3" narrative either, but it is a paraphrase of a report of someone's leaked testimony, so there's only so much liberty to take with the wording. The bit on "controversy over police procedure" is probably one of the oldest parts of the article so although it's probably all from contemporary press reports, it wasn't fully cited. I do see how it seems different from other sections, though. Thanks again, KWH 20:44, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

• Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, AZ _t 15:34, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Laurence Olivier

Archive 1

Need some ideas on where to expand content, to hopefully get to FA status. ...._(Complain)^{(Let us to it pell-mell)} 07:26, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Two of the images are being used under a fair-use claim and in both cases the rationale is very shaky. The rationale given for Image:VivienLeighLaurenceOlivierinFireOverEngland.jpg sound much more like a rationale for why that image should be used in Fire Over England (where it isn't used) than why it should be used in Laurence Olivier. And Image:Oliviertimecover.jpg is a TIME magazine cover being used in an article with no discussion on the significance of the subject's appearance on TIME magazine. User:Angr 11:31, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

I originally uploaded Image:VivienLeighLaurenceOlivierinFireOverEngland.jpg for the Vivien Leigh article in the belief it was fair use, however it turns out the film itself is public domain. I have retagged the image accordingly, and there is no problem with its use as far as I can determine. Rossrs 14:19, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

• Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, Andy _t 21:42, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
• The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program, and may or may not be accurate for the article in question.
• Per WP:CONTEXT and WP:MOSDATE, months and days of the week generally should not be linked. Years, decades, and centuries can be linked if they provide context for the article.
• If this article is about a person, please add {{persondata}} along with the required parameters to the article - see Wikipedia:Persondata for more information.
• Per WP:MOSNUM, there should be a non-breaking space -   between a number and the unit of measurement. For example, instead of 18mm, use 18 mm, which when you are editing the page, should look like: 18&nbsp;mm.
• Per WP:MOS#Headings, headings generally do not start with the word "The". For example, ==The Biography== would be changed to ==Biography==.
• Please alphabetize the categories and interlanguage links.
• There are a few occurrences of weasel words in this article- please observe WP:AWT. Certain phrases should specify exactly who supports, considers, believes, etc., such a view. For example,
  • apparently
  • might be weasel words, and should be provided with proper citations (if they already do, or are not weasel terms, please strike this comment).
• Watch for redundancies that make the article too wordy instead of being crisp and concise. (You may wish to try Tony1's redundancy exercises.)
  • Vague terms of size often are unnecessary and redundant - “some”, “a variety/number/majority of”, “several”, “a few”, “many”, “any”, and “all”. For example, “All pigs are pink, so we thought of a number of ways to turn them green.”
• Please ensure that the article has gone through a thorough copyediting so that the it exemplifies some of Wikipedia's best work. See also User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 2a.
• You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions (and the javascript checklist; see the last paragraph in the lead) for further ideas.
• Thanks, Andy _t 21:35, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

That's all? I'm talking FA here! ...._(Complain)^{(Let us to it pell-mell)} 06:15, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, now were GA. But suggestions are welcome. ...._(Complain)^{(Let us to it pell-mell)} 06:19, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

• Too many red links. Either create stubs for those pages, or remove them. Links are also repeated several times (ie. Jill Esmond is linked in one paragraph, and then in the paragraph directly after it). The opening also needs to be redone, you repeat Academy Award three times in the first sentence, and the sentence about him being called the greatest film actor of the 20th century needs to be sourced; avoid weasel words. Try something along these lines:

Laurence Kerr Olivier, Baron Olivier of Brighton, OM (22 May 1907 – 11 July 1989) was an Academy Award-winning English actor, director, and producer. Many film critics, including xxx and yyy, have regarded him as the greatest actor of the 20th century. His career stretched over several decades, prolific both on stage and in film, where he played a wide variety of roles, from Shakespeare's Othello, to a Nazi dentist in Marathon Man. ♠ SG →Talk 17:27, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

That issue has been discussed on the talk page. As for the Academy Awards, whilst he was an Oscar winning actor and producer, he was only an Oscar nominated director. You see the difficulty? ...._(Complain)^{(Let us to it pell-mell)} 22:36, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

It also places incorrect emphasis on his film career. ie by mentioning the film career first and the stage career second it suggests the film career was the greater of the two. He was first and foremost an actor - the medium/s is/are secondary. Do we have to mention the Academy Awards in the first line of his biography as if this was his greatest achievement? The links suggested are to film director and film producer although he directed and produced quite notably for the theatre. The "greatest actor" comment as suggested is attributed to "film critics". It's just too much about film. I greatly dislike the thought of using film titles to demonstrate a "range" of roles as it's very POV. You could pick any two films to demonstrate any particular spectrum so why these two? I agree the opening needs to be redone, but I don't think this is the right way. In it's current version Academy Award appears 3 times which I think is worse than what was suggested here. Rossrs 14:19, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

The film emphasis has been partly removed. ...._(Complain)^{(Let us to it pell-mell)} 02:19, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Shadow of the Colossus

Essentially, we've been writing this article with FA status in mind, and after a small CVG peer review, we'd like some additional feedback before taking this to FAC. Thanks. -- Steel 13:01, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

• The two pictures of box are are both listed as screen shots
• When you say in the lead that the game got a 91% ranking, I wanted to know how that would compare to an average game ranking, or maybe a ranking for some widely known game
• You briefly mention that both Shadow and Ico use a fictional language, is it the same fictional language?
• I really like having the track listing in a scroll box, it seems like a good way to present something that on other pages often becomes a distracting list. I guess I wonder though whether or not it's 'acceptable' for a featured article. I only wonder because I've never seen it in any article before and that makes me think that people might object to it.
• It appears that all of the game reviews are from North American sources. Would it be possible to get a japanese comment in there? I know(from reading wikipedia) that Famitsu is notoriously critical. It would be interesting to know how this generally stellarly reviewed game was recieved by the harsh critic. Although, this is again just something that seems like it would be interesting to know.

I hope these comments help you.--Dekkanar 17:19, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback, and the work you've already done sorting out grammar and such. The scroll box was added after someone saw it being used in featured article Half-Life 2, so we thought it was a good idea. I'll look into your other points. -- Steel 17:24, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

OK, the boxarts are no longer tagged as screenshots. -- Steel 17:29, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

If it's already in a featured article, then I guess I wouldn't worry about it. Thanks for pointing that out to me though.--Dekkanar 17:30, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your input. I'll see if I can make productive implementation of it. Ryu Kaze 17:40, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

By the way, we do have a European site as one of the critics, but the one I'd really like to have the review from is EDGE magazine. They are far more notorious for being hard-assed than Famitsu to be honest. They actually did like the game, though, and gave it a 8 out of 10. That's all I know, sadly. I don't know what they specifically liked or disliked. Ryu Kaze 17:42, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

By the way, forgot to answer your question about the language. Ico had two fictional languages, actually, though neither was based on a real language exactly. The lead game designer for both Ico and Shadow has said that one might say Ico's two languages are similar to Chinese and French,[10] while Shadow's single language is based partly upon the romanization of Japanese.[11] Ryu Kaze 18:08, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

I edited that particular sentence to be less ambiguous. As it was, it seemed to imply that the two games shared the same fictional language "Both games use a fictional language".--Dekkanar 18:29, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. I also went ahead and made sure we had seperate references there for both languages. Ryu Kaze 02:18, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

By the way, the game got a 37/40 from Famitsu, as seen here. Since that's a rather nice score from Famitsu, it may be a good idea to give that a mention somewhere. --Onlynameicanget 03:00, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for that information. I wish it was something other than a forum thread, though. :( We can't use that as a reference unfortunately. I can't find any well known gaming sites with info on the Famitsu rating. Ryu Kaze 12:24, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Ah, just now found one! Here's the info on Games Are Fun, a gaming news/reviews site that lists Famitsu scores regularly. Can't believe I didn't see that earlier. --Onlynameicanget 14:04, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Good show, lad. I was just about to report that I'd also found on the official Japanese site that Shadow apparently won some "Special Prize (Rookie Grand Prix)" award in the Famitsu Awards for 2005. Also, as I understand it, Steel might be able to get us some info on EDGE's treatment of the game. Though we won't have any of the specifics concerning what Famitsu liked or didn't like, if we can get them for EDGE and supply the score from Famitsu (which is really what most people seem to care about anyway; they ask "What did Famitsu rate [insert game here]?" not "What did Famitsu like about it?"), we'll have a solid critical response section, I believe. Which is not to say that having specific details on Famitsu's review wouldn't be nice (:D). Again, well done. Ryu Kaze 14:11, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

All three of you are doing a really impressive amount of work and collaboration on this. It's impressive to watch.--Dekkanar 14:13, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Thank you. ^^ Ryu Kaze 14:16, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

I've got us an English reference for the Special Rookie Award now, as well as a reference off of Famitsu's own site. I'll just use all three for the reference. I'm going to go ahead and add the Famitsu award to the page. Ryu Kaze 14:23, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Hm. Better reference for it off of Famitsu's site. Ryu Kaze 14:35, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Steel, remember how we were discussing replacing the Gaius image with one of #2 if we could get a good one that wasn't so vertical? How's this one? It's not quite as high-quality, perhaps, but it doesn't look as beta-ish as the Gaius image (since this is from the final version). I can get rid of the IGN logo on it if you think this one would be better. Ryu Kaze 14:58, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Gah, I really wish we could use this one, but it's vertical too. Ryu Kaze 15:13, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

What's wrong with vertical images anyway? -- Steel 15:17, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Sometimes nothing, but people are often uneasy with them because of potential layout issues. Personally, I don't mind using them. If they screw up the layout on someone's monitor, usually it can be expected that they'll post on the talk page and say "That vertical image really screws up the layout on my monitor". If you want to go ahead with it, we can use either the one you were looking at a few days ago (though that's a beta picture too, actually), or the one of Gaius I just found. Ryu Kaze 15:23, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm going to keep looking. I remember seeing a good image for #13, and that colossus really is colossal. I'll see if I can find it again -- Steel 15:28, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Wouldn't be this one, would it? When I think of an image that really shows off how big he is, that's the one that comes to mind. Ryu Kaze 15:30, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

I can't remember, but I think it mught have been this one, though the one you provided shows off the scale much better. There's also this one, but it's not that good. Let's use your one. -- Steel 15:44, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Alright, I'll go ahead and shrink it a little bit so that it isn't seen as a fair-use vio, and then upload it. Ryu Kaze 15:52, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Apparently, it's confirmed that Shadow is a Greatest Hits title now, but I still can't find an online article that we could actually cite on the subject. We'd need one that came out after the price drop on August 1 (all the ones prior didn't mention a date for it or talked about it like it was a rumor) and that made note of it happening on August 1 or in August 2006. Ryu Kaze 17:30, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Steel's gotten the review from EDGE now and added a little more info. If no one else can think of anything to add beyond this point, I think we might be ready for FAC. How's everybody else feeling about this? Ryu Kaze 21:12, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

FAC sounds good, though I'd like to wait until Onlynameicanget gets back (unless he's Ok with us ploughing ahead). -- Steel 21:20, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

I think we're good to go. Did you guys decide on the issue with the PAL cover though? Tani unit 21:29, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Nobody's raised any issues with it so it looks like it has survived. At least for now. -- Steel 21:31, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Hell, why don't we just take this to FAC now? It won't be done for a few days anyway. -- Steel 22:05, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Be bold and keep the train rolling, I say. Ryu Kaze 22:13, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Alright, guys, it's time to fly. Ryu Kaze 22:43, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Carrie Underwood

I'm not the original author but I'd like to know what needs to be done to make this a good article. Did I do the image fair use rationales right? User:Arual 14:44, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

• Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, AZ _t 00:36, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Just some random thoughts as they occur:

• Not clear from the article what 'Nielson Soundscan' is. I get it from one of the refs, but I suggest either dropping the mention of it (Is it important, does it add to the article?) or expanding just a tad to give a hint of what it is. As it is it sort of sidetracked me while reading.
• You'll need to work on the citation of references and possibly the references themselves. Currently it's not clear where the information in the article comes from, some of it comes from the inline citations, some of it seems not to - for example the 'graduating magna cum laude' doesn't seem to appear in any of the notes. It may be in the single listed reference of course, but I can't check that.
• The 'personal interests' section tails off into a list of facts rather than prose.
• Overall it's a very positive article. I know nothing about the subject, but I do wonder whether the article is really Neutral Point of View. You may want to check for that. Is her work universally acclaimed, or have there been any negative critical reactions? If there have, those need to be worked in as well.
• Go through the automated suggestions as well. They're helpful.

Good luck 4u1e 20:47, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Ann Coulter

The article has gone through some pretty intense editing recently, removing much POV, adding and formatting references, and removing unnecessarily links and such. I guess this is the logical next step to see where this article goes. Dr. Cash 19:21, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

• Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, AZ _t 15:33, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
• POV seems to have largely been taken care of. I would only suggest that the Plagiarism and factual accuracy section be modified in order to remove Coulter's rather extensive screed about plagarism by left-wing authors. Reproducing her claims verbatim is not so much POV as it is a slide into a rather silly discussion about the relative frequency of plagarism in left-wing and right-wing books, and this (mini)discussion seems to give her the floor more than other voices in this "debate".

Now for the hard part. I believe that this article would benefit from a (short) discussion of Coulter's place among the American right: those who have influenced her (not just a list of names.. a little bit more in depth) and about her relationship with the current U.S. right. For instance, I know Andrew Sullivan has harshly criticized her. Are there others? Who are her most prominent supporters? We need a little context, of course without veering off into original research. Furthermore, the article needs to at least mention the whole "invade their countries, kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity" bit. This was unique caused a bit of a stir.

Good luck. --Zantastik talk 03:01, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program and edited by User:Raphael1

• If this article is about a person, please add {{persondata}} along with the required parameters to the article - see Wikipedia:Persondata for more information.
• Per Wikipedia:Context and Wikipedia:Build the web, years with full dates should be linked; for example, link January 15, 2006. Some dates are not linked in the "Irregularities in public registration" section.
• Per WP:MOS#Headings, headings generally do not start with the word 'The'. For example, ==The Biography== would be changed to ==Biography==.
• Please reorder/rename the last few sections to follow guidelines at Wikipedia:Guide to layout.
• Please alphabetize the interlanguage links.
• Per WP:WIAFA, this article's table of contents (ToC) may be too long- consider shrinking it down by merging short sections or using a proper system of daughter pages as per Wikipedia:Summary style.
• This article may need to undergo summary style, where a series of appropriate subpages are used. For example, if the article is United States, than an appropriate subpage would be History of the United States, such that a summary of the subpage exists on the mother article, while the subpage goes into more detail.
• As done in WP:FOOTNOTE, footnotes usually are located right after a punctuation mark (as recommended by the CMS, but not mandatory), such that there is no space inbetween. For example, the sun is larger than the moon [2]. is usually written as the sun is larger than the moon.[2]
• Please ensure that the article has gone through a thorough copyediting so that it exemplifies some of Wikipedia's best work. See also User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 1a.
• Unfortunately the article is far from neutral. IMHO it whitewashes Coulters racist views on Arabs and Muslims by censoring even her own words.

Raphael1 13:29, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Boogiepop series

I have changed the face of this article recently, but am unsure of where it is at. My first target is to get it to WP:GA quality, then aim for WP:FA if possible. I have used the auto-Peer Review script, and tried to use that as best I can, but am sure it could do with a human eye. My main concern is content: I have a nasty habit of assuming knowledge, so there may be vital content missing. Also, before anyone suggests it, I have been looking for printed references, but everything I have read has been completely useless; it also seems unlikely I will manage to lay my hands anything else. Thanks! Elric of Grans 23:54, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

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

• This article seems to be very well constructed - I myself have not read any of the novels or manga, or seen the anime, but I still found it very informative and comprehensive, not to mention interesting; and without going into too much detail in the overview. The references are also quite well done. I would say that this article is GA at the very least, or will be after a few minor changes, though it would probably have to be a bit more in-depth (as in adding whatever is relevant and documented that applies to the entire series) before being nominated for FA. Having said that, it probably could use a little more clarification in the overview section, and the second half of the intro could probably be relocated to a different subheading. I would do this myself, but as I said I really have no personal knowledge on the subject and it would probably be done better by someone who has. -- Gizzakk 17:28, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the glowing report! I am currently working on getting the references to build it up for FA: I have a rough idea of what else is needed, but scratching together citations is a little painful. I believe I could expand the overview (I may split it into two sections in doing so), but am unsure of where the "second half" of the intro actually lies. Do you mean from "The first novel,..." in the lead? Elric of Grans 23:15, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Pretty much from the sentence ...credited with starting the light novel trend in Japan. The second half would probably do better moved to a "style" subheading and possibly an "impact on xxxxx(whatever is most appropriate)" subheading.

Thanks for the advice: I shall look into that today. Elric of Grans 20:40, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

I have plans to make a sort of `impact' section for the article, but am currently looking for good references before I make this move. It may take some time, as there seems to be nothing of use in English for this. Elric of Grans 23:26, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Nice to see light novels get a decent article for one. It's looking really good so far, I'm confused about the statement: "Boogiepop is best characterized as young adult fiction, and is credited with starting the trend in Japan." What trend? Trend of young adult fiction? It kinda seems hard that the genre of young adult fiction suddenly was created so late. I mean, it's a pretty broad genre there. Maybe you mean it was sort of like what Harry Potter did for English countries? Caused a newfound interest in reading in younger people? --SeizureDog 21:07, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice! I used "trend" as that was the word used in the source, and they did not clarify either. I am 90% sure it should mean "popularised light novels" (they were around before Boogiepop, but boomed afterwards), but am a little worried about changing to that without a second source to support this --- if it is safe to make that change, I will. Elric of Grans 23:15, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

I assumed it meant light novels, but the sentence structure implies YA fiction so I got confused. I would say it's pretty safe to change that to light novels, but try to find something to pin it down. --SeizureDog 23:53, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick response! I have just found a good reference for it, and will make the change promptly. Elric of Grans 00:13, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Ok, actually going through the article now. Points to make:

• All of the "(English)" tags in the references should be removed. English is assumed by default. Those language tags should only clutter the references when the ref is not English. An exception I could see is if English was the minority of the references (e.g. only 2 English refs with 20 Japanese). Go ahead and keep them for the external links though.
• I think ISBNs are generally written without the hyphens in them. (I checked: both are used, but mostly without. Elric of Grans)
• "(English) Kadono, Kōhei [2001-02-01] (2006-04-24). Boogiepop Never Laughs. Seven Seas Entertainment. ISBN 1-933164-18-2, 187." Why are there two dates?
• The Terminology section is really iffy. Should be worked into the text.
• Not sure if you understand how romaji works really, but all long vowels in katakana are supposed to use macrons (thus, Bugiipoppu shiriizu → Bugīpoppu shirīzu) I'll go ahead and fix this for you. See Wikipedia:Manual of Style (Japan-related articles) for info.
• "To face the 'enemies of the world', the shinigami Boogiepop automatically rises to the surface." What's with the use of single quotes? Unless this is a British thing or something, I don't think it's correct. Double quote it if it's a term used all the time in the series or change it to a normal sentence. Also, it's a really bad run-on sentence. (changed to double quotes, but does not appear to be a run-on sentence. Elric of Grans)
• A bit overkill on the dashes. Dashes should be use very rarely. Rewrite them using commas or parentheses. Also colons get used a bit too much. In general, there are too many advanced forms of punctuation being used, to the effect where they're being used incorrectly.
• Basically the whole thing needs a good copyedit. Example:
  "The mission of the Towa Organisation, and its agents, is to find MPLS – evolved humans – and eliminate them, however, Boogiepop will not let the Towa Organisation get its way, and he is not the only one out to stop them."
  →
  The mission of the Towa Organisation and its agents is to find MPLS ([say what it stands for]; evolved humans) and eliminate them. However, Boogiepop will not let the Towa Organisation get his way and he is not alone in his efforts.
  That last part was just gibberish, I had to reword it. I think that's what you meant.
• Is Boogiepop an organization or a person? It gets a bit confusing.
• There are companies mentioned in the Internationalisation section not shown in the infobox; add them.

Hope this helps some.--SeizureDog 00:34, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Two dates. The template has two date fields: one for date of original publication, and a second one for the date of the edition you used.

I rather thought that, but it's still odd. Looking at that, I noticed that in the info box it's called "Boogiepop Doesn't Laugh" and in the refs it says "Never" instead. Which is it? Also I believe that the double date thing would only really be needed if both versions were in the same language. I'm not sure about that though. --SeizureDog 01:41, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

I have decided to take your suggestion on the dates; it probably adds nothing in having both after all. The title should be Doesn't: I accidentally used the old fan translation rather than the official one (again). Elric of Grans 02:16, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Termanology. I shall work that into the overview, as it probably does make more sense there anyway.

Romaji. I did what WP:MOS-JA says to do: use macrons for long o or u, but not for long a, i or e. "All other long vowels are written with without macrons: ああ → aa, いい → ii, and ええ → ee." Likewise, names are supposed to use the format used in the English publication (hence Touka, Anou, etc). I will not revert your changes if I am wrong, but it reads like I had the right idea. (I just read the next line. Sorry, my mistake Elric of Grans)

No worries, easy to overlook.--SeizureDog 01:41, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Odd punctuation. Personal habits. I shall set about changing them. Your example is mostly right, so I shall shamelessly use it. The Towa Organisation is an 'it' (an organisation) rather than a 'he', so that will need to be changed.

Boogiepop. He is either a supernatural being, or Miyashita Touka has multiple personalities: we do not know for sure. If it reads like an organisation, I shall have to fix that.

Missing companies. The infobox does not contain 'licensor' or 'distributor' fields for me to include them: I could add them to the template, but all anime articles would be missing them (eg the Excel Saga Infobox makes no mention of Madman Entertainment, though the article does).

Good point, I didn't think of that. --SeizureDog 01:41, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the detailed response. I have begun making changes, and shall continue along the list today. Elric of Grans 01:14, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

(Blasted edit conflicts. If you don't mind, I'm just going to override your edit since they're just strikethroughs.)--SeizureDog 01:41, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for noting that, else I would have been a tad confused. Could you point out what made you think Boogiepop was an organisation though? I cannot see it Elric of Grans 02:16, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

That sentence I gave as an example and its alteration of "its" and "he". Plus it's never really stated either way which it is. --SeizureDog 02:38, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

The 'its' is the Towa Organisation: "Boogiepop will not let the Towa Organisations get its [ie the Towa Oganisation's] way". Perhaps it is simply because they are my own words, so I obviously would know what I mean to say, but I cannot see the confusion there. I could probably do well to elaborate a little on Boogiepop though: there was more, but as it expanded, it moved into its own section, then its own article. I shall try to expand the first Overview paragraph into two: there is plenty on the Towa Organisation, but not much on the rest of the series.

I am currently in the process of tightening the prose too, so it should hopefully be starting to read a little better. Elric of Grans 02:51, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Must have just been reading it wrong. I dunno. Tired or somethin'. --SeizureDog 04:03, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

In response to the "is boogiepop an organization or a person, I got that it was a "death god" or some such after following the link, I believe it was to Shingami. The way it reads now is much better, however. -- Gizzakk 17:06, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Just had another thought - does MPLS actually stand for something (eg. an acronym), and if so, what? -- Gizzakk 17:08, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

I imagine it is an acronym, but you will have to ask the author. In the English translations so far there has been no explanation, nor is there one in the Japanese Wikipedia article, or any website I have yet seen, so I have my suspicions that he has not told us yet. Elric of Grans 20:40, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Since the article covers the series as a whole, you should try to find an image of just the Boogiepop logo. --SeizureDog 23:20, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

There is no real 'Boogiepop logo'. The closest to that would be a picture of Boogiepop himself, but I doubt I could use an artbook scan here under fair use, so a novel cover is probably the best I can do. If I am wrong about that, I would much rather use a different picture. Elric of Grans 09:49, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

The Boogiepop logo is the word "Boogiepop". As in, that thing right before "And Others" or "Doesn't Laugh.

Ah, I see what you are getting at now. It is not used in all aspects of the series, but most English releases do use that style. There is a clean version of it (ie no "And Others" tacked on it) on the Seven Seas Entertainment website (which we can use). I shall extract it to a better-sized file and insert it today. In your opinion, should the article have any additional images, and if so how would I use them? For example, Wikipedia has no fair use template for "an illustration from a novel". Elric of Grans 23:26, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Do you know of any image that shows the entire main cast? Those are always good for the main article.--SeizureDog 23:36, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

I have the artbook: it has the majority of the artwork for the series, up to the point it was published. There is only one good image I can recall, which is also used as the inside cover for the second light novel. It features Boogiepop, Suema and Kirima (the core protagonists) along with Taniguchi. The trouble with it is that whilst Boogiepop is in colour, the others are in shades of blue. A small scan of it is used at the top of Boogiepop: The Ultimate Guide (Part 1), if you are interested. I was tempted to use an artbook scan once, but none of the fair use templates fit it. Elric of Grans 00:20, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

I believe you were looking for the Template:Character-artwork tag.--SeizureDog 01:08, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Ah, thanks! That one is not listed on the Upload File list, so I had not known about it. I have added the said image, and moved the logo into the article. I may need to play around with positioning a little later, as I am not sure that is the best way to do it. Elric of Grans 02:49, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Boogiepop Doesn't Laugh vol 2 got reviewed on Right Turn Only today, [12], thought I'd give you a heads up.

Also, Boogiepop really should be a redirect to Boogiepop series. Move Boogiepop over to Boogiepop (character).--SeizureDog 22:30, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice, and the heads-up. I seem to have missed that article this morning. I have just got a copy of the NewType USA review of Boogiepop Phantom too, and hope to work it in soon. Elric of Grans 23:26, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Good start, but to short. See Excel Saga for a FA-class anime article.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus  talk}  15:47, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Could you perhaps elaborate? There is no guideline to length, except that it "is of an appropriate length". There are some pretty dramatic differences between the Boogiepop series and Excel Saga, so it can only be used as a very general guide --- besides, if I merged Characters of the Boogiepop series back in, it would be longer than Excel Saga (though it would be a worse article for it). Boogiepop and Others (novel) is almost as long as Excel Saga by itself, but needs a heck of a lot more work: length alone is not very telling. There are some points I know need expanding (as noted in the todo box), but am finding it difficult to get acceptable references for them: any further suggestions outside of that list would prove most useful. Elric of Grans 01:09, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

While merge back is not needed, the article needs a section on characters, the world, on epiosdes (plotline summary) and well, I'd suggest you take a look at what are the sections of Excel Saga article and make sure this article covers the same points.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus  talk}  16:25, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

I believe you are thinking about Boogiepop Phantom: while it is touched upon on this article, this is more about the core plot and characters of the Boogiepop series. I could merge the protagonists back in without reducing the quality of the article, but there is little known about the world (the city it all happens in is never even named!), and a plot summary would be nigh impossible --- we are 14 core novels (so far), 4 side novels, a movie, six short stories and a 12 episode anime, and the plots between each vary dramatically. I have already written in a summary of the connecting plot to the article, but doing any more would surely reduce the quality. Elric of Grans 20:53, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Good point, however in that case the series article should be even longer.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  19:59, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Brahmin

Request suggestions/ comments on article, any sections that need improving.--Babub^{(Talk|Contribs)} 12:08, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

• Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, AZ _t 14:08, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
• To start with – looks "listy", needs more inline citations, should be tagged "article containing Indic text". Have not read the whole article. more later if manage to read it! Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 06:16, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Steven Spielberg

I'd like to know how we can make this page a featured article. For one, I would like to have more analysis on Spielberg's themes and possibly have a greater look at his career. Wiki-newbie 18:26, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

• Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, AZ _t 15:34, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

• A few comments:

• Hardly any references, very bad for an article this size on a subject who is likely to provoke controversy.
• A bit of repetition (for example attending school and university) and overlinking in the first section (not everything needs linking, it makes it look busy)
• Needs editing to remove POV phases
• 'Spielberg and Co.' Who are the 'and Co.'?
• Have a look at WP:TRIVIA for some suggestions on how to deal with the trivia sections at the end. The trademark section in particular needs some ruthless pruning (Onscreen performers staring, usually at something off camera?!?).

Yomangani 17:21, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Paul McCartney

So much potential for FA, article needs some feedback. -- Wikipedical 00:36, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

• Here are the things that I find needing improvement before reaching FAC as of this edit. Please read all points before editing, as you may be able to solve two problems with one edit. Feel free to strike out when completed. (Location is donated by Section:Paragraph#:Sentence#) Newnam^(talk) 05:50, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
  1. Intro:1 - First paragraph should be more than one sentence...perhaps merge with other pieces of lead
  2. Intro:2:1 - Who recognises him as an icon? Could be construed as point of view.
  3. Intro:2:2 - What are "#1 singles" (I know, but a lot won't by the wording)? Worded as "He has a record twenty-nine" implies that he owns the single...so do I (maybe reword to "performed" or "written" or both, depending on what it was). Also, perhaps phrase it as twenty-nine "#1 singles" in the United States, rather than twenty-nine U.S. "#1 singles" (with "#1 singles" still needing improvement).
  4. Intro:2:3 - "Top ten" of what? What makes his talent as a bassist "influential"?
  5. Intro:2:4 - "Highly successful" is a bit much. If anything, just "successful", but even that seems POV.
  6. Intro:3:1 - Wings is "introduced" here, but discussed earlier. Should be introduced before mentioned (I hope that makes sense).
  7. Intro:3:3 - The last part doesn't need parentheses.
  8. Intro:4 - Also would be better with more than one sentence. Maybe this could be combined with the first paragraph. Change "aside from" to "in addition to".
  9. Early Years:1:1 - I don't think his full name is needed again here. What is Walton supposed to link to?
  10. Early Years:1:2 - Replace the semicolon with a period. Wikilink Roman Catholic and Protestant.
  11. Early Years:1:3 - What is a "dance-band"?
  12. Early Years:1:5 - Is the location of where he traded the instrument that important. IMO it is not needed.
  13. Early Years:1:6 - The whole thing seems wordy, maybe changed to "The early death of his mother Mary was a formative influence on the his life. She died from breast cancer, on October 31, 1956 when he was 14".
  14. Early Years:2:1 - Wikilink "Irish" to Irish people.
  15. History(RIB):1:2 - Before "Stuart Sutcliffe" remove "the addition of".
  16. History(RIB):1:4 - Rephrase to "McCartney took over bass guitar duties in the early 1960s following the departure of Sutcliffe, after Lennon and Harrison had declined".
  17. History(RIB)(S):1:1 - Is "eyeball to eyeball" a good or bad thing? What is it supposed to mean? They collaborated on many what?
  18. History(RIB)(S):1:2 - Remove "out" from the beginning of the sentence. "It is claimed" are weasel words.
  19. History(RIB)(S):1:5 - The "(naturally)" is unneccesary and POV.
  20. History(RIB)(S):1 - Be consistent with "McCartney/Lennon" or "McCartney - Lennon". Or if there is a differenc, don't make them sound the same.
  21. History(RIB)(B):1:2 - Place a "The" before the "Beatles" (proper title). Also, place apostrophe to denote possession.
  22. History(RIB)(B):1:3 - Specify "writing" as "song writing". Very long sentence...perhaps too long.
  23. History(RIB)(B):2:1 - "It is now generally accepted" seems like weasel words.
  24. History(RIB)(B):2 - Has nothing to do with him being a bassist (shouldn't be under 'bassist' section).
  25. History(RIB)(B):3:1 - What is the use and context of "mature" and "middle Beatles period"...needs more explaining.
  26. History(RIB)(B):3 - Also has nothing to do with him being a bassist (shouldn't be under 'bassist' section).
  27. History(RIB)(OI) - What is this section title supposed to mean. Doesn't seem to have anything to do with its contents.
  28. History(RIB)(OI):1:1 - It doesn't help this article to know who The Family Way starred.
  29. History(RIB)(OI):1:2 - The comma after "released as an album" is not needed.
  30. History(RIB)(OI):1:3 - Remove "he" after "these outside productions".
  31. History(RIB)(OI):2:2 - Remove the dash and replace with a comma after "began an affair" and before "however".
  32. History(RIB)(OI):2:6 - Place "Heather" after "Linda's daughter" and place commas around Heather. Be consistent with birthyears in parentheses...use "(Born 19xx)" or "(Born in 19xx)", but use the same throughout.
  33. History(RIB)(OI):2:7 - Replace "would remain" with "remained" and remove "and devoted".
  34. History(RIB)(EOTB):1:1 - Change the first "he" to "McCartney".
  35. History(RIB)(EOTB):1:2 - Add a comma after "jeolousy".
  36. History(RIB)(EOTB):1:3 - After "the public's interest in them", remove "was only".
  37. History(RIB)(EOTB):2:1 - Did Lennon leave "between" August and September? Was it August or September...it only takes one day to leave.
  38. History(RIB)(EOTB):3 - Sentence should be merged into 2nd paragraph. A one sentence paragraph is not good.
  39. History(ESC):1:2 - What is the meaning of "underwhelming" in this context?
  40. OVERALL - The whole article doesn't seem very oragnized. Pieces of information are mentioned more than once and the chronological order of the article is not very good.
  41. OVERALL - This article will go nowhere without references. Inline citiations throughout the article would be most beneficial.
  42. OVERALL - Remove red-linked category.

• Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, AZ _t 15:28, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

• The following section called 'Achievements, world records, and miscellania' is a fancy name for nothing other than a trivia section. These are fine for articles in their early stages, but those that are at a further stage shouldn't have as such. If the information is relevant, please add it into an appropriate section in the article rather than lazily bunching it up all together in bullet points. Also, some of the paragraphs are stubby, which fails criterion 2. a. of "What is a featured article?", since some Wikipedians wish to get this to FA status - the trivia section will do plenty of harm to anyone's chances of achieving this. Also, certain sentences need the eye of a good copy editor.

• Also, I would say it fails in criterion 2. c. which asks for appropriate referencing and inline citations, of which there currently isn't enough. This shouldn't be hard to achieve since this is Paul McCartney - there should be tons of books / articles that can be cited. Any statements / opinions attributed as the words of McCartney himself should especially cite their sources.

• In short, treat the article as though someone reading it hasn't heard of the Beatles and McCartney. Any statements applauding his influence etc. should cite appropriate sources. LuciferMorgan 04:16, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Xbox 360

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

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

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

Italian music terminology

This is a glossary page, a companion to music of Italy and its subarticles. There are no pictures, but I don't think they're necessary here. I plan on creating a redirect from every item on the list to this page, unless an article already exists. I'd especially like input from Italian speakers. Tuf-Kat 02:21, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

I find the referencing inconsistent and confusing. About 34 terms are referenced (3), the New Grove Encyclopedia, but other terms are referenced individually with apparently identical referencing: (11, 12, 18, 20, 27). Others are similar: (19, 22, 23) and (26). At least for me, it would be easier to see references for New Grove 637-680, Garland 604-625, Garland 860-864, and Alessio 189-201, and let some of the terms have two or more distinct reference marks. Gimmetrow 23:06, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Everything that has one source is cited with a multi-use reference, everything cited by more than one has its own footnote. I like your idea, but I thought it was considered bad form to have more than one footnote in one spot. Tuf-Kat 03:14, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

It's common in Harvard-style referencing. In numbered-style multiple reference marks conveys information that the statement has multiple independent sources. Gimmetrow 17:52, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Okay, done. Tuf-Kat 01:57, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Hello, Tuf-Kat. I think it's potentially a useful list, though I am confused (nothing new for me!) about overlap between this and the article on Italian musical terms used in English, the discussion page for which indicates some debate about that article, itself, being redundant or about to be merged with another--or something. In any event, I added a link to one of the terms--maggio drammatico. Do you want additions to the list--dynamic and tempo markings such as allegro, forte, etc. etc.?

Also, the lead sentence might indicate that such terms are not just useful in the music of Italy, but elsewhere since it was and still is common to use Italian terms. Somewhere, a short list of common abbreviations might be useful; that is, f for forte, p for piano, mf for mezzoforte. An interesting point of trivia--for the sake of completeness--is that such abbreviations have by now been "foreignized"--that is, rendered un-Italian. For example, the abbreviation pp stands for pianissimo, grammatically a superlative in Italian, meaning "as soft as possible". You can't play any softer than that, yet Tschaikovsky has a section in the 6th symphony that is marked pppppp. Anything more than two is unpronouncable in Italian. There are also many examples of the ff--fortissimo--being upped to fff and fff. Jeffmatt 06:44, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, this page is supposed to be about terms used to describe "Italian music", not Italian words used to describe music. So, I don't think stuff like "allegro" should be there because they're not primarily used to describe Italian music -- that's incidental to the English language, because they're used to describe any kind of music. That's really better at Italian musical terms used in English. Admittedly, there's some overlap, but I think it's two useful, and separate, ideas. Tuf-Kat 01:29, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

To be clear, the main thing I am looking for an Italian speaker to help with is clearing up the Italian language. Many of the items begin with what appears to be a preposition (e.g. a voca diritta, alla metitora) or a word meaning "song" or "dance" (e.g. canti alla stesa, ballo di Mantova). Are these things necessary? Are any items listed multiple times due to variations in display? Should they be alphabetized under alla and canti or metitora and stesa (or alla stesa)? Tuf-Kat 01:57, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

OK. Got the idea. Thank you for the clarification. More later. Jeffmatt 05:40, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

There is some confusion even among Italian librarians on this (I'm married to one!). Italian-language music glossaries are as likely to list, for example, a capella under A as under C, as in capella (coro a). In your case, all of the entries in the A section that have the preposition+article compound alla--alla cepranese, for example-- (alla means "like a" or "as a") could be listed by the noun, as well--C, in this case. Since the list is relatively short and since English-speakers (and many Italian speakers) are likely to look under A first, I suggest (with concurrence from two native sources) leaving the A section as is. It is not confusing or incorrect as it stands. It does leave you with the problem that an English-speaker might conclude that the whole noun is alla cepranese--as in "They're playing an alla cepranese" instead of, correctly, "They're playing a cepranese. I don't see a way around that problem unless you want to move those entries to their repsective letters and say something like cepranese, alla: played in the manner of a cepranese, which is ackward. I think you can leave it the way it is. Another solution is to eliminate the compound altogether and simply list cepranese: a form of multi-part song in Lazio. Those prep+article compounds are not necessary, to answer your question. Maybe that's the best solution of all. If you decide to do that, do not eliminate alla between terms--that is, in canti alla stesa, for example. That alla is different and is an integral part of the description of the term.

On your list, check alla'asprese. It is almost certainly all'asprese; the apostrope is meant to stand for the first A. Also, Lazio is the Italian noun for the area. If it is accepted English to use geographical names as adjectives, leave it. If it isn't, I suggest saying "in Lazio"(instead of Latian, which might confuse readers. You correctly have Calabrian and Sardinian. Might as well be consistent.)

"Addio padre" is the name of one particular song, I think, compposed in 1916 (during WW1). You have it as "A post-war political song," which makes it sound like a generic reference to many songs--a type of song-- after WW2.

For consistency, if the Italian noun is singular, make the English singular; if plural, plural. That is: ballo is singular, so it should read "ballo di baraben: a ritual dance," and not "Ritual dances". See also under C. Canti is plural and should be rendered as "songs" and not "song". Canto is the singular--song. The same with canzone. That's singular--song. Also, a ciaramella has a double-reed, not single. That is, it's a folk oboe, which is a double-reed instrument. Jeffmatt 07:34, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Awesome, thanks! I'll make some modifications based on this tonight. Tuf-Kat 10:58, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

My pleasure. The more I think about it, the more I think the last solution is the best. That is, listing the name without the prep+article compound. Cheers from Naples. Jeffmatt 12:23, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Okay, realphabetized.

