Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Peer review/July 2006

< Wikipedia:Peer review

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 (~~~~).

Star Wars Episode I: The Phantom Menace edit

I'm planning on submitting this article for FA to finish out the prequel trilogy articles, so I would like suggestions concerning FA candidacy. :) The Filmaker 03:59, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • The passages discussing the film's title seem too OR and aren't sourced. I would suggest trimming that part a little. The Wookieepedian 23:07, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • The reference at the end of the paragraph was meant to overlord the entire paragraph, I've now trimmed the paragraph and spread the citation around. The Filmaker 00:10, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, AZ t 01:44, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I have addressed all of the concerns that I could see. :) The Filmaker 00:38, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sequence alignment edit

This article and its children multiple sequence alignment, structural alignment, and sequence alignment software have undergone significant revision in the past couple of weeks and I'd like some external commentary. There are two known issues with the main article - I'm working on getting a dot plot image, and the external links section will be removed after I finish merging the links into sequence alignment software - but these are tangential to the main issue I'd like comments on, which is the level of technical detail and its distribution between the parent and child articles. I'd like to see this as an FA eventually but for now I just want to be sure that people who understand basic biology but not much computer science (or vice versa) can understand it.

This is a subject that's often mis- or poorly understood by students and even by casual users of the tools, so I think it's important that the text be comprehensible to non-experts. Is there too much technical detail in the main article? Too little? Are the descriptions of selected methods useful, or too vague? Opabinia regalis 06:08, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • A few points:
1.) Indels are actual (albeit hypothesized) evolutionary events, which may actually be of importance. I'm not familiar with the term "padding", but I find the term implies that indels are not events as such. If anyone's seen it used in the bioinformatics literature then continue, I just find it misleading. There's a huge literature on the importance and treatment ogf gaps in phylogenetics. It would be useful to incorporate that.
You're right, that's poor wording. "Padding" isn't a bioinformatics term, it's just an attempt to say "gap" without using the word "gap". Rewritten. Opabinia regalis 04:38, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
2.) Should molecular clocks and divergence times be brought into this somewhere? Similarity in sequence implies short time since divergence, slow evolving gene environment, and/or conservation due to functional significance.
Addressed in the new phylogenetics section. I think treatment of indels should probably go in phylogenetics or one of its relatives for space reasons. Opabinia regalis 04:38, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
3.) The programs align amino acids quite well, but I'm not sure that much of anyone will trust them with nucleotides without some hand editing. The intro to this article implies that computers can do it better. The reality is, at least in multiple alignment, the best alignments are a combination of both human and machine, back and forth between the software and hand editing.
You got me, I work almost entirely with proteins, so I'm less aware of the usage with nucleotide sequences. I would think, though, that hand alignments of nucleotides would be harder due to the lesser amount of biochemical information in the sequence? Opabinia regalis 04:38, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly. That's why the computer programs perform so abysmally. The result is that there's often a mix of programs and humans with the goal of capitalizing on the strengths of each. Most methods sections in phylogenetics papers will have a sentence that says something like: "Sequences were aligned using Clustal and edited by eye." --Aranae 04:21, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
4.) I don't understand the statement "Alignments are also used to aid in establishing evolutionary relationships by constructing phylogenetic trees (an application of the "molecular clock" hypothesis)." This seems to imply that phylogenetic techniques are theoretically based on the notions of molecular clock. That is simply false except for a handful of phenetic techniques and certain maximum likelihood models. Is something else meant by this sentence?
Bad phrasing. I was thinking of molecular clock in the sense of "way to measure divergence times", not necessarily the strict constant-rate interpretation. Also rewritten. Opabinia regalis 04:38, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
5.) There should be mention of phylogenetic alignment programs like POY that will align sequence, build a tree, realign based on that tree, build a new tree, etc. There's also quite a bit of controversy surrounding this approach.
Added some info on the Sankoff-Morel-Cedergren algorithm and what I could find on the POY method, but since I haven't worked with it I think that section is a little thin. Opabinia regalis 04:38, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
6.) In the end, a large part of many alignments is simply excluded from analyses (again speaking of phylogenetics), because researchers are uncertain of character homology.
Do you know, or can you point me to, a description of the criteria for exclusion?
It's usually very arbitrary. Many papers will simply state something along the lines of: "Unalignable regions were excluded from the analysis." With some exceptions, phylogeneticists are more comfortable throwing out suspect data than violating major assumptions inherent to their analytical techniques, the assumption of homology in particular. --Aranae 04:21, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
--Aranae 17:32, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the comments! Opabinia regalis 04:38, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I made a few minor changes related to your most recent comments. I also want to put this up for discussion since it came up on the talk page: the list of structural alignment software is currently housed in the daughter article sequence alignment software, but there's been a question of whether it's more appropriate to keep it locally on the structural alignment article since it produces information beyond just sequence alignment. Any thoughts? Opabinia regalis 01:50, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kernel (computer science) edit

I've done a lot of housekeeping lately on this article, rewriting and rearranging large parts of text. First, I created daughter articles for most of the kernel types in order to keep the main article focused. Then, upon the notice of 'Featured Articles in Other Languages', the introduction and the tasks of a kernel section were created. Now I think the article is at a quite good level, and I want it to become a candidate for a featured article eventually and so I was wondering if anyone would consider the effort in reviewing the article. Candamir 14:09, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • I had a quick look on the talk page, but I couldn't see any discussion about the naming of the article. It doesn't bother me much either way, but I thought Kernel (software) (or to a lesser degree, Kernel (software engineering)) would be more appropiate. I can see several arguments for Kernel (computer science), but ultimatly it is just a piece of software. A few other issues I noticed though:
  • The lead needs serious expansion. Check WP:LEAD for ideas and specifics.
  • Quite a few single sentence paragraphs. Most looked like they could easily be incorporated into existing paragraphs or expanded though.
  • Inline citations. There is only one. See WP:CITE for when they're necessary.
  • The 'Monolithic kernels vs Microkernels' subsection is contained within the history section. Shouldn't this be included in the 'Different kernel design approaches' section?
  • The article is a bit list heavy. Consider converting lists into proper prose if possible.
  • The article is a bit informal in places. Picking one sentence as an example, in the device managemant section, In order to actually do something, an OS needs access to the devices connected to the computer. OS is linked earlier in the article, so it doesn't need another link. The OS abbreviation isn't explained anywhere in the article (perhaps change the first instance of 'operating system' to 'operating system (OS)' or avoid its use). The sentence is a bit clumsy and an example of 'something' isn't given until the end of the paragraph. I would perhaps introduce with an example and lead into the details of device management.
I hope that helps. Cheers, --darkliight[πalk] 18:31, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Now created a redirect in Kernel (software), but after all, the title of the article is just a tiny detail which can easily be fixed when everything else's OK. Candamir 11:53, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Done quite a lot of work on it, but I would like to know where you think that more work is needed. Thanks, Candamir 15:43, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gregorian chant edit

I've recently overhauled the Gregorian chant page, expanding the history, giving documentation for areas of disagreement, going into more musical analysis, giving thumbnail sketches of the different chant genres, and recording appropriate samples of Gregorian chants to illustrate certain points of the text. I've asked several of the Wikipedians who edit early music to give feedback, and incorporated their suggestions. Please give feedback with an eye to helping this article reach featured article status. Thanks! Peirigill 04:46, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, Andy t 15:14, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've responded to a couple of the issues there. One thing which an actual human could look at is the lead, which looks quite good to me. Mak (talk) 17:04, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think this article is really strong. Here are a few suggestions:
    • It is a problem about the image, because it is much clearer if there is something next to the neumes section. Is it legal to have a calligrapher copy something from a copyrighted source? The edition is copyrighted, not the music or the notation style, right? If this were a perfect world, you could find an image of Alma redemptoris mater to put next to the sound file.
      • I think the image problem is resolved, by using the excerpt from the Liber usualis as the sample of square notation (the same one that adorns your "Chants of the Mass" table!). Mak and I are weighing the advantages of another image he has available. Peirigill 21:43, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Actually, I think I prefer the LU excerpt to another actual MS, since it shows the chants as many modern people see them, and there is already the example of an original MS at the top of the page. Also, close-up, it's easier to see the variety of neume shapes than it is in a whole distractingly illuminated page. Rigadoun 16:07, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I would also suggest that there be a sound example of responsorial chanting, placed to make it parallel with the example of recitative and antiphonal chanting.
      • I'll see what I can come up with. My main reservation is that you can't hear centonization from just one example, and I don't want multiple samples for comparison - they're just too long. When I give a sample, I want to give the reader some inkling of what they're supposed to be listening for; otherwise, chant comes across as aimless and interminable. But I agree that it would be good to have all three types of psalmodic chant represented. I'll see what I can do. Peirigill 21:43, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Another in-Tract-able problem solved. It's not perfect, but I just don't have the sound editing skills to fine-tune it. (sigh) If someone else wants to sing it better, they're welcome to do so. Peirigill 04:49, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • If it can be done without bogging down in details, it would be nice to have a better characterization of the dispute of the authenticity of the Solesmes chants. There is a citation given, so it's not weasel-y, but it would be nice if there could be a brief explanation of the main issue.
      • Done, by pointing out some particularly controversial editorial practices in the Solesmes edition. Peirigill 21:43, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • That's better. Another possibility, incorporating the comments on Talk:Gregorian chant by User:Gimmetrow, would be to split off a lot of the rhythmic discussion into something like Problem of chant rhythm. It applies to many chant traditions (Eastern, too; Armenian chant, for example), so it could be a general discussion of the issues and controversies. And you clearly don't have enough other articles to work on! :) Rigadoun 16:07, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Finally, it's always nice to have no red links, so the more of them you could make reasonable stubs for, the better (and it's better than just de-linking them!) Rigadoun 21:10, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Re: The image -- how about this? Image:Ad te levavi.jpg it has Gregory, yes, but it's nicely illuminated, shows border, as well as grotesques, and also shows a slightly different form of notation. Sadly, it's black and white. If there's a specific chant you'd like me to get from a gradual, let me know and I'll see what I can do (it would be a similar quality image though). Mak (talk) 02:10, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • It can be improved by reducing links to solitary years. A monobook tool allows this to be done with one click on a 'dates' tab in edit mode. You can then accept or reject the changes offered and/or do more editing before pressing 'Save'. Simply copy the entire contents of User:Bobblewik/monobook.js to your own monobook. Then follow the instructions in your monobook to clear the cache (i.e. press Ctrl-Shift-R in Firefox, or Ctrl-F5 in IE) before it will work. Please help us all by running this on all peer review candidates. bobblewik 19:27, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm confused. I had originally wikified all dates because I had read somewhere that that allowed dates to show up properly regardless of the particular reader's preferences for date formatting. Then I read that you're not supposed to wikify dates unless they're relevant. Now you're referring to "reducing links to solitary years" - do you mean "reducing the number of dates that are formatted as links," or do you mean that I should reduce the linked dates so that only individual ("solitary") years are linked, as opposed to ranges of years like "1445-6" and decades?

I read WP:DATE and WP:WIKIFY, but I'm not seeing something that explains preferred wikipolicy for dates. Any help will be greatly appreciated! Peirigill 22:01, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Look at the whole peer review page. This user basically spammed this message. I've already unlinked solitary years and spans, which I didn't think added much to the article. Full dates (i.e. December 7, 1986) are supposed to be linked so people can put in their preferences, so it will variously show up as 12/7/1986 or 7/12/1986 or 7 December 1986 or whatever. Basically it's so people don't constantly change the dates. I think the article is fine in this regard now. Mak (talk) 22:05, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The tool is designed to ignore 'preference dates' and identify 'non-preference dates' only. It highlights them all at once in 'show changes' edit mode. As usual with this mode, you can save, cancel or amend the edit. An example of a solitary year is ... in 1811, the French .... Decades and centuries are also 'non-preference'. Date ranges often look broken even if they contain a preference date i.e. November 12-15 when linked will become 12 November-15 for some readers. At this time, the article has the following non-preference dates '1811', '885', '13th century', and '12th century'. Hope that helps. bobblewik 12:13, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. bobblewik 16:48, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

With the addition of a responsorial chant sound file, I think that's every suggestion, both here and on the talk page addressed. I'd like to submit it to FA; what's the protocol? Peirigill 04:49, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

AndyZ's javascript suggestions edit

  • The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program, and may or may not be accurate for the article in question.
  • Please expand the lead to conform with guidelines at WP:LEAD. The article should have an appropriate number of paragraphs as is shown on WP:LEAD, and should adequately summarize the article.
    • The article was just over 30,000 characters, so WP:LEAD recommends a lede of three paragraphs. I've expanded the lede to comply. Peirigill 18:42, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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.
    • I've de-linked these. If you think any are particularly relevant, feel free to re-add those. Mak (talk) 17:02, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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.
    • I only found one instance of this, and changed it. Mak (talk) 17:02, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • See if possible if there is a free use image that can go on the top right corner of this article.
    • Added image of Gregory I to lead. I'm not sure if it would be better to use either the image of Gregory receiving holy inspiration, or perhaps a facsimile of the actual music. Mak (talk) 17:02, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • An image of Gregory I really isn't appropriate; one of the goals of this article should be to debunk the popular misconception (repeated a number of times in other Wikipedia articles) that Gregory I wrote or codified Gregorian chant, even though he predated it by nearly two centuries. A lead picture of Gregory reinforces this misinformation. An image of the music would be better, although I'm concerned we've already tapped out all the pictures of plainchant in Wikicommons. I'm curious whether the sound file of Alma Redemptoris Mater might count as the corner "image"? Peirigill 18:42, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That's what I was afraid of, I just worried that I'm the only person who finds facsimiles of early music interesting. How about Image:Graduale Aboense.jpg? (I feel dumb but I can't feel 100% positive that this is Gregorian chant). Mak (talk) 19:20, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Facsimiles are great - some are quite beautiful - but despite their being over 500 years old, most available reproductions are under copyright. The chant from the Graduale Aboense is definitely Gregorian, but it's really far more effective juxtaposed with the example of earlier neumes in the "Notation" section. I hate to lose that juxtaposition just because WP regulations want something pretty up top. Peirigill 19:34, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Bit the bullet and relocated the Graduale Aboense image to the top of the page. Peirigill 20:17, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hm, I'll see what I can do. I might be able to get an image, but it won't be nearly as pretty as the Aboense one. I know a guy... Mak (talk) 15:49, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • There may be an applicable infobox for this article. For example, see Template:Infobox Biography, Template:Infobox School, or Template:Infobox City. (Note that there might not be an applicable infobox; remember that these suggestions are not generated manually)
    • Um, I doubt it. I didn't see anything that looked relevant. Mak (talk) 17:02, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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.
    • I have no idea where this suggestion came from. Mak (talk) 17:02, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please alphabetize the categories and/or 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,
    • allege
      • The two uses of "allege" are, I think, appropriate; one is of Gregory's "alleged" writing of the chant, which the article clarifies is NOT factual, and the other is of the popular view of Gregorian chant as monotonous, which again reflects popular perception and not necessarily reality. Peirigill 18:42, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • apparently
      • Removed the line with "apparently." Peirigill 18:42, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • might be weasel words, and should be provided with proper citations (if they already do, or are not weasel terms, please strike this comment).

Fundamental Rights, Directive Principles and Fundamental Duties of India edit

This is on PR for an unprecedented 3rd time (1 | 2). Since the last PR, it has undergone substantial change, not in the content, but in the style of writing and summary. Please give your comments on how it can be imrpoved. --May the Force be with you! Shreshth91(review me!) 15:36, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • The most glaring thing I see is that the whole section "Critical analysis" has no citation at all except a silly one to the Jessica Lal case. Unless you cite it, it is incredibly POV. In general, I see a dearth of citations. You have obviously taken the effort to get all this stuff from somewhere. Why not cite the source? — Ravikiran 17:32, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You wouldn't say there was a dearth of citations on the rest of the page now would you? I'll be look ing into the critical analysis section soon.--May the Force be with you! Shreshth91(review me!) 15:42, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Done! --May the Force be with you! Shreshth91(review me!) 11:08, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ladakh edit

Kind of comments required

  • The article has become very long. I am not able to decide what to remove, and in particular, how to summarize the History and Geography section. I have already condensed a lot of detailed material contained in the books I have referred to, but an outside view on this will surely help in condensing the contents further.
  • Writing style needs improvement here and there. Any help on that will be appreciated.
  • In case there are any potential POV issues, it would be good to sort them out at this stage. deeptrivia (talk) 01:23, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Review by Dwaipayan (talk)

Have not read the complete article yet, some comments.

  1. A map (preferebly on Image:India-locator-map-blank.svg) needs to be there in the infobox, rather than the satellite image. Pointing out the exact location at the initiation of geographical articles is necessary.
  2. Is Ladakh a district? If so, why not state that on the very first sentence rather than using "...is an area of Northern India sandwiched ...". Also, if Ladakh is a district , it should be under Wikipedia:WikiProject Indian districts.
  3. "The capital of Ladakh is Leh." - regions/districts do not have capitals, may be district headquarter.
  4. History needs summarisation. No subsections. Its too long. As there is History of Ladakh, IMO history section can be trimmed.
  5. Geography has too many red links. Also try to mention if it's in some Earthquake hazard zone
  6. Demographics only discusses ethnicities. Literacy, sex-ratio, poverty etc? Needs citations.
  7. A seperate "Tourism" section should not be there.
  8. Sections needed: "Transport" - must. "Government/Administration"- must. "Education", "Media"-should be considered.
  9. If Ladakh is a district, then there will be problem in FAC, as it does not meet, at present, the criteria 3, eg "complies with the standards set out in the style manual and relevant WikiProjects".--Dwaipayan (talk) 08:21, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
More: As per Ladakh Autonomous Hill Development Council, Ladakh is a part of J&K, with 2 districts Leh and Kargil. And Leh is the largest district in the country in terms of area. So the article needs serious factual corrections. Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 08:36, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
and More In History, 1846 to 1947 is missing, after long discourse of pre-1800s. What happened? was it under the British? No I guess. What was the status? Did the British tried to get Ladakh? Was the Namgyal kingdom there or was it under the Dogra? What is the status of the Namgyals now?--Dwaipayan (talk) 12:02, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Responses
  1. I had requested for a map a while ago, but looks like I'll have to do it myself sometime.
  2. As you correctly point out, it's no longer a district, but is split into Leh and Kargil districts. To make matters even more interesting, let me add that Baltistan and Aksai Chin, no longer administered by India, are also parts of historical Ladakh. Now I've made some changes to the text that's been in the article for a long time.
  3. I've changed that to -- Leh is the largest town in Ladakh.
  4. Help on summarisation of History is the main reason why I requested the peer review. I hoped creating the articles History of Ladakh and Geography of Ladakh will make me more comfortable with deleting stuff from the main article, but I'm not able to decide what to remove. I'm trying, and any help on this will be appreciated.
  5. I'll take care of the red links asap.
  6. Will try to get census info.
  7. Tourism is the main reason why people know about Ladakh. It accounts for 50% of the region's GDP. There has been at least one FA on an Indian region (composed of several districts) with a tourism section (Malwa (Madhya Pradesh)). Must it be removed?
  8. I had a transport section which I merged with tourism. I can restore it if required. I'll try to add other sections if I get sufficient reliable information about those issues in Ladakh.
  9. Ladakh is not a district, so I guess we don't need to follow the Indian districts style manual. In fact, while working on Malwa I realised there's no standard style to follow yet for geographical/historical regions. deeptrivia (talk) 13:11, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re:Response I guessed Malwa (Madhya Pradesh) will be cited, as that was also done by you. As Ladakh is a region, not a district, it does not have to abide by the rules in that district project. However, IMO, "administration" should be there since the region has got a special kind of administration. And also a seperate "Transport" - as the 2 main roads (Srinagar-Kargil-Leh and Manali-Leh) are really mentionable routes, as also the air-transport (probably highest in India). There may be some indigenous transport methods still in use. "Education" is mentionable because many prople are taught in the monastries according to ancient scripts, besides modern education. Will follow up later with more observations, if any. Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 13:20, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Ravikiran's comments

  1. The lead section is too long and contains too many details that should properly go into the body of the article.
  2. Per Dwaipayan's comments, I'd prefer that "tourism" become a subsection of "Economy", as tourism is a major part of the economy.— Ravikiran 09:04, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. One more comment - Citations should go after the punctuation and there should be a space after it. I will do a copyedit when I can.
Reply
  1. Sure, will look into it. The lead should summarise the article, and as the article is very long right now, so is the lead. Both need trimming.
I have done some cutting down on the lead section. I will do more, but please have a look to see if I botched it up. Also one thing — what is currently called Ladak (Leh and Kargil) and the historical region of Ladakh before partition have been mentioned at two different points in the lead. If you can move it to the same place, I think you can find opportunities to summarise them and parcel off to the body... if you know what I mean. — Ravikiran 05:37, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  1. See my response above. deeptrivia (talk) 13:11, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Update
  • All red links have been made blue by creation of stubs
  • Subsections of the history section have been merged, and material is further condensed.
  • Government and Politics section has been added.
  • Making further changes as suggested.

Regards, deeptrivia (talk) 03:55, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Sundar's comments

  1. Move all images to the right side. (Beautiful images by the way.)
  2. Condense History, Geography, and flora and fauna sections. There's enough room for reduction by reducing verbosity without removing factual content.
  3. The lone subsection "climate" is an oddity. Rename the parent section to Geography and Climate and merge this into that.
  4. Not sure if Geology has been discussed.

I'll try doing a copyedit. -- Sundar \talk \contribs 08:21, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nichalp
  • Copyedit needed. Staccato sentences in the lead and history needs to flow.
  • [9], Ptolemy [10], &ndashl; suggest that the refs be moved to the end of the para to improve readablility. You can also use inotes.
  • Agree with Sundar on the alignment of images
  • 5325 m --> 5,325 etc
  • Suggestion: Imperial equivalents can be added to increase the audience
  • Temperature chart should be SVG. if that's not possible, at least png.
  • -15 °C use &minus; instead of the hyphen.
  • Saw a program on Discovery that the glaciers in Ladakh are melting due to global warming. Can this be added?

=Nichalp «Talk»= 09:58, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Update
  • I tried svg, and here's a file I uploaded. It doesn't show anything. I've changed it to png.
  • 5325 m --> 5,325, minus sign, etc -- done
  • Imperial equivalents have been added.
  • References to glacier retreat due to global warming added.
  • Current status of Namgyals added.
  • 19th century history added.
  • Information about costumes, dance, etc. added.
  • Transport section expanded, Education added.
  • Images shifted to right.
  • More demographic statistics added.
  • Info about flora added in flora and fauna section.
  • Info about Earthquake and cyclone zoning added.
  • Regarding shifting refs to the end of the para, many of them, e.g., the one involving Ptolemy, etc. are notes that would lose context by the end of the para. Even in case of references, sometimes, a sentence is picked up from a source, and is cited as such. If the citation is moved to the end of the para, it will give the wrong impression that the whole para is from that source. What is the proper way to shift citations, in these cases?
  • Working on further copyedits. deeptrivia (talk) 00:12, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sukh's Comments

Just minor points really - the article is looking quite good.

  • Use appropriate citation templates if possible (Template:Cite book, Template:Cite web, etc.)
  • Demographics not cited (I presume a census link is all that's needed)
  • Standardise how the <ref> tags are placed after punctuation. For example, most are currently written ".[1]" but others are written "[52]." Also consider spacing after the ref tags. I recommend the use of "...text,[20] text..." and "...text.[20] Text..." because I think it looks better !

Hope that helps. Sukh | ਸੁਖ | Talk 16:34, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Review by thunderboltza.k.a.Deepu Joseph |TALK
Had only a quick look:

  1. Why not use an infobox from the Indian cities wikiproject for the page?
  2. wikilink Ladakh mountain range, Ladakh dynasty, Tibetanization (sure this word exists?), Namgyal dynasty, Zanskar, Spiti, Treaty of Temisgam, Zorawer Singh, gompas tribe names and all other proper nouns
  3. Buddhism came to western Ladakh via India, particularly Kashmir, — a bit confusing. Isnt ladakh in India? Perhaps reword the sentence?
  4. a lot of the citations are to other wiki articles or wikipedia projects. Referencing to other wiki articles isnt allowed, I believe.
  5. There are a lot of duplicate citations too. Use <ref name="something"></ref> to group all references to the same source. -- thunderboltza.k.a.Deepu Joseph |TALK09:19, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I Believe in You (Kylie Minogue song) edit

This article is listed as a Wikipedia:Good article and has been at FAC. I want to bring this article to FA status and am looking for further comments on how to improve it. Thanks in advance. -- getcrunkjuicecontribs 23:06, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm... tough one. It seems to be completely complete, but yet I don't know if there's enough insight for FA. -- Zanimum 15:30, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, I'm currently trying to find some book references instead of relying on Internet pages. -- getcrunkjuice 19:27, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Emergency management edit

This article has undergone a vast re-write as a result of WikiProject Disaster Management. Comments on the clarity of the article, its comprehensiveness, as well as any other comments on it would be appreciated. -- backburner001 16:04, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I went through and took out a few extra words for ease of reading. A few things:
  • Stick to either American or British spellings...but not both.
  • Just my personal peeve...I am not a big fan of this footnoting style...the footnotes show up simply as a number and the same number is repeated over and over...I find it hard to figure out if it is footnote 1, "a", "b" or "f"...If possile, itemize each footnote if from the same article by differentiating it by a page number as taken from the reference source...this means more article text is taken up by the reference, but at least they'll be in order numerically as they appear in the article.
  • Work on a minor expansion of other countries adding those that maybe deal with many emergencies...Japan, comes to mind with both Typhoons and earthquakes.--MONGO 11:08, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mandy Moore edit

Worked on this article for a while - fairly detailed/sourced/covers everything necessary at length. Already a GA, would appreciate comments on how to approach FA level Mad Jack 17:29, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Needs a longer lead per WP:LEAD, all the images should have fair use rationales and you should probably remove a large part of the lists at the end. --Peter Andersen 14:01, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Except, which lists do you mean? Mad Jack 15:39, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The Discography and filmography. I would at least remove the list of singles - lists are generally not appreciated on WP:FAC. Also the Other work section should either be expanded or incorporated into one of the other sections. --Peter Andersen 17:47, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It has unnecessary date links. This can be fixed quickly: simply copy the entire contents of User:Bobblewik/monobook.js to your own monobook. Then follow the instructions in your monobook to clear the cache (i.e. press Ctrl-Shift-R in Firefox, or Ctrl-F5 in IE) before it will work. This will give you a 'Dates' tab in edit mode. Hope that helps. bobblewik 18:49, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Done on "other work" and date-linking. I removed the "Other songs" section, but singer-actor FA's like Lindsay Lohan do have a filmography and discography. So I am not sure what the standard is. Mad Jack 19:07, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I guess thats a good point...--Peter Andersen 20:04, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
lol! Mad Jack 20:11, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program. They may or may not be accurate for the article in question (due to possible javascript errors/uniqueness of articles). If the following suggestions are completely incorrect about the article, please drop a note on my talk page.
  • Please expand the lead to conform with guidelines at WP:LEAD. The article should have an appropriate number of paragraphs as is shown on WP:LEAD, and should adequately summarize the article.
  • Per WP:MOSNUM, there should be a no-break space - &nbsp; 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.
  • 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.
Done! Any more takers? :) Mad Jack 16:53, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Good work so far. There are still a couple of unnecessary links to decades. Search for '1970s' and '80s'. bobblewik 13:34, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Thanks! Mad Jack 16:47, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Just noticed the last picture in the filmography section. It should have a longer caption. Also what does ** signify after the name of the last three singles? --Peter Andersen 20:10, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No clue as to what the * were. I removed them. The picture has an unclear history behind it, and I was probably going to remove it, and now I have (I moved it to discussion). Mad Jack 20:29, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pete Doherty edit

A few months ago I spent quite a bit of time reinventing this article as it had got into a fairly bad state. Due to Doherty's current prominence in the British media the article had become a collection of unsubstantiated rumours, POV comments etc. I have been through the article, restructured it and placed as many citations as I could find (and introduced an inline citations system). Admittedly I haven't done much work recently, but it appears that the article is now heading in a much better direction thanks to assistance from other editors. I would appreciate comments on the article in general, in particular the formatting we are currently using for arrests etc. Is this appropriate? What else could we do to bring the article nearer to a featured article nominee? Thanks for any time you can spend assisting this endeavour! Super Ted 16:39, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The controversy section bothers me a little bit, because it seems to me that similar sections invite the addition of trivia (I'm not a fan of trivia sections)maxcap 18:30, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program. They may or may not be accurate for the article in question (due to possible javascript errors/uniqueness of articles). If the following suggestions are completely incorrect about the article, please drop a note on my talk page.
  • Please expand the lead to conform with guidelines at WP:LEAD. The article should have an appropriate number of paragraphs as is shown on WP:LEAD, and should adequately summarize the article.
  • Per WP:CONTEXT and WP:MOSDATE, months and days of the week generally should not be linked (Don't link September or Tuesday unless there is really good reason to). Years, decades, and centuries can be linked if they provide context for the article.
  • See if possible if there is a free use image that can go on the top right corner of this article. (just shift the image all the way to the top, or add an infobox)
  • Per WP:MOSNUM, there should be a no-break space - &nbsp; 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==.
  • 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.
"with drummer Gemma Clarke leaving the band due to Doherty's drug problems."
... probably needs citation, not least because there are a lot of stories going round about why Gemma left (I've heard some pretty nasty ones) and so if a statement like that is going to be made it could do with being linked to evidence of the "official" line on the matter. Seb Patrick 08:46, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Cheers Seb, will look into that. Super Ted 15:11, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mauna Loa edit

I've just recently expanded this a lot. I'd like it to be an FA; the largest volcano on the planet surely deserved a featured article. I realise this article is only partly referenced at the moment, but apart from that I'm looking for thoughts on whether it covers everything it should, and what else is needed. Any input much appreciated. Worldtraveller 15:52, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program. They may or may not be accurate for the article in question (due to possible javascript errors/uniqueness of articles). If the following suggestions are completely incorrect about the article, please drop a note on my talk page.
  • Per WP:CONTEXT and WP:MOSDATE, months and days of the week generally should not be linked (Don't link September or Tuesday unless there is really good reason to). Years, decades, and centuries can be linked if they provide context for the article.
  • Per WP:MOSNUM, there should be a no-break space - &nbsp; 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.
  • 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.
  • This article needs footnotes, preferably in the cite.php format recommended by WP:WIAFA. Simply, enclose inline citations, with WP:CITE or WP:CITE/ES information, with <ref>THE FOOTNOTE</ref>. At the bottom of the article, in a section named “References” or “Footnotes”, add <div class="references-small"><references/></div>.
    • To assist you with this, add {{subst:js|User:AndyZ/monobook.js/footnotehelper.js}} to your monobook.js file (mine is located at User:AndyZ/monobook.js) and then bypass your browser's cache by pressing: Mozilla/Safari/Konqueror: hold down Shift while clicking Reload (or press Ctrl-Shift-R), Internet Explorer: press Ctrl-F5, Opera: press F5. In editing mode, click on the "Footnote creater" tab that appears.
Wow, I had no idea peer review was automated these days! The MOS concerns I will address; the weasel word detector was apparently fooled by 'it has been designated'; citations, as I say, I will add shortly; and copediting, maybe someone here would like to help with. Suppose you can't write a javascript thing to suggest which sections need more info?  :) Worldtraveller 22:47, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You'll have to thank RN for the idea. Hmmm... discovering which sections need more information... sounds intriguing... Andy t 23:19, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Overlinking of dates in this article can be fixed quickly with another tool: simply copy the entire contents of User:Bobblewik/monobook.js to your own monobook. Then follow the instructions in your monobook to clear the cache (i.e. press Ctrl-Shift-R in Firefox, or Ctrl-F5 in IE) before it will work. This will give you a 'Dates' tab in edit mode. Hope that helps. bobblewik 18:46, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've made the MOS-related changes now. I'm away for the next two weeks, so perhaps should have waited until I got back before requesting review; but if anyone has any comments I'll look forward to addressing them when I return. Worldtraveller 19:53, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There are still excessive links to solitary years. Feel free to use the monobook tool described above. bobblewik 13:37, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sequence profiling tool - Scientific peer review edit

The current article attempts to concisely present the concept of sequence profiling tools in Bioinformatics and their increasing relevance in holding the pyramid of sequence data in genetics/molecular biology. Surprisingly, no single source exists to describe and review such web based tools; the information contained herein is very valuable in providing an overview and their design. The article is not a compilation of the numerous bio-software that specialize in providing focused information or even public portals providing links to valuable databases.

I conceived the article and wrote a stub quite sometime back and have been helped occasionally in formatting and fixing. So, Yes! it’s a a vanity attempt... Though small enough to start with, the definition I provided happened to be the only “web definition” in Google results page whenever one typed ‘What is sequence profiling tool’, making me realize that more intelligent minds were focusing their efforts in defining more important issues. It is then that I thought of making the contribution more comprehensive by clearly outlining the concepts and classifying the different kinds of sequence profiling tools and an example in each of them. This article is one such attempt.

I am not a wiki expert by any standards in terms of creative formatting, so I might need help in editing to begin with. Meanwhile, I have reasons to believe that the piece I compiled qualifies to be considered as a Wikipedia’s ‘feature article’. I hope the votes confirm this.

Nattu 03:21, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program. They may or may not be accurate for the article in question (due to possible javascript errors/uniqueness of articles). If the following suggestions are completely incorrect about the article, please drop a note on my talk page.
  • Please expand the lead to conform with guidelines at WP:LEAD. The article should have an appropriate number of paragraphs as is shown on WP:LEAD, and should adequately summarize the article.
  • See if possible if there is a free use image that can go on the top right corner of this article.
  • This article is a bit too short, and therefore may not be as comprehensive as WP:WIAFA critera 2(b) is looking for. Please see if anything can be expanded upon.
  • This article needs footnotes, preferably in the cite.php format recommended by WP:WIAFA. Simply, enclose inline citations, with WP:CITE or WP:CITE/ES information, with <ref>THE FOOTNOTE</ref>. At the bottom of the article, in a section named “References” or “Footnotes”, add <div class="references-small"><references/></div>.
    • To assist you with this, add {{subst:js|User:AndyZ/monobook.js/footnotehelper.js}} to your monobook.js file (mine is located at User:AndyZ/monobook.js) and then bypass your browser's cache by pressing: Mozilla/Safari/Konqueror: hold down Shift while clicking Reload (or press Ctrl-Shift-R), Internet Explorer: press Ctrl-F5, Opera: press F5. In editing mode, click on the "Footnote creater" tab that appears.
  • The article will need references. See WP:CITE and WP:V for more information.
    • Appropriate changes have been made

ITunes edit

This article should be an easy transition to FA. I just wanted to see what needs to be done. False Prophet 02:04, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone that is helping on this PR should strike the comment that they took care of, then say either done or if you come to the conclusion that it does not need to be doen, say not necesary and then sign your name. Thanks. False Prophet 17:10, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program. They may or may not be accurate for the article in question (due to possible javascript errors/uniqueness of articles). If the following suggestions are completely incorrect about the article, please drop a note on my talk page.
  • Please expand the lead to conform with guidelines at WP:LEAD. The article should have an appropriate number of paragraphs as is shown on WP:LEAD, and should adequately summarize the article. Fits guidlines. False Prophet 03:45, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions (and the javascript checklist; see the last paragraph in the lead) for further ideas. Looked there and will take it to a peer review fro, the gaming and computers project. False Prophet 04:04, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Another script has detected a date format error in this article. You should not use suffixes in dates e.g. '22nd'. Such errors can be detected and fixed quickly in any article: simply copy the entire contents of User:Bobblewik/monobook.js to your own monobook. Then follow the instructions in your monobook to clear the cache (i.e. press Ctrl-Shift-R in Firefox, or Ctrl-F5 in IE) before it will work. This will give you a 'Dates' tab to press in edit mode. Hope that helps. bobblewik 17:42, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please do not strike out comments if they have not been dealt with. The error detected by the monobook 'dates' tool is still there. Either run the tool or search for '22nd'. Hope that helps. bobblewik 13:03, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Peer review/The Bus Uncle/archive1

The Bus Uncle edit

A previous version of the discussion has been archived here. I've improved the formatting of the article, and provided many sources to most statements in the article. I also improved the grammar, and moved the transcript to a sister article. Please suggest more ways to improve the article to Featured Status. Thanks.--Kylohk 10:40, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Neo-Renaissance edit

Good article which the Wikipedia:WikiProject Architecture would like to see improved.--Mcginnly 23:51, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program. They may or may not be accurate for the article in question (due to possible javascript errors/uniqueness of articles). If the following suggestions are completely incorrect about the article, please drop a note on my talk page.
  • Please expand the lead to conform with guidelines at WP:LEAD. The article should have an appropriate number of paragraphs as is shown on WP:LEAD, and should adequately summarize the article.
  • Per WP:CONTEXT and WP:MOSDATE, 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.
This has been fixed thanks to bobblewik's tool. Joelito (talk) 03:26, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Per WP:MOSNUM, there should be a non-breaking space - &nbsp; 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.
  • Please reorder/rename the last few sections to follow guidelines at WP:GTL.
Done. Joelito (talk) 03:26, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Joelito (talk) 03:26, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are a few occurrences of weasel words in this article- please observe WP:AWT. Certain phrases should specify exactly who supports, considers, believes, etc., such a view. For example,
    • it has been
    • correctly
    • might be weasel words, and should be provided with proper citations (if they already too, please strike this comment).
  • As is done in WP:FOOTNOTE, for footnotes, the footnote should be located right after the punctuation mark, such that there is no space inbetween. For example, change blah blah [2]. to blah blah.[2]
  • Please ensure that the article has gone through a thorough copyediting so that the it exemplifies some of Wikipedia's best work. See also User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 2a.
  • You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions (and the javascript checklist; see the last paragraph in the lead) for further ideas.
  • Thanks, Andy t 00:59, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Could I just point out, this is in fact one of a series of pages on 19th century revival styles which like this page are still under construction. A collaboration between Ghirla and myself. This is still being researched, and is a long way from completion. Hence PR, or indeed any other form of review is very premature! Giano | talk 10:01, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I second Giano here. Please give us some time. --Ghirla -трёп- 10:15, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Effect of Hurricane Katrina on New Orleans edit

I found this article on the good article list and saw its potential to become an FA. Feel free to comment on how this article can be improved. Tarret 12:11, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You can improve it by removing excessive links to solitary years/months. This task is easier by a single click on a 'dates' tab that in edit mode. Simply copy the entire contents of User:Bobblewik/monobook.js to your own monobook. Then follow the instructions in your monobook to clear the cache (i.e. press Ctrl-Shift-R in Firefox, or Ctrl-F5 in IE) before it will work. bobblewik 13:49, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program, and may or may not be accurate for the article in question (due to possible javascript errors/uniqueness of articles).
  • Generally, the words in bold in the WP:LEAD shouldn't be linked.
  • Per WP:MOSNUM, there should be a non-breaking space - &nbsp; 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.