Since this article is about the terms, not the study of terms, shouldn't it be called Italian music terms? Also, as it's a list, should it be called List of Italian music terms? Percy Snoodle 11:53, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't think so for two reasons: I hope to add a bit more about these terms in the near future. Plus, terminology means "The vocabulary of technical terms used in a particular field, subject, science, or art", which seems appropriate for this article. Tuf-Kat 03:32, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

• Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, AZ _t 15:35, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Liberty Bell

This is an important article and could use peer review. Thanks! --South Philly 04:13, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

• Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, AZ _t 15:26, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
• Not a bad article but it needs references. The section on "The Crack" should be incorporated into "19th Century history, repair". The writing could also be improved in parts. To do this try to see if you can make the same statement using less words. For example, the "according to eyewitness testimony" phrase could be removed from the article. Also try specifying who the many are in the statement "proved unpopular with many". Are they vistors, tourists or commentators? Cedars 05:32, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
• Thanks!--evrik 19:22, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Ivory-billed Woodpecker

This article recently passed GA. This peer review request is now posted, as a logical next step towards hopefully attaining FA status. All & any comments appreciated SP-KP 07:14, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

• Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, AZ _t 00:35, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Copied here:

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

• Per WP:CONTEXT and WP:MOSDATE, months and days of the week generally should not be linked. Years, decades, and centuries can be linked if they provide context for the article.

OK, fixed. SP-KP 16:24, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

• Per WP:MOS, avoid using words/phrases that indicate time periods relative to the current day. For example, recently might be terms that should be replaced with specific dates/times.

Fixed too - might be sensible for someone else to check this though SP-KP 16:30, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

• This article has no images. Please see if there are any free use images that fall under WP:IUP and WP:IT that can be uploaded. To upload images on Wikipedia, go to Special:Upload; to upload non-fair use images on the Wikimedia Commons, go to commons:special:upload.

Not quite accurate, the taxobox has a painting - and the chances of us finding an Ivorybill photo are not high. What about photos of habitat, Tanner, etc? SP-KP 16:32, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Some image sources include the commons page on the species (which has some paintings) [13], and the Cashe River NWR Site [14] where the species was rediscovered (images of habitat and of the hoopla that surrounded rediscovery). Sabine's Sunbird talk 17:57, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

• Per WP:MOSNUM, there should be a non-breaking space -   between a number and the unit of measurement. For example, instead of 18mm, use 18 mm, which when you are editing the page, should look like: 18&nbsp;mm.

Done SP-KP 16:47, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

• Per WP:MOSNUM, when doing conversions, please use standard abbreviations: for example, miles -> mi, kilometers squared -> km², and pounds -> lb.
• Per WP:MOSNUM, please spell out source units of measurements in text; for example, "the Moon is 380,000 kilometres (240,000 mi) from Earth.

• Per WP:CONTEXT and WP:BTW, years with full dates should be linked; for example, link January 15, 2006, but do not link January 2006.
• Generally, trivia sections are looked down upon; please either remove the trivia section or incorporate any important facts into the rest of the article.

Does this refer to "Other facts"? If so, why don't we call it "Ivory-billed Woodpecker in popular culture"? SP-KP 16:50, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

• Please alphabetize the interlanguage links.

Done already? SP-KP 16:41, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

• There are a few occurrences of weasel words in this article- please observe WP:AWT. Certain phrases should specify exactly who supports, considers, believes, etc., such a view. For example,
  • apparently
  • might be weasel words, and should be provided with proper citations (if they already do, or are not weasel terms, please strike this comment).
• Watch for redundancies that make the article too wordy instead of being crisp and concise. (You may wish to try Tony1's redundancy exercises.)
  • Vague terms of size often are unnecessary and redundant - “some”, “a variety/number/majority of”, “several”, “a few”, “many”, “any”, and “all”. For example, “All pigs are pink, so we thought of a number of ways to turn them green.”
• As is done in WP:FOOTNOTE, for footnotes, the footnote should be located right after the punctuation mark, such that there is no space inbetween. For example, change blah blah [2]. to blah blah.[2]
• Please ensure that the article has gone through a thorough copyediting so that the it exemplifies some of Wikipedia's best work. See also User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 2a.

You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, AZ _t 00:28, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

• A few notes (more soon, but today has been super busy).

• The intro is lopsided, almost all of it is about the rediscovery.
• The biology section is unreferenced. It is also worth noting strongly that much of the biology of this species is conjecture or extrapolation from a few scattered observations. The species was studied by very few people before it vanished.
• Almost no mention is made of the Cuban population - which lasted into the eighties if I recall. The Cuban Ivory-bill was a separate subspecies.

• I'll try and help some later. Sabine's Sunbird talk 07:59, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

• Those big quote sections with the blue quote marks, which were added after the GA status was approved, are really distracting. They generally get pinged on during a FA canidacy. I'd at least remove the blue quotes. Italics may work and large quotes are sometimes suitable for wikisource. Rlevse 09:59, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

• I agree there are way too much quotes inside the "possible rediscovery" section
• "Breeding biology" is only one paragraph. It should probably be expanded in a "behavior" section, or somethig similar.
• A distribution map, if relevant would be an asset.
• Looks to me like many level 2 headers should be combined under a larger "history" section.

Circeus 19:52, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

References

Firefly (TV series)

Looking for some ideas to help promote this article to FA status. Tuvas 19:28, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

• Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, AZ _t 14:09, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Looks good. All images need Fair use rationale. There are too many one sentence or very short paragraphs, many can probably be merged. Ex: Signature show elements can really be one large paragraph instead of three tiny ones. Shouldn't the Synopsis include Simon and River being chased by the Alliance since that was a significant part of the show? The Cast section sometimes gets into original research by anaylizing the characters, this analiysis should be referenced or rewritten. I really would like to see Original airing rewritten into prose and better referencing. The article is missing critical reception information. In DVD release Technical specifications and Features are not encyclopedic and should be removed. Good luck Medvedenko 06:26, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks! Have added the fair use rationale, and tightened up some paragraphs. Added to the synopsis and tried to trim out some OR in Cast but it still needs work. On some of them, I cited the episode where a particular trait was revealed, is that okay? Redid Original Airing, but it still needs refs. Coincidentally I had added critical reception, must have been after you'd seen it. Removed tech specs and features from DVD. -plange 21:13, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Its much improved, still needs a thorough copyedit though. Medvedenko 03:03, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Just went through whole article and corrected sentence structure, grammar, etc. I also added actor's names when character is first mentioned. -plange 04:09, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Nice article. A few thoughts:

• If possible, flesh out the Themes section a bit more - it seems a bit weak at the moment.
• The characters section seems a bit overfull - all it really needs is a one or two line summary of the character, with everything else on the page for that character. e.g. the remark about Malcolm Reynolds being #18 in TV Guide's Greatest SciFi legends should only be present on Malcolm Reynolds, not this page.
• It may be worth putting a one- or two-sentance summary for each of the episodes in the episodes table, similar to how the characters section is done.
• The soundtrack "see also" link is to a redirect, and should probably be a "main article" link.
• "In its October 3 review, Salon.com stated: ..." - what year? Also, the date wants to be wikilinked (e.g. October 3 2002). In the same section, you've got a review comment which isn't in a box, unlike all the others.
• Consider removing the external links from within the page, confining them to the end of the page. They're especially noticable in the reviews section.
• You've got a few citation needed labels around - they need sorting out. (Specifically, at the end of the comics and film sections.)
• A pet hate of mine is having IMDB, TV.com and official website links in both the infobox at the top of the page and the External Links section. I tend to prefer having them only in the infobox.
• Note that all dates should be in the same form, e.g. 'January 2, 2006' (with appropriate linking). A lot of your references had the date in the format 2006-01-02, which doesn't display too nicely when you're not logged in/have no date preference set (the exception being the 'accessdate' in the cite templates, which requires the date in that format). Also, it's best to use the 'date' section of the cite tags for the full date rather than the 'year' section. (I've just fixed most of those.)

If you have any questions about any of these points, drop me a line on my talk page (I don't watch this page). --Mike Peel 21:59, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, I've trimmed down the characters and addressed most of your concerns. Will tackle the rest shortly, thanks! -plange 14:32, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

• Much phrasing tightening to be done - paragraphs often consist of simple declarative sentences that are not phrased in such a way as to flow into each other, producing a choppy effect. Pairs of sentences like "Settlers and refugees on the outlying worlds have relative freedom from the central government, but lack the amenities of the high-tech civilization that exist on the inner worlds. The captain of the crew of Serenity is Malcolm "Mal" Reynolds (Nathan Fillion) and the episode "Serenity" establishes that the Captain and his first mate Zoë (Gina Torres) are veteran "Browncoats" of the Unification War, a failed attempt by the outlying worlds to resist the Alliance's assertion of control." do not flow well at all.
• The synopsis sections could better adhere to WP:WAF. Things like "Much of his and his crew's work consists of cargo runs or smuggling." could be changed to something like "Mal describes his work as 'Insert quote here' in a way that would be more informative.
• Signature show elements... nothing about the dialogue?
• The themes section is trying to come to a point, but reads as a disconnected set of trivia. Back up and use some quotes from Whedon and Minear about the overall theme, and then zoom in to specific examples. Right now it's got too many tangents - Fox's disapproval, Joss's favorite scenes, etc. But right now this feels like facts in search of a section.
• Broadcast history is perhaps excessive. I don't think we need to have the episode order for every country the show aired in.
• The success of the revival campaigns in getting the movie made should be discussed in the cancellation section.
• Music should go after production, as it's an aspect of production.
• Reception should go closer to cancellation, as they're related issues (Both being about how the public recieved the show, ultimately)
• The reception section is too hagiographic - extended reviewer quotes, Fireflyseason2.com, Serenity Day, and the Stargate shout-out are probably all unnecessary, and only of fannish interest.
• Awards, being a list, should be towards the end.
• I cannot wrap my head around having the movie, which is clearly the most important spin-off, relegated after the books and comics. I'm not even sure the movie deserves to be called a spin-off - it seems rather more than that, and it seems to me like an expansion of the movie section would be reasonable - things like how it did and what plot threads it picked up on.

Phil Sandifer 14:53, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

More inline references would be nice. References not inline should be renamed further reading, since it's near impossible to verify if they were used and for what facts. Some sections are stub sections and should be expanded (Role-playing game, Videos). There should be no external links in body (transform them into proper inline citations). There seem to be too many quotes, and personally I dislike blockquotes, consider moving some of them to Wikiquote.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus  talk}  16:01, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Xerox

I recently did a major cleanup on this one, some rewriting, etc. It's not in a bad state, but needs improving, any ideas ? (except for references, I know it needs more references). — Wackymacs 14:54, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

• Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, AZ _t 19:19, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
• More inline citations are of course welcomed. 'Current products' and 'Corporate structure' are stub sections and need expantion, while half of the article is taken by 'Alleged accounting irregularities', reflecting the somewhat 'newsy' nature of what many editors like to write about. The article should be expanded until 'Alleged accounting irregularities' are only one of many large sections. Consider contacting the company, maybe they will send some of their staff to work on it?-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus  talk}  16:04, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Aztec

This article has been promoted to being a good article. We believe it is close to being a featured article and are looking for ways to improve it. We recognize that lack of citations is a major weakness keeping us from attaining FA status. However, we are looking for other suggestions for improvement (and help in implementing those suggestions if you can provide it).

--Richard 15:11, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

• Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, AZ _t 15:35, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Many more inline citations are needed, the reference section if not inline cited is as good as further reading. I would recommend you take a look at our currently featured articles about past civilizations: Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, Indo-Greek Kingdom, Sassanid Empire are good examples. The current Aztec article seems to miss sections on economy and geography (lands it controlled, administrative subdivisions, etc.).-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus  talk}  16:10, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Pericles

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

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

Clay Aiken

Article looks good, well-researched, thorough. Could probably use some tweaking before it gets nominated for a good article. Any suggestions?--Esprit15d 20:43, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

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

Indian Institute of Technology, Kharagpur

I have been dedicatedly working on this article since 14 July. After taking extensive cues from other Featured Articles of the same type Michigan State University and University of Michigan, I think I need the community's opinion on how to further improve the article. Some paragraphs in the article have been directly copied from another featured article Indian Institutes of Technology. One possible issue with this article can be that I have used IIT Kharagpur's own published source as a reference many times. However, I don't think this would be detrimental for the neutrality and comprehensiveness of the article as most such info is regarding the institute's own establishments, programs, etc. and no judgement has been used from them. I eventually plan to make this article a Featured Article, and I feel that the article isn't very far from it. — Ambuj Saxena (talk) 20:17, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

If you took portions from Indian Institutes of Technology, your article may have the same sorts of prose problems that were revealed in Wikipedia:Featured article review/Indian Institutes of Technology. The article needs a thorough copyedit by someone not familiar with the text. For example (these are only examples to show the density of problems):

• Long sentence, difficult to wind through: Like other IITs, it was established to train scientists and engineers in order to develop a national skilled work-force with the aim of bolstering economic and social development of India after it attained independence from British rule in 1947.
• IIT Kharagpur is possibly the only major technical institution in the world that started life in a prison house. Reword to avoid the need to say "possibly": in an encyclopedia, we need to know if it is or if it isn't.
• After the IIT Council, the organisational structure of IITs separate. I don't know what that means.
• Admission to most undergraduate and postgraduate courses in IIT Kharagpur is granted through various written entrance examinations. Go through the article and reduce redundancies. The campus currently has 29 academic departments, centres and schools and 18 hostels (called "Halls of Residence", or just Halls).
• More redundancy and grammar errors: Over the years, tThe library has grown on to be the biggest technical library in Asia[10] and Because of provisions and powers granted by the Indian Institutes of Technology Act, IIT Kharagpur drafts own curricula to adapt to the changes in educational requirements, free from bureaucratic hurdles. Drafts its own?

That is only a random run-through, picking random sentences here and there, which indicate the need for a complete copy edit.

There are entire sections which are unreferenced (for example, Alumni). Also, put your categories in alphabetical order. Sandy 22:36, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Hi Sandy, thanks for the review. I have thoroughly copyedited the prose, and hopefully done what you asked for. I have removed one speculation from the alumni section. Other than that, I feel nothing else needs citation (hoping you won't ask for citation that a particular person was an IIT KGP alumni). — Ambuj Saxena (talk) 06:05, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

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

Kingdom of Jerusalem

I think this article has the potential to be a Featured Article someday. A lot of work has been done on it in the past year or so, by me and by many other editors, both respected regulars and anonymous IPs. I know there are many things left to be done; the Kingdom of Acre section should be expanded, it could use some better pictures, and these days an FA would never pass without inline references, but ideas from fresh eyes would also be helpful. Adam Bishop 19:23, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

• Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, AZ _t 01:45, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

The Reputation

I've been working on and off on this for the last month or two to clean it up as a possible good/featured candidate. As I've never gotten to this point with an article, and I'm really the only person who's touched it, I'm looking for any pointers I can get to get it up to that point, if even possible. --badlydrawnjeff talk 18:37, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

• Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, AZ _t 01:45, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

35 mm film

This is the first collaboration of WikiProject Filmmaking. We're about to move on to the next one, so it would be nice to get some other eyes on this one before sending along to FAC. I'll be available to respond and rewrite in the evenings; other project members may also be available for comment. Many thanks in advance for all critiques offered! Girolamo Savonarola 16:42, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

• Generally a well-written interesting article. A few comments:

• Amateur formats - doesn't seem directly related to 35mm especially the 8mm reference
• How film works - this section is a bit too detailed: there is section about static build-up for example. Since there is a whole article on the subject, I would think this section would benefit from some trimming.
• References, although good are spotty. There are heavily referenced statements mixed with sections without references.
• Normal WP:MOS checking needs to be carried out; Non breaking space between measurements,not repeating the title in the headings (so 'History' rather than 'History of 35mm film') etc.

Apart from that I think it is a winner. Yomangani 16:25, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments!

1. I've tried to rewrite the amateur section to mainly highlight the divergence of the amateurs from 35mm usage.
2. I haven't gotten around to the "how film works" section, but it should be noted that photographic film doesn't really discuss the matter to as much depth, nor does any other article I am aware of. It may perhaps be more appropriate for expansion in another article. However, some components of motion picture film are not found in still films, including things like remjet backing. Static is also more of a problem for cine film since it is moving at a very fast speed, unlike stills film stock. I'll take a look and see what can be managed, but maybe at least a basic description of the process along with the key differences from still film is a better idea?
3. As far as references go, I think I probably see what you're talking about, but just so that I know precisely: which sections?
4. Non-breaking spaces implemented; heading corrected.
5. I've also looked over the automated comments and tried to address most of the suggestions.

Many thanks again, and please keep the critique coming! Girolamo Savonarola 22:14, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

1. That improved it, it now seems to have some relation to the topic
2. It might be an idea to have it in its own article or as a section in photographic film - otherwise I'll guess you'll be repeating it in any 16mm and 8mm articles as well
3. Just some examples (there are a few trailing sentences in other sections apart from these):

• 1.37:1 (1.33:1) "Academy" - first sentence cited only
• Widescreen - first half cited, second half not
• Super 35 - no citations in the second half
• 3-Perf, VistaVision and 35 mm still photography - no citations
• New innovations in sound - no citations Yomangani 23:58, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

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

United States Navy

old peer review: Wikipedia:Peer review/United States Navy/archive1

Submitting for second peer review, just to get some more comments. Arcimpulse 20:24, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

First pass here - I think it is a very good article! A small point, but do you think a reference to Alfred Thayer Mahan in the neighborhood of the Civil War to WWI history would be useful? I don't want to overemphasize something unimportant, but it has been my understanding that he was a chief architect of the "expand the Navy" philosophy. Kaisershatner 20:13, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Maulana Abul Kalam Azad

Hi Y'all - let's snatch the bounty and make this great man's biography an FA. All help and advice is welcome. This Fire Burns Always 02:01, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

• Comments by Dwaipayan

1. Have posted some Citation needed tags, and a few embedded comments in the article. Please address those.
2. The inline citations are from just two web sources. Should be more broadly resourced. I shall be trying the book "India Wins Freedom", if something can be brought from it.
3. Commemoration sounds like original research.
4. When did he die? --Dwaipayan (talk) 07:34, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

More comments:

Lead: Starts with "..was a poet, writer..". But his primary identity is as a politician, that should be the first thing mentionrd. Also, not much is there in the article to establish Azad as a poet.--Dwaipayan (talk) 11:07, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

• Publication of 30 pages of India wins freedom were withheld at the time as per Azad's wishes and released 30 years after his death. There were some articles in newspapers about it at the time but I can't remember whether it contained anything interesting or controversial. Please try to check the details just to be sure. Tintin (talk) 11:55, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

• Can someone please search for pictures of young Azad? I'm doing my best but can't find any. This Fire Burns Always 17:45, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

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

Ahmose I

A general review for clarity and good english language stuff would be a good idea, I think. Ultimatly, I and another editor want to see this be a good article and potentially a featured article, and we have both exhausted our own resources and would prefer to have solid books by doctorate posessing Egyptologists, so if there are any obvious holes that need to be filled in, it would be good to neatly and clearly identify them, because filling them will require some pretty deep reasearch. ThanksThanatosimii 01:41, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

• It's difficult to know how much more info is out there, but the only obvious gap is in the monuments section: In Upper Egypt, he built at the temple of Amun at Karnak, and at the temple of Monthu at Armant. Considering these are listed as his major monuments in the infobox it would be nice to see more than a sentence on them. Aside from that it is a well-written interesting and well referenced article. Yomangani 11:37, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

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

America 24/7

Fairly new article about American culture. How can the article be improved. I know that it is simply short and an expansion would be good. I have a copy of the book, if that gives any perspective on citing the book itself. Thanks, Iolakana|^T 20:40, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

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

Bikini Bottom

Wikipedia:Peer review/Bikini Bottom/archive1

This article has improved a lot since the last peer review and its well on its way to being a featured article. The lists have been removed, it relates to the real world, there is now a picture of the city, it broadly covers the subject, etc. There may be a few problems left with this article, such as the fact that most of the images do not have fair use rationales and that the table of contents is too long. Any suggestions on how to improve the article further would be appreciated. Squirepants101 01:59, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

It's far too in universe - it's not enough to just say 'such and such is a fictional...' and then go on in the rest of the article treating it as if it's real. All of your citations are to the show itself - did the creators of the show ever discuss Bikini Bottom in interviews etc.? -Malkinann 04:02, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Note that it was AMK152 who did most of these things, not me. Squirepants101 12:30, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

I meant the plural 'your', sorry for the confusion. -Malkinann 10:10, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Dime (United States coin)

I think this article is nearly ready for Featured Article status, but would like to get some objective thoughts before submitting it. --cholmes75 ^{(chit chat)} 18:22, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

• Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, AZ _t 01:47, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Nhat Hanh

The article about Thich Nhat Hanh has been evolving slowly over time, and I would like to see it gain featured article status. I've been working on references for the article to include sources outside of "official" or "friends of TNH" sites to make it more reliable. At this point, I'd love to hear additional opinions on how to improve the writing and fine tune the article.

• Should the article contain information about TNH's teaching? A discussion about this can be found on the archived talk page. The snippet about his teachings that was in the article in the past sounded more like a press release than a good analysis. If the teachings are included I would think the focus should be:
  • How his teachings are different from other teachers
  • How have his teachings contributed to a "Western Buddhism"
  • What points of criticism have there been about his teachings from others?
  • Other issues/points of interest?
• Footnotes and references
  • Is the best format being used on the page?
  • What, if anything, should be improved?

Thank you for your time and efforts in reading the article and makeing recommendations.Nightngle 15:12, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

• Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, AZ _t 01:39, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Rocky Steps

• I would appreciate any and all feedback. --evrik 19:20, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
  • The article doesn't really go into the steps, just why they're well known as the Rocky steps and things related to that. When were they built? Who decided to put large steps there and why? Information like that. I imagine there is at least one book that goes into the history of the museum. The steps might have an alternate name also, they weren't known as Rocky steps before Rocky. More about the controversy with the Rocky statue, the effort to bring it back and the descision to put it near the base of the steps can be added. I bet there have been studies about tourism to the steps also. One final note, references should be in a proper format. Good luck. Medvedenko 20:19, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

• Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, AZ _t 01:38, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Community

Hundereds of Wikipedia articles link to this article and it nearly always filters to the top of Google searches with the term "community" in them. In addition, "this article has been identified by the Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team as a Core Topic, one of the 150 most important articles for any encyclopedia to have." The text is awkward, there are very few authoritative sources and references cited, and the structure seems to be a bit unconventional in terms of Wikipedia style. Please lend a hand to help get this article at least up to GA status! Thanks in advance. CQ 19:52, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

• Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, AZ _t 00:36, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

OK, thanks. We're hoping some Humans would take a look at it, too. • CQ 01:37, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I usually hope for that too. Still:

• Quite a few one sentence paragraphs, especially in the lead. If I remember correctly WP:MOS advises against this.
• The lead is probably a little short. It should give an overview of the article. And you probably shouldn't have a section called overview either. Sorry!
• You will get picked up for not having inline citations of your references. The practical consequence of having only very few is that I can't tell which references you have used to provide which facts, either to confirm that they are right or to find out more about that particular bit of the topic.
• I can't reference this (or at least I'm not going to, this is only a quick review!) but I think you'll find that the progression from hunter gatherer to city dweller was much less linear and inevitable than the article describes. In the Middle East there was a lengthy period in which communities drifted back and forth between the two lifestyles before agriculture really kicked off. Some hunter gatherer societies reached levels of complexity equivalent to less complex agrarian ones - in the American North West, for example. You might do better to reflect this.
• Under 'Types of community' Why does Community of place appear at the bottom under 'Other classifications' as well as apparently being the main article for 'Location'?
• 'Challenge of Community' doesn't sound very encyclopaedic. What is the point that the article is trying to make here?
• The automated suggestions are actually quite useful I find. Give them a go. If you want to return the favour, by the way, why not have a look at Brabham. I'm looking for views from non-motorsports fans and I've got a theory that if everyone who puts an article up for Peer Review reviews two other articles, we'd all get a lot more use out of this process! 4u1e 21:26, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments 4u1e. We're working on the issues you mentioned. The article has undergone a massive re-write since AndyZ's script was run and much has changed. Maybe I'll ask him to run it again. We concur that the 'Types of community' section is a bit cumbersome, and we'll be dealing with that. Also, we're looking for more sources and more international coverage of the topic. The topic has proven to be so broad and abstract, it has made sourcing and referencing quite a challenge. Please feel free to join the conversation at Talk:Community and we'll do the same at Talk:Brabham Racing Organisation. I certainaly agree with your theory about the peer review process! Thanks again! • CQ 12:28, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

The article has improved significantly since I last checked it few months ago, and it is certainly an extremly important subject. As such, it should have many more inline citations, preferably academic. Preferably every single fact should be referenced - and currently we have entire sections with no reference at all (for example, 'Significance of community'). Notes and references should be merged, and if something is not an inline citation it is more of a 'further reading' then any reference. It's great that it already cites an important work like Putnam's Bowling Alone, but it needs more important publications; there is not a single academic journal used in references as far as I can tell. Notable authors should be ilinked, like Ferdinand Tönnies or Robert Putnam, not only in text but in reference section, too (so should titles of notable publications). One of the key issues is definition: while there is no one definition of community, I think the article should cite several by most notable scholars. See also should be as short as possible, with its links incorporated into main article. Last but not least, I would suggest trying for an WP:ACPR and get this article reviewed by a scholar specializing in community (I may know a person like that, let me know when the article is ready for FAC and I will do this before FAC).-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus  talk}  15:57, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments and what I'm taking as a "vote of confidence", Piotrus. I think we've made the classic mistake of trying to source an article to what we've written rather than first gathering the sources, then writing the article. All of the issues you brought up are being dealt with and this article's ambition is to become FAC material, so jump on in if you have the time. We could use your expertice. Please also have a look at the List of community topics, where I've started a Sources and references section to do the "gathering" of such. I know you're busy but if you have the time, go for it. Thanks again • CQ 20:36, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

• Good article (I promoted it as such). My only suggestion is don't feel forced to discuss every aspect of community. Sometimes the best thing for articles on subjects as broad as this one is for them to leave a few points out so that they can really focus on their main points. Some sections such as Communitarianism might be worth reconsidering from this perspective. However there were no major problems and the only real concern I had was with the Community service sub-section that seemed tacked on and completely disconnected from the rest of the article. Cedars 10:31, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Procellariidae

Following on from albatross, another family of seabirds I think can reach FA status. Hopefully you'll find it informative well referenced and illustarted, and hopefully you'll find everything that's wrong with it now so I can correct it before FAC. Just a word of warning; for reasons that are too complicated to go into yet actually make perfect sense, I can only access the internet between 800-1030 in the evening Hawaiian time. I will reply to comments, but allow for the time lag. Thanks. Sabine's Sunbird talk 08:48, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Here are some initial comments/questions from me. More to come on a second read-through no doubt:

General comments

• I'd like to see lots more inline references for specific facts

• been doing, and will do more of Sabine's Sunbird talk 06:40, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

• Check spelling of procellarid/iid consistent & correct throughout

• Done. Procellariid is the correct spelling, anything else was a typo. Sabine's Sunbird talk 08:15, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

• Link species names in picture captions where appropriate

• I'll deal with this.

• Sort out the redlinks

• I'll work on this, it's mostly procellariid species Sabine's Sunbird talk 08:15, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

• Any general topic headings which we included in the Albatross article which aren't covered here?

• Yes, culture. Quite frankly I'm hard pressed to find any examples of procellariids in a cultural context. They just don't grab people the way albatrosses or penguins or puffins do. Sabine's Sunbird talk 08:15, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Lead

• Paragraph 1 - Procellaridae is (or perhaps even better comprises, although then we'd have two uses of comprise), but not are - grammatical hobbyhorse of mine, sorry

• Feel free to try and reword it, dyslexia makes grammer a different country to me.Sabine's Sunbird talk 06:44, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

• Paragraph 1 - do all members of the family fall into one of those four subgroups?

• Yes no maybe. Long answer - probably, the four group thing kind of works but is a human way of understanding something more complex. There is some controversy about whether some species belong where. Pseudobulweria behaves like a gadfly petrel, for example, but is probably closer to the shearwaters genetically. This could be made clearer in the section on taxonomy, I conceed, but probably does not need to be dealt with in the intro. Sabine's Sunbird talk 06:44, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

• Paragraph 1 - wikilink order

• Explain. Sabine's Sunbird talk 06:44, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Sorry. What I meant was - can we wikilink the word "order" to "order (biology)" SP-KP 08:38, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

• Paragraph 2 - can we back up the statement about the family being the most diverse?

• I was refering to the diversity in lifestyles, large carrion eaters and small filter feeders and ariel snatchers and deep divers. Compared to the three other families this is much more diverse. I have no idea how you'd cite that. Sabine's Sunbird talk 06:44, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

• Paragraph 2 - are the characterising characteristics diagnostic of this family?

• Gah. Probably - though as I said in the talk page that section is left over from he original article that I started on. Interestingly Schrieber and Burger describe the Procellariidae as 'Being distinguished from the other three families by lacking their charecteristics', a supremeley helpful statement. ;P Sabine's Sunbird talk 06:40, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

• Paragraph 2 - Septum links to a disambig page

• fixed

• Paragraph 2 - "all species lay a single egg" ...? Recipe for extinction if you ask me :-)

• fixed

• Paragraph 2 - exceptionally long for all procedllarids compared with?

• clarified

• Paragraph 3 - repeat use of exceptionally too soon? also this sentence could be punctuated better

• reworded

• Paragraph 3 - species repeat use - and can we do better than "introduced species" - how about introudced mammals or are we not just talking mammals here?

• mammals and plants - though mammals are the worst for sure. The repetition doesn't bother me. Sabine's Sunbird talk 06:44, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Taxonomy / evolution

• Paragraph 1 - how about spelling out C-T?

• kay.

• Paragraph 1 - Is there universal agreeement on S&A's findings on origins? If so great, but what about some historical perspective; if not, then let's see alternative views

• no, of course not. Perhaps the page on Procellariformes is the best place for a discussion on the various theories and timelines. The order of the split is backed up, however, by Nunn and Stanley's 1998 paper, which I used to restructure the taxonomy section. Sabine's Sunbird talk 06:40, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

• Paragraph 1 - How close in time were the four family splits - procellarids split most recently but was that 29.9 MYA or ... ?

• jeez. I don't have that book with me anymore. I'll try and find out elsewhere.Sabine's Sunbird talk 06:44, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

• Paragraph 1 - could you say when the Oligo & Miocenes were for ignoramuses like me
• Paragraph 2 - in the lead we just said fulmars but here we say fulmarine petrels - internal consistency needed

• fixed

• Paragraphs 2 onwards - subsection headings for each of the four subgroups maybe

• I'd prefer not to - the Prion section is very small and the others aren't huge. Sabine's Sunbird talk 06:44, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

• Paragraph 3 - small to medium size, can we be more precise

• fixed Sabine's Sunbird talk 08:03, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

• Paragraph 3 - not all gadfly petrels are uniformly black are they e.g. Fea's

• fixed

• Paragraph 3 - some experts assert ... - can we be more specific

• I do, in the bottom paragraph

• Paragraph 3 - not enough work ... POV

• POV? It's just a way of saying that the definitive treatment on the genus has not been done.

• Paragraph 4 - "large bills filed WITH lamellae" ?

• quite

• Paragraph 4 - perhaps a comma between grey & patterned?

• done

• Paragraph 5 - and should be an

• don't follow?

• Paragraph 5 - which species got down to 70m

dealt with further on in the article in two placesSabine's Sunbird talk 06:44, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

• Paragraph 5 - perhaps say that Procellarias aren't usually called by the name shearwater

• Done

• Paragraph 6 - a recent WHAT splits?

• yikes, fixedSabine's Sunbird talk 06:44, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

• Paragraph 6 - not completely sure I can follow the story re: Puffins/Neonectris origins
• Paragraph 6 - the two genera, Pseudo... comma is rogue

• if you say so. Removed Sabine's Sunbird talk 06:44, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

• Paragraph 6 - don't the comments about the subgroups of Pterodroma belong in the gadfly petrel paragraph, and can we expand them?

• I can probably expand them but I was presenting all the newer developments in the last paragraph. I'd appreciate thoughts on how to restructure the whole of this section if it can be done better. Sabine's Sunbird talk 06:44, 27 July 2006 (UTC) - UPDATE - Changed my mind and agree with you - done. Sabine's Sunbird talk 07:46, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

• Paragraph 6 - the last sentence would fit well in the lead IMO

Morphology & flight

• What's a "patchy area of prey"?

• clarified

• the soaring types can be wikilinked I think?

clarified

• is it just the giant petrels that have the shoulder lock?

yes, hopefully clarified

Distribution and range

• od -> of

• fixed

• undertake transequatorial WHAT

• fixed

• expermiments typo

• fixed

• have there been multiple disp experiments - which other species?

• Possibly, I'll have to hunt and look.

Diet

• sentences containing "In conjunction with" anmd "Wedge-tailed Shear" don't quite read right to me
• here we say only three of the six prions have lamellae - didn't it say all above?

• quite right - I worte the six bit before I found out onlty three of them have them. Sabine's Sunbird talk 08:15, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

• conjenction typo

• fixeed

• TRopical typo

• fixed

Breeding

• 1st para - can we give examples of inland/montane breeders

• example provided

• 3rd para - appears to conradict itself in the first & third sentences - do the majority breed above or under ground?

• no, I've clarified. Open ground refered to the habitat, not the location. Sabine's Sunbird talk 08:15, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

• lattitudes typo x2

• corrected

• Sentence with "Procellarids that" - punctuate better?

Mate & site fidelity

• seveal, streches typos

• fixed

• "most for species" doesn't quite read right

• yep, it doesn't read right. Does now. Sabine's Sunbird talk 08:15, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

• what's billing?

explained, hopefully)

breeding season

• same comment as per lead re: single egg

• clarified

• procellarids chicks - rogue s

• removed

exploitation

• strictly speaking "BP" shouldn't be used in WP articles, even though I dislike the alternatives

• huh? Okay, I changed it to years ago (even though it sounds like a story now)

I need to explain this in a bit more detail, and possibly backtrack. Basically, in a guideline somewhere (so I'm told) it says that all dates should be absolute not relative, so that if an article isn't edited for 100 years, it's still accurate. I think this is mainly intended as a guideline for avoiding things like "recently", "in the last month" etc. so maybe BP is OK, in fact. I'll try to track down the exact page and see what it actually says! SP-KP 08:43, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

• I have a preference for "become extinct" over "go extinct" as I think it reads better - could be just me though

• I think I prefer gone extinct myself.

• shearwtaer typo

• fixed

threats

• what does "ecologically naive" mean?
• ", or , more commonly" - rogue space

• fixed

• easily stage shoul say early stage

• fixed

Species

• Puting the list elsewhere is good given the length of it but can we put any summarising facts in this section?

Nothing springs to mind that isn't repeating what's already there. I'll think about it. Sabine's Sunbird talk 08:15, 27 July 2006 (UTC) Changed my mind, agree with you, done. Sabine's Sunbird talk 08:03, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

external links

• a brief comment against each would be good

SP-KP 23:05, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Eeeexcellent. Good eye there SP-KP. I've begun to fix what's wrong, I'll do some more after dinner. Thanks muchly. Sabine's Sunbird talk 06:44, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I've fixed most everything. A few points need thinking about (I need to work out what to do), and I'd suggest that other people help with where my ability to insert commas falls down. Sabine's Sunbird talk 08:15, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Quick replies on a couple of things above. SP-KP 08:58, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

• Update. I have added some more citations and clarified some more things. In particular I have beaten the taxonomy section with a hose and added a rough cladogram to try and show where the genera fall in modern thinking. Hopefully this has imporved matters some. Sabine's Sunbird talk 07:28, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

• Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, AZ _t 17:05, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

• Thanks, I have dealt with the points raised, although two instances of recently have been left in as they refer to longer periods of time ('the storm petrels split, and more recently the procellariids') which won't date. Sabine's Sunbird talk 08:16, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Grand Duchess Olga Alexandrovna of Russia

Hello, the article has undergone major readjustments and is now complete (information-wise) and follows the featured articles criteria. However, the article also needs to undergo a thorough grammar and usage check. Also, the article images are not under the best usage category and should be for the public domain of Wikipedia. Minor details that are easily overlooked is most likely the main priority that needs assistance. Personally, I would like to know your opinion and advice on how to better the article further and prepare it for featured article candidacy. Thank you very much, AJ24 19:11, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

• Too much bolding. Only one inline citation, external links in body (should be transformed into inline cits).-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus  talk}  16:05, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

• Which area contains too much bolding?. Citations and references of the article are currently under construction. Thank You for your comments. -- AJ24 23:42, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Check WP:LEAD#Bold_title. Basically this is the only recommended used of bold text throughout the entire article.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus  talk}  16:20, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Kiddy Grade

I have just spent time readjusting the content but not the written text of the page above, and wish to be advised on how to proceed. This (thankful) request also includes the character page listed through this helpful little box. The text on all the pages was mainly copied from other sites by previous people, which is a BIG reason to change it. I will be thankful for any suggestions! --Crampy20 21:53, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

• Indeed, good work so far. I think discussing the characters should wait until after the AFD is over. Stifle (talk) 13:14, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Category:Kiddy Grade

• Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, AZ _t 01:47, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

• See Excel Saga for a FA class anime article. Characters should be briefly summarized in the article, as should the world. Episode list is ugly - could use a screencap from each episode and a summary. Current summary is completly unwikified (no hyperlinks). Theme songs is barely a stub section (list of two...), should be merged with soundtracks and expanded. No inline citations, sources should be renamed references, see Wikipedia:Citing sources. Is there no manga? It should also be described. Critical reception (reviews, rankings, etc.) section is completly missing.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus  talk}  16:39, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
  • There are manga (see infobox on main article), but they were based on the anime rather than the other way around (the manga and novels, apart from the novelisations of the series itself, are all in the form of prequels/spinoffs/subplots to the main story). Most of the material has never been translated (although there are fan translations of one of the manga and a chapter of the other).

New York, Susquehanna and Western Railway

This article needs helpful suggestions and constructive criticism. Mostly, the later parts of the article talking about the 1990's and later need some help. It'd be great to see what other people think.
Kether83 23:51, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

It desparately needs a map. Mangoe 12:26, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

• Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, AZ _t 15:35, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

• I have given it a thorough copyedit. Mangoe 14:30, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

The Journey of a Thousand Miles

I would really like specific advice on how to improve this because there doesn't seem to be a single episode article with featured status. Jay32183 23:17, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

• Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, AZ _t 15:34, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

The trivia section has been removed. Any suggestions on the type of information that should be included in the expansion of the article would be very appreciated. Jay32183 15:42, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

I've added a new section, acr significance, that I think really needs some one to look at. Jay32183 18:09, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

History of role-playing games

Hoping to get this article up to GA or even FA quality - any suggestions? Percy Snoodle 12:27, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

• Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, AZ _t 01:47, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
• Seems very US centric. Doesn't mention Warhammer Fantasy Roleplay, one of the most popular rpgs in Europe. Doesn't mention the world Europe, even. And of course nothing about rpg in Japan, or well, anywhere outside US - which of course is treated as 'the world'. More inline citations are needed, and it doesn't seem to use any academic publications (all but one references are websites): I would strongly recommend reading such books like Shared Fantasy: Role Playing Games As Social Worlds by Gary Alan Fine, for example. The existing references are not formated properly: some are actually online reprints of journal articles and should be formatted acordingly. Last but not least, perhaps Tékumel, which formed an important part of Fine's research, should be mentioned.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus  talk}  16:22, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

I've added Tekumel and WFRP; thanks for that. Wikipedia has very few articles on Japanese RPGs - I could only find Alshard, Night Wizard! and Double Cross (role-playing game). None are more recent than 2001. It's hard to find info on japanese RPGs online; any search is swamped with CRPGs. Could you recommend a source for them? Percy Snoodle 12:19, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

I've found some info on trpg.net and added that. Percy Snoodle 12:34, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for adding a stub on Sword World; but the fact that article on "the most popular Japanese role-playing game" contains just one line just goes to show how much work we have to do to globalize the current rpg articles. Perhaps people at Wikipedia:Japan-related topics notice board could help with that article?-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus  talk}  16:20, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

This was done, and I'd like to praise Plumcherry's work on that article since. Percy Snoodle 18:10, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

While I am not very familiar with Japanese rpgs, I think Record of Lodoss War was based on one, and perhaps members of Wikipedia:WikiProject Anime and manga can help to identify some others. On that note, shouldn't the article describe historu of CRPGs too, as an important child of rpgs? PS. I would be happy to add a section on RPG in Poland, but I am not familar with RPGs in Europe to write a more general section on that - and even in history of Polish RPG I am not an expert.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus  talk}  16:14, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

I've added a short note on CRPGs. I wonder whether, since we have Category:Polish role-playing games, it would be worth creating an article on Polish role-playing games or perhaps Role-playing games in Poland to go in Category:Polish culture? I'll post notices on the articles you recommend asking for expansion of Sword World and the other Japanese RPGs. Percy Snoodle 09:18, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

It would, I just don't know when I get around to it. I wrote Polish comics and Science fiction and fantasy in Poland, so I have some ideas how to get started on that, too :) -- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  20:02, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Great work on the new article! I've put in a note in the 90's linking to it. Percy Snoodle 18:03, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

I thought that in the midsts of my remarks about US-centricism and need to globalize the article I should add a disclaimer that without a doubt US was a pioneer and (still is?) the most important market, and US games are much more often translated into other languages then the other way around, so the US section should likely be the largest. But currently US related topics cover over 90% of the article, and this is likely too much.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus  talk}  16:23, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

It is a concern. I'm writing this from the UK, so though I may have an English-language bias I doubt I'm US-centric. Most of the history of RPGs is likely concern the market leaders and innovators; the former are definitely the Americans; the latter, I'm not so sure. Percy Snoodle 09:18, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Brabham Racing Organisation

Article on an interesting F1 team. Looking far more comprehensive these days. Still quite a lot of tidying up to do and much more referencing to really tie it all down. Before I really get into the refining of all that though, with a view to heading for FA status, I'm looking for feedback on:

• Structure of the article - does splitting it out into so many sections work?
• Is the length and level of detail about right?
• Does this article work for a 'lay' reader? Have I assumed too much knowledge, or conversely, spelled things out in too much detail?

Thanks in advance for your views. 4u1e 19:41, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

(By the way, I'm not likely to reply in the next couple of days, but I should be around from Wednesday. 4u1e 19:43, 23 July 2006 (UTC))

I definately qualify a a 'lay' reader on any sort of auto racing, so there is way too much information there for me to digest. I would definately place a shortcut to Portal:Formula One one the page. I went ahead and linked "the 1966 and 1967 Drivers and Constructors championships" because those pages show the notability of Brabham quite clearly. See more comments here. • CQ 15:34, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

RESPONSE: Thanks CQ. I will consider putting a portal link on. In fact, perhaps we should do this on all the articles! If you can work your way through and come up with any further bits which make no sense to a new reader that would be great. Ta. 4u1e 18:42, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

FURTHER RESPONSE: Portal now linked as suggested. Ta. 4u1e 18:14, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

So far, I have only read the intro and glanced at the outline. The start is good overall.

1. At 30 KB, I would lean toward shortening the article. RESPONSE: Absolutely - I've still got quite a lot of redrafting to cut it down. There's still a bit of duplication where I've moved things around. Thanks for confirming my views! 4u1e 18:42, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
2. Does constructor mean anything other than essentially "who builds the cars"? I am unfamiliar with the word, and the link takes me to a list instead of an explanation. RESPONSE: Constructor is actually quite a complicated concept. I won't bore you with it here, but I'll see if there's something better to link to that goes into the murky details. 4u1e 18:42, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
3. I have no idea what "fan-car" is. Maurreen 16:25, 24 July 2006 (UTC) RESPONSE: That's meant to intrigue you and draw you further into the article, where it is covered! It's been wikilinked to the full article since your comment, but that rather short circuits the need to explain it at all later on in the article, because the linked article, naturally, gives more detail than is needed here. I may remove the wikilink in the lead and give a slightly bigger hint as to why it is interesting, and a (see below) to drive the point home. 4u1e 18:42, 25 July 2006 (UTC) FURTHER RESPONSE: Done. Although I left out the (see below) as being a hint too far 4u1e 18:14, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

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

• Thanks for your reply. A couple more thoughts on the intro: I would move up the 1966 championship to maybe the second sentence. It seems to be the most notable fact, so it should have a lot of prominence. Also, in probably the first sentence, I would indicate the team's duration. Maurreen 04:23, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

• Done, more or less. I couldn't see a way of squeezing more info into the first sentence, but the information is present in the order you suggest. I suspect I can do more to make it less opaque for non fans. 4u1e 18:14, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, that is better. Maurreen 17:05, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Larrys Creek

This has made good article, with some additions since. I am interested in general suggestions for improvement and if reviewers believe this could potentially be a Featured Article (I am not sure the topic is substantial enough). Basically, I have made most of the edits to this article and I would appreciate more input and feedback on it. I am working on other Pennsylvania creek articles and this is the model for those. Thanks for any feedback, Ruhrfisch 04:53, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

• Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, AZ _t 14:10, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Note: The automated suggestions are now pasted at the bottom of this page.

• • Thanks for the suggestions, I will note those I fix here as I do them. For now I fixed WP:MOSNUM issues (added "a non-breaking space...between a number and the unit of measurement" and "spell[ed] out source units of measurements in text"). Also linked "years with full dates" and "alphabetize[d] the categories". Ruhrfisch 02:58, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Removed "vague terms of size" Ruhrfisch 16:47, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Removed redundancies, added more info based on Wikipedia:WikiProject Rivers guidelines and tried tightening the intro section. Still need to add refs to intro and make it better reflect the article as a whole. Ruhrfisch 04:15, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
  • I believe I have now addressed all the automated peer review suggestions, and would appreciate any (non-automated) feedback). Thanks Ruhrfisch 15:17, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

WOULD SOMEONE PLEASE LOOK AT THIS ARTICLE AND REVIEW IT? I am very sorry to 'shout' but I am hoping to get someone's attention (and thanks again to AndyZ for the helpful semi-automated suggestions). Thanks, Ruhrfisch 16:08, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

• A few things I noticed:
  • in Lycoming County, Pennsylvania in the comma missing after Pennsylvania
  • The second sentence is a a bit too long
  • The Great Shamokin Path crossed the creek near its mouth,[5] where Larry Burt, the first settler (for whom Larrys Creek is named) also lived. comma missing after settler
  • and coal and iron mines extra "and"
  • Some words like northwest don't need to be linked – see WP:CONTEXT
  • the village of Cogan House, then under the Larrys Creek Covered Bridge missing and
  • It is 90 feet (27 m) long and a Burr arch truss bridge. I think it sounds slightly better without the "and a"
  • Camp Kiwanis, and the New Tribes Institute, a camp for preparing Christian missionaries. in lists of 2 items, the comma isn't necessary (and could a little bit be provided for Camp Kiwanis also?)
  • The Great Shamokin Path crossed the creek at a ford near its mouth, however, no trails of the indigenous peoples are recorded as having followed Larrys Creek north.[5] comma before however should be semicolon, or however should be changed to but
  • Lycoming County was formed from Northumberland County prompting further growth missing comma
• Thanks, AZ _t 20:49, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks so much - I believe these have all been addressed now. Ruhrfisch 05:01, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Automated Suggestions

Taken from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Peer_review/Automated/Archive_2#Larrys_Creek (cut and paste with wikilinks put back in, but not footnotes)

Larrys Creek The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program, and may or may not be accurate for the article in question.

• The lead of this article may be too long, or may contain too many paragraphs. Please follow guidelines at WP:LEAD; be aware that the lead should adequately summarize the article.
• Per WP:MOSNUM, there should be a non-breaking space -   between a number and the unit of measurement. For example, instead of 18mm, use 18 mm, which when you are editing the page, should look like: 18 mm.[4]
• Per WP:MOSNUM, please spell out source units of measurements in text; for example, "the Moon is 380,000 kilometres (240,000 mi) from Earth.[10]
• Per WP:CONTEXT and WP:BTW, years with full dates should be linked; for example, link January 15, 2006, but do not link January 2006.[2]
• Please alphabetize the categories.[11]
• Watch for redundancies that make the article too wordy instead of being crisp and concise. (You may wish to try Tony1's redundancy exercises.)
  • Vague terms of size often are unnecessary and redundant - “some”, “a variety/number/majority of”, “several”, “a few”, “many”, “any”, and “all”. For example, “All pigs are pink, so we thought of a number of ways to turn them green.”
• Please ensure that the article has gone through a thorough copyediting so that the it exemplifies some of Wikipedia's best work. See also User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 2a. [3]

You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, AZ _t 14:07, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Unfinished work

I don't think this can be expanded much further, but other people might have some ideas that I've not thought about yet. There are some references still needed, but I think the examples illustrate the article well. Any comments or ideas before I take it forward to FA? violet/riga (t) 15:14, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

It looks good and is well referenced, but reads a bit like a list. Also, Film should be moved to the end. Such short article generally don't make FA, Have you tried WP:GA?Self-Described Seabhcán 16:27, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

If it's complete then size doesn't matter for FA. I'll see if I can flesh things out to move it away from reading like a list. And the film section is first because it's alphabetical, though I could understand the chronological order idea. Thanks for the comments. violet/riga (t) 19:08, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

• Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, AZ _t 01:24, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Undergone several expansions, 22:56, 10 August 2006 (UTC) violet/riga (t)

Anton Bruckner

I am nominating this article for peer review for the express purpose of making it good enough to nominate for featured status. Specifically, I think the article could be better organized (e.g. smaller sections) and perhaps other general information could be added to round it out. Any kind of comments on style, organization, or ideas to make it "better" would be much appreciated. Thanks! Andrewski 23:25, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

• Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, AZ _t 01:37, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

• The applicable suggestions having been amended (by my reckoning), what's next for this article? --Andrewski 03:52, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Elevator

A long article which is quite impressive in its coverage. Some referencing and tightening could put it on the fast track to FA status. - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 16:07, 24 July 2006 (UTC)\

You can start by turing the list in the "Types of elevator hoist mechanisms" (more specifically the "Hydraulic type") section into a prosaic paragraph. Other sections such as the "Controls in early elevators" and "The elevator algorithm" can also be improved in the same way. The lists at the end of the article sould be moved to their own article along with most of the larger sections to comply with WP:SUMMARY. The lead needs to be expanded to comply with WP:LEAD. Tarret 12:59, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

• Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, AZ _t 01:47, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

A few things I notice, that in my view can be improved as it heads towards FA candidacy:

• Lead is too short, as Tarret mentioned.
• Needs footnotes, at approximately 1 per paragraph.
• Some 55 items are on the table of contents, this could be reduced to a fraction of this. I suggest merging many sections, or using ;heading for many of the sub headings.
• Paragraphs are often short and choppy, often they are one sentance long or bulleted items. These can be merged and expanded into full paragraphs.

Apart from these concerns, it is a very informative article with good use of illustrations. Best of luck. DVD+ R/W 05:26, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Good article - A few points though.

• Support all of the above comments, particularly regarding lead length and TOC length.
• "A special type of elevator is the paternoster, a constantly moving chain of boxes. A similar concept moves only a small platform, which the rider mounts while using a handhold and was once seen in multi-story industrial plants." If you read the article on Paternosters instances are given (particularly in Europe) of their use in many public buildings, universities and office buildings (See IG Farben Building).
• I remember watching a documentary some years back about Norman Foster's Tokyo Millenium Tower proposals[15]. Central to his concept was the proposed use of "maglev" elevators (I think) to overcome the height 'limit' and speed restrictions of cable supported elevators (presumably due to cable flex and speed)[16]. No mention is given that I can see, of the design limits of Traction elevators or the "maglev" elevators (unless they come under the "climbing electric elevator" section). One approach is to provide 'transit floors' where people get out of one elevator and into another serving higher floors[17]. This needs more research and a discussion about how elevator design limits the height and economic viability of skyscrapers. --Mcginnly | Natter 12:25, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
• What about a mention of the Space elevator? [18] --Mcginnly | Natter 13:26, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Independence Hall

This is an important article and could use peer review. Thanks! --South Philly 04:12, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

• Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, AZ _t 15:26, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
  • I did some of the clean-up. It probably needs to be bulked up with refenced work. --evrik 20:04, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

A few comments:-

• Article is currently suffering badly from a lack of content. The history section is only 3 sentences long. Significance is only 2 and Today is only 1. Needs to be much much more.
• Use [[Wikipedia:Summary style)) to perhaps give a concise description of the Second continental congress, declaration of independence and the constitution so that the article could be read by someone without a working knowledge of American history. Don't go overboard and always relate back to the building.
• Perhaps a quick summary sentence as to the significance of the Liberty Bell for us non-U.S. people (Oh it's the one with the cracka and the rivet!, I remember now)?
• Suggest sections on Architeture (Or Building). Who built the clock?
• The gallery pics are nice but would be better served to illustrate the text.
• Today section - Change to Recent History - I'd be inclined to include some of the protest anecdotes from the website you cite. Communist bums! Vietnam etc. etc. the building is a focus and distills american history as a venue for protest.
• Has the building ever been altered, extended, refurbished, remodelled? When, By whom, in what way, why etc.etc.?

--Mcginnly | Natter 13:09, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

St. Louis Modern Chinese School

This article was just created today. I would really appreciate any suggestions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.246.147.113 (talk • contribs) 05:01, July 27, 2006 (UTC)

• Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, AZ _t 17:06, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Hartford Whalers

There's been a lot of contributions to the article particuler in the section dealing with the franchise's departure. I'm skeptical about the notion that the Whalers were forced out in attempt to get the New England Patriots. I'm asking for third party fact checking and overall review. If this is the wrong venue, my apologies in advance. ccwaters 02:24, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

• Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, AZ _t 17:06, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Paekchŏng

I created this article from a final paper, and I could use some suggestions about making it more encyclopedic. It also looks a bit blocky or wordy to me, and I'm not sure how it could be better broken down. Although I would appreciate any suggestions about anything regarding the article. Sarge Baldy 18:40, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

• I don't think it is too wordy for an article that is explaining a lot of concepts and organizations that will be alien to many English readers. In cases like this I would say it is better to be too wordy than not wordy enough.

Some comments:

• The beginning of the Social History section, didn't flow well - there was no history of the outcaste groups. I've rearranged it to what I think is better, but some more background on the groups would be good. You could do with some more dates in that section too to make it clear that the Joseon Dynasty is after the Mongol invasion.
• There is no current status:the history tails off in the early 20th century. Do they still exist? If so, what is their status in modern Korea. What happened to the Hyŏngp'yŏngsa?
• You should decide whether to use Paekchŏng or Baekjeong. Explain it at the beginning and then stick to one. (I recommend Baekjeong as that is the title of the article).
• I created a redirect from Paekchŏng as it didn't exist.
• It would be nice to have more than 3 references in an article this long.

Hope this helps. Yomangani 11:37, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree with a number of the problems expressed. Some of it means filling in the article with information I'm not sure I have. Although I thought I left it pretty clear that the Hyŏngp'yŏngsa disbanded. I don't know quite what has happened since there. I believe I read that the group is fully integrated now, but it's something that needs a clear reference. The reason for the discrepancy of the term is that I was using Paekchŏng (the more common form and my own preference) where Wikipedia standardizes Korean under Revised Romanization.

I'm not sure the references are quite so light. The first two total to 69 pages, and the third reference is a book. Unfortunately, I only had time to read one chapter of the book, and it was the last one (concerning the Hyŏngp'yŏngsa and modern movements), which is why that portion of the article is more detailed than the rest. Reading through the rest of the book would obviously help, and I'll probably purchase a copy later. The other issue regarding references is a bit more problematic. Essentially these are the only good English language sources of information. Both authors extensively reviewed Japanese and Korean resources on the topic; I know neither language. Obviously I would appreciate any efforts to bring more references to the topic, and double-checking to make sure I didn't make any obvious mistakes using the ones I did. Thank you, I appreciate the comments. Sarge Baldy 15:20, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

I read it as the Hyŏngp'yŏngsa Youth Vanguard disbanding (damn pronouns). Maybe you can hunt down a Korean speaker (try Wikipedia:Translators_available#Korean-to-English) to see if any relevant articles appear on the Korean wikipedia. Yomangani 15:28, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Oh, sorry, I can see how that could be confusing. The Hyŏngp'yŏngsa Youth Vanguard likely never even existed. That was an accusation, and one that had little evidence and didn't hold up in court. Joong-Seop Kim's interpretation was that it was simply a ploy by Japanese officials to remove the radical elements from the Hyŏngp'yŏngsa. I hope that reads somewhat more clearly now? But that is another good suggestion. Sarge Baldy 16:28, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, that's obvious (even too me) now. Yomangani 16:45, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

• Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, AZ _t 17:06, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals

Article is definitely shaping up. Lots of references, thorough, with a lot of history. Some recent efforts have been made to make the article more balanced, although I'm sure more work could be done there. Inviting more input from the community.--Esprit15d 18:16, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

• You are correct that achieving and maintaining a proper balance is going to be a long term concern for this page. One thing that jumped out at me with regards to the balance is the appearance of exclusive use of PETA sources for the time line section. Instead of having the grouping of four references, all to the peta website, at the top of the list it would be better to move the individual references to the portions of the time line where the information is actually used. --Allen3 ^talk 20:16, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

• There is no need to have a list of every website peta has ever made. Jon513 23:02, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

• Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, AZ _t 17:05, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

2006 Super 14 Final

Just wanting information on how to improve and get up to FA status, as it does have inline citation and other such what, meaning its on its way. Also wanting views from a non-rugby fan, as it may make sense to someone who watches the game, but may be confusing to others.--Hamedog_Talk|^@ 13:19, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

• Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, AZ _t 17:06, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Mormon handcart pioneers

This is my first peer review request, so hopefully I didn't kill any babies or anything by doing something wrong. I spotted this article on a collaboration of the month page and after reading through it, I must say it is quite good, probably GA standard, IMHO. I'm asking for any feedback relating to what improvements need to be made before this meets the featured article criteria. As part of this, input from those unfamiliar with this topic is most welcome, as we need to know what needs elaboration. --Lethargy 06:26, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

• Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, AZ _t 17:06, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

New York State Route 104

With the assistance of others, I'm attempting to make NY 104 an article worth considering for Featured article status. Any suggestions to improve the article quality are welcome. --TMF ^{T - C} 18:13, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Some of the sourcing is sub-optimal - you may have to go into old newspaper articles or NYSDOT records to get reliable sources. Your local library might have New York Times access. --SPUI (T - C) 00:01, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

• Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, AZ _t 17:06, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Cividade de Terroso

• This article about a Castro culture city needs native speakers editing. thanks. --Pedro 17:54, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

• Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, AZ _t 17:06, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Povel Ramel

This article probably needs a bit work. How should it be inproved? More info on Films, Radioshows or... Well Something? 8122417769 14:53, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

• The first thing that I noticed is the "Most popular songs" listing. It seems to be very disorganised, and a lot of the secondary bullets seem to serve little purpose. Organising that list by date(year), and cutting out a lot of the secondary points seems like an idea to me. --Canadian-Bacon 17:39, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

• Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, AZ _t 17:07, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Philadelphia Convention

I believe this succint article needs peer review. Thanks. --evrik 14:51, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

• Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, AZ _t 17:06, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

German occupation of Luxembourg in World War I

This has been created almost exclusively by the hard work of User:Bastin8, who has turned this article from non-existence to (IMO) FA standard in only a very few weeks. All comments appreciated; but particularly, are the photos appropriate and are the two that are not PD fine from a licencing and tagging POV?

• Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, AZ _t 01:39, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
• I think this is an excellent article. Nice work! The only thing I found amiss were the image labels assocated with the image in the "Invasion" section. For some reason those appeared over the text section in my IE browser, rather than over the image. There are a few red links on the page, which may need to be addressed if this is take for FA. (But the page is definitely GA quality, IMO). The Marie-Adélaïde and Grande Duchesse Charlotte images have a deletion warning on its page, so you might want to take a look at that. Thanks. — RJH (talk) 17:02, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the praise. Two of the three issues raised, I predicted on the talk page, so they'll be addressed in no time. I'm in the process of fixing the red links (by creating stubs). I didn't upload the pictures, so I'm not au fait with their status; I think that the pictures of the Grand Duchesses will have to be Fair Use (they're only allowed under a non-commercial basis, although the Marie-Adélaïde one may be public domain, as it was taken before the First World War).

A pressing issue is that of the text links; using both Firefox and IE, the text links are in the right place for me (and that's for all resolutions and several different settings, too). If any more people have trouble with it, I'll just change it to labels in the image; the only reason that the labels are overlaid is that I thought that it would be a neat way to help users come to grips with Luxembourgian geography. Bastin 18:27, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Based on the style information for the label templates it should have worked. I'm not sure why it didn't unless there's a bug in my version of IE, or else it has something to do with my security settings. I'm using version 6.0.2900.2180... — RJH (talk) 16:42, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

That might explain it. My IE is 7.0.5450.4 (although I use Firefox for just about everything), so the problem may have been fixed with the newer version. If that's the case, and those using IE 6 do have trouble viewing the map, I will make the afore-mentioned changes. Bastin 18:09, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

I've now resolved all the red links, some with stubs, some with full articles.

Luxembourg's Service Information et Presse (a government agency and the publishers of the pictures) have informed me that they aren't aware of any factors that might have released them into the public domain, and that they are unwilling to change their licence situation (i.e. non-commerial use only). Since they can't qualify under Fair Use (because the topic isn't related closely enough), I've deleted them from the article and am looking for alternative pictures; I've contacted a few websites that offer alternatives, asking if they might allow free licensing of their images. Bastin 10:51, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Since my last update, I've had no responses to my requests to webmasters, which is irritating. A picture of Marie-Adélaïde would really be useful; she was an instrumental character to the political discord, relations with Germany, and the subsequent revolutions, and her youth (20 when the war broke out) ought to be emphasised. Nonetheless, the article doesn't hang on such a picture, and there are many images already, so I think that it is acceptable as is. Are there any more comments or criticisms to be made? For one, I could imagine it having more categories, but I can't find another one that's suitable. Bastin 22:15, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Social promotion

• Arguments against social promotion
• Arguments for social promotion
• Statistics
• History
• References

These are the things that I think need reviewing. (Xtremeruna21)

• Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, AZ _t 01:38, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

• The article appears biased against social promotion. Evidence of this is the sentence "which are very important before entering the high school" in the lead and the placement of "Arguments against social promotion" before "Arguments for social promotion". You might also consider removing "not necessarily valid". Where you say social promotion was stopped you need to explain how was it stopped. Was there a bill introduced in New York City, standardized tests that needed to be passed to move to the next grade, etc. You need to provide evidence that the practice is being used at elementary and middle school level. You need to explain if it varies from one school/school board to the next. More discussion of research in the area or related to the area would also benefit the article. Finally, inline citations would be really useful in an article like this. Cedars 03:41, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

KING007

Operation Wrath of God

I've worked on this article a while off and on and have finally gotten most of the core information about the campaign up and cited. Of course looking at the same article for so long it's easy to lose perspective and miss any glaring or subtle problems still there. I'd appreciate any kind of criticism, especially with regard to making the long list of assassinations flow more smoothly and not look simply like a choppy list. Another text section that certainly needs work is the Criticism section, and I was curious as to how other controversial articles have been able to make sections like these comprehensive but not just a laundry list of each parties complaints. This article is also in dire need of some good pictures, so any suggestions on what types to include would be helpful. Thanks.--Joshdboz 11:00, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

• First, the article is a very good read, and covers a topic I was not at all familiar with. I would say it is definitely a good article, and close to featured standard. If it were to be nominated for GA status, (*hint*) I would be more than willing to pass it, as unless I am mistaken I fall within the realm of "haven't significantly contributed to" the article.

• While I cannot address the specific things you brought up in your request, I have made a few minor tweaks to the article I felt were necessary.
• I think the "Black September and PLO response" section might need some clarification. Namely, how is an attack on a Saudi embassy in Sudan, capturing US, Saudi, Jordanian, and Belgian citizens a retaliation to Israeli attacks? This seems to me to be an unrelated incident, rather than a response to Operation Wrath of God. The lack of citations for sources in this section is also bothersome. The sentence "only a seven year prison sentence" might be POV. While I myself agree that this was far too small a punishment for terrorism, I'm not sure this is outside the normal punishments of the time and place.
• A link to an article with more info on the Lufthansa hijacking should be included.

Again, this is a very good article which I hope becomes featured soon. --Lethargy 10:43, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks so much for the quick response! Looking back now I'm in complete agreement over the problems with the "Black September and PLO response" section. So far I've added several more attacks against Israeli targets that I had previously forgotten and tightened up the existing descriptions. I have also trimmed the Khartoum diplomatic assassinations summary to only a single sentence because it was only an indirect attack. In the "Background and planning" section I created a link in the phrase released just months later, which jumps to a page that has a slightly larger description of the Lufthansa hijacking with sources. The sentence you marked for POV has also just been deleted from the section as part of the clarification. I appreciate the suggestion for GA nomination, and will certainly do so once this peer review is over.--Joshdboz 13:33, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

1. Probably excessive use of the words "terrorists"/"terrorism" in Wikipedia's narrative voice, with absolutely no citation of who characterizes this as terrorism. Not that I disagree, just that (as you probably know) there has been much discussion about this at Wikipedia:Words to avoid, and the pretty broad consensus is that it is a POV word unless someone uses it about themselves (and of course few do). Not that it can't be there, but we should be very cautious about using it, and especially overusing, in Wikpidia's narrative voice. The problem isn't so much in a case like this; it's that there is no clean place to draw the line.
2. Any reason for linking years so often? Outside of birth & death dates in biographies, MoS is generally against this unless the event looms so large as to be mentioned in the "year" article. At the same time, month-day-year dates here are often unlinked, whereas MoS encourages linking those to allow variable formatting.
3. "…outrage forced Golda Meir to…" is a bit vague and lacking agency. Whose outrage forced her to do this?
4. The "criticisms" section contains criticism only of assassination of innocents. Surely it should not be hard to find criticism of either the efficacy or ethics of assassination/"targetted killings" as a tactic even when used against "guilty" parties. Most of the "criticism" section is devoted to what is more a defense than a criticism (paraphrasing, Klein seems to be saying "they got the wrong guys, but that's OK").
5. "Using the pseudonym Avner, Aviv claimed in Jonas' book to have led a hit squad…": does this not mean to say something like "According to Jonas [and this preceding phrase may not be needed] Aviv claimed that, using the pseudonym Avner, he led a hit squad…" - Jmabel | Talk 03:00, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Good points, I've tried to deal with each.

1. The terrorist/terrorism issue is as you mentioned a tricky one. I've tried to where I could change the word terrorist to an equivalent term in the specific context (militant, hijacker, etc.). As of now I am keeping references to the perpetrators of the Munich massacre as "terrorists", a) because it is used throughout the article Munich massacre and b) I think any objective observer, regardless of how justified he/she believes Black September was, would consider it an incident of terrorism. Obviously my second point could be up for contention, and if more users disagree with the use of the term, I would be happy to change.
2. Years were linked somewhat haphazardly. I believe that I've fixed it so only month-date-years are linked for variable formatting.
3. The statement now reads: "In the aftermath of the affair, international outrage over the mistaken murder forced Golda Meir to order the suspension of Operation Wrath of God." It is also sourced.
4. I have yet to work on the criticism section, mainly because I need to do some more research. I'll add and adjust it as soon as possible.
5. I have tried to clarify the Avner/Aviv/Jonas debacle. It now reads: "The 1984 book... by Canadian journalist George Jonas, purports to tell the story of the Israeli assassination squad from the viewpoint of a self-described former Mossad agent and leader of the squad, Avner. Avner has since been revealed as a pseudonym for Yuval Aviv, an Israeli who now runs a private investigation agency in New York. However, Aviv's account...".

Thanks again for the excellent crits, I'd welcome any follow up points if you have.--Joshdboz 17:47, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

• Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, AZ _t 17:06, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Just added some criticism from relatives of those who died at Munich.--Joshdboz 21:56, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Badminton

I finished renovating this article and hope to nominate it to featured article status. However, I'm not sure if it's good enough to nominate. Please provide any comments. Thank you --Aleenf1 07:37, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

• Aleen. I have taken the liberty of moving the Badminton item from the Biography section to the Unclassified section. Good luck. Bob BScar23625 09:03, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

• Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, AZ _t 15:37, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

• I don't think the article is yet good enough to nominate. A distinct weakness is the list of strokes; I've expanded this and intend to add an accompanying tactical context section, and possibly a section about advanced strokes/skills. Some more thought needs to go into the structure of the article too (what information goes where), and whether the article should be split into separate articles. --Mike Hopley 00:12, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

• I also think that some of the article needs to be rewritten for clarity and concision. --Mike Hopley 00:20, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

• In the present form it is not good enough to nominate for FA status. There is a lot of good information but it is let down by poor writing and balance. It needs copyediting throughout.

Some quick comments:

• Introduction should ideally summarize the whole article, not just the rules
• 'General description' section is unnecessary - it covers informmation that is covered in more depth in the rest of the article. This should be summarized in the introduction and dropped.
• Style could do with some tweaking, there are examples of odd phrasing throughout. A quick selection:

• 'Badminton champion Fu Haifeng' - either say what he is champion of or leave it out
• 'Badminton is often compared to tennis' - 'contrasted' would be better here as that is what the rest of the paragraph does (although you have already compared the equipment in the preceding paragraph)
• 'The traditional scoring system in badminton history involves 15 points' - 'traditional' is fine, no need to add 'history', 'involves' is a strange choice.
• 'or called "setting".' - what?
• 'The pair will serve the shuttlecock like singles rules which base to their points' - what?
• 'Badminton shoes need a gummy soles for good grip' - or a shoe need a gummy sole?

• The 'Playing rules' section appears to have been written by a non-native speaker - it needs a copyedit
• Units of measurement - sometimes you use metric, sometimes imperial, sometimes both. Standardize on one and then quote the other in brackets after it. You can use the standard abbreviations rather than spelling it out each time, and the manual of style recommends inserting an non-breaking space between values and units
• 'This system was abandoned later' and 'later also replaced' - surely there are dates for these.
• 'Badminton racquets, in conjunction with hockey sticks, are also used in the lesser-known “sport” of Bee-Whacking.' looks like subtle vandalism
• Strokes - would benefit from some diagrams
• Strategy - re-covers some info from the strokes section (i.e. smash is redescribed in the second sentence)
• As a personal preference I'd like to see more inline citations.

Hope this helps. Yomangani 01:11, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Póvoa de Varzim

• A peer review was made in the past month with good results, but it needs some more copyediting to make it suitable for FA (criteria 2a of FA - the only issue that was raised during FAC nomination). It would be great as the geography articles in the FA list are mindblocking, limited to certain areas, because of the language, which scares users from other countries. Wikipedia and I need your help!--Pedro 20:12, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

I started copyediting again but I haven't got very far. If you are going for FA status it needs some hard work doing on it with regard to copyediting which will mean your personal writing style being lost. 2a is hard work. The references should use the citation templates (this will probably come up in FAC review), and you need to check WP:MOS for some style tips (such as adding non-breaking spaces). Good luck - Yomangani 00:11, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

• I've no problem with my personal style being lost in this wikipedia. I'll check the Manual of Style for more tips.I'll correct that problem in references. thanks a lot Yomangani.--Pedro 11:00, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

• Automated suggestions are provided here, that you may wish to refer for some useful style guidelines. - Mailer Diablo 17:10, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Vincent van Gogh

I saw that this is one of the vital articles that hasn't made it to featured status yet. I did not contribute to this page up to this point. After reading it, though, I saw it was well referenced and comprehensive. I would like to see this brought up to FA status, and would be happy to help! Dafoeberezin3494 04:58, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

• The article is pretty comprehensive. There are several things that need work;

1. The lead is far too long, it should be a summary of the article, further suggestions and instructions at WP:LEAD
2. Legacy doesn't need subheadings, it breaks up the flow of the text for no appreciable gain
3. The list of influences whould be better discussed in the text
4. The trivia and naming sections seem unnecessary.
5. Myths probably don't need their own section either and could be worked into the narrative
6. Even if you get rid of some of the sections I suggested you get rid of, the table of contents is very long, other parts of the article should be merged together where logical to shorten it
7. There are lots of places in the article where single sentences float all on their lonesome, a sentence is not a paragraph and these should be collected together into longer sections.

• --Peta 11:56, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Thank you! I started by merging the trivia section. More work to come soon. Dafoeberezin3494 15:04, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Some remarks that may be useful:

• Reference is mainly to digestive material: Callow, Wilkie, Nemeczek, Erickson. I would prefer to see other names: Jan Hulsker, Ronald Pickvance, Bogomila Welsh-Ovcharov, for example.
• Wilkie should be toned down. This is no reliable reference work, but a journalist's collection of gossip collected decades after Van Gogh's dead. It would best fit to a section Gossip, sub-Legacy.
• Research, on the other hand, would be a highly desirable section, for there were recently a couple of discoveries, which put new light on various aspects of Van Gogh's work.
• Forgeries, too, should have their chapter: One cannot understand certain recent discussion, without the previous ones.

--R.P.D. 20:15, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

• Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, AZ _t 17:06, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

• The biography is just too fragmented. Maybe a scheme of dividing the years of his life other than where he stayed should be adopted (may be artistic "periods"?). Also myths and medical records don't really belong in bio and should be made separate. I guess I don't need to mention that there shouldn't be two legacy sections--ppm 21:12, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Don Dunstan

Donald Allan Dunstan AC QC (September 21, 1926 - 6 February, 1999) was an Australian politician and Labor Premier of South Australia between June 1, 1967 and April 17, 1968 and then subsequently between June 2, 1970 and February 15, 1979. A reformist, Dunstan brought profound change to South Australian society: his progressive reign saw Aboriginal land rights recognised, homosexuality decriminalised, the first female judge appointed and anti-discrimination legislation introduced. He is recognised for his role in reinvigorating the social, artistic and cultural life of South Australia during his nine years in office, remembered as the Dunstan Decade.

I would appreciate any feedback regarding this article. It has been written at length, thuroughly referenced and has appropriate pictures with fair-use rationales. Thank you for taking the time to read, and if you do so, thank you for commenting. Any concerns will be dealt with promptly. michael ^talk 12:24, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

• For the most part, I'm quite impressed by the work of all of the contributors. :) However, the second paragraph seems out of place. I think it should be merged into the "Early life" section. Also, some sections are quite lengthy. Perhaps they could be further broken up? "Early life", for instance, could have subsections about Mr. Dunstan's family, childhood, education, and so on. Let me know if I can be of any help and keep up the good work. :) Srose (talk) 17:15, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
  • PS: I've just made some nitpicking grammar corrections to the "Early life" section. There are more minor grammar tweaks to be made sporadically throughout the article, but I doubt I'll get to them today, unfortunately. Srose (talk) 17:22, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for that. I'm pretty sure some minor copyediting will still have to be done. michael ^talk 02:39, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

• Impressive. I'm quite happy with the 2nd paragraph as a summary in the lead section, and don't htink the sections need breaking up, apart from The Dunstan Decade. A few minor points:
  • Is it really accurate to say he "moved back to SA" in the 2nd para?
  • "Eventually rising..." in the 2nd para isn't a full sentence.
  • Why was Dunstan joining the ALP "never expected" not just "not expected"?
  • Elections section: calling the restrictions on abortion "appropriate" seems POV.
  • The statement "another term of Labor govt sworn in on a knife edge" in 1975 doesn't make much sense to me.
• Congratulations for another good article, Michael. JPD (talk) 18:04, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

I've made the changes you've suggested. I was originally going to break down the 'Dunstan Decade' section but couldn't organise it properly and figure suitable headers. I was hoping it would appear good enough as one full section. Thanks for the kind comments. :) michael ^talk 02:39, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

I really can't see anything at all wrong with this article as is. I've been keeping an eye on its progress for a while, and every issue I had with it has been long fixed - kudos. I wonder if there would be any chance we could make a fair use justification for a pink hotpants photograph though, as it was perhaps his most defining moment. Rebecca 06:41, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

There are no pink hotpants photographs online; however, I'm considering a stroll into the State Library in the next week - I'll see what I can do then. A fair use summary for such a photograph would be easy - its a very distinctive moment. michael ^talk 06:44, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

The article looks good, there is no fair use justification for the festival centre picture since it could easily be made by a wikipedian in Adelaide, so it should be removed. It'd be a good idea to use a consistent format for the fair use rationales on all the others. Some of the captions are not very informative. There are some places in the article where the sentences are too long/complex and there are also some words that are going to be hard for non AusE speakers like stint in the lead - another copyedit from a non Aussie might be a good idea. --Peta 04:03, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for that - I'll take a shot of the theatre next time I'm in the city, and will review the fair use rationales. A copyedit from a non-Australian would be ideal; however, I don't know any of them! Any suggestions? michael ^talk 08:09, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

User:Wayward used to do a good copyedit - I'm not sure how active s/he is at the moment.--Peta 08:29, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

I am very impressed by the article and my only concern is that someone may not accept the "Fair Use" argument for some of the images. Well done. --Roisterer 15:48, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

I've copy-edited the first few paragraphs, and may return to do more. Foreigners will need to have "Liberal" explained as an Australian misnomer for conservative, on first occurrence. Tony 16:21, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

I wasn't expecting a copyedit but thank you regardless! I had hoped I made it obvious regarding the liberal conservative party, but I'll add in something more blunt. michael ^talk 01:05, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

• Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, AZ _t 17:05, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Very good article. I've gone through and tidied up the writing where I thought it necessary. I'd second Srose's comment above that the second paragraph of the intro needs work.--cj | talk 06:31, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Cyrus the Great

I and other users have put a lot of effort into this article, particularly since I first started editing it. I haven't had much time to add more to the article recently, but I'm going to get back to it. I would really appreciate any comments at all. Comments, questions, insults... Anything! ♠ SG →Talk 11:18, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

The style guide suggests a standard order and naming for the end sections: See also, Notes, References, Further reading (or Bibliography, both optional), and External links. Bringing the See also section up would help conform to this layout. The current Sources section is non-standard and is really more like a See also since it is all internal links. See MoS:HEAD, WP:LAYOUT and WP:CITE for help in this area. JonHarder 15:25, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks! that will help plenty. I've updated the article with those changes, and I've also axed the "See also" section, as it only linked to two articles that were already linked. The "References" (previously "Sources") section is also updated with a much more standard style, though I thought it would be best to separate the ancient sources and modern books. What do you think now? ♠ SG →Talk 04:30, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

That looks better. It is unusual to list other articles as references. I'm not objecting, but am not sure how feature article reviewers will respond. Reading through the article more closely I have some additional comments:

• It would help to have a good copyedit by another person. Examples of things to look for are weasel words like "sometimes considered," clumsy wording like "apparently soon managed," overuse or redundant use of the word "also."
• At one point there is a "--" that could be converted to a "—" (mdash). This form of punctuation is often misused, but I don't know the rules!
• The images are great, but get a bit crowded in the area of the Cyrus Cylinder.
• At one point there is a "citation needed" request which should be fulfilled if this article is headed for FA.
• Usually links to other articles are not duplicated. For example there are several links to Darius the Great and its variations.
• Usually an article is not placed both in a category and its subcategory. This article is in both "Category:Achaemenid dynasty" and "Category:Monarchs of Persia." Unless there is a compelling reason to do so, it should be in one or the other.