Jesse Dirkhising edit

This article needs to be cleaned up for POV and ideas are needed for expansion. External links and citations from non POV sources are needed as well. It's difficult to find the same info anymore from non POV sites. --Strothra 03:34, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Right off the bat I notice that the first sentence doesn't mention that he was killed, while the second sentence uses the noun "murderers." This conveys the meaning, but is very awkward for the reader. Themillofkeytone 06:22, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program, and may or may not be accurate for the article in question (due to possible javascript errors/uniqueness of articles).
  • Please expand the lead to conform with guidelines at WP:LEAD. The article should have an appropriate number of paragraphs as is shown on WP:LEAD, and should adequately summarize the article.
  • 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,
    • allege
    • might be weasel words, and should be provided with proper citations (if they already do, please strike this comment).
  • This article needs footnotes, preferably in the cite.php format recommended by WP:WIAFA. Simply, enclose inline citations, with WP:CITE or WP:CITE/ES information, with <ref>THE FOOTNOTE</ref>. At the bottom of the article, in a section named “References” or “Footnotes”, add <div class="references-small"><references/></div>.
    • To assist you with this, add {{subst:js|User:AndyZ/monobook.js/footnotehelper.js}} to your monobook.js file (mine is located at User:AndyZ/monobook.js) and then bypass your browser's cache by pressing: Mozilla/Safari/Konqueror: hold down Shift while clicking Reload (or press Ctrl-Shift-R), Internet Explorer: press Ctrl-F5, Opera: press F5. In editing mode, click on the "Footnote creater" tab that appears.

Memento (film) edit

Looking for some comments... I really like this movie and would like to bring this to FA status in the upcoming months. Themillofkeytone 16:26, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program, and may or may not be accurate for the article in question (due to possible javascript errors/uniqueness of articles).
  • Please expand the lead to conform with guidelines at WP:LEAD. The article should have an appropriate number of paragraphs as is shown on WP:LEAD, and should adequately summarize the article.
  • Per WP:CONTEXT and WP:MOSDATE, months and days of the week generally should not be linked. Years, decades, and centuries can be linked if they provide context for the article.
  • Per WP:MOSNUM, there should be a non-breaking space - &nbsp; 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.
  • Generally, trivia sections are looked down upon; please either remove the trivia section or incorporate any important facts into the rest of the article.
  • 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,
    • allege
    • apparently
    • might be weasel words, and should be provided with proper citations (if they already do, please strike this comment).
  • This article needs footnotes, preferably in the cite.php format recommended by WP:WIAFA. Simply, enclose inline citations, with WP:CITE or WP:CITE/ES information, with <ref>THE FOOTNOTE</ref>. At the bottom of the article, in a section named “References” or “Footnotes”, add <div class="references-small"><references/></div>.
    • To assist you with this, add {{subst:js|User:AndyZ/monobook.js/footnotehelper.js}} to your monobook.js file (mine is located at User:AndyZ/monobook.js) and then bypass your browser's cache by pressing: Mozilla/Safari/Konqueror: hold down Shift while clicking Reload (or press Ctrl-Shift-R), Internet Explorer: press Ctrl-F5, Opera: press F5. In editing mode, click on the "Footnote creater" tab that appears.
  • The article will need references. See WP:CITE and WP:V for more information.

Chicago, Illinois edit

This article has gone through a previous round of peer review and several failed FACs. After attempting to address several issues relating to the previous FACs, I am wondering if there is anything that has to be done with this article so that it will succeed FAC if it were nominated again. PentawingTalk 01:55, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Fix red links, convert "Related topics" lists to prose, eg. 1959 Pan American Games in Chicago, Arlington Park, Chicago Motor Speedway etc etc instead of a bulleted list. — Wackymacs 11:04, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program. They may or may not be accurate for the article in question.
  • 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.
  • This article can use copyediting to ensure that the it exemplifies some of Wikipedia's best work.
  • 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 18:04, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nicely done, a bit long though, some sections like sports can be made a bit shorter. Thanks Jaranda wat's sup 22:59, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • I have attempted to summarize some sections. Is there anything specific that is needed? PentawingTalk 02:02, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nice work- this has come a long way since the last four times I objected on its FACs. (The time before that, I nominated it.) I think the only remaining issue is that the use of inline citations starts to wane by the end of the article. I think it's sufficient, but some people might think that a near 60kb article should have more than 36 inlines. Overall, though, excellent work. RyanGerbil10 (Drop on in!) 03:37, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Review
  1. Mos has to be followed (hyphens used as dashes)
  2. The climate table can be moved to the climate subarticle.
  3. text needs a copyedit to tighten the sentences
  4. during the younger Daley's administration have made world headlines – what sort of "world" headlines?
  5. =history= is choppy. Sentences needs to flow
  6. Beyond local elections, Chicago.. – entire para can be summarised into one sentence. Infact most of the section glosses over the fact that Chicago is a Democratic bastion. Can be summarised.
  7. In sites of interest, context needed for Navy Pier
  8. most respected -- according to who? (weasel word)

=Nichalp «Talk»= 13:06, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merv Griffin edit

I believe this article merits consideration as a feature article but I feel it should undergo a peer review first. Comments about any and all parts of the article are most welcome. Verne Equinox 04:03, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Article needs specific citations, a la WP:CITE. The article could also benefit from a more expanded lead-in, per WP:LEAD. In general, the article flows fairly well, but I think it would greatly benefit from expanded content in most sections and cutting or drastically reducing the trivia section. --Vengeful Cynic 20:08, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Atomic line filter edit

On its way to FAC. I'm working on getting a photograph for the top-right of the article. How are the diagrams? This is my first technical article; is it accessible enough? detailed enough? Thanks! -- Rmrfstar 02:36, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


  • Please do not extraneously bold items outside of the bolding in the lead.
Done.
  • There are a few sections that are too short and that should be either expanded or merged.
Which? I don't understand the syntax of your list of examples.
  • There are several paragraphs that are too short, which sometimes disrupts the flow of the article. These should either be expanded or merged.
I've tried to fill everything out. All that's left is the section with the quotes in ==Applications==.
  • Per WP:MOSNUM, at Units of measurement, numbers with SI units of measure should have conversions in US customary units and vice versa. These conversions should keep to similar values of precision. For example, "the Moon is 380,000 kilometres (240,000 mi) from Earth". Note that the converted unit of measure uses a standard abbreviation, while the source unit is spelled out in the text.
I don't believe this is necessary in this case: wavelengths (even here in the U.S.) are never measured in billions of an inch; just using "nanometers" should be fine. -- Rmrfstar 03:26, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Per WP:MOSNUM, there should be a no-break space - &nbsp; 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.
Thanks for the advice. I'll continue to work on your points. -- Rmrfstar 03:26, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You should change the references to the way they are in saffron. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 01:29, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good idea! Thanks, I'll get right on that. -- Rmrfstar 03:26, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think I've accomplished that... -- Rmrfstar 09:24, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Monster Society Of Evil edit

I want a non-comic fan viewpoint on this. Thanos6 03:54, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program. They may or may not be accurate for the article in question (due to possible javascript errors/uniqueness of articles). If the following suggestions are completely incorrect about the article, please drop a note on my talk page.
  • Please expand the lead to conform with guidelines at WP:LEAD. The article should have an appropriate number of paragraphs as is shown on WP:LEAD, and should adequately summarize the article.
  • Per WP:CONTEXT and WP:MOSDATE, months and days of the week generally should not be linked (Don't link September or Tuesday unless there is really good reason to). Years, decades, and centuries can be linked if they provide context for the article.
  • Per WP:MOS#Headings, headings generally do not start with the word "The". For example, ==The Biography== would be changed to ==Biography==.
  • As per WP:MOS, please do not link words in headings.
  • 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.
  • This article needs footnotes, preferably in the cite.php format recommended by WP:WIAFA. Simply, enclose inline citations, with WP:CITE or WP:CITE/ES information, with <ref>THE FOOTNOTE</ref>. At the bottom of the article, in a section named “References” or “Footnotes”, add <div class="references-small"><references/></div>.
    • To assist you with this, add {{subst:js|User:AndyZ/monobook.js/footnotehelper.js}} to your monobook.js file (mine is located at User:AndyZ/monobook.js) and then bypass your browser's cache by pressing: Mozilla/Safari/Konqueror: hold down Shift while clicking Reload (or press Ctrl-Shift-R), Internet Explorer: press Ctrl-F5, Opera: press F5. In editing mode, click on the "Footnote creater" tab that appears.
  • The article will need references. See WP:CITE and WP:V for more information.

dextro-Transposition of the great arteries edit

I'd like to get this article up to featured article quality. Aside from the red links (which I am currently working on), I would like to get some feedback on any/all other areas that the article needs work. Thanks in advance. bcatt 04:48, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program. They may or may not be accurate for the article in question (due to possible javascript errors/uniqueness of articles). If the following suggestions are completely incorrect about the article, please drop a note on my talk page.
  • Per WP:MOSNUM, there should be a no-break space - &nbsp; 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.
  • As per WP:MOS, please do not link words in headings.
  • Per WP:WIAFA, this article's table of contents (ToC) maybe too long- consider shrinking it down by merging short sections or using a proper system of daughter pages as per WP:SS.
  • This article needs footnotes, preferably in the cite.php format recommended by WP:WIAFA. Simply, enclose inline citations, with WP:CITE or WP:CITE/ES information, with <ref>THE FOOTNOTE</ref>. At the bottom of the article, in a section named “References” or “Footnotes”, add <div class="references-small"><references/></div>.
    • To assist you with this, add {{subst:js|User:AndyZ/monobook.js/footnotehelper.js}} to your monobook.js file (mine is located at User:AndyZ/monobook.js) and then bypass your browser's cache by pressing: Mozilla/Safari/Konqueror: hold down Shift while clicking Reload (or press Ctrl-Shift-R), Internet Explorer: press Ctrl-F5, Opera: press F5. In editing mode, click on the "Footnote creater" tab that appears.
Notes on the applicability of the auto generated suggestions above:
  • Infobox: the page had an info box, but it was not at the very top of the page (moved now)
  • Does the   apply non-distance/weight measurements? (ie: "18 weeks") - these are the only type on this page that may be applicable.
  • There was a linked heading (removed)
  • The ToC is rather long and I will work on summarizing some of the main headings and creating new articles to go into greater detail.
  • Thanks for teaching me how to do footnotes properly! :D
  • How do I have it copyedited?
  • Thanks for all your help and suggestions...I will look over the pages you suggested and look at having it copyedited (once I figure that part out).

bcatt 17:13, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Great job! The infobox comment was caused because {{DiseaseDisorder infobox didn't render with the javascript. The nbsp thing was probably caused by an error; no non-breaking spaces are required in this article. Copyediting means simply to double check for spelling and grammar problems. (User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 2a contains comprehensive suggestions + exercises for reaching criterion 2(a) of WP:WIAFA). Andy t
Wow, that was a whole lot... to respond, I agree that Treatment of dextro-transposition of the great arteries would be the simplest, though it would probably be better to bring this up on the talk page. Preferably, exact wording shouldn't be used, as it reduces the point of having a subpage, but then again I have seen articles that have done that, so I guess it is acceptable. About the copyediting, it would be good to get a fresh pair of eyes - not much more to say there, as you explained it yourself. Andy t 17:50, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Chord (music) edit

I would welcome comments on all aspects of this article including it's style, readability and layout. Where is more work needed? Thanks Andeggs 21:35, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program, and may or may not be accurate for the article in question (due to possible javascript errors/uniqueness of articles).
  • Please expand the lead to conform with guidelines at WP:LEAD. The article should have an appropriate number of paragraphs as is shown on WP:LEAD, and should adequately summarize the article.
  • Per WP: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:MOS, the first letters of words in heading should not be capitalized unless: 1) it is a proper noun or 2) it is the first word of the heading.
  • Please reorder/rename the last few sections to follow guidelines at WP:GTL.
  • Per WP:WIAFA, this article's table of contents (ToC) maybe too long- consider shrinking it down by merging short sections or using a proper system of daughter pages as per WP:SS.
  • 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, please strike this comment).
  • This article needs footnotes, preferably in the cite.php format recommended by WP:WIAFA. Simply, enclose inline citations, with WP:CITE or WP:CITE/ES information, with <ref>THE FOOTNOTE</ref>. At the bottom of the article, in a section named “References” or “Footnotes”, add <div class="references-small"><references/></div>.
    • To assist you with this, add {{subst:js|User:AndyZ/monobook.js/footnotehelper.js}} to your monobook.js file (mine is located at User:AndyZ/monobook.js) and then bypass your browser's cache by pressing: Mozilla/Safari/Konqueror: hold down Shift while clicking Reload (or press Ctrl-Shift-R), Internet Explorer: press Ctrl-F5, Opera: press F5. In editing mode, click on the "Footnote creater" tab that appears.

United States Numbered Highways edit

Trying to get this up to a featured article. --SPUI (T - C) 19:43, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program, and may or may not be accurate for the article in question (due to possible javascript errors/uniqueness of articles).
  • Per WP:CONTEXT and WP:MOSDATE, months and days of the week generally should not be linked. Years, decades, and centuries can be linked if they provide context for the article.
  • Per WP:MOSNUM, there should be a non-breaking space - &nbsp; 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.
  • 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, please strike this comment).
  • Comments: It looks pretty good in my opinion. It might be good to add information regarding the policies/procedures/criteria for addition of new routes, as well as extension, deletion, and other changes to existing routes. I also seem to recall that any new route has to satisfy certain design standards. These design standards should be listed. In fact, there is a red link to "design standards" in the article that should probably be fixed. Also, even though there is a separate article, some more details of bannered routes should probably be included in the article. Even just a listing of all possible "banner types" might be useful. I would also add a history of the total mileage of the system if available, or even just the current total mileage in the introduction. Also, are there U.S. highway toll roads that are not interstates? That might also be interesting. That's all I can think of for now. I'll add more if I think of anything else. --Polaron | Talk 17:27, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the response.
I can add more about AASHTO policies, as their policy document is online.
I believe the design standards are the recommended standards in the AASHTO Green Book - I can make that clear.
Probably only the ones recognized by AASHTO - so for instance not Historic.
I have no idea of the total mileage. I can't simply add up the individual ones, due to concurrencies. I've never seen such a figure, except in the planning stages (as a percentage of federal aid roads).
There are a few non-bridge toll sections of U.S. Routes, and there have been Toll bannered routes in the past.
One comment - a map would be nice, showing current and former routes. I'll see what I can do.
--SPUI (T - C) 19:44, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No offense, but that helps very little. --SPUI (T - C) 07:07, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of Lost episodes edit

Editors have been in dispute over image policy. Extensive discussion can be found here. Would appreciate some needed feedback and ideas. -- Wikipedical 15:53, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Nothing has changed. Efforts to remove obviously un-fair use images from lists are presently continuing. Whether those of us who understand Wikipedia policy are "legal experts" is irrelevant when we are enforcing Wikipedia policy which happens to be partially based on meatspace law (as opposed to enforcing the law). Policy has been adequately explained. Those who ignore it do so at their own (and the article's) peril. Johnleemk | Talk 16:03, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Here is a solution that will save all of us so much time. Can you Please make a policy page to only address list pages and then make the featured lists conform to the policy. As "obviously un-fair" the images are and as much as each article need proper fair use rationals regardless of other articles, It can still be even more obvious. Saying it is obvious does not prove anything. Especially now that the issue has simmered down to only 3 images for the list instead of the hundreds on it before. What is wrong with my solution. Wouldn it save everbody time?--E-Bod 01:08, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I just Read somebody's comment that makes it Obviously the article does properly use of Fair use see Temers' comment[3]--E-Bod 22:47, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

NeoPets edit

The previous Good Article and Featured Article nominations failed. However, I think the article has improved considerably since then, and, with a little work, should qualify for Good Article. I am willing to collaborate with other editors to improve NeoPets into a Good Article.

The main objections in the Featured Article nomination were use of weasel words, lack of citations, the lead section and POV issues.

The use of weasel words, is, I'm afraid, something we cannot avoid. These criticisms are user opinion and most of them are true. It is very difficult to find reliable sources which detail these criticisms. The best resource would be anti-NeoPets sites, forums and statements by top players. However, these will not be considered reliable sources. In addition, I have spotted cases of editors adding names of famous Neopians as examples to prevent weasel-wording. The names were quickly removed.

The most improved aspect of the article is the citations. The number of citations has grown, and a reasonable percentage are third-party references. Although we can still improve in this area, I think it should pass the Good Article criteria for being referenced.

As for the lead section, this will be relatively easy to fix, compared with the weasel wording. It will take me some time and discussions to decide what should go into the lead section. Feedback and suggestions are most appreciated.

Finally, for the POV issues, I do not spot any egregious POV issues in the article. There may be some more subtle issues, but these are beyond my ability, and other editors should work on them.

I hope to collaborate with other editors to make this a Good Article.

--J.L.W.S. The Special One 13:59, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Needs a complete rewrite and NPOVing, article can be very controversial. Its best to let the article stay decent. --Terence Ong (Chat | Contribs) 06:41, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Stockholm edit

  • I've checked off this article with some established encyclopedias, and there is coverage on most important matters, and I'm not sure how to proceed from there. I'm hoping that someone who is from Stockholm (unlike me) or knows a lot about Stockholm could give some more feedback as to what prominent information should be present. As I'm not a native English speaker, I'm aware that the language is not perfect in places -- you don't need to tell me that -- but I'm hoping someone else could assist me with this. Also, someone with experience in writing a featured article about a city could perhaps give some hints. / Fred-Chess 11:43, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

National Hockey League edit

Over the past six months or so, and more intensively over the past couple days, I have worked to get this article into better shape, by converting it to summary style, adding inline references, adding GFDL images, and better the lead. I'm tryting to hopefully get it to featured article status. I would like comments, however, on how to further improve the article; is anything missing, what can can be changed, any problems with the current set-up. I'd like to ask someone to go through and copyedit the english. Thanks. -- Jeff3000 17:04, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The article looks in excellent shape with good referencing and is not far from FA standard. Some points:

  • The third paragraph in the lead and the players section give a slight impression of POV along the lines of "the league was Canadian but has now been diluted by other nationalities", and reads as if European players participate due to media promotion in Europe. Presumably the reason the NHL has attracted players from other countries is because it has a higher standard of play than other leagues.
  • On a related note, the NHL's position with regard to other ice hockey leagues in North America and the rest of the world should be included. While the lead says "It is the premier professional ice hockey league in the world", the claim is not expanded upon or verified in the main body.
  • It is not necessary to give an overview of the rules of ice hockey, as this is an article about a league rather than the sport itself, though rule differences specific to the NHL should still be included.
  • The caption for the photo of Mario Lemieux is odd. It reads "Mario Lemieux after his first retirement in 1997" but he is on ice looking like he is playing.
  • "The National Hockey League season is divided into a regular season where teams play each other in a predefined schedule." I presume this sentence is incomplete.
  • There are a couple of areas which could do with copyediting, but you are already aware of this.

Hope this helps. Oldelpaso 12:34, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the suggestions Oldelpaso. I've tried reworded the lead and players section to try to get away from the POV you mentioned in your first bullet. Regarding the second bullet, I think it's a very good point, but I don't know where to insert the information (do you have any suggestions?). I've also fixed the 4th and 5th bullet points. In regards to the rules, the reason I have that information is that I think a lot of readers who are totally not familiar with the NHL but see it on TV are confused about the offside and icing rules, and think that information should be in the article. Again thanks for the help. -- Jeff3000 14:16, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. Without actually reading the article to see the length or context, every league has its own variation of the rules. A subpage, if nothing else, is due measure. -- Zanimum 17:53, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, there is a subpage. Cool. -- Zanimum 17:55, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think the article could use some more discussion on some of the issues the league is facing, particluarly the low TV ratings and generally low level of interest in the U.S. Some of the information on the sport itself, which is already at ice hockey, can be removed. -- Mwalcoff 08:40, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Done, I added a television section. Furthermore, in the summary style, some information about the sport of ice hockey is needed. -- Jeff3000 03:22, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ubuntu (Linux distribution) edit

  • The plan is for this to become a Featured Article some day soon. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 23:49, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program. They may or may not be accurate for the article in question (due to possible javascript errors/uniqueness of articles). If the following suggestions are completely incorrect about the article, please drop a note on my talk page.
  • Per WP:CONTEXT and WP:MOSDATE, months and days of the week generally should not be linked (Don't link September or Tuesday unless there is really good reason to). Years, decades, and centuries can be linked if they provide context for the article. Done (for the umpteenth time) - Samsara (talk • contribs) 01:50, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Per WP:MOSNUM, there should be a no-break space - &nbsp; 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==.


In general all footnote should be after the punctuation. This is a very common mistake in the article (and makes it really annoying to read!).
While this seems to be a matter of preference (and in my field, the convention seems to be as I had them), I've obliged on this occasion. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 15:01, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
In the first paragraph "It is released roughly every six months, more frequently than Debian", is released the right word. I know that there is a new release (n.) ie version, but would update be more correct. Released implies that something new is being distributed
Yes. Release is correct. New set of CDs every six months. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 22:01, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
In “History and development process”, I can't understand the first paragraph (what is a "temporary fork of the Debian Linux project" - how was it meant to be temporary, what is different from what they did then to what they do now). The second paragraph is not about the history and should be moved. The third paragraph does not adequately explain the relationship between the Ubuntu Foundation, Canonical Ltd., and whoever it was (is?) who is actually making ubuntu.
No. The second paragraph is about the development process. It makes sense to give a joint treatment of history and development process. Many other things have been tried and didn't work for the article. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 22:01, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
in “features” the sentence alternate between being overly technical (how does using the sudo tool make ubuntu more usable!?!?) and trival ("Ubuntu comes with the pre-installed software Openoffice.." what distro doesn't have preinstalled software!). “It is stated on the Ubuntu home page….” Should be change to “Ubuntu try to give support in local languagues…” and have the homepage as a source. “all releases of ubuntu will be provided at no cost” should be changed to the present tense. Is the wallpaper changer a feature? Maybe I don’t know
Usability features sudo and ubiquity are now explained in some detail. Unfortunately, sudo cannot be explained without being technical. The language support sentence you mention is actually redundant and has now been removed. Thanks for bringing it to my attention. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 21:57, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Why is Ubuntu Backports bold? Perhaps a wikilink was intended Done. Thanks. Samsara (talk • contribs) 21:57, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
is the section “Availability of proprietary software” necessary, aren’t these issues common in all linux distros? It should not have to be repeated for every one
Yes, the issues are the same. The solutions differ. The latter is significant here. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 22:07, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I see which part of the section you're talking about now. I've taken that out and added it to Linux, which is probably more appropriate. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 13:26, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
in “Developmental/Unstable Branch” isn’t ubuntu already based on debian unstable?
Thanks for pointing that out. I suspect that Ubuntu was originally branched off Sid, but now maintains its own unstable branch. I'll need to confirm this. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 21:31, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
We (the Ubuntu development team) rebase the development branch of Ubuntu (regular Ubuntu, not Grumpy) on Debian unstable every six months. When Grumpy exists, it's likely to be based off upstream CVS/Subversion/etc., not Debian unstable; packaging files will likely come from Debian unstable via whatever the current Ubuntu development branch is, but that's just a guess as none of this has been settled yet. --Colin Watson 11:27, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I should cite sources on that (though I can't help some of the clearest sources being announcements from me): https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/ubuntu-devel/2004-November/001188.html https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/ubuntu-devel/2005-May/007591.html https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/ubuntu-devel-announce/2005-November/000009.html https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/ubuntu-devel-announce/2006-July/000164.html http://merges.ubuntu.com/ --Colin Watson 11:47, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
why is there no section on criticism, I understand that debian is not such a fan?Jon513 12:23, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This section does exist; it was subsumed into the "History and development process" section since this improved flow and removed redundancy within the article. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 21:44, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Debian is not a single entity, and doesn't have a single opinion on nearly anything you'd care to name other than its core objectives. There are elements of both criticism and favour towards Ubuntu within Debian. --Colin Watson 11:29, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Isn't having both cats "Debian-based distributions" and "Linux distributions" a bit redundent in the article, considering the Ubuntu cat is contained within the other two categories?--ZeWrestler Talk 19:28, 16 June 2006 (UTC) Done. Thanks. Samsara (talk • contribs) 22:03, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Welcome --ZeWrestler Talk 13:55, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Vestigial structure edit

This article just received Good article status and needs a peer review before it can reach the Featured Article standards. During its GA nomination the issue of using bullets in one of the sections was disputed during the good article process and more feedback on that issue would be much appreciated. Beyond that, this is the first article that I have carried to peer review, so however you normally review articles would be good.--SomeStranger(t) 17:13, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program, and may or may not be accurate for the article in question (due to possible javascript errors/uniqueness of articles).
  • Please reorder/rename the last few sections to follow guidelines at WP:GTL.
  • There are a few occurrences of weasel words in this article- please observe WP:AWT. Certain phrases should specify exactly who supports, considers, believes, etc., such a view. For example,
    • it has been
    • apparently
    • are considered
    • might be weasel words, and should be provided with proper citations (if they already do, please strike this comment).
  • On the bullet issue: If you're sending this to FAC, I can tell you from experience that the bullets will need to go. I don't agree with that (bulleted prose, if done properly, is still prose), but that's just how it is. Personally, I like them. I think a few bullet points make it easier to skim and reduce the number of one- or two-sentence paragraphs (which, in my opinion, are no better). But the objections you got over them in GA and Peer Review are just a taste of what's to come at FAC, so you might as well give in and save yourself the trouble later.
As for the rest, FAC will likely want to see coverage of pretty much every vestigial appendage ever discovered on any animal. As it is, the six non-human examples give it "broad coverage", which suffices for Good Articles, but comprehensive coverage is required for Featured Articles. A list like that might be unreasonable to ask for, but that doesn't mean nobody will ask for it anyway. Kafziel 18:09, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
How much is comprehensive? Are the really looking for a list of all structures known to man-kind? I have a list of possible structures that contains 50 or so more examples, but I hesitated to add them as it seemed repetetive (isn't that what "External links" are for?)--SomeStranger(t) 19:50, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That was more of a heads-up. I don't think you need to put it in just yet, but be prepared for the probability that someone will demand it when it gets to FAC. Kafziel 19:54, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think I will wait for a few more comments before changing the bullets to pure prose (although I think they are prose right now.) If enough peopel think it will be a problem, it might be best to just save the trouble later. Although, it might be interesting to see what those in FAC have to say.--SomeStranger(t) 20:01, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Prose-ifying is probably firmly implanted in my head from FAC, and I have to agree with Kafziel that FACers are bound to comment on that. In bulleted form, the article reads: Wisdom teeth: Wisdom teeth are vestigial third molars.... Wisdom teeth is repeated twice in a row, to not much of an effect. Besides, leaving half of the section (In humans) in prose and half in bullets is rather disruptive and inconsistent. Andy t 20:50, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You make a good point. I am going to go ahead and revert to the version where it was prose.--SomeStranger(t) 22:10, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Applegeeks edit

I believe this article requires more editing before attaining good article status, and I have submitted it for peer review to receive suggestions on how to do so. JimmyBlackwing 14:24, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

At a glance, "Characters" should be its own primary section. Condense the individual subsections into paragraphs or bulletted lists. Per WP:MOSHEAD, headings should not include the article's name without a good reason, and they should employ "sentence" capitalization. "Artistic Directions" has some minor POV issues you might want to look into. Once these issues are done, you're probably at GA-status. To clinch and exceed GA-status, "Book" could probably be merged into the lead. You might also want to "Applegeeks Lite" or trim and place it in the lead. On that note, the lead might get a little large for such a small article, so consider cutting or moving the current third paragraph if you can't find a source for it. (Right now, there's only the article's and Applegeek's word that the work was compared to Mac Hall. Consider rephrasing.) It would probably be better to convert the in-line external links to citations or to prose, if you keep them at all. In particular, give examples of the cameos, don't just link blindly to them. For what it's worth, Applegeeks have crossed-over into Megatokyo at least once. What is the page-ranking, popularity vis-a-vis other webcomics? Are there any secondary sources on the Net not directly related to the authors or website? --Monocrat 14:45, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The images also require beefier Fair Use rationales. And has permission really been granted to use a whole page of the comic on Wikipedia?--Monocrat 14:52, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the suggestions, I'll get right on them. I am not sure whether or not permission was actually granted to use the strip, however - I was not involved in the strip's inclusion. As for the page ranking, Alexa traffic rankings shows it at around 15,000, compared to Megatokyo's 8,500 and Penny-Arcade's 1,500. I am also not sure about secondary sources - I will have to look. JimmyBlackwing 15:36, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program, and may or may not be accurate for the article in question (due to possible javascript errors/uniqueness of articles).
  • Per WP:CONTEXT and WP:MOSDATE, months and days of the week generally should not be linked. Years, decades, and centuries can be linked if they provide context for the article.
  • Per WP:MOSNUM, there should be a non-breaking space - &nbsp; between a number and the unit of measurement. For example, instead of 18mm, use 18 mm, which when you are editing the page, should look like: 18&nbsp;mm.
  • Per WP:MOSNUM, please spell out source units of measurements in text; for example, "the Moon is 380,000 kilometres (240,000 mi) from Earth.
  • Per WP:MOS#Headings, headings generally should not repeat the title of the article. For example, if the article was Ferdinand Magellan, instead of using the heading ==Magellan's journey==, use ==Journey==.

Grover Cleveland edit

What can I do to make this into a featured article - advice is appreciated. --Sunholm(talk) 11:18, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program, and may or may not be accurate for the article in question (due to possible javascript errors/uniqueness of articles).
  • Please expand the lead to conform with guidelines at WP:LEAD. The article should have an appropriate number of paragraphs as is shown on WP:LEAD, and should adequately summarize the article.
  • Per WP:CONTEXT and WP:MOSDATE, months and days of the week generally should not be linked. Years, decades, and centuries can be linked if they provide context for the article.
  • Per WP:MOSNUM, there should be a non-breaking space - &nbsp; 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.
  • Generally, trivia sections are looked down upon; please either remove the trivia section or incorporate any important facts into the rest of the article.
  • Per WP:WIAFA, this article's table of contents (ToC) maybe too long- consider shrinking it down by merging short sections or using a proper system of daughter pages as per WP:SS.
  • As Andy suggests, it can be improved by removing excessive links to solitary years. This is easy with a single click on a 'dates' tab that in edit mode. You can then accept or reject the changes offered and/or do more editing before pressing 'Save'. Simply copy the entire contents of User:Bobblewik/monobook.js to your own monobook. Then follow the instructions in your monobook to clear the cache (i.e. press Ctrl-Shift-R in Firefox, or Ctrl-F5 in IE) before it will work. bobblewik 16:52, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dead Sea edit

I am fairly new to the whole peer review process, so please bear with me :D

I would like feedback in the following areas:

  1. Overall appearance and layout
  2. Are there enough citations and references?
  3. What does this article need to qualify for Featured Article status?

Thanks to everyone who contributes to this peer review. I look forward to reading your feedback. I have contributed somewhat to this article, but I can only take credit for about 1% of the content. Em3rald 11:00, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think that the paragraph about the Dead Sea in different languages should go to a seperate (maybe first) section. Green caterpillar 13:59, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program, and may or may not be accurate for the article in question (due to possible javascript errors/uniqueness of articles).
  • The lead of this article may be too long, or may contain too many paragraphs. Please follow guidelines at WP:LEAD; be aware that the lead should adequately summarize the article.
  • The lead is for summarizing the rest of the article, and should not introduce new topics not discussed in the rest of the article, as per WP:LEAD. Please ensure that the lead adequately summarizes the article.
  • Per WP:MOSNUM, there should be a non-breaking space - &nbsp; between a number and the unit of measurement. For example, instead of 18mm, use 18 mm, which when you are editing the page, should look like: 18&nbsp;mm.
  • Per WP:MOSNUM, at Units of measurement, numbers with SI units of measure should have conversions in US customary units and vice versa. These conversions should keep to similar values of precision. For example, "the Moon is 380,000 kilometres (240,000 mi) from Earth". Note that the converted unit of measure uses a standard abbreviation, while the source unit is spelled out in the text.
  • Per WP:MOSNUM, 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:MOS#Headings, headings generally should not repeat the title of the article. For example, if the article was Ferdinand Magellan, instead of using the heading ==Magellan's journey==, use ==Journey==.
  • There are a few occurrences of weasel words in this article- please observe WP:AWT. Certain phrases should specify exactly who supports, considers, believes, etc., such a view. For example,
    • it has been
    • might be weasel words, and should be provided with proper citations (if they already do, please strike this comment).
  • This article needs footnotes, preferably in the cite.php format recommended by WP:WIAFA. Simply, enclose inline citations, with WP:CITE or WP:CITE/ES information, with <ref>THE FOOTNOTE</ref>. At the bottom of the article, in a section named “References” or “Footnotes”, add <div class="references-small"><references/></div>.
    • To assist you with this, add {{subst:js|User:AndyZ/monobook.js/footnotehelper.js}} to your monobook.js file (mine is located at User:AndyZ/monobook.js) and then bypass your browser's cache by pressing: Mozilla/Safari/Konqueror: hold down Shift while clicking Reload (or press Ctrl-Shift-R), Internet Explorer: press Ctrl-F5, Opera: press F5. In editing mode, click on the "Footnote creater" tab that appears.
  • The article will need references. See WP:CITE and WP:V for more information.
  • As Andy suggests, it can be improved by removing excessive links to solitary years. It also contains a date formatting error. Fixing this is easy with a single click on a 'dates' tab in edit mode. You can then accept or reject the changes offered and/or do more editing before pressing 'Save'. Simply copy the entire contents of User:Bobblewik/monobook.js to your own monobook. Then follow the instructions in your monobook to clear the cache (i.e. press Ctrl-Shift-R in Firefox, or Ctrl-F5 in IE) before it will work. bobblewik 16:53, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

William Gillette edit

April 2006 Peer review now archived at: Wikipedia:Peer review/William Gillette/archive1

Two months have passed since the original peer review. After a few bursts of activity on the page, it has stabilized, but there is still some criticism over the general flow of text. Could some fresh pairs of eyes have a look, maybe suggest or do some copyediting? --JohnDBuell 00:56, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program, and may or may not be accurate for the article in question (due to possible javascript errors/uniqueness of articles).
  • Per WP:MOSNUM, there should be a non-breaking space - &nbsp; 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.
  • Generally, trivia sections are looked down upon; please either remove the trivia section or incorporate any important facts into the rest of the article.
  • Please reorder/rename the last few sections to follow guidelines at WP:GTL.
  • Please alphabetize the categories and interlanguage links.
  • This article needs footnotes, preferably in the cite.php format recommended by WP:WIAFA. Simply, enclose inline citations, with WP:CITE or WP:CITE/ES information, with <ref>THE FOOTNOTE</ref>. At the bottom of the article, in a section named “References” or “Footnotes”, add <div class="references-small"><references/></div>.
    • To assist you with this, add {{subst:js|User:AndyZ/monobook.js/footnotehelper.js}} to your monobook.js file (mine is located at User:AndyZ/monobook.js) and then bypass your browser's cache by pressing: Mozilla/Safari/Konqueror: hold down Shift while clicking Reload (or press Ctrl-Shift-R), Internet Explorer: press Ctrl-F5, Opera: press F5. In editing mode, click on the "Footnote creater" tab that appears.
  • 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.
  • The Legacy section is weak, and a Reception/Criticism section would help to make it more comprehensive.
  • Double check for typos, for example manager.He was and least resistence.
  • There are excessive commas: the puritan leader, who founded the town, In fact, his father, Francis, who (you already introduced the father), And, when , director and actor, by Gustave , pantomime segments, that were , etc.
  • Fix up redundancies. He was a popular actor in the history of the United States. is unnecessary and probably should be merged with the first sentence, along with a citation. Through his association with this play his association with is unnecessary, as you already stated that he wrote it; Through this play is enough. he broadly amassed fans all around the world - if he amassed fans all around the world, then broadly is obviously a redundant word.
  • 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 15:17, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The article is in serious need of some serious library research to back up a lot of it. I won't deny that. I'll have a look at some of the other points when I get a chance! Thanks! --JohnDBuell 17:32, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Peer review/List of countries by population/archive1

United Buddy Bears edit

This is the first article that I've made, and I'd really appreciate any pointers on how I could improve this, and future articles, aswell as what I should avoid. Thanks in advance! --ChinaNailStorm 17:25, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think it needs a few more references and perhaps a few more links to other articles. 0L1 13:57, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dad's Army edit

Dad's Army is now a Good Article, but it would be useful for the members of WikiProject Dad's Army to know what would be required to elevate it to Featured Article status. Bob 16:57, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pope Pius XII edit

Wikipedia:Peer review/Pope Pius XII/archive1

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

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

I'd make a few improvements:

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

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

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

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

NeXT edit

I am attempting to get this article up to Featured Article Status. Any suggestions/comments? Thanks! — Wackymacs 10:09, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program. They may or may not be accurate for the article in question (due to possible javascript errors/uniqueness of articles). If the following suggestions are completely incorrect about the article, please drop a note on my talk page.
  • Please expand the lead to conform with guidelines at WP:LEAD. The article should have an appropriate number of paragraphs as is shown on WP:LEAD, and should adequately summarize the article.
  • Per WP:CONTEXT and WP:MOSDATE, months and days of the week generally should not be linked (Don't link September or Tuesday unless there is really good reason to). Years, decades, and centuries can be linked if they provide context for the article.
Yes, I know all that - but I wanted specific ideas and details. ;-) — Wackymacs 12:51, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Some things I saw:

  • From the lead: ", known for their futuristic black casing. " Do we need to cite this?
  • "NeXT developed the NeXTSTEP operating system, later sold for Intel processors as OPENSTEP," We have no reference to them ever being used for any other processors than Intel, so clarify or remove Intel specific statement
  • "NeXT was founded in 1985 by Steve Jobs and was headquartered in Redwood City, California." Should this be higher up in the lead? What's more important here, the company or the computers they produced?
  • "In a new departure, a few months later he visited universities to determine the directions of the industry." Awkward phrasing. Better is "A few months after his departure from Apple, Jobs visited universities to determine the direction of the computer industry."
  • "The first major source of venture capital was Ross Perot, who invested US$20 million in 1987 for 16% of NeXT's stock, and became a Director at NeXT in 1988." The job title means nothing... symbolic? on the board of directors?
  • "Soon after NeXT, Inc. was formed, Apple brought a lawsuit against the company. In an out of court settlement between the two parties, as of January 1986, NeXT was restricted to the workstation market." It seems to me that the date is in the wrong place here.

References and citations needed. Also a good copyedit. Themillofkeytone 06:20, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed the things you mentioned, yes a copy-edit is needed. I'm working on the references. — Wackymacs 08:43, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Starting to look a bit better, but some of the prose is still a bit iffy. Examples:
  • "The company had now come full circle. Originally intending to sell a toolkit running on top of other OSes, they had ventured into hardware, failed, and returned to selling a toolkit running on top of other OSes. Although OPENSTEP had an enthusiastic audience of developers using it for enterprise software and the like, it never attracted really large numbers of paying customers, and lack of revenue growth was a perennial problem."
  • "He concluded that several technologies were going to be the next source of change, including PostScript, which appeared to be on its way to becoming the standard graphics language; the Mach kernel, which seemed to be rewriting the whole idea of the operating system and Object-oriented programming, particularly using the Objective-C language. He collected these ideas into a product concept that he thought would be the next big thing: an object-oriented toolkit, aimed primarily at the academic market, using PostScript as the display technology."
For now I'm going to stay out of editing this one, so that I can vote with a clear conscience when you FAC it... but if you want me to go through and copyedit it myself, I'll be happy to. Let me know. Also, good job expanding references, but there are still many statements that could probably use sourcing (like the 2nd example above) Themillofkeytone 16:49, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It'd be good if you could copy-edit too. I just fixed the paragraphs you mentioned. I am still working on the references. — Wackymacs 18:54, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have gone through and performed a pretty serious copyedit... I also added a large number of {{fact}}s. It's important to remember that this article is about NeXT, not Apple, so I removed a lot of statements about OS X that weren't directly related to NeXT's software contributions. Themillofkeytone 16:00, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

1987 (What the Fuck Is Going On?) edit

We (WikiProject The KLF) have recently improved The KLF to Featured Article status, and we are turning our attention now to our articles on the band's recordings. Our aim is to create readable, enjoyable, comprehensive and factually accurate articles, using inline citations and relevant quotations wherever possible. 1987 (What the Fuck Is Going On?) was the duo's debut album. I am requesting peer review to raise any issues which reviewers think might prevent this article being promoted to an FA or which would cause you to object to such a nomination. Thanks very much in advance for all contributions. --Vinoir 14:25, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program, and may or may not be accurate for the article in question (due to possible javascript errors/uniqueness of articles).
  1. Please expand the lead to conform with guidelines at WP:LEAD. The article should have an appropriate number of paragraphs as is shown on WP:LEAD, and should adequately summarize the article.
  2. Per WP:WIAFA, Images should have concise captions.
  3. Per WP:MOSNUM, there should be a non-breaking space - &nbsp; 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.
  4. Please alphabetize the categories and interlanguage links.
  5. 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 19:31, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Good point, thanks. Will add to Todo list and report back soon.
  2. Will fix that right now. Missing caption done.
  3. Going on to the To Do list.
  4. Ditto.