JonHarder 13:19, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Wow, you are very thorough; thanks again! I've given it another copyedit, but I agree, it would probably be best to find a third-party to give it a look. I've gotten rid of anything I could find that was redundant or could be considered weasel words (with the exception of two "considered" statements which are attributed). I got rid of the Persepolis image, as it wasn't necessary. Now that section is much less crowded. I know the references section is unusual, but I think it's the best way to manage it; if there's a better solution, I'll gladly do it. ♠ SG →Talk 17:58, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

A final suggestion. I think for FA status, the three references in the lead section need to be moved down into the appropriate sections within the main article. Also, it looks like the first note should be broken into two different notes because it is about two separate topics. If you make these changes, I am prepared to nominate it for Good Article status. JonHarder 13:58, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Do they have to be moved? I can't really see it passing FA without the Cylinder refs being there. The line about the Cyrus Cylinder being called "the first declaration of human rights" is not accepted by everyone, so I had to source it. I've broken up the first ref, though. On another note, Enceladus (moon), which was recently "Today's FA" a few days ago, has a ref in the opening paragraph – as does Final Fantasy X, from the day before. ♠ SG →Talk 17:52, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Maybe I'm wrong; I thought they complained about that. My preference is still to see them moved down into the part of the text that expands on those particular topics. JonHarder 18:15, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

I see what you mean. I checked it out, and I couldn't find anything about it. The first reference (Old Persian name) isn't noted anywhere else in the text, so I left it up there at the top. The two about the Cyrus Cylinder are left there to avoid an NPOV issue. I think I will leave it as is, but I will keep your note in mind. If the issue is raised in the GA or FA noms, it will only take a moment to change. What do you think about that plan? ♠ SG →Talk 20:35, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

I did more checking too, it is not guideline, but this discussion shows the various sides of the issue. My preference aligns with those that believe the lead material will be expanded farther down in the article and that is a better place to put the inline citations. I imagine there are cases where parts of the lead can't easily be expanded and it's redundant and clumsy just to repeat the same sentence in the main body. If the citation is moved down among the expanded material, there shouldn't be a NPOV problem. Anyway, that's my preference, but do what works for you and what you think is best for the article. It looks like leaving them in the lead should not get in the way of GA or FA. JonHarder 21:09, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Ah, after reading that discussion, I have to agree with you. It looks like a good idea to move it out of the lead. If anyone complains, I'll just tell them where to look for the ref and point them to that discussion. However, I have not moved the Old Persian ref, as there is nowhere to move it to. ♠ SG →Talk 22:27, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

• Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, AZ _t 15:34, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
  • I already used the automated PR suggestions; they were very helpful, thanks! ♠ SG →Talk 17:52, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

• I've made a few copyedits; feel free to revert if you don't like the result. Some points:
  • Per WP:CAPTION, some FA reviewers' prefer that captions be complete sentences. Take advantage of this to add information that reinforces your article.
  • "Several issues of Cyrus' early life are unclear: whether he was born in 576 BC or 590 BC, and whom he took for his wife." That's two issues, not several, and I don't understand why Cyrus' wife is an issue of his early years. Was it customary to be betrothed as a child? If so, that should be made clear; if not, you should probably mention his wife later in the article.
  • "they further note his marriage to Princess Mandane of Media, a daughter of Astyages, king of the Medes, and Princess Aryenis of Lydia; Cyrus II was the result of this union." It's not immediately clear that Cyrus II is Cyrus the Great. Also... and I hesitate to write this... it rather sounds as though Cyrus was the product of a ménage à trois. (Come to think of it, that would explain how Gilgamesh could be two-thirds god... but I digress.)  ;-)
  • The section called "Personal life" really isn't about his personal life. How about "Dynastic history" or "Family history"?
  • The section called "Early life" really isn't about his early life. How about "Legendary birth"?
  • "Arsames defected to Cyrus" doesn't sound right. Who is he defecting from — himself? How about "Arsames abdicated his rulership of Persia and pledged allegiance to Cyrus"? Also, it's not clear whether Arsames' son Hystaspes became king in his stead, or whether Cyrus took control of Persia. If the former, then how about ""Arsames relinquished rulership of Persia to his son Hystaspes and pledged allegiance to Cyrus. Hystaspes' son, Darius, would later become Darius the Great, Shahanshah of Persia"? If the latter, do we have any idea why a king would willingly hand over power, especially to someone not his own son?
  • "Several years later, when Astyages discovered that his grandson was still alive, he ordered that the son of Harpagus be beheaded and served to his father on a dinner platter. Harpagus, seeking vengeance, convinced Cyrus, who by then was living again with his noble and biological parents..." This is confusing. It's not clear at first that "the son of Harpagus" doesn't refer to the adopted Cyrus. It's not clear whether this grisly order was carried out (we know there was legendary precedent for the king's orders being circumvented, after all). The fact that Cyrus is now living with his noble parents again is a big, unexplained, unexpected jump in the story. If these concerns simply reflect the ambiguity of the source material, that's fine, but there should be some way to organize this information into a more linear narrative.
  • The "Kings of Persia" section seems to shift between legend (third-hand reports with mythical elements) to documentable fact ("In 559 BC...") and back again, so that I'm unclear how much of this section is history and how much is myth. Again, that may be an inherent difficulty with the source material, but try to give the reader some sense of which facts are considered reliable history.
  • "Cyrus led the Persians and his armies." Were the armies not Persian?
  • "conquered the Median Empire in the sixth year of Nabonidus' rule." This makes it seem as though Nabodinus were the ruler of Medes rather than Babylon.
  • Per WP:MOS, section headers shouldn't include the title of the article. You can probably make a case that "Cyrus cylinder" is a valid exception to this rule, but how about changing "Cyrus' wars" to "Military campaigns"?
  • "Cyrus defeated Nabonidus." If you haven't yet mentioned that Nabodinus was ruler of Babylon, you should do so here. The reader shouldn't have to click a blue link to know who he is and why he matters.
  • "(written before any new conquests could have been made other than Egypt)," This parenthetical phrase impedes flow, is tricky to parse, and doesn't contribute to your main point. Why not remove it?
  • The "Administration of the Empire" section is really too short to merit its own section. Could it be combined with the following section as "Politics"? That will also eliminate the problem of having the word "Cyrus" in a section header, which is against the MOS. Better yet, move both of these sections into the "Legacy" section below. You seem to be covering related material twice.
  • "Cyrus died in battle, but the Achaemenid empire was to reach its zenith long after his demise." The second half of this sentence impedes flow and has nothing to do with the section topic, Cyrus' death. I'm moving it to the "Legacy" section, unless you prefer otherwise.

Hope this is helpful! Peirigill 01:44, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for taking the time to make those changes! As for your suggestions, I agree with them all to some extent. Reading that "marriage" line made me chuckle; it's very easy to understand your own writing, but reading it a second time, I realized where the problem lied.

You know what, I originally started making those few small changes you suggested, but as I went along, I kept adding more, and more, until... Well, you be the judge of what happened: [19]. I have to thank you for getting me in the mood to do that, but I should also make some sort of threat, as the article probably has even more problems now!

I would appreciate it if you could take another look, as it has undergone a vast — almost entire — rewrite. ♠ SG →Talk 08:32, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Oh, I'm also aware that the article is in desperate need of sourcing for all the new information that was added. I'll get around to this soon, but if you could make note of any statements that you feel must have referencing, it'd make everything much easier. And one final note, I know Gaumata redirects to Smerdis of Persia; I plan on breaking the article in two later on, as they are not the same person. ♠ SG →Talk 08:42, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

The photo in early life is of a symbol that isn't talked about in that section, so it really doesn't help with furthering our understanding of Cyrus. Also, in Babylonia, the picture, while nice, and peripherally related to the section in that it depicts someone mentioned in that section, might be better if it were replaced with a map showing all the lands that came under Cyrus's rule, to help illustrate for readers the sentence "Cyrus' dominions must have comprised the largest empire the world had seen yet" plange 06:20, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

You're right, but I'm rather hard-pressed to find free images of Cyrus. The Faravahar image is relevant to the article, but not to that section in particular — though, he was raised with Zoroastrianism, and the image starts in the "background" section. As for the Nabonidus image, again, you're right; we do need a map, but there is only one map I've been able to find that shows the Achaemenid Empire during Cyrus' rule, and it lacks proper copyright information. However, I'm going to see what I can do about making a map later today, using one of the maps from Wikipedia:Maps. ♠ SG →Talk 08:53, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Cool! If you don't have luck with the map making, I think Military history WikiProject has a map-making request area? plange 17:55, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Ah, good idea. If I don't get far with cartography, I'll be sure to ask around there. ♠ SG →Talk 19:25, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Alright, I've tried my hand at map making, so I've replaced the Nabonidus image with the map I made. Take a look, let me know how you feel. Of course, first of all, this is my first shot at making a map, and second, I am still partially drunk. I should probably also add the locations of each of the cities mentioned in the article (ie. Sippar, Babylon, Sardes, Pasargadae) instead of only those few. ♠ SG →Talk 08:17, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Wow, that's awesome! Sooo much better! It really illustrates so well how large his empire was! Great job! plange 18:19, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks! And I responded to your inquiry on your talk page. So, as it is now, do you think the article would make it through the featured article nomination process, or should I wait for more people to chime in on the peer review? ♠ SG →Talk 04:53, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Peirigill again. A few thoughts on your re-write:

• "Faravahar, the symbol of Zoroastrianism, which influenced Cyrus to the extent that it became the non-imposing religion of Persia." This isn't a complete sentence. Also, I don't understand what "non-imposing religion" means.
  I've changed it, but, like with the map image, I'm really not sure what to replace the caption with. Any suggestions?
• "Little is known of Cyrus' early years, as the sources detailing that part of his life are few, and many have been damaged or lost." Seems contradictory: if there were few sources, how could many have been lost? It's not clear to me whether there were never many sources to begin with, or whether many used to exist but only few are extant.
  Changed.
• "According to most sources, he was born in either 576 BC or 590 BC." Also ambiguous: do most sources give both dates, or do most sources say either one date or the other? The simplest fix is simply "He was born in either 576 BC or 590 BC."
  Done.
• "While Herodotus' description may be a legend, it does give insight into the figures surrounding Cyrus the Great's early life." Is this really a separate paragraph?
  Moved.
• "Like his predecessors before him." Before him is redundant.
• "Harpagus, seeking vengeance, convinced Cyrus to rally the Persian people, who were then in a state of vassalage to the Medes, to revolt, which occurred between 554 BC and 553 BC." This flows awkwardly. The phrase "to revolt" is especially jarring. How about "Harpagus, seeking vengeance, convinced Cyrus to rally the Persian people to revolt against their feudal lords, the Medes. This event, which is corroborated by other historical testimony, occurred between 554 BC and 553 BC." I'm suggesting this additional clause to help distinguish between accepted fact and its legendary trappings; please revise it if it's inaccurate.
  I changed that paragraph a bit, so it should be more concise now.
• "However, it is very likely that both Harpagus and Cyrus rebelled..." "Very likely" seems POV, unless the citation uses those words. How about "likely" instead of "very likely"?
• "due to their dissatisfaction with Astyages' policies, rather than the story introduced by Herodotus." Awkwardly worded; it certainly wasn't Herodotus' story that influenced them. Can you find a way to say "rather than the events of the story as related by Herodotus" that isn't clumsy?
  Patched this up.
• "Cyrus led his armies to capture Ecbatana, and effectively conquered the Median Empire." Either remove the comma, or leave the comma but replace "and effectively conquered" with "effectively conquering."
  This suggestion was effectively conquered in 2006.
• "The approximate extent of the Achaemenid Empire under Cyrus' rule, superimposed on modern borders. Persia became the largest empire the world had seen yet." Can you make these both complete sentences? Also, "had seen yet" trips me up; how about "had ever seen"?
  Changed "had seen yet," but I'm not sure how else to write the caption. Got any suggestions?
• "Cyrus besieged Croesus in his capital, Sardes." "His" is tricky here, since it could mean Cyrus' or Croesus' capital. It's especially tricky because you've just said that the Lydians attacked the Achaemenid Empire, which implies that the fighting is happening on Cyrus' turf. "The Lydian capital" is better, but not great, since that makes you repeat the word "Lydian" twice in quick succession. Can you think of an alternative wording?
  Done.
• "Shortly before the final battle between the two rulers was to begin." "Was to begin" is redundant. Just say, "Shortly before the final battle between the two rulers, Harpagus advised Cyrus..."
  Done.
• "And indeed, the Lydian cavalry became useless." "And indeed" feels awkward to me. "Became useless" is not strong. How about "The strategy worked; the Lydian cavalry was routed"?
• "the Lydian cavalry became useless and Cyrus defeated Croesus at Pterium, captured him, and occupied his capital at Sardis, conquering the Lydian kingdom in 546 BC." Too much info in one sentence. Split this into two sentences.
  Reworded and split; better now?
• "Towards the end of September of 539 BC." The repeated "of" might be a problem. How about "In 539 BC, towards the end of September"?
  Done.
• "defeated the Babylonians after a minor uprising by the citizens." Is "by the citizens" redundant? Who else would have been involved in an uprising?
  Good point.
• "defeated the Babylonians after a minor uprising by the citizens. With Opis under their power, the Persians took control of the vast canal system of Babylonia." Even if you remove "by the citizens," we have a problem with the word "their." It's not clear until later in the sentence that "their" refers to the Persians rather than the citizens or the Babylonians. I know, it's nitpicky, but this will be questioned in FA. How about "Having conquered Opis"?
  How about "with Opis subjugated?"
• "which he had not paid a visit to for several years." "Which he had not visited for years" would be better.
  Done.
• "and soon fled to Babylon, which he had not paid a visit to for several years. (new paragraph) Two days later, on October 12, Gubaru's troops entered the capital, Babylon," How about telling us Babylon is the capital the first time it's mentioned, rather than the second?
  Done.
• I'm not sure about the wikilinks on dates like "October 12."
  WP:DATE says that you should link month+day, month+day+year, but not years or months alone (unless relevant).
• "According to the Behistun Inscription of Darius the Great, Cyrus' dominions must have comprised the largest empire the world had seen yet." That phrase "had seen yet" is still tripping me up. How about "had yet seen" or "had ever seen"?
  Done.
• "At the end of Cyrus' rule, the Achaemenid Empire stretched from Asia Minor and Judah in the west, as far as the Indus River in the east." You've linked "from" to "as far as," and these don't really go together. "From Asia Minor and Judah in the west to the Indus River in the east" is probably the simplest fix.
  Done.
• "Cyrus Cylinder" is an apparent violation of WP:MOS for two reasons: only the first word should be capitalized, and the article title shouldn't appear in a section header. I think this is a legitimate exception, but be prepared to defend this. I'm still not convinced that the "Rise and rule" section shouldn't simply be renamed "Military campaigns," and the "Cyrus Cylinder" information be moved to the Politics subsection of the Legacy section.
  I don't think proper nouns apply to the heading rule. Regardless, I've moved it to "Politics" and renamed the section as you originally requested. However, I renamed it to "Rise and military campaigns," otherwise the TOC looks strange, jumping from his early life to his military campaigns. In all honesty, I prefer the way it was previously, but I think you're the better judge here.
• "Tomyris ordered the body of Cyrus to be found, and then dipped his head in blood to avenge the death of her son at his hands. (new paragraph) He was buried in the city of Pasargadae," There's a small chance of confusion: was it Cyrus or Tomyris' son who was buried? Safer to say "Cyrus was buried."
  Reworded.
• "Cyrus was distinguished equally as a statesman and as a soldier. By pursuing a policy of generosity instead of repression, and by favoring local religions, he was able to make his newly conquered subjects into enthusiastic supporters. Due to the stong political infrastructure he created, the Achaemenid empire endured and prospered long after his demise." This is POV unless citations are given, and even then, words like "distinguished," "generosity," "instead of repression," "enthusiastic," "strong," and "prospered" paint a one-sided picture. Surely the man had some weaknesses or detractors? A dissenting view doesn't need equal time or equal weight, but it should get some coverage.
  I've sourced it and thrown out a few words. If you can find a good dissenting view on Cyrus that can be sourced, I'd be grateful.
• "Koresh (Hebrew for Cyrus) is a common name for streets in Israel and is a relatively common Israeli family name." This needs a citation. Also, try to eliminate the weasel wording of "relatively common." Can you give a hard fact to back that up, like "1,500 Israeli families are named 'Koresh'"?
  I found a source for this statement, but the source doesn't back it up. (80% of all statistics are made up.)
• The caption "Cyrus the Great allowing Hebrew pilgrims to return to and rebuild Jerusalem" is not a complete sentence.
  Changed, but I don't know if it's good enough.
• "The Cyropaedia of Xenophon, based on the latter's knowledge of the Great King's upbringing, was an influential political treatise in ancient times, and again during the Renaissance." The fact that the Cyropaedia existed might pass without a citation, but the claim that it was influential needs one.
  I've changed it to "admired" and gave it a source.
• "The English philosopher Sir Thomas Browne named his 1658 discourse after the benevolent ruler. Entitled The Garden of Cyrus, it may well be a Royalist criticism upon the autocratic rule of Oliver Cromwell." "Entitled The Garden of Cyrus" belongs more in the first sentence than the second one. "It may well be" is a weasel word; is it or isn't it? This claim needs a citation.
  I don't know why I kept that, it was in there since I began editing the article.
• I'm not certain, but I think the references are supposed to be alphabetized.
  By title or author name? Originally they were sorted by print year, but now they're ordered by title.

Nice job on the re-write. I'm really nitpicking at this point. Good luck! Peirigill 22:14, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

I've replied to each of your list items above. And trust me, nitpicking is good. Some of those people over at FA will jump at you for anything. ♠ SG →Talk 00:03, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

I've converted the captions to all but the top image to sentences, and tweaked the captions about the Jews and the Cylinder. (I'm assuming Cyrus didn't do the inscribing himself, which the earlier version implied.) Feel free to revert or modify as you wish. Peirigill 20:06, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Awesome! Well, User:Amizzoni has brought up a couple of issues. Once we get that settled, I'm sending this article straight to FAC. Thanks so much for all your help! ♠ SG →Talk 11:52, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Deerfield High School (Illinois)

I have done extensive work on this article and would greatly appreciate some imput as to further improvement. (Thanks) omtay38 03:16, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

• A section on the school's history would be useful. I'm also wary of that School Chest image's use of under-18 students without parental consent. Is that an issue here? --SparqMan 16:22, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

• Agreed on the history section, i've been looking for information. I didn't think about the image and your probably right. Will remove it now. --omtay38 16:41, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

• The detail on the theaters is great (the new wing finished just after I graduated), but maybe excessive. That section almost dominates the articles, as is. --SparqMan 16:48, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

• I see what you mean, however, I feel rather than removing content from the theatres section, the other sections should have information added to be as detailed as the theatre section. --omtay38 08:51, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

• Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, AZ _t 15:34, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

• Thank you so much! Suggestions being taken into account! --omtay38 09:03, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

• 1) There should be a References or Notes section instead of just external links. 2) History should be before Campus. 3) Notable student organizations should be added into a Student Life section and combined with Annual activities. 4) Notable alumni not nearly comprehensive enough. Students section should be renamed like Profile or something. 5) All sections need major expansion. See Stuyvesant High School and Plano Senior High School. -Bluedog423 06:48, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

New Carissa

Review against feature article critera; previously this has been approved as a good article. Other suggestions for improvement are also welcome! --EngineerScotty 19:58, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

• Automated suggestions are provided here, that you may wish to refer for some useful style guidelines. - Mailer Diablo 17:10, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Solid Snake

This one was recently rewritten from an in-universe bio, and brought into line with WP:WAF, it was failed on GA but improved in response to the problems outlined there, and a massive kerfluffle over the infobox has finally been resolved, after some outside input.

What needs to be done next? Any problems with the prose, sourcing problems, or comprehensiveness problems? I think this one could be a FA without too much more work. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 02:44, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

The claim that the character looks like Mel Gibson at one stage is not supported by a reference and seems original research. I would say the picture resembles Gibson as much as Harrison Ford or Kurt Russell, and thus is a mute point - it may just be that this was the popular male stereotype in the day, and the similarity appears only in retrospective. I'm uncomfortable with the statement remaining in the article without a good source. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 11:00, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure this one is a bland observation thing; many of the Snake images were homages to or ripoffs of action movie scenes and characters. See a comparison pic in Metal Gear (video game). I'll see about scrounging more sources, though. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 20:07, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

I rewatched MG Saga and the Mel Gibson thing is mentioned there, so I've sourced that to Saga. The Biehn thing I know I've read off WP so I'm still looking, but I've axed the claim that the Snake design in Snake's Revenge resembles Ahnold. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 22:21, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

I added the Michael Biehn comparison photo; is that sufficient? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 07:36, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

• Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, AZ _t 17:07, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

  There are no automated suggestions there. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 04:51, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

  Oh sorry, they should be there now. AZ _t 00:49, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

  They're there now. Thank you muchly. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 00:59, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

University of Puget Sound

Along with some random anons, I have been the only major contributor to the article for a while. I would eventually like it to become featured. I have tried to look at pages for similar liberal arts colleges and get a feel for what's going on. However, I need some other people to look over the article and tell me what direction to take it in. --Liface 20:43, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

• Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, AZ _t 15:28, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

• Comments:
  1. If possible, move references from the lead section down to the appropriate section of the main text ([1], for example).
  2. Years are inconsistently linked. I suggest dropping all year, as of year and decade links; they are not needed to provide context.
  3. Pay attention to section header capitalization: International Programs => International programs
  4. There are a lot of red links in the notable alumni section; not sure what to suggest there.
  5. Some of the lists will need to become prose for FA.
  6. More pictures would be good.

JonHarder 04:15, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments! What do you mean by lists becoming prose? --Liface 04:53, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Try to rewrite some of the bulletted lists into regular paragraphs, such as those under "Achievements" and "Traditions and events." The more of these you can convert, the better it will go for FA. JonHarder 12:08, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

• This article has a long way to go before it could become a FA, but, all in all, it's not too bad. Here are my problems and suggestions:

1. Comprehensiveness is not nearly there. For comprehensive university articles, see FA's University of Michigan, Michigan State University, Cornell University, and Duke University. For example, there should be a Campus section dedicated to the scenery and important facilities/buildings on campus. I personally know very little about Puget Sound, but the one thing I have heard is that the campus is beautiful.
2. Reference format is not correct. See above examples for proper techniques.
3. Article is under-referenced. Excluding the Notable Alumni section, there are only 8 total references. In particular, the lead (zero refs) and the History section (1 ref) are very under-referenced. Every fact should have a citation. I disagree with JonHarder about merely moving the references from the lead. Having them in both places would be more appropriate. See current FA's for good techniques.
4. Organization issues. Focus of article is not quite what it should be at times - it goes into too much depth in some areas, while neglecting others all together. For example, Tuition and finances and Fraternities and sororities do not deserve their own sections. Rather, a more appropriate way to deal with this would be to create a Profile section under Academics for the tuition/fin aid info. Traditions and events and Fraternities and sororities should be under a Student life section.
5. Agree wholeheartedly with JonHarder's important suggestion about converting bullets to prose. This is a must for FA's. There should be very few (ideally, zero) bullet points in the article. In the Athletics section, instead of listing the sports in a bullet manner, they should be stated in prose (i.e. The University's 21 varsity sports teams include: Men's Baseball, Men's and Women's Basketball, Men's and Women's Crew (competes in the Northwest Collegiate Rowing Conference), Men's and Women's Cross Country, etc.). This is just an example. I personally think all the sports should not be listed. The number is appropriate and particular sports that have been outstanding recently merit mentioning as well. Notable Alumni should be converted to prose as well and needs to be expanded greatly.
6. One photo, which doesn't even provide a fair use rationale, is not nearly enough for an article of a college.
7. Prose is ok, but definitely not brilliant, one of the requirements for FA. A thorough copyedit is in order.

-Bluedog423 06:38, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

RuneScape

We want to know how RuneScape can be edited in order to attain FA status. It has already passed a GA nom.--Ed ^{¿Cómo estás?} 21:34, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

The lead section could do with some polishing. The second paragraph, about Gielinor, looks fancrufty. Consider jettisoning the paragraph, moving useful information to the third paragraph (which then becomes the second paragraph). It wouldn't hurt to add another paragraph which summarises the history of the game, reviews it has received and/or its impact on the world/Internet/MMORPG industry. --J.L.W.S. The Special One 08:32, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

We already have those things you mentioned in your last suggestion. There's a paragraph on it's history and development and one on its reception. The reception paragraph covers the impact on the world, internet, and MMORPG industry, although more info could be added on that. I'll see what I can find. Also, I'll make the changes to the lead section right now.--Ed ^{¿Cómo estás?} 13:44, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

When I wrote paragraphs, I meant paragraphs in the lead section. Sorry for not explaining clearly. --J.L.W.S. The Special One 14:20, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Oh, that's fine. I'll get to it ASAP.--Ed ^{¿Cómo estás?} 14:33, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

I got the lead paragraph that you wanted done. Any more suggestions?--Ed ^{¿Cómo estás?} 16:43, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Caffeine

This is subject near and dear to me, so I've been spending quite alot of time researching and improving the article. I've also noticed that this article is referenced alot by various websites and the like, so I think it's vital to make this as good as possible. My eventual goal is to refine this article for FA status. – ClockworkSoul 19:37, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm quite attached to this article myself – it was the first Wikipedia article I ever read :) Seems to have grown a lot in the past 3 years, though; excellent. It seems to have been covered on all bases – chemistry, biology, physiology... I can't pick any faults with it. Very good article, well-written, flows nicely, not choppy. I like its chances. — riana_dzasta • t • c • e • ER • 15:18, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. There's one flaw I do see in it however: the history section needs some work. I'm waiting until I get another block of free time before I throw myself into it. – ClockworkSoul 16:46, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

What misses is some words about the treatment of acute caffeine intoxication. --WS 22:10, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Do you have a refernce for it killing insects? For it being a CNS stimulant? For its equivalency to guaranine and theine? . . . Generally I think you need to cite sources for such facts. Probably they are already in your extensive list of citations, but need to be correctly placed. Also increase the peer-reviewed literature and decrease the web site references (sites come and go, journals/books are forever.) // Can you add something about the history of chocolate, perhaps a link to a page? // Decrease the repetition. For example, how many times do you say that coffee is the biggest source of caffeine? (I've hit 3 or 4 already; ditto for CNS stimulant). // What do you mean by "similar effect on children and adults?" in the "quantitative publication in food products" section? Please retitle this section and move it to after the discussion of C's effects. Remove repetitions of the idea that it can be difficult to determine the amount of caffeine in a drink. // Generally, I think it could be shortened primarily by removing the repetition of material. Satyrium 00:54, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I was going to comment on the web references as well, but I wasn't sure how to phrase it. It's also a little off-putting to see HowStuffWorks as a reference; it's basically a kiddie website for school projects, isn't it? (Well, that's what I used it for in school!) I may have another look over the article and see if I can find some journal references. — riana_dzasta • t • c • e • ER • 01:49, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

That large majority of the article is referenced, but certainly I can improve many of the references that are not, and I'll get right to it. Thanks for the obvervations. – ClockworkSoul 12:25, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Excellent observations so far: I'm working on resolving my oversights. Please, keep them coming! – ClockworkSoul 12:22, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

• Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, AZ _t 23:42, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

There is no reason for the quote in Anxiety and sleep disorders and should be switched to prose. There is an article The Truth About Caffeine in Category:Caffeine which is not linked to very much. Either it should be included in this article somewhere or should be put up for AfD (I favor the latter). Jon513 21:57, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

I could work the quote into prose. As for The Truth About Caffeine, it's not especially notable, and I think that I'll nominate it for deletion. – ClockworkSoul 01:53, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

On second thought, I shouldn't. People may take my association with the caffeine article as an indication of bias (which, in all honesty, owuld be a fair judgement). I'll leave it to others to nominate. However, I still don't believe that it should be linked to caffeine: it's an article about a book, after all, and not about caffeine itself. – ClockworkSoul 02:19, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't think it is a problem, just be upfront about the reasons. Jimbo has said that those involved with a project should have their opinions on afd respected more not less. Jon513 02:33, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

I'll trust you, then :) I just nominated it. – ClockworkSoul 05:50, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

United States housing bubble

Several positive comments have been made about the article "US housing bubble," both at its talk page and over the web (blogs, Google), and the discussion came about about nominating it as a featured article. Saxifrage suggested that it be peer reviewed as part of this process, so I've requested this here. Your comments and feedback would be greatly appreciated. Frothy 11:33, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Oh dear. Nice work, but serious POV problems. Almost everything from the title down takes it for a fact that there is a bubble. There may be but even the article notes it's not possible to be sure until it's over. California and some other markets have existed for quite some time in a state where median home prices were well out of reach of median income. That doesn't mean CA is not a bubble, but it also doesn't mean that that situation in the rest of the country means there unequivocably is a bubble. It is possible that the US as a whole is not in housing bubble, and a number of economists do not paint it as one. I'm not saying it isn't a bubble, just that unequivocably claiming it is one is POV. Also the section 'Widespread belief that home prices never fall' with it's graph is misleading. The text talks about home prices not falling whereas the graph refers to median sales prices. The graph doesn't track the sales prices of specific houses and show they are falling, instead it looks at what sales have happened and what price they sold for. That graph is typically explained by a larger number of lower price houses selling and less higher price housses selling, and could occur even if not a single individual home price actually falls. Further, a bubble for a couple individual markets, even if confirmed, does not imply the entire country is in a bubble, which the article title does. So the article, including the title needs balance to take into account the possiblity it's not a bubble, and to objectively look at the US housing market. A lot of the same statistics and work could be there, just balance it with the other half of the coin. - Taxman ^Talk 12:15, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Taxman, thank you for your comments. I honestly don't believe that it's the case that the article takes the bubble as a fact—I would say that everything from the title down takes it for a fact that there may or may not be a bubble, and presents facts and opinions that support both sides. The simple fact is that there appears to be much more evidence for the existence of a bubble, especially now that the market is cooling severely in many parts of the country (record inventory, falling prices, increased foreclosures, and the like), so there is a lot more facts and evidence to present on the pro- side than the anti- side, but that doesn't mean that the aticle is POV, any more than the article on evolution is POV because it doesn't treat creationism equally. None of this is to say that more anti- statistics could be added, I'm just not sure what statistics those would be. Also, when one speaks of falling home prices, one can mean many things: falling asking prices, falling price of mean and/or median sales price, etc. The graph simply presents one of these. For specific home, one can easily consult zillow.com to find examples of homes purchased in the past few years that have resold for less now, but for an encyclopedic article, average values are much more important than specific ones. Finally, the article makes it abundantly clear that bubbles may exist in many parts of the U.S., but not necessarily the entire U.S. (see the Fortune magazine "Dead Zone/Danger Zone/Safe Haven" citation). Frothy 20:53, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm somewhat swayed by the greater evidence supports the greater coverage of the pro bubble view, though I haven't reviewed all the evidence myself enough to say. But the median sale price graph is still too misleading to be acceptable. The average person when they think of falling prices will never think of the median sale price across the whole market. Most people don't even know what median means or what it implies. Again, that graph could be explained just by what houses are selling, not by any sale price decline of any kind. That makes it misleading. - Taxman ^Talk 23:07, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Okay, but your comment about the plot of inflation adjusted year-over-year prices leaves me scratching my head. That's the metric everyone (RE industry and media, e.g., see this note from the Weekly Standard) uses to gauge the market—what else would you suggest? It was placed there to counter the common assertion that real estate doesn't fall—here's a clear, recent U.S. example where it has fallen. Also, this metric is also consistent with the plot based on the Economist’s data. What else can we use but year-over-year medians, which are much less susceptible to outliers than the mean? And this is an encyclopedia—if someone doesn't know what median means, we can easily add a link. Frothy 02:32, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

I added links to Wiki's "median" page for people who don't know what this means. Frothy 11:35, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

The House Price Index is based on tracking the price of the same properties over time. Using that index should avoid this sort of criticism. It's only been around for a decade though. The choice of means or medians is a separate issue; I don't think anyone's suggesting using raw means. -- Avenue 13:42, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

The House Price Index and median home prices will not yield substantively different conclusions. Of course, everyone is free to add the HPI if they have a plot of it for the country or specific regions. However, it should also be made clear that it is not adjusted for inflation. Frothy 16:42, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Among the other complaints, I would add that the article should be moved to one that is specific to the housing bubble in question. The current article title would lead me to believe that it's about US housing bubbles in general, which the content does not support. Jun-Dai 23:12, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, that's a good comment, and I've been thinking about that myself. Everyone in the U.S. just calls it the "housing bubble." There have been local bubbles in the past, but never one this large, so there is an argument to be made to call this what it is now, the "US housing bubble." Any suggestions for an alternative? Frothy 02:32, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

I've made the first sentence much more definitive, while acknowledging that the "bubble" refers to either an actual or hypothesized condition, and made it clear that certain (populous) parts of the US are specifically affected. Frothy 14:12, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Some overall softening could be done here and there regarding NPOV, for sure, but overall I think this is some great work. The main problem, though, might be unsolvable: how easy is it to _encyclopedically_ document a current phenomenom that isn't possible to fully identify until it's in the past? As much as I agree with the content of the article, it seems likely that some people won't agree with it, and there's no way to comprehensively prove or disprove either point of view. This is unfortunate because your research is very well implemented here. Thoughts? SlapAyoda 12:51, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks—The WP:NPOV approach that I attempted for my contributions to this article are: (1) no one can predict the future, especially in economics, and every fact must be evaluated with this reality in mind; (2) the US housing bubble is a "fact" in that discussion about it is a current reality popularly and in the news media (3.3 million Google hits), and that there are many valid reasons for concern over the possibility of this phenomenon. Everyone is free to edit Wikipedia, so if there are other facts/arguments I missed, either pro- or anti-, I would strongly encourage people to add these in a cited, factual, and WP:NPOV way. Also, this is not strictly reserach (WP:NOR), but simply an encyclopedic article about the concern of the possibility of the bubble in the US housing market. Frothy 15:04, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

I added text and a citation to this Business Week article on a discussion between several economists last summer. A lot has changed since then, so it's out of date, but it shows the history of debate. Frothy 18:09, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

• Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, AZ _t 23:43, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

That is cool. And helpful. Do you have one that writes the articles? Frothy 00:39, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Done (mostly). Thanks for creating this—I think that some of the "annotated notes" trigger the algorithm, but it really improved things. Frothy 20:12, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

I'd like to thank everyone for their excellent feedback. I believe that I've addressed the great majority of the comments. As activity here has died down, I'm going to proceed to put this up as a candidate for "featured." Frothy 18:17, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Boy Scout

A current Good Article, would like to improve it to at least A-class and perhaps even FA status. Thanks for helping.Rlevse 14:26, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Very well done. I made a few minor changes, you might want to look through the page's history to see my edit summaries so you know why I did what I did :) Keep up the excellent work! --JohnDBuell 01:53, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

• Automated suggestions are provided here, that you may wish to refer for some useful style guidelines. - Mailer Diablo 17:24, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

• • Thanks and did them.Rlevse 17:44, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Nice article. The "Organization" section seems a bit out of place though, although if it were reworked to show how each level related to the individual Scout's experience, then its inclusion would make sense. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 19:20, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

I added a sentence or two on this. Let me know if you have specific ideas on organization to make it even better. Thanks for the help.Rlevse 20:01, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

• Not as international as I would have expected. For example, I understand that the Canadian scout organization has declined in recent years into near oblivion. The United Way controversy is also notable, but missing. Deet 18:43, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
  • This isn't about organizations, but the boy himself (the first clause is "A Boy Scout is a boy") See Scouting for international/organization/movement focus.Rlevse 19:00, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Republic of China

I would like make this into a featured article. --Ideogram 22:46, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

You could try to find sources for those {{fact}} tags first. WP 09:30, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

• Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, AZ _t 01:35, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Taiwan

Hoping to make this a featured article eventually. --Ideogram 21:46, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

• Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, AZ _t 01:35, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Territorial evolution of the United States

This article just appeared a few minutes ago, but I've been working on the research and the maps for the last four months. I'm hoping to quickly get this up to featured list candidacy, but of course a peer review would be useful as well, if only to see if that's the best name for the article. :) --Golbez 06:27, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

And I moved it. :P --Golbez 06:38, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Are you considering including outlying territories, such as Puerto Rico, Virgin Islands, etc.? — Scm83x ^{hook 'em} 23:17, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Not at present; the map is only of incorporated territories, which have a much different status from the unincorporated territories of the Philippines, Guam, etc. --Golbez 23:34, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps the title should be Territorial evolution of United States incorporated territories then? The article seems just fantastic though. Great work! My only issue is the sparse nature of the text, but it is possible that that is unavoidable, given the nature of the article. — Scm83x ^{hook 'em} 23:59, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

No, because only the incorporated territories are part of the United States. Puerto Rico, Guam, et.al. are not. And thanks. :) --Golbez 03:37, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

OK, then perhaps this should be explained at the head of the article? Defining exactly what you mean by United States? I just see that in the future it is possible that other persons might come around wondering where PR and Guam, etc. are with less friendly intentions ("You jingoistic American! You left off my homeland!", personal attack, personal attack, etc.). Hehe, what do you think of the idea of some sort of formal definition at the top of the article? — Scm83x ^{hook 'em} 03:42, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Maybe. The main reason I didn't do it is, well, it's extra work. :P And also, few maps of the United States proper include those other areas. They are unincorporated territories, which makes them not an integral part of the United States. (Another issue - with the exception of the Philippines, those areas are going to be quite boring on a map. :P) --Golbez 03:46, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

What a great idea for an article. Kudos on the maps and the clarity. I wish you'd add some explanations as to why things happened. Why, for example, did the Nevada territory get widened? I'd genuinely like to know the story. Also, please reconsider your exclusion of the territories. List the historical facts, with the caveat that you aren't including the maps for them. They're part of the historical context of territorial expansion, too. Peirigill 17:40, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I've started doing that for Guam, and adding more reasonings would be a great idea. Maybe I should have a different map, like a snapshot of the US at the time of the change, with a wider view for the uninc terrs... yeah... --Golbez 02:25, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

• Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, AZ _t 01:35, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
  • I don't see anything there... --Golbez 02:28, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
    • Probably because the article has changed names since being nomed. — Scm83x ^{hook 'em} 03:21, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
      • Since neither the word 'evolution' nor the phrase 'United States' appears on that page in any meaningful fashion, I'd have to disagree. --Golbez 03:23, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
        • It's possible the program is taught to skip articles under a certain nominal length, like the redirect that it would find at the original link. No need to get upset about it. — Scm83x ^{hook 'em} 03:28, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Heat transfer

I've requested a peer review because I think that this article meets several of the Wikipedia criteria for becoming a featured article. I believe that this article is consise, covers the topic completely, is stable, and contains minimal point-of-view influence. I believe that this article describes a very complicated topic elegantly, and may be useful for both engineers and people with no engineering knowledge. If you agree that this article is a good candidate for becoming a featured article, please let me know. Otherwise, all of use who have worked on this article would appreciate your comments and edits.

(see later entry for reason for strike out)

Specifically, I would ask that you look at the following:

1. The length of the article: Does it consisely describe the topic? Is it too short anywhere, or too verbose?
2. The content of the article: Is it easy to understand? Is it useful both to laypeople and to those with some engineering knowledge? Is anything missing?
3. Grammar and tone: Does the article read like an encyclopedia article? Are there any mistakes?

Thank you, and if you have any questions feel free to leave a message on my user page.

-Âme Errante 10:15, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

• The article is rather short compared to other FAs, especially since this is quite a large subject - might need to reexamine the division between the main and daughter articles.
• The lead is very short and definitely needs expansion.
• I'm not convinced that the education/curriculum stuff is really an important part of an encyclopedia article on the subject.
• One inline reference is pretty skimpy, even if most of this is general information.