Much better this time, script! :) Any humans care to comment? --kingboyk 12:47, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

All done, and looking better for it. Thanks for the suggestions. --Vinoir 22:41, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

FairTax edit

Pre-fac review edit

  • 1) The lead needs to conform with WP:LEAD. I can't see how you could justify less than three paragraphs. It also needs to be a summary of the entire article with space allocated in relation to each point's importance to the overall topic. Currently it is focused on pros and cons. For example the lead needs to state the importance of the bill/proposal and it's impact or lack thereof.   Inwork: See below for discussion.
  • 2) "the FairTax has generated a large grassroots tax reform movement in recent years" is a statement that is particularly important to cite to the most reliable source available because it speaks to the impact/importance of the proposal.   Done
  • 3) "Due to the rebate, the effective tax rate is progressive on consumption...", but the article then goes on to say some say it is regressive. The statement cannot be stated as a fact if there is substantial disagreement to it being true. It must be stated factually as who says it is true.   Done   Note: See below for discussion.
  • 4) The first section of the Tax compliance section is choppy and should be adjusted to improve the flow. The paragraph in the Implementation section needs a bit too, and it's hard to justify a one paragraph subsection. Can you think of any way to merge that elsewhere, or is there anything important enough to expand that a bit? Certainly don't add anything not of high importance.   Done

With that I think it would be in good shape to pass as long as you're confident the writing is good enough. Writing quality (grammar, etc) are often a problem at FAC and it's not something I'm good at helping with. See if you can get a good copyeditor to run through it. Also see if anyone here has ideas of things I'd missed. Consider Wikipedia:Featured article advice if you hadn't already. Definitely good work, it's on the path to pass. I also made one comment in a previous section, that needs addressing too. - Taxman Talk 23:34, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Done
Thanks for the review. I have also stated the lead needs to be expanded - it was 3 paragraphs and summarized the article but then it was cut down by other editors. Will do on #2. On #3, both statements are true - it is progressive on consumption and it can be regressive on income. It depends on what base your using to define the term. Since income is the normal base of reference for income taxes, opponents tend to use an income base to define the incidence of a consumption tax. Proponents use consumption to define the base for incidence. So the terminology is important as both can be true as they are describing different bases. #4. - I'll take a look and see what I can do. Morphh (talk) 23:52, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No problem. Yes, now I see that conversation, so take this as another voice in the consensus that for articles of this size WP:LEAD requires 3 or 4 non overwhelming paragraphs. The paragraphs as they are are rather long, and that may be contributing to the other users opinion. See if you can't create balance by breaking them up. For #2 and #3 it then becomes very important to note that there is a subtle distinction being drawn. Also that means stating the proponent's choice of definition without the other half of the issue is a potential POV problem. In addition stating those statements are true would require that somewhere those statements are well cited to very solid sources, though not necessarily in the lead. Keep up the good work. What's your desired timeframe for nominating? My thought is several days would be the minimum to address the above and allow for other comments unless you really want to tackle them. - Taxman Talk 00:32, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure what you mean with presenting only one definition. The statement of regressive on income (which itself can be true or false depending on consumption level and time line) is the first sentence of the second paragraph. So both points of view are defined in the lead. As I look at breaking up these paragraphs and expanding, I'll see how we can lay this out better. Morphh (talk) 01:30, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ok - I've made the changes and checked them off. :-) Morphh (talk) 05:00, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Impressive speed, but the checks are better if they're clear they are your comments not mine. It's better at FAC just to note you believe you've handled all points and ask for a review. To my eye everything looks good except the lead. Lead's are very hard, but it's not there yet. Now it's too long, with too much detail, and never comes out and tells the impact of the proposal. Telling there are supporters and a bestseller is a start, but not there yet. Simply state it's impact in cited form, or if you can't cite any, state the lack of it. It's difficult to overestimate the importance of that for a lead section. Here's a data point. West's Federal Taxation 2006 does include a three sentence paragraph on FairTax out of a few paragraphs of discussion of national sales tax. That's out of one page of coverage it gives to tax reform proposals. So while tax proposals are certainly not an aim of the text, it is one comment on the relative impact. It does also state that a VAT is preferable for compliance. Again, just one data point, but a respected source. - Taxman Talk 05:39, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The last "done" check was for addressing your last sentence. I should have thought to put it after your username. I'll keep at the intro but it may be later this weekend. I was thinking the second and mainly the third paragraph discussed the predicted impact (in general terms), so I may need some clarification. I don't think I have access to West's Federal Taxation 2006, looks like a purchase item. Evasion is discussed in the lead, though not addressing specific criticism. Morphh (talk) 06:11, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There was an excellent article yesterday (25 Jan, 2007) in the WSJ Rich States, Poor that discusses this topic in regard to the states. Morphh (talk) 06:56, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

<back to left> I can't access that article at the moment, but I'll check it out. I wasn't really suggesting West's as a great reference for much in the article as it's a text focused on covering current taxation. But out of the space given to tax proposals I was commenting on what was given to FairTax. And yeah it's certainly only available for purchase. - Taxman Talk 20:13, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok - Reworked on the Lead again, give that a look. :-) Morphh (talk) 18:15, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Much better, but not there yet. I finally see where I've not been clear in what I'm saying. The article is about a proposal, so the impact that I'm saying it must cover is what impact the proposal itself has had (ie implemented or not, changed other taxes that are in effect, changed other countries tax systems, etc), not what is the expected impact of the provisions of the bill would be if it were implemented. The latter seems like what you thought I meant. But it needs the former. So the bill being introduced, what impact if any has that had on other laws or current taxes? Have any countries ever implemented a national sales tax? Along with that it would help to say in the lead that the bill has been introduced, but never voted on in committee. It's that type of thing that gives the needed context to why the proposal matters. And that type of thing is what needs to be in the lead. - Taxman Talk 23:51, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ahh, Ok - Thank you for the clarification. I have some things in mind but I need to do some research and gather the sources. Morphh (talk) 01:23, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Would you have an example of a good lead that addresses impact like you're discussing? Just thought it might be helpful to look at something else as a reference. Morphh (talk) 16:43, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I added a few things on the bill in Congress. We may need to scrap something else if we need to trim it down. I'm not sure what other impacts the FairTax has had on other areas or tax proposals in this country (I know Jim Demint's proposal is pretty much based on the FairTax but uses a combo sales tax / business transfer tax). It would be fairly easy to state what demands have brought about the FairTax (though it may look similar to predicted impact). Many countries have implemented a National Sales Tax but all have an income tax to go with it. Some are looking at moving to a sales tax from a VAT like Russia,[4] however, others like India are moving from a sales tax to a VAT. Drawing a direct comparison between the FairTax and foreign systems is difficult and likely OR. The main point of these systems is a consumption base (territorial tax system), which is more competitive & simpler. So I could add some line in there that discusses the movement to consumption taxes in a global economy. However, I'm not sure if that would be what is needed. Thoughts? Morphh (talk) 21:46, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Avoiding OR is the most important thing, so do the best you can with the sources available, state simply how far it's gone and that it hasn't had a major effect on the tax system yet. I think adding to what is there, just say it has attracted as many as 61 sponsors in congress, but it has not yet ever been voted on by committee. That should put it in perspective. The sentence in the lead "Economists expect ..." is POV unless all economists agree on those points. The same with mentioning taxing illegal activity as an advantage, when one of the criticisms is the expansion of black markets. Other than that, it's getting past where I can help much. It seems within range of fixing issues brought up at FAC. I don't have an example of a great lead section handy. I'd have to look through various FAs to find one. You may want to just try that. - Taxman Talk 00:10, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ok - Thanks, The "Economists expect ..." statement I think is fairly accurate. I don't think you'll get "all" economist to agree on anything though, so it is not an absolute. However, these are general benifits of consumption taxes which "Many mainstream economists and tax experts like the idea of some kind of consumption tax -- in fact, the superiority of consumption taxes is almost conventional wisdom these days."[5] I could put it as "Proponents state" but this sounds like it is limited and doesn't have general acceptance of the benefits. Even opponents such as Economist William Gale agree to the benefits stated. Perhaps "Many mainstream economist and tax exerts ..." and then state consumption taxes instead of FairTax.? I don't think we have a criticism for the exansion of black markets (Illegal activity). There is an argument for the expansion of an Underground economy, which is different. If there were problems with a underground economy as critics argue, the FairTax will still have advantages in taxing the black market. The black market is only part of the underground economy (the illegal part). So the two statements are not contradictory. However, since you picked up on this - any suggestions on how we should word them better so as not to cause confusion? Morphh (talk) 01:22, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Made some small changes Morphh (talk) 01:44, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

FA Drive comments edit

As per the request for comments on Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Taxation, here is my 2 pence. Given some of the discussions above, I’ll note that I don’t care either way about FairTax – unless I swap countries, it’ll never affect me.

  • Coming to it as a non-American, my first thought was that I wasn’t sure if this was a proposal being campaigned for, or something with a reasonable chance of becoming law within the year, say. “Legislative history” makes this clearer, but it was my first stumble.  Done   I added in the first sentence that the proposal was in the U.S. Congress to try and clarify this. The second part is harder to address (see third comment).
  • “H.R.25/S.25” was meaningless to me – I’m guessing it’s an administrative identifier? Could it have a wikilink to something explaining it?  Done
  • Legislative history leaves me wondering how far it still has to go to “be included in a final version of tax legislation” – what support should a bill garner to get that far?   No specific number that I know of - I've heard that 100 cosponsors is a major bill but I don't have anything to source on this. I'll think about this comment but I'm not sure how to address it yet.
  • Effective tax rate - “((income * tax rate) – rebate) / income = effective tax rate” isn’t easy to follow, especially if it wraps. Can it be formula-ed?  Done
  • Monthly tax rebate - does “The National Taxpayers Union estimated…” have a cite?  Done
    • In addition, my first thought on reading that was “but what’s the overall admin cost?”, which isn’t addressed until later.  Done
    • “Proponents point out that income tax deductionss, tax preferences, loopholes, credits, etc. under the current system was estimated at $945 billion by the Joint Committee on Taxation and that the Internal Revenue Service itself sent out $270 billion in refund checks for 2005.” The $270 billion, which I’m assuming is refunds on incorrect assessments, is presumably only half of the corrections to assessments – there will be extra charges after investigations? Anyway, the $945 billion seems a fair comparison to the $489 billion rebate, whereas the $270 billion seems to be a slightly different issue.  Done
  • Revenue Neutrality: - "the panel did not score H.R. 25” – I’m confused by this quote – does it mean they did not consider it? In general the section seems very heavy, with much to-ing and fro-ing of claims. I understand that it’s probably one of the major areas of disagreement, and may need heavy coverage.  Done   They did not evaluate the legislation - I changed the term from the one quoted to a more common term. Correct - it is a major area, though I've considered writing this in summary and creating another sub-article.
    • “Americans For Fair Taxation (AFFT) claim that…” seems to tell a strange tale of someone being claimed to say one thing, and then saying another. I was left confused as to what had occurred.  Done
    • “If the rate is too high, no matter what the rate, it brings to light the true cost of the federal government and the hidden taxes Congress has imposed on the American taxpayer.” – isn’t comment on “hidden taxes” and “imposed” a bit POV?  Done
  • Presentation of tax rate – the whole issue hashed out here seemed pretty simple and obvious to me – presumably the detail is indicative of it being an area of contention?   Correct
  • Distribution of tax burden – could open with an explanation of the concept of incidence, or at least a link?  Done
  • Transition effects – “focus grassroots efforts on HJR 16” – what’s an HJR?  Done
  • Is there an international dimension to consider – if I buy from Amazon.com, what will FairTax do? Or if an American imports a Ferrari?  Done   If it is a US based business selling you the good (like Amazon.com), then they would charge the FairTax (though Amazon.co.uk may be an export and not levied - VAT or UK sales tax would apply). Imports (like a Ferrari) would get processed though US customs, which would apply the FairTax.

In general terms, it appears to be a very comprehensive view of an issue. I came away well informed. There's clearly been a strong attempt to produce a balanced article. I found it pretty heavy going at times, especially where there was much opponents/proponents back and forth, or it delved into US legislation. It's much more comprehensive than I'd need to get a reasonable idea of the issue; however someone more affected by it might judge it an appropriate length. --Winklethorpe 22:46, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for taking the time to review the article - I'll try to address the issues you've outlined above. My comments in bold. Morphh (talk) 2:37, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

University of Louisville edit

How much more work does this page need to be either a good, or even featured article? The Br3 17:51, 20 June 2006 (UTC) Also, do other wikipedia pages linked off this site (such as Louisville Cardinals have to site their sources? Are the various high rankings in the heading listed with a proper POV? The Br3 02:52, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program, and may or may not be accurate for the article in question (due to possible javascript errors/uniqueness of articles).
  • The lead of this article may be too long, or may contain too many paragraphs. Please follow guidelines at WP:LEAD; be aware that the lead should adequately summarize the article.
  • The lead is for summarizing the rest of the article, and should not introduce new topics not discussed in the rest of the article, as per WP:LEAD. Please ensure that the lead adequately summarizes the article.
  • Per WP:CONTEXT and WP:MOSDATE, months and days of the week generally should not be linked. Years, decades, and centuries can be linked if they provide context for the article.
  • Per WP:MOSNUM, there should be a non-breaking space - &nbsp; between a number and the unit of measurement. For example, instead of 18mm, use 18 mm, which when you are editing the page, should look like: 18&nbsp;mm.
  • Per WP:MOSNUM, 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:MOS#Headings, headings generally do not start with the word "The". For example, ==The Biography== would be changed to ==Biography==.
  • 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
    • are considered
    • might be weasel words, and should be provided with proper citations (if they already do, please strike this comment).
  • 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]
  • There is far too much bolded text that does not need to be bolded. The only words which need to be bold are the title of the article and alternative names for the title. Also, the lead paragraphs need to provide a general overview of the topic. As it is, there is too much detail provided on specific medical achievements that have taken place at the university. These can all be summarized in a few concise sentences. The "history" subsections need renaming; as is they are awkward and unclear. This is only a cursory examination of the article -- overall, it looks good! --Alex S 01:17, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • As Andy suggests, it can be improved by removing excessive links to solitary years. A monobook tool allows this to be done with one click on a 'dates' tab in edit mode. You can then accept or reject the changes offered and/or do more editing before pressing 'Save'. Simply copy the entire contents of User:Bobblewik/monobook.js to your own monobook. Then follow the instructions in your monobook to clear the cache (i.e. press Ctrl-Shift-R in Firefox, or Ctrl-F5 in IE) before it will work. bobblewik 17:45, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Netscape edit

I have proposed that Netscape Communications Corporation and Netscape (web browser) be merged into the main Netscape article. The Netscape article will then focus on the ex-corporation, as well as the browsers it used to make.

The Netscape and Netscape Communications Corporation articles are rich in information. If the articles are merged, I think the new Netscape article will be close to Good Article standards. However, I anticipate that after the merger, the information may be badly organized. Hence the Peer Review.

The Peer Review is intended to help me collaborate with other editors to facilitate the process of merger, the re-organization of information after the merger, the addressing of any other problems spotted and the proccess of making Netscape a Good Article.

One thing I observed about both articles is that the History sections take up almost the entire article. However, I am not sure whether this is a problem. This is because Netscape as a corporation no longer exists, and there is very little to write about the current state of the Netscape browser. In addition, the History section covers the information well. We may need to create some new sections to hold information which should not belong in the History aection.

I noticed the lack of references in the Netscape article. The Netscape Communications Corporation article has 12 references. After the articles are merged, perhaps we could find more references for the merged article.

Compare with Yahoo!, which I am also Peer Reviewing.

--J.L.W.S. The Special One 11:19, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • I suggest completing the merger; doing what you can to bring the resulting article up to "good" status, then undergoing a peer review. As it stands right now I'm not clear what good a peer review of a projected article would serve. The introduction to thie peer review page lists several resources for pages that are in need of improvement. Thanks. — RJH (talk) 15:45, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RuneScape edit

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Oh, that's fine. I'll get to it ASAP.--Ed ¿Cómo estás? 14:33, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I got the lead paragraph that you wanted done. Any more suggestions?--Ed ¿Cómo estás? 16:43, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Max Stuart edit

  • The article has been passed as a Good Article. I would appreciate comments as to how to improve it further.--A Y Arktos\talk 00:13, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program, and may or may not be accurate for the article in question (due to possible javascript errors/uniqueness of articles).
  • Please expand the lead to conform with guidelines at WP:LEAD. The article should have an appropriate number of paragraphs as is shown on WP:LEAD, and should adequately summarize the article.
    • Although the lead has only one para, I think it is adequate for the article, covering the scope of the issues.--A Y Arktos\talk 00:27, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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.
  • See if possible if there is a free use image that can go on the top right corner of this article.
    • There is a picture on http://www.eniar.org/news/murdoch2.html but it dates from 1972 and is definitely not public domain. There is also some sensitivity about pictures of Indigenous Australians, although as far as I know that is only when they are deceased. Stuart is still alive. I haven't found any appropriate free use pictures. The article is illustrated further down but these are not suitable for the lead.--A Y Arktos\talk 00:27, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Per WP:MOSNUM, there should be a non-breaking space - &nbsp; 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==.
    • I think the definite article is warranted in the sub-heading The Stuart Case, but happy to take feedback.--A Y Arktos\talk 00:32, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are a few occurrences of weasel words in this article- please observe WP:AWT. Certain phrases should specify exactly who supports, considers, believes, etc., such a view. For example,
    • it has been
    • allege
    • might be weasel words, and should be provided with proper citations (if they already do, please strike this comment).
      • It has been has a cite against it. The use of the word alleged is also justified I believe in the context altough no specific cite uses that form of words. Suggestions as to how to rephrase would be useful--A Y Arktos\talk 00:56, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • As Andy suggests, it can be improved by removing excessive links to solitary years. A monobook tool allows this to be done with one click on a 'dates' tab in edit mode. You can then accept or reject the changes offered and/or do more editing before pressing 'Save'. Simply copy the entire contents of User:Bobblewik/monobook.js to your own monobook. Then follow the instructions in your monobook to clear the cache (i.e. press Ctrl-Shift-R in Firefox, or Ctrl-F5 in IE) before it will work. bobblewik 17:44, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bette Davis edit

I would like to nominate this article for Featured article status at some point in the not to distant future.

Could editors give their feedback on the state of the article please?

As this is my first nomination for Peer review please forgive any errors I have made. -- Funky Monkey  (talk)  13:14, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program, and may or may not be accurate for the article in question (due to possible javascript errors/uniqueness of articles).
  • The lead of this article may be too long, or may contain too many paragraphs. Please follow guidelines at WP:LEAD; be aware that the lead should adequately summarize the article.
  • The lead is for summarizing the rest of the article, and should not introduce new topics not discussed in the rest of the article, as per WP:LEAD. Please ensure that the lead adequately summarizes the article.
  • Per 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:MOS#Headings, headings generally do not start with the word "The". For example, ==The Biography== would be changed to ==Biography==.
  • Generally, trivia sections are looked down upon; please either remove the trivia section or incorporate any important facts into the rest of the article.
  • 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,
    • allege
    • 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).

Spartacus (film) edit

Need some suggestions on how to get this to GA, and then in turn to FA. Content is good I think, but, still, some ideas, if you will. ....(Complain)(Let us to it pell-mell) 07:53, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program, and may or may not be accurate for the article in question (due to possible javascript errors/uniqueness of articles).
  • Per WP:MOSNUM, there should be a non-breaking space - &nbsp; between a number and the unit of measurement. For example, instead of 18mm, use 18 mm, which when you are editing the page, should look like: 18&nbsp;mm.
  • Per WP:MOSNUM, please spell out source units of measurements in text; for example, "the Moon is 380,000 kilometres (240,000 mi) from Earth.
  • 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).
  • There is a typo in footnote #1.
  • Thanks, Andy t 14:49, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Accelerated Math edit

Please improve the language of the article so that it is more neutral, without significantly modifying its factual content. For example, the section on Reports may need language cleanup to sound less like an advertisement. Thanks! Chris53516 17:34, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program, and may or may not be accurate for the article in question (due to possible javascript errors/uniqueness of articles).
  • Please expand the lead to conform with guidelines at WP:LEAD. The article should have an appropriate number of paragraphs as is shown on WP:LEAD, and should adequately summarize the article.
  • 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,
    • correctly
    • might be weasel words, and should be provided with proper citations (if they already do, or are not weasel terms, please strike this comment).
  • This article needs footnotes, preferably in the cite.php format recommended by WP:WIAFA. Simply, enclose inline citations, with WP:CITE or WP:CITE/ES information, with <ref>THE FOOTNOTE</ref>. At the bottom of the article, in a section named “References” or “Footnotes”, add <div class="references-small"><references/></div>.
    • To assist you with this, add {{subst:js|User:AndyZ/monobook.js/footnotehelper.js}} to your monobook.js file (mine is located at User:AndyZ/monobook.js) and then bypass your browser's cache by pressing: Mozilla/Safari/Konqueror: hold down Shift while clicking Reload (or press Ctrl-Shift-R), Internet Explorer: press Ctrl-F5, Opera: press F5. In editing mode, click on the "Footnote creater" tab that appears.

Archives edit

Goldfish entry

Royal Grammar School Worcester edit

Previous peer review: Wikipedia:Peer review/Royal Grammar School Worcester/archive1

Current GA, and recently failed FAC. Have made a number of improvements since FAC failure, and would welcome comments relating to its success at FAC level. --Wisden17 19:20, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program, and may or may not be accurate for the article in question (due to possible javascript errors/uniqueness of articles).
  • Per WP:CONTEXT and WP:MOSDATE, months and days of the week generally should not be linked. Years, decades, and centuries can be linked if they provide context for the article.
  • Per WP:MOSNUM, there should be a non-breaking space - &nbsp; between a number and the unit of measurement. For example, instead of 18mm, use 18 mm, which when you are editing the page, should look like: 18&nbsp;mm.
  • Per WP:MOSNUM, please spell out source units of measurements in text; for example, "the Moon is 380,000 kilometres (240,000 mi) from Earth.
  • Per WP:MOS#Headings, headings generally do not start with the word "The". For example, ==The Biography== would be changed to ==Biography==.
  • 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,
    • arguably
    • might be weasel words, and should be provided with proper citations (if they already do, or are not weasel terms, please strike this comment).
  • 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]
All of the relevant above points have been taken care of now. --Wisden17 22:18, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

YTMND edit

My eventual goal is to get this article to featured status, however I know that is a really long way to go. My current plans include fixing all the bad prose, finding suitable references from the unreferenced, and get a comprehensive lead section written. Other than that, what needs to be done to the article? —THIS IS MESSED OCKER (TALK) 01:26, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

After having run across this article a few times on RC patrol, I'm always left with the thought of "I don't get it." I know that internet memes don't follow any sort of particular pattern, but this one particularly mystifies me. I'd like to see something added (probably brief) that gets at explaining this site's popularity. No WP:OR, of course, but I'm sure somebody has written something about it. Why the huge appeal over such inane creations? Am I the only one confused here? Aaarrrrgggghhh!!! Tijuana Brass¡Épa! 02:01, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
In other words, the article should be stricter about WP:MOS DEF and be more explanatory about why the article is more popular. I'll get right to it as soon as possible. —THIS IS MESSED OCKER (TALK) 02:16, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It has unnecessary date links. This can be fixed quickly: simply copy the entire contents of User:Bobblewik/monobook.js to your own monobook. Then follow the instructions in your monobook to clear the cache (i.e. press Ctrl-Shift-R in Firefox, or Ctrl-F5 in IE) before it will work. This will give you a 'Dates' tab in edit mode. Hope that helps. bobblewik 18:50, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It sure helped! I love the script! —THIS IS MESSED OCKER (TALK) 06:11, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program. They may or may not be accurate for the article in question (due to possible javascript errors/uniqueness of articles). If the following suggestions are completely incorrect about the article, please drop a note on my talk page.
  • Please expand the lead to conform with guidelines at WP:LEAD. The article should have an appropriate number of paragraphs as is shown on WP:LEAD, and should adequately summarize the article.
  • 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.
      • Thing is, there isn't a very specific group of people, and it's not very formally organized either. General people either believe in this, or general people believe in that. It's not as if these factions have any names, or any specific leaders, however they are all part of the YTMND community. —THIS IS MESSED OCKER (TALK) 06:11, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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.
  • The article has a few or too many inline external links, which hamper the readibility of the article. Please convert them to footnotes, preferably in the cite.php format recommended by WP:WIAFA.
      • The references have been converted into footnotes. As for the miscellaneous external links, I'll be sure to work on that. —THIS IS MESSED OCKER (TALK) 06:11, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks, Andy t 22:31, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Goldfish edit

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

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

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

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

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

  • Thanks for the suggestions. Can you give me a letter grade for FA articles? Like B+? A? Etc. QuizQuick 02:37, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I would say it's C+, mostly because there seem to be a lot of statements unsupported by any sources. With sources, it would probably be a B+. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 00:04, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • You may want to consider putting the online references in inline format, e.g. <ref>{{cite web | url=... | title=... | accessdate=2006-07-14}}</ref>. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 08:34, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

SpongeBob SquarePants edit

I think this should be reviewed before it is nominated for featured status. It is an amazing show and I think it is good enough to be featured, but should be reviewed first.- JustPhil  21:48, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program, and may or may not be accurate for the article in question (due to possible javascript errors/uniqueness of articles).
  • Please expand the lead to conform with guidelines at WP:LEAD. The article should have an appropriate number of paragraphs as is shown on WP:LEAD, and should adequately summarize the article.
  • Per WP:CONTEXT and WP:MOSDATE, 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: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.
  • Per WP:MOSNUM, there should be a non-breaking space - &nbsp; between a number and the unit of measurement. For example, instead of 18mm, use 18 mm, which when you are editing the page, should look like: 18&nbsp;mm.
  • Per WP:MOSNUM, please spell out source units of measurements in text; for example, "the Moon is 380,000 kilometres (240,000 mi) from Earth.
  • Generally, trivia sections are looked down upon; please either remove the trivia section or incorporate any important facts into the rest of the article.
  • There are a few occurrences of weasel words in this article- please observe WP:AWT. Certain phrases should specify exactly who supports, considers, believes, etc., such a view. For example,
    • it has been
    • arguably
    • might be weasel words, and should be provided with proper citations (if they already do, or are not weasel terms, please strike this comment).
  • This article needs footnotes, preferably in the cite.php format recommended by WP:WIAFA. Simply, enclose inline citations, with WP:CITE or WP:CITE/ES information, with <ref>THE FOOTNOTE</ref>. At the bottom of the article, in a section named “References” or “Footnotes”, add <div class="references-small"><references/></div>.
    • To assist you with this, add {{subst:js|User:AndyZ/monobook.js/footnotehelper.js}} to your monobook.js file (mine is located at User:AndyZ/monobook.js) and then bypass your browser's cache by pressing: Mozilla/Safari/Konqueror: hold down Shift while clicking Reload (or press Ctrl-Shift-R), Internet Explorer: press Ctrl-F5, Opera: press F5. In editing mode, click on the "Footnote creater" tab that appears.
  • The article will need references. See WP:CITE and WP:V for more information.
  • As Andy suggests, it can be improved by removing excessive links to solitary years. A monobook tool allows this to be done with one click on a 'dates' tab in edit mode. You can then accept or reject the changes offered and/or do more editing before pressing 'Save'. Simply copy the entire contents of User:Bobblewik/monobook.js to your own monobook. Then follow the instructions in your monobook to clear the cache (i.e. press Ctrl-Shift-R in Firefox, or Ctrl-F5 in IE) before it will work. bobblewik 17:26, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fujiwara no Teika edit

The previous peer review is at Wikipedia:Peer review/Fujiwara no Teika/archive1

I recently did a major overhaul of this article, after the previous FAC failed, and I'd like feedback on it, 's all. --maru (talk) contribs 03:50, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've addressed the comments about the infobox, the spaces between references, additional categorization and their alphabetization, and the weasel words. However, I did not address the MOSNUM objection, since I can't find what triggered it; I feel the lead is fine as it is, can't really see how to improve it; didn't do anything about summaries since no section, except perhaps the Teika/Go-Toba feud can stand on its own; and as far as redundancy and copyediting goes, I can't judge anymore- I've worked on it too much. --maru (talk) contribs 03:17, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think the length of the lead section is appropriate. The article, excluding the end matter (bibliography, references, etc.) checks in under 30K, so the present two paragraphs meets the (mechanical) length requirement.
  • Check each paragraph and see whether things can be said better. Instead of "not to be confused with the rival Rokujo" why not say "rivals of the Rokujo." That paragraph has only one sentence, but the sentence has nearly 150 words. Can you break it down? You link to Shunzei's Daughter and Priest Jakuren, and separately to Jakuren; are those the likely titles of articles for the red links? Note that Shunzei has a red link to Fujiwara Toshinari no Musume (same person as Shunzei's Daughter), and links to priests seldom begin with the word "priest." Is "Fujiwara no Nariee" correct?
Nariee is indeed correct; I just double-checked it (you may be confused by the fact that there is a Fujiwara no Ariee who was also contemporary with Teika, but he's a different person). Good thing I kept the page numbers. As for the linking, I just wrote those two articles, so that should simplify things. --maru (talk) contribs 02:15, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Are you sure they're not Nariie and Ariie (in both cases, "i," not "e,"appears twice.) This makes sense as a Japanese name, and "-ie" was fairly common ("Tameie" being an example). In contrast, -ee is quite uncommon, and I can't think of kanji that would make sense there. Since you checked it and confirmed that it's the same as your source, I'd guess the source has a misprint. Fg2 12:32, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I am quite sure that they are different people. Why? Because in Travelers of a Hundred Ages, Keene gives Nariee as a brother of Teika, and a son of Shunzei; in Seeds in the Heart, Keene mentions a judgement by Shunzei of two poems, one by Ariee and one by Teika- and remarks that he may be biased by his fathership of Teika, and that if Ariee's father, Fujiwara no Shigeie were there/alive, he would no doubt be biased as well! --maru (talk) contribs 01:29, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Time out! I'm not questioning whether they're different people. In fact, I can't recall ever hearing of either, and I started this line of comment before you mentioned the latter. What I'm questioning is the spelling of the names. Lots of names end in "-ie" but I can't think of an example of a name ending in "ee." (If I were to see the kanji, I might be convinced.) Fg2 01:51, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Apparently the kanji are 藤原俊成 and the spelling Fujiwara no Nariie (rather than Nariee). See this page, for example, or browse for 藤原俊成　成家. Son of Shunzei, brother of Teika (according to various non-academic links). Fg2 02:14, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'll add a little parenthetical note to that effect and borrow those kanji. --maru (talk) contribs 18:20, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can you write "Jakuren" generally instead of "Priest Jakuren" (following the model "Saigyo" instead of "Monk Saigyo")? Likewise Nun Abutsu.
Done. --maru (talk) contribs 02:15, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • You have a link to Wood of Ikuta, but not Ikuta Shrine, although the shrine has an article, and information on the wood seems likely to occupy a section in the article on the shrine, rather than a separate article.
Done. --maru (talk) contribs 02:15, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speaking of links, you should click every link and check for redirects. If you find any, you can update the link using pipes.
This is not actually needed, see Wikipedia:Redirect#Don't fix links to redirects that aren't broken - and in some cases may be undesirable, for instance a more specific link being redirected to a parent topic. --zippedmartin 23:38, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm astonished! I've fixed hundreds of indirect links. Now I'll have to find another purpose for life... Thanks for pointing that out. Fg2 12:37, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I enjoy taking good scholarly reference works and fixing up articles on mentioned subjects, FWIW. --maru (talk) contribs 01:29, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Done. (Think those are called tildes, incidentally)--maru (talk)

contribs 02:15, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I call them "swung dashes." Since they're common in dictionaries, I tried Merriam-Webster and found an entry for it, although they don't show it. OED also has it, with an example, and says that when they first used the symbol in 1930 they called it a tilde. Fg2 12:32, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I hope to do some more... Fg2 08:21, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do we need the aside on Retired Emperor Toba? Given that the article on him is only a click away, I'd suggest removing it.
Well, I'll think about it. His article could actually use a dump from Teika to flesh it out, but on the other hand, Go-Toba is pretty central to Teika's life. --maru (talk) contribs 02:43, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article states that positions of the center ranked the highest, followed by right, then left. Is this correct? I thought left ranked highest, but I'm often wrong about such things. In any case, the aside is unnecessarily detailed, and could better be summarized as "a low-ranking position." For that matter, can we dispense with the most of the text following footnote #12?
What, you'd have me strip out all the context? :( --maru (talk) contribs 02:43, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm pretty sure that's right; but you are right about it being unnecessarily detailed.
  • Was the age of 38 middle-aged? Not Teika's middle age (he couldn't know how long he personally would live), but middle-aged generally.
I'd say so; Miner, Brower and Keene all use the term to describe Teika at that period AFAIK. --maru (talk) contribs 02:43, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
They may have meant that it was the middle of his life, as we know in hindsight. I really think the life expectancy was much shorter then, and 38 might have been well beyond the life expectancy (although courtiers probably lived longer than the average). Fg2 12:32, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No, I don't think so; the context of their usages were a discussion of Suetsune and Michichika restricting the poetry sequences to "senior" poets, as in, not-middle-aged. --maru (talk) contribs 01:29, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Links like "middle age," "father in law," "lamp" are low-value-added links. Consider removing them. Conversely, scour the article for terms that could be linked, especially things that many readers might find interesting.
Done. I think I've linked all that should be linked, but on the other hand, I'm always wary of nasty red links when I don't feel like fixing them, so... --maru (talk) contribs 02:43, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Who is Yoshitsune? He appears by given name only, and only once.
He was a patron of Teika, one of the Kujo- wasn't that clear? Keene gives a number of interesting challenges Yoshitsune set Teika, but it seemed of limited interest to me, so I haven't really researched him. --maru (talk) contribs 02:43, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Aha, the link to Kujo no Kanezane is backwards. Kujo is the family name, Kanezane the given name. When it's reversed it'll be clearer. Fg2 12:32, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I've noticed some problems like that... it gets especially hairy when you get past Teika and start talking about the Nijo, Reizei and Kyogoku- apparently those are simply nicknames based on their residences, and their "real" last names are all actually just "Fujiwara". Anyway, I've settled on Kujo no Kanezane- there are enough Fujiwaras in there. ~iametuni--maru (talk) contribs
  • The word "romaji" is English and should be written without a macron. Many Some words that are not English and should have macrons lack them.
I just looked in my English dictionary and did not find the word 'romaji'. I find ローマ字 in edict though. --zippedmartin 23:38, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merriam-Webster online says it's in their unabridged online version, but I don't have a subscription. OED (subscription necessary) has it. No macron in either. Fg2 12:32, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is there a need (e.g. so readers can understand a poem in the article) for the long aside on the Ikuta Shrine, or can we take it out?
  • Does the aside on Abutsu serve a function in the article, or can we take it out?
A purpose- I thought it was interesting. --maru (talk) contribs 02:43, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Iametuni does not sound like a Japanese name, and it's not in Wikipedia romanization.
I got it from Steven D. Carter's translation of Shotetsu Monogatari. Unfortunately, I don't own a copy or have it handy. --maru (talk) contribs 02:43, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Questionable. Probably a misprint or copied from an old source, perhaps in a European language. I'll bet it's Tametsune. Fg2 12:32, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, that's possible certainly, but all the mentions of a Fujiwara Tametsune seem to be in the wrong time periods; [6]

[7] [8] for example. --maru (talk) contribs 18:29, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • The section "Poetic achievements" begins with the word "he"; if this refers to Teika, let's make it explicit since Teika hasn't been named in a while.
Done. --maru (talk) contribs 02:43, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Shotetsu is linked, so there's no need for kanji or dates.
Done. --maru (talk) contribs 02:43, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Mono no Aware" has uppercase letters, but "sabi," "yugen," "makoto" don't. The capitals seem unnecessary.
Done. --maru (talk) contribs 02:43, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • These are individually minor points, but attention to them can enhance the solid content of the article. Fg2 11:30, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Those are lots of improvements. I'm sorry I haven't offered anything insightful, but will try to give it another reading. Thanks for all the work. Fg2 12:37, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Glad to have done it. Have to start somewhere, and establishing a firm base on Teika makes it a lot easier to branch out into other neglected or non-existent articles (look at the Imperial anthology articles, or Jakuren, or Shunzei, or his Daughter- most of'em would have been too difficult to write if I hadn't been collating and adding in all sorts of stuff into Teika's article). And y'know, your comments have helped a fair bit. --maru (talk) contribs 01:29, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Here's a suggestion for the lead section.

Fujiwara no Teika (Japanese: 藤原定家), whose name is also read Fujiwara no Sadaie[1] (1162–September 26 1241), was a Japanese poet, critic, calligrapher, novelist, anthologist, scribe and scholar of the late Heian and early Kamakura periods. His influence was enormous, and he is counted among the greatest[2] of Japanese poets, and perhaps the greatest master of the waka, an ancient poetic form consisting of five lines with a total of 31 syllables. His critical ideas on composing poetry were extremely influential and studied until as late as the Meiji era.

A member of a poetic clan, Teika was born to the noted poet Fujiwara no Shunzei. After coming to the attention of the Retired Emperor Go-Toba (1180-1239; r. 1183-1198)[3], Teika began his long and distinguished career, spanning multiple areas of aesthetic endeavor. His relationship with Go-Toba, at first cordial, led to commissions to compile anthologies, but later resulted in banishment from the retired emperor's court.

Teika's works include his compilations of waka, the Ogura Hyakunin Isshu, Shin Chokusenshū, and and Shin Kokinshū. The latter included 46 of his poems. Teika also wrote the novel Tale of Matsura. His descendants and ideas would dominate classical Japanese poetry for centuries after his death.

Fg2 04:46, 13 July 2006 (UTC) and 05:33, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a suggestion for ===Birth===

Teika was born to a minor branch of the aristocratic and courtly Fujiwara clan in 1162. His branch sought prestige and power in the court by specializing in artistic endeavors, principally poetry. Such specialization could afford the opportunity to compete with more prestigious clans in aesthetic pursuits.

His father was the well-known and respected Fujiwara Shunzei, a poet and judge of poetry competitions who had compiled the seventh Imperial anthology of waka (the Senzaishū). Teika's grandfather was the venerable poet Fujiwara no Toshitada. His sister would also be a well-respected poet of waka and renga, known as Kengozen or Shunzei's Daughter, whom he would occasionally seek out for poetic advice[4] (his elder brother, Fujiwara no Nariie, would have some success in court, but not nearly as much as Teika[5]. Teika's foster-brother Sadanaga (who later became a priest and took the name Jakuren) would be successful as a poet although his career was cut tragically short.