Opabinia regalis 02:12, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Thank you, regalis. You certainly make some excellent points. In regards to what you've said, and what I've seen these past couple days as I've glanced at some of the engineering featured articles, I am going to withdraw my request, at least temporarily, for this article to be peer reviewed in the context of becoming a featured article. However, I still would encourage anyone who wants to peer review the article to do so, as I believe it has a good possiblity of later being featured.

Also, would anyone reject the idea of including a note about education in the main article and a link to an article on 'Heat transfer in education'? I believe that information on education is warranted here because the line between heat transfer and other thermo-sciences is necessarily fuzzy, and the general limit of the thermodynamics topics covered in this article is drawn where lines would typically be drawn in the classroom to separate heat transfer from energy conversion, thermofluids, and other subjects.

Âme Errante 13:57, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure the education-related material really needs its own article, but maybe there's more information about it than I expect. Since the subject is an important part of engineering curricula, I'd suggest mentioning how it is taught (any notable teaching methods? controversies? etc) and why (what do practicing engineers use it for?) rather than a description of the prerequisites and the material for which it is a prerequisite, since that varies to some extent between schools and curricula. Opabinia regalis 06:33, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

• Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, AZ _t 01:35, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Carbon dioxide

I'd like this to be a Featured Article, and I think that it's extremely close. I'd like the red links to be fixed and the shortest sections expanded. C. M. Harris 12:21, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

• An article of this length needs more than 9 inline citations. There are large swaths of the usage and biology sections that are totally unreferenced.
• The lead doesn't really summarize the article and needs to be expanded. In particular, dry ice is mentioned without reference to its use, greenhouse gases get only a brief mention, and there's nothing specific about the gas being a poisonous byproduct of human (animal) respiration, which is what I think a layperson knows most about it. Carbon fixation should be mentioned and linked, and CO2's role as a product of complete combustion should probably be mentioned somewhere.
• The second person ("You may notice this sensation..." etc) is unencyclopedic in tone.
• The usage and biology sections both read like random collections of facts rather than coherent prose. The uses section may be a tad more difficult to fix since the uses are so diverse, but rewriting the biology section for continuity shouldn't be difficult; there's an abundance of reference material available. In general, it looks like the atmospheric section has received vastly more effort than these two sections.
  • The entire "Solid CO2" section should be a subsection of "uses", and while dry ice bombs are a use for the substance, I wouldn't classify that use as industrial. The amorphous glass material belongs somewhere as a physical property of CO2, not a use (I don't think this has any industrial applications).
  • In addition to being listy, the biology section is awkwardly written. "...dangerous to the life and health of humans, plants and other animals"?? What?
• The image illustrating the vibrational modes of CO2 is interesting and relevant, but misplaced. Move it, along with a text discussion of vibrational modes, to another section (possibly "properties", after the discussion of the absence of dipole - which itself should get a mention that there can be an induced dipole effect) and let that provide the necessary context for the statement about vibrational modes in the atmosphere section.
• There's a bit of a linkfarm at the end.

Opabinia regalis 17:16, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Some additional comments:

• Suggest comparing to the Acetic acid article, which is FA. You can't go too far wrong by mimicking the layout, where applicable.
• Typo: "conducive"
• The line "The data can be accessed at http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/icecore/antarctica/vostok/vostok_data.html" should be converted into an inline citation. Likewise anywhere else in the text where there is an embedded external link, I'd prefer to see {{cite web}} be used instead as an inline citation. That provides more information about where the reader is heading.
• Somewhere in the article you might mention that CO₂ is the primary component of the atmospheres of both Venus and Mars. It has been discovered in the interstellar medium [20] and is "an abundant component of cold interstellar grains".[21]

Thanks! — RJH (talk) 22:37, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Some other brief comments and ideas...

• The article itself does not seem to be very cohesive. There are portions of the article where unrelated ideas are put together one sentence after another with little continuity - see the "uses" section as an example.

• The use of carbon dioxide as a solvent does not seem to be described adequately - there is an example of how it is used, but not why it acts as a good solvent for certain chemicals. I would expect to see something about supercritical fluids - a brief mentioning would do. Also, something about the predominant solvent interactions would be good.

• There should be something about the molecular point group that carbon dioxide belongs to, and its implications for IR and Raman spectroscopy. The reason is that CO₂ is a rather "simple" system where this can be clearly illustrated - but perhaps this might be better put in the spectroscopy articles.

• Other things as well, but I think I will leave it at this for now. I hope this helps! --HappyCamper 04:52, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

• Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, AZ _t 01:36, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Ibanez JEM

English is not my first language, so I will appreciate any english and grammar correction. I need some feedback also though, for the whole article. Thank you! -- Imoeng 11:29, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Comment - the lead section is way too short (I know - I made it shorter still, but it felt it flowed better with my rewritten lead section) - I think 2 paragraphs would be a good length - try a short introduction about how many variations there were. Is the guitar quite exclusive or not? Is it popular? There are also several grammar errors dotted throughout the article (try not to use 'reach' so much - I can't think of a better word to replace at this moment though) - but I can fix them :) About the picture half-way down the article, what relevance does it have? I can't see what it is straight away, so it may be worth captioning. Apart that, it's a good article and well-referenced. Keep it up! CloudNine 11:53, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Second version - So I've added more information in the introduction and fixed some grammars, although I am sure its quite far from perfect. Could anyone give me more feedback? Pleasee.. Thank you! :) Imoeng 08:11, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Comment - the comment at the beginning shouldn't really be there - I'm not sure it's suited to a encylopedia article :(. Try to wikify the 'Models and Variations' section a little, a few more pictures would be nice (if you can get them). Are the variations radically different? If so, you might want to start up a new article for each of them (like Fender Jaguar - as I'm not a fan of lists personally on Wikipedia.

Also, a 'Notable Users' section might be helpful - there's got to be more people using it than Steve Vai! In the Earlier Guitars section, I think the quote from Steve Vai was a little too long - you may want to only include the part where with the new guitar. There's still a few errors in spelling and grammar, but I can fix those sometime. CloudNine 14:10, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

I left this comment on Imoeng's page as well. I think this article is badly pushing it when it comes to fair use images. There are way too many on there, and they don't strike me as images we couldn't, with some effort, make free alternatives for. Mangojuice^talk 04:25, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

So, what should I do with the images? Please let me know as I really want this article to be one of the good articles. Cheers, Imoeng 02:34, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

• Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, AZ _t 01:36, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Patricia Kaas

I think this article needs some improvement; I wish to do so myself, but don't know what to include. Help is appreciated. --TheM62Manchester 09:52, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Hi, I am the author of the German version of the article which was the basis for the English one. So if u find any mistakes, please drop me a message. It would be helpful if u could specify a little more, where the problem with this article is. -- Dr. Shaggeman 23:38, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

• Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, AZ _t 01:36, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Treaty of Waitangi claims and settlements

This article has just finished being the NZ collaboration. The article needs a general peer review. Also, if it could be looked at for POV-pushing in particular due to the controversial nature that Treaty of Waitangi claims and settlements can be in New Zealand. Brian | (Talk) 07:52, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

completely lacks references. Needs wikilinks for iwi names. Doesn't discuss the effect the Treaty claims process has had on wider race relations in New Zealand (e.g. prior to the process, the Māori seats were seen as being a form of proportional representation in a first past the post system. But today they are talked about as being Treaty rights). --222.154.123.120 10:24, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

• Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, AZ _t 01:36, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Ryan Leaf

I've been working in this article for the last few days all this all-time sports flop. I really want to get this to WP:FAC and make this an WP:FA. Any advice. Thanks Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 04:33, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

• "Some have called his choice of courses ironic, given his extremely poor relations with the media as an NFL player." Needs a specific source. Christopher Parham (talk) 05:53, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

I removed it has obvious unsourced PoV. Thanks Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 06:08, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

• I did some very minor tidying but I can't see much wrong with it (I must be getting tired). Yomangani 23:58, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

• The article looks pretty good. The lead could be a better summary - its misssing some important facts like how long he actaully played or his injuries which seem to have contributed to his failure, it should follow a more chronological line with what he is doing now last; then there is this critics was largely due to his immaturity, arrogance, and poor work ethic which is totally weasley and the only thing in the lead that really needs to be backed up by a cite. Quotes shouldn't be in italics per the MoS. The article also needs a good copyedit.--Peta 03:19, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

• Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, AZ _t 01:36, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Dr Pepper Ballpark

This article concerning a minor league ballpark in Texas recently became a good article. I have found little regarding what a stadium article should be in order to become featured, and I was hoping that this peer review could help me to gain more perspective on the article (as all peer reviews do). I anxiously await any input and thank you in advance for your aid. — Scm83x ^{hook 'em} 22:26, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

• For an article with as many mentions of architectural awards it is surprising how little description is given to the structure's architecture. The article lists a handful of features (the existence of luxury suites, location of the bull pens, and location of a pool) but fails to include a description of the overall style or theme of the ballpark (does the ballpark have a retro theme, futuristic styling, ...?). There also needs to be a mention of what other types of events are held besides baseball games. --Allen3 ^talk 16:16, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

• I am still working on getting a picture of the stadium, so that will make the architectural description easier. There are several architecture descriptions online that can be well used ("park within a park", etc.). In close proximity to the stadium is Pizza Hut Park, which is where all of the concert type events seem to go on in Frisco because it has a built in concert stage. Like most baseball seasons, it is used almost every day during the season, and the offseason is winter, so an outdoor venue is less usable. It seems as though it is used for the Texas Amateur Athletic Federation's Winter Games, patterned after the Olympics for amateur athletes. I'll get to adding these things, including taking the picture. — Scm83x ^{hook 'em} 16:39, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

• As I've been expanding a stadium article recently, I'd be interested to see how this one develops. Some points:
  • There's a couple of bits which are confusing to non-American or non-baseball following readers. What is a Class AA baseball team? Is there an article which can be linked to the term? "ranking it fourth overall in all minor league attendance for the year" - Does this mean US minor league baseball teams, all US sports or something else?
    • I've linked Class AA to minor league baseball in the lead so that the concept is less confusing to international readers. I also disambiguated the statement about overall attendance by clarifying "fourth overall in all minor league baseball attendance". — Scm83x ^{hook 'em} 05:22, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
  • A thorough copyedit would be beneficial. For example, the ballpark did not lose the first event in April 2003, the team playing in it did. There are quite a few redundant words. If all uses of "additionally" were removed from the article, the meaning would not change.
    • Surely. The article was written piecemeal over a few days, so I'm sure a copyedit couldn't hurt. I'll take care of it. — Scm83x ^{hook 'em} 05:22, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Is there an area known for being where the most vociferous fans congregate? What type of seating is used - is it covered or open-air?
    • I have now uploaded an image of the park's facade and inside. From the image, you can see that seating is open-air. All of this will be discussed in the architectural design section I will add soon. There is no particularly vociferous section, by the way. — Scm83x ^{hook 'em} 05:22, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
  • What is the attendance for a typical game? Oldelpaso 20:43, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
    • Games seem to sell out quite frequently, but I will obtain exact figures. Thank you for all of your comments, and let me know if I can help out any with the stadium article that you are working on. — Scm83x ^{hook 'em} 05:22, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Article update: I have added the new architectural design section and requested a copyedit from a very good grammarian friend. — Scm83x ^{hook 'em} 07:51, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

• Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, AZ _t 01:35, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Basketball (ball)

I would like to recieve reviews suchs as out of 10 or out of 5, A, B, C, etc. Judge on the grammar and NPOV in my article.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Supershow (talk • contribs) 16:07, July 29, 2006

Hello, Supershow. You don't seem to have corrected the problems I pointed out in response to your request for feedback. Could you please fix them? Once you fix the problems, I believe the article is close to Good Article standards. Once the peer review is completed, you can nominate it for Good Article. All the best! --J.L.W.S. The Special One 05:47, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

The lead is too short — it should be 2-5 paragraphs. —Celestianpower ^háblame 20:59, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

The "Types of Basketballs" section in particular features far too many sections, making it jarring to read. violet/riga (t) 17:13, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

• Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, AZ _t 01:33, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Angelina Jolie

To all willing editors, I am requesting a Peer Review for the article Angelina Jolie. Any suggestions and ideas will be greatly appreciated. Thank you in advance. Some points of intresest

• Extensive research has been done in her humanitation work
• So many sub-sections in the article (children, years) seem a bit strange to me, any ideas on that.
• The pictures all seem to fit fair use. Myrockstar 02:41, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Goodwill Ambassador links to a disambig page. Jon513 03:14, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

I have extended some of the sections in the last months and I would say most of the text is pretty accurate and well cited considering how much news stories are out there about her. I think I can say that there is no major mistake in the article at the moment. I don't consider the sub-sections as to excessive because of the general length of the article. The article still needs a longer lead section of course and it might be a good idea to create a seperate article "Angelina Jolie's Humanitarian Work" like it has be done with many sections for the very long Madonna article. This would allow to accumulate all information about her humanitarian work in a different page, but at the same time shorten the section in this article and put it in a more comprehensive form since it is rather listy. -- EnemyOfTheState 09:53, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

The Table of contents is far too long, sections need to go. The lead is too short, see WP:LEAD. The tatoos and trivia sections are unencyclopedic and the content should be worked into the text or removed. The information on her children also goes beyond what is necessary for an encyclopedia entry, it draws too heavily on tabloid accounts all that is really necessary is to say she has three kid and two were adopted. Quotes should not be italicised, per the WP:MoS. Fair use images sould have propper fair use rationales--Peta 12:28, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree the table is very long. I think sections should be merged. I also think the information on her huminatarian work is a lot for the article, but I don't think it should have it's own article. Is so much detailed information really needed? The info on her acting career is also somewhat short in my opinion, at least compared to her hum. work. I think some things in the trivia aren't really needed, and other things could easily be worked into the bio section. As for her tattoos, well I think they are an important part of Angelina, but I don't see how they could be merged into something, perhaps not having the section in bullets might help. Myrockstar 23:52, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

I strongly oppose the idea to just delete "Tattoos" and "Trivia"; take a look at the discussion page or the page's history, it's obivous these are rather popular sections for many readers. If anything I would suggest to create a sub-article that could include the lists of both, her tattoos and the general trivia, comparable to articles like this: Madonna trivia. --Sloan21 14:06, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

• Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, AZ _t 01:33, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

The Suite Life of Zack and Cody

This article, to be frank, is a mess. It has tons of fan cruft, has entire sections which don't belong, and does not get the right information across, in the appropriate length. The article features MANY editors, as this is one of Disney Channel's most popular shows. I'd like the chance to work with the editors to improve the quality, and get things back on track. Suggestions as to which sections should stay, which should go, which should be shortened/expanded would be greatly appreciated. --lightdarkness ^(talk) 23:37, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Here are a few suggestions:

• All pictures should have a rationale of fair use written for them.
• The opening is broken down into too many one sentence paragraphs. These should be merged together.
• The trivia section should be combined with the rest of the article.
• Statments like the sitcom is the highest rated show on the Disney Channel and ...the show was rated #336 on the Nielsen TV Ratings Best Shows of 2005 should be sourced.

Hope these help. -- Underneath-it-All ^{(As-Salamu Alaykum)} 02:00, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

• Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, AZ _t 01:35, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

West Liberty Foods

I would like to bring this article up to featured article status and would appreciate comments and suggestions on how to bring the article up to that standard.--Dekkanar 18:12, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Some sections should be expanded as they are very small (ex: the headings under the Management section) -- Underneath-it-All ^{(As-Salamu Alaykum)} 02:06, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

• Thank you for your comments. That sounds like a good idea. I guess I'm just not sure what to expand it with. Do you have any suggestions for particular information or types of information that would be helpful in expanding the management section? Looking at it, I can see now that it is much smaller than the other sections of the article, but I don't want to add information that is not useful to people.--Dekkanar 02:20, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
• I looked at all of the other GAs on businesses and none of them had a management section at all, so I decided to merege the information in the Management-History subsection into the article's History section and eliminate the management section.--Dekkanar 15:10, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Does anyone know if there are any FAs on businesses that I could use as a reference, I can't seem to find one. I'd also like to see what the article's file size is, but I don't know how to do that. I took some pictures of the WL plant today and will add them tonight.--Dekkanar 15:10, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

• Added picture--Dekkanar 22:55, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Prose — looks good, but a few things:

• The three plants owned by West Liberty Foods have different focuses with the West Liberty plant slaughtering, processing, and packing product, the Sigourney plant only processing product, and the Mount Pleasent plant only slicing and packing product. - This sentence seems awkward and lengthy. I'm not sure what it's saying.
• I performed a light copyedit, but there may ahve been a few errors due to the unfamiliarity. I also only copyedited up until the labor section. Redundancies are usually what the prose voters get us FA writers for. — Deckiller 02:17, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

• I rewrote that particular paragraph to try and explain it better. What do you think?--Dekkanar 02:31, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

• Looks good, I'll see if I can do a couple tweaks. — Deckiller 02:34, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

• Thanks for all of your help.--Dekkanar 02:55, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

• Your welcome; the article is VERY well-referenced at quick glance. — Deckiller 02:57, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

• As a law student, I'm a citation nut. I look at featured articles and think: "These don't have enough citations". I realize that the level of citation I would prefer is impossible here though, so I try not to enforce that standard on others.--Dekkanar 03:05, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

• Yeah, sometimes, it can be difficult to find references on common knowledge. — Deckiller 03:11, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

• I performed a light copyedit, but the prose may still need a thoughough workover from someone more dedicated. Users like Tony1 look for removal of redundancies and whatnot for crisp wording, so I tried to help out a bit with that and remove some examples. It still needs a bit more work before it goes to FA, unless you want to deal with the prose during the nomination and get more feedback that way. — Deckiller 02:26, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Deckiller's edits have helped improve the prose rather significantly, but there's still quite a few redundancies and places where the Manual of Style should be implemented. I'm going to perform some light copyediting as I go over the page, and then I'll let you know anything else I think should maybe be focused on. Ryu Kaze 12:06, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
    • I've made several changes to clean up the prose and reduce redundancies, as well as various MOS changes and rearrangement of links, but one thing I'm noticing that should probably be touched on is that some of the references don't utilize a citation template. Typically, all of your references should follow a standard format. I fixed one or two, but there's quite a few more that need some attention. Still looking over everything. Ryu Kaze 12:47, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I've finished my copyedit of the lead and the first subsequent section. It is my belief that -- since you obviously wanted advice so that you could finish construction of the article yourself -- that advice should be limited to such a demonstration. That being the case, I'll give you all my notes on the article, and hopefully you can use them while continuing to polish up the page. I've tried to implement several of these suggestions into my copyedits so that they can serve as a roadmap for how you proceed from here. If you would like additional advice after you've implemented these ideas, feel free to ask me to take another look. I'll be glad to.

Here's my notes:

• Watch out for redundancies. The lead introduced us to the company, and then most of the first paragraph in the "Information" section reiterated all we had been told. While people often will not read every section in an article, and the lead is supposed to act as a summary of sorts for the information present, the basic assumption to make when writing an article is that someone will read the lead and then a section. So if you're working on each section with the idea in mind that someone might not read the entire article, imagine that they read the lead and then they'll read the section you're currently working on. They'll only need introduction info once
• Explain operations better to the uninitiated. Problem sentence: "The West Liberty plant participates in the entire process by slaughtering, processing, and producing finished product, while the Sigourney plant focuses on the processing step only, and the Mount Pleasant plant only produces finished product." Now, you're not necessarily going to explain what all these terms mean or add parenthetical notations (that would be considered messy), but what you can do is use a replacement term that more readily identifies what you're trying to explain. Even though these words are the "proper" words to use in discussion of the subject matter, that could be a little confusing to someone with no familiarity with meat processing. So, if using "packing" could be substituted at one point, use that instead. To many people, "processing" and "producing" might sound synonomous, even though they're not in this context
• Typically, you'll want to use as few words as possible so that sentences are crisp, while also trying to prevent any unnecessary pauses or full stops, so that things flow. Example: I changed "While West Liberty Foods has grown and received awards since its creation, it initially faced a difficult market for turkeys. It has since experienced an episode of labor discontent among some employees" to "While West Liberty Foods has grown and received awards since its creation, it initially faced a difficult market for turkeys, and has since experienced an episode of labor discontent". "Labor discontent" is, by context, associated with employees, so it isn't necessary to identify them in this sentence, and the pause at the end of the other sentence isn't necessary since both sentences are about issues the company has dealt with, and both can be mentioned in a single sentence without it being too long-winded. It's a difficult balance to find sometimes, but that's really what you want to shoot for: no unnecessary pauses, but no mouthfuls either
• This kind of overlaps with the previous suggestion, but pay close attention to how you use commas and the word "and". Sometimes it might appear that things are being linked to things you might not intend for them to be, or it can make for run-on sentences. Example: "The R&D facility includes testing space for both raw and cooked product and can create test products from start to finish including initial formulation and final slicing and packaging". Sentences like this can be a mouthful because they lack proper pausing. You wouldn't want to use a full stop here with a period, but you do want to implement a pause to display a change in train of thought. I change the sentence to read thus: "The R&D facility includes testing space for both raw and cooked product, and can create test products from start to finish, including initial formulation, final slicing, and packaging". By the way, using the comma before the final "and" in this sentence wasn't necessary, but I did it because it seemed to be the style you prefer throughout the article. There's no correct or incorrect way of implementing a comma in those kinds of situations, but I think it would really look a little cleaner and maybe be less confusing to the reader if that final comma wasn't used. Me personally, I don't use commas in those situations most of the time so that the reader won't be expecting a pause where one might not really be needed. Typically, if you're just listing (ex: "I like dogs, pizza and lemonade") you won't need that final comma. If, however, you're using descriptions of each item after mentioning them, it's best to use the comma for clarity on the basis of description-to-subject (ex: "I like dogs, which are furry quadrupeds, pizza, which is a flat, oven-baked bread covered in cheese and tomato sauce, and lemonade, a beverage that is made from the juice of lemons")
• You won't need the external link to the official site at the bottom. The company template box already has that taken care of
• Watch out for the placement of links. They should occur where the terms in question are used first, except in the case of proper names. For instance, I've turned the second use of "Iowa" into a link to the article about the state, because the first use was in the title of the Iowa Turkey Growers Cooperative. I noticed a lot of links showing up when they should have been a line or two before, or much earlier in the article
• Be sure proper capitalization is followed, even with words that are linked
• In cases where you're going to use the name of something commonly abbreviated, use the full name first and then have the abbreviation follow in parentheses. For example, "polymerase chain reaction" should occur first, and then be followed by "(PMR)". Also, you don't have to link both uses. Just the first
• Identify which currency you're operating with. If you use the dollar sign with regard to the US dollar, indicate that it's the US dollar by using "US$" instead of just "$". Also, in cases of currency in general, link the first use (ex: US$; I've already taken care of it in this case, though) and use the currency which applies best to the article. In this case, it's a US company so you'll obviously stick with using US currency
• Standardize the formatting of your references

I hope all of this helps you out, and like I said, feel free to have me look the article over again later if you'd like. Good luck with it. Ryu Kaze 13:31, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

• The prose still needs work. As Ryu said, we're not going to do the entire article for you ^_^ — Deckiller 15:15, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
• Avoid additive terms like "additionally", "moreover", and "furthermore" when necessary — having more than 5 in an article may cause some objections. Also, try to avoid words like "currently" and "over the years", they don't add much to a sentence. — Deckiller 15:16, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
• "efore people apply, they must spend their own time completing a 16 hour food safety training course through Iowa State University." You can probably live with out the "spend their own time", since if they're going through a course, they're taking the time to do it. Or, if it needs to be clarified, "Before people apply, they must complete a 16 hour food safety training course through Iowa State University." — Deckiller 15:21, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
• "The three plants combined can convert 4.5 million turkeys, raised exclusively by ITGC members, into product annually" - seems awkward; perhaps move the "annually"? — Deckiller 15:28, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for all of your feedback. I think this is a lot more than I was expecting there to be to deal with. It will probably take me some time to address all of this. Thank you though for your time.--Dekkanar 12:50, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Wow, this is probably the most thorough peer review I've ever seen. While it is a lot for Dekkanar to deal with, kudos for restoring my faith in the process. -- Zanimum 14:13, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

• Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, AZ _t 01:35, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Telecommunication

This article introduces the subject of telecommunication from a technical perspective, it is a relatively long article (40 kB) and has been identified as one of the core topics for Wikipedia. It has been recently rewritten over the course of several months. I welcome any suggestions on how to improve the article. I hope to at least make it a good article. Cedars 02:18, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

• It looks pretty good, the lead could use work since the majority of the second paragraph is a self reference, where it should be a summary of the article. While the rest of the article is pretty well balanced, there is a skew towards new technology - I think it could use some sort of analysis on access to telecommuniccations and how that varies across the world.--Peta 04:32, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Thanks Peta! I removed the self references and added some discussion about differing levels of access to telecommunication worldwide. Cedars 07:01, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

• Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, AZ _t 01:33, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Ziaur Rahman

Hi - let's make this article an FA. Request all help and advice. Rama's arrow 02:00, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

• The article switches between refering to him as Ziaur and Zia. If Zia is a shorthand way of saying the name used for convenience, it seems innappropriate for an encyclapedia article. If it is a common cultural practice to shorten names that way, it should be explained.
• The entire article needs more citations, but the Criticism and Legacy section in particular lacks any references and almost the entire section is speculative information that needs to be sourced.
• A greater variety of refernced sources than one online article should be used. Some sources that may be helpful:
  • an Dec. 18, 2005 from The Statesman, a paper? published in Calcutta and New Dehli
  • Nov. 13, 2005 article in Business Recorder out of Karachi, Pakistan
  • Nov. 8, 2005 article in Kuwait Times
  • Mar. 21, 1991 article in Chicago Tribune
  • New York Times articles from Dec 8, 1976, May 28, 1977, Jun 4, 1978, Jun 7, 1978, Feb 19, 1979, Nov 11, 1979, Jul 28, 1980, Aug 29, 1980, May 30, 1981, May 31, 1981, and Sep 23, 1981.
• Some copyediting would be helpful as well, I did a small amount myself.

I hope these are helpful for you. --Dekkanar 02:52, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

• Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, AZ _t 01:33, 9 August 2006 (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)

LiveJournal

I'd like to see this made into an FA level canidate. What suggestions can be offered? Thanks! - rootology (T) 17:11, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

• Fair use images need rationales, sections with NPOV issues need to be addressed. --lightdarkness ^(talk) 17:41, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

  Which first needs to be understood by editors in that it doesn't mean equal time to varying view points. The neutrality isn't so much disputed in some places as the purpose of that policy is misunderstood.--Crossmr 19:24, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

  Which sections do you guys think need the most NPOV work? I'd like to sandbox it. rootology (T) 19:30, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

  Personally I think the neutrality is currently okay. The problem is some individuals who feel that neutrality means anyone with an axe can grind can put their complaint about LJ on that page (I've noticed this trend on several articles). When you remove it citing policy, they slap a NPOV tag on it. I'd have to go through the specifics, but I believe everything that is in there is properly cited and as such its neutral as it can be per WP:NPOV.--Crossmr 23:38, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Notable users and journals are, well... Not. Hipocrite - «Talk» 20:13, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks... a lot of those will need to get cut down to people who are likely known outside of Internet/LJ circles. Paul Dini, Billy Corgan, Warren Ellis, Jhonen Vasquez, Caitlyn Kiernen... many of the others are fluff. rootology (T) 20:17, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

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

Edmonton Oilers in the 2006 Stanley Cup Playoffs

Ok, two big questions.

1. Where do I find uncopyrighted pictures, or can this be fair used?
2. Any infobox in particular fit with this article?

Otherwise, please let me know how this article can improve to Featured status. I think it's on the way Attic Owl 02:53, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Some photos on Flickr have Creative Commons licenses that are suitable for Wikipedia. These include Creative Commons Attribution License and Share Alike. I didn't find any actual game photos there, but added one of fans out on Whyte Avenue. --Aude (talk contribs) 15:20, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

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

Jaws (film)

I'm hoping that this article is very close for FA status, so I'm putting it up for peer review now. I will add more information to the DVD release section and possibly some deleted scenes information, but other than that I think it covers all the bases. I apologize in advance if I don't respond to comments for awhile, since I'm about to be hit by Hurricane Ernesto in two days. Thanks.--Dark Kubrick 02:50, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Issues: I'd replace the word "Movie" wherever it appears with the word "Film". It's more professional-sounding. The casting information needs referencing, such as Dreyfuss thinking one of his own performances was terrible. "The scene where Hooper discovers Ben Gardner's body" is mentioned but I wasn't sure who Ben Gardner is. It might also benefit the reader to explain briefly what 100 Years... 100 Movies and 100 Years... 100 Thrills are. I'd question "Reviews of the film were almost unanimously positive, evidenced by the 100% rating at Rotten Tomatoes". Rotten Tomatoes might be a good tool for contemporary movies, but with older stuff they don't usually have everything. The note at the end of the criticism section that the shark looks fake and that its a widespread opinion needs a reference. The Moby Dick stuff needs referencing too. Differences from the novel and sequel sections are listy. If we must have a sequel section, I'd model it after those in FAs Halloween (film) or Night of the Living Dead. Still, the topic is featured distworthy, and the article as is is pretty close, with the issues above probably easily fixable. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 09:38, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments. I've dealt with all the issues here, except the last two. What particular information about Moby Dick do I need to cite? And how would I change the differences from the novel section into prose? Thanks.--Dark Kubrick 12:43, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

I've cited a few sentences dealing with Moby Dick and rewrote the sequel section into prose. If the references are looking really screwed up (as they are all over Wikipedia), add this: ?action=purge to the address bar when viewing the page.--Dark Kubrick 18:41, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't mean to quibble, but Jaws was actually the first movie to make over $100 million in domestic rentals (i.e., the amount returned to distributors from U.S. and Canadian theaters as the distributors' share of the box office take) versus simple domestic grosses (ticket sales). The film's actual box office gross was closer to $170 - 180 million or so, I believe. The $85 million noted as The Godfather's box office gross was actually that film's domestic rental performance, which means it made well over $100 million in ticket sales, also. Prior to 1993, Variety, the film industry standard publication, used to report strictly domestic rentals as a gauge of a movie's performance, and at the end of the year would print a listing of all titles that had made $1 million dollars and more returned to distributors during the previous 12 month period. The magazine switched to listing box office grosses in 1993, presumably because everyone else by that time was doing so. Anyway, I think the article should be changed to reflect this. A good source of domestic rental/domestic gross information throughout the years is Michael Gebert's "The Encyclopedia of Movie Awards", but there should be plenty of other reliable sources that detail this info.Hal Raglan 03:12, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Oops, I forgot to add that both Variety (at the end of 1975) and Gebert's book (which provides data from Variety archives) noted that Jaws was the first film to make over $ 100 million in domestic rentals.Hal Raglan 03:17, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Quibble this is not. I am very glad you brought this to my attention, as I wish this article to be fully complete and accurate regarding the movie. I've changed the section and added a reference to reflect your suggestion. Thanks.--Dark Kubrick 16:17, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Isaiah 53

I have sort've run wild with this project, and I am oblivious as to how it sounds to an outside reader, and to what it needs for improvement. It's not very long, but I'd like to know what kind of improvements can be made in order to bring it to Featured or Good Article status. Also, I realize that many will be turned off by the primary source, but remember that WP:NPS states "Some short texts such as short poems and national anthems are usually included in their article, e.g. Ozymandias." AdamBiswanger1 22:11, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I think that the text needs to be at Wikisource. Are the websites you are referencing the most reliable sources for this material? I would have expected to see more scholarly books. Jkelly 22:51, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

That's certainly one of my thoughts, too. As soon as I take a trip to the library, I'll be able to come back with plenty of better resources. Although they probably aren't what Wikipedia would call "reliable", I think they're safe, and at worst interesting. Thanks for your input AdamBiswanger1 18:42, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

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

Al-

I am very aware of the lack of references in this article, which I expanded from a one-sentence stub. Some of the issues that could be mentioned in a further expansion have been named already on the talk page, but as they are beyond my own knowledge, I'd like to make other editors aware of the article. Expertise and/or fluency in Arabic would be especially appreciated, but even just some pointers on the explanations given in the article or guidance on where to look for further references would be appreciated. Thanks. -Fsotrain09 17:54, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Though I'm not familiar with Arabic, you might try Talk:Arabic language, Talk:Islam (that's more of a battlefield than a talk page usually), and similar places. Where to look would be for phrases like history of Arabic on the Internet or the local library; more specifically try Arabic proper nouns or Arabic definite article in your searches.

I'm more familiar with the Spanish language and can tell you that the Spanish el for the (masculine form) may have been changed because of this; at the least, it might get a mention for similarity. Although the French le would seem to support this, Italian uses il so I'm not sure. The article is a good start in any case. Best of luck, Moulder 10:47, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

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

Downtown Cleveland

I already think this is an amazing article. Is it good enough to be FA? Lorty 15:10, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

The table of contents seems longer than it really needs to be. I think a lot of the 'district' sections could be combined into a single section instead of having a separate section for every paragraph. The article also appears to be light on inline citations which would be a problem come FAC time.--Dekkanar 16:09, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

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

Heysel Stadium disaster

I'm nominating the Heysel disaster article for a peer review as I feel it's a subject that deserves as neutral an article as possible. I guess that I'm the main editor of the page, but I'm an English Liverpool FC fan, and so inherently biased. I've tried my best to make the article neutral, but I'd appreciate some others to read through it and offer constructive critisism.

A second problem I have as an editor is a lack of good sources. I also don't speak italian, so getting the Juventus perspective isn't easy. So I guess having an Italian speaker willing to put some effort into the page would help a great deal.

Cheers, aLii 12:31, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Some of the recent contributors to it:Strage dell'Heysel have Babel boxes listing them as en-3, perhaps one of those could help? Oldelpaso 17:16, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

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

Total Nonstop Action Wrestling

I would like to see what needs to be done to this article for possible inclusion into Wikipedia:Version 0.5 or Wikipedia:Version 1.0, or at least GA-class nomination. --Kitch 12:26, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

I really hope this doesn't meet the importance criterion, because if so, there's something wrong. Nothing personal of course, but wrestling (especially this kind) isn't the most encyclopedic topic, particularly on an international encyclopedia. Moulder 14:03, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

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

Tarkan (singer)

I think the article is well written and comprehensive, covering all aspects of the topic with a detailed discography. I wonder how it can be inproved to reach a featured Article status. I guess some of the photos might be an obstacle. waiting for your opinion and help. --Teemeah Gül Bahçesi 12:20, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

If Tarkan had actually broken into America with his English-language album, that extra newsworthiness could've made it a Featured Article (or at least put it somewhere on Wiki's front-page). Short of that, I don't know. It is a competant article. Maybe someone could read a bunch of Featured Articles at once, to see if there are any particular qualities or trends that set them apart. Also, I've entered "Tarkan" on Wiki's Suggested Feature Article page. Does that help? Maybe we can all do that, and with the same suggestion coming from multiple users and IP's, Wiki will listen. --68.164.83.80 06:47, 4 August 2006 (UTC) a random Elizabeth (tongue nowhere near cheek)

• Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, AZ _t 01:28, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
• Nominated again - a year passed by, a lot of things were improved. Please review again. --Teemeah Gül Bahçesi 14:30, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
• A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style. If you would find such a review helpful, please click here. Thanks, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 15:30, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Lancashire

This article could be improved; if it were, I hope we can make it a WP:FAC candidate. Please leave feedback here. --TheM62Manchester 11:33, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

• Some comments: For a regional page it's a tad on the short side. The only section that's significantly developed is "environs and divisions". The "cuisine" and "places of interest" sections are just lists. I'd rather see something more descriptive. The page doesn't yet meet the citeria for high-quality articles that have already undergone extensive work that is mentioned at the top of this page. It's a decent start, but I'd like to see 2-3 times as much good material, along with citations and references. Thanks! — RJH (talk) 15:42, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

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

Bias

This article has been Hijacked by County Watch vandals.--84.9.193.122 20:10, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Embrun, Ontario

Embrun, Ontario is an article that started out as a three-sentence stub and slowly grew. Back at the end of May, the Embrun, Ontario article was nominated for Featured Article, but it failed utterly (no wonder, there wasn't even any images or citations!). Since then, the Embrun, Ontario article has improved, and now many questionable facts are now cited and the article now has a couple images. Eventually, the article could be nominated for FaC sometime once it improves more.--FreshFruitsRule 16:39, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Goals

• Improve spelling and grammar
• Expand/Merge Small Sections

Comments

• Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, AZ _t 01:25, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
• Accuracy and documentation issues: Embrun is not a city; it's a community within a township. "Vassal community" is not an existing term in the English language. Document the population claim with actual sourced demographic data from a reputable statistical agency; as of today, even the municipal government of Russell Township still only claims a total population of 12,000 on its website, and the most recent statistical sources available from the federal government still only say that 6,000 of those live in Embrun; the source provided for this article's claim that 11,000+ people live in Embrun is a resident's personal website on Freewebs, with no indication provided of what their source is for that number. Wikipedia requires verifiable sources, which does not mean we can simply repeat any claim made by anybody on the web; sources have to be documented, verifiable and reputable, and a personal website with no source citations does not meet those criteria. Bearcat 08:17, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

FLCL

A weird but sophisticated anime that's currenly the vote leader at WP:AID and may become a featured article... with help. Since all of us working on the article know what we're taling about, we need outsiders to tell us what parts may be confusing for the uninitiated. -Litefantastic 16:11, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

• Over half the lead is about something called 'adult swim'. This is not en-US.wikipedia - or pretends not to be.
• No meaningful references, #1 uncontroversial fact, #2#3#4 meaningless as 'reception' indicators.
• Too much list and opinion-prose, not enough actual encylopedia content.

Feel free to ignore all this though, it's perfectly possible to get an anime article featured that deals only with North America. --zippedmartin 00:03, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

That's probably true, but still: thanks! -Litefantastic 00:08, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Okay, now over half the lead is plot summary, which kinda gives the wrong impression this is a narrative-heavy show... The best leads are just good article summaries. I'd worry about having enough non-'Notes and trivia' content to put in three short paragraphs. Oh, anmd pet peeve, it treats the work as if it's in a vacuum, bar some 'parody' mentions - it's not like Tsurumaki/Sadamoto et al had no influences and no impact. There are resources that can help. --zippedmartin 01:05, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

---

I fall into the 'outsider' category, because I hardly know what Anime is and I've never seen any of it. I haven't heard of FLCL and I don't think it'll be broadcast here in the UK. Here's my advice about the article:

• The article looks like it covers everything that needs to be mentioned and I feel I know a reasonable amount about the series now that I've read it. The article doesn't go into a lot of technical detail about anime, so I understood everything.
• Needs references!
• "very, very heavy" - Remove repeated word by replacing with something like "extremely"?
• "runs Naota over with her Vespa" - Maybe put 'motor scooter' after the Vespa word to clarify what it is? Otherwise I think people will assume it's a car unless they look at the link.
• "If you look" - The second person shouldn't be used in articles.
• "June 4 of 2006" "August 5 2006" - Slightly different date formats in third paragraph of lead.
• In the third paragraph, it doesn't really matter when it was announced and that date has gone now, so could it be written to say what happened? Maybe remove "On June 4 of 2006, it was announced that Adult Swim would run" and replace with "Adult Swim ran"
• The story section seems focussed on the start of the story. How does it conclude? Perhaps the episode articles are there to provide that information, which is fine if that's the intention.
• Needs an endspoiler template, or remove the first spoiler tag because the section is called "story", so people will assume that it contains plot details.
• Would be good if all the character links went directly to their sections.
• "it created a large horn" - I don't see this on any of the pictures, is it invisible or inside his head or...? I'm confused.
• Articles shouldn't contain trivia sections.
• "In the same manga scene the Japanese version uses" - That confused me a bit. I barely understand what Anime is and I have no idea what Manga is. The problem here is my lack of knowledge on this subject, but I think it would be useful to at least make 'manga' a link.
• References should go after punctuation, instead of before.