Fg2 05:23, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  1. ^ "...there is the further problem, the rendition of the name in romanized form. Teika probably referred to himself as Sadaie, and his father probably called himself Toshinari, but the Sino-Japanese versions of their names were used by their contemporaries, and this practice is still observed." pg 681-692, note 2 of Seeds in the Heart: Japanese Literature from Earliest Times to the Late Sixteenth Century, Donald Keene. 1999, Columbia University Press, ISBN 0-231-1141-9
  2. ^ "The single most influential figure in the history of Japanese classical poetry, Fujiwara Teika (or Sadaie) 1162-1241, was the supreme arbiter of poetry in his day, and for centuries after his death was held in religious veneration by waka and renga poets alike." Robert H. Brower. Monumenta Nipponica, Vol. 40, No. 4. (Winter, 1985), pp. 399-425. [1]).
    • Charles Murray, in his Human Accomplishment, ranks Teika as the 17th most influential figure in all of Japanese literature based on his analysis of academic research on Japanese literature. "Fujiwara no Teika....is one of the four greatest Japanese poets. The son of Shunzei, Teika lived to an advanced age constantly plagued by both recurring illness and reverses and advances in his family's fortunes. Similarly, his poetry and critical writings also underwent a series of changes in the course of his life, leaving behind the most substantial and intense poetic legacy by a single poet in Japanese history."[2]
    • "Teika's unique reputation rested in part upon his accomplishment as the leading figure among the many fine poets of the Shinkokin Jidai, the period of fifty-odd years in the late twelfth and early thirteenth centuries when revival and innovation in the native poetry were exemplified in Shinkokinshu, c. 1204, the eighth, and in many respects the greatest, of the imperially sponsored anthologies of classical verse. As one of the six compilers of the anthology, and with forty-six of his poems included in it, Teika stood at the forefront of the younger and more innovative poets of his day, and his various experiments with diction, rhetoric, and figurative language, as well as with new styles, modes, and aesthetic effects, were widely imitated by his contemporaries. After his death, his quarreling descendants were recognized as the ultimate authorities on all poetic matters, and through them Teika's influence pervaded six hundred years of Japanese poetic history." Extract from "Fujiwara Teika's Maigetsusho" by Robert H. Brower, Monumenta Nipponica, Vol. 40, No. 4. (Winter, 1985), pp. 399-425.
    • Donald Keene writes, "...is the diary of Fujiwara Teika (1162-1241), a man equally celebrated as poet, critic, and editor." pg 95 of Travelers of a Hundred Ages: The Japanese as Revealed Through 1,000 Years of Diaries, by Donald Keene, 1st edition. Published by Henry Holt and Company, 1989, ISBN 0-8050-1655-4
  3. ^ pg 7 of "Ex-Emperor Go-Toba's Secret Teachings: Go-Toba no in Gokuden", by Robert H. Brower in the Harvard Journal of Asiatic Studies, Vol. 32. (1972), pp. 5-70
  4. ^ pg 410, Travelers of a Hundred Ages: The Japanese as Revealed Through 1,000 Years of Diaries, by Donald Keene, 1st edition. Published by Henry Holt and Company, 1989, ISBN 0-8050-1655-4
  5. ^ pg 410, Travelers of a Hundred Ages: The Japanese as Revealed Through 1,000 Years of Diaries, by Donald Keene, 1st edition. Published by Henry Holt and Company, 1989, ISBN 0-8050-1655-4
I've merged some of your suggestions in. Take a look. --maru (talk) contribs 18:53, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Interstate Highway System edit

Pretty good article with some references, but the criticism section needs expanding. This could easily get to FA or at least good with some work. Any specific suggestions would be much appreciated; I'm new to peer reviews. Simpsnut14 22:31, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It looks pretty decent. A few comments:
  • In the third paragraph, please clarify that by "XX" you mean a numerical identifier. Otherwise a reader foreign to the U.S. might take that text literally.
  • "Most long-distance journeys of less than 300 miles (500 km), whether for vacation or business, use the interstate highway system at some point." Do you have a source for this?
  • The last sentence, second paragraph of the "History" section has some italicized text. Could you start the sentence with "The publication" so that it is clear from the start that this refers to a publication, rather than emphasizing the text?
  • Typo: "transportaion"
  • It is usually requested that the trivia section be worked into the main text or dropped.
Thanks! — RJH (talk) 15:39, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program. They may or may not be accurate for the article in question (due to possible javascript errors/uniqueness of articles). If the following suggestions are completely incorrect about the article, please drop a note on my talk page.
  • The lead of this article may be too long, or may contain too many paragraphs. Please follow guidelines at WP:LEAD; be aware that the lead should adequately summarize the article.
  • The lead is for summarizing the rest of the article, and should not introduce new topics not discussed in the rest of the article, as per WP:LEAD. Please ensure that the lead adequately summarizes the article.
  • Per WP:CONTEXT and WP:MOSDATE, months and days of the week generally should not be linked (Don't link September or Tuesday unless there is really good reason to). Years, decades, and centuries can be linked if they provide context for the article.
  • See if possible if there is a free use image that can go on the top right corner of this article.
  • Per WP:MOSNUM, there should be a no-break space - &nbsp; 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==.
  • Generally, trivia sections are looked down upon; please either remove the trivia section or incorporate any important facts into the rest of the article.
  • This article can use copyediting to ensure that the it exemplifies some of Wikipedia's best work.
  • 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 22:31, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I advocate metric conversions to round numbers in articles like this one. An example of numbers that are not round: "70 to 80 mph (112 km/h to 129 km/h) speed limits." This could be rounded at least to 110 to 130, and other speeds similarly. I don't take the purpose of the article to give legal advice ("you may legally travel 130 km/hr") but rather to give readers who drive highways with metric signs the nearest equivalent that they might encounter (they're unlikely to find a sign that says "Speed Limit 112 km/hr"). Of course, where original numbers have more digits (e.g. 36 inches), it makes sense for metric equivalents to have a similar number of digits. Fg2 15:37, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • As said above, this article needs attention to dates and units. This can be done quickly, simply copy the entire contents of User:Bobblewik/monobook.js to your own monobook. This will give you a 'Dates' tab. Then follow the instructions in your monobook to clear the cache (i.e. press Ctrl-Shift-R in Firefox, or Ctrl-F5 in IE) before it will work. Hope that helps. bobblewik 17:52, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Some comments from a quick read:

  • It needs a lot more history - I should be able to help with this.
  • The bit about exit numbers really shouldn't be here, as most states number exits on all freeways.
  • Make sure Interstate Highway is always capitalized - an interstate highway is simply a highway in multiple states.
  • The trivia could be incorporated easily in the other sections.
  • The criticism section could be expanded and rescoped to cover its effects - positive and negative.
  • See also could be trimmed a bit.

Of course many of these are rather simple to fix, and I could just as easily {{sofixit}}.

Mind commenting on Wikipedia:Peer review/United States Numbered Highways/archive1? --SPUI (T - C) 18:49, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The KLF discography edit

The KLF discography is a companion piece to The KLF, which recently attained Featured Article status. Our objective for this article - which has already been assessed as a Good Article - is to have it become a Featured List. The article consists of a discography of the key releases of The KLF and their independent label KLF Communications, a section about that label, and a list of the people they worked with. I think this level of depth in a discography article is unusual, and although I personally am happy with it we (WP:KLF) welcome comments on the structure and the consolidation of this information into one article. Moreover, please detail anything which would cause you to oppose the Featured List candidacy of this article (with the exception of inadequate fair use rationales, which we will address before that nom goes live). Thank you. --kingboyk 17:51, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program. They may or may not be accurate for the article in question (due to possible javascript errors/uniqueness of articles). If the following suggestions are completely incorrect about the article, please drop a note on my talk page.
  1. See if possible if there is a free use image that can go on the top right corner of this article.
  2. Per WP:WIAFA, Images should have concise captions.
  3. There may be an applicable infobox for this article. For example, see Template:Infobox Biography, Template:Infobox School, or Template:Infobox City. (Note that there might not be an applicable infobox; remember that these suggestions are not generated manually)
  4. Per WP:MOSNUM, there should be a no-break space - &nbsp; 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.
  5. Per WP:MOS#Headings, headings generally do not start with the word "The". For example, ==The Biography== would be changed to ==Biography==.
  6. Generally, trivia sections are looked down upon; please either remove the trivia section or incorporate any important facts into the rest of the article.
  7. This article can use copyediting to ensure that the it exemplifies some of Wikipedia's best work.
  • 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 22:32, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  1. There isn't.
  2. The only image which isn't used as a thumbnail next to a record or book has a concise caption.
  3. None that I know of.
  4. Will look into this, thanks.
    Done. --Vinoir 08:40, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. The only section starting with "The" is "The KLF filmography" which is correct since "The" is part of their name.
  6. Trivia?! Come on script, ain't no trivia section in this article! :)
  7. That's what we're here for. Any humans care to comment??? :) --kingboyk 12:43, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Whoa, I think I can be listed under the "humans that care to comment" category! I have skimmed and have to say that is one of the more impressive lists I have ever seen. One question though, Is it fair use to have screenshots of album covers on an article that is not specifically about the album itself?--SomeStranger(t) 21:46, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the compliment and the question! I am not a lawyer, but I believe it is fair use (and we will tighten our fair uses rationales for all used images before going to Featured List nomination). There's also massive precedent all over the web and printed media for picturing an album cover whenever an album is mentioned. --kingboyk 07:57, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Space Shuttle Columbia disaster edit

This has a failed FA, but I think it has improved since then. I would be appropriate if both Shuttle disasters progressed on towards FA. -- TechsMechs 04:25, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program, and may or may not be accurate for the article in question (due to possible javascript errors/uniqueness of articles).
  • The lead of this article may be too long, or may contain too many paragraphs. Please follow guidelines at WP:LEAD; be aware that the lead should adequately summarize the article.
  • The lead is for summarizing the rest of the article, and should not introduce new topics not discussed in the rest of the article, as per WP:LEAD. Please ensure that the lead adequately summarizes the article.
  • Per 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.
  • Per WP:MOSNUM, there should be a non-breaking space - &nbsp; between a number and the unit of measurement. For example, instead of 18mm, use 18 mm, which when you are editing the page, should look like: 18&nbsp;mm.
  • Per WP:MOSNUM, 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:MOS#Headings, headings generally do not start with the word "The". For example, ==The Biography== would be changed to ==Biography==.
  • Generally, trivia sections are looked down upon; please either remove the trivia section or incorporate any important facts into the rest of the article.
  • 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).
  • 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]


It's a pretty good article and fairly thorough for the most part. Here's a few (hopefully useful) comments:

  • There are a few more entries that could use a link: thermal protection, external tank, NASA, reentry, O-ring, risk-management, reinforced carbon/carbon, Orbital Maneuvering System, Indian Ocean, telemetry, solid rocket motors
  • I think the following entries need some sort of citation:
    • "Apparently, even the best technical servicing available could not compensate for this fatal design flaw"
    • "Bipod Foam Ramps had fallen off on at least three previous Shuttle flights"
    • "NASA management seemed to grow complacent and accustomed to these phenomena when no serious consequences resulted from these earlier episodes"
    • "Two examples of this were failure to honor engineer requests for imaging to inspect possible damage, and failure to respond to engineer requests about status of astronaut inspection of the left wing"
    • "NASA management did not honor the requests and in some cases intervened to stop DOD from assisting"
  • What is SOFI?
  • I couldn't find any coverage of what safety measures were implemented by NASA prior to the launch of the next mission.

Thank you! — RJH (talk) 14:56, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tajik alphabet edit

I've been editing this article for a while, and it seems fairly comprehensive and largely fact-checked. I'd be interested in improvements that can be made to the Perso-Arabic section as I am not as familiar with that writing system. I would also be glad of replacing the current images with better ones, but unfortunately they are quite hard to come by. All in all, any suggestions are welcome, and edits are welcome too :) - FrancisTyers · 11:01, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Some things I noticed right away:
  1. "The Tajik alphabet of the Tajik language" sounds very peculiar. Rewriting is made more difficult by the fact that the article title is something of a misnomer: there isn't a "Tajik alphabet" per se; rather, Tajik is written in any of three writing systems: the Latin alphabet, the Cyrillic alphabet, or the Arabic abjad (each with various modifications from its original form to accommodate Tajik sounds).
    What would you suggest the article be renamed to? - FrancisTyers · 14:51, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I've been pondering that since I made the comment. Tajik writing systems? Written Tajik? (Although Written Tajik could be taken to be an article about the literary dialect as opposed to the spoken dialect.) Another option would be to keep the article at its current name but break with the tradition of beginnnig every article with the words "The {{PAGENAME}} is..." and instead start with "The Tajik language has been written with three writing systems..." User:Angr 15:13, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I thought of Writing systems of the Tajik language too, but that (as with Tajik writing systems would suggest that they were only for Tajik. I like your second suggestion and will implement that now. - FrancisTyers · 15:22, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Rewritten, but it still reads oddly. As a note, Arabic is referred to as alphabet (which may be incorrect), but it is referred like this in Perry (2005). I'd welcome alternate suggestions for the first paragraph. - FrancisTyers · 15:29, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    That sounds good, although I've made a minor alteration. - FrancisTyers · 15:50, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I've tried my hand at rewriting the opening and added a link to abjad. I wouldn't sweat the distinction too much. User:Angr 15:51, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. "The Latin alphabet is supported by pan-Turkists, who wish to bring the country closer to Uzbekistan and the other Turkic states in the area." and "The Latin variant for Tajik was based on the work by Turcophone scholars who aimed to produce a unified Turkic alphabet" are confusing statements because Tajik isn't a Turkic language, but an Indo-European one, a fact the article never states explicitly. (The article does mention that Tajik was formerly considered a variety of Persian, so a reader who knows that Persian is Indo-European and not Turkic can deduce that the same is true of Tajik, but not every reader will know that.)
    "The Latin variant for Tajik was based on the work by Turcophone scholars who aimed to produce a unified Turkic alphabet [5], despite Tajik not being a Turkic language. " It says it right there after the mention. - FrancisTyers · 14:51, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, because you just added it! :p User:Angr 15:13, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    :) - FrancisTyers · 15:22, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. I would recommend merging Comparison of Tajik alphabets into this article. Neither article is too long, and it's better to keep information together as much as possible.
    Hmm, probably a good idea, although where would you suggest I put it? Before the See Also section? Done. - FrancisTyers · 15:38, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Please use the {{IPA}} template around IPA characters.
    Done. - FrancisTyers · 15:03, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Some of the images in the gallery are already found on the page.
    Yes, I should fix this. Done. - FrancisTyers · 15:00, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Hmm, except now there are only two images in the gallery, which looks silly. Can't they be integrated into the page? If you do merge Comparison of Tajik alphabets into this article, you'll have more vertical space to put images in. User:Angr 15:16, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I think this is why I included them in the first place, agree with your suggestion. Done. - FrancisTyers · 15:38, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Image:Soviet poster in tajik circa 1920.jpg has no source.
    I'll go and find one now. - FrancisTyers · 14:51, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Proving to be more difficult than I originally thought... I've found a version here, but it isn't the version that was uploaded. - FrancisTyers · 15:22, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Image:Dushanbe 2.jpg has a fair-use claim that is inconsistent with its use on this page. (Technically this can be speedy-deleted under criterion I7.)
    Indeed, this can probably be removed. Done. - FrancisTyers · 15:03, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
User:Angr 14:38, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Team Rocket (anime) edit

This is the articles second peer review, because the last one was ignored. Please write comments on how we can improve the article, cheers Minun (talk) 10:35, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There are lots of lists of trivia, no substantive sources whatsoever, the headers for the team's Pkémon are in, like, 7 point font (what's up with that?), there's no mention of their role in the card game (They're featured in two sets!), the article is huge, the Electric Tale of Pikachu section is awful, and...well, this needs a lot of work. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 10:41, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The bit about the trading card game can be found here, cheers —M inun Spiderman 19:34, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oil edit

Very important topic as it is *meant* to summarize all the different types of oil. Seriosuly needs work - suggestions/comments? — Wackymacs 06:58, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program, and may or may not be accurate for the article in question (due to possible javascript errors/uniqueness of articles).
  • Please expand the lead to conform with guidelines at WP:LEAD. The article should have an appropriate number of paragraphs as is shown on WP:LEAD, and should adequately summarize the article.
  • This article is a bit too short, and therefore may not be as comprehensive as WP:WIAFA critera 2(b) is looking for. Please see if anything can be expanded upon.
  • This article needs footnotes, preferably in the cite.php format recommended by WP:WIAFA. Simply, enclose inline citations, with WP:CITE or WP:CITE/ES information, with <ref>THE FOOTNOTE</ref>. At the bottom of the article, in a section named “References” or “Footnotes”, add <div class="references-small"><references/></div>.
    • To assist you with this, add {{subst:js|User:AndyZ/monobook.js/footnotehelper.js}} to your monobook.js file (mine is located at User:AndyZ/monobook.js) and then bypass your browser's cache by pressing: Mozilla/Safari/Konqueror: hold down Shift while clicking Reload (or press Ctrl-Shift-R), Internet Explorer: press Ctrl-F5, Opera: press F5. In editing mode, click on the "Footnote creater" tab that appears.
  • The article will need references. See WP:CITE and WP:V for more information.
  • This article may be a bit list-weighty; in other words, some of the lists should be converted to prose (paragraph form).

Let's start with one issue: the artcle needs expantion, it is now barerly more then a stub. Second, the article has no references. These issues should be addressed first, then we can go into other details.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 21:53, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Singlish edit

Opening a peer review by request of Pabix, who hopes to bring this to FAC again after the peer reviews. Rlevse 18:20, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for having done it, Rlevse! ♦ Pabix ℹ
See Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Singlish/archive1 for the FAC that led to this peer review. Armedblowfish (talk|mail|contribs) 19:44, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program, and may or may not be accurate for the article in question (due to possible javascript errors/uniqueness of articles).
  • Please expand the lead to conform with guidelines at WP:LEAD. The article should have an appropriate number of paragraphs as is shown on WP:LEAD, and should adequately summarize the article.
  • Per WP:MOS#Headings, headings generally do not start with the word "The". For example, ==The Biography== would be changed to ==Biography==.
      Done ♦ Pabix ℹ 06:48, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • As per WP:MOS, please do not link words in headings.
      Done ter890 ~ter890~ 07:28, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Per WP:MOS#Headings, headings generally should not repeat the title of the article. For example, if the article was Ferdinand Magellan, instead of using the heading ==Magellan's journey==, use ==Journey==.
      Done ♦ Pabix ℹ 06:48, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Generally, trivia sections are looked down upon; please either remove the trivia section or incorporate any important facts into the rest of the article.
      Done trivia section removed Ter890 (talk) ~ter890~ 16:25, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Per WP:WIAFA, this article's table of contents (ToC) maybe too long- consider shrinking it down by merging short sections or using a proper system of daughter pages as per WP:SS.
  • This article may need to undergo summary style, where a series of appropriate subpages are used. For example, if the article is United States, than an appropriate subpage would be History of the United States, such that a summary of the subpage exists on the mother article, while the subpage goes into more detail.
  • There are a few occurrences of weasel words in this article- please observe WP:AWT. Certain phrases should specify exactly who supports, considers, believes, etc., such a view. 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).
  • This article needs footnotes, preferably in the cite.php format recommended by WP:WIAFA. Simply, enclose inline citations, with WP:CITE or WP:CITE/ES information, with <ref>THE FOOTNOTE</ref>. At the bottom of the article, in a section named “References” or “Footnotes”, add <div class="references-small"><references/></div>.
    • To assist you with this, add {{subst:js|User:AndyZ/monobook.js/footnotehelper.js}} to your monobook.js file (mine is located at User:AndyZ/monobook.js) and then bypass your browser's cache by pressing: Mozilla/Safari/Konqueror: hold down Shift while clicking Reload (or press Ctrl-Shift-R), Internet Explorer: press Ctrl-F5, Opera: press F5. In editing mode, click on the "Footnote creater" tab that appears.

Winfield Scott (ship) edit

I would like to see this nominated as a Good Article, but want to get some comments first. --cholmes75 (chit chat) 13:47, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program, and may or may not be accurate for the article in question (due to possible javascript errors/uniqueness of articles).
  • Per WP:MOSNUM, there should be a non-breaking space - &nbsp; between a number and the unit of measurement. For example, instead of 18mm, use 18 mm, which when you are editing the page, should look like: 18&nbsp;mm.
  • Per WP:MOSNUM, please spell out source units of measurements in text; for example, "the Moon is 380,000 kilometres (240,000 mi) from Earth.
  • When writing standard abbreviations, the abbreviations should not have a 's' to demark plurality (change kms to km and lbs to lb).
  • Per WP:MOS#Headings, headings generally do not start with the word "The". For example, ==The Biography== would be changed to ==Biography==.
  • 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).
  • As is done in WP:FOOTNOTE, for footnotes, the footnote should be located right after the punctuation mark, such that there is no space inbetween. For example, change blah blah [2]. to blah blah.[2]
  • Please ensure that the article has gone through a thorough copyediting so that the it exemplifies some of Wikipedia's best work. See also User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 2a.
  • You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions (and the javascript checklist; see the last paragraph in the lead) for further ideas.
  • Thanks, Andy t 14:51, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

FBI edit

Archive #1 View
Archive #2 View

Well... I recently joined WP:FBI, made some edits, and created a page, but the main priority is to get FBI to FA status. I would like to know what we could improve/add to get the article to FA status.   BlackBear 22:55, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Smashing Pumpkins edit

I've been working on this article a bit in the hopes that we can eventually get it to featured status. While there are some obvious things that need to be taken care of (we need more soundclips and I'm still trying to find the original source for Billy Corgan's comment that Mellon Collie and the Infinite Sadness was supposed to be a sort of "Wall of the 90s") I want to see what other people think of the article so far, paticularly in how it reads and if there's any aspects that you think need to be included, excluded, expanded, or just moved to related articles. WesleyDodds 08:14, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think the "reunion" section could be tightened up a bit. maxcap 18:36, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It has unnecessary date links and an incorrectly formatted date. This can be fixed quickly: simply copy the entire contents of User:Bobblewik/monobook.js to your own monobook. Then follow the instructions in your monobook to clear the cache (i.e. press Ctrl-Shift-R in Firefox, or Ctrl-F5 in IE) before it will work. This will give you a 'Dates' tab in edit mode. Hope that helps. bobblewik 18:51, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not very computer savvy; how does this work? Then again, I have no problem going in and changing the date links manually. I understand the date links problem, but not the "incorrectly formatted date" part. WesleyDodds 21:09, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program. They may or may not be accurate for the article in question (due to possible javascript errors/uniqueness of articles). If the following suggestions are completely incorrect about the article, please drop a note on my talk page.
  • The article has a few or too many inline external links, which hamper the readibility of the article. Please convert them to footnotes, preferably in the cite.php format recommended by WP:WIAFA.
  • Per WP:MOSNUM, there should be a no-break space - &nbsp; 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.
  • 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.
Ok, I've alphabetized the categories/foreign links, changed the "are" to "is" in the intro, fixed whatever measurement problem might have existed, and I've tried to convert the inline external links to footnotes. Not sure I've done that last part correctly, so someone should look over my work and tweak it if need be. WesleyDodds 03:28, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You asked about 'incorrectly formatted dates'. The date format [[April 20]]th should be [[April 20]]. It is 'incorrectly formatted' at least as far as the date preferences mechanism is concerned. In this edit the problem was fixed. Hope that answers your question. bobblewik 18:17, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, thanks! WesleyDodds 23:45, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Are there any opinions on how best to incorporate information about the band's influences and musical style? WesleyDodds 03:21, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • What's the best way to include this interview -- http://www.hoarder.net/frenchy/Pumpkins/06-04_Jimmy-batterie/ -- in the article? I have a translation - is there a way that it can be verified? In any case, it makes no sense to state that there is no new information regarding the reunion right now, considering there is the Batterie interview. It clearly goes a step further in giving information about the reunion, and comes straight from the band's drummer. Effloresce 04:25, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

MapleStory edit

This article failed GA about 2 months ago and has been improved a lot since then, requesting further peer review before re-nominate. --TheYmode 15:15, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program, and may or may not be accurate for the article in question (due to possible javascript errors/uniqueness of articles).
  • Please expand the lead to conform with guidelines at WP:LEAD. The article should have an appropriate number of paragraphs as is shown on WP:LEAD, and should adequately summarize the article.
  • Per WP: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.
  • Per WP:WIAFA, Images should have concise captions.
  • Per WP:MOSNUM, there should be a non-breaking space - &nbsp; 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.
  • When writing standard abbreviations, the abbreviations should not have a 's' to demark plurality (change kms to km and lbs to 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.
  • Per WP:MOS#Headings, headings generally should not repeat the title of the article. For example, if the article was Ferdinand Magellan, instead of using the heading ==Magellan's journey==, use ==Journey==.
  • Please alphabetize the categories and/or interlanguage links.
  • Per WP:WIAFA, this article's table of contents (ToC) maybe too long- consider shrinking it down by merging short sections or using a proper system of daughter pages as per WP:SS.
  • This article may need to undergo summary style, where a series of appropriate subpages are used. For example, if the article is United States, than an appropriate subpage would be History of the United States, such that a summary of the subpage exists on the mother article, while the subpage goes into more detail.
  • There are a few occurrences of weasel words in this article- please observe WP:AWT. Certain phrases should specify exactly who supports, considers, believes, etc., such a view. For example,
    • correctly
    • might be weasel words, and should be provided with proper citations (if they already do, or are not weasel terms, please strike this comment).
  • 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 15:18, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Great Barrier Reef edit

As this is included in the Wikipedia:Wikipedia-CD/Download project, and is a few years old, I'd really like this to be able to get up to 'good article' standard, at least. I'd like some suggestions on what's missing, clarity of the article, and general improvements that can be made. Thankyou very much! - Malkinann 04:25, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for responding, Funhistory. I thought that the point about the Kimberleys was interesting for comparision's sake, or if the reader was interested about other reefs in Australia. I agree that the History subsection is a bit awkward - maybe it needs to be merged into "Managing the GBR"? (which could possibly be renamed "Human use and management of the GBR"?) - 220.237.30.150 00:30, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Needs to be much more comprehensive. I'd concentrate on several sections: history, geography, conservation and tourism. A worthy candidate for ACOTF. michael talk 13:44, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure that I can put it up for ACOTF, as it's fairly comprehensive already and fairly old. - Malkinann 06:26, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of comic strips M-Z edit

This is the first time I ever tried to split a list. I hope I did it right, or at least acceptably well, but I rather doubt I actually did so. Please advise. Badbilltucker 00:48, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hurricane Esther (1961) edit

This is my first peer review request, and this article was recently upgraded to GA-class. I've added preparations, changed the sources to cite web format, and expanded the intro per post-GA suggestions, and I'd like to know how I could improve this article even more. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 02:58, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Here's some things that are needed before an FAC run.
  1. Longer intro- Preferably 3 paragraphs. Also, $6,000,000 should be written as $6 million.
  2. First paragraph of storm history doesn't have a source
  3. Also, the storm history doesn't flow terribly well. The third paragraph is out of order and a little redundant.
  4. Sourcing is needed for the second paragraph of the preparations section
  5. According to my English teacher, no two paragraphs should start with the same word. If that could be eliminated that would be great.
  6. Spacing- Some paragraphs are a bit short. If possible, you should combine some paragraphs
  7. Metrification- This should have been dealt with earlier. Every American unit should also have a Metric unit in parenthesis.
  8. Project Stormfury- Something is a bit contradictive. "Interestingly, the hurricane weakened slightly in response to the seeding." Interestingly is POV, so another word should be found. The main problem with that is that when the hurricane was 400 miles north of PR, it was strengthening. The exact date should be added, as well.
All in all, it's a good article. Is there any more information, though? Most of the info is from the Esther report or NOAA pages. --Hurricanehink (talk) 03:33, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm going to see what more information I can find in the Monthly Weather Review. For now, I've provided metric units where needed and removed the POV word "interestingly". I'll fix the Stormfury section later. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 04:01, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've found a couple more sources and expanded the intro, clarified the storm history, and fixed the Stormfury section (with help from the best track, which I'm surprised wasn't used to begin with). Anything else? --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 07:44, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The only thing I can think of is a three paragraph intro (which is a requirement for FA's), more impact, and another pic for the article. The article is a little colorless, so if there's another pic for the storm history, that'd be great. Of course, that's optional. --Hurricanehink (talk) 13:16, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm. That second paragraph was pretty hard to put together, any ideas on what I could do for the third? --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 13:28, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The first paragraph could be basics/storm history, the second could be impact, and the third could be the Navy flight stuff that's already there. --Hurricanehink (talk) 13:31, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, the intro's been expanded again. As for pictures, all I can find are some pictures from the Navy flight and some track maps. The article has one of each of those already. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 14:27, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Very nice. Too bad about the pics, but oh well. --Hurricanehink (talk) 18:13, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also, the storm history needs some correct organization; the first paragraph should be the beginnings of the storm, leading up to it reaching TS status. The second paragraph should continue from there until peak intensity, and the third paragraph should be the rest. I'll do it myself if that's okay, but feel free to do it differently or revert it if it isn't that great. Still, the article's very nice. If all or most of the things in this PR are solved, this should definetely become an A-class article. Good luck! :) íslenska hurikein #12 (samtal) 16:24, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ahh, never mind me organizing the storm history the right way; I keep messing with the refs. Someone else needs to do it, I guess. Also, someone (not me, I g2g) needs to add & n b s p ; (without the spaces, of course) to where it is needed. íslenska hurikein #12 (samtal) 16:28, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've gone ahead and reorganized the storm history section myself, per your advice. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 00:07, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I got the  's. This thing looks ready for FAC. --Hurricanehink (talk) 18:12, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also, is there any aftermath info? íslenska hurikein #12 (samtal) 20:34, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't really look like it. All I can find is basic impact info, and the power outages were resolved in a fairly timely manner. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 00:20, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tonsillolith edit

I'd just like to get a feel for the content and prose here, and, more specifically, suggestions on how to expand upon the

Thanks, I'm sorta new here, so be gentle, but firm... or something! Drockstar 09:21, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program, and may or may not be accurate for the article in question (due to possible javascript errors/uniqueness of articles).
  • Please expand the lead to conform with guidelines at WP:LEAD. The article should have an appropriate number of paragraphs as is shown on WP:LEAD, and should adequately summarize the article.
  • See if possible if there is a free use image that can go on the top right corner of this article.
  • Per WP:MOS#Headings, headings generally should not repeat the title of the article. For example, if the article was Ferdinand Magellan, instead of using the heading ==Magellan's journey==, use ==Journey==.
  • There are a few sections that are too short and that should be either expanded or merged.
  • This article needs footnotes, preferably in the cite.php format recommended by WP:WIAFA. Simply, enclose inline citations, with WP:CITE or WP:CITE/ES information, with <ref>THE FOOTNOTE</ref>. At the bottom of the article, in a section named “References” or “Footnotes”, add <div class="references-small"><references/></div>.
    • To assist you with this, add {{subst:js|User:AndyZ/monobook.js/footnotehelper.js}} to your monobook.js file (mine is located at User:AndyZ/monobook.js) and then bypass your browser's cache by pressing: Mozilla/Safari/Konqueror: hold down Shift while clicking Reload (or press Ctrl-Shift-R), Internet Explorer: press Ctrl-F5, Opera: press F5. In editing mode, click on the "Footnote creater" tab that appears.
  • The article has a few or too many inline external links, which hamper the readibility of the article. Please convert them to footnotes, preferably in the cite.php format recommended by WP:WIAFA.
  • The article will need references. See WP:CITE and WP:V for more information.
Fixed some minor faults. Maybe you should finish treatments section-stub first. And some of the internal links point to an external site. So I think it's better like that: for example tumours of the tonsils point to an external link, but it should lead to Oropharyngeal cancer, and have a reference for the external link. I hope it is clear. :) NCurse work 07:58, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

HIV edit

This article was already the subject of a peer review and can be found here. It has undergone significant changes since then, and I resubmit it for peer review so that one day it may join AIDS as a featured article. --Bob 23:58, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program, and may or may not be accurate for the article in question (due to possible javascript errors/uniqueness of articles).

*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:MOS, avoid using words/phrases that indicate time periods relative to the current day. For example, recently, last year, soon, and last week might be terms that should be replaced with specific dates/times.

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

*Per WP:MOSNUM, please spell out source units of measurements in text; for example, "the Moon is 380,000 kilometres (240,000 mi) from Earth.

*Per WP:MOS#Headings, headings generally do not start with the word "The". For example, ==The Biography== would be changed to ==Biography==.

*Per WP:MOS#Headings, headings generally should not repeat the title of the article. For example, if the article was Ferdinand Magellan, instead of using the heading ==Magellan's journey==, use ==Journey==.

*Please alphabetize the categories and interlanguage links.

  • This article may need to undergo summary style, where a series of appropriate subpages are used. For example, if the article is United States, than an appropriate subpage would be History of the United States, such that a summary of the subpage exists on the mother article, while the subpage goes into more detail.

*There are a few occurrences of weasel words in this article- please observe WP:AWT. Certain phrases should specify exactly who supports, considers, believes, etc., such a view. For example,

    • it has been
    • allege
    • 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).

*As is done in WP:FOOTNOTE, for footnotes, the footnote should be located right after the punctuation mark, such that there is no space inbetween. For example, change blah blah [2]. to blah blah.[2]

This is a couple of things I've noticed after quickly looking through the article. I'll read it in more detail later and perhaps add more comments. In general it looks like a very good effort. All my complaints are very minor.
1) Is this repetition in the intro: "WHO estimate that AIDS has killed more than 25 million people" and two lines down "current estimates say that about 28 million people have died"?
2) This sentence in the "Introduction" section is confusing: "This viral DNA is then integrated into the cellular DNA for replication using cellular machinery." It could be misread to mean that the DNA is integrated using cellular machinery.
3) This sentence seems redundant: "CD4+ T cells are white blood cells that are required for a properly functioning immune system." In general that paragraph requires revision to reduce repetition.
4) Genetic variability of HIV: subtypes of the M group are commonly referred to as clades, I think you should mention that.
Peter Z.Talk 00:29, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
1) Fixed
2) True, fixed.
3) The whole paragraph, I thought, is redundant, removed.
4) True, the term clade has been introduced.
Thanks --Bob 00:45, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • As Andy suggests, it can be improved by removing excessive links to solitary years. In this article, there is only one unnecessary date link to remove: '1983'. For those that want to address this issue for many articles, a monobook tool allows this to be done with one click on a 'dates' tab in edit mode. You can then accept or reject the changes offered and/or do more editing before pressing 'Save'. Simply copy the entire contents of User:Bobblewik/monobook.js to your own monobook. Then follow the instructions in your monobook to clear the cache (i.e. press Ctrl-Shift-R in Firefox, or Ctrl-F5 in IE) before it will work. bobblewik 17:25, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Done --Bob 22:30, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. You are doing great work. bobblewik 10:02, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Great article! Congrat! I haven't found any faults (I have microbiology exam in two days...). Why are images so small? In my opinion, it can go to FAC. NCurse work 07:46, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Brandon Routh edit

Basically as complete as can be at this point in his career. Seems like it could pass GA. Would like to know on how to improve further. I suppose the intro could be expanded, though there isn't much to summarize beyond a point. Mad Jack 07:27, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program, and may or may not be accurate for the article in question (due to possible javascript errors/uniqueness of articles).
  • Please expand the lead to conform with guidelines at WP:LEAD. The article should have an appropriate number of paragraphs as is shown on WP:LEAD, and should adequately summarize the article.
  • There may be an applicable infobox for this article. For example, see Template:Infobox Biography, Template:Infobox School, or Template:Infobox City. (Note that there might not be an applicable infobox; remember that these suggestions are not generated manually)
  • Per WP:MOSNUM, there should be a non-breaking space - &nbsp; 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.
  • Please alphabetize the categories and/or interlanguage links.
  • This article is a bit too short, and therefore may not be as comprehensive as WP:WIAFA critera 2(b) is looking for. Please see if anything can be expanded upon.
  • 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 15:15, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Bronx edit

Sixth peer review: Today marks my first week in this wonderful district of New York City. Now, I am wondering what I can do with this article the rest of this month.

There must a lot of refecnce material on the area that I have yet to obtain, and maybe I'll take some pictures too.

If there's anything wrong with, or missing in, this page, please tell me and I'll resolve the problem(s) ASAP.

For everyone else wishing to improve it seriously, good luck! --Slgrandson 13:29, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

X-Men: The Last Stand edit

Greetings,

this article is based on the recently released X-Men: The Last Stand film. It's relatively new and thus we are mainly looking for advice concerning things like: the scope, the structure, how should we expand it, etc. (Although any advice is appreciated.) Please keep in mind Good Article and Feature Article criteria when making suggestions. Thank you.--P-Chan 02:17, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

All pictures should have a rationale of fair use written for them. -- Underneath-it-All 02:58, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Good call. A fair-use rationale has been placed into every picture. They will be elaborated on as time goes on. Thanks for your comments! --P-Chan 03:08, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program, and may or may not be accurate for the article in question (due to possible javascript errors/uniqueness of articles).
  • Please expand the lead to conform with guidelines at WP:LEAD. The article should have an appropriate number of paragraphs as is shown on WP:LEAD, and should adequately summarize the article.


  • Looks good! You need to do the following:
  • Break up the trivia section and incorporate it all into the article.
  • expand any one paragraph sections
  • 3 paragraph lead
  • one more plot picture maybe? good job not having a billion pictures, but could use maybe one more.
  • more citations/references
  • copyedit for flow

Do that, you might have an FA on your hands! Judgesurreal777 17:58, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the comments Judgesurreal. It's much appreciated!--P-Chan 06:06, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've taken care of the interlanguage and category links. Cat-five - talk 08:18, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Patras edit

Hey guys, i'm trying to take the Patras Article on the way to world bomis-ation, diamond rings and blings blings ;) oh, and FAC status. I believe it's a good article, what's your opinion? :) I'm trying to get a general feel about the article right now, i'lll probably need a second round once the first is done. Project2501a 10:57, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Some initial suggestions:

  1. The port view would look nicer in the infobox, above the map, or below the infobox. Is there an emblem or coat-of-arms for the city?
  2. Change Etmology to ==Name==
  3. Some more needs to be written on Geography and Demographics.
  4. All notes should be moved down to a ==Notes== section.
  5. Trim the external links in line with Wikipedia:External links, bring the See also section before them.
  6. A subdivision map would be nice.
  7. Remove the dead images
  8. Consider de-list-ifying the Economy section.
  9. Fill out the lead a bit per WP:LEAD.

- FrancisTyers · 11:29, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

will do as soon as i'm out of my SQL class :) thanks! :D Project2501a 12:00, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your interest in the article. I had contributed something but I had run out of ideas on how to improve it. I agree with all your suggestions. I already changed etymology to ==Name==. There is an emblem of the city, I have uploaded it but for some reason I can't make it appear in the infobox. And we have no idea how to fit all emblem, map and port view photos, this has been a problem for sometime now. As for the notes I will ask conudrum if he could do it. --Donnerstag 13:30, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program, and may or may not be accurate for the article in question (due to possible javascript errors/uniqueness of articles).
  • Please expand the lead to conform with guidelines at WP:LEAD. The article should have an appropriate number of paragraphs as is shown on WP:LEAD, and should adequately summarize the article.
  • Per WP:CONTEXT and WP:MOSDATE, months and days of the week generally should not be linked. Years, decades, and centuries can be linked if they provide context for the article.
  • Per WP:MOSNUM, there should be a non-breaking space - &nbsp; between a number and the unit of measurement. For example, instead of 18mm, use 18 mm, which when you are editing the page, should look like: 18&nbsp;mm.
  • Per WP:MOSNUM, please spell out source units of measurements in text; for example, "the Moon is 380,000 kilometres (240,000 mi) from Earth.
  • Per WP:MOS#Headings, headings generally should not repeat the title of the article. For example, if the article was Ferdinand Magellan, instead of using the heading ==Magellan's journey==, use ==Journey==.
  • Please reorder/rename the last few sections to follow guidelines at WP:GTL.
  • 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).

Lot lot lot of work for FAT status or even GA. A few suggestions:

  • Serious prose problems. The use of "and ... and ... and" indicates a lack of variety in terms of expression. A native English speaker must get in and copy-edit.
  • The whole article and especially the section "history" desperately needs citations.
  • The photo captions are poor and inadequate for FAT status. For instance the caption "Cultural capital". What does this mean? How does this caption help me to understand the photo (it doesn't!)?
  • Notes and references must be reorganized. The section "Notes" under modern Patras must go to the end and merge with all the notes of the article. You must also decide if you want two sections (Notes and References) or one with references. The present image of the article (notes in the middle, references at the end and sources) is confusing.
  • External links are usually after references and notes.
  • Linking to External links is awful and inconsistent, but this is something already mentioned.
  • Is it possible that the "See also" section gets a bit richer? Something more about Peloponnese, Greece, etc?
  • The economy section is too poor. Elaborate on that. Patras is one of the biggest harbors of Europe. Find more information about economy and business in Patras.
  • Almost nothing mentioned concerning the transports. And what about the port?
  • The section concerning the European Capital of Culture 2006 is too poor, since it contains information just from one source (The Selection Panel for 2006). More citations, sources and photos needed.
  • Something about all the great Greek politicians coming from Patras (Stefanopoulos, Gounaris) or being connected with Patras (Papandreou)?
  • The Press section is also poor. A FA article's section cannot consist of two lines. Something more about the history of Patras' press.
  • In general, the article is promising and I would be happy to see an article for a Greek city FAT. But it must first abide with basic WP rules, in order to get GA and eventually FAT.--Yannismarou 14:22, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • It can be improved by reducing links to solitary years. A monobook tool allows this to be done with one click on a 'dates' tab in edit mode. You can then accept or reject the changes offered and/or do more editing before pressing 'Save'. Simply copy the entire contents of User:Bobblewik/monobook.js to your own monobook. Then follow the instructions in your monobook to clear the cache (i.e. press Ctrl-Shift-R in Firefox, or Ctrl-F5 in IE) before it will work. Hope that helps. bobblewik 22:27, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Research into health benefits of Falun Gong edit

This article has been nominated for deletion. The only path to avoid this seems to be a peer review since many of the regular editors are completely out of their spheres on knowledge with the technical aspects of this topic. Any help to summarize the findings would be appreciated. CovenantD 14:18, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Johnny Cash edit

This is a former Featured Article that has suffered from some bloat and serious list-itis. I have delegated most of the list out of the page. It should be easy now to get this back to Featured Article status. It has already had its turn on the Main Page. -- TechsMechs 00:24, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Macedonia (terminology) edit

Quite a feat, an article on Macedonia that isn't disputed. All sides have been working on this for a while and would like to make it a Featured list or Featured article. Any suggestions would be gratefully received. - FrancisTyers · 13:25, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • It can be improved by reducing links to solitary years. A monobook tool allows this to be done with one click on a 'dates' tab in edit mode. You can then accept or reject the changes offered and/or do more editing before pressing 'Save'. Simply copy the entire contents of User:Bobblewik/monobook.js to your own monobook. Then follow the instructions in your monobook to clear the cache (i.e. press Ctrl-Shift-R in Firefox, or Ctrl-F5 in IE) before it will work. Hope that helps. bobblewik 19:30, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If there's no further improvements we can make, sounds good to me, - FrancisTyers · 19:10, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, its been here for two weeks, I'll list it, and we go on from there... :NikoSilver: 21:06, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Khan Wali Khan edit

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

Zastava Koral edit

While it has been troubled, it is now a good looking article, and I would like to get it featured sometime. Karrmann 00:21, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Try using the citation templates, ie Template:Cite web instead of directly entering it, these templates make referencing a far lot neater. Also consider fitting the lists into prose. Lists are generally frowned upon by the wikipedia community. MyNameIsNotBob 04:15, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for mentioning the {{Cite web}}, Adrian! I guess I need to prepare some boilerplate text on that... Anyway, here I go:
  • The whole name of the article is questionable. Zastava has only recently started calling this model "Koral" AFAIK (I guess after the war), so this is not the vehicle's ORIGINAL name, per the convention adopted for automotive articles. I remember this vehicle being referred to Yugo/Jugo 45 the earliest I can remember, even the Serbian Wikipedia entry is "Jugo" (though it is in cyrillic script and I can't tell much...). EDIT: Hrvatska Wikipedija (latin script) also seems to list Yugo 45 etc. as model names in Wikipedia)
    On the other hand, calling this article "Yugo 45" might be a bit misleading, while "Yugo" or "Zastava Yugo" would be too broad. Several sources list the original name of this model as Zastava 102, so perhaps it would be a good name for the article then.
  • An overwhelming majority of sources argue that the mechanicals for this car come from Fiat 127 and not Fiat 128, which was the basis for earlier Zastavas. Also the Autobianchi claim needs to be backed by some very good reference - I have never heard of it, and the model looks just like the Fiat 127 (and not the A112).
  • The article in general is a hodgepodge of various Yugo-related stuff, which is why I find it so hard to review in a consistent format. There is a portion of (Crvena) Zastava's history, which does not belong there, but in the Zastava page, a "criticism and response" section which does not belong in WP at all, as well as an absolutely horrendous "trivia" section. The Pop culture section could be so much better arranged - in particular, Drowning Mona deserve a more comprehensive description (not of the movie itself, but of the Yugo cars theme).
  • I remember the Koral cabrios sold in Poland had a rear seat, was there ever a Yugo roadster? Anyway, we don't list every cabrio without a rear seat as a roadster, I believe this claim is humorous at best.
  • I don't know of any Zastavas being sold in Poland at the moment. I think exports to Poland ceased in 1999 and were never resumed.
  • The paragraph on NATO bombings does not seem very credible to me, the killings themselves are not referenced, and the source quoted for the above line is quite questionable POV stuff. Zastava article itself contradicts this report. Even the Zastava article or Serbian Wikipedia (I have asked a Cyrillic-fluent member of my family for help) does not pose such claims!
  • The article is too much focused on the US market and does not say too much about Yugo history sales in the domestic market, as well as other international markets.
  • Overall - there's a WHOLE LOT to do...
I wasn't overly helpful, was I? ;) Bravada, talk - 08:52, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well overall there article is well written and featrues sufficient references and I do like the fact that the culutral aspects of the Yugo were covered. While the article certainly isn't bad, there are a couple of things that I would change before nominating it for FA status:

  • The "Model names covered" section is quite difficult to read, I think a wikitable would be better here
  • Instead of having a section for "History" and one for "US history," it might be better to have just one "History" section with a "US history" sub-section
  • The Trivia section could be moved to end of the article where it is found in most car articles
  • In the popular culture section you might want to move the TV sub-section to the top and have the short lists at the bottom
  • I would also consider it helpful if the "Notes" and "References" section were merged as this would clarify what sources exactly were used.
  • It would also be helpful if you would review the accuracy of some statments such as "The Zastava Koral (Known around the US and Europe as the Yugo)." While, yes, the car may have been called the Yugo in many western European countires, its "native" country where it was called the "Zastava Koral" is also in Europe

Best Regards, Signaturebrendel 17:36, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • It can be improved by reducing links to solitary years. A monobook tool allows this to be done with one click on a 'dates' tab in edit mode. You can then accept or reject the changes offered and/or do more editing before pressing 'Save'. Simply copy the entire contents of User:Bobblewik/monobook.js to your own monobook. Then follow the instructions in your monobook to clear the cache (i.e. press Ctrl-Shift-R in Firefox, or Ctrl-F5 in IE) before it will work. Hope that helps. bobblewik 19:24, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Elliott Smith edit

This article has seen some vast improvements lately and is really starting to shape up. It recently failed a featured article nomination (here) and we'd like to iron out the kinks and make it worthy. Areas I can see that are in need of critique are:

  • The wording/prose: We need help finding and re-wording the article's more unencyclopedic moments and to squash the last remnants of POV.
  • The references and footnotes: Are they handled well and are they consistent?
  • The "Cultural references" section: Is it too listy? I feel it should be condensed to something more concise.
  • The flow of the article: The lead and biography section may need re-structuring. The biography section could probably have less sub-headings, in my opinion.

Please be honest, but not too brutal. ;) - Phorque (talk · contribs) 20:40, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program, and may or may not be accurate for the article in question (due to possible javascript errors/uniqueness of articles).
  • 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:MOS, avoid using words/phrases that indicate time periods relative to the current day. For example, recently and soon might be terms that should be replaced with specific dates/times.
  • Per WP:WIAFA, Images should have concise captions.
  • If this article is about a person, please add {{persondata}} along with the required parameters to the article - see Wikipedia:Persondata for more information. Done - Phorque 20:05, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Per WP:MOSNUM, there should be a non-breaking space - &nbsp; 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:CONTEXT and WP:BTW, years with full dates should be linked; for example, link January 15, 2006, but do not link January 2006.
  • Per WP:MOS#Headings, headings generally do not start with the word "The". For example, ==The Biography== would be changed to ==Biography==.
  • Per WP:MOS#Headings, headings generally should not repeat the title of the article. For example, if the article was Ferdinand Magellan, instead of using the heading ==Magellan's journey==, use ==Journey==.
  • Please reorder/rename the last few sections to follow guidelines at WP:GTL.
  • Please alphabetize the categories and/or interlanguage links.
  • Per WP:WIAFA, this article's table of contents (ToC) maybe too long- consider shrinking it down by merging short sections or using a proper system of daughter pages as per WP:SS.
  • This article may need to undergo summary style, where a series of appropriate subpages are used. For example, if the article is United States, than an appropriate subpage would be History of the United States, such that a summary of the subpage exists on the mother article, while the subpage goes into more detail.
  • There are a few occurrences of weasel words in this article- please observe WP:AWT. Certain phrases should specify exactly who supports, considers, believes, etc., such a view. For example,
    • allege
    • 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).
  • 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 15:11, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm a bit of a fan of Elliott's, so I'll have a look at the article over the next day or so and see if there are any changes I can either make, or suggest be made. I've read this article before, and found it quite informative and useful, so I'd be happy to help if there's anything that can be done to it. Seb Patrick 18:42, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hmm, interestingly, the article doesn't make any mention of his work on the Thumbsucker soundtrack, which he was supposedly doing at the time of his death. In the end, three songs - "Let's Get Lost" and the two late covers - made it onto the soundtrack, which was completed by the Polyphonic Spree. There's a quote, I think, from the director in the Thumbsucker article, and I think the info might be worth dropping in in either the late career or posthumous sections. Seb Patrick 08:40, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Some more points :
  • I find the biography section fascinating, and pretty comprehensive, but I'm not sure it isn't a bit too long for WP (particularly when you look at the number of headings listed in "contents"). To be honest, I couldn't tell you what should be cut, as it's filled with great stuff, but I think someone with a careful eye needs to pick through it and trim the fat a bit.
  • Is the "Filmography" section really necessary? Given that he wasn't really an actor at all, and there are only three items mentioned, these could surely be sufficiently served by mentions in the main article text.
  • I think "Cultural references" is a misleading header title, since all the things listed are simply tribute songs. I think "Tributes" would perhaps be more appropriate.
  • When discussing his signing to Dreamworks, the phrase "Many a fan cried "sell out" after this deal was signed, suggesting that Smith had turned his back on small labels and the independent music community." I wonder if it might be possible to find a quote to back this up, as some would probably construe this as weasel words, and that's the sort of thing that really gets the FAC people's hackles up. Seb Patrick 08:47, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • It can be improved by reducing links to solitary years. A monobook tool allows this to be done with one click on a 'dates' tab in edit mode. You can then accept or reject the changes offered and/or do more editing before pressing 'Save'. Simply copy the entire contents of User:Bobblewik/monobook.js to your own monobook. Then follow the instructions in your monobook to clear the cache (i.e. press Ctrl-Shift-R in Firefox, or Ctrl-F5 in IE) before it will work. Hope that helps. bobblewik 19:21, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dion Fortune edit

This article has recently been accused of being biased. I am therefore seeking peer review to see if this is justified and if so, or even if not, how the article can be improved.

Morgan Leigh 07:17, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Can you be a bit more clear about the problem? Talk:Dion Fortune is very hard to understand. If the only problem is that someone is objecting to calling The Mystical Qabbalah her "magnum opus", just lose the phrasing or source it to some reliable source that calls it that. Jkelly 03:57, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please see Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-06-21 Dion Fortune for the full explanation of the problem. Part of the problem is user 67.185.57.48 keeps editing the talk page, and not just their own posts but the posts of others as well. I know it is hard to read presently, but because of the nature of 67.185.57.48's edits it is too much work to revert it. i.e. they made 17 edits on one day. Magnum Opus has been changed. I did cite a source for it but it kept getting deleted regardless. The disagreement is about the 'Magical Battle of Britain' section. It is alleged to lack NPOV. Morgan Leigh 04:56, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'll watchlist the article and take a look. Jkelly 05:03, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I really appreciate your efforts. Bear in mind the user in question is banned presently so it might be a few days before they surface again. Morgan Leigh 05:44, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • It can be improved by reducing links to solitary years. A monobook tool allows this to be done with one click on a 'dates' tab in edit mode. You can then accept or reject the changes offered and/or do more editing before pressing 'Save'. Simply copy the entire contents of User:Bobblewik/monobook.js to your own monobook. Then follow the instructions in your monobook to clear the cache (i.e. press Ctrl-Shift-R in Firefox, or Ctrl-F5 in IE) before it will work. Hope that helps. bobblewik 19:30, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Functional programming edit

We would like this to be a Featured Article eventually. Ideogram 22:48, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Plus, it would be helpful to take care of those {{fact}}s scattered throughout the article. Thanks, Andy t 23:42, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • It can be improved by reducing links to solitary years. A monobook tool allows this to be done with one click on a 'dates' tab in edit mode. You can then accept or reject the changes offered and/or do more editing before pressing 'Save'. Simply copy the entire contents of User:Bobblewik/monobook.js to your own monobook. Then follow the instructions in your monobook to clear the cache (i.e. press Ctrl-Shift-R in Firefox, or Ctrl-F5 in IE) before it will work. Hope that helps. bobblewik 19:32, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Programming language edit

We would like this to eventually be a Featured Article. Ideogram 22:43, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • It can be improved by reducing links to solitary years. A monobook tool allows this to be done with one click on a 'dates' tab in edit mode. You can then accept or reject the changes offered and/or do more editing before pressing 'Save'. Simply copy the entire contents of User:Bobblewik/monobook.js to your own monobook. Then follow the instructions in your monobook to clear the cache (i.e. press Ctrl-Shift-R in Firefox, or Ctrl-F5 in IE) before it will work. Hope that helps. bobblewik 19:32, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hannibal edit

This article is very informative and manages to detail the life of one of the most interesting tacticians on Earth in less than 50 Kb. So I was thinking it might be ready for FAC, but before that I would like to hear your comments, is it a tad too long? Does it need anything else? Feel free to express your opinion. Nobleeagle (Talk) 00:05, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is indeed very informative and comprehensive, with great use of images (although personally, I'd alternate the alignment of the images when there are that many, but that's just a personal stylistic point). The prose is a little dense at times, though - there are a lot of long sentences broken up with commas where it's easy to lose the sense a bit, and I think a fresh pair of eyes could do with coming in and trimming a lot of it. At the moment, lots of the paragraphs look interminable and unappealing to the eye. I also found, with a cursory glance, a few sentences that didn't really make sense and where a bit of word substitution is needed - for example, "The only alternate route to central Italy laid at the mouth" (should that be "lay at the mouth"?) and "he cut it to pieces by a surprise attack" ("with a surprise attack"?). I really think it needs a careful eye to get that prose sorted.
The worst problem, though, is references - there are a lot of quotes that just don't state where they come from, and a lot of statements ("considered to be one of the finest military generals in history") that desperately need backing up with some form of citation. It can't possibly get anywhere near FA without at least three or four times the amount of citation it's currently got. I do think, though, that it's a good enough article (in terms of the information contained within) that it's worth spending the time and effort sorting those out. But if there are any quotes that you can't find citation for, you'll have to drop them. Seb Patrick 09:56, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program, and may or may not be accurate for the article in question (due to possible javascript errors/uniqueness of articles).
  • Please expand the lead to conform with guidelines at WP:LEAD. The article should have an appropriate number of paragraphs as is shown on WP:LEAD, and should adequately summarize the article.
  • Per WP:CONTEXT and WP:MOSDATE, months and days of the week generally should not be linked. Years, decades, and centuries can be linked if they provide context for the article.
  • Per WP:MOSNUM, there should be a non-breaking space - &nbsp; 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==.
  • This article does not have any categories. Please categorize it with relevant [[Category:Categories]].
  • This article may need to undergo summary style, where a series of appropriate subpages are used. For example, if the article is United States, than an appropriate subpage would be History of the United States, such that a summary of the subpage exists on the mother article, while the subpage goes into more detail.
  • There are a few occurrences of weasel words in this article- please observe WP:AWT. Certain phrases should specify exactly who supports, considers, believes, etc., such a view. For example,
    • it has been
    • allege
    • is considered
    • might be weasel words, and should be provided with proper citations(if they already do, please strike this comment).
Done. I removed all the weasel words and replaced them as best I could. Aaрон Кинни (t) 19:13, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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]
  • Considering how well-written and detailed the sub-articles about the individual battles are, I feel the amount of information given in the biographical article is a bit over the top. Please consider condensing the information in these sections and leaving the brunt of the battle details to the already existing, high-quality sub-article structure. / Peter Isotalo 10:29, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I hope you don't mind if I strike out some comments as we move along. Nobleeagle (Talk) 23:27, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Could you please take another look, I've tried to source all the unsourced quotes. Nobleeagle (Talk) 23:47, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restructure. The battles were noteable, but a biography does not consist of three battles, even more so when the Second Punic War is almost identical in its main content. We should integrate more biographic material from Livy about his childhood and teenage years and from Appian and Polybius about his time as an old man. Additional info may be provided by highlightening his family connections (brothers, sisters, brothers-in-law) and the experience he faced during his lifetime such as Carthage's defeat and the trial on his father, the Mercenary War and death of his father and (what is disputed to be his uncle or brother-in-law; most scholars tend towards the later) assassination of Hasdrubal the Fair(We may mention his fear of assassination and his disguise during the time in Gallia cisalpina, noted by Polybius and Livy). the conflicts between Maharbal and Hannibal should be included, such as the famous Maharbal quote (Livy) and the dispute of authority for surrender terms (Polybius). For the pro-dictator Fabius and Hannibal there is an exchange of POW mentioned in Livy, this may help to highlight their relationship. Furthermore we definetly should reflect the ongoing debate about the Iberus treaty (most scholars today agree that it was definetly not the Ebro, the Segura is one of the disputed candidates) and we should reflect the dispute in what way this treaty was binding for Hannibal as research has pointed out that it was likely a berit(A legal form that is basically a declaration of intent that could become binding if officially sanctioned by the state but otherwise expired with the end of the declarers term of office). We may make Hannibal and his attitude towards the Romans an own chapter, quoting the oath story and Frontinus, Livy and Polybius on the later encounters of Hannibal and Roman emabssies. A list of towns founded or reestablished by Hannibal (such as Barcelona and the Armenian capital) might also be of interest. Wandalstouring 21:35, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

previous PR

Rugby union in New Zealand edit

Hi, if people could have a look over this article please, it was both New Zealand and Rugby union collaboration. --Midnighttonight 05:14, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program, and may or may not be accurate for the article in question (due to possible javascript errors/uniqueness of articles).
  • Please expand the lead to conform with guidelines at WP:LEAD. The article should have an appropriate number of paragraphs as is shown on WP:LEAD, and should adequately summarize the article.
  • Per WP:CONTEXT and WP:MOSDATE, 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: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.
  • See if possible if there is a free use image that can go on the top right corner of this article.
  • There may be an applicable infobox for this article. For example, see Template:Infobox Biography, Template:Infobox School, or Template:Infobox City. (Note that there might not be an applicable infobox; remember that these suggestions are not generated manually)
  • Per WP:MOSNUM, there should be a non-breaking space - &nbsp; 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.
  • 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).
  • 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 01:07, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • It can be improved by reducing links to solitary years. A monobook tool allows this to be done with one click on a 'dates' tab in edit mode. You can then accept or reject the changes offered and/or do more editing before pressing 'Save'. Simply copy the entire contents of User:Bobblewik/monobook.js to your own monobook. Then follow the instructions in your monobook to clear the cache (i.e. press Ctrl-Shift-R in Firefox, or Ctrl-F5 in IE) before it will work. Hope that helps. bobblewik 19:19, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cars (film) edit

This article is currently a nominee for FA, but isn't getting any support. Please review the article and post the problems and suggestions on how to fix them. KdogDS 23:20, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program, and may or may not be accurate for the article in question (due to possible javascript errors/uniqueness of articles).
  • Per WP:CONTEXT and WP:MOSDATE, months and days of the week generally should not be linked. Years, decades, and centuries can be linked if they provide context for the article.
  • Per WP:MOSNUM, there should be a non-breaking space - &nbsp; between a number and the unit of measurement. For example, instead of 18mm, use 18 mm, which when you are editing the page, should look like: 18&nbsp;mm.
  • Per WP:MOSNUM, 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.
  • As per WP:MOSDATE, dates shouldn't use th; for example, instead of using January 30th was a great day, use January 30 was a great day.
  • Generally, trivia sections are looked down upon; please either remove the trivia section or incorporate any important facts into the rest of the article.
  • Please reorder/rename the last few sections to follow guidelines at WP:GTL.
  • Please alphabetize the categories and/or interlanguage links.
  • As is done in WP:FOOTNOTE, for footnotes, the footnote should be located right after the punctuation mark, such that there is no space inbetween. For example, change blah blah [2]. to blah blah.[2]
  • Please ensure that the article has gone through a thorough copyediting so that the it exemplifies some of Wikipedia's best work. See also User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 2a.
  • You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions (and the javascript checklist; see the last paragraph in the lead) for further ideas.
  • Thanks, Andy t 15:14, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • It can be improved by reducing links to solitary years. A monobook tool allows this to be done with one click on a 'dates' tab in edit mode. You can then accept or reject the changes offered and/or do more editing before pressing 'Save'. Simply copy the entire contents of User:Bobblewik/monobook.js to your own monobook. Then follow the instructions in your monobook to clear the cache (i.e. press Ctrl-Shift-R in Firefox, or Ctrl-F5 in IE) before it will work. Hope that helps. bobblewik 19:23, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Colombo edit

This article has been changed significantly reasontly, I have strucutred the article after Seattle, Washington featured article. Needs to be peer reviewed. I want to know

  • whether it covers all the required sections?
  • Anything else that needs to be included?
  • Does it have enough images?
  • I have some great 19th century historcal images would it be too much?
  • I think grammar could be improved, could you help?

Thanks  «₪Mÿš†íc₪»  (T) 15:02, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • It can be improved by reducing links to solitary years. A monobook tool allows this to be done with one click on a 'dates' tab in edit mode. You can then accept or reject the changes offered and/or do more editing before pressing 'Save'. Simply copy the entire contents of User:Bobblewik/monobook.js to your own monobook. Then follow the instructions in your monobook to clear the cache (i.e. press Ctrl-Shift-R in Firefox, or Ctrl-F5 in IE) before it will work. Hope that helps. bobblewik 19:28, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

New Peer review request
After the last peer review it seems this article has changed drastically what else could be improved to make it to he featured article status? Please respond ŇëŧΜǒńğëŗTalk 10:49, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Perhaps the old peer review should be archived (see instructions above, though it might require admin tools now)? Then again, it would not really be that necessary. APR t 21:23, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • For featured article status, the article will need a lot more footnotes (nowadays, the bar seems to be at least 15, depending upon the subject of the article). Naturally, print references would be preferred.
    • Undoubtedly the most popular sport in Sri Lanka is cricket. Undoubtedly a footnote would be necessary.
    • Numbers generally need citations, like in "Geography and climate".
  • I would suggest expanding the two paragraphs of the WP:LEAD, neither of which extends beyond 2 sentences. In fact, they pretty much can be combined, and a separate paragraph can summarize other topics below.
  • "Official Vision and mission" is a stub section. Remove the two subheadings, unless you plan on expanding them. WP:MSH suggests that 'Vision' -> 'vision'. Btw, both quotes need citations.
  • Needs a spell-check: meanining, coast line, liase (?), south east, North-East, jewellery
  • Some odd comma usage which hampers readability. The north and the south parts of the city are hilly and the east, and south east areas are bordered by marshy land.
  • See WP:DASH; replace hyphens indicate ranges w/ endashes. (ex: March – April)
  • MOS:NUM : Missing conversions b/w the metric and US systems and &nbsp; (non-breaking spaces). See Rainfall in the city averages around 2,400 mm a year.
  • Mistakes and typos regarding the position of the footnote in terms of the period. It should follow the period, w/o a space (not [1] . or .[2].). User:Gimmetrow's User:Gimmetrow/fixRefs.js fixes this w/ a click (it is also included in the PR script).
  • There are scattered grammatical problems.
    • Sri Lankan masterpieces at the Art Gallery wrong preposition
    • for two of the country's international cricket stadiums, Sinhalese Sports Club The club is not a stadium.
  • See WP:LAYOUT about the last couple of sections.
  • My overall suggestion would be to start by first resolving the simpler style problems (WP:MOS, WP:GTL), and then increasing the level of content (as there are several stubby sections, and the WP:LEAD is skimpy) while carefully citing sources. Finally work on fixing the grammar and making the prose brilliant. Best of luck, APR t 22:26, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]


In addition to the suggestions mentioned above, I would suggest expanding the history section. The Dutch and British eras are somewhat sparse, and don't really provide that much information that someone who is completely unfamiliar with the history of Colombo, like me, would benefit from reading. Oaxaca dan 04:30, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Horace Mann School edit

General feedback requested. Thanks. -- Wikipedical 02:40, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The prose throughout this article is extremely difficult to follow. It stops and starts and is all round difficult to understand. The article lacks references, particularly in the "History" section, which is where you would expect the most. Otherwise, the scope is fairly comprehensive. MyNameIsNotBob 04:11, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Have a look at the high school entries under WP:FA#Education to see what the bar for featured school articles is set at. For this US private school, Hopkins School and Stuyvesant High School are likely most relevant. Harro5 09:03, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • It can be improved by reducing links to solitary years. A monobook tool allows this to be done with one click on a 'dates' tab in edit mode. You can then accept or reject the changes offered and/or do more editing before pressing 'Save'. Simply copy the entire contents of User:Bobblewik/monobook.js to your own monobook. Then follow the instructions in your monobook to clear the cache (i.e. press Ctrl-Shift-R in Firefox, or Ctrl-F5 in IE) before it will work. Hope that helps. bobblewik 19:25, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Barry Goldwater edit

I'm not personally involved in this article, but I find it to be rather high quality, informative, thorough, and NPOV. I think it is a good WP:FAC, and the first step to that is to get a PR. I hope the regular contributors take this as a compliment and not an intrusion. - Keith D. Tyler (AMA) 22:26, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • It can be improved by reducing links to solitary years. A monobook tool allows this to be done with one click on a 'dates' tab in edit mode. You can then accept or reject the changes offered and/or do more editing before pressing 'Save'. Simply copy the entire contents of User:Bobblewik/monobook.js to your own monobook. Then follow the instructions in your monobook to clear the cache (i.e. press Ctrl-Shift-R in Firefox, or Ctrl-F5 in IE) before it will work. Hope that helps. bobblewik 19:30, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Boxing edit

The boxing article is very long and was completely unreferenced until I spent some time on it. It is still poorly written and the sub sections are jumbled. The section explaining different punches and defense is pretty good and the history of olympic and professional boxing is readable. The rest of the article however needs serious attention, esp. the modern history of boxing which is a string of random sentences. Andman8 22:20, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • It can be improved by reducing links to solitary years. A monobook tool allows this to be done with one click on a 'dates' tab in edit mode. You can then accept or reject the changes offered and/or do more editing before pressing 'Save'. Simply copy the entire contents of User:Bobblewik/monobook.js to your own monobook. Follow the instructions in your monobook to clear the cache (i.e. press Ctrl-Shift-R in Firefox, or Ctrl-F5 in IE) before it will work. Hope that helps. bobblewik 16:54, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Charizard edit

Archive of previous Peer Review

  • Failed another FAC for neither here nor there reasons, mostly minor cleanup, and I'd liked some good editors to help with the problems, without mentioning reliable referencing. Cheers, Highway Daytrippers 12:13, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Why do you continue to misrepresent the situation? This has failed four FAC's. How do you think you are going to get different answers here? People have already pointed out the article's problems, why should they do so again? WP:V is non negotiable policy. What value is a peer review where you don't want people to mention the article's biggest problem, and one of the major reasons it failed the last FAC? Why not work on articles that do have reliable sources instead of trying to fit a square peg in a round hole? - Taxman Talk 14:42, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm trying to help the improve on the other issues with the prose, which is what Raul failed the article on. Are you going to be constructive, or keep Charizard-bashing? Highway Daytrippers 22:15, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
How do you know the exact reason for why Raul failed the latest nomination? Has he made any comments about it?
Peter Isotalo 14:30, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. Nifboy 18:43, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
For those who haven't clicked the link, Raul said "So, to put it bluntly - I'm not sure." and called it a corner case. I would be more careful about using such an open-ended statement as an argument...
And I agree completely with Taxman's description of the dispute. The objections are being misrepresented and the nominator is doing his best to make this more personal than it is. The objectors have been trying to voice serious concerns about important interpretations of WP:V and most of the replies have been generally just been "You just hate Pokémon!" instead of any honest attempts to take the objections seriously. Not even attempts to compromise... I can't stress enough that getting so emotionally involved is unlikely to be beneficial to anyone.
Peter Isotalo 08:24, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Like I asked, are there anyways to improve the text of the article, which is what I'm addressing. Highway Daytrippers 09:52, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well, I tried suggesting two minor and rather reasonable improvements[9], but as with referencing, you don't seem to be to eager on receiving advice that differs with your personal opinion. Good luck loving this thing to death... / Peter Isotalo 10:13, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I would happily accept adivce. The references just don't exist. Highway Daytrippers 10:30, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Compensating the lack of academic citations with irrelevant trivia references will not solve the problem.[10] The dictionary definitions have nothing to do with the statement. It's pure footnote padding. It's like saying we have to have a citation for the statement that Charizard is a fictional character or, in fact, a Pokémon. And does he really look like a European dragon...? Why, that's just your opinion. Citation! (See what I'm getting at?)
        • The insistance of keeping a "fictional stance" is also inexplicable and seems more protective than rational. Comparing one piece of fiction with another is not a problem. You don't need to weasel out of anything by adding an awkward "style" after a cultural reference. / Peter Isotalo 14:44, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • I cleaned up that section, the only reason the style was re-added was because you had changed the pluralization. Highway Daytrippers 14:57, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, Ruhrfisch 15:34, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Notre Dame football edit

Please look at this to eliminate alumni bias and give comments to make to a proper Featured Article candidate. -- KelleyCook 19:11, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • It can be improved by reducing links to solitary years. A monobook tool allows this to be done with one click on a 'dates' tab in edit mode. You can then accept or reject the changes offered and/or do more editing before pressing 'Save'. Simply copy the entire contents of User:Bobblewik/monobook.js to your own monobook. Then follow the instructions in your monobook to clear the cache (i.e. press Ctrl-Shift-R in Firefox, or Ctrl-F5 in IE) before it will work. Hope that helps. bobblewik 19:35, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is an obvious pro-Notre Dame POV tone that the article takes, which may be best addressed by doing something like asking for contributors from rival schools. Also, please see WP:CITE as there is a lack of citations for specifics and a sum total of four sources for the article. I also question the Fair-Use rationale on the Fighting Leprechaun image where it is cited as fair use under image criticism where it should probably be fair use under "to illustrate the organization, item, or event in question." Lastly, on the subject of images, there are no pictures of current/former coaches and notable players, no pictures of the stadium and no pictures other than 3 fair-use logos... get some pictures. --Vengeful Cynic 13:47, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Night of the Living Dead edit

This article has been expanded greatly to make it more comprehensive. Please comment on any issues at all that could potentially prevent it becoming featured, no matter how minor. Thanks. Dmoon1 23:44, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, Andy t 15:23, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Automated Peer Review posted below: 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: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.
    • Recently refers to "recently deceased" in the film, another term for the soon-to-be living dead. Dmoon1 02:08, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Per WP:MOSNUM, there should be a non-breaking space - &nbsp; 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:CONTEXT and WP:BTW, years with full dates should be linked; for example, link January 15, 2006, but do not link January 2006.
    • Found no instances where this was linked incorrectly. Dmoon1 02:08, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please alphabetize the categories and/or interlanguage links.
  • 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.
  • 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 15:08, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks for generating this semi-automatic peer review. Dmoon1 02:08, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The first paragraph of the reception really should be part of the production section, as it deals with the distribution. As well, you may want to get someone to copyedit it.--P-Chan 18:22, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Only half the first paragraph deals with the search for a distributor. The remaining paragraph details distribution in a similar manner as other FA film articles. It's still in the copy-edit process. Thanks for looking at it. If you think of anything else, please let me know. Dmoon1 19:21, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If that's the case, which it is, then you should probably incorporate the first half of the paragraph into the production section, and leave the rest in with the reception. --P-Chan 04:42, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I was hesitant to move the information, thinking it might break the flow or something, but I followed your suggestion. I think it looks better. What do you think? Dmoon1 05:19, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Looks great! :)--P-Chan 04:06, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks to Andy t and P-Chan. Is there anything else that needs to be done??? Dmoon1 02:26, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Cleanup If I were you, I'd submit it to the Clean-up board now. (It takes a while to get results). Write in your request that you are looking to get the prose up to an FA level. Cheers.--P-Chan 06:25, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Will do. Hope the prose isn't THAT bad. Dmoon1 06:40, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Princess Peach edit

Acheived GA status a few months ago, and I'm hoping to maybe elevate to FA status in the future. Cheers, Highway Rainbow Sneakers 20:33, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • If you're going for featured status, you have got to find better sources. The nintendo instruction booklet and the nintendo.com refs are probably okay, but PeachParadise.com is a personal website, and the Nintendoland.com article is just pathetic. To quote from the lead paragraph: "...in Super Mario Brother 2 she proved that she could take care of her problems herself and was if you ask me, the best character of choose. In Super Marsio RPG she joins Mario and the other in their fight against the mysterious Smithys and ..." and beyond the grammar and spelling, actually contains false info (see "Quote #1 at the bottom"; it was not supposed to be Peach saying "our Princess is in another castle"). And Gamefaqs can be submitted by anyone, so they aren't reliable either (also, you can't link to them, which is annoying). I know that online resources are limited, so I don't envy you trying to fix this. I'm sure that Nintendo Power issues would contain some good references, though, but they might be kind of hard to dig up. An extensive library would have them, but I bet a lot of libraries wouldn't have subscriptions... Mangojuicetalk 00:17, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, Andy t 01:10, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I feel the need to point out 14 uses of the word "also." Nifboy 05:16, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Number 1's (Mariah Carey album) edit

I've recently expanded this article on a Mariah Carey compilation album, and I was wondering whether anybody here had any ideas on how it could be improved upon its current state. I was surprised by how much I was able to write as it's a compilation album, so I'd like to know if it is a little too detailed. Also, my eyes have glazed over, I'm sure I'm not seeing errors and I'm starting to second-guess the prose, so I really think a set of fresh eyes should look at this article. Outside opinions would be extremely helpful and much appreciated, particularly as I've briefly toyed with the idea of taking it to WP:FAC. Thanks. Extraordinary Machine 13:53, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • The intro is confusing. It states that the album consists of 13 singles which hit number one, and then goes on to mention that some of the songs were later released as singles! Upon reading further it would seem that the album (rather curiously given its title) actually included some new songs too. Please fix the intro to reflect this. That said, I've got about half way through so far and it's - at first glance - well written and informative. --kingboyk 14:19, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • See what I mean? :) I've edited it to say the album is primarily comprised of the number-one singles. Thanks a lot. Extraordinary Machine 23:21, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yeah, you're right that the "higher than expected sales" statement in the lead should have been sourced. I've added a citation. Thanks for noticing that (and also the "is comprised of" gaffe :)). Extraordinary Machine 14:36, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, Andy t 15:43, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Wow, I didn't know javascripts could be written for peer reviews. I looked at user:Tony1's help pages and went through the article again to tighten the prose (mostly just removing redundancies and additives, of which I'm ashamed to say there were a few), but like I said above I don't think my eyes are seeing the things they should be. Thanks for the tips. Extraordinary Machine 23:21, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is remarkable that there is this much to say about a compilation album. I'd recommend letting it sit for a week, and then reading it aloud. There are some spots where the phrasing could use a little polishing (I made an edit that probably needs fixing, actually, to remove a particularly repetitive clause). So much of this article is made up of simple declarative sentences that it gets a little monotonous. In "Critical reception" we begin well, with a more interesting opening sentence, but then we have:
    • Erlewine also said...
    • Entertainment Weekly said...
    • Amy Linden of LAUNCHcast commented...
    • Slightly different structure -- #1's received a 1/10 rating in Britain's NME magazine, and its critic wrote...
    • Slant magazine in 2001 called...
There's nothing wrong with any one of these sentences, but rearranging the sentence structure more often would reduce the feeling of reading a list in prose. The only other comment that I have is that there could be a little more of telling the reader what you're about to tell them. I don't know what the connection between the second and third paragraphs of "Compiling of singles" is. An extra sentence leading the reader more gently to the new topic would be helpful. "Chart performance" could use an introductory sentence (or even two) that sums up the rest of that section. "New material" does a good job of this -- the paragraphs introduce themselves more gently. Finally, we spend a lot of time on "When You Believe". Perhaps slightly too much -- there's some back-and-forth between the different participants that may get into a level of detail that would make more sense in the article about the song. All of that said, this should be ready for WP:FAC soon; it is hard to imagine a better article about a ("not a") Greatest Hits album. Jkelly 00:05, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think it is good, solid article, proof that one can be written on even the smallest of topics. The one thing that jumped out at me was the quote from a college paper, The Daily Cougar as an assessment of sales would sound more authoritative from Billboard or The New York Times. But as it stands now, I'd vote for FA status. Good work, Extraordinary. PedanticallySpeaking 13:42, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

David Lynch edit

Brilliant filmmaker, but the article on him seems to be a little messy right now. Any suggestions on how to improve it? (Ibaranoff24 06:06, 30 June 2006 (UTC))[reply]

  • Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, Andy t 16:30, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do try Andy's stuff ^^ - it's a good exercise for making you think about the article, even when the automated comments aren't directly relevant. Other than that, here are my thoughts. Most of the prose content is in the career section. Probably a good idea to expand some of the others, probably by moving material around, although possibly by adding new material as well. For example:
-The first section of 'career' isn't about career at all, it covers Lynch's childhood. Perhaps combine that para with 'Family Life' and beef it up a bit to give a brief overview of his family life (like first section of Damon Hill). You could move the 'Finnish Grandparents' thing here from the 'Trivia section'.
-Influences ought to be an important section, but the content is very brief at present. The first para ('Oscar Kokoschka') from 'other interests' could be moved to here, as it is about an influence and is not an 'other interest'! Possibly the 'Wizard of Oz' as well, from the same section, but you perhaps ought to check whether it really is an influence. There must be other stuff on Lynch's influences out there (in the refs perhaps?), but you'd have to do a bit more research to find it.
-There are a couple of awards mentioned in the section 'Lost Highway....' that aren't mentioned in the 'Awards and Honors' section - they should be.
-Move the trivia stuff into the relevant sections, or if you can't find a home for it then lose it. Two bits in particular might form the nucleus of new sections: The para starting 'Certains images or types of images....' should go in a section called something like 'Directorial style' (that's not a very good name, but you see what I mean?). The para starting 'Film critic Roger Ebert....' should go in a section called something like 'Critical response'. There are some other bits scattered through 'Career' that could be put in such a section too.
-Maybe have a look at some of the 'Media' or 'Art, Architecture and Archaeology' Featured articles for other ideas for layout. I couldn't see any Film Director FAs at a quick glance.