I hope that's useful to you. Icey 12:32, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

-Thanks! -Litefantastic 23:39, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

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

• FLCL is an Ecchi so why isnt it on Wikipedia? The scences in the OVA is EZACTLY what an Ecchi is! SEXUAL COMADY! Am I wrong? Im gona put it up again if I comfirm this! *Self* "Wiki is Truth...HA Wiki is Lacking the Truth! Im the editor that will change that! I am SUPER EDITOR-SAN!!!O_O...um I um....look im for the the whole Wiki is Truth thing but make sure you dont leave everything out just because "Orginal Research!" Its stupid and not every site can tell tell you everything! You need "Orginal Research" sometime!--Lolicon-r.us 17:18, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Maidstone

I can imagine there is quite a lot of work to be done on this article, and I'd like it to be a good article in the future, if not featured. I'd appreciate any thoughts on how this article can be improved. Thanks, — FireFox ^(talk) _{12:57, 05 August '06}

To start the article is lacking references, a few examples you might want to try and find references for are:

• "It is one of the few towns in the UK to have a crater on Mars named after it."
• "Although Stone Age finds have been made locally, it is the Romans who first gave Maidstone some importance. Their road from Watling Street at Rochester to Hastings across the Weald passed through the site, and two villas have been discovered. They were also among the first to extract stone (the sandstone known as Kentish Rag) from the area."
• "There have been two Army barracks in Maidstone. One is now closed. The present Invicta Barracks is home to the Royal Engineers 36 Engineer Regiment, which includes 2 Gurkha field squadrons."

The article needs to be comprehensible, there is a statement in the article that says "Maidstone’s town status was confirmed when, in 1549, it was incorporated." That should be refed, and explained. What does it mean that it was confirmed and incorporated? Things of that nature, remember many people of different cultures may read the article and they may not understand what that statement means. The lead section is on the short side and could do with expansion, it might be a good idea to merge the headline sections "Early history" and "Town Status" into the lead section of the article. KOS | talk 19:38, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll start some work on this in the coming days. Any other suggestions would be appreciated. — FireFox ^(talk) _{19:43, 6 August '06}

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

History of Singapore

Archive 1, Archive 2

The article has undergone significant copyediting and some feedback obtained from a FA nomination (which were fairly minor) have been addressed. There was no response in the previous request for peer review except for the automated review. Hope to get more suggestions and comments this time, before we submit for FAC. Thanks. --Vsion 08:43, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

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

• You may be interested in having a look at a comprehesive prose during merger available at Malaysia history series of articles, such as Ketuanan Melayu (which is also on FAC). - Mailer Diablo 05:45, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Khan Wali Khan

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

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

There are a number of images used in the article (such as Image:WaliKhan4.jpg) that we apparantly know nothing about. They're sourced to a webpage that doesn't contain the image. There's no information on the photographer or copyright holder. They are tagged as being public domain, but we cannot demonstrate that. Can some research be done on these images? They shouldn't have been uploaded without more information. Jkelly 22:44, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

I've updated the information on the link to the site. What proof do I have to give? Can you post an example of a pic I coud use as a template? What about the rest of the article? Thanks --Zak 17:51, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

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

Guys this is my third request for peer review on this article, it's gone through some huge changes since i started working on it early last year. So what do you guys think? --Zak 19:43, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

My thinking is that there are many paragraphs with significant claims but no citations. For example, "Wali Khan accused Zulfiqar Bhutto of attempting to arrange his assassination" is uncited, yet it's a powerful accusation. The citations that are there aren't consistently formated. So I'd recommend using the appropriate cite templates as much as possible. Also, can you get any more images for the article? I only see the two near the top. The text "...chose not even participate..." seems improper. — RJH (talk) 22:34, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

thanks for the comments, I think additional pictures are difficult to get because of copyright issues. but i'll see what improvemets I can make to teh rest as you suggested. check your page.. --Zak 15:41, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

History of virtual learning environments

This article was initially created as response to a call for prior art documentation for Blackboard's recently filed patent. Given the activist impulse motivating the creation, we would appreciate the perspective of the broader Wikipedia community to ensure that the content itself is appropriately factual and written from a neutral point of view.

Also, many of the contributors are first-time Wikipedians. Therefore, any style suggestions would also be appreciated.

Mfeldstein 19:32, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

History articles normally start at the beginning and go through to the present (or the end). It's rather unusual that this article presents the most recent developments first.

I'd take out the blank line between bullet points, so more information fits on each screen.

Rather than display full URLs, add an intuitive name after each, e.g. Oncourse Press Release

Beef up the first paragraph a bit so someone stumbling across this article doesn't have to go to the linked article to find out what a Virtual Learning Environment is.

I made an attempt at this using some text from the linked article. Others may have further suggested improvements.

The "Unknown dates" section should probably be moved to the talk page, as it's a series of requests for information rather than the information itself.-gadfium 01:53, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

This appears to have been done.

“ Another way of breaking up text is to add quotes using the {{rquote}} (talk) template and its friends. ” — User:gadfium

That's definately an improvement.

It would be nice to break up the text with pictures or quotes. For example, the keyboard picture from the PLATO article could be added to the 1976 section.-gadfium 23:52, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Another possibility would be to add a timeline. See m:EasyTimeline. It isn't easy to do, and the results don't always look good. See {{Timeline History of Computing}} for an example of an ambitious timeline which doesn't look very good (possibly due to my screen resolution).-gadfium 00:37, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

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

Backgammon

First review: Wikipedia:Peer review/Backgammon/archive1

I am hoping to nominate this article for FA within the next few weeks, but I believe it still needs some work before going there. I would appreciate any comments or suggestions so I can take care of them before then. —ptk✰fgs 15:24, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Very nice article, I loved this game as a kid but never quite understood the doubling cube before (and I remember re-reading "Hoyles" three times trying to figure it out). My only real concern is the lack of information under vareties is at odds with multitude of information given under history. These games either are similar to Backgammon to deserve being covered by the article or they are not. They cannot be derserving of detailed coverage in one area and not the other.--Birgitte§β ʈ Talk 20:41, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks! I think the best solution to this problem of balance might be to discuss some of the more backgammon-like variants here in the article. I'll see about coming up with a couple of paragraphs there. —ptk✰fgs 20:48, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

• Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Ruhrfisch 02:30, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Austria

I think that it is important that every country and continent becomes a featured article. This article is very close to becoming featured. The article is a bit big, though, (32.7 kb), I would like to know where would be a good place to cut it down. --Thelb⁴ 19:59, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure that the section "Economy of Austria" needs to give notes about specific sectors after and apart from the summary paragraphs, since there is a daughter article devoted to the topic. -Fsotrain09 00:17, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

The history is brutally short, as is culture. Religion is a part of demographics and is disproportionately long in this article. Demographics gives no indication of the level of education. References need to be included in this article or it will not pass FAC. See Lybia or Australia for guidance. --Peta 07:13, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

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

Gray Fox (Metal Gear)

Recently re-written (mostly by yours truly) a la the Solid Snake article, gonna take care of the merge tag myself. Don't really know what else to say, appreciate some advice

(The Bread 00:19, 6 August 2006 (UTC))

The photo comparison seems more forced than in Solid Snake, but I'm not terribly familiar with it. What's there is fine, but there ought to be more information out there; any revealing interviews with Kojima? Choice quotes from reviewers that exemplify the reception of the character? Nifboy 05:03, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

This is a supporting character only; I've proposed reducing the plot summary drastically (as well as removing the unreferenced, long-shot image comparison) and merging it with a list of supporting characters (per WP:FICT) at Talk:List of recurring Metal Gear characters. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 06:19, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree, essentially; if there isn't more information available to round out the article, it ought to be merged into the prose-list. Nifboy 07:17, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

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

New Jersey Supreme Court

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

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

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

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

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

Flaming

A very controversial topic indeed. I think it's ready to be peer reviewed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Selmo (talk • contribs) 04:50, August 6, 2006

As hard to find as scholarly sources on this might be - I've never looked but I imagine it's a bit harder than, say, evolution - the article has no references. Maybe it's not ready yet. Moulder 14:00, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

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

dc Talk

I would like this whole article to be reviewed, because I am trying to get it to FA status. Any comments that could benefit the page are welcome. Thank you.Chili14 18:28, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

• Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, AZ _t 18:36, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

The awards section could be formatted with a table similar to the other sections, and the GMA section in particular needs formatting to remove the caps and such. Also, see WP:FOOT for some information on WP's method of using inline citations. Moulder 14:11, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

NATO

This is a Good Article, but could be a great article. It currently has a number of structural weaknesses along with too much detail in some areas, and gaps in others. Its an article that needs to find its direction. Self-Described Seabhcán 10:15, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

The statement "NATO Summit 2006 will take place in Latvia" and "Connections to terrorism" appear out of place in the Purpose section. The later should probably be in a criticisms section for neutrality reasons. As I read it, Operation Gladio was intended for clandestine operations if NATO members became occupied. There's a big difference between that and what is stated as "right wing terrorist organisations", so I think the reason for that wording needs to be clarified. Otherwise it reads like leftist propaganda. Thanks. — RJH (talk) 17:37, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Gladio was originally set up to counter a soviet invasion but as parliamentary investigations show, the network was extensively used (and since no invasion took place - solely used) to discredit and supress socialist democratic movements throughout the member countries. Gladio was (and perhaps is still) and integral part of NATO. In deed, it has been discovered (and published, see references) that NATO candidates were required to set up gladio networks before their membership would be accepted. These networks were then put under the control of the NATO leadership. Its an important aspect of NATO's purpose, so I don't think it should be under a critism section - it isn't a critism, its simply a fact. Self-Described Seabhcán 20:09, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Then most of that section is more appropriate for the history sections. I only see one sentence in there related to purpose, and that is not even confirmed or denied by NATO. Nowhere in there does it actually state the purpose of suppressing socialist democratic movements throughout the member countries. Instead it states the purpose was to increase the power of the U.S.A.

I can somewhat understand the purpose of a Gladio in the light of an anti-communist organization, given the rampant paranoia of the cold war period. But then that section should be specifically about the purpose; not a history. — RJH (talk) 22:32, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes, but the whole of NATO's purpose is historical - it is to defend western Europe against the Soviet Union - and NATO has never really redefined itself since the collapse of that enemy. Also, there is no evidence that Gladio was every shut down but if we put it in the history section it implies that we know it was.

The history section can just cover the history of the revelations regarding Gladio, as well as the current EU activities in that regard. It does not need to infer that it was ever shut down. — RJH (talk)

I do think you've made some good points about the section not being streamlined for inclusion under purpose. Perhaps the solution is to keep a brief mention (~1 line) of Gladio in the purpose section, and move the rest to history. Self-Described Seabhcán 08:43, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes, that works for me: having the "Purpose" section describe the existence of the Gladio and it's purpose--both as a clandestine organization to operate behind enemy lines and as an anti-communist group that employed terrorist and subversive tactics, up to and including coup attempts. — RJH (talk) 15:43, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Done. What do you think? How about the rest of the article? Self-Described Seabhcán 16:05, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes that looks good. The only sentence that might need to be tweaked reads, "The official aim was to prevent Communist movements..." Since the program still hasn't been officially confirmed, it would read more neutral if used a word such as "alleged" or "supposed" were included.

Apart from that, the only things that come to mind are: NATO agreements on standardized armaments and shared equipment, and measures taken for multi-national cooperation on the battlefield (such as common communications, languages, radio frequencies, IFF, etc.) Thanks. — RJH (talk) 18:49, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

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

Everton F.C.

Basically the whole article needs reviewing by a neutral source. I have been improving it over a long period of time and need guidance as to where it needs attention. Thankyou SenorKristobbal 14:33, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Probably more points than you hoped for, but here goes:

• The biggest problem facing this article is a lack of references, with the only ones referring to recent signings. For information on what sort of thing should be referenced, see WP:CITE. Looking at Arsenal F.C. or Manchester City F.C. may also help with getting an idea of what to reference.
• Merge the facts in the Trivia section elsewhere, or get rid of them.
• The supporters section is biased. More or less all sets of fans would view themselves as "a passionate bunch". If it is so hard for visiting teams to score why was Everton's home defensive record worse than 13 teams (including relegated Birmingham) last season? Again some of this could be helped by references.
• The transfer ins and outs are not needed, as Wikipedia is not a news service.
• There are many one sentence paragraphs, which breaks up the flow of the prose.
• The staff list is unnecessarily long. Do we really need to know who coaches 6-12 year olds?
• Consider moving the club records to Everton F.C. records, and leaving only major ones,(i.e. record overall goalscorer, record victory in any competition).
• The prose could do with a thorough copyedit, and is a little too informal at times.
• It is not necessary to list the reserve team or any player not issued with a squad number. In fact, some of those reserve players with articles may be candidates for deletion, if the guideline Wikipedia:Notability (people) is used.

Hope this helps. Oldelpaso 20:41, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree with all of Oldelpaso's points, especially the ones on the trivia section, transfer in & outs, the reserve squad and staff lists and a need to improve the tone. Some additional issues:

• Intro could be a little longer, summarising main points of article.
• History section is a little jumpy and disjointed; as there is a History of Everton F.C. article, this section should be a bit shorter and written in summary style. At the moment, each of the three recent seasons is given a whole paragraph while some decades barely merit a single sentence - this should be more evenly balanced.
• Avoid weasel words, such as:
  • The stress of an under-performing team was said to be a factor in Harry Catterick's poor health...
  • Fans contend that the 1980s Everton team would have gone on to win even more European silverware...
  • It was feared that the club's half-century stay...
• Remove the "Recent News" section - Wikipedia is not a news service. Consider setting up an Everton F.C. category in Wikinews and link to it in external links instead.
• Split colours and badge sections, as they are more or less separate. 2006 badge April Fool mention should also be cut out.
• Nickname could be put in a section of its own.
• a fierce rivalry has existed between Everton and Liverpool, albeit one that is generally perceived as being more respectful - citation needed.
• Everton fans are a very passionate bunch and have a reputation for being hard to face. - needs clarification (there is the implication, though I am sure it is not intended, that Everton fans are violent) and citation.
• It might be worth cutting out the abridged table of managers and just have a link to the main List of Everton F.C. managers page.
• List of shirt sponsors should either be moved into the colours section, and reformatted as a table.
• What references there are should be properly formatted - see Template:Cite web
• There should be book references as well as web ones. Qwghlm 00:08, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Cheers guys I knew a few of those points anyway but a lot I wouldn't have thought of, cheers. SenorKristobbal 13:58, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Jan Smuts's youth

This article (part of a series on the life of Jan Smuts) has really come about solely through the work of User:Bastin8 and myself, so like fond parents, we are probably blind to its defects. It's been a bit of a lone effort, a fresh pair of eyes would be beneficial. Criticism of either substance or style more than welcome.

Xdamr^talk 19:29, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

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

I've done a quick copyedit, removing some redundancies and substituting some repetition of phrases, but it could benefit from a more through copyedit. Some comments:

• Intro:
  • "...was appointed Field Marshall in the Second World War" could do with rephasing to avoid the "British or Boer or something else?" question it poses with relation to the rest of the sentence.
  • A lot of weasel words - 'played a leading part','helping to create','significant contributions' etc.

[Consider it best not to go into too much detail in intro - Xdamr^talk]

• • 'This article is about...' should be dropped. The title of the article tells you what it is about.
• There are probably more articles that could be linked to for relevant information - I've added two in the intro, but the South African locations may have their own articles too, as may some institutions mentioned in the text.
• 'Family tragedy was to change this destiny.' - a bit melodramatic for an encyclopedia article
• 'In view of Smuts's loneliness, it is surprising that he did not make more of the social opportunities available to him.' - POV statement, should be cited or dropped (just an example - there are other POV statements)
• Generally, there are a lot of weasal words 'very','extremely' etc. If there are sources that give more accurate wording I'd use those.
• I recommend using the {{cite}} template for references - that's bound to come up in FAC
• There are a lot of double spaces after full stops - I've cleared some, but you need to check that.
• Some more citations are needed for various incidents
• Standardize on Smuts' or Smuts's (I prefer the first but both are now acceptable in most written English - I suppose the recommendations for SA English would be most applicable)

Hope this helps Yomangani 12:45, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks a lot for those suggestions, all very much appreciated. I'm interested to know what incidents/facts etc you think require additional citations. It should be no problem to add them as I have most of the standard texts; I thought we had things pretty much covered on that front, but if you think that we could do with more then I'll certainly do so.

Best wishes, Xdamr^talk 10:52, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Ah, sorry, I've just noticed the tags you inserted, should be no problem to have those sorted out.

Xdamr^talk 11:02, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Just realised I didn't comment on the article itself (just what was wrong with it, sorry). Overall it was a good read, well-balanced, with no obvious holes in the history and enough detail to fill out his character development without overdoing it. If you were going for FA status it would probably be judged to be too short, and more-or-less every statement would need citations, but I would think it would certainly be promoted it to GA status if it was put forward after the review. Cheers, Yomangani 11:21, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Star

A prior peer review is available at archive1.

This article is a twice-failed FAC. However I believe that the concerns that were raised during the FACs have been addressed. I would greatly appreciate it if you would take a close look at this article and see if you can spot anything else that might hinder a third FAC attempt. Thank you! — RJH (talk) 17:32, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

---

Here are some notes — I wrote this while reading random parts of the article, so they're not in order:

• The disambiguation link problem I mentioned in the FAC was not a reference to the OtherUses-style templates, which is fine; I was talking about wikilinks in the article text that lead to disambiguation pages. Check the links in the article and change any reroute link to disambiguation pages to the correct article.
  • I just went through nearly every wiki-link in the article and addressed the disambiguation links. So I think that's done. — RJH (talk)
• The "Dimensions" section may be misnamed. As a layperson, I would assume that the dimensions of a star would be the radius, circumference, volume, etc. Is luminosity typically referred to as a dimension of a star or would "characteristic" be a better term?
  • I changed it to "Units of measurements". Sorry, I'm used to thinking of dimensions in terms other than length. — RJH (talk)
    • I've also used dimensions in that sense, just looking out for the casual reader. Pagrashtak 20:04, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
• The "Dimensions" section is rather short - I would expect such a section to include information about typical or mean star sizes, but star size seems to be covered in a later section. Related information like this should be gathered in one place.
  • This section was deliberately intended to clarify the units of measurement before any discussion of star masses, radii, and so forth. I wanted to get that out of the way before hitting the heart of the article, so there would be no confusion. I'd really prefer that this not be all-encompassing section on star sizes. — RJH (talk) 15:57, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
    • Now that the section is called "Units of measurement", I don't think this is a problem. Pagrashtak 20:04, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
• Solar radius is denoted with a capital $R$, but the solar radius article uses a lowercase $r$; which is correct?
  • The capital $R$ is the convention that I have seen in pretty much every astronomy article I've examined that uses the solar radius. See, for example, the introduction to http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/ApJ/journal/issues/ApJL/v500n2/985175/sc1.html#sc1 . I'm not sure why the solar radius uses a lower-case $r$. — RJH (talk) 16:06, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
• I notice both "kilometer" and "kilometre" being used in the article.
  • They're all kilometre now. — RJH (talk)
• Star formation occurs in molecular clouds, ... and then three sentences later: Star formation begins with gravitational instability inside a molecular cloud, ...
  • I tweaked the text slightly. Otherwise I'm unclear about the concern. The first was an introductory paragraph to the section. The second paragraph is the actual mechanics. What is preferable? — RJH (talk) 15:57, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
    • It's better now. It's a little jarring to the reader to encounter such a similar phrase that close together, as the reader may not realize that the introductory paragraph overlaps with the next section. Pagrashtak 20:04, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
      • Okay thanks. — RJH (talk)
• The measurement "Gyr" is used - clicking on this link takes me to the article on year. I can deduce that Gyr stands for gigayear, but the year article does not mention gigayear. This is more of a problem with the year article, but it still confuses the average reader who most likely has not encountered gigayears often.
  • The Gyr was removed yesterday. I have a problem with the use of the word billion, which has an ambiguity. But apparently that's not an issue for others. So the article just uses billion consistently now. :-) — RJH (talk) 15:57, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
• The duration that a star spends on the main sequence depends primarily on the amount of fuel it has to burn and the rate at which it burns that fuel. In other words, its mass and luminosity. - This sentence tells me thatm for stars, mass=amount of fuel. However, iron contributes to the mass of a star and is not fuel.
  • When the star is first formed, the iron content is negligible. Iron is created as the very last product of the life cycle, and only after the star has left the main sequence. So yes, the statement is true. I'm not clear why it is an issue. — RJH (talk)
    • Now that you've clarified "initial mass", this makes more sense. Pagrashtak 20:04, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
      • Well really it's roughly the same amount of mass anyway, only converted into different elements. There is some mass loss due to the stellar wind, particularly in massive stars, and a tiny fraction of the overall mass is converted into energy. But I'm glad the rewording works for you. Thanks. :-) — RJH (talk) 22:14, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
• The process of stars creating heavier metals seems to be covered twice.
  • Yes. I think it is appropriate that the "Nuclear fusion reaction pathways" section also covers the specific nuclear reactions. — RJH (talk) 15:57, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
    • I'm not too crazy about covering it twice, but it may be the best way given the different treatments. This will probably be ok with the addition of a link, I'll look into that in a second. Pagrashtak 20:04, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
• Mass can also be measured directly for stars in binary systems or through microlensing. - This sentence is a little confused.
  • I attempted to clarify the text. — RJH (talk)
• Eruptive variables that experience sudden increases in luminosity because of flares or mass ejection events. - Where is the verb in this sentence?
  • I tweaked the text slightly.

Pagrashtak 18:44, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for the thorough review! — RJH (talk) 16:09, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

South African Scout Association

Suggestions for what can turn this article into a featured article, and general "what you think of it" stuff Jediwannabe 12:03, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

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

• Thanks, I've done quite a bit of rework on the article and reordered it. Jediwannabe 05:42, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Scotland

I'm intending to put Scotland forward as a Featured Article Candidate sometime in the near future. The article has recently been improved and other Wikipedians have expressed an interest in getting this through FA. Any help with this would be welcome. This article was last peer reviewed in 2006 and has changed a lot since then. Lurker (said · done) 15:10, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

• A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style. If you would find such a review helpful, please click here. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 04:40, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Overall very nicely done and well illustrated. A few comments from one read through: I have never seen footnotes in an infobox - it makes it even longer. Why are they here and not with other notes in the reflist below? It might be helpful to have the map higher in the article - those not familiar with the geography of Scotland might appreciate this. Modern History seems a bit thin after the 17th century and Highland clearances. More on the Industrial Revolution perhaps? In the Administrative subdivisions section, these sentences repeat information from the preceding section on politics and seem unnecessary: For the Scottish Parliament, there are 73 constituencies and eight regions. For the Parliament of the United Kingdom there are 59 constituencies. In the Law section, does the last sentence need to be its own paragraph? In Geology and geomorphology, Grampian Mountains is shown on the map, but not mentioned in the section. The Transport section has three one-sentence paragraphs. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 02:36, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Banff National Park

I'm working to get this article to featured status, with help from two other editors. Until recently the article's talk page was empty, so I don't think this article has had the scrutiny needed. Is there anything significant missing? Anything that could be covered better? Anything confusing or not explained well enough? Any problems with grammar or style? Any comments or suggestions? Thanks. --Aude (talk contribs) 02:40, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

• Hi Aude, I'm interested in helping with this one. I have not yet reviewed the article, but at this time my comment is that the intro needs a bit more context. I know this is basic, but I think the intro should give enough context that anyone in the world will have a full definition of the article's subject. I would suggest something like

"Banff National Park is a Canadian National Park located in the Rocky Mountains. Established in 1885, it was the first area in Canada to be designated a national park. It is located in the province of Alberta, 120 to 200 kilometres (80 to 120 miles) west of Calgary, and includes the town of Banff. Banff National Park covers 6,641 square kilometres (2,564 square miles)

Previously: "Banff National Park is located in the Canadian Rockies, 120 to 200 kilometres (80 to 120 miles) west of Calgary, Alberta, and includes the town of Banff, Alberta. Banff National Park covers 6,641 square kilometres (2,564 square miles) and was the first national park created in Canada."

This includes links to Canada, Alberta, and Canadian National Parks, and gives the real basics to the reader that someone too familiar with the subject takes for granted.

My next comment would/will be to ensure that the introduction (WP:LEAD) summarizes the main points of the article. Outriggr 07:28, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

I suggest to switch the order of the paragraphs in the intro. Start with the features, before you hit the reader with statistic data. "Towering", "scenic" and "enjoyed" aren't words I'd use in the intro of an encyclopedic article. Are all of the names in the "early history" that well known, that the reader will get the significance of their explorations just from the names? Or should they get explained? All those numbers, figures and sizes in the following chapter are well researched, but IMHO presented boring. No one expands a park to get it to a certain size, please explain the reasons: Which features were included, possibly why. --h-stt !? 21:33, 10 August 2006 (UTC) PS: I'm biased, as I prefered Jasper ...

Jasper is more remote and has a lot less development and is altogether a wilder place for sure. Will try to reduce the promotional wording some.--MONGO 21:38, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

• Automated suggestions are provided here, that you may wish to refer for some useful style guidelines. - Mailer Diablo 17:10, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Orlando, Florida

It seems like every time I look at this page, it gets bigger and more comprehensive. Having lived in the area for a few years now, I believe it to be comprehensive enough for improvement into a featured article. Cwolfsheep 02:39, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

• Automated suggestions are provided here, that you may wish to refer for some useful style guidelines. - Mailer Diablo 17:10, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

American Heraldry Society

Hey, I would like to see this article made a featured article at some point. I'm involved in the organization and am a former office-holder, though I believe I can still be objective in my editing. Any input people can give on how to make it better is appreciated!--Dave Boven 21:09, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

• The article is well so far, but I'm sure there's a good deal more to be said before it becomes a featured article candidate. --Gray Porpoise 23:31, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
• The material could stand to be cited. It's a new group, so its all probably in recent memory, but something concrete and standard would be good. Other than that, it looks like a nice article. Only one of the officers has a wikipedia article. It might help to shed more lite on the society if other members were profiled.--Forlornandshorn 21:10, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Automated suggestions are provided here, that you may wish to refer for some useful style guidelines. - Mailer Diablo 17:10, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

V838 Monocerotis

I just finished a complete rewrite of the article on this really enigmatic star. I'm not an astronomer and I have read the sources through more or less carelessly--therefore the article may include self-contradictions (others than arising from conflicting papers) and misunderstandings. Plus the obligatory grammatical errors, of course. Any corrections are greatly appreciated!--JyriL ^talk 23:59, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Great article! I corrected a minor grammatical problem in the lead. I do think this could use a good once-over by someone who's not been involved with writing the text to tighten up some of the phrasing. I may have time to look at it more closely tomorrow.

The Hubble photo is amazing, of course. —ptk✰fgs 00:44, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

• Automated suggestions are provided here, that you may wish to refer for some useful style guidelines. - Mailer Diablo 17:25, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
• Looking good, though the section about planet-swallowing could do with a description of the 1-planet model given in some of the references. There's also [22], which claims that the planet model has severe problems and can be ruled out. Chaos syndrome 17:52, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

To Kill a Mockingbird

I worked on this article for months, bringing it to GA status. I nominated it for FAC in November, but de-nominated it after a few days. It has changed quite a bit since its GA pass. I feel now with the additions I made to it for the initial FAC that it's cumbersome at 78k, though as thorough as possible.

• The book is unique: it has been read by the majority of the English-speaking world and rates very highly on books of impact and importance, but lacks a large body of study outside of the legal and education fields. What has been written in these fields is primarily a study on its impact of the legal profession and guides on how to teach it.
• On images: Harper Lee despises having her photo taken. She had some shots taken of her when the book was released, but there are no public domain photos of her. At one point, I had screen stills from the film, but they were taken out by another editor. What is the recommendation for including only book covers?

Your input is appreciated. --Moni3 (talk) 18:51, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

• Comments from Hadseys -- the article is very good however, a few things I've noticed is that

1. the table of contents does seem to be rather large, is there a way too condense it perhaps?

   I'm up for suggestions that don't compromise the content. --Moni3 (talk) 18:38, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

2. the article too is also very large, and may not conform to wikipedia's size guidelines, for information on how to write a featured article about a book check out Lord of the Rings and our policies on our article size

   Yes, I recognize this. I'm asking for assistance in what to cut out, if anything. I have read all the featured article novels, and used them as guides in writing this article. But there is a point where TKaM becomes its own article, apart from the others. Because of the far-reaching impact this book has had, that it is Harper Lee's only novel and she is somewhat enigmatic about it, and because the film and play are so closely related to the book, the lore involving the novel is extensive. Unlike the Lord of the Rings trilogy, unfortunately, the subject doesn't lend itself into neater divisions as a trilogy does. --Moni3 (talk) 18:38, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

3. the images tend to be concentrated towards the latter parts of the article, perhaps more images of life in America at the time may help to provide more context for readers

Other than that, a very well article that is extensively referenced, very comprehensive and very well written. Kudos --Hadseys (talk • contribs) 00:55, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

I'll consider these ideas for images. Thank you for your comments. --Moni3 (talk) 18:38, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

I did some work on this article about a year ago. Much good work has been done since then. Here's my two-cents. Not for nothing, but I think that under 'Reception' both the impact on legal profession and race relation sections are places which should be trimmed. I think it would make more sense to place the impact on legal profession in the Atticus Finch article, as 99% of it revolves around him. Also, include a link to Atticus under 'See also.' Furthermore, I would remove the impact on race relation section altogether. Although I hate to do this for 2 reasons. 1) It removes your hard work 2) Implies that I'm racially insensitive--I think that this is a tenuous connection anyhow. It states as much in the article:

"The novel's release is so closely associated with the Civil Rights movement, many analyses of the book and biographies of Harper Lee include important moments in the movement, despite the fact that she had no direct involvement in any of them."

That's all for now. Good Luck. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.67.114.119 (talk) 03:15, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, trimming parts to an article one has worked hard on to scour sources is difficult and I do it with some reservation. I will link to Atticus Finch - you are right to point that out. However, since the majority of written material on the novel is about Atticus in the legal profession, I thought it appropriate to give that material weight in the article. I have to think about that.

The second point is also difficult for me to consider. The novel's first impact was on race relations. Even though it is seen as a bit outdated for many in the field of race relations, in the context of its history, it was quite influential. I have to admit I don't understand your point about the tenuous connection. Are you saying it's not strong enough to be included in the article?

I appreciate your comments and feedback. --Moni3 (talk) 03:45, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Regarding Atticus, I think there is a certain point where one article becomes too long and needs to separate. I think this is normal and a good thing. Take for instance a honey bee hive, they get too big and one queen bee leaves the other with a bunch of other bees. When I read the legal profession section, all I see it being about is Atticus. This makes a fortunate breaking point as you can pretty much cut/paste it into the Atticus article. I wouldn't be surprised if someone at a later date makes Atticus a FA--he's certainly notable enough. Now in regards to the race relation and tenuous connection, first you place emphasis on the children in the movie. This almost seems as though it could go in the article on the film. I suppose my main argument with the tenuous nature of the material is that I have a problem with emphasizing an impact that isn't necessarily the main focus of the book. As far as I can tell Lee didn't write it as a civil rights movement book, per se. As noted above in the article, the gay community has found resonance in TKAM. However, just because a group finds resonance doesn't necessarily mean one must include a considerable section on it. Granted, this may be a weak argument on my part.

One other section that I think you should take a second look at is the Style section. I'm typically not too big of a fan of the Style/Themes sections of articles on books, simply because I think they tend to read into aspects of the book way too far and are more interpretative. However, I think the Theme section is well done in this article and should be left. I think the style could be trimmed back. I'm not sure that sections devoted to irony, parody, satire, and legal allusions are needed. I think that if you cut these back it would be a good place to trim the article. Additionally, it would solve a little bit of the problem with that insanely large table of contents. One thing I would like to mention however is that I think it is good to keep that legal allusion with the opening quote. I think that is significant, albeit interpretative. Best Wishes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.67.114.119 (talk) 18:08, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

I just cut a large portion of the article, adding to Atticus Finch, and shifting some material around. That was physically painful. --Moni3 (talk) 18:39, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

• A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style. If you would find such a review helpful, please click here. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 02:45, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Timeline of archaeology

I've created a timeline of archaeology, designed to replace the List of years in archaeology page. The list of years page seemed to result in lots of pages with little content, when an interested party (such as myself) wanted as much info as possible on one page for quick browsing and searching. Essentially, I'm taking the data in each single year page and compiled them into decades. I've only completed years 2000 through 2006 and wanted to stop for a peer review and suggestions prior to completing the other 200+ years.

I'm afraid that the set up and layout of the Timeline of archaeology, 2000s page (one of the many children pages that will be created) lends towards a very large table of contents before any actual data shows up, and was also wondering what a better solution might be. BakerQ 16:27, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

• Automated suggestions are provided here, that you may wish to refer for some useful style guidelines. - Mailer Diablo 17:26, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Newshounds

I would like this article to be reviewed as I am trying to get it to featured articles status. It is already currently a good article. When I nominated the article for featured status, it was rejected because it was too "list centric,", "cuttered," it didn't, "give any sense of what's notable about it," and that it, "needs more sources other than Newshounds itself and the official site." (See Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Newshounds) I think I've sorted all of this is now, however I am having difficulty finding any reviews. As far as I'm aware, finding reviews for webcomics is difficult.

Main areas that need reviewing are the introduction, the characters, and sources for reviews of webcomics, if there are any.

If you need to find out anything else about Newshounds, there is the website newshounds.com and other Newshounds articles, which can be accessed from the the template at the bottom of the article. ISD 13:28, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

• One thing this article needs is just to be written better. It seems hard to understand for someone (like me) who's never heard of the comic before. Some sentences that need work--
  • British spelling on some words ("satirises", "realised") despite this apparently being an American subject.
  • "possibly based on San Francisco" -- How is this indicated?
  • "they are very political" -- They are political? What does this mean?
  • "There are also some minor characters have returning roles in KPET stories. " Missing a word. Better yet, chop off the first three.
  • No indication of readership level or popularity of the strip. Has it been mentioned in off-line sources? This is probably the biggest issue I have.
  • Is the name "Wolfram Blitzen" meant to reference anyone in particular?
  • Andrew Levine 14:07, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
• Automated suggestions are provided here, that you may wish to refer for some useful style guidelines. - Mailer Diablo 17:25, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Final Fantasy Adventure

When this article recently achieved GA status, it was recommended that it be peer reviewed. I would mainly ask about how the article reads, and what needs to be added for FA status. Thanks! Judgesurreal777 04:27, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

I've expanded the Gameplay section, and plan on doing so with the Plot section as well. I finally found a hardcopy of the US instruction booklet for any needed references. I'll try to get this done so we can determine how the prose flows. ~ Hibana 04:58, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

• Automated suggestions are provided here, that you may wish to refer for some useful style guidelines. - Mailer Diablo 17:25, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Dolphinarium

Especially want opinions on references and neutrality (mainly looking at the animal welfare aspect). English is not my native language, so a critical look at spelling and grammar is also appreciated. Have done a lot of work on the article, and it is currently the selected article on the Cetaceans portal. I hope to get it to "Good Article" status at least. BabyNuke 20:34, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

• I've given it a quick copyedit, but it could do with another pass as I mainly removed redundancy rather than rewriting.
• It's let down badly by lack of inline citation - with a topic like this inline citations help counter arguments of bias (and make you think about the statements you make)
• Try to avoid 'it is claimed','some people say', 'this is disputed' etc. - give specific examples or don't include the claims.
• Some defense of dolphinariums by owners or organizations (if there is any) may help balance the article.
• The "suicide" section is very POV at the moment - I'd try to decribe the actions of the dolphin without attributing the action directly (unless you have reliable quotable sources to back up the claims)
• You should standardize on a capitalization scheme for the common names of the species - Wikipedia:WikiProject Cetaceans probably has a policy on this.

Hope this helps Yomangani^talk 01:18, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments and edits! I will work on the points mentioned. BabyNuke 09:41, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

• Automated suggestions are provided here, that you may wish to refer for some useful style guidelines. - Mailer Diablo 17:27, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

MindViz

This is my first article here on Wikipedia and wanted to know if it is decent and what could be written better about it. All positive critique is welcome and I appreciate any feedback.

Thank you. - G. E. Marrs 20:32, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

• Automated suggestions are provided here, that you may wish to refer for some useful style guidelines. - Mailer Diablo 17:26, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Toyota Tercel

I am aiming to make this into a featured article, so advice is appreciated. I've started trying to rewrite it, but there are some problems. Any help is appreciated. --TheM62Manchester 11:13, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

The copyrighted images require a fair use rational - there's at least two such images. WilyD 18:30, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

I think the first thing we should do is get rid of the fair use images, and then I think we should get rid of the timeline, as it's not that informative and takes up space. --ApolloBoy 19:05, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Timeline? The timeline is already it's own article - it can't get any smaller. WilyD 19:11, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

I know that, but I think we should delete it as it's practically redundant. Awards can be mentioned in the main article (i.e. "The Tercel won Award A from 1988-1993). --ApolloBoy 22:55, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

• Automated suggestions are provided here, that you may wish to refer for some useful style guidelines. - Mailer Diablo 17:28, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Elite Ice Hockey League

Article about the United Kingdom's professional ice hockey league. I plan on making this a good or featured article eventually, any feedback appreciated. I realise the article could do with a couple of images, I plan on taking some photos when the new season starts next month. Oldelpaso 17:34, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

• Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, AZ _t 18:55, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Syed Ahmed Khan

Hi - I request the help and participation of all in making this article an FA. Rama's arrow 15:47, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

I have given the article a copyedit - it already was a well-written article with nice layout, so there wasn't really much to do. One sentence, "While criticized by Indian nationalists for his advocacy of British rule, which served to substantially divide Muslim political loyalties." was confusing in a way that I could not rectify. There is no subject and I couldn't figure out what should be the subject. There are red links that either should have pages or should be explained, such as his positions. In any event, I assume that the references will be added shortly because, well, there aren't any. And that ain't cool as far as FAC goes, as you are well aware! But otherwise, wonderful job! InvictaHOG 16:10, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes actually I've still got a lot of info to add to the article. Your comment is right - I was writing in context of the partition of India, which happened 50 years after Khan's death and thus is not properly explained or directly relevant to this article. Thanks for your comments, but do check back in the coming weekend. Rama's arrow 16:55, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

• Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, AZ _t 01:35, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Review by - Aksi_great (talk - review me)

• First para in lead states "His work gave rise to a new generation of Muslim intellectuals, professionals, politicians.." and the third paragraph again states "His political leadership would give direction to a rising class of Muslim intellectuals and politicians..". That is almost a repetition.
• Why is Birth capitalised and death is not. Death anniversary is a red link. There is no need to link it.
• Early life - Highly connected seems to be wrong. Maybe well connected could be used. "Associated" could also be used. "Connected" doesn't sound nice.
• Akbar Shah I is a red linnk. It is not clear who he was.
• "their life" is wrong grammar - "their lives"
• "Khan learnt to read the Qur'an under a female tutor" - Is female important?
• First printing press in Urdu language? Where? Surely not the first in the whole world.
• Where did Khan pursue medicine? If it was a well known college, then it could be linked or at least mentioned.
• "In 1840, he was promoted to the title of munshi. The family's misfortunes intensified with the death of his brother in 1845, leaving Khan as the main bread-winner." There is no link between the sentences. The promotion isn't a family misfortune. It could read - "The family's fortunes received another setback with the death of..."
• Thoughout the article there is a lot of usage of "he would be" - For example - "1867. Two years later, Khan travelled to England, where he would be awarded the Order of the Star of India" - Why not just use the simple past tense - "where he was awarded the Order". That is just my personal preference. I have notices the usage of "would do this" in all articles expanded by you. It isn't much of a big deal.
• Also as usual use Indian English spellings.

That's all I had time for just now. I have not read the article from Political career onwards. Will do that later today. - Aksi_great (talk - review me) 07:41, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Further additions by - Aksi_great (talk - review me)

• Criticism and legacy - "He is defended by some modern historians and Aligarh scholars as mainly anxious to secure fair representation and political rights for Muslims, otherwise firmly believing in a united India for all its different peoples. While criticized by Indian nationalists for his advocacy of British rule, which served to substantially divide Muslim political loyalties." - Shouldn't the two sentences be merged. If not then the second sentence seems to be wrong. It starts with While.. and should lead to something (While A, B - where B should be something opposite of A).
• Death and legacy - Criticism and legacy - Legacy in two sections. Maybe the two sections could be merged.
• A small point you could add is his impact on today's world if any.

Besides all the above minor points the article is great. The only major point is the obvious lack of references (which I am sure you already have). Tell me if you need any more help with the article. - Aksi_great (talk - review me) 13:14, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Lord Flashheart

I've been hacking through this article that, when read, appeared to be written by a close friend of Rik Mayall's. It was more of a Lord Flashheart fan-club than an encyclopedic article. I am willing to work on it more i just don't know what to do next (The Bread 02:27, 26 July 2006 (UTC))

My first instinct is that this is as good as a minor character's article can get, and a glance suggests it's quite good for its length. If you can find information on the origins of good ole' Flash, what inspired the writers, or what Mayall used as a basis for his performance, that'd be great. I doubt such material exist, but those are what I think would put more flesh on our understanding of the character. Good work!--Monocrat 01:10, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

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

Well, you could cite your sources, and perhaps add some info on influence, and all that. It would be hilarious to see this as an FA one day, but it would be one hell of a task. ...._(Complain)^{(Let us to it pell-mell)} 00:25, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Submarine

Submarine is a former featured article, but it has lost its status a few months ago. Since then I've made some major edits, mostly additions, to counter the problems stated in the FA removal. The context suggests this article deserves FA status, and I hope to improve it at least to the best of FA standarts. However, the views on required improvement can differ, and I'd like to get advice before making new major changes. The specific problems may be:

• Length. The article is above average length, being about 67 kilobytes. In my personal opinion, this is justified by the subject being both highly technical and historical, and too complex to be covered in a short article. However, prior to further expansion, I'd appreciate comments on what sections might be removed or compressed, and how. Please don't suggest breaking it in subarticles; while there already are some, I'd prefer the subject to be mostly covered in a single article. I'd also appreciate opinions on whether increased length is justified.

• Readability. While I tried to make the article well readable, I'm still not sure whether all sections can be understood by all readers. Anyone with a technical higher education should have no problems reading it, but there can be some hardships for people without it. Please read the article and note any sections or sentences that might be difficult to understand and should be explained.

• Citations. My job is connected with design og submarines, and I wrote sections (in the first half of the article) mostly basing on first-hand knowledge, however inserting citations wherever I found some sources. There still may be a number of statements without sources stated, so any help with pointing them or, better, suggesting sources to mention, would improve the article.

• Other concerns. The article might miss some important detail, be too technical, or have other problems. Please point whatever else could improve it, and just improve it if you have time. -- CP/M ^comm |Wikipedia Neutrality Project| 23:41, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

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

• The body of the article is quite good. The Achille's heel is the referencing. The refs should be in proper format, prefereably cite php, and you lots more footnotes. If you can do this, I'd then suggest resubmitting for FA. Rlevse 12:02, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Richmond, Virginia

This article has gone through a good amount of editing in the past year, and I think it may be getting close to Featured article status. I would like to know what may still need to be done to bring this article to FAC. Dr. Cash 22:46, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

On just a cursory skim: the introduction is too short, see WP:LEAD; there are several more redlinks in the Culture and Economy sections then I'm comfortable with, stubs could be started for some of them; and at least one citation is marked as missing. -Fsotrain09 22:59, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

• Try and follow the layout of another featured city like Detroit. --Peta 07:26, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

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

• Expand the lead to summarize the article, date formatting is not correct. Rlevse 12:03, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Heraldry

Great article, full of great info. Its very hard to follow and not well organized. Too many contributors with too many points. Needs a unifying force. Any suggestions on how to make it less unjointed? I'll be willing to make changes once I get them. Also it has far too many external links, I thinks.--Forlornandshorn 21:14, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Inline references on facts would be great (although I wouldn't envy the task after looking at the further reading list!) There seem to be some inconsistencies in style within the article. For instance, I see some mixed British and American spelling. I agree that it's lacking in overarching organization. For instance, the section "Shield and lozenge" seems misplaced. I would put that discussion in the section that introduces the parts of the arms (where Image:Coatarms-labld.png is broken down).

Speaking of, that image's license seems to be in confusion. Image:Coatarms labld.jpg is marked GFDL, so I assume that the image itself was created by a Wikipedian and licensed as such, while the permission is for the use of the arms rather than the specific image. Is that right? If so that should be clarified on both images.

Basically, all the design elements of arms should be somehow grouped together under a unifying section. I would break down the parts of arms first, before getting absorbed in the sheild (sticking to general -> specific progression). Especially since there are many references to supporters, crest != arms, etc. scattered all over the place, you can save a lot of repetition by tackling those definitions early. So my sections would look like something like this:

• Elements in heraldry
  • Helm and crest
  • Motto
  • Supporters
  • Shields and lozenges
    • Divisions of the field
    • Charges
    • Marshalling
    • Ordinaries
  • Tinctures

Where you put "national styles" and "origins and history" is up in the air. The quote in the history section doesn't seem useful for the reader of a one page history of heraldry, especially when there's no other discussion of the split in heralidric law and what practical consequences it had. I think "rights, wrongs and myths" does not belong so prominently placed in the article.

The external links seem well organized unti you get to the "other" links. Clearly Burkes deserves a link, but what about a portugese article on Brazilian arms? Surely that isn't vital to a general Heraldry article. If a significant number of them really do need to stay, at least organize them more than just lumping under "other". The "see also" list is also long enough to either be cut back to a quarter it's current size or organized thematically (surely since the New Zealand branch of the Heraldry Society is reachable from The Heraldry Society it's not particularly in need of an extra entry - or how relevant is a defunct American organization - or why is UK topics listed there??). — Laura Scudder ☎ 14:40, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

• Automated suggestions are provided here, that you may wish to refer for some useful style guidelines. - Mailer Diablo 17:23, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
• For starters, please use inline citations. The pictures at 'Shield and lozenge' need to be formatted, they are so large they force horizontal scrolling. See also is HUGE, it needs to be trimmed down.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  19:23, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Global justice

I'm particularly interested in peer review:

1. from fellow political philosophers on whether the article identifies and accurately describes the main positions in the GJ debate; and

2. from others on whether the article's clear, or too technical. Is there enough detail, or too little, or too much?

But all comments and improvements welcome, of course. Cheers, --Sam Clark 16:47, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Sam, I've made some minor changes to bring this in line with the standard format around here: links to main articles and futher templates above the section text, important names integrated into text, see also moved above references and other such minor formalities. As to accuracy of content, I'm pretty weak in this area so I'm not in a good position to judge or help out much there. The article is very clear and concise, but I would like to see some of the very brief sections expanded a bit. Something like the article philosophy of mind with two or even three paragraphs is the usual standard. The article is not at all over-technical and it is nicely organized and comprehensive. Just needs a little bit MORE detail, IMHO. --Francesco Franco aka Lacatosias 18:20, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks - the article looks a lot more professional now. I take the point about very brief sections, especially under 'Central questions' - but the advantage of having the separate headings is that the 3 questions appear in the contents.--Sam Clark 12:02, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

• Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, AZ _t 17:06, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

It's shaping up into a very nice article. There's always some redundancy, as this automtaed monster here points out. More imprtantly, watch out for words like "some", "many" and other so-called weasel words. Even a citation would be sufficient. Nice images!! Lastly, more citations never hurts on Wikipedia. Good work!--Francesco Franco aka Lacatosias 10:29, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Hi I read through the article and made a few changes to sentence structure, wording etc. I think its a very good start! A couple of suggestions:

• I think the paragraph under the heading Central questions could be better worded.

Original: Three related questions are central to the problem of global justice, and the main positions in the debate may be distinguished by their approaches to them, and ways of relating them.

Suggested: There are three related questions that are central to the debate on global justice. These questions concern the scope of justice, the distribution of justice and the institutions responsible for justice. The main positions in the debate on global justice can be distinguished by their approaches to these questions.

I'm not quite sure if that is what is meant by the three headings (particularly distributive justice), but you get the idea.

• You link the scope of justice to moral universalism without actually defining what moral universalism is, and then later in the article you refer to it. Perhaps you need to spell out how the question on scope of justice relates to moral unviersalism.
• You don't do the little summary bit (the sentence which spells out its answers to the 3 questions) for The society of states section.

They're the only suggestions I have at this stage. I would love to read more about it, and the article could definitely go much deeper into the different issues in the future. In regards to your comments above about the history, it would be interesting to know why or if anything triggered the conceptual shift towards justice on a global level, and also if the different positions in the debate came all at once, or in response to one another, or a particular event. Does there seem to be any sense of reaching a consensus or is there strident opposition to other positions? Etc JenLouise 02:51, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks - really helpful. I've made some changes which hopefully go some way to answering your points. Actually, I'm not sure quite why GJ has become such a big issue in politial philosophy recently. I suspect that, as with so much in the discipline, it'll turn out to be something to do with Rawls. Cheers, --Sam Clark 10:56, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

What's here looks pretty good, but could it be more global in scope? This looks like a good summary of the main positions which are popular in the English speaking world. Is there a good way to mention Communist views, Confucian views, or Liberation Theology? All 3 seem like popular approaches to global justice that don't quite fit into the rubric here (are there more? What do Indians think? Do we need some discussion of post-colonialism?). Am I misunderstanding? Bmorton3 18:51, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Hi - thanks for looking the article over. I'm in two minds about the issue you raise, to be honest. On one hand, of course you're right that anglo-american insititutional philosophy doesn't have a monopoly on the idea of justice for the whole world. On the other, I'm concerned that the article will bloat out of all recognition or usefulness if it tries to cover every such idea, as well as duplicating a lot of material from elsewhere (some of which I point to in the 'See also' section). I did consider moving the whole thing to a new article called 'Global justice (philosophy)', but I tend to think that political philosophy shouldn't be completely separated from the immediate puzzles and worries that make it necessary. At the moment, my half-hearted solution is the first sentence: Global justice is an issue in political philosophy. Whether this'll do, I'm not sure. Cheers, --Sam Clark 10:55, 4 ugust 2006 (UTC)

Sam, I faced a similar problem with philosophy of mind and the issue of systemic bias arises often on Wikipedia re philsophy articles. My general impression is that most people are satisfied to see some mention (a few sentences) of, e.g., how Hindu or Buddist views fit on the spectrum of the basic poistins that you are talking about. Something like, "the Chinese moral thinker X expressed a cosmopolitan position which slightly differed from this in 1078" with reference and so on. The point is to try to find examples of non-Western thinkers and sources that can be interpersed throughout the text and then work it into the existing text without bloating it. I'm not sure if this would work in the case of this article, but its just a suggestion.--Francesco Franco aka Lacatosias 09:24, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I definately see your worries. Moving to Global Justice (philosophy) wouldn't help because most of these are philosophy positions. The Confucian line that the benevolent man loves all men, but loves them partially rather than impartially, is a direct response to Mohist critiques, and it works equally well against Utilitarians, and it was thought of as a philosophical position. Likewise for Communism, and post-colonial philosophies, they think of themselves as philosophy. Bloat is a real issue, but I don't know the right way to prevent it while keeping to the WP mission. If we wrote a short paragraph something like "Global Justice in other philosophical traditions" and just gestured to these, do you think that would pre-empt later bloat problems or just lead to them? Bmorton3 13:29, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

This is also a common way to approach the problem. Write up a new subsection, in the same summary style as the others, and link to other articles, Mohism, [[Confucianism], etc, where possible. To prevent later bloat just watch the page and insist that everything additional be cited and/or discussed on the talk-page before insertion. P.S.-- this is a pretty good review process here!!. Howvere, it shuld be ON the PR page so as to provide an example of how to go about this stuff. In fact, I'm going to move it there. --Francesco Franco aka Lacatosias 09:33, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Along with Lac., I think the article looks good. There's a minimum of nonsense, it gets right to the point. My first thought is that it's a bit bare-bonesy. You had considered mentioning institutional aspects and obstacles before (i.e., talking about IMF/WTO, etc), and I'd encourage a followup with that. My second suggestion would be to break the complex sentences with semicolons down into smaller sentences, for ease of read. Lucidish 02:58, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Hi - thanks for the comments. I'll have a look through for complex sentences (I'm an academic, I can't help it...). I wonder if both your and BMorton3's concerns could be addressed by a 'broader context' section which talks both about the issue of global justice in history, and the various institutional mechanisms which have been endorsed and challanged? Cheers, Sam Clark 14:32, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

I sympathize. I just received my Bachelor's degree, and find myself; using; colons: too much.

As long as it doesn't get too long, I think that a historical context section would be a great idea. It would also give the reader an opportunity to grasp the main issues. For instance, issues like the Marshall Plan, unilateral invasions (vs. multilateral ones), certain foreign policy doctrines (i.e., the Monroe Doctrine, esp. the Roosevelt corrollary), overseas labor, genocide, etc., are all serious topics concerning global justice which have currency in contemporary political debates and affairs. I know you touch on the variety of issues in the intro with the rhetorical questions, but a history section would ram the ideas home through illustration. Lucidish 15:02, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Sam, you seem to have a few questions, first person locutions ("our", "we", etc) and italics. I didn't change them, but this is just to warn that some folks might not approve....--Francesco Franco aka Lacatosias 10:04, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I know - but I'm operating according to DBuckner's 'defer to precedent' policy. Rhetorical questions, first person locutions, and italics (especially to indicate technical uses of terms) are all standard practice in philosophy, as we both know, and I don't see why they should be lost just to satisfy someone's - naming no names - particular tastes in prose. They're too useful, for a start. Thanks for all your comments and improvements, by the way. Cheers, Sam Clark 11:03, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

I absolutely agree. --Francesco Franco aka Lacatosias 11:35, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

This article seems to be mainly about distributive justice, and the wikiarticle about Justice describes two other kinds. Is the Global Justice philosophy you are writing about here only about distribution, or is this article unfinished? If it's only about distribution, I think you should include that in your abstract.

I come from Hitchhiker's Guide, and first persons are verboten not because of any Unitedkingdomese predilection, but because it's part of what's understood to be what you do to make an entry encyclopedia-like. I have read the beginner's stuff on Wikipedia (I'm new!) and so it seems that doing third person stuff is something you'd do to adapt your knowledge to this particular format. Is this correct?

Sea Change 07:02, 22 August 2006 (UTC)Sea Change 00:00 22 August 2006

Hi, and thanks for your comments. 1. Distributive justice is one of the three central issues for the global justice debate (along with the scope of justice and institutions). The other kind of justice mentioned by Justice is retributive justice (not sure what the third kind you mention is), but there isn't really a separate debate about global retributive justice (to the extent that the issue is mentioned at all, it'd come under 'institutions' - international criminal courts etc.). 2. First person - the view of some active editors is that this should be avoided, but this isn't policy, to my knowledge. My view (expressed above) is that this is inappropriate for philosophical articles, because the appeal to what 'we' think is a useful tactic for exposing and challenging buried assumptions, and widely used in philosophy encyclopedias (I've just opened Honderich ed., The Oxford Companion to Philosophy at random and found two examples). Cheers, Sam Clark 09:40, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, the first person again. This new entry on "belief" in the Stanford Encylopedia of Philosophy has about sixteen "wes" in the lead section alone. Without it, the article would sound so awkward and unnatural that the author would probably have had his work rejected. This is, of course, a professional (i.e. soldi!!), peer-reviewed (in the strict sense of that term) publication.--Francesco Franco aka Lacatosias 17:27, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

New Orleans Mint

Request for Peer Review August 2006

OK, so I think this article (self-created and largely self-written) is fairly comprehensive; I think that it's basically been properly configured and referenced by inline citations, and I would really like to get any other feedback on it that anyone thinks might improve the article. Eventually, I'd like to nominate it for featured status. Also, is there anything else I could/should possibly put in the intro? It currently seems a little short to me. Thanks. Absecon 59 16:32, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Automated suggestions are provided here, that you may wish to refer for some useful style guidelines. - Mailer Diablo 17:10, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

The above suggestions have now been largely attended to. Could anyone provide further feedback concerning what could or should be improved for this article before it might be nominated for featured status? Absecon 59 15:32, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Old Request for Peer Review

Hi. This page has been largely self-created, and I'm wondering what anyone else can suggest to improve this article, besides the somewhat-obvious suggestion of "find more print sources of information." This is difficult, as the U.S. Mint in New Orleans has not been directly discussed much in writing. Much thanks for all feedback. Absecon 59 00:06, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

I think the mention of Hurricane Katrina in the lead of the article is rather irrelevant; the lead generally sums up the entire article rather than presenting new ideas. Also, though it is rather difficult to correct, the article is simply just a history of the mint and then a long list of statistics of coinage (which should be properly referenced by using inline citations). AndyZ 00:10, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your feedback. Two questions: (1) What exactly do you mean by the "inline citations"? (2) What else would you have in the article besides a history of the mint and the statistics of coinage? If I'm leaving out something you'd like to see, please let me know what you've got in mind. Absecon 59 10:16, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

See WP:CITE for more on inline citations. (The main types of citations used seem to be {{inote}} and footnotes.) Scott⁵¹¹⁴ 03:06, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Kengir uprising

Hi. This is a new article, created within the last week or so almost wholly by myself, and I'd like to have some outside opinion on its merits, or lack of, both so that the article itself can be made as good as possible (and can maybe be brought up to FA status), and so that I can take this opportunity to learn from my mistakes and pass the experience on to all of my future edits and writing. Thanks in advance, all comments are greatly appreciated! --Clngre 20:23, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

wow great job! I do not have time now to read the article, but a few things stand out just glacing at it. First you relie a lot on Solzhenitsyn. And while it is 100% OK to use him as a source it would be nice if you could find a greater variety of sources. Also I notice that you used a few blockquotes. That is also fine, but consider some of the points made in Wikipedia:Quotations#When to use quotations; perhaps prose would be better. I am sorry if this is a bit rude, but I am just surprise that you can write some much in so little time, but does any of it have any copyright problems? Again, great job.Jon513 07:50, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Hello, jon! Thanks for your comments, I take them seriously. Let me go through them now:

• I too am uncomfortable with the fact that I end up relying so much on Solzhenitsyn, but unfortunately my hands are kind of tied on that. The uprising does not have much written about it in english and Solzhenitsyn's account is one of the only major things on it. Anecdotally, from my search of Google print I've found tens of books where the uprising is mentioned, but they almost all use Solzhenitsyn as their source as well. I found a few websites that have some information on the uprising, too, but a lot of it is really suspect and some of it impossible (claims about something happening years before it even could have). But I have also found a number of news articles or book reviews that are fairly authoritative and that I've tried to incorporate. In any case, I was just now thinking of going to the talk page of the user that originally created the page based on a Ukranian-lanaguage book(s) and asking him to double check the article and correct whatever needs to be corrected.
• Yes, the blockquotes are unusual and I'm not so sure about them. I do believe in using some of those quotes to help illustrate the point that is being made, but I don't really know wikipedia's policy on this and if the blockquotes that are there now are so apt. I initially just started to use them to help kind of "break-up" the big blocks of text because there are so few images from gulags, and absolutely none from Kengir that I'm aware of. Should I use it more sparingly or not at all? I'd glady accomodate either.
• haha, no it's all written by myself (except the sourced quotations, of course). Thats a vaguely flattering question, actually. I'm just in my summer off before school and I have a lot of time and energy. Also I felt bad that there was no article on it on wikipedia and felt like an obligation to make something.--Clngre 12:03, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Hi, just a comment about images - the image there is fair use and I'm pretty sure that it would be an obstacle for being a FA. It's okay right now but I think there would be an objection were you to apply (happened to me before on an article I submitted so I just removed an image). It might be worth your while to go digging through the Commons to see what you can find; even though a lot of images aren't strictly necessary it's good to have at least two, one for the top of the article itself and a different one that goes on the front of the main page the day it gets featured. Mithridates 14:31, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Hello, thanks for the comment. Yes, I was thinking about adding some other images, although I realize they would have to be of other gulags or prisoners. I'll get on that immediately. --Clngre 15:16, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Ok, check it out now if you please. The middle section is still spare, so I'll look for some more images for it tongiht. --Clngre 16:44, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, that looks good. That's enough images at present to be a FA though there's nothing wrong with a few more of course. The only other thing that stands out right now are a few red links (other uprisings in the see other section) but since you write so prolifically I assume you're going to write those too before nominating the article. Mithridates 17:19, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Scarborough, Ontario

The article has undergone dramatic improvement in the last two months or so, and I'm sort of stuck on how to improve it further. I suspect there's a need for a little more history and more economy, but I'm not sure - and beyond that, I'm really not sure. There's a lot of problems in working out what belongs here given its relationship to Toronto. Anyways, I want to keep pushing it up to at least good status, so I really appreciate any comments. I took it past Requests for Feedback, but what I got there was that it looked pretty decent, a few minor points I worked on were gained. So I'm trying it here. I would really appreciate any feedback I can get. WilyD 18:21, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

• Automated suggestions are provided here, that you may wish to refer for some useful style guidelines. - Mailer Diablo 17:28, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Thanks for your suggestions WilyD 18:08, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

• I'm impressed. Six months or so ago, this article was really quite poor, notable mainly for linkspam and reversion wars. I commend the editors who have put the time and effort necessary to bring it to this level. I am going to do some very minor copyediting, rather than list comments on wording and sentence structure here (revert anything objectionable). Other than that, my only comments are:

- Some thought might be given to making the images somewhat larger.

- The Toronto Zoo is one of Scarborough's major attractions. Too bad the image used in this article is of the zoo's admission booths. I understand the problem, though -- I couldn't locate a better image here on in the Commons. You may wish to consider posting over at Wikipedia:WikiProject Toronto to see if anyone can upload some better images.

- I found the reference to Canada Post in the lead paragraph to be odd. Such a trivial piece of information for the opening paragraph. Moreover, it's hardly unique to Scarborough -- Canada Post quite often uses names of former municipalities (i.e. Kanata) or even areas that were never separate municipalities (i.e Downsview) for postal addresses. Since it's an administrative practice of Canada Post throughout the country, and has nothing to do with Scarborough per se, it seems unusual to give it such prominence in the article. If the consensus is to retain the information in the lead paragraph, however, then thought should be given to rewording it because it is somewhat unclear (perhaps "..., and the name continues to be used for postal addresses.").

- The lead paragraph requires some indication of why Scarborough is notable or interesting. Something like "Scarborough is known for its multicultural character, and is said to be the greenest and leafiest part of Toronto" (referencing information detailed later in the article). Otherwhise, an opening para. that focuses solely on amalgamation and Scarborough's boundaries is somewhat bland. Skeezix1000 20:27, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

-Okay, thanks for the tips. As far as photos go, I agree it's not the best Zoo picture. Getting good pictures is likely to be nontrivial, since the Zoo admission price isn't chump change. I may have some old ones somewhere. But that'll take time to address.

-I share your sentiment about the Canada post reference a bit. I think it may be there more because it's unclear where else to put it - I would welcome suggestions. Perhaps it can be dropped altogether, but even though this doesn't make it unique to Canadian communities, it sheds light on an apparent elevated status of community that Scarborough gets - even if many others do to.

-As for the blandness of the opening, I will admit it has been left essentially untouched during the recent revisions of the articles, and could use some reworking. Thanks

WilyD 05:40, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, I've reworked the opening, but I'm still not satisfied. WilyD 15:54, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

-On the issue of image size - I'm not sure if there's a good way to work with different displays. All the images are just thumb with no size specified - I had hoped that this would lead to a semi-smart display pattern - am I nuts? is there a good way to do it, or just guess? WilyD 01:18, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

• This article is certainly alot better than it used to be. However, it reads a little bit like a travelogue, ie. it's kind of bland. There is no real discussion of the urban and social problems that occur in Scarborough. I also note that the article history shows there is still an apologist for the article still at work, namely User:Dscarborough, who still persists in removing anything that he perceives as a negative comment. Until that stops the article will lack balance. --Bombycil 23:12, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
  • I'm not sure exactly what kind of discussion you're looking for - one of the real problems I find myself in continuously in this article is that with Scarborough as a community in Toronto, things that affect Scarborough in a way un-unique from how they affect Toronto are hard to work with - I never have any idea of how deep to go into them, whether to just link to the Toronto discussion or what.
    • Specific issues that need to be mentioned. I don't think it matters whether these problems are specific to Scarborough or not. They still affect the area and so they should be discussed:
      • gang related crime, eg. Malvern problems (can be moved to history if necessary)
      • concentration of immigrant communities within Scarborough
      • marijuana grow-ops that plague certain neighbourhoods
      • economic disinvestment in the Warden/Kennedy corridors
      • development pressures on the Rouge Valley
      • erosion issues on the Scarborough bluffs
      • water quality pollution issues on Highland Creek, --Bombycil 18:06, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
  • As for D, I'm not sure here whether your complaint is fair. Every piece of content he or she has wanted removed was seperately argued against by either myself or User:Mindmatrix. Beyond that, the rest of the content D was opposed to remains in the article. WilyD 16:01, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

The opening paragraph should be reworded as per Skeezix makes much sense. To Bobmbycil; WilyD and Mindmatrix have endeavoured to competently review every disagreement, and the article is fair and balanced. In fact, if you wanted to list the crime data per police division, that should be done on the larger Toronto page (Toronoto Neighbourhoods?), and you might actually be surprised that '42 Division whrere Malvern is located in, is on a per capita basis, amongst the safest divisions in the entire city' - former 42 Division Sargent Tony Warr. I could call Tony and ask him to email you a direct quote if you would like. Dscarborough 20:44, 26 September 2006 (UTC) .

• malvern gangs are sort of notorious throughout toronto, (at least amongst people i know) so perhaps they should have some mention

Melanoma

It's been Medicine Collaboration of the Week, and has improved a lot. We'd like to hear comments about it. Thanks! NCurse _work 15:30, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

• Automated suggestions are provided here, that you may wish to refer for some useful style guidelines. - Mailer Diablo 17:29, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

• The lead is a little short - seems like it should include diagnostic methods and prevalence info at least. Also, the mention of resection before 1mm - I assume that's a statistical association, but it sounds rather arbitrary and probably needs a citation.

• I tried to fix it, found some references. Please have a look. NCurse _work 08:30, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

• Only one question: the first sentence says melanoma is a malignant tumor, but later in the lead there's a mention of "premalignant" melanoma. Is it necessarily malignant, and if so, is there a separate term for the early stages? Opabinia regalis 15:43, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

• I fixed it: "...suspicious of a malignant melanoma or a premalignant lesion" NCurse _work 18:21, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

• Many sections are quite listy. The staging section obviously should be a list, but even some of the prose sections - History and Epidemiology especially - read like a series of only somewhat related sentences rather than a coherent story. This may be because research hasn't told a very coherent story yet, but it should still be synthesized more clearly if possible. "Prevention" should definitely be prose, except the "mnemonic" (where did that come from anyway?)

• The ABCDE mnemonic comes from the Asymmetrical, Border, Color, Diameter, Evolution words. But the sections says "(see "ABCDE" mnemonic below.)" because in the list below these letters are bold too. NCurse _work 08:33, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

• Sorry, I wasn't clear - I meant what's the source for the mnemonic/who uses it. Opabinia regalis 15:43, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

• In fact, everybody (medical students, doctors, scientists). I can't show you exact reference for it, because there isn't any. But everybody uses it. NCurse _work 18:04, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

• I tried to fix Epidemiology section. In my opinion, History is correct, but we can wait for someone else to comment. NCurse _work 08:39, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

• I think epidemiology looks pretty good. On second glance my only real problem with the history section is the first sentence: "While there is little serious doubt that melanoma is not a relatively new disease..." is just too many double negatives and qualifiers in one place. Is there any serious doubt? Opabinia regalis 20:32, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

• What about it: 'While melanoma is not a relatively new disease'? NCurse _work 20:50, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

• I like that better, but do you really need "relatively"? Is there any intended comparison to the historicity (is that a word?) of other cancers? Opabinia regalis 04:46, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

• No, it is NOT a new disease, just we weren't so brave to write it like that. But I removed relatively and inserted a reference (which can't be found on the net, it's from 1966) - On the antiquity of melanoma. NCurse _work 07:08, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

• I tried to convert the Prevention section into prose. Please have a look. NCurse _work 18:37, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

• Looks better. Only suggestion would be an explanation of the difference between "primary" and "secondary" prevention (avoidance and vigilance?) - when I tried to look it up I discovered our prevention article is quite poor. Opabinia regalis 20:32, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

• To be honest, I really can't see why do we need this primary-secondary section names, without these the prevention section would be total too. Anyway I can put avoidance and vigilance next to the primary and secondary words. NCurse _work 20:56, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

• Are "avoidance" and "vigilance" really good restatements of the meanings? That was my guess from the context, but I'm sure you're more knowledgeable about medical usage than I am. I'd agree that the distinction isn't critical to the section's flow. Opabinia regalis 04:46, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

• In fact, there is no need for these subsections. I removed primary and secondary words. NCurse _work 07:03, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

• Is there a more dramatic image than Image:WB032021.JPG? Or maybe just touch up the color on this one?

• I sent a letter to the American Academy of Dermatology to ask permission for their images. I'm waiting for the answer. NCurse _work 08:40, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

• There's a lot of emphasis on sun damage and sunburn as risk factors, but most people have had a peeling sunburn at some point in their lives - maybe flesh out the statistics on this, or find some relative-risk data?

• I found a reference for this sentence: "Occasional extreme sun exposure (resulting in "sunburn") is causally related to melanoma." The reference is a study: Sun exposure and risk of melanoma. Hope it will be enough. :) NCurse _work 18:32, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

• My concern here is that someone's going to read the article and think "Holy crap! I had a sunburn once; now I'm going to get skin cancer and die!" Is there some data to the effect of "x level of exposure to UV radiation increases melanoma risk by y%"?

• I haven't found any really relevant reference, maybe one, please have a look: [23]. NCurse _work 21:09, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
• I can't get the full text, but the abstract looks pretty statistical for reassuring the common hypochondriac. On the other hand, it's not Wikipedia's job to reassure hypochondriacs, so I don't think this is too critical. Opabinia regalis 04:46, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

• Most of the article is well-referenced, but there's a few statements in the epidemiology section especially that don't have citations - like the "Australia" data and the "British study".

• Done. NCurse _work 09:39, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

• The tissue slides are nice but could use a more descriptive caption.

• Done. NCurse _work 09:19, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

• I wonder if it's possible to get a slide of normal tissue for comparison? (Also, am I right in reading the image descriptions that these are all the same case?) Opabinia regalis 20:32, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

• Unfortunately, there is no normal skin histology image in Wikipedia, neither in Commons. Yes, these are the same case. NCurse _work 21:02, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

• "This radiation causes errors in the deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) of cells, making them go through mitosis (cell division) at an unhealthy rate. " -- Not very clear. I assume the increased mitosis rate thing refers to inappropriate cell division after the tumor has formed, but the sentence implies that radiation damage itself accelerates mitosis rates, which as far as I know is not correct. It should be explicitly stated that radiation damage induces mutations, which can accumulate as cell division proceeds to create inappropriately-dividing cancerous cells.

• Done. NCurse _work 09:43, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

• I made a couple of minor clarifications to this section. Feel free to rewrite if you think it's too detailed. Opabinia regalis 20:32, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

• Is the something about melanoma metastases specifically that makes them more difficult to treat? Are they just difficult to detect, or are they more dangerous in some way than metastases from other types of cancers?

• It's very hard to detect metastasis, it sends cells into nearly every part of the body. NCurse _work 09:27, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

• To me it sounds like the article is saying metastases of melanoma specifically are more deadly than metastases of other cancers. Is that the case? (In either case, it's not critical but it might be interesting to see comparisons in prevalence and survival rates to other common cancers.) Opabinia regalis 15:43, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

• The metastasis of melanoma is one of the worst ones, but I couldn't find relevant reference. :( NCurse _work 18:06, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Opabinia regalis 22:26, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

I've found uploaded 4 images. NCurse _work 09:33, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

• Some more info on familial melanoma and genetics of melanoma is probably needed. I suppose there has been some recent research in this area that is not fully reflected in the article. Kpjas 18:01, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Vinayak Damodar Savarkar

Hi - let's make this an FA. I welcome all advice and criticism. Rama's arrow - this Fire burns always 10:40, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

• Inline citations lagging.--Dwaipayan (talk) 12:21, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

• Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, AZ _t 17:06, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

• The date of publication of article "Who was Veer Savarkar?" is stated wrongly throughout the references. The correct date is 2004-08-23 and not 2006-07-28. Also, the article relies completely on a single reference. Try finding other references. Some links from external links section might help. Also, an infobox would be a welcome addition. Include and populate {{persondata}}. Whatever I knew about the topic is already present, so I am not in a position to comment on comprehensiveness. — Ambuj Saxena (talk) 09:03, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Santa Claus

I think this article is good, but could be better. Any comments are appreciated. If this could be on the Main Page it would be good! --TheM62Manchester 21:26, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

• I feel that this still needs a lot of work. Two concerns right off the bat:

Wikipedia:Summary style -> The three subarticles (origins, rituals and film) do deserve to be split from the main article, but there should still be a summary of the contents of each page in the main Santa Claus article. The standard Template:Main should be used rather than "See this page", as well.

One-sentence paragraphs and supershort sections, such as Santa Claus reindeers' name should be avoided through expansion or merging with other sections. --Amuck 21:52, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

• Automated suggestions are provided here, that you may wish to refer for some useful style guidelines. - Mailer Diablo 17:23, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

• Long way to go. Some sections are just 'see also', they need content. External links in text, no inline citations - this needs to be reversed :) Plus, add more pics.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  19:22, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Some notes:

• Although this is repeating the above, it makes no sense to me to have a section heading for a section that only contains a link to another page, and it's becoming one of my pet peaves. :-) The reader shouldn't have to go to another page just to get information those topics. They should be summarized with a paragraph or two, and then if the readers wants to learn more they can click on a {{main}} article link.
• I'd like to see some coverage of the supposed connection between the story of flying reindeers and the northern European shamanic ritual of eating red and white amanita muscaria mushroom.[24] Apparently these mushrooms are a favorite treat for reindeer.

Thanks. — RJH (talk) 15:25, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Note: This article was moved to Santa Claus in Northern American culture in 2007. --Enric Naval (talk) 00:44, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Vicca

This article, thanks to User:AnonEMouse, is well sourced and written. I would like to see this article become a featured article (or at least a "Good Article"). Therefore I am soliciting comments as to what needs to be done in order to get to that point. Any constructive feedback is appreciated. -- Joe Beaudoin Jr. ^{Think out loud — WP:PORN BIO?} 00:40, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

• Automated suggestions are provided here, that you may wish to refer for some useful style guidelines. - Mailer Diablo 17:28, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Thanks, Mailer_diablo! I have gone through and have done the following: expanded the lead paragraph, removed duplicate links, added the {{persondata}} template, added the non-breaking spaces between the number and measurement, fixed the headings, added footnotes and copyedited. (Obviously, a second pair of eyes wouldn't hurt.) I didn't put a caption on the picture because the picture is in the infobox and it's clearly an image of the subject in question. Also, all the information we can find is already in the article, so unless there are new developments with this performer, then we can't expand it any further. If there are any other comments, questions, or concerns regarding the article, feel free to make them! Thank you! -- Joe Beaudoin Jr. ^{Think out loud — WP:PORN BIO?} 03:41, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

A word to the wise, poor Joe: YOU SEEM OBSESSED, JOE, WITH THE WORD "PORNOGRAPHIC," WHICH YOU USE SO REDUNDANTLY AS TO BE ABSURD.

YOU ARE OBVIOUSLY OUT TO SMEAR THIS GIRL IN THE WAY YOU HAVE REWRITTEN THE LEAD. YOU SHOULD BE ASHAMED OF YOURSELF.

... In addition, Joe Beaudoin, who has been obsessed with this article for some time and loves to use the word pornography, has now put false information into the lead which he keeps reinserting. Vicca retired from porn movies in 2000. Poor Joe has her making movies with Nikita until 2002. Totally wrong.

UPDATE: I see that Joe has removed some comments here, from me and another writer.. THAT is vandalism.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.164.88.92 (talk • contribs) 14 August, 2006.

You sir are mistaken, as I haven't removed any comments from here. Also, pornography was her profession, so I'm not going to sugarcoat it with politically correct terminology or bloated subjective terms like "porn star". Now, maybe I added one too many instances of "pornographic' in the lead paragraph, but you could have easily pointed this out without the personal attacks against my person. Clearly, it is you who belive you have ownership of the article, and belive that you do not have to abide by Wikipedia's guidelines. (For instance, your unwillingness to help us in providing us your sources for the article prior to User:AnonEMouse's assistance in getting it sourced.) I am merely trying to develop the articles as I see them, which is something I am not ashamed of. Now, if you have any other concerns, please direct them at the Vicca talk page. Thank you for your comments. -- Joe Beaudoin Jr. ^{Think out loud — WP:PORN BIO?} 07:11, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

A few thoughts...

• The extra bold for her stage names feels like overkill...
• especially given the glaring absence of her real name. ("Vicca" sounds like a pseudonym, and surely she had a family name at some point.)
• Her notability seems suspect to me. The AVN Award, frankly, is the only really solid evidence of notability, IMO. (The fact that her films are notable doesn't automatically mean that she is notable.) This is part of a larger concern I have: there's really not that much material here. What's the goal of this peer review? GA status? You're probably there. FA status? There's simply not enough material of note.
• "...won the 2000 Hot d'Or as Best American Movie at the Cannes Film Festival." This makes it sound as though the Hot d'Or is awarded by the Cannes Film Festival. My understanding is that it is announced at the same time as the Cannes Film Festival, in order to capitalize on the CFF's media coverage, but is not affiliated with it. This is like saying that Halle Berry proudly accepted her Razzie at the Academy Awards... technically true, but unacceptably misleading to anyone not familiar with the award. Peirigill 20:28, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

The goal is GA status at best. FA is unattainable for this article at this point. I did go ahead and remove the bolding of the additional stage names. I'll also clear up the Hot d'Or reference. Thanks for the feedback Peirigill! -- Joe Beaudoin Jr. ^{Think out loud — WP:PORN BIO?} 22:31, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Apple II series

This is currently a very well written, and generally good article. However, its lacking references, which is holding it back from becoming featured. I'm sure it needs something else though, anyone care to comment on how it can be improved? — Wackymacs 20:12, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

• The section "The original Apple II" is very lengthy and should be broken down into subsections. Maybe one section for the 'standard' equipment and one section on the design process.
• There's a faint air of fanboyism in the history section, especially in the discussion of Woz and his "design sensibility".
• The history section says that "quirky and brilliant programmers" were the platform's "lifeblood" but the lead emphasizes the use of the Apple II by non-experts in business and education. Somewhere there needs to be a link between these two things; explicitly state that one reason for the Apple II's popularity with non-experts was the wide range of software distributed for it. (I assume that's the case; I've never been a Mac person and I'm not terribly familiar with the history.)
• The "Models" section is very long - since many of these models actually have their own articles, consider condensing and summarizing the material in this one to preserve readability.
• There's not much coverage of the marketing of the Apple II. How, where, and to whom was it advertised? Did it ever ship with a monitor or other peripherals? Was the educational popularity propelled by discount pricing on the hardware? Etc.
• On similar lines, the "Industry impact" section mentions that Apple II's were often bought just to run VisiCalc - what were the other options? How long was VisiCalc Apple II-only? Did Apple's later products really compete directly with the Apple II or were they targeting other markets?
• Any criticisms of the Apple II that are relevant and notable?