Hope this is helpful! 4u1e 07:19, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

X&Y edit

Even though this is an album article, it is very thorough, well sourced, and structured nicely. But it could still use some tweaking.--Esprit15d 14:08, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I didn't write this article. I contributed very little to it in fact. :) (I started reading a lot of "you's" that I don't deserve).--Esprit15d 15:04, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've added a few {{fact}} tags. I don't doubt that what you say is correct, but our very best articles should state their sources so that they can be verified. The reader shouldn't have to take your word for it. --kingboyk 14:20, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Per WP:LEAD the lead section should be a summary/overview. You mention facts and figures in your intro which you don't mention elsewhere. It might be a good idea to refine the lead somewhat and add a new section header just below the intro with more detailed information about the album's history. --kingboyk 14:25, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program, and may or may not be accurate for the article in question (due to possible javascript errors/uniqueness of articles).
  • Please expand the lead to conform with guidelines at WP:LEAD. The article should have an appropriate number of paragraphs as is shown on WP:LEAD, and should adequately summarize the article.
  • Per WP:MOSNUM, there should be a non-breaking space - &nbsp; 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.
  • Please provide WP:CITE information for references/footnotes. See also WP:CITE/ES; templates like {{Cite web}} and {{Cite book}} may be useful here.
  • 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 15:33, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • It can be improved by removing excessive links to non-full dates. In this article, there are only two to remove: 'June 2005' and '1970s'. For those that want to address this issue for many articles, a monobook tool allows this to be done with one click on a 'dates' tab in edit mode. You can then accept or reject the changes offered and/or do more editing before pressing 'Save'. Simply copy the entire contents of User:Bobblewik/monobook.js to your own monobook. Then follow the instructions in your monobook to clear the cache (i.e. press Ctrl-Shift-R in Firefox, or Ctrl-F5 in IE) before it will work. Hope that helps. bobblewik 10:16, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • If you already have something in your monobook, will it still work?--Esprit15d 17:15, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, your other code should still work. bobblewik 22:00, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Here goes:

  • It seems to me as though there is excessive linking in the lead paragraph. I'm not sure that they are all absolutely necessary.
  • There is alot of information about the singles in the lead paragraph, perhaps the article would be better served by putting them in a section of their own. More information about the other singles could be added then.
  • A section or link about the 05-06 "Twisted logic" tour may be appropriate
  • The influences section needs sources, otherwise it just sounds like mere opinions
  • Is the copy control comment in the leader necessary? If not, it may be better served in another paragraph.
  • In that vein, maybe a paragraph with more general information about the CD and band at the time would be good - that could also contain the copy control information. Perhaps even a link about why it was needed in some regions and not others (though I didn't know the copy control was only for some) - we probably need a source for that.

Hope that helps -- Jaems 07:06, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My thoughts:

  • The article is excessively short, to the point it skips critical details.
  • The article doesn't talk about the album in comparison to other studio albums by Coldplay.
  • Some general details about who plays on the album, what instruments play and the sound of the album is missing. This information should be kept concise but should still probably be there (at least in part).
  • The copy control message could probably be better placed.
  • Specific criticisms of the album should be briefly outlined. (This includes both negative and positive criticisms).

On the other hand, I liked the explanation of the cover art — I always wondered about what it was.

Cedars 01:07, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Maraba Coffee edit

I am the author of this article, and am interested in eventually getting it to Featured status. Any pointers on things to be improved gratefully received! This is my first time at Peer Review. Cheers, — SteveRwanda 12:32, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • It can be improved by reducing links to solitary years. A monobook tool allows this to be done with one click on a 'dates' tab in edit mode. You can then accept or reject the changes offered and/or do more editing before pressing 'Save'. Simply copy the entire contents of User:Bobblewik/monobook.js to your own monobook. Then follow the instructions in your monobook to clear the cache (i.e. press Ctrl-Shift-R in Firefox, or Ctrl-F5 in IE) before it will work. Hope that helps. bobblewik 19:30, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'll try to give it a more thorough looking over later, but shouldn't the "Coffee Beer" section be under "History", rather than tacked onto the end? - BT 20:33, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Maybe you're right. I wasn't too sure about that when I wrote it. I put it into a separate section since it seemed like a notable feature of the product in its own right, plus the article was threatening to be all history and nothing else. I'll put it into history if you think that's better though. — SteveRwanda 09:12, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
OK, here's the promised review in terse form. The summary is "quantify, define and tighten". You may adopt the points below as you see fit:
  1. In the lead, is "ethical company" a defined term or is this your opinion of them? If the latter, please reword.
    • The term came from one of the sources I used as references, but I don't think it's a defined term so I've removed it. SteveRwanda 13:16, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Also, there should not be any redlinks in the main body of the text, and especially not the lead.
  3. "vastly improved the lives of growers" is fuzzy. All the effects you describe seem to be economic, as opposed to emotional or spiritual, so numbers on increase in, preferably, per capita income would be useful.
  4. In the History section, please spell out acronyms on first use, e.g. UNR and link as appropriate
  5. Some continuity issues within History in the way that the discrete events are not presented in context of each other - did Community only make one purchase? If so, why did they not create a relationship?
  6. On a similar vein, I would think that two subsections under history "International Acceptance" and "Independence", with Coffee Beer being folded into Independence, would be a logical way to present the development of the cooperative, as well as getting rid of two entries in the TOC.
  7. What does calcium carbonate do for coffee? Calcium carbonate doesn't seem to say.
  8. You have an orphaned ref at the end of the International Acceptance section.
  9. I find sentences like "Maraba coffee continues to thrive, with more interest being generated" almost meaningless and verging on a peacock sentence. Quantification of increased production and market penetration, or projections thereof, would be much preferable.
  10. Is it a popular brand in Rwanda? How much of the market does it take up? Is it exported regionally or only to the UK?
  11. How much of Production cycle is general and how much is specific to Maraba? Detailed processes that are general should be in the general coffee processing article, while those that are unusual in the context of cooperatives or Rwandan coffee growers should be highlighted.
  12. The wording is loose in places, in particular in the use of passive voice. For example, "The cherries are picked by hand by the farmers on a daily basis, and carried in traditional baskets made from banana leaves to the washing station." vs "Every day farmers pick the cherries by hand and carry them to the washing station in traditional baskets woven from banana leaves." Please do a scan to seek and destroy passive voice, as well as the use of unnecessary adjectives or subjective language, e.g. "...after working hard tending the bushes all day" vs "...after tending the bushes all day". - BT 14:51, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The lead section has been expanded to three paragraphs as per the automated advice and WP:LEAD. It may need some more tinkering but is intended as a 3 paragraph summary of everything in the article. — SteveRwanda 14:35, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jehovah's Witnesses edit

This article has made great strides in the last 6 months. It has gone from a virtually unreferenced POV edit war to a fairly stable, interesting article, and it has gained many references in the meantime. Having worked closely on it, it would be interesting to get some outside perspectives on how I can make this article great. I look forward to responding to any comments made here, and I will be monitoring this review closely for everyone's comments. I thank you in advance for your criticisms. joshbuddytalk 21:49, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • I've posted some feedback on the article's talk page. BenC7

National Collegiate Athletic Association (Philippines) edit

The problems in this article seems to be grammar and style. If anyone catches bad grammar and/or style, please also add a suggested replacement, if possible. Note that you can also spot other mistakes. The original nominator seems to have gone away, and since this is very near WP:FA standard, anyone who's an expert in grammar will greatly help. --Howard the Duck 10:03, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • It can be improved by reducing links to solitary years. A monobook tool allows this to be done with one click on a 'dates' tab in edit mode. You can then accept or reject the changes offered and/or do more editing before pressing 'Save'. Simply copy the entire contents of User:Bobblewik/monobook.js to your own monobook. Follow the instructions in your monobook to clear the cache (i.e. press Ctrl-Shift-R in Firefox, or Ctrl-F5 in IE) before it will work. Hope that helps. bobblewik 16:55, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, it has been reverted and I'm now confused. However, I'll contend that 1924 is to be linked for it was the year the organization was founded. --Howard the Duck 11:02, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The revert gave no reason. Just undo the revert and it will be fine. Regards. bobblewik 14:35, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'd be removing the link on 1980s only. --Howard the Duck 01:54, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Myanmar edit

This article has had tremendous improvement (particularly in citations) since its beginning. However, the article's content may need some copyediting, especially in grammar, uniform spelling. Before we attempt FAC once again, I would like to address some of the problems the articles still has. Thanks. Hintha 21:32, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I really like this article. It has improved quite a bit both in content and format since theFAC. I have just a few observations/suggestions that I'd like to discuss here before making any changes to the article itself.

  1. It seems that the article overuses parenthetical observations. This causes the text not to "flow" naturally and makes for difficult reading. I suggest removing as many parentheses as possible and better integrating the information into the text. <--Taken care of that. Hintha 00:35, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. The "History" section is very long. I realize that Myanmar has had a very long history and most of the information is relevant and interesting (to me, anyway), but it's still hard to muddle through. Perhaps getting rid of all the parenthetical interuptions will remedy this, but, if it can't be shortened without removing necessary content, we might want to think about dividing it with a couple of secondary headings, but not more than two or three. <--I believe this has been accomplished. Hintha
  3. Also in the History section, is it necessary to give the "new" romanization after every mention of a Burmese proper name (again a parenthetical interuption)? Considering it has been 17 years since the changes were implemented and most of the cities/people are wikilinked (Ava and Bagan, for example), isn't it better to let the reader click on the link if they want to know "new" spellings? This would help the flow of the text as well. --I've removed the parenthetical interreputions. Almost all of the names of kings and such also have alternate romanisations, and it is impossible to account for all of them. Hintha 05:30, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. The "Culture" section has improved, but it still feels a little weak. Perhaps beefing it up with a paragraph about cuisine and another covering music might be in order? <--I've taken care of cuisine and music. Hintha 00:28, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Personally, I like the use of Unicode fonts, but how many people viewing the article will have the Burmese Unicode fonts installed? Even though I have the fonts, of the three computers in my household, only one displays them properly. While I like the use of Unicode, it might be worth discussing the merits of using .png images instead. --Completed. Hintha 05:30, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Overall, it's a drastic improvement. Besides a little minor copyediting, those are my only observations/suggestions so far. Any response or comments?--WilliamThweatt 23:10, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have taken care of replacing the Unicode with PNG images. And as WilliamThweatt suggested, we should remove the excessive parentheses throughout the article. Perhaps somebody who is knowledgable in Burmese history should trim the history section, and retain all important items in the section. But we will need to cut down on some superfluity throughout the article to prevent the page size from being too large (it's currently 46KB). Also, we need to mention human trafficking (both internal: kidnapping of persons for the Tatmadaw, and external: prostitution in Thailand and China). Hintha 00:07, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A good article, but:

  1. "The country was ruled by a military junta led by General Ne Win from 1962 to 1988, and its political system today remains under the tight control of its military government, the State Peace and Development Council (formerly the State Law and Order Restoration Council), since 1992, led by Senior General Than Shwe" - needs to be broken up into 2 sentences. Done.--WilliamThweatt 18:41, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. "The renaming proved to be politically controversial, seen by some as being less inclusive of minorities, and linguistically unscholarly. Some disagree that the military junta had authority to "officially" change the name in English in the first place." "The Mon are thought to be the earliest group to migrate into the lower Ayeyarwady valley. By the mid-9th century BC, they were dominant in southern Myanmar." --- "The regime is accused of having an appalling human rights record" --- seen/thought/accused by whom? cite. (1 out of 4 done--WilliamThweatt 18:41, 11 July 2006 (UTC))[reply]
  3. "The geographical area which modern-day Myanmar encompasses can be traced to the 1950s, as it was during that time that Burma Proper (Lower Burma where the population was predominantly Mon, Karen, and Bamar, and Upper Burma, which was predominantly Bamar) was re-unified with the Frontier Areas, known as Scheduled or Excluded Areas, inhabited by other ethnic minorities such as the Shan, the Kachin and the Karenni, and administered separately by the British prior to independence in 1948." - toooo long a sentence --fixed yesterday.--WilliamThweatt 16:57, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. "One of the national heroes in Burmese history of the 20th century is the founder of the modern Burmese army and one of the leaders of the fight for independence General Aung San, a student-turned activist whose daughter is the 1991 Nobel Peace Laureate and worldwide peace, freedom and democracy icon Aung San Suu Kyi of the NLD, who has been in detention or under house arrest intermittently for 17 years since 1989." - un-understandable: who was the national hero? - simplify it -Done. --WilliamThweatt 00:15, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. The whole article is largely uncited.
    Question - presently, there are 45 unique sources cited...how many more are needed?
    It's not just the number, but the distribution. The distribution per section is:
    "History" has 11 - okay
    "Politics" has 9 - okay
    "Adminisistrative divisions" has 1 - okay
    "Geography" has 0 - major problem <--Now has 3 (two from same source).--WilliamThweatt 22:08, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    "Economy" has 6 - problem <--Now has 8. Hintha 21:45, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    "Demographics" has 1 - problem <--Now has 3 (considering it's a short paragraph, that should be sufficient).--Hintha 05:29, 13 July 2006 (UTC) <--Perhaps we should summarise the Demographics section and move most of the more detailed info. into the actual article, which lacks content. Hintha 06:16, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    "Ethnicity" has 9 - could be better
    "Language" has 1 - problem
    "Religion" has 5 - problem
    "Education" has 1 - problem <--Now has 4. Hintha 21:27, 12 July 2006 (UTC) <--Education should be summarised into a couple of sentences or a paragraph, and moved to the culture section (and all the references should be put in the main article (Education in Myanmar). Hintha 06:16, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    "Culture" has 7 - okay
    You should work on these suggestions and notify me when you're done. If I'm still unsatisified, I'll create a comprehensive list of problem areas, especially comments that should be cited.--May the Force be with you! Shreshth91($ |-| ŗ 3 $ |-| ţ |-|) 17:50, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. "Almost all cabinet offices are held by military officers." except? Clarified that statement. Hintha 23:51, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Various sections, especially the "Geography" section, is very vague; needs more details
  8. Are the "Ethnicity", "Language", "Religion" and "Education" sections supposed to be a part of the "Demographics" section? I think not <-- All consolidated into Demographics. Hintha 00:58, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  9. There are a lot of red-links which either need to be made green or be delinked.
    Question - I only counted three red-links, two in "History" and one in "Geography"...I know none would be ideal, but how many is considered "too many" for an article of this size?
    You're right, none is ideal, as well as necessary. The red links jump out to the eye; that's why I had the first impression that there are a lot of red links.--May the Force be with you! Shreshth91($ |-| ŗ 3 $ |-| ţ |-|) 17:50, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  10. You would do best to look at the India article, which I find is kinda perfect :)
  11. That's all, folks! --May the Force be with you! Shreshth91($ |-| ŗ 3 $ |-| ţ |-|) 16:23, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have not gone through the whole article, just some minor observations:
  1. The map is not correct. Bangladesh map has been distorted in this map.Corrected contours of Bangladesh's borders.--Hintha 00:56, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. The lead is too short. <-- Done, with a summary of culture, demographics, history, and government. Hintha
  3. Compared to other sections, History is long. Needs copyediting.

Will try to give more inputs later. Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 19:29, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think the others are giving accurate criticism, but I have just one thing to add: the lead section is kind of small, especially for such a lengthy and deatailed article. Overall, though, the article is very high quality. RyanGerbil10 (Drop on in!) 04:28, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The article dones't have infor on foreign realtions and military - should it?--Peta 04:03, 13 July 2006 (UTC) <-- We should remove all of the excess and superfluity in the article (non-neutral POV, unverifiable info., "own research" types), and make the history section a lot more concise before adding more material. --Hintha 05:31, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The following sentence needs to be verified: However, UNICEF estimates that functional literacy is closer to 30%. The value on its website states 89.7%. <-- Done.

Fresh comments:

  • "The renaming proved to be politically controversial and linguistically unscholarly. Because the military junta was not legitimately elected, some governments have contended that it did not have the authority to officially change the name in English." - cite <--Done. Citations for the second sentence are available after the fourth sentence (it would be impossible to list every government that uses "Burma" over "Myanmar"). Hintha 19:02, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Traditional Burmese music is melodious and without harmony. Musical instruments include wind, clapper, and string instruments, which are often assembled in orchestras. The saung gauk, a boat-shaped string instrument consisting of silk strings and mica glass decorated along its neck has long been associated with the Burmese culture, and often accompanies solo song performances. Since the 1950s, westernised music has gained popularity, especially in large cities." - cite. <-- Done. Hintha 19:02, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

--May the Force be with you! Shreshth91($ |-| ŗ 3 $ |-| ţ |-|) 16:13, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Final comments edit

Most of the issues have been resolved and dealt with. Any other opinions, questions, complaints, or recommendations? --Hintha 06:53, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Great work! It's really good now :) --May the Force be with you! Shreshth91($ |-| ŗ 3 $ |-| ţ |-|) 07:24, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Trilogy of Terror edit

I'd appreciate another set of eyes upon this article based on the 1975 'made for television' horror movie that scared me senseless as a child (Amelia in particluar). Any suggestions on how this article can improve are welcomed. -- Longhair 12:55, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not bad, but I would suggest removing POV terms, like "stunning" and "classic," or otherwise giving a citation for them. On that note, more in-line citations would be nice (see WP:CITE), especially in "Reception" and "Popular culture." You could probably move "Production credits" to the end or just delete those without Wikipedia articles (IMDb certainly would have those you cut). My biggest complaint, however, is that the summaries are really choppy to read and that the disctinction between "Plot" and "Synopsis" seems forced in most of them. Perhaps reorganize them into a section called "Synopses" or some such with one spoiler warning at the top and a single subsection heading for each installment? Also, perhaps the "DVD" section could be beefed up or put elsewhere (e.g., the lead)?--Monocrat 13:20, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've cleaned up the article in regards to the POV issues and began using WP:CITE. Production credits are now at the ending of the article and delinked as suggested. I'm still in the air about the Synopsis sections and may look around at other similar films to see what's being done there. Thanks for your help to date. It's been great. -- Longhair 05:00, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for that. One of my major problems with this article was getting the flow correct. Three movies in one made it somewhat difficult to provide a plot and synopsis section without them running into each other and causing one big confusing mess. I've taken the rest of your valuable advice on board and will continue to edit accordingly. Thanks again. -- Longhair 13:32, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I stand firm on the reorganization, but at the very least I would have only one spoiler warning, because those really break up the article in my estimation. Good luck!--Monocrat 12:42, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • It can be improved by reducing links to solitary years. In this case '1975' and '1996'. A monobook tool allows this to be done with one click on a 'dates' tab in edit mode. You can then accept or reject the changes offered and/or do more editing before pressing 'Save'. Simply copy the entire contents of User:Bobblewik/monobook.js to your own monobook. Then follow the instructions in your monobook to clear the cache (i.e. press Ctrl-Shift-R in Firefox, or Ctrl-F5 in IE) before it will work. Hope that helps. bobblewik 19:34, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • First of all, good start. Take a look at these Featured Articles for some ideas on organization: Gremlins, Halloween (film), Tenebrae (film). As you mentioned above, you will have to adapt this article to the unique format of the film, however, since it is essentially three films in one this will be tricky. Your current arrangement is somewhat distracting (mostly because of the spoiler notices; I think one tag under the TOC would suffice). Good luck. Dmoon1 05:38, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

DADVSI edit

This is about a recent French law whose legislative process took unexpected twist, and which was commented upon in the American press from a fairly.. oriented point of view. I don't know whether the article is understandable for those who have not followed the case - it's probably a bit full of legalese and discussions of procedure (but this may not be avoided, since this is about a law for which there is a constitutional challenge on grounds of parliamentary procedure). David.Monniaux 15:58, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oldham Riots edit

I'm hoping that this article will reach Wikipedia:Good articles criteria some day soon. I'm from the Oldham area, and written the bulk of the text personally (although tried to source most content), but I'm concerned this may mean the article could therefore be POV and in my own style of writing.

For these reasons, in addition to the controvertial nature of the article, I'm requesting a peer review in an attempt to:

Any suggestions would be warmly welcomed. Jhamez84 20:12, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • It can be improved by reducing links to solitary years. A monobook tool allows this to be done with one click on a 'dates' tab in edit mode. You can then accept or reject the changes offered and/or do more editing before pressing 'Save'. Simply copy the entire contents of User:Bobblewik/monobook.js to your own monobook. Then follow the instructions in your monobook to clear the cache (i.e. press Ctrl-Shift-R in Firefox, or Ctrl-F5 in IE) before it will work. Hope that helps. bobblewik 19:32, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've altered the majority of the automated suggestions (some I need to become more familliar with the formatting), and streamlined the use of dates using the monobook tool. Any suggestions in terms of NPOV? Jhamez84 11:33, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • A few points:
    • At a single paragraph, the lead is too short, see WP:LEAD. Some content from the Riots subsection could be used for this.
    • There are many short paragraphs consisting of one or two sentences. Try to merge some of these to improve the flow. Converting the bulleted lists to prose would also improve the way the artlicle flows.
    • Some of the existing references may be heavily biased (e.g. Socialist Worker). From a cursory search, Google Scholar may help with providing non-partisan academic sources of information on the topic. Hope this helps. Oldelpaso 12:08, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Thanks! I had no idea that the Google Scholar engine even existed! It's a fantastic tool, and will certainly be helpful for the article. Additionally, I shortened the lead as per recommendations, but it seems I've gone too far the other way. I'll try to fix this asap. Thanks again, Jhamez84 22:26, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Out-of-body experience edit

I think this long article requires more cleanup and possibly some restructuring. Should some of the quotes be eliminated or moved to a Wikiquote page? Could it be reworded to be more concise? An article with this much information, were it generally better-written and if it had a few well-chosen illustrations, could become featured. I made this exact same request on 19 February, but no comments were ever posted; thus, I'm using the same page again rather than make a pointless archive. Seahen 22:13, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pernambucan Revolt edit

Hi all, I am a new user on this project, at I just added this article not too long ago. I see that it is generally acceptable, and given the lack of information that is "find"able, I would like to post a general peer review/recruit drive for this article, in order to make it better. OMEN 05:30, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Greetings! This is indeed a good start. One of the first things I noticed however was the inclusion of a list in the introduction. You should try and convert this list into proper prose. While doing this, there is a page setup to help you with the other elements of the introduction too: WP:CITE. Cheers --darkliight[πalk] 13:17, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jasper High School edit

I need help on how to eliminate all the bullets. If there is any subject that needs to be added, please help!

Evan 21:00, 1 July 2006 (UTC)Longhornsg[reply]

As a general approach, try putting the things in the lists into some logical groups on a bit of paper or whatever - get it down to 3 or 4 groups. So 'Awards' might go into groups like 'Sporting', 'Academic', and umm, some others. It's a long time since I was in school. I'm sure you can think of some. Then think about what is notable about the schools achievements in those groups. This should give you some ideas for how to summarise the achievements in prose, probably by saying how many 'whatevers' they have won, and then describing the most notable highlights. Like "The school's soccer team has won 15 major awards since its creation. In 1278 the school team won the FIFA World Cup, beating Mordor 5-0 on penalties in the final. Although the school's quidditch team has been less successful, alumni Harry Potter was part of the 2157 Milky Way team that narrowly lost to Andromeda in the intergalactic finals."
Having said that, I suspect your problem may well be finding enough notable things to write an encyclopaedia article about. Would you expect to find an article on your school in any other encyclopaedia? However, that doesn't seem to have stopped a lot of other people. You could also look at the many other school articles on Wiki for some ideas.

Moscow edit

In the near future, I am going to attempt to bring this article up to featured status. In my opinion, it's already a great article. However, I would like some suggestions on how this article could be improved and be prepared for a featured article nomination. One thing I do notice is that it is in dire need of references (I'll get on top of that). Anything else? Feel free to join in on the quest for featured status if you like. joturner 04:09, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I don't have that much experience with City-related articles, but I'll post a few suggestions:
  • You may wan to check other City FAs, regarding the image gallary, whilst its nice, It might be better off as a commons link.
  • The media section is a potential target for criticism at the FAC, as its just a list of external links. See Johannesburg#Communications_and_media for ideas.
  • Don't double up links in the See Also, for example, History of Moscow is already linked at the top.
  • Moscow tourist attractions is also a worry, there really shouldnt be many lists in articles.
  • Education could be expanded
  • The crime rates box is confusing, as the system/% rate is not explained
  • Needs a copyedit.
  • Why is Climate under tourism?
  • Air pollution in Moscow should be a sub-section of something, its too short as it is.
  • Sift through the External Links, get rid of any that are not very helpful.
  • And yes, it needs A LOT of references...Good luck. Cvene64 04:31, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the detailed suggestions. I'll probably start working on some of the points in several hours from now (as it's UTC-4 for me). joturner 04:45, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Something about water transport could be added. Moscow has two passenger riverports and regular motorship routes used mostly for entertainment.--Nixer 06:33, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mormonism and Christianity edit

This article was a failed featured article candidate. I have tried to address most of the objections. Any kind of comment or suggestion to improve the article is requested. RelHistBuff 12:36, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I made some headway in removing the "redundant" and weasel words. I would also be interesting in more general criticism about style, prose, subject matter, notability, etc. RelHistBuff 21:43, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Not much feedback so far from "peers". I would like to encourage any comment. Please criticize it, tear it down, be merciless! RelHistBuff 08:43, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have made a few comments on the article's talk page. BenC7 06:15, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Very useful comments! Will implement. More suggestions welcome. RelHistBuff 08:09, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Here's mine in the talk page for consideration with this section header: ==The Bible versus The Book of Mormon==
This is enough to warrant article segregation into two. --Mdoc7 06:23, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yahoo! edit

I think the main problem with the article is that it is very badly organized. Some aspects of Yahoo! receive very thorough coverage, while other important aspects of Yahoo! receive very little coverage in the article.

For example, there is way too much information on the history of Yahoo! Besides the "History" section, there is a section on important events in Yahoo!'s history. The "Criticism" section should be near the end of the article, and it does not even mention the Yahoo! trolling phenomenon - which is instead mentioned in the wrong place - the "History" section! "Yahoo! Research Labs" should not be under the "Important Events" section. Then you see a tiny "Yahoo! Next" section - it could be merged with Yahoo! Research Labs to make a "Future of Yahoo!" section.

Now, read the following two articles I wrote: Google Groups and Homerun. In the Google Groups article, the "Interface features" section is the most comprehensive. In the Homerun article, the "Plot" section is the most comprehensive. What about Yahoo!? If I read an article about a company, I would expect the most comprehensive section to be the one about the range of products or services the company sells or provides. The Yahoo! article, however, provides a long list of "Yahoo!-owned sites and services". Could you provide some prose, rather than a list?

If the organization/structure of the article is improved, I'll nominate it for Good Article.

--J.L.W.S. The Special One 09:11, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

{copied from Talk:Yahoo!}

Hello. Thanks for your responses. My intention in sending Yahoo! for peer review was because I spotted several problems in the article, and was hoping other editors could work out how to fix them. Once the editors have decided how to fix the problem, we could work on the article. This does not mean I am not interested in fixing the article - it just means I don't want to do it myself, as I don't think I can do it myself either. I would be most willing to help fix the article once ways to fix it have been pointed out. I will work on creating new articles for the list and writing a summary in prose. Hopefully, after the problems with the article are fixed, we can nominate this for Good Article. I am a hopeless citer, though. Hopefully collaborating with other editors to make this a Good Article will make me a few Wikifriends (for more info, please see Wikipedia:Village_pump_(assistance)#Unusual_crisis_-_losing_focus_of_contributing_to_Wikipedia). --J.L.W.S. The Special One 10:53, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. In many Yahoo!-related articles, I noticed that the exclamation mark in "Yahoo!" is missing. I have added the missing exclamation marks to the article, and some Yahoo!-related articles such as Yahoo! Mail. In the process, I broke the image links in the Yahoo! article, and hence User:Coolcaesar called me an "idiot". (I don't take it personally.) Perhaps the images should be moved. Perhaps we should add the missing exclamation marks to "Yahoo!" in Yahoo!-related articles. I created Wikipedia:WikiProject Yahoo! in an attempt to raise awareness and get editors to add the missing exclamation marks as well as improving Yahoo!-related articles, especially Yahoo!, to at least Good Article status. --J.L.W.S. The Special One 10:53, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hello. I created two new articles - Timeline of Yahoo! and List of Yahoo!-owned sites and services - to hold the information in the "Important events" and "Yahoo!-owned sites and services" sections of the Yahoo! article. I hope others will review the contents of these two split-up articles, and move them if they can find a better name. Now on to our next task:
The contents on the List of Yahoo!-owned sites and services article (section in the Yahoo! article) should be summarized and rewritten in prose form, in a new section named "Services" or something similar - what do you suggest? The "Yahoo!-owned sites and services" section can then be removed from the article.
Yes, I agree. -- Sundar \talk \contribs 07:19, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I will work on a summarized prosed form of the list, in a new section. What shall we call it? "Services"? "Products"? We will link to Yahoo!-owned sites and services as a "main article". --J.L.W.S. The Special One 11:27, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The "History" section is too long. Some content in it should be moved to other sections. The remaining content should be summarized. Perhaps we could turn the Timeline of Yahoo! article into prose form and move it into the main article History of Yahoo!, while leaving the "History" section of the Yahoo! article a summary of the main article. The "Important events section" can then be removed.
Let's collaborate to make this a Good Article, and subsequently, a Featured Article, while making a few Wikifriends in the proccess.
--J.L.W.S. The Special One 07:11, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Good work, JLWS. Now, let's fix a layout first. What do you think about the layout that I suggested in my review? -- Sundar \talk \contribs 07:19, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You're the first Wikipedian who called me J.L.W.S. - I wish everyone would. Hehe. I think your suggestion is good. "Businesses" - do you mean Yahoo!'s products/services like Yahoo! Mail? (I'm not taking Accounting as a subject in school.) Another problem is that I am not an expert about Yahoo! and do not know enough about Yahoo!'s corporate structure, etc. Someone else will need to write those sections - that's why I sent the article for peer review. --J.L.W.S. The Special One 11:27, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'll try that. By businesses, I meant "email", "search", "shopping" etc., classified into broad categories. -- Sundar \talk \contribs 12:00, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
My suggestions so far:
  1. The 'Important events' section should be merged into the "History" section and converted into prose.
OK. I will create the History of Yahoo! article soon, rephrase all the information in the "Important events" and "History" sections into the main article, and leave a summary in the "History" section of the Yahoo! article. --J.L.W.S. The Special One 11:27, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  1. The in-line ext. links should be converted to footnotes, please see WP:FOOTNOTE.
Someone else will have to do that. --J.L.W.S. The Special One 11:27, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

— Wackymacs 08:05, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have created the History of Yahoo! article. My next job will be to turn the "Yahoo!-owned sites and services" list into a prose section entitled "Businesses". Should I retain the list, but in another new article? After completing the "Businesses" section, and summarizing the "History" section with a link to the main article, there is not much more I can do. The rest will be up to the other editors. Hopefully, you will be able to turn it into a Good Article. I have also sent Neopets for Peer Review in the hopes of making it a Good Article. Could you possibly review Neopets as well? Thanks. --J.L.W.S. The Special One 14:50, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • People may wish to edit articles with the assistance of a 'Dates' tab and a 'Units' tab in edit mode. Simply copy the entire contents of User:Bobblewik/monobook.js to your own monobook. Then follow the instructions in your monobook to clear the cache (i.e. press Ctrl-Shift-R in Firefox, or Ctrl-F5 in IE) before it will work. Hope that helps. bobblewik 15:26, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Huh? --J.L.W.S. The Special One 15:46, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps that was not written well. This article has unnecessary date links. The 'Dates' tab would sort them out. bobblewik 16:01, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Could you do it for me, using the Date tab? I will be busy for a couple of days. When I come back, I will work on turning the "Yahoo!-owned sites and services" list into the "Businesses" section. Then I will have to work on a summary for the History section. That's about all I can do. --J.L.W.S. The Special One 14:55, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have expanded the new List_of_Yahoo!-owned_sites_and_services article. As I am not familiar with most Yahoo! services, I hope other editors can help expand the summaries I provided for Yahoo! services. In addition, the List_of_Yahoo!-owned_sites_and_services article needs to be renamed. Could anyone suggest a better name? Once we have a better name, I can make my changes to the Yahoo! article itself. --J.L.W.S. The Special One 15:27, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You should have a whole section dedicated to describing the range of services Yahoo! provides today before going into the criticism. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 11:23, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cell (biology) edit

This article already has GA status, but there is definitely plenty of room for improvement. I believe the subject could defitely accomodate a featured article. However, I haven't worked on it before and don't really know where to start. At first, general comments on what the weakest sides of the article are would be most welcome. Peter Z.Talk 02:47, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program, and may or may not be accurate for the article in question (due to possible javascript errors/uniqueness of articles).
  • Per WP:MOS#Headings, headings generally should not repeat the title of the article. For example, if the article was Ferdinand Magellan, instead of using the heading ==Magellan's journey==, use ==Journey==.
  • Done Per WP:MOSNUM, there should be a non-breaking space - &nbsp; between a number and the unit of measurement. For example, instead of 18mm, use 18 mm, which when you are editing the page, should look like: 18&nbsp;mm.
  • Per WP:MOSNUM, when doing conversions, please use standard abbreviations: for example, miles -> mi, kilometers squared -> km2, and pounds -> lb.
  • Please reorder/rename the last few sections to follow guidelines at WP:GTL.
  • Per WP:WIAFA, this article's table of contents (ToC) maybe too long- consider shrinking it down by merging short sections or using a proper system of daughter pages as per WP:SS.

This is pretty old, but I just stumbled across it and thought I'd put in an idea or two.

  • Even for an article targeted to a general audience, the lead is very simplistic ("Some organisms, such as bacteria...") and sounds a bit high school textbook-y. This sentence should also define prokaryote and eukaryote since they're later used in the article with only wikilinks for explanation. On the other hand, the cell theory mention needs to more explicitly state that it is of historical interest (there's always a few creationists who wave that "cells come from other cells!" thing around).
True, I will try to reword and extend the lead. Peter Z.Talk
  • The section on the lipid bilayer is confusingly worded. "Double layer of lipids" and "hydrophilic phosphorous" are not only technically wrong, but make it sound like the membrane is made of two separate components rather than phospholipids.
True again, will sort this out later today. Peter Z.Talk
  • If you're going to include a mention of transfection (which I don't really think is that central of a topic for such a deiberately general article), it should be better explained. The casual reader has no reason to expect that foreign DNA might be integrated into a cell's genome.
  • Write out and wikilink "messenger RNA" the first time it's used.
Corrected. Peter Z.Talk
  • ATP is not "a form of energy" - this is confusing wording. "energy is stored in a high-energy chemical bond in ATP" or something would make more sense.
  • The products of cell division are always called daughter cells, but the originating cell is rarely (ever?) called the "mother cell" as claimed.
Budding yeast geneticists definitely speak of mother and daughter cells, but its only that bud that's the daughter cell. The much bigger cell that "did the budding" is the mother cell. I'll check if the term is ever used in other organisms. Peter Z.Talk
Really? That's interesting, I didn't know that. I haven't heard "mother cell" used for generic cell division, but I don't work with yeast, so maybe I'm not up on the terminology. It just sounded to me like an overgeneralization of the term "daughter cell". Opabinia regalis 17:34, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Somewhere (in cell division after binary fission?) the exchange of genetic material by prokaryotes should be mentioned (unless I missed it).
I am not sure, which place in the article you mean. Not only prokaryotes exchange genetic material horizonally. Peter Z.Talk
Looking at it again, I think the "creation of new cells" section should be called "reproduction" or similar (I think most people will know what that means). I was thinking that bacterial gene transfer in particular would be useful to mention after/close to the sentence on reproduction by binary fission, because gene transfer's role in drug resistance might be interesting to the reader. I don't personally know of any cases where a type of horizontal transfer created drug resistance in eukaryotes, but it doesn't sound impossible. Opabinia regalis 17:34, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I suppose "reproduction" is good for being easily understood by the lay person, although I think "proliferation" is more technically correct. Reproduction to me implies the producing of new autonomous individuals. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 14:58, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relative to the generality of the rest of the article, the "origins of cells" section is much too detailed. This may have come from a prior edit war or something, but speculation on cellular origins (which we know nothing about really) shouldn't take two or three times as much text as any of the "cell functions" sections, about which we know much more. Spin it off into an "origin of cells" article separate from the existing Origin of life if necessary.

Overall it's a pretty good generalist guide; I just think the tone and technicality is uneven and there are some inconsistencies in the text. I didn't look in great detail at the images but it looks like this article is excellently illustrated - they're very attractive as well as being useful. Opabinia regalis 08:33, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Solar system edit

I've made some alterations as per previous peer reviews. Please tell me what you think. I'm particularly interested in how many more references are needed.