Opabinia regalis 22:50, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

• Some things I noticed just in the "Origins" section:
  • The original retail prices should be cited.
  • Calling Wozniak by his nickname "Woz" is too chummy. The nickname can be mentioned at his own article, but here it should be spelled out "Wozniak" each time.
  • "Woz laid out the circuit board several times..." I am not sure what "laid out" means here (Formulated a design? Physically placed the computer parts in front of himself to examine? Explained to others?) and the whole sentence is a bit awkward.
  • "The Apple II's brilliant quirks served as a gauntlet that drew scores of equally quirky and brilliant programmers to the platform: these people became the Apple II's lifeblood." This sentence seems out of place in a neutral encyclopedia article, and as Opabinia notes, it seems at cross-purposes with the machine's previously stated aims.
  • Where were these computers physically assembled? Or is this not particularly relevant?
• More to come. Andrew Levine 00:36, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

• Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, AZ _t 23:47, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

History of Solidarity

Quite comprehensive. I wonder what would you recommend before a FAC?-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  17:54, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

A through copy-edit for proper usage and grammar would be helpful. Beware of snake sentences, especially. Could the second picture of the iconic banner be moved to a better position within the article? Right now it and the TOC are causing a large break in the text between the introduction and the first section. And more inline citations would be helpful -- perhaps some of the external links could be cited and then become references? -Fsotrain09 01:05, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

One comment about the cover of Time: the use of a magazine cover in an article that doesn't talk about that issue, but just uses it as an illustration, doesn't fall under the fair use that Wikipedia fair use policy allows. You might want to expand the fair use claim in the image. This isn't enforced for FA, but I did notice this for my own current FAC and fixed it for a couple of images. Take a look at this image, at the "Rationale for fair use" section, and you'll see what I mean.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Mike Christie (talk • contribs)

I thought that it would be enough to mention the cover and its importance in the caption itself...?-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  09:03, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm not a fair use expert, so what I did was ask about this at the fair use project talk page. Here's that discussion; it looks to me from this as if the image page is where the fair use claim should live. I'm not completely clear that your use is fair use, in this case; it does look as if you are illustrating with it. Or are you using it as supporting evidence of Walesa's prominence at that time? That would be good enough, I think. Mike Christie 11:08, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Needs a lot more inline references to be ready for FAC. --Peter Andersen 20:20, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

• So few inline references might prove insufficient for a FA-level article. Additionally, there are some inline external links that should be converted into refs. There are at least 9 more o
• Some FAC reviewers are fond of detailed fair-use rationales for each non-PD pic.
• I would like to see a "criticisms" section somewhere. No one is perfect, and especially politicians... -- Grafikm ^(AutoGRAF) 10:41, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

• As for criticism, I agree, but I think this would rather belong in the main article (which is certainly not GA-near, and this is why I split the good history section fromt he otherwise uncomplete article). This is just 'history of...', and I don't think it needs 'criticism of...' section.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  19:08, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

• Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, AZ _t 23:45, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Biff Tannen

I would like this article to be a good article, so any advice is appreciated. --TheM62Manchester 15:58, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

For one thing, remove the unnecessary red borders. DrWho42 16:29, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Some comments below. Overall the article is in fair shape.

• Lead-in: what is "the ride"? A Disneyland ride? Generally I think the lead-in could be shortened -- some of the contents seem more suitable to the body of the article, such as the paragraph about his personal characteristics. I don't know anything about this movie, and I think by the end of the lead-in I should know more than I do -- e.g. is Biff the hero? A villain? A minor character? I think a brief note on the relevance to Thomas Wilson's career would be good, too; was this a breakthrough role for Wilson? Or a minor role for a major actor? Finally, it would be nice to get rid of that "spoiler warning" in the lead, but I'm not sure that that's possible for a fictional character.
• Pre-Back to the Future: I'd use "grandmother" instead of "grandma" for an encyclopaedia article. It would be good to cite sources for the deductions and so forth about the timeline of events in his life. You currently have no footnotes; let me know if you need help formatting them -- they can be tricky. You refer to draft scripts; have these been published? If so it would be good to cite them, and even list them or point to another article about them. This applies to the later sections too; I won't repeat it below. An overall list of sources, in addition to the references, wouldn't hurt, as a separate section later in the article. Where is Mason Street -- in Hill Valley? You don't actually say that he still lives there. I assume this is not a real street.
• Back to the Future: After reading this, I understand Biff's role among the main characters. I don't need a detailed plot synopsis earlier than this, but as I said above I think by the time I get here I should already know he's the villain (or perhaps could be described as the main oppositional character to the hero and his father). I also think some explanation of "original timeline" is necessary; I've read enough sf to understand all the implications of this quickly, but a general reader may have read no sf. You can link to an article with more details about time-travel paradoxes if you think that's appropriate, but at least a sentence of explanation about what's going on here is needed.

I have some other comments on wording, but I'll wait till you've responded. Hope this is useful. Mike Christie 17:55, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

• Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, AZ _t 23:45, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

LA Freewaves

Attempt to delete page has led me to edit. I have done what I can, but I do not know what else to do to prevent deletion. I have permission from Director of LA Freewaves to create page and freely use information and materials contained within website. I attempted to assert this on WP:CP but I do not know what else to do. Thanks for any help to make page meet wikipedia criteria.--Freewaves 00:15, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

• Well, I am quite pleased with the progress you made on it; I am quite proud of you. However, try and add some history to the various exhibitions, eg year it was launched, planning time, just the basic facts. --JB Adder | Talk 13:35, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

• Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, AZ _t 23:45, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Blanchard, Bailey, and Lawrence theory

The contribution I am looking for is in the form of criticism from authors who do not have a direct interest in this topic. Blanchard, Bailey, and Lawrence theory is a theory of transsexual behavior known mostly for part of it's taxonomy as the "theory of Autogynephilia". This theory attempts to explain the phenomena of male to female transsexuality by way of the sexual preferences of the subjects of the theory. This theory has been the source of much controversey. The history of the article reflects this controversey. The current version of the article seems to be as Npov and of the best quality it can be.

Authors and editors who are not personally involved in this topic could advise on the clarity of the article to someone who is just looking for casual information. Does the article inform the reader without any bias? Is the article a clear presentation of a psychological theory? etc. My personal background is some education in physics I am not sure how psychologist structure the presentation of their theories. In short is the article clear, concise, and informative with no bias.

Please help. Hfarmer 01:59, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

• Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, AZ _t 23:43, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

SkyTrain (Vancouver)

It's on it way to becoming an FA. Is there any major details that the article lacks? Is there any bad prose? All comments are appreciated -- Selmo ^(talk) 05:25, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Here a few quick minor details that could be fixed up. Using AndyZpeerreviewer.

• See if possible if there is a free use image that can go on the top right corner of this article.
• Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (numbers), when doing conversions, please use standard abbreviations: for example, miles -> mi, kilometers squared -> km², and pounds -> lb.
• Make the spelling of English words consistent with either American or British spelling, depending upon the subject of the article. Examples include: honour (B) (American: honor), meter (A) (British: metre), metre (B) (American: meter), offence (B) (American: offense), organize (A) (British: organise), ization (A) (British: isation).~ Joe Jklin (T C) 07:40, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Given the subject, spelling should be Canadian standards, no? 2Q (talk) 03:42, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

Houston Astros

Please, this article really does need some inspection of some sort because it is also a nominee for featured article. Plus, I would like some review on the article on my favorite baseball team. Falconleaf 00:29, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

• Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, AZ _t 23:42, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Final Fantasy XI

Probably one of the final fantasy articles that has recieved the smallest amount of work. Let the review begin! Judgesurreal777 13:43, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

• Some points:
  • The first thing I wanted to find out was what the expansion packs were called. And I was surprised there were no sections dealing directly with this, instead having been mentioned in the plot or races sections. I think a good thing would be to write a synopsis of the main plot of the game, then have a subsection on each of the main plots for the expansions (zilart/promathia/that new one) for example and then elaborate upon what these expansion packs bring. (More detailed synopses of the expansions can be forked in their own articles).
  • Reviews are an absolute must and with a Japanese game link FF, it would be nice to have a japanese source too (like Famitsu). Western sources will be very easy to find, pretty much every single gaming publication will have reviewed this. Also make a mention of the expansion packs.
  • How many players are there? Altogether and in a single server at any time?
• Hahnchen 00:48, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

One thing I wanted to respond to here: As you can see in the Plot sub-section of the Gameplay section, there are no less than eight different, major plot branches in this game. It hurts my head to try to think of how to summarize the different storylines in the game, or try to boil them down to one overall summary. I honestly wouldn't even know where to start. I would be very afraid that any attempts to do so would resemble the mess that was the storyline section of Final Fantasy VII before some very dedicated people cleaned it up, or that it would look like the crufty nightmare that List of Final Fantasy XI characters is in places. If we could hash out the relevant points to include and what to leave out, I'd be willing to take a stab at it, but as it is I almost find it easier to let the game setting speak for the storyline, as much of a cop-out as that is. -RaCha'ar 21:43, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

One option you have is to work on it elsewhere (either a separate sandbox page or offline), and not insert it until you're happy with it. I've written sections this way, and it definitely helps in making it cohesive and less random. Nifboy 22:50, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Actually it is just one story with many different aspects and parts. Take a look at The History of Vana'diel, despite being on seperate pages in the mission log, they are all interwoven, build on each other and are just one big story. --Anibas 11:16, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

• More points:
  • WP:LEAD needs expanded.
  • Lacking a basic description of gameplay; assume a reader knows little about video games and nothing about MMO parlence.
  • The gameplay section has some strategy-esque statements in it. For example, "Once the player has attained level 18 on any job, he may complete a Support Job quest in either Selbina or Mhaura." The facts that it occurs specifically at level 18 and in two specific areas is of no real consequence.
  • The plot section seems rather weaselly; "a sense of individual heroism" is a rather subjective statement that ought to be cited.
  • The economy section contains some outright original research: "Hard figures are unknown, but it would not be far-fetched to assume that some (if not many) servers may have a GDP of well over a trillion Gil."? Kill it with fire.
  • Ambiguous statements: It is not obvious whether PvP takes place "in the wild" or in specific set-aside areas. Similarly, I thought "engaging in successful battles with an enemy in a region" (national alleigance section) referred specifically to PvP. Also, "Depending on the rules set by the MC" -- What's an MC?
  • Three-sentence "music" section needs expanded or merged elsewhere.
  • "Ingame controversy" should be remade into a general-purpose reception/reviews/criticism section, and cite sources. One rule I live by is "The fandom doesn't matter", mostly because they're virtually impossible to cite using good sources.
• Nifboy 01:22, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

• Stuff from a longtime editor of this article:
  • I hate the Game Economy section and always have. I totally agree with Nifboy that it smacks of OR, and I always wanted to cut the amateur economist babble out of the article. However, I've been uncertain as to how to acknowledge and explain the difficulties of the game economy without those terms, so this has remained intact for a long time.
  • I've already started going through and trying to cull out references to game mechanics. I hadn't really realized what a mess the article had become from that point of view.
  • I've also never been a fan of the controversy/gilseller portions of this article, which have never been NPOV, and I'm not sure if they ever can be.

I've not played the game for several months now, and I'm hoping that some distance from it will allow me to look at the article with a more objective eye, compared with whatever lingering expertise I have from having played it for two and a half years (sob!). I'm looking forward to seeing the results of the review.

RaCha'ar 15:59, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Currently parts of the article aren't really ordered, for example the reception, jumping between dates and console, using different numbers for the play base (once it's the registered users, once it's the daily playing users). Furthermore I see another problem with the article, you currently have over fourty references almost all of them in the Development and Reception parts of the article. In the reception part there are definitely too many, almost every sentence there has its own reference, they are distracting from the text. --Anibas 18:04, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

The Release section is short and very choppy. It needs re-wording at the least, and some structure. --PresN 22:21, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

• Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, AZ _t 23:42, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

List of Vice Presidents of the Philippines

Wanted this reviewed so that it'll pass at WP:FL. --Howard the Duck 07:21, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

• Could you color all the row as in List of Presidents of Venezuela or List of Presidents of Portugal? CG 21:14, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

• Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, AZ _t 23:40, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Breast

I think this article needs to be thoroughly reviewed and vetted to ensure the quality of the information presented there. --evrik 02:56, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

• Convert the list in "Disorders of the breasts" to prose. CG 21:05, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

• Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, AZ _t 23:40, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Euchre

Many editors have contributed to this article and I think it is somewhat well written and a good article. I'd like to incorporate others' ideas and improvements. I notice that the scoring table is a little strange, so maybe someone can fix that too. Thanks for your time. Ryanminier 14:02, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Several quick points:

1. the strategy section should be fleshed out, and the list of "commandments" removed, or at the very least restated in a more formal fashion
2. the dealing section should be compressed somewhat - it seems too long for what should be a reasonably easy thing to explain. (Also, I don't think that dealing cards one by one is uncommon)
3. an image showing and describing how the scoring is done would be useful
4. I'm not sure if everything labelled as being a Midwest rule or style is actually just done in the Midwest. For example, "first black jack deals" is done in Ontario too.
5. we need to check facts for the Guernsey variation.

I've just perused the article quickly, so I'm sure I've missed a number of things. Mindmatrix 15:39, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

• Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, AZ _t 23:40, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

National emblem of Belarus

I have made some recent additions to the article, but I still would like to see some guidance on helping this article Featured. I have sent it through peer review twice, but the last one was responded only by a automatic script. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 02:05, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

• (again) Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, AZ _t 02:13, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

• Comment-- an automated review is not a peer review. Why is this here? Bastiq▼e ^demandez 02:22, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

  • I did some of the "suggested" edits, and I am sent an email to use a pic I found on Flickr of the border post. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 05:14, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

• Looks pretty good overall. "The way of carrying out the referendum was heavily criticized by the opposition" could do with citing. "Some claim that this failure to win a majority is a violation of the Law, but the imperfection and incompleteness of the Belarusian Law cannot resolve the issue." That sentence is a bit unclear - do the people who claim it is a violation also claim Belarusian law is imperfect and incomplete, or are the comments on the law supposed to be factual. Either way, it also needs citing. Trebor 21:40, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

I removed the statement about the "Belarusian law is imperfect.." and I cited the rest of your points. I listed one of the complaints by the opposition and cited that and your first point. I added a cite to the second point, since it is true that while a majority of the population did not vote for the symbols, the many people who did vote on it did. Thanks again. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 22:02, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Good stuff. I gave the article a full read-through and it seems good - nothing jumps out at me to be improved. It might be time to try for featured article again. Trebor 22:15, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Going to. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 23:06, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. :) User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 23:32, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Good luck ;) Trebor 23:34, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Fourth International

This article received a peer review back in February 2005 (Wikipedia:Peer review/Fourth International/archive1). Since then, several contributors including myself have made extensive changes and additions to the article. I believe that all the suggestions received back then have been addressed, and the article is now considerably more comprehensive. I think it may now be close to WP:FA status, and I'm keen to pass it through peer review for comments. Warofdreams talk 19:14, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

• Well-presented considering it is a subtopic of Trotskyism and it must be hard not to recover aspects covered in other Trotskyism articles. It provides enough background for a novice without being too simple. Good referencing and neutral point-of-view writing. Certainly a lot closer to FA status than last time. Some comments:
  • Use of capitalisations (such as SWP,IEC,RCP and FI). I suggest you add the abbreviation in brackets after the full name before using it alone. For the SWP in particular it was used first as US SWP and I had to scroll up two sections to find out what it referred to. There are also sections later in the article where the abbreviations become somewhat overwhelming. Perhaps the occasional substitution with the full name (or when the reference is unmistakable 'the commitee' or 'the party') would make it more readable.
  • Too many redlinks
  • Still too little explanation about the previous Internationals (second doesn't appear, first mentioned in passing). I was looking for background like this at the beginning of the article.
  • Some style inconsistencies: U.S. vs US, first International v Fourth International,international v International.
  • The grouping of The Founding Congress and WWII seems a little strange, these could be split to make it flow better.
  • Alternative viewpoints suggests that the article is written from a certain point-of-view. I'd suggest changing it to External links or Further reading

Hope this helps. Yomangani 23:35, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

1. I've now completely worked through the capitalisations; there are now considerably fewer (I've expanded some and removed some unnecessary ones). All remaining capitalisations are now explained the *first* time they are used, and again if they not used for several sections.
2. Now I've worked through the capitalisations, there are even more red links - I noticed a couple of groups mentioned which were never linked! Most of these shouldn't be too difficult to write articles on, so I'll work through them.
3. I've fixed the link for the Socialist International to point to the Second International. The difficulty is that interaction between it (strictly, its successor, the Socialist International) and the Fourth International was limited, and the story of the link is historic, in particular lying in the WWI splits from it which mostly ended up in the Comintern. Perhaps a brief mention in the intro and a section on communist concepts of an International would clarify this?
4. I've standardised to "U.S." in each case, and capitalised "International" when it refers to a specific International. I don't think it would be appropriate to capitalise "first International"; the "Fourth International" termed itself as such; for obvious reasons, the International Workingmen's Association did not call itself the "First International"; rather, the idea of it being the first of a series of Internationals is a later concept.
5. I've split the Founding Congress and WWII sections. You're right, this does seem to make it flow better.
6. Good point on "Alternative viewpoints"; I've changed it to "Further reading".

Thanks for taking the time to look through the article and for your useful comments. Warofdreams talk 01:04, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Heh, no comments for two days, then I get an edit conflict. :) It really has improved. I've been trying to allocate time for a thorough review without luck yet, but here's what I see so far: 1) Some of the paragraphs are too short and have some choppy prose, adding up to poor flow in places. There's probably about 10 short paragraphs in that situation, I didn't check the prose in others. 2) The lead is much better but still needs more context. It still uses terms that you already need to know the material to know what they are. GPU, Third International, Comintern. It also doesn't say if they had any success or why they are the most important Trotkyist organization. It doesn't really tell us what their ideals were or what they tried to do, except a little through inference on what you tell us they were unsuccessful in. 3) The article's largely chronological structure makes it difficult to see at a glance the organization's impact, legacy, importance or lack thereof, etc. I would recommend shrinking down the chrono stuff to a reasonably small section to give a contextual overview, then use other broad sections to cover the various most important aspect of the organization. Are their views one and the same with Trotskyism, and would other groups agree with that? The Trotskyism section seems to be to only one giving overview of their views/goals. Hope that's a start - Taxman ^Talk 23:50, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes, thanks, that's useful. I'll think about your third suggestion and reply later, while getting to work on the others. Warofdreams talk 01:04, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Sounds reasonable. I'm not sure it's the best way, but it seems better. It is unfortunately a lot of work, but if it results in a great article it will be worth it. - Taxman ^Talk 15:11, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure I agree with that (although I'd have to see both versions to make up my mind, that's how close it is). I like the chronological approach, although I agree with Taxman that it makes it difficult to see the impacts of the organization: it might be better to dedicate a section to this at the beginning and then maintain the chronological layout. Yomangani 15:23, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

That's probably fine too, but if you add something, you'd still probably need to summarize the chronology a bit in order to not make the article too large. - Taxman ^Talk 16:54, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Having thought about these suggestions, I prefer this idea - it avoids rewriting large sections of the article which are already in pretty decent shape, while clarifying the FI's impacts. Warofdreams talk 11:52, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

• Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, AZ _t 01:35, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks; I've been through and addressed everything but the redundancies. Warofdreams talk 02:51, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

An update for various suggestions: almost all the red links are gone, and there is now a section on political internationals and how they relate to the Fourth International. The lead has also been simplified, and explains or avoids less obvious concepts (other than Trotskyism and political internationals, which are detailed in their own sections, immediately following the lead).

Still to do: check for redundancies and short paragraphs, and write a section on the impact of the organisation. Warofdreams talk 00:32, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

It looks much better to me: the section on internationals and the brief section on Trotsky are just what it needed for the novice reader. Like you say, the impact section still needs writing but apart from it looks good. Yomangani^talk 17:22, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

I've made a start on the section on the FI's impact; there is little agreement on it, so I've considered the views of various tendencies and compared it with the tasks it set itself. Warofdreams talk 03:29, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

And I've now checked for redundancies and short paragraphs and fixed them as best I can. Warofdreams talk 23:20, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

• There we go. It's as ready for FAC as I can think of after one thing. The lead still throws the reader in too abruptly. What's Trotskyism? Give us one or two more sentences in the lead adding that bit of context. Tell us earlier (in the first sentence) the fourth international is a socialist political organization working for x. The new sections later in the article cover this extremely well and though I still think the impact section could more clearly come out and tell us whether historians in general regard the organization as being widely influential or not, the article is clearly currently among Wikipedia's best. - Taxman ^Talk 00:41, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

• Thanks! Is the new intro clearer? Warofdreams talk 02:05, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

I changed "has been" to "is" in the lead as it seemed to be an artifact from the rewrite. Looks good to me though, and I agree with Taxman: you should now put it forward to FAC. Yomangani^talk 10:24, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Tulsa, Oklahoma

Many changes have been done to this article recently to get it to GA or FA article status, but any and all suggestions pertaining to this goal are wanted. General suggestions, comments, and pointers to make this a GA or FA are appreciated, thanks. Okiefromokla 02:38, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

• This looks pretty good. I notice that there are still several unsourced paragraphs and statements on the page which would count against it at FAC. Comprehensive sourcing would be something that would need to be addressed. Here's my citation criteria for featured articles.-- Zleitzen^(talk) 08:02, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Huntington's disease

This article has been through the Wikipedia:WikiProject Medicine/Collaboration of the Week, is marked as A class by the Wikipedia:WikiProject Medical Genetics and seems to be fairly good, but need comments and a neutral perspective on its quality.Leevanjackson 13:14, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

• The lead needs expansion; it's pretty skimpy at the moment. At least it should mention that the trinucleotide repeat leads to a polyglutamine region in the huntingtin protein; the prevalence of the disease; the most common/characteristic symptoms; and the fact that it is not curable.

• Have changed with your suggestions it might be too long now!Leevanjackson 15:18, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

• The intro to the "Symptoms and signs" section is awkwardly written. (Incidentally, is there a reason not to use the more common "signs and symptoms"?)

• No reason. I changed it to "Signs and symptoms". List should rather be in prose. NCurse _work 16:55, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
• Have reworded the intro, hope its better Leevanjackson 22:41, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

• Given the content, "Genetics" seems like it would logically precede "Pathophysiology" and possibly even "Diagnosis". The fact that children of HD sufferers are at risk of having HD doesn't really have context until the genetic explanation. Also, there's some redundancy between "Genetics" and "Pathophysiology" that should be resolved - both mention chromosome 4, for example.

• yep now its in a more logical order still in keeping with the medical style manual Leevanjackson 15:30, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

• Both "Genetics" and "Pathophysiology" could use some writing tweaks for clarity:
  • "loss of medium spiny neurons, a GABAergic result" -- contextless without at minimum a wikilink to GABA
  • "Genetically, huntingtin is found on chromosome 4, as are CAG repeats." -- well, I would hope the CAG repeats are on the same chromosome as the gene they're in. Unless you mean that CAG repeats also occur in other genes on chromosome 4? (That would be interesting, but I've never heard it before.)

• • Your right it didn't make sense and without a citation, 'tis removed, explained in genetics anyway Leevanjackson 09:56, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

• • "can lead to dysfunction of the proteosome system. This mitochondrial dysfunction... "-- Besides the typo ("proteasome"), the use of "this" isn't terribly clear. Does the aggregation have effects on both the proteasome and the mitochondria, or is the proteasomal deficiency the direct cause of mitochondrial dysfunction? If so, what is the mechanism?

• • fixed typo, but cant quite work out the mitochondrial/proteasome dysfunction Leevanjackson 09:56, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

• • There's mention of the "nanotube" idea but no discussion of amyloid itself - this would be a good connection to make with other protein misfolding diseases.
  • The "Genetics" section mentions that repeat number becomes unstable after 35 repeats and causes disease after 40. It should either be briefly explained why the DNA replication machinery has difficulty with repetitive sequences, or at least wikilink to DNA replication so readers can learn about it there.
  • It would be interesting to expand on the age-of-onset phenomenon, which I think is a matter of interest in popular descriptions of the disease. IIRC it has been suggested that the "sharp cutoff" in number of repeats needed to create disease is an effect of human lifespan - ie 30 repeats don't cause disease because the aggregation is slow enough that the person dies before it has a neurodegenerative effect. Unfortunately I can't find the paper I'm thinking of, but here is a related paper that expands on the biophysical origins of the effect.
• The "Others" section under management is very listy.
• The "Epidemiology" section could use some expansion if the data is available. Is it more prevalent in certain populations or ethnic groups? The prevalence statement also needs a citation, and there are weasel words in the ethics section.

Opabinia regalis 16:47, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

• Automated suggestions are provided here, that you may wish to refer for some useful style guidelines. - Mailer Diablo 17:29, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

• came in very useful, have applied many of its suggestionsLeevanjackson 15:17, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

• Nice, relatively concise article. I think it could use another pass to reduce jargon so that non-biologists / doctors are better able to understand it. But I would also like to see more references, especially peer-reviewed sources (journals/books are forever, web sites come and go). Satyrium 01:39, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Money

The article on money has undergone extensive revision, with many topics moving off into their own articles such as the history of money, commodity money, economics, and so on. Many of the comments on the discussion page were addressing part of the article on money that no longer exist, or have been moved to other locations.

The sections on the essential characteristics and desirable features of money have been more clearly defined.

The section on etymology needs a little beefing up; it was mostly moved along with the history of money.

The section on money supply toward the end of the article should probably be moved to another article; it seems to dominate the article inappropriately, as this is more of a political policy discussion.

There may need to be new sections added on the topic of money. Perhaps a section titled the politics of money. Or Money and Religion, or Religious teachings on money. Or perhaps also the relation of banking to money, rather than just credit as money--which is discussed. Such sections need to be handled carefully, as they are extremely hot topics, and the neutral point of view must be upheld.

Although the discussion of usury in relation to money is now in the usury article, something probably needs to be said about how money and usury relate here in the article on money. Jason Hommel 07:12, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

I like pulling large sections like history of money out onto separate pages, but paring down the section on the main page to nothing but "Money has developed over the years from gold, silver, copper, brass, iron, stones, or shells to paper, or electronic entries being managed by complex international banking systems." seems like a bit much. It should be a good solid couple of paragraphs. Also, I'm not sure the section on slang words for money is necessary, and if it is, it's much too long. I'd pull it into a separate article and link to it at the bottom under "see also." Jun-Dai 20:03, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Good points. I agree Thank you. 71.142.50.109 08:53, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

• Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, AZ _t 23:43, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Problem adding categories

I was trying to add the categories of money to this article, but was unsuccessful. Why? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Money Jason Hommel 06:40, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Were you trying to add a link to the category? If so you need to put a colon before the link e.g. [[:Category:Money]] gives Category:Money -- the wub "?!" 13:16, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

River Out of Eden

I rewrote this article a month ago. I tried to find some guidelines on "articles on books", but found none. I am requesting a peer review in the hope that someone may enlighten me on the process. This is a somewhat strange book. It is a short one, compare to most books by Richard Dawkins. It is not as much a book as a set of five chapters on topics in Darwinian evolution. Each chapter is really a summary of current theories on the topic and of Dawkins' own earlier books. As a result, I did not include things like "acclaims", "criticisms", etc., because these should really go to the respective books summarized here. So, instead, I further summarized his five chapters and added abundant links to other wiki articles whenever appropriate. Fred Hsu 05:38, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

For one, this article doesn't seem very encyclopedic. It's more of a book report, summarizing the sections of the book. For an encyclopedia article, there should be a lot more focus on the relevance of the book. Try to find information on how the book has influenced other books, how it was received, etc. Ideally less than 10% (to pick an arbitrary amount) should be on the book itself. After all, synopsizing and analysis are really a form of original research, which is generally discouraged here. Looking through other featured articles on books, that percentage might be closer to 20 or 30, but in any case, it's much too high for this article. Jun-Dai 06:10, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

• Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, AZ _t 23:43, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Thank you both. I'll conduct more researches. I will give the automated review a try tonight. By the way, unlike other peer review requests, this is NOT meant to be the first step towards FA-dom. I just wanted to gather feedback on the right way to write these types of articles. Fred Hsu 02:26, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Ah, the automated review has already been generated. I fixed a few things in the article per automated review. Fred Hsu 03:01, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

List of film formats

The bulk of work on this article was done in my user space many months ago, and finally moved, more or less as it is, to the article space it occupies. There have been mostly minor edits since, but nothing major. I'd like to bring this to featured list status. I'm aware that the red links need to be cut down (and I'm slowly chopping away at that one...), but any other comments are welcome. Thanks! Girolamo Savonarola 01:54, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

• Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, AZ _t 23:42, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for running this through the automated suggestions. Unfortunately, I don't think that any of the suggestions offered apply well in the case of lists, or at least this one in particular. Girolamo Savonarola 00:16, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Stegosaurus

After recent extensive remodelling by the Wikipedia:WikiProject Dinosaurs team, this article needs looking-over by someone unfamiliar with the subject, or at least by users willing to offer suggestions for improvement. --Firsfron of Ronchester 03:19, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

• It is quite interesting but unbalanced - not enough on aspects other than the plates and far too much weight given to the popular culture section in comparison to the "technical" sections. Some more specific comments:
  • It could so with some images - there are plenty at wikimedia commons (some of which seem to have been in the old version).
  • Lead:The phrasing of the meaning of "Stegosaurus" is clunky - the explanation of the Greek is disconnected from English translation. It also differs slightly from the translation in the next section ("roof-lizard" v "roof(ed) lizard")

**Lead:"Stegosaurus is the State Dinosaur of Colorado." - trivia at best, I wouldn't put it in the lead(done)Cas Liber 02:32, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

• • Lead:The second section of the lead reads like "here are some dinosaur names but there are others as well". Try and work in a connection to Stegosaurus - did they share a habitat, compete for resources, was it a prey animal for some? (good point, working on this)Cas Liber 02:39, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

• • There is a lack of inline citations for a great many claims. I've added {{fact}} tags to some but there are a lot more needed (although there is considerable improvement from the state of the old article).
  • References should follow punctuation according the manual of style (I think I've moved most of those).
  • There are a lot of weasel phrases: "more recent", "probably" etc.
  • The second point in Plate arrangement looks out of place as it doesn't indicate the arrangement first (as the other 3 do).

Hope this helps. Yomangani^talk 13:01, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

It does indeed help Yomangani. Thanks. I will work on fixing these this afternoon (that is, unless someone from the group beats me to it). --Firsfron of Ronchester 18:14, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

• Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, AZ _t 23:40, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Andy. I'm pasting them here so we can work our way thru the list. --Firsfron of Ronchester 02:49, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

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

   * Per WP:CONTEXT and WP:MOSDATE, months and days of the week generally should not be linked. Years, decades, and centuries can be linked if they provide context for the article.
   * Per WP:MOSNUM, please spell out source units of measurements in text; for example, "the Moon is 380,000 kilometres (240,000 mi) from Earth.[9]
   * Please alphabetize the interlanguage links.[10]
   * There are a few occurrences of weasel words in this article- please observe WP:AWT. Certain phrases should specify exactly who supports, considers, believes, etc., such a view. For example,
         o it has been
         o apparently
         o apparently
         o might be weasel words, and should be provided with proper citations (if they already do, or are not weasel terms, please strike this comment).[17]
   * Watch for redundancies that make the article too wordy instead of being crisp and concise. (You may wish to try Tony1's redundancy exercises.)
         o Vague terms of size often are unnecessary and redundant - “some”, “a variety/number/majority of”, “several”, “a few”, “many”, “any”, and “all”. For example, “All pigs are pink, so we thought of a number of ways to turn them green.”
   * Please provide citations for all of the s.
   * Please ensure that the article has gone through a thorough copyediting so that the it exemplifies some of Wikipedia's best work. See also User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 2a. [16]

You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, 71.251.36.207 19:25, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Dürer's Rhinoceros

A small but interesting piece of European zoological and art history. The article includes the main images, and refers to two main recent references, but anyone with access to Donald Lach's three-volume A Century of Wonder from the 1970s, or L.C. Rookemaaker's Bibliography of the Rhinoceros from 1983 is particularly welcome. I will be on wikibreak shortly, but am looking to take this to WP:FAC towards the end of August: any comments or contributions are welcome. -- ALoan (Talk) 02:13, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

• Very interesting and fairly flawless in my opinion. Unfortunately I don't have either of the books, so I can only make general comments. I did a bit of copyediting (trying to reduce the instances of "the rhinoceros"). Some minor niggles:
  • "The rhinoceros advanced slowly and deliberately towards its foe; the elephant, unaccustomed to the noisy crowds who turned out to witness the spectacle, fled the field in panic without a blow being struck." - I'm likely to be wrong but this sounds like a direct quote from the source in which case it should be in quote marks.
  • "and a green velvet collar decorated with flowers" - should this be "and wearing a green velvet collar decorated with flowers"?
  • "impagliato" should be explained
  • "...then created a woodcut from the second drawing, with the process of fabrication making one a reflection of the other." I found this phrasing awkward but couldn't see how to recast it.
  • "Burgkmair corresponded with merchants in Lisbon and Nuremberg, but it is not clear whether he had access to a letter or sketch like Dürer's or saw the original in Portugal." I rephrased this to make it clearer, but you'd better check I understood it correctly from the original.
  • "Only one copy of Burgkmair's image has survived, but Dürer's original single block print was copied many times." - there is no real connection between the two parts of the sentence. You should say whether many copies of Dürer's survive and/or whether Burgkmair's was copied at all.
  • "Non buelvo sin vencer" should be "No vuelvo sin vencer" in modern Spanish. I've been unable to discover whether the original quote is correct as the motto or whether Bendini has misquoted it.
  • "where it today retains the name Panzernashorn." This is a bit of a non-sequitur. My German isn't up to much, but I assume that this has some intimate connection to Dürer's print?

Hope this helps. Yomangani^talk 11:57, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Many thanks casting your eyes over it. I am quite proud of it, but glad for your further polishing.

• That is not a quote - I wrote it based on the account given in Bedini.
• I'm not sure whether the rhinoceros ever wore the collar - one was certainly created and sent with it.
• impagliato is (I understand) the Italian for "stuffed with straw"
• If I could, I would explain the technique, but I have not seen an account. I suspect the drawing was placed over the wood block and the design was pricked out.
• Your rephrasing is fine.
• There is only one original Burgkmair and one known derivative, a carving in a church in Minden. I have no idea how may original 1515 Dürer printings survive; there were many printings afterwards, and a whole host of "knocked off" copies. It and its derivatives are very well represented in a wide range of media.
• The motto is correct - Bedini includes an illustration.
• Panzernashorn means something like "armoured rhinoceros".

I also cited the dermatitis (although the source is slightly flakey) and modified your unicorn change (they are properly mythological, after all). But thanks again. (I am slightly surprised that no-one has complained about the format of my external links yet...) -- ALoan (Talk) 12:42, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

The unicorn change you made is much better and the external links look fine to me - I always think that area is a bit of free-for-all anyway. You are right to be proud, it's a good bit of work. (BTW, the motto might make a good addition to the Alessandro de' Medici article). Cheers, Yomangani^talk 13:19, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

• Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, AZ _t 23:40, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks - I am grateful for the comments, automated or otherwise, but I disagree with most of them:

• "previous" and "next" are used sparingly, when the meaning is obvious.
• I think the section "The rhinoceros" needs a definite article.
• Perhaps it is short, but it is perfectly formed :) Tell me what is missing.
• "Redundancies" like "a few" or "many" are helpful to give a comparison where relative are available but not absolute figures are not.
• Please, anyone, feel free to copyedit. Many eyes, etc.

But thanks again, User:AZPR. -- ALoan (Talk) 12:20, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Jaws (film)

I'm hoping that this article is very close for FA status, so I'm putting it up for peer review now. I will add more information to the DVD release section and possibly some deleted scenes information, but other than that I think it covers all the bases. I apologize in advance if I don't respond to comments for awhile, since I'm about to be hit by Hurricane Ernesto in two days. Thanks.--Dark Kubrick 02:50, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Issues: I'd replace the word "Movie" wherever it appears with the word "Film". It's more professional-sounding. The casting information needs referencing, such as Dreyfuss thinking one of his own performances was terrible. "The scene where Hooper discovers Ben Gardner's body" is mentioned but I wasn't sure who Ben Gardner is. It might also benefit the reader to explain briefly what 100 Years... 100 Movies and 100 Years... 100 Thrills are. I'd question "Reviews of the film were almost unanimously positive, evidenced by the 100% rating at Rotten Tomatoes". Rotten Tomatoes might be a good tool for contemporary movies, but with older stuff they don't usually have everything. The note at the end of the criticism section that the shark looks fake and that its a widespread opinion needs a reference. The Moby Dick stuff needs referencing too. Differences from the novel and sequel sections are listy. If we must have a sequel section, I'd model it after those in FAs Halloween (film) or Night of the Living Dead. Still, the topic is featured distworthy, and the article as is is pretty close, with the issues above probably easily fixable. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 09:38, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments. I've dealt with all the issues here, except the last two. What particular information about Moby Dick do I need to cite? And how would I change the differences from the novel section into prose? Thanks.--Dark Kubrick 12:43, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

I've cited a few sentences dealing with Moby Dick and rewrote the sequel section into prose. If the references are looking really screwed up (as they are all over Wikipedia), add this: ?action=purge to the address bar when viewing the page.--Dark Kubrick 18:41, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't mean to quibble, but Jaws was actually the first movie to make over $100 million in domestic rentals (i.e., the amount returned to distributors from U.S. and Canadian theaters as the distributors' share of the box office take) versus simple domestic grosses (ticket sales). The film's actual box office gross was closer to $170 - 180 million or so, I believe. The $85 million noted as The Godfather's box office gross was actually that film's domestic rental performance, which means it made well over $100 million in ticket sales, also. Prior to 1993, Variety, the film industry standard publication, used to report strictly domestic rentals as a gauge of a movie's performance, and at the end of the year would print a listing of all titles that had made $1 million dollars and more returned to distributors during the previous 12 month period. The magazine switched to listing box office grosses in 1993, presumably because everyone else by that time was doing so. Anyway, I think the article should be changed to reflect this. A good source of domestic rental/domestic gross information throughout the years is Michael Gebert's "The Encyclopedia of Movie Awards", but there should be plenty of other reliable sources that detail this info.Hal Raglan 03:12, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Oops, I forgot to add that both Variety (at the end of 1975) and Gebert's book (which provides data from Variety archives) noted that Jaws was the first film to make over $ 100 million in domestic rentals.Hal Raglan 03:17, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Quibble this is not. I am very glad you brought this to my attention, as I wish this article to be fully complete and accurate regarding the movie. I've changed the section and added a reference to reflect your suggestion. Thanks.--Dark Kubrick 16:17, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Vancouver

See also: Wikipedia:Portal peer review/Vancouver

archived discussion
I'm trying to get the article featured. I'm going to fix all {{fact}}'s, and copyedit any sloppy sections. What is the article missing? What needs to go? Are there any stubbish sections to address? Thanks. -- Selmo ^(talk) 19:33, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

When I think of Vancouver, I immediately recognise it for having films shot there. Why is it so popular then? Wiki-newbie 19:47, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

An article I've been working on, Hollywood North answers some of those questions. I have yet to work it into the Vancouver article though. Mkdw^talk 23:24, 28 December 2006 (UTC)