Serendipodous 08:36, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]


It looks much improved from the past review. Nice work! I just have a few comments:
  • I'm still having a problem with the section on the solar system "remaining out of the spiral arms", per, "The solar system appears to have remained between spiral arms for most of the existence of life on Earth." Is there a reference for this? Galaxies can be pretty dynamic places, especially with collisions and gravitational interactions. So how do we know this? Also to me the term "very remarkable orbit" is bordering on non-neutral. Is it really that remarkable that we're moving at the same velocity and orbit as the star-forming regions from which the Sun was formed?
  • The "+-" can be displayed more cleanly as ± using the &plusmn; tag.
  • I have some difficulties with these two statements:
    • "...it is estimated that the solar system as we know it today will last another billion years or so, until the Sun begins to use up the hydrogen at its core."
The Sun is always using up the hydrogen in its core. It is not expected to become a Red Giant for 4-5 billion years. So I am unclear what is going to happen in a "billion years or so". Is the article talking about the steady increase in solar brightness that occurs over the course of it's life span?
    • "This will require it to expand to eighty times its current diameter, and, about 7.5 billion years from now, to become a red giant, cooled and dulled by its vastly increased surface area."
The 7.5 billion years looks like an overestimate to me. If the Sun lives roughly 10 billion years on the main sequence and it is 4.5 billion years old, the math doesn't add up for me.
Thanks! :-) — RJH (talk) 20:04, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your advice :-) I've rephrased the lines in the "billion years or so" section in the hope of making it clearer, and added the ± symbol. As to your other query, this site is the source I used for that paragraph, and it seems to agree with the statement made. Most of the info for the "Future" section is taken from this source. Not being a professional astronomer, I can't vouch for it, but it seems rock solid. Hope that helps! Serendipodous 20:58, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, it looks good. One final suggestion would be to change the "As the Sun brightens and expands" to "As the Sun brightens and expands somewhat", so it's clear the text isn't describing the red giant stage. There's also some references on the topic in the Earth#Earth.27s_future section, if that is of interest. — RJH (talk) 15:50, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure the article's layout is logical or clear. I suggested before that constructing an ideal TOC is a good way to start designing the ideal article. At the moment the article is also very messy, with many different image widths and a haphazard layout (most to the right, a few to the left). Section headings don't all conform to the MOS either. I don't think the tables of attributes should be included - they might be useful as their own articles but here they just clutter up the article. I'm not keen on the massive infobox at the bottom. References - there are lots of them, but none seem to be to scientific papers, and some are to other encyclopaedias. The latter should definitely be avoided, and citing peer-reviewed science is the best way to go for authoritativeness. Worldtraveller 15:44, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm too close to this article's layout, since I created it. I'd need someone else to come up with a superior draft. The tables probably should be shifted to their own page. I've never liked the infobox either, but it is a useful portal to Solar System articles. Perhaps it should be its own Solar system portal page?
OK I've done it. I've also shifted all the images to the right and standardised their widths at 200 px, though I think it's distorted them somewhat. EDIT: I've just re-drafted the images so that some of them are bigger and some smaller. It makes no sense to lose the details. I've also taken down the "Minor planets" section; without the tables it loses its purpose in the article, and there are plenty of other articles (minor planet, Definition of planet) which cover those issues very well. As for finding better references, I'll have to leave that to someone else; there's only so much work I can do on this article alone. Serendipodous 16:56, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fittipaldi (constructor) edit

This is an article about the only Brazilian motor racing team ever to enter the Formula One world championship - sometimes known as Copersucar. In fact I think it's the only one ever to have been based - albeit quite briefly - outside Europe. It also prematurely ended the F1 career of double world champion Emerson Fittipaldi, who had set up the team with his brother. The article is current GA and I am interested in improving it further.

I can (and will) check through all the guidelines on style etc - so I'm not especially fussed about comments on those (although feel free, of course!). I also have a semi-serious rewrite planned now I have some decent written sources, the current version was written mainly from web sources and although it is perfectly accurate I can now improve it and tie it to hardcopy references. My plans for that are listed on the talk page. Before I start that, though, my questions for peer reviewers are these:

  • Is the article interesting and engaging for a non-expert reader (Don't be afraid to say no!)? If not, what could be added or changed to achieve this?
  • Is the article comprehensible for a non-expert reader (Ditto above)? If not, what needs explaining or enlarging upon?
  • What other shortcomings in style or content would ulitimately hold it back from FA status?

Cheers 4u1e 18:21, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • It would be improved by removing links to solitary years. In this article, there is only one: '1980'. But there are also too many links to 'XXX Formula One Season' that look just as odd to the reader.
  • Many thanks for the input, Bobblewik, and for the catch on '1980': I don't know why there always seems to be one that I miss :-D Not sure I agree about the season links, though, which are all done through pipelined years([[1975 Formula One season|1975]]), so don't appear as 'XXX Formula One season'. The logic behind them is that, this being essentially a sporting article - and therefore inevitably following a seasonal pattern, it is useful to link to the summary of the relevant racing season at approximately the right point in the text. I think I've only linked to each season once in the main text. On reflection, I'll remove the 1974 link, as neither Wilson or the Fittipaldi team were racing that year so it's not relevant. I am interested that you say they look odd to the reader - I know people tend to overlink to single years, but readers are surely used to seeing links from years - it's just that in this case they go somewhere useful! Can you elaborate more on why they will look odd? Thanks.4u1e 21:34, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I will try to elaborate. As far as being 'used to seeing links' is concerned, that does not make them right. I am used to getting rained on but I still don't want it to happen. All linked solitary years look the same. They don't know until they interact with them (hover or click) where they go. I would be surprised if anyone spent much time in Wikipedia articles hovering over the thousands of date links. That is just my opinion. bobblewik 19:38, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • OK, understood. In other words, I might be better off being more explicit by saying '1978 season', not just the year. OK - I'll think about it and see how it goes with the wording. 4u1e 20:02, 30 June 2006 (UTC) (P.S. Being rained on isn't wrong either!)[reply]
  • I've tried something different - a bit like 'see also' at the start of each subsection of the racing histoy4u1e 21:15, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • On yet further reflection, I don't think I'll stick with this, since it doesn't necessarily work for print or re-uses of this material, where the wikilinks may not be reproduced. I'll probably revert to my previous model but spell it out as '1978 season' etc, which hopefully looks different enough that the reader will pick up that the link is useful. 4u1e 4 July 2006
  • You could also put metric units first, particularly since it is Brazilian. Hope that helps. bobblewik 20:08, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'Miles' is the only unit I can see. Did you spot others? I'll think about the units, although my first reaction is that in this case (giving the distance between the Fittipaldi team in Sao Paolo and their suppliers in the UK) the most important thing is the reader's expectation - and this is an English language wiki, so miles is probably appropriate. Interested to hear other views, though. 4u1e 21:34, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually I didn't see others. It was just that one that caught my eye. I thought it needed the km equivalent, and then I thought about the sequence. Whatever you want to do is fine by me. bobblewik 19:38, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think I'm going to stick with miles, but thanks for the suggestion. I'll check out the guidance on units and maybe put the km equivalent as well, though. 4u1e 20:02, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • But I see you've just done it! Thanks. 4u1e 20:04, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • On that topic though, apparantly the team had all sorts of issues for precisely that reason - the engine (and a few other imported components) came from the UK and were in imperial units. The engine is a structural part of an F1 car, so the rest of the car also had to be built in imperial units and they had real trouble sourcing things like bolts locally - to the extent that they had to machine their own. Nightmare! 4u1e 21:34, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am very surprised. I would have thought UK engines would be 100% metric by now, particularly bolts. There may be one or two oddities that are worthy of story telling. I have the impression that Brazilian torque wrenches use kgf rather than Nm (sometimes late adopters of metric like the UK can be ahead of early adopters like Brazil). Keep up the good work. bobblewik 19:38, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, don't forget that this was in 1974! And we're still not fully metric, as the continued use of miles demonstrates. At that time we were far less so - don't even get me started on the different types of the same Imperial units! (A 1/2" bolt could be Whitworth, AF or various other types - all actually different sizes!). I may end up mentioning this in the article as it seems to be one reason that continuing to build the cars in Brazil became too difficult. 4u1e 20:02, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ah. It makes a difference if it was 1974. I was basing my awareness on today. I am aware of the previous confusion of AF/Whitworth etc. bobblewik 12:43, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Interesting, thanks. Not all relevant, but led to a serious rethink of captions, some minor corrections and changed choices of words. Cheers! 4u1e 19:53, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments to date have been very useful, but I'm still looking for views on my original questions above - which I suppose boil down to: Does this article work for a casual non-expert reader? 4u1e 09:27, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Llywelyn the Great edit

I have added quite a lot of material to this article and would like to get it up to Featured status. It could do with some fresh pairs of eyes at this stage. Any suggestions would be appreciated. Rhion 17:22, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Now dealt with, I think. Please let me know if I've missed anything. Thanks. Rhion 11:41, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Copyediting suggestions edit

  • It reads very well. I've made a few minor copyedits; feel free to undo them if you disagree. If you have any questions about these edits, I'll be glad to discuss them with you.
Just a few things that stuck out to me:
  • "eventually effectively ruler over most of Wales." "Eventually effectively" is awkward. How about "eventually de facto ruler over most of Wales"?
  • "The grandson of Owain Gwynedd, who had died three years before Llywelyn's birth, he began a campaign..." I understand why you've worded it this way, but it impedes the flow of the article, since it's not clear until halfway through the sentence that "the grandson of Owain" is Llywelyn and not another person. Can you find another place to discuss Llywelyn's lineage other than this sentence?
  • "in 1208 took advantage of the king's action in arresting Gwenwynwyn ab Owain of Powys to annex southern Powys." It's a little unclear at first whether Llywelyn or the king annexed souther Powys. How about "in 1208 he annexed southern Powys, taking advantage of the king's decision to arrest Gwenwynwyn ab Owain"?
  • I'm confused by the use (or omission) of commas with titles: "Madog ap Maredudd prince of Powys" with no comma before the title, but "A year later Hubert Walter, Archbishop of Canterbury persuaded Llywelyn" with a comma before the title. I'm American, so I'd expect "Madog ap Maredudd, prince of Powys" and "A year later Hubert Walter, Archbishop of Canterbury, persuaded Llywelyn"... but I'll defer if British/Welsh usage is different.
  • "This is the earliest surviving written agreement between an English king and a Welsh ruler, and under its terms Llywelyn was to swear fealty and do homage to the king and in return was confirmed in possession of his conquests with the provision that cases relating to lands claimed by Llywelyn might be heard under Welsh law." This sentence is just a hair too complex; I'm splitting it in two. I'm confused by the last part: "and in return" suggests that I'm going to hear what Llywelyn got out of the deal, but "with the provision" suggests that I'm about to hear a condition limiting what Llywelyn gained. Therefore, I'm led to conclude that "cases... might be heard under Welsh law" wasn't to Llywelyn's advantage. Is that what you meant? It would seem to me that holding Llywelyn accountable to Welsh rather than (presumably) English law would be to Llywelyn's advantage, but the way it's currently phrased leaves me uncertain.
  • Why had "the clergy intervened to make peace between Llywelyn and Gwenwynwyn?" If you know, please consider putting it in. Reading this, I was genuinely curious.
  • "Ranulph, Earl of Chester rebuilt the castle at Deganwy, and Llywelyn retaliated..." Why did rebuilding the castle prompt this response? How about something like "Ranulph, Earl of Chester rebuilt the castle at Deganwy, violating Llywelyn's territorial claims or paving the way to a possible incursion across the River Conwy or some such. Llywelyn retaliated..."
  • "with a larger army, crossed the River Conwy" but later "Llywelyn lost all his lands east of the river Conwy." Is "river" capitalized or not?
  • "Bangor was burnt by a detachment of the royal army" but "Llywelyn destroyed the castles of Narberth and Wiston, burned the town of Haverfordwest." Again, I plead ignorance of British usage, but are the two forms of 'burn" both correct?
  • The section on Llywelyn in literature uses inconsistent formatting. I recommend converting everything to complete sentences with periods.
  • Great pictures! Some FA reviewers want captions to be complete sentences. Can you take advantage of this to elaborate on the heraldry or familial connections of the royal arms?

This article is well-written and interesting. It was enjoyable going through it. Good luck! Peirigill 01:03, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for some very valuable suggestions. I have incorporated them all in the article except that I can't provide any more details about the clergy making peace between Llywelyn and Gwenwynwyn. It would indeed be interesting to know more, but there is just a line in the chronicle about this without explaining what happened. Rhion 16:42, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Battery electric vehicle edit

Can we make it to featured article status by July 21st when Who Killed the Electric Car? opens? AnAccount2 23:22, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • The biggest problem with this article as it stands is references. The References section is empty. Some refs are linked inline, which doesn't conform to general style guidelines and is less preferable because someone might want to just see the citation without actually going to another site. There are also a number of unreferenced statements (eg, most of the "history" section, the fans' and skeptics' arguments sections) and the "controversy" section badly needs sourcing.
  • This page is very long. At minimum I think the production cars and prototypes sections should be split off into their own list, and some of the sections could use merging. (On the other hand, the one-line "safety" section is also problematic).
  • This may not even be true anymore, but I don't see a mention anywhere of the argument that battery-powered vehicles are not an environmental improvement because they require so much electric power to charge. Is that not true of current models?
Not anymore; we passed that point in the early 1990s, with NiMH batteries and now, with cheap wind power and lithium batteries, the're potentially a really huge improvement. Thanks for your helpful comments! AnAccount2 19:30, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The TOC and image below it conflict on my screen, pushing the "edit" links for the history and efficiency sections out into the text.

Interesting read nonetheless! Opabinia regalis 17:39, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oprah Winfrey edit

I have been reading, and following the article for a few months, and in my opinion it is very well executed and capable of being a Good Article. I would like to ask all intrested editors to give their opinion of the article. Myrockstar 23:47, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, Andy t 15:02, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've been quite involved in editing the article recently, and still see some large issues. I'd like to see all the in-line citations changed to the <ref> system; many claims still need sources, and I've marked some with {{fact}}; some of the article's content belongs on articles for her various ventures (eg. controversies like James Frey on the Oprah Winfrey Show article); and other sections should be re-written ("Media counterculture", "Fan base"). Hope this helps. Harro5 22:29, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd say there are too many "fair use" images. Having one image at the top to identify her is fine, the other seven are unnecessary and should be removed. User:Angr 11:20, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

United States Numbered Highways edit

Trying to get this up to a featured article. --SPUI (T - C) 19:43, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program, and may or may not be accurate for the article in question (due to possible javascript errors/uniqueness of articles).
  • Per WP:CONTEXT and WP:MOSDATE, months and days of the week generally should not be linked. Years, decades, and centuries can be linked if they provide context for the article.
  • Per WP:MOSNUM, there should be a non-breaking space - &nbsp; 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.
  • 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, please strike this comment).
  • Comments: It looks pretty good in my opinion. It might be good to add information regarding the policies/procedures/criteria for addition of new routes, as well as extension, deletion, and other changes to existing routes. I also seem to recall that any new route has to satisfy certain design standards. These design standards should be listed. In fact, there is a red link to "design standards" in the article that should probably be fixed. Also, even though there is a separate article, some more details of bannered routes should probably be included in the article. Even just a listing of all possible "banner types" might be useful. I would also add a history of the total mileage of the system if available, or even just the current total mileage in the introduction. Also, are there U.S. highway toll roads that are not interstates? That might also be interesting. That's all I can think of for now. I'll add more if I think of anything else. --Polaron | Talk 17:27, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the response.
I can add more about AASHTO policies, as their policy document is online.
I believe the design standards are the recommended standards in the AASHTO Green Book - I can make that clear.
Probably only the ones recognized by AASHTO - so for instance not Historic.
I have no idea of the total mileage. I can't simply add up the individual ones, due to concurrencies. I've never seen such a figure, except in the planning stages (as a percentage of federal aid roads).
There are a few non-bridge toll sections of U.S. Routes, and there have been Toll bannered routes in the past.
One comment - a map would be nice, showing current and former routes. I'll see what I can do.
--SPUI (T - C) 19:44, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No offense, but that helps very little. --SPUI (T - C) 07:07, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

IG Farben Building edit

This page has been greatly elongated by a translation of the German FA page of the same name de:IG-Farben-Haus. I'd be greatful for any suggestions regarding improving it's quality. The German page seems to be devoid of inline citations and the original article did not give any, however the online pages listed in the references section are quite comprehensive.--Mcginnly 22:56, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Here are the things in the article, as of this edit that I see as needing fixing (or cleaning up) before becoming a featured article. Newnam(talk) 05:12, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    1. The word 'vast' in the lead sentence is not necessary. IG Farben doesn't need it's whole German name in this article (it's mentioned in its own). IG Farben is singular and thus "was" rather than "were" should be used. IG Farben can better be described as a "conglomerate", rather than a "company" (in the last sentence of the lead paragraph). It should be mentioned after Frankfurt am Main that it is located in Germany, perhaps written as Frankfurt am Main, Germany
    2. The introduction (at 6 paragraphs) is too long. Too many specifics there now (ie, 2nd paragraph seems to much about IG Farben and not enough about the building, 3rd paragraph (except the part about it being the largest office building in the world at the time)) should be integrated below the headings.
    3. 4th Paragraph: Should be moved out of intro into a heading or merged into an existent header. First sentence written poorly (missing a "was" and the piece in parantheses needs to be reworked into the sentence. "Headquarters" doesn't need capitalization. What is the Army's V Corps (maybe a wikilink)? "General Creighton W. Abrams Building" should have quotes or italics, but not both. "U.S." doesn't have a space in it (this throught the whole article). The first "U.S." should be "United States" (without the quotes, but wikilinked). When referred to as "the building", "building" is not capitalized (also throughout the whole article).
    4. The picture Image:Goethe University Frankfurt Poelzig Building.jpeg is used twice. Image:Poelzigbau2.jpg also shows the same entrance as the other one and may or may not be considered redundant.
    5. What is "the I.G."? Is that referring to IG Farben, or something else? Are the periods supposed to seperate the letters (if so, why aren't there periods in IG Farben)?
    6. "Nüremburg Trials" should have a 'u' rather than a 'ü'. The 'ü' is only used in the German form, Nürnberg. Is there a wikilink for Federal German Government?
    7. In the 6th paragraph, wikilink € to Euro and remove the space to make it €25 instead of € 25. Universität should be replaced with University (no need to be fancy, and keep in mind this is the English Wikipedia). Don't wikilink 1998 and if 2001 is wikilinked, so also should October 26.
    8. What does "(Frankfurter Stadtbaudezernent)" mean at the end of the second paragraph under History? In paragraph 3, what is "14 hectares park"? Paragraph 4, sentence 2...punctuation problems.
    9. Under History, paragraph 5 says the name was officially changed to General Creighton W. Abrams Building, but the introduction says the U.S. had no authority to change the name. If they had no authority, I'm not certain it could be official.
    10. Years (without months or days) that form the timeline of history should not be wikilinked. Does the office of "Dissing+Weitling" really have a plus symbol in the company name? What does the phrase "After some initial teething problems" mean (I assume its not about teeth)?
    11. Much of the information in the history section repeats the introduction. One or the other, and since the introduction is already too big, I suggest removing some of the content there.
    12. Second to last paragraph in History section: is the president's name "Meissner" or "Meißner"? In either case, the second use needs an apostrophe. What is "AStA" (the red wikilink is not enoough)? Comma after "proposal" should be after "too" also.
    13. The departments of the university should be both capitalized or both not in the last and 3rd to last paragraphs under History.
    14. Under The Building, wikilink "New Objectivity" and get rid of "Neue Sachlichkeit" (redundant, and remember, this is the English dictionary).
    15. The Notes and References sections should be merged and MANY more inline citiations, as well as references (especially if inline cites aren't available) are needed.
  • Needs <ref>s. Article has an interesting topic, and is well translated, with good use of illustrations. In my opinion it is a good candidate for WP:DYK, or a feature someday if citations are added. DVD+ R/W 20:01, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fundamental Rights in India edit

See previous peer review

A well-written, comprehensive article on FA path. Comments/criticism welcome. --May the Force be with you! Shreshth91 18:08, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Ok you've cut/paste a lot of info from the mother article. While that is quite acceptable, you need a lot of in-depth information on this subject. "Fundamental rights" equates with "civil rights," "human rights," etc. You will need to dig up a lot of data on the different problems faced by people in India and what the government is doing or not doing. You will need to write about what has happened in states with insurgencies or similar law/order problems: Punjab, Kashmir, Nagaland, Tripura, Bengal, Bihar, Gujarat. Police abuse during the emergency, the Bhagalpur jail abuse, extra-judicial killings, rape in Delhi, etc. One important element is how "Fundamental rights" work out in courts. What judicial decisions, precedents and historical trends in judicial philosophy exist? How have governments worked on legislation and individual cases? And of course, the criticism from various sources. Happily, you have the 2 FACs of FR/DP/FD to guide you on the language, structure, grammar, etc. Rama's arrow 03:22, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

An interesting point to illustrate will be FR's continuing issues with DP and FD. The advancement and enforcement of FRs are argued to be one of the main DPs, but the government often uses national security, some DPs and even FDs to argue in favor of legislation that constrains FRs. So where does the debate stand in India? How do India's FRs correlate with international conventions? Rama's arrow 03:25, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nelvana edit

Seventh peer review: This is what I consider to be the Wikipedia Extreme Makeover of the year (as far as articles on animation companies are concerned). The article on one of the most famous Canadian cartoon studios, Nelvana, has been ignored outright by the entire WP community (in terms of improvement and expansion) until just about now.

This page has been with us Wikipedians since mid-April 2003. It was started by LittleDan and extended a little by Menchi and BillBell in the space of only two and a half months.

Over the course of many more months, it lay dormant in the way of editing until late 2004, when it started to turn into a list of the company's shows, movies and specials, something that normal Wikipedia articles do not encourage. It changed little, more or less, until I started to come into the picture, adding a historical tidbit on the company's founders (whose articles I created), two external links and the French entry.

Apart from two formatting edits, and addressing a concern about the content on its Talk page, I took a really long time off from the page to focus mainly on Care Bears articles and divers nostalgic subjects. One of them (again dealing with a Nelvana film), which I extensively worked on, has gotten a green plus for now, if not a featured star. Meanwhile, in the words of Mintguy, "the lunatics [were] taking over the asylum"—minions of MascotGuy and several other users and IPs did almost nothing serious as to getting it better...

That being said, Googlers are now looking at mirrors of the page's former poor self at reference.com, NationMaster and FreeDictionary, among countless others. Sooner or later, Answers.com will have to update its entry.

Inspired by my love of the company's first film, Rock & Rule, I decided to head back to the Nelvana article and improve it with a burning vengeance. Now everything's been set—the list has been spun off into its own page, and the article is coming close to becoming the online resource for enthusiasts of the company's long history.

So, subsequent fair use rationales and red-link erasure aside, how far have I succeeded? Give me a response during the next few days and I'll see what I can do.

May this succeed as the first FA for a cartoon company, one that others like it can follow in time to come. Who knows, it could go into a translation drive later on in the year. Hail Canada—and happy Fourth of July!

(Whoo...! Is this the longest a PR intro has ever gotten? I've spent hours typing this out.) --Slgr@ndson (page - messages - contribs) 01:57, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Simpsons edit

This article recently failed a FAC. I have taken care of the things people objected to in that nomination and would like to know what needs to be done in order for it to become a FA. --Maitch 15:37, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I'm going to be hard on this one because you want it to be an FA and said that it failed already. So here are some comments:

  • Second paragraph feels flighty.
  • Third paragrph 1st sentence, needs to be reworked. Simplify and include use a specific date rather than "to date."
  • This is way too long for a FA. The recommended length is 30KB, but I think they really are around 40-50... this is 63KB. Go over the article and scrutinize the entire thing cutting it down by about 18KB! It's a pain in the butt, but will be worth the effort. What sections are necessary? Which ones can you get rid of? The article seems to try to be all things to all people. You're going to need to decide what the purpose is and focus on that and use other articles to cover what you don't get to here. I cut out about 10K from my article on military brats
  • The TOC is also pretty long and intimidating. I would be surprised if 20% of the people reviewing this for FA read the whole thing---even if they are fans!
  • Movie section needs to be completely reworked. Looks like it was written before the Movie was finalized.
  • No offense, but the writing style is repetitive. It feels as if the sentence structure is the same throughout the article... for example, the Merchandise section:
    • Many episodes of the show have been released on DVD and VHS over the years
    • Many posters involving Simpsons characters are available for purchase
    • Many characters are available to buy in figurine form
  • The Merchandise section would be a section that I would consider making into a separate article and expanding.

My biggest criticism of the article is that it is all over the place. Tighten this article up...Balloonman 09:37, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the comments. I will try and work with it. I would like to add that there are FA's at over 90 KB, but I agree that it is not as tightly written as possible and the main problem is the "Merchandise" section. Most of it on the other hand is already summarized with a lot of information moved to subarticles. The movie is not finalized and is scheduled to be released 27 July 2007. I take no offense on writing styles or anything else. This article is a product of a lot of people making minor edits. I'm trying to shape it up to a complete article. --Maitch 15:33, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've removed a lot of the 'merchandise' section. The editing may seem a bit bold, but it had to be done.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Atlantis Hawk (talk • contribs)
You removed the entire thing plus several other sections. It was reverted by another user and I think he made the right move. Being bold doesn't mean that you have to delete everything that isn't perfect. --Maitch 20:48, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Waste-to-energy plant edit

I've worked on this a lot, mostly with the layout. Could someone please look at it and suggest how it could be improved? Green caterpillar 23:51, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program, and may or may not be accurate for the article in question (due to possible javascript errors/uniqueness of articles).
  • Please expand the lead to conform with guidelines at WP:LEAD. The article should have an appropriate number of paragraphs as is shown on WP:LEAD, and should adequately summarize the article.
    • Does anyone think some of the one-paragraph sections should be moved to the lead? Green caterpillar 00:04, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • The categories are done, and there are no interlanguage links.
  • This article is a bit too short, and therefore may not be as comprehensive as WP:WIAFA critera 2(b) is looking for. Please see if anything can be expanded upon.
  • This article needs footnotes, preferably in the cite.php format recommended by WP:WIAFA. Simply, enclose inline citations, with WP:CITE or WP:CITE/ES information, with <ref>THE FOOTNOTE</ref>. At the bottom of the article, in a section named “References” or “Footnotes”, add <div class="references-small"><references/></div>.
    • To assist you with this, add {{subst:js|User:AndyZ/monobook.js/footnotehelper.js}} to your monobook.js file (mine is located at User:AndyZ/monobook.js) and then bypass your browser's cache by pressing: Mozilla/Safari/Konqueror: hold down Shift while clicking Reload (or press Ctrl-Shift-R), Internet Explorer: press Ctrl-F5, Opera: press F5. In editing mode, click on the "Footnote creater" tab that appears.

Good article. Specific improvements that could be made include:

  • The article needs more references (if there is a good textbook you read on the subject include that).
  • Coverage of pollution is good but it will probably be the main interest many readers have in the article — so it needs to be better. Make sure to cite your sources and don't be afraid to get into specifics. For example, "nitrogen oxides are prevented from escaping the flue by using ..." and "In comparison to coal power plants that on average emit x tonnes of carbon dioxide per MWh, waste-to-energy plants emit on average x tonnes."
  • A statisitic on what fraction of energy, waste-to-energy plants provide as opposed to other energy sources would be helpful.

Cedars 01:35, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Green caterpillar 23:48, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Florida Virtual School edit

Fellow wikipedians,

I have been editing and revising the Florida Virtual School article, and would appreciate your comments and critique of the article. I am hoping to have the article meet the standards of the perfect article and to (eventually) become a featured article.

I greatly appreciate your time and your comments.

Thanks so much! Ec 00:45, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • The article as it stands right now looks like an ad for the Florida Virtual School. Try to mention something negative about it. I'm somewhat curious as to the history of FLVS, and how it's organized with respect to the public school system. The article might be benefitted if you used the website infobox and made more words into links. I am trying to do those things. LittleDantalk 12:34, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok... Thanks for the suggestions! I'll be working on that. --Ec 19:19, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! --Ec 21:06, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tropical Storm Henri (2003) edit

I created this article, and it was upgraded to GA a month ago. Does anyone have any suggestions before I should make an FAC run? --Hurricanehink (talk) 13:52, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Review by thunderboltza.k.a.Deepu Joseph |TALK

  1. wikilink Gulf of Mexico (in the lead), Tropical Depression Twelve, shear,Pennsylvania, Hockessin[
  2. The claims in the lead all need references.
  3. De-link individual dates using the famous - "Do you think the reader will benifit anything by cliking this" theory.
  4. reached a peak strength of 60 mph (95 km/h) later on September 5 - needs ref
  5. twelve shelters were placed on standby - needs ref
  6. with the worst of the flooding occurring in Delaware. - needs ref
  7. Expand FEMA atleast once in the article.
  8. aid through FEMA, totaling to just over $1 million (2003 USD). - needs ref
  9. Over twenty volunteer organizations met to establish a long-term committee to find resources for disaster recovery needs. - needs ref

-- thunderboltza.k.a.Deepu Joseph |TALK14:10, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the imput. I wikilinked GOM. Tropical Depression Twelve does not need a wikilink (it's part of the storm), shear is already wikilinked and doesn't need another one later in the same paragraph, Pennsylvania has wikilinks at the beginning of the sections and aren't needed 2 or three times, and Hockessin already has a wikilink at its first mention. The information in the lead is mentioned later in the article. Per the six featured articles I've already written, if the information is sourced later in the article, it doesn't need a reference in the lead. Also per the other 6 featured articles, dates are always wikilinked. If you strongly think I should change it, you should contact the Tropical Cyclone Wikiproject, as all 300 tropical cyclone articles wikilink dates. The peak strength has a ref, but it isn't right next to it. The references are at the end of the section where I got the information from. If the entire paragraph came from one source, I will put the source at the end of the paragraph. The same goes for the 12 shelters. Flooding in Delaware is mentioned in the Mid-Atlantic section. How should I expand FEMA? FEMA aid and the volunteer organizations have a reference. Are there any other problems other than references, as the references are, IMO, fine as they are? --Hurricanehink (talk) 14:27, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
As I said in my edit summary, it was just a quick look. I didnt notice it being wikilinked earlier. And the refs seem fine. And by expanding "FEMA" I meant writing it as "Federal Emergency Management Agency". There are a couple of bots around that de-links any individual dates unless the article has special importance to that day. -- thunderboltza.k.a.Deepu Joseph |TALK14:44, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Cool, ok. I expanded FEMA on its first use. I don't know if the dates should be de-linked, simply based on every other tropical cyclone article. True, they don't hold much importance to the tropical cyclone, but in the same regard, how useful is having links to locations? The storm doesn't have much significance to Florida, though Florida should certainly be linked. I know I'm being facetious, but if it ain't broke, don't fix it. I don't think there's much harm in linking to the dates, especially considering every other article does it the same way. --Hurricanehink (talk) 14:59, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Just yesterday, there was an edit war at WP:WIAFA about a suggestions link that suggested the "Bobblewik standard", so a change from one standard to another certainly is controversial. In fact, the links are only a guideline, and in-topic consistency is preferred. Additionally, if I can remember correctly, Wikipedia talk:Lead section had a suggestion of not referencing in the lede unless a claim is controversial, and since none of these claims are, they shouldn't be. An example of an article being opposed due to that is Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/National Anthem of Russia. Titoxd(?!?) 17:15, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Wow. Thanks for the info. --Hurricanehink (talk) 17:22, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

BBC edit

I'm listing this article since it's currently a Good Article and has undergone a fair amount of work since its listing. Hopefully with a little bit more work it can become a Featured Article, which would be fitting for a subject as important as the BBC. Would most appreciate comments on the structure, and how best to incorporate criticism of the BBC into the article, but all other comments are also welcome--Daduzi talk 18:56, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I've made a start on implementing a number of the suggestions given. --Daduzi talk 05:53, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Philadelphia Inquirer edit

I somehow began working on this a few months ago and have since fixed everything I could think of. With not really any complete newspaper articles to base it on I wonder if my setup works and makes sense. I also wonder if I'm missing any key information. Any other suggestions and comments are appreciated. Medvedenko 03:47, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, AZ t 19:48, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I changed the logo to a PNG. WP 04:12, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the help and suggestions. Medvedenko 19:22, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Chicago Bears edit

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

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

Adi Shankara edit

Request for any general comments/ suggestions on this article to elevate it to FA status. --Babub(Talk|Contribs) 04:58, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Review by thunderboltza.k.a.Deepu Joseph |TALK
Had a quick look:

  • The image Image:Sankaracharya.jpg seems to have an incorrect license.
  • Since he is a Malayali, his name in Malayalam should also be given.
  • It might not be necessary to give the pronunciation guide and translation for Advaita Vedanta, Shankara Vijayams, etc.
  • Is the meaning of śāstra, scriptures? I think its more on the lines of "science". But ofcouse, I could be wrong.
  • Mādhavīya Śaṃkara Vijayaṃ, the Ānandagirīya Śaṃkara Vijayaṃ, the Cidvilāsīya Śaṃkara Vijayaṃ, and the Keraļīya Śaṃkara Vijayaṃ — italise them and if possible, give their meanings alongside.
  • Wiki-link all proper nouns.
  • He was named Shankara, in honour of Shiva. — what does Shankara mean?
  • The distinction between legend and that which is documented must be made more clear. -- thunderboltza.k.a.Deepu Joseph |TALK15:11, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd like some help with the malayali name
  • Yes I'll remove those
  • The literal meaning is science, but what Shankara meant by it is Scriptures
  • All these are proper nouns, of course. I'll italicise them
  • Ok
  • I was thinking of giving that meaning. I'll do that
Thanks for your comments. I'll do some of it by today. --Babub(Talk|Contribs) 02:15, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've added the Malayalam text. Also select a different license for the picture, unless of course, you own the site whose link you have provided as the source.-- thunderboltza.k.a.Deepu Joseph |TALK09:35, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Done with the pic. What do you think about Image:Sankara-big.jpg?--Babub(Talk|Contribs) 14:45, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've changed the picture and done some changes as per the above suggestions. Please give your suggestions/ comments if any.--Babub(Talk|Contribs) 15:07, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Demosthenes edit

This article had already goon through a peer-review (Wikipedia:Peer review/Demosthenes/archive1). It is now a GA and I intend to nominate for FA. But I need your input and help. Especially, about style, content and prose. Please, make your suggestions!--Yannismarou 15:45, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's very good. Looks well researched. The biggest thing is the huge number of quote boxes seems to detract rather than add to the article; they're large and break up the text a lot. I've not seen them used in other biographies, especially not in that number. Second is the references in pop culture needs to be removed unless it can be referenced and the references show that the mentions are important enough to warrant coverage. - Taxman Talk 19:44, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
About the quotes: It is not the only biography with quotes. You can check two featured biographies: Pericles and President Ford. Demosthenes was an orator and I believe that some monumental phrases of him would be nice to be available for the reader. I chose a different kind of quote box. Is it less detractive? Section "Refs in pop culture" is a small opening to a sub-page. I've also doubts about this section, but I thought not to remove it, since the way ancient personalities are treated by novel writers etc. is a quite interesting topic. Anyway, I'll check for references. Thanks!--Yannismarou 07:44, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think the problem is there are just too many quotes. I'm not saying you have to cull them, but I'm predicting you're going to hear the same thing when you take this to FAC. Make sure they are relevant to the section they are in as much as possible. And the pop culture section should at minimum be demoted to a sub sub section, perhaps fit it in at the end of the previous section. It fits in with the legacy/importance idea covered there. But yeah, you bring up a good point, if the way he is treated is interesting it's worth covering. But it definitely needs to be replaced with sourced analysis about how he is covered, not listings of cartoons etc he is referred to in. - Taxman Talk 12:23, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I got rid of the "Refs in pop culture" and "See also" sections. I incorporated the first one in "Rhetorical Legacy". The links of the "See also" section have been incorporated in the prose. I replaced some of the quote boxes to be more relevant with the text, but I haven't yet cut any of them yet. But I'm still thinking about that!--Yannismarou 15:27, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I also got rid of some of the quote boxes. I hope it is better now.--Yannismarou 13:50, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Looks pretty good. If there's any problems left in it, it would be in the content which is beyond me to judge. You may get people in FAC that will still think there needs to be less quote boxes, but that's an opinion, so you don't need to jump on it right away until a consensus developes that it needs to be done. I'd say you have a fair chance of successfully passing FAC, so send it up, I'm sure you can deal with anything that comes up there. - Taxman Talk 02:16, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is overall a very nicely done article.

If you feel bound to act in the spirit of that dignity, whenever you come into court to give judgement on public causes, you must bethink yourselves that with his staff and his badge every one of you receives in trust the ancient pride of Athens.

Demosthenes (On the Crown, 210)

My suggestion with the quote boxes is to try to somehow tie them into the section of text more / better (like a caption on a picture will often explain its relation to that part of the article). While the source of the quote is listed, it was not always clear to me exactly why it was placed in that section of the article. So, could you add some sort of brief explanatory note / caption to make the relation between the quote and the article there clearer? For example (see box), if I read it right, the quote in the "Career as logographer" section is Deomsthenes defense of the serious nature of the courts in Athens, so after the identification could it say something like this (my quick sentence - more to show the idea of a caption than as a suggestion for one here). Hope this helps, Ruhrfisch 14:31, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your suggestions! You have a point. I'll try to figure out a solution, although I donot know if the system with the captions can work. Maybe more information would do the job. I just ask this peer-review not to be archived, until such issues are settled.--Yannismarou 14:51, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I made the quotes a bit more informative, following your suggestions. I also chose another type of quote boxes, which I think serves better this purpose. What do you think?--Yannismarou 16:02, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • The boxes seem fine to me (I made a few minor copyedits to clean up the captions - please revert if I erred). Thanks for all of your work on this and the changes - I look forward to see this as a Featured Article someday soon. Ruhrfisch 17:22, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • One minor quibble - in the section Rhetorical Legacy, you quote Juvenal in Latin, but do not translate into English. Assuming this article is submitted for FAC, I would imagine they will want this translated. Ruhrfisch 02:38, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Thanks - sorry I did not mention this in my earlier comments. As I said before, it looks very good and I imagine will be Featured soon. Ruhrfisch 14:49, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • No problem and thanks for the nice words. And in case you find any syntactical or grammatical errors (since you are a native English speaker), just tell me to fix them.--Yannismarou 15:02, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dundee edit

Am hoping to bring this to featured article status. Article has undergone a radical overhaul since the last peer review and would appreciate some advice on anything that needs doing to meet the FA criteria.  YDAM TALK 21:17, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Replaced a few repetitions of 'the city' with 'Dundee'. Berek 09:41, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's pretty good. I didn't check everything, but the lsit of notable Dundeeites needs to be converted to prose and mention only the most notable ones who's notability can be cited to reliable sources. Also I'm assuming most or all of those listed in Dundee (disambiguation) are named after this one. If so that's quite a number and I think it would be worth researching and mentioning if there is some particular reason so many have been named after it. If there's no importance to it, then maybe it's too trivial to mention. - Taxman Talk 14:28, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sorted that list. Most of them were already listed in the prose anyway. As for other places being named after it; as far as I know there isin't a significant reason any more than there is for Boston or Birmingham. I suppose that list is pretty typical of such cities  YDAM TALK 14:43, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm just saying, I don't think many cities so small have that many named after them. There may be something there. But since you've responded so quickly, I've searched for more of what separates this article from featured standard. 1) The twin cities section needs similar treatment to the list of people. If it's not important enough to have some cited prose analysis of the international relations and whether the twin city status actually amounts to anything, it's probably not important enough to be it's own section, and possibly not important enough to be covered at all. 2) Too many short paragraphs cause choppy flow and highlight areas that either need to be expanded, merged with related material, or removed. 3) The word outwith appears to be classic scottish, but arcane enough that most would not know what it means. If you really feel it's valuable to include, figure out a way to define it in context so that it doesn't require looking up so that the sentence is accessible. It looked like a grammar error to me before looking it up. 3) The Wharfs section seems out of place and not important enough to justify it's own subsection. Merge it into wherever is appropriate, either economy or history depending on its current importance. 4) The transport section should probably be replaced by a discussion of the infrastructure in general. 5) The education section needs to discuss the general quality of the school systems by national and international standards. In relation to that, perhaps there is too much coverage of individual prominent schools. 6) Look to other FAs on cities for ideas of the balance of coverage in them. The most useful would probably be Ann Arbor a city of similar size, though its lead is now too short and it's sister cities bit has no context either. If you want my consideration of whether it looks like all that's done and this is ready for FAC, let me know here and I'll have another look. - Taxman Talk 15:16, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks a lot for those very detailed suggestions. I will get them resolved ASAP and lat you know back here.  YDAM TALK 16:27, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've updated the article to try and address your suggestions. There's less short stubby paragraphs, "outwith" has been replaced with "outside of". Wharfs has been spun out to the history of dundee article. The transport and education sections have now been expanded. I couldn't really find any context for the sister city's section but I have moved it back under the politics and government section to try and make some. We could always drop it completly if you really feel it won't pass WP:FAC with it.  YDAM TALK 19:31, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Truly excellent, excellent work. Now the lead and perhaps the geography section just need some more context. Prioritize the first few sentences in the lead to be the most important overview things about the city. The best way to do that is to give us a little more context, particularly of where it is at. Currently we don't know where in Scotland it is unless we already know where the river Lay is. I reallize the map is there, but it should tell simply in the text also something like "it is near the coast of ____ on the east side of Scotland". The image is nice, but it should be made clear what landmass it is representing and the surrounding bodies of water and other land should be labeled. To give better context on the size for those that don't already know the subject, ideally also you could reword the phrase referring to the 4th largest city by fitting in the population, otherwise unless we know the approximate sizes of all the top cities in Scotland the fourth largest doesn't tell us much. Finally add just a bit more to the first paragraph in the demographics or try to fit it in more successfully, it's a bit of a jarring change from that short paragraph to the next section. Try for improved narative arc there, making the section cohesive. I may not be able to respond here very soon, so if you really feel you've implemented these well, and really want to get this to FAC soon, it will have a great chance of passing with these fixes. Or if you'd like to wait for more input feel free of course. Keep up the good work. - Taxman Talk 19:34, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Have implemented most of your suggestions (will have to get in touch with somebody who does map to sort out that bit) I'm not really in a ruch to get it through FAC. Would rather get it right than rush it. Give us a shout if you think it's ok. Oh and thanks for the compliments.  YDAM TALK 01:40, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I took a look at how other cities did their maps and saw they used captions so I used that to give the map more context without making the map look cluttered. Hope that's sufficient. Is there anything the article needs doing before FAC  YDAM TALK 16:27, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Maximum Ride edit

Right now, we have a very small workforce (3-4 users) trying to merge two articles with similar topics(Maximum Ride and Maximum Ride: The Angel Experiment). We also would like reviews from anyone in general whether they have read the books or not. --Blackjack48 13:53, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

State Military characters of Fullmetal Alchemist edit

I decided to relist this here for additional feed back before attempting a run at featured lists. This is the second time that this article has come through peer review, the previous archieve is here. TomStar81 03:25, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Nominator’s Note: I am enrolled in summer school, so if it appears that I am slow to respond here it probably means that school work has me tied down. TomStar81 03:32, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article needs to better establish in our universe why these characters are important (see WP:FICTION). Right now, I hardly see anything in our universe. From my own experience, you might have difficulty in establishing out-of-universe significance for many of them. The most important ones (presumably Mustang, Hawkeye, Pride, etc) warrant a paragraph or so, but others probably only an entry on a bulleted list. A less radical first step would be making the second sentence of the lead the first sentence. Just a few things that popped out at me: Try to incorporate the trivia into the actual sections; people seem to frown on trivia sections: You need actual citations instead of just explanatory notes. Titles like "Crimson Alchemist" probably should be in parentheses and unbolded (they're meaningless if you haven't seen the show). "Black Hayate" seems a little confused, nor especially relevant for its length. The speculation about "Storch's" name could use a citation, right now it's just your word (on that, a general citation linking FMA names' to real-life ones would be useful). In lieu of citation, cut the speculation.--Monocrat 12:23, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Actually, all of the name speculation needs to be nailed down more precisely, like with inline citations. State Alchemists are refered to either by their real name or thier alchemic name, so me thinks that they should remain bolded, although the parenthases idea sounds good. I do not think that the lesser characters shold have a simple bullet list of their achievements, due in large part to the fact that the manga series is still running, so more information on those characters may become available in the future. In fact, it is entirely possible that one of the minor anime characters could become a major manga character. I will look into the rest of your suggestions as time permits. TomStar81 19:33, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Citations would be great, but if you can't find a source, they're fair game for deletion per WP:OR, and the FLC would rip uncited speculation apart. About minor characters: just because they could become important doesn't mean they will. For the time being, consigning them to a bullet list makes sense and would cut down on that longish TOC. To further cut down on the TOC, would it be possible to organize personnel by function or broad rank (staff officers, field officers, NCOs, enlisted?) or some such, using only dictionary list format for the individual characters? In any case, the article itself lacks any sort of organization apparant to a non-fan, so something should be done to bring clarity. As a last resort, perhaps alphabetize entries by surname?--Monocrat 00:23, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I was actually thinking about retooling them so they appear in the order of their anime introductions. TomStar81 04:44, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That would be better, but I'm still unsure how useful it would be to an uninformed reader.--Monocrat 13:24, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Peace Dollar edit

This was recently listed as a Good Article, and a few others (myself included) feel that it is close to FA status. But before going there, I'd like to get some other eyes to help out. --cholmes75 (chit chat) 03:04, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Hi! Regarding the Collectability section, it's quite short (four sentences and a list). Perhaps this could be expanded a bit? Bear with me, as I'm a complete novice to coins and coin collecting but here are some ideas that might help:
  • Maybe a very short desciption of a proof coin can be included in the proof section, then if the reader is still interested they can then follow the proof wikilink. As it stands now, anyone not familiar with coins/coin collecting (like me) will have no idea what this section is about until they follow that link.
  • (with high relief)? Does this mean there was great demand for proof coins before they were minted? If so, maybe you could expand on this and perhaps provide a reference. If not, then maybe you should clarify what this comment is alluding to.
  • The special varieties section is just a list. Could this be converted into prose using the brief descriptions of each of the coins as a comparison to the 'normal' coins? You might also be able to include why there were changes to the coin.
  • The Rarities section is again a bit short, and perhaps a bit technical. I'd suggest converting comments in parenthesis into proper prose and expanding on some of the more technical details. Some idea of where MS-65 ranks .. is that the best possible condition? XF/EF is poor quality I assume? Going into detailed grading schemes is not necessary ofcourse, that is up to the grading article, but I think just a slightly better idea of what these grades mean would do the article some good. Cheers --darkliight[πalk] 13:10, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • All fine suggestions. I and some of the other editors working on the page will definitely incorporate them! --cholmes75 (chit chat) 15:26, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • OK, I think I've addressed all of your points. If I missed anything let me know. --cholmes75 (chit chat) 15:22, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, Andy t 15:01, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Capitalism and Freedom edit

This doesn't need to become a featured article, just a good one. I'm worried about a few things, especially organization (there is a big chapter summary section, does that make sense?) and NPOV in the context and impact sections. Could someone help me with this? I would also like it to be accessable and readable, if that's possible. Could you tell me what you think? LittleDantalk 00:08, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • But every article needs to be become a featured article at some point! ;) Ok, I think it would be best to rework the chapter summary section into a bit of an overview of the book, themes discussed etc. You can get plenty of ideas on how to do this by looking at articles on other books, particularly the featured literature articles. Cheers, --darkliight[πalk] 00:31, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • My problem was, I couldn't find a good non-fiction book on that list, and with the chapter summaries, it seemed like the ideas were divided fairly cleanly between the chapters. How exactly would you propose I reorganize the summaries? LittleDantalk 00:34, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • It absolutely needs sources and citations, especially in "Context" and "Impact," even for GA status. Consider searching Google Scholar or JSTOR to get academic, economists' and non-economists' perspective on the book. The chapter summaries are all right as they stand for GA status, but I'd like to see them a little beefier, or as suggested above, merged into a single passage. The text has a few possible NPOV (or perhaps just stylistic) issues: e.g. "In accessible, jargon-free language," "The book finds several realistic places...," the first sentence of "Impact" could probably be struck altogether. Isn't there a passage in the text where he advocates abolishing the Fed and letting the market set short term rates? That would be a truly radical reform. :) Good work!--Monocrat 13:22, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Al-Kateb v Godwin edit

Ultimately aiming for FA status for this; at the moment I'm mainly interested in whether it makes sense for non-law type people, although any feedback is more than welcome. --bainer (talk) 15:58, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Interesting case and article. The article is a dense read, for me at least, but as a non-law type person, the article seemed to make sense, so mission accomplished I guess. Some minor comments:
  • The lead is good, but maybe a bit short.
  • I've expanded it a little. Is there anything else that you'd like to see there?
  • his application was dismissed, despite a case with substantially identical facts resulting in the release of another detainee. really left me hanging ... why? The same case was noted again later in the article and both times, without further discussion of it made me think this might be a bit POV. Take this with a grain of salt though, I just thought it weird that two different rulings on the same circumstances could happen like that.
  • I've cleared that up a bit. The other case was decided 12 days later by an appeals court higher up the food chain - that better result higher up was one reason why he appealed.
  • Section 196 of the Migration Act provides that unlawful non-citizens can only be released from immigration detention if they are granted a visa, deported, or removed from Australia Section 198(6) of the Act requires immigration officials to "remove as soon as reasonably practicable an unlawful non-citizen" is weird. I think there is just a full stop missing there.
  • Yes, just a full stop missing.
  • Each judge delivered a separate judgment, although Justice Heydon agreed entirely with Justice Hayne. Justices McHugh, Hayne, Callinan and Heydon formed the majority, finding that the Migration Act did permit indefinite detention. Chief Justice Gleeson and Justices Gummow and Kirby dissented. could do with a bit of work I think. The last part is kinda tacked on there and I think the fact that Heydon agreed entirely with Hayne should be moved towards the end of the paragraph. Cheers, --darkliight[πalk] 19:29, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • That paragraph is basically intended to summarise which judges went one way and which went the other way. I've changed it a little, let me know what you think.
I think that is much better, though there probably shouldn't be a single sentence paragraph there. This is just a suggestion to fix that, but whatever you think is best ofcourse:
The ultimate decision was four judges to three deciding that the Migration Act did permit indefinite detention. Each judge delivered a separate judgment with Justices McHugh, Hayne, Callinan and Heydon forming the majority, although Justice Heydon agreed entirely with Justice Hayne, and offered no extra reasoning. Chief Justice Gleeson and Justices Gummow and Kirby dissented, finding instead that the Migration Act should not be interpreted to permit indefinite detention.
Hope that helps, and thanks for addressing the other points. Cheers, --darkliight[πalk] 02:38, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You're right, that flows much better. Cheers. --bainer (talk) 04:29, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for the suggestions! My responses are in blue text. --bainer (talk) 03:46, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

For the most part, this is a fantastic article. You've really got a good knack for writing caselaw articles. I've just got a couple of minor quibbles:

  • the sentence "On the issue of whether indefinite detention for migration purposes infringed on Chapter III of the Australian Constitution, not every judge decided, although a majority of judges deciding did find that the detention scheme was constitutional" seems kind of odd
  • I've clarified this paragraph, making it clearer that not all judges reached a final decision on this issue, and naming the ones who did.
  • I also think it might warrant a sentence or two to just try and explain why the issue of inconsistency was raised - while I know, most people reading the article probably wouldn't.
  • I'm not sure what you're referring to here, could you clarify? Do you mean the inconsistent decision in the Al Masri case?
  • the paragraph about whether he should or not be named seems to me to be rather confused - it reads like two different issues jammed into one paragraph
  • I've cleared up the order of that paragraph to make it clearer that that exchange was included because it illustrates the way in which the usual procedures in the immigration system aren't adapted to stateless people. Also because someone out-compassions Kirby :)

Apart from that, it is excellent. Rebecca 13:51, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Again, responses in blue. --bainer (talk) 15:16, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd like to see a bit on what each judge gave for their decision if you want to improve this article - if you've read the case the decisions are actually quite diverse in the reasons that they gave. Particular reference should be given to the Kirby and McHugh JJ debate - McHugh describing Kirby's internationalist views as "heretical" and Kirby retorting that McHugh's views have no place in modern society... this case is a very important administrative law case regarding the role of human rights in Australian administrative law and so that point should be brought out. (JROBBO 06:53, 6 July 2006 (UTC))[reply]
You also might like to read McHugh J's speech to Sydney University Law School shortly after his retirement from the High Court. I'm told that not in the speech itself, but in the proceedings that he admitted that he regretted his decision in the case - but still said that the state of Australia's migration and administrative law was such that the High Court could simply not recognise indefinite mandatory detention as unlawful while Australia had no legislative protection against human rights abuses. He seems to be very much in favour of a Bill of Rights which would have changed the decision in this case. See http://www.hcourt.gov.au/speeches/mchughj/mchughj_12oct05.pdf. (JROBBO 07:00, 6 July 2006 (UTC))[reply]
Postscript: the article has been updated with a new section on the ongoing constitutional interpretation debate, and material on McHugh's speech. --bainer (talk) 15:36, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Watermelon Man (film) edit

Pretty good article as is, but I know it needs some improvements. If you notice anything that's missing, tell me what to add. Also, tell me what you think of the current state of the article. (Ibaranoff24 00:37, 7 July 2006 (UTC))[reply]

Yep, it's pretty good -- always like to see a little recognition for Godfrey Cambridge. A few more footnotes would be helpful. I wouldn't mind seeing more background on the production -- but that's more "nice to have" than "need to have."--Idols of Mud 21:03, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Good start. However, currently, it's a large introduction. First, a brief plot summary would do, followed by some of the information being moved out of the intro and into their own sections- starting with "Production". Anything reporting a rumour should be cited. Production should cover writing and casting (information is already here, but can use some sourcing). Other important information would be "Reception"- the view of film critics, on one hand, and the box office performance on the other. Then, depending on the movie, you can talk about merchandising or the film's legacy- this already has a little bit of that by talking about the soundtrack. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 22:37, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hideki Noda edit

I came across this article by accident and I was originally dissapointed with the article's size. Even though he has made some reasonable achievements, I have no motivation to turn this article into an FA...however, I'd like to promote this article to a GA. Overall, I'm hoping this Peer Review will give me some ideas in how to improve the article and if the images used have adequate fair use rationale on them. --Skully Collins 12:45, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

the japanese interwiki link is messed up. Jon513 15:55, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Busking edit

I've been steadily trying to polish this article for some time now and would welcome some constuctive critisim on the article. I realize it's not ready for FAC in it's current form (even though someone had already tried that previously), but eventually I'd like to get it there. One of the big problems with this article currently is one of citing sources &/or possible origional research, and I will continue to try to work on that. What I'm looking for in this request for peer review is more help/suggestions reguarding any other factors that are hindering GA/FA status. Thanks --- Argon233 T C @ ∉  16:59, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gary Barnett edit

Would like comments on how to improve the article to GA status. Thank you in advance. Mecu 18:44, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

University of Oklahoma edit

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

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

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

Moon edit

Previous PR: Wikipedia:Peer review/Moon/archive1

This page is starting to shape up pretty nicely now, thanks to much work by Lunokhod and others. It has reached GA status, and should be ready for a FAC with some additional work. Could you suggest any changes that will bring this up to FA status? Thank you! — RJH (talk) 18:35, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Aristotle's division of the world into the sublunar, changable world, and the world above it, that did not change, was so prominent in ancient and medieval accounts of the universe that I think that it should probably be mentioned. The part on mythology is a little weak, as well. Goldfritha 01:21, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In fact, I've added Aristotle myself. Goldfritha 01:33, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. — RJH (talk) 15:43, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry I saw this so late, and now I only have time to make some suggestions to the lead, but here they are. In general a lot of the lead is a bit verbose with minor factoids, which makes it longer and more confusing than it needs to be.
  1. The average distance from the Earth to the Moon is 384,399 kilometres (238,854 miles), which is about 30 times the diameter of the Earth. could be simplified to On average, the Moon is 384,399 kilometers (238,854 miles) from the Earth.
  2. At this distance, it takes sunlight reflected from the lunar surface approximately 1.3 seconds to reach Earth. It's interesting but doesn't tell us anything about the Moon.
  3. The Moon's diameter is 3,474 kilometres (2,159 miles),[1] which is about 3.7 times smaller than the Earth, making it the Solar System's fifth largest moon, both by diameter and mass, ranking behind Ganymede, Titan, Callisto, and Io. Oi. Four ideas in five phrases and only one sentence. Suggestion: The Moon is about one-third the size of the Earth and has a diameter of 3,474 kilometres (2,159 miles). It is the fifth largest moon in the solar system behind Ganymede, Titan, Callisto, and Io.
  4. The gravitational attraction of the Moon is responsible for the tides on Earth. This doesn't seem to fit with the rest of the paragraph, which is discussing the Moon's physical characteristics.
  5. The Soviet Union's (USSR) Luna program was the first to reach the Moon with unmanned spacecraft. Unnecessary because the next two sentences tell us the same thing but in more detail.
  6. The United States' Apollo program achieved the first (and only) manned missions to the Moon. Same thing here.
  7. The first manned mission to orbit the Moon was Apollo 8 in 1968, and the first people to land and walk on the Moon came aboard Apollo 11 in 1969. The wording of the second phrase is a bit confusing (it seems like they're "climbing aboard Apollo 11", rather than going to the moon on Apollo 11).
  8. Half of the lead is about human exploration of the moon, which seems out of proportion with the main part of the article. And there is no mention of the moon's geology, surface features, or formation, which comprise a large portion of the article. Perhaps it could be reworked to be a more representative overview.
I'll try to get around to reading the rest of the article with some more suggestions soon. Good luck!--Will.i.am 03:42, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Star Trek edit

An archived Peer Review of this article can be seen here.

This article has undergone huge changes of late, and after staring at it for several days, I believe it needs a new set of eyes to determine what else is needed to promote this article to Featured status. Thank you for any imput, Newnam(talk) 21:23, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It looks good. I have a few, mostly nit-picking comments that I hope are of some use:
  • Overall what the page is missing is a section on the Star Trek universe that briefly covers the major races, the location and volume of the Federation space, and the major technologies. I don't think it would need to be long; just enough to get the reader's feet wet (and give a link to a main article).
  • Where the starfleet is mentioned in the introduction, it should also explain the purpose of this organization for those who may not be familiar with the Star Trek universe.
  • The sentence "Issues depicted in the various series, such as imperialism, class warfare, racism, human rights, and the role of technology" appears incomplete.
  • The sentence "Altogether, the six series comprise a total of 726 episodes or thirty seasons or 735 professional hours or 550.75 literal hours[3] of programming" is a little awkward and could use a re-write. For example, "Altogether, the six series spanned thirty seasons over a total of thirty seasons. The combined programming covers 550.75 hours, and required 735 professional hours to produce." (Did I correctly interpret "professional hours" there?)
Probably not - one is about 75% of the other, which looks to me like the ratio between program content time and the time taken to show the episodes with advertising breaks. A "professional hour" would therefore be the one-hour time period in which a 42-minute episode is screened (and yes, that is not 75%, but advertising content standards have changed). Darcyj 12:01, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • When is the sentence that begins "The original series currently airs on G4..." current? Likewise for the sentence: "The series currently airs on Sky One and BBC Two..."
  • In the DSN section, the sentence that beings "The show chronicles the events..." runs on a tad. Could that be split into two smaller sentences right about the location of the "which"?
  • The Voyager section mentions the "Delta quadrant". This Star Trek-specific concept should be explained somewhere at or before its introduction.
  • The "Use of the name 'Star Trek'" section needs a reference or two.
  • Reference [34] should be moved after the period.
  • The "Wagon Train to the stars" reference could use a brief explanation in the text, in addition to the link.
  • A couple of the footnotes consist of bare URLs. Please enhance these to explain where the reader is heading. (A {{cite web}} template is suggested.)
  • The folks in FAC like to see a reference or two in the introduction.
Um, what sort of reference exactly? There are numerous cross-links in the introduction. Do you mean footnote-type external references? Darcyj 12:03, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! — RJH (talk) 14:56, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Banksia menziesii edit

This article has numerous suggestion on different formats, we're particularly interested in feed back on layout and prose Gnangarra 07:55, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bikram Yoga edit

I'm a long time user who's added a small item before, but did some major work on this page and would like to get feedback. I added quite a lot to the intellectual property controversy section and did some overall editing - tightening up the article and deleting some biased or unsupported views. Comments on the ip section generally and the edits would be appreciated. DJSbass 05:47, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lone Wolf (gamebooks) edit

  • This is one of my favorite book series, but the article does not do it justice. It needs some serious help, like what aspects need expanding? Judgesurreal777 21:21, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hello! Some suggestions:
  • Move the list of books into a seperate article (something like List of Lone Wolf books or whatever you think works). The list looks well presented and complete, so it might be possible to raise it to Featured List status without too much trouble if you wanted. Check out WP:WIAFL if you want.
  • The lead should be a summary of the entire article, so everything in the lead should be discussed later on in the article. With that in mind, it's a bit weird you need a citation in the lead. It might be worth using that line as inspiration for a new section within the article, something like The future of Lone Wolf ... or something :) I'll leave that bit up to you. Check out WP:LEAD too, it might give you some other ideas for the lead.
  • The Inspirations section is very short ... actually, it's just a quote. Could you maybe expand this a bit? Maybe some background too like when and how was the idea developed? Did the author have any trouble getting his ideas published? etc.
  • Other Media should be converted into prose. The list is already pretty good though so this shouldn't be too hard to do. A little expansion on each of the points would be good too - for example, the audio book, how was it recieved? Was there any demand before its release? etc.
  • The third point seems to contradict itself too. Did development stop or not? Maybe it was taken over by another company? Can you clear that up please.
  • Probably the most important thing I see missing, is how the books rate in the real world? Given the number of books I'd guess they do ok, but ... ? Has there been any controversy? The books have been around for over 20 years and are still being developed according to the article so there should be just heaps of material on this by now.
  • Be sure to check out Featured Literature for other ideas too. A quick browse of the topics covered by the articles in that section should give you a few ideas.
I hope that helps, cheers, --darkliight[πalk] 07:38, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lost (TV series) edit

Previous peer review at Wikipedia:Peer review/Lost (TV series)/archive1

The article has improved significantly since its previous review seven months ago. With an aim towards reaching FA quality, several editors have suggested it was time to request additional peer insight. Now that the second season of the show has concluded, the article has stablised, and has no serious content disputes. It is now very well-sourced, more than comparable to other TV series articles which have reached Featured status, e.g.:

As a long-time editor on the article, I'll be presumptive and say that we would welcome any suggestions for further improvements or additions which can be made. --LeflymanTalk 08:22, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Just some comments (Slof 00:55, 7 July 2006 (UTC)):[reply]
    • If you notice the "Awards" and "Characters" section of those listed featured articles, they are attempted differently than that of Lost's sections. This article simply has a list of nominations and wins; this seems to ruin the flow of the overall article. Basically, convert the list, or most of it (similar to Arrested Development's section), into paragraphs. The "Cast and characters" section (which should become just "Characters" with a "Casting" subsection) should also do pretty much the same.
  • The list of awards has been compressed into a shortened paragraph, which now follows Ratings. It could actually be expanded slightly, now that the new Emmy nominations have come out, but I'll leave that to the discretion of other editors. I've not yet looked at converting the cast section into prose; I'm hesitant to tackle it, as Lost features such a exceptionally large cast, and I'm not as familiar with how the series was cast as perhaps some others.
    • Per lead section guidelines, the lead section should contain more paragraphs. For a show of high universal caliber like Lost (or at least the size of the Lost article demonstrates that), there can definitely be more to the lead section than as of now.
  • The "background" section has been combined with the initial paragraph, as they naturally flowed into each other.
    • There are two citations needed that, well, need citing.
  • Not any more :) The unverifiable one has been removed, and the other cited; a new one has shown up, which I hope the editor who added it will provide a source for.
    • "The streaming of Lost episodes via ABC's website is currently only available to viewers in the United States"
      "In issue #6 of Marvel's current The Thing series..."
      "The Canadian punk/rock group Moneen features a song on their new album The Red Tree ..."
      -- These phrases do not heed Wikipedia's Manual of Style in that they contain words ("currently", "current", "new") signifying an unspecific time. The words in the first and third phrases can simply be deleted, although I am not knowledgeable about the time stance on the second statement.
    • Moreover, the extensive use of "new" needs to be deprecated.
  • I've removed or altered the relative-time specific words in the above; however some uses of "new" are unavoidable, such as in "fellow new series", "new television distribution methods", "new episodes".
    • Put a space between these two sentences: "The trial, expected to last from May to June 2006, has caused a stir among network affiliates who fear being cut out of advertising revenue.The streaming of Lost episodes via ABC's website is currently only available to viewers in the United States."
  • Done.
    • For the "In the news" subsection in "Lost in popular culture":
      • When did Numbers air? At least, state what year it premiered, depending on...
  • Done.
      • Did this happen after the U.S. airing, the U.K., etc.?
      • "many people" is non-NPOV.
  • How many qualify as "many"? Actually, I think the original wording was "numerous" but that sounded like a bit of a pun.
      • The reference for "by October, thousands had tried them for the multi-state Powerball lottery" does not support the statement made and renders "thousands" a hyperbolic number.
  • Powerball is played in 27 states (and Washington, DC). The 840 figure in the first source is a count of five of the participating states. I added an additional reference with quotes from more states.
    • The "on television" and "on print" subsections should have references for each of its statements; this should not be too stressing as the "references" are technically in the statements theirselves.
  • I'm not sure I agree here with the need to have a citation for every single statement, as including a particular broadcast date or issue number, is the reference in and of itself. Having said that, I did add a reference to the Thing #6. This article already has significantly more footnote references (57 at last count) than nearly any other similar one. (Compare to Doctor Who with 16, or West Wing (TV series) with 32.)
    • Per WP:MOS#Headings, headings generally should not repeat the title of the article.
    • The category "Lost" should probably be higher in the category list, should it not?
    • "Lost's pilot episode was the most expensive in the network's history, reportedly costing between $10 and $14 million." --Put "USD" into the price part of the sentence.
  • Done.
    • Per WP:WIAFA, this article's table of contents seems too long. In my opinion, I suggest editors should make a "Themes and other characteristics" section or similiar (like Arrested Development's page) and place the items from "Episode structure", "Thematic motifs" and "Mythology" into the section; "Filming location" might also be able to enter the section, but it can stay put probably. Also consider changing the "Thematic motifs" title into "Symbolism", "Use of symbology", etc. However, you can also use summary style to create subpages for "Thematic motifs" and "Mythology" (these two seem to be more than begging for it), then create a succinct paragraph or two for the sections on the original Lost article.
  • I'm not so sure the TOC is actually "too long" -- as stated at WP:WIAFA, an article should have "a substantial but not overwhelming table of contents", which I believe this TOC to be. I'm partial to "Thematic motifs" as a heading, since that term more accurately describes the usage of such elements in the story -- plus, the section does not describe "symbolism" and would teeter even further into Original Research, if it were reoriented to "explain" what the supposed symbols might be. The language there is carefully construed to try to be as neutral to making claims as possible. A subpage for the Thematic Motifs might not be a bad idea; however a fear of many long-term editors would be that (like so many of Lost's sub-pages) a purely "theoretic" article would become an even greater magnet for fancruft -- we already have to regularly prune the latest speculative injections by well-meaning fans. (See the extensive discussions at Talk:Lost (TV series).
    • A few references need inline citations.
    • Remember that the Nielsen Ratings used are not spot on (far from it). For the most part, the article notes that, except for "Lost's second season premiere was even stronger: pulling over 23 million viewers, setting a series record." A better reference might be able to clarify this statement.
  • I'm with you on the Nielsen's not being an accurate measure, however, it's the one that is accepted by the industry and media, and is the basis of advertising revenue-- until someone can figure out a better/more exact method of counting viewership, the Nielsen numbers are the ones we have to go by.
    • "Discredited theories" needs to be deprecated or placed into "Mythology".
  • It was included to recognize that Lost generates a great deal of speculation. Initially, some editors attempted to include examples of fan theories, which we removed as (obviously) original research. The section is a compromise to provided sources debunking some of the more outlandish theories, which were specifically brought up by the series' creative team.
    • The placement of the sections hurt its flow. My suggestion (which also takes the previous comments into account) is to go for: Background, Characters, Season synopses, Filming location, Distribution, Music, Themes and other characteristics, Ratings, Awards, Licensed merchandise, In other media, In popular culture, References and External links.
  • I moved the sections to improve the flow, specifically because some fans are afraid of "spoilers" (which includes cast lists). Hence, the first section is information about the series, as a whole: it's creation, ratings, locations, etc. This is followed with information about the story: characters, themes, mythology. The Popular culture, merchandising, etc. are left for the end, as it is more in keeping with "trivia" (which it might be noted this article does not include a separate section for.)
  • Thank you, those are all great comments; I have some minor disagreements with some of the suggestions, but I'll leave that to other editors for input.--LeflymanTalk 01:46, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for adhering to most of my comments and suggestions and I can understand your disagreements--that's fine, I'm not a stickler. Slof 22:06, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Romulus Augustus edit

A lot of work has been done on this article recently, with the hopes of bringing it up to good article status. Looking for comments on the lead and the article as a whole, and any suggestions for improving either. Thanks in advance. --Idols of Mud 18:34, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • There's no mention of how he founded Rome and killed his brother, launched war on Cleopatra and established the Empire, and never mind. Anyway, the stuff about his name, should probably be removed from the intro and united with the other stuff about his name under "Early life." The intro can be left to briefly summarize the article (WP:LEAD). I also believe I read somewhere that he was named after Romulus and Augustus to increase his appeal- if it's not true, it could probably be mentioned in the article and refuted. Also, from what I understand, individual years and dates are now not linked unless there's good reason, a rule I don't necessarily like but one some people insist on. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 22:25, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks a lot. I made those changes to the piece.--Idols of Mud 17:21, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I think the article conforms to that now -- though any other suggestions are welcome.--Idols of Mud 17:21, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Book of Abraham edit

This article has reached GA status in August this year and it has been very stable since then. I would like to take this now to FA and would appreciate any comments or suggestions. --RelHistBuff 14:33, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Archive1

  • OK, I added more wikilinks, removed "The" from the subsection title, and put the punctuation before the footnotes. I believe all full dates are linked. I also took the opportunity to move a few items into their correct order. In the last peer review, the script was passed through the article, but no one commented on it at the time. It would be great if some human eyes took a look as this article as well :-) --RelHistBuff 14:13, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Heavy Traffic edit

I think I've got a pretty good article here, and I'd like some feedback on it. Also, is there anything that should be added or changed? (Ibaranoff24 19:39, 8 July 2006 (UTC))[reply]

Expressionist architecture edit

A collaborator, Mcginnly, and I have put alot of work into this one. But there is still more intended. I am currently digging <refs> out of another book, Dennis Sharp's Modern Architecture and Expressionism. It seems however, that now is the time to get some creative feedback, before we get too far along. DVD+ R/W 19:21, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

U. Muthuramalingam Thevar edit

Article on significant historical personality from Tamil Nadu, India. Could need improvement. --Soman 22:15, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Freeza edit

I and other users have been putting some work into this article lately hoping to get it to WP:GA status, and if I could ask for some feedback and opinions on the current page it'd be much appreciated. I'd like to think I'm not jumping the gun for thinking it's near that quality, but if so, please bring us down to earth so we can eventually get it there. Thanks in advance for any help. Voice of Treason 22:01, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Basically, the article fails to fulfill the fictional style guide. There is no Toriyama's opinion about how he created the article, why, if he wanted to probe something, etc. Some other thoughts (in random order):
  1. Considered non-canonical by fans References for this? Note that fans are not, as far as I know, considered a reliable source.
  2. The footnotes are not really helpful. Some planets are numbered; Vegeta visited Planet Freeza #79 briefly after his defeat on Earth (Volume #21, Chapter #6). At the time, Freeza himself was using that planet as a base, but was absent while making his way to Namek. Not all Freeza-dominated worlds, such as Planet Vegeta, were numbered. Volume #21, Chapter #6, of which comic? Which edition? I would suggest to use {{cite book}} to put the same information but in a sorted way.
  3. and arguably its best-known villain Reference? This is a peacock term, the article may have more.
  4. It is likely that all of these planets were dominated through either conquest or threat of conquest, either by Freeza himself or one of several affiliated groups. proposing theories and solutions is considered original research and should be removed.
  5. It's been noted that this story bares a striking resemblance to the origins of the comic book superhero, Superman. Who? Where? When? Why?
  6. (which has given rise to thought that Cold himself can change form, and that this particular one was his preferred state) and (some might say, "more androgynous") Again, who? Where? When? Why?
  7. Headlines should go to the point, they appear to be chapter titles. Fall instead of Fall of a tyrant, in example.
  8. The article is not "casual friendly". Someone who does not know about the topic can become rather puzzled. In example, DBZ fandom (usually between sub and dub factions) is throwing four terms (DBZ, fandom, sub and dub) that are not defined in the article, nor linked to.
  9. References format. It is accepted to put the references after the punctuation signs. not before (Coola[3],) nor disappearing the sign (North Kaiō [4]) nor putting a space after the sign (muscled. [10])
  10. A casual user should be able to read and understand the article without having to click wikilinks. A sentence like indeed, he is called the most powerful being in the universe by North Kaiō [4] leaves him wondering who North Kaiō is and why should he (the reader) care about his opinion. In the worst scenario, the reader may wonder if North Kaiō is a fictional or a real person.
  11. The article uses quite a lot of phrases that could be removed. In example, However, this is not Freeza's true form. Or But Freeza was far from dead. Is there any need to put these commentaries? It is not using a formal tone, but instead a "novel" one.
  12. Images don't have Fair use rationale. See here and here.
  13. I question the Fair use license in some images. The Appearances in video games section does not talk nor explain why Image:FreezaLovesSNES.jpg is being used there. Thus, I assume it is being used as decoration, which is a fault to the Fair use criteria #8.
  14. The Appearances in movies and specials section could use dates. At least, the year in parenthesis.
  15. I find some sections, like Techniques and transformations, with too few wikilinks.
  16. - where he easily makes sport of Piccolo -. Per dash guidelines, use – or — in the correct format.
  17. This is a personal opinion, thus you should not really care about it: I never liked the left-aligned images right after a title.
I think these are all the ones I can think of right now. From a "this is an article about Freeza" point of view, the article is much better than others, and believe me, I have read much worse ones. However, from the "this in an encyclopedia entry about Freeza", the article is still far from it. Now that there are written fictional guidelines, I am not sure it may achieve Good status. -- ReyBrujo 22:56, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Disclaimer: I am not someone who really knows about good fictional articles. Just someone who, as you said, was brought down to earth after thinking he had written a good article ;-) -- ReyBrujo 22:58, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ouch. I'll implement these then and forget about WP:GA. Maybe it can be assessed a decent class in the anime project or something. Thanks. Voice of Treason 23:07, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
And non-canonical in this case would be "not present in the original Dragon Ball manga work and being creations of Toei Animation or Toriyama's Neko Majin Z". But I guess that could have been explained better than the link provided to the article devoted on it here. The other stuff I'll do. Voice of Treason 23:12, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
One step at a side. That I don't think it may qualify as Good article doesn't mean it won't: I am not member of the GA project, nor a regular "peer reviewist", I only (for now) review articles that I have in my watchlist. Note that if the GA fails, the reviewer will also give tips about why it failed, which may be useful as future reference to continue polishing the article. -- ReyBrujo 23:25, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I know; I appreciate your feedback in the improvement of the article. And as said, I'm thankful for the help. Constructive criticism just shows the article's not "there" yet, and comments like yours may help it to be. Please don't feel like I'm upset or angry or anything.
Thanks again. Voice of Treason 23:42, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Addressed and crossed through many concerns, I'll extend further reasoning on pictures used and add any more notes/references as needed. I'm also searching for interviews and comments on the character and his part of the series from Toriyama and those inspired by his work. Voice of Treason 05:13, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

University of Essex edit

I've updated and added a lot of information to this article recently, including adding a very detailed section on the foundation of the University, all fact-checked with the University itself. I'd appreciate feedback back on any of the article's sections, particularly sections that could be added to create more depth to the article. Joondan 11:46, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program, and may or may not be accurate for the article in question (due to possible javascript errors/uniqueness of articles).
  • 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: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.
  • See if possible if there is a free use image that can go on the top right corner of this article.
  • Per WP:MOSNUM, there should be a non-breaking space - &nbsp; 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==.
  • 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,
    • arguably
    • might be weasel words, and should be provided with proper citations (if they already do, or are not weasel terms, please strike this comment).
  • This article needs footnotes, preferably in the cite.php format recommended by WP:WIAFA. Simply, enclose inline citations, with WP:CITE or WP:CITE/ES information, with <ref>THE FOOTNOTE</ref>. At the bottom of the article, in a section named “References” or “Footnotes”, add <div class="references-small"><references/></div>.
    • To assist you with this, add {{subst:js|User:AndyZ/monobook.js/footnotehelper.js}} to your monobook.js file (mine is located at User:AndyZ/monobook.js) and then bypass your browser's cache by pressing: Mozilla/Safari/Konqueror: hold down Shift while clicking Reload (or press Ctrl-Shift-R), Internet Explorer: press Ctrl-F5, Opera: press F5. In editing mode, click on the "Footnote creater" tab that appears.
  • The article will need references. See WP:CITE and WP:V for more information.
  • It can be improved by reducing links to solitary years. A monobook tool allows this to be done with one click on a 'dates' tab in edit mode. You can then accept or reject the changes offered and/or do more editing before pressing 'Save'. Simply copy the entire contents of User:Bobblewik/monobook.js to your own monobook. Then follow the instructions in your monobook to clear the cache (i.e. press Ctrl-Shift-R in Firefox, or Ctrl-F5 in IE) before it will work. Hope that helps. bobblewik 19:17, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


  • British English is correct for this page - you don't need to follow the first contributor rule in this case (so I've changed center to centre,color to colour etc). It also needs a decision to be made on when University is has caps, as it is sometime refered to as "The University" and sometimes "the university". My suggestion would be lowercase unless it is being given its full title: "the University of Essex".
  • For ideas, I'd have a look at University of Oklahoma (currently being peer-reviewed) and Cornell University (featured article)
  • Most sections are too short (one paraggraph)
  • Could use more varied citations. Inline citations are greatly appreciated too, nowadays.
  • Higher quality logo would improve the lead's aspect. Circeus 02:36, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Replaced logo with better one EuroSong talk 00:13, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Final Fantasy VI edit

Archive 1 This article is the current GA collaboration and suggestions on how this article could be improved to FA status would be appreciated. Tarret 02:07, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'd just like to comment that I feel this Peer Review is a little premature. We've been doing a lot of renovations, but we hadn't gotten to a comfortable spot just yet. However, we were closing in on that, so go ahead and bring on the comments. Just keep in mind that we were still reworking the Gameplay and Development sections. Ryu Kaze 02:36, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The prose needs a lot of work. I've been working on it, but there are still some awkward phrases, such as:

  • "Customization in Final Fantasy VI lies in the choice of equipment the player chooses to outfit his characters with, including the usage of relics—accessories which augment stats or lend special abilities to the wearer." - awkward, long, and unncessary wording
    • I've been meaning to fix that. I don't know who wrote it. Crazyswordsman 03:07, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redundant usage of "additionally", "in addition", and "also"
  • "This quarrel released magical energy into the world, transforming any human touched by it into a magical creature known as an "Esper," each under the control of the goddesses." "It" refers to the quarrel or the magical energy? Also may be seen as awkward to some
  • Contractions, such as "they've"
  • A few other issues

It's starting to look very, very good. 2a is the issue. — Deckiller 02:59, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Additionally, it needs some specifics for the Reception section that it just doesn't have right now. It's all well and good to have scores that big names in the industry gave it, but it's not conveying very much if we don't have specifics about what they liked and didn't like and how they felt it compared to other Final Fantasy titles. Of course, given that it's a pretty old game by now, it might be kind of hard to come by that information. Ryu Kaze 02:57, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah. This isn't ready yet. I was going to wait until the end of the week. We need some more Reception info, I just don't know where to find it. We should start with something that says that it was well received. Someone removed that it was remembered fondly by gamers (because it was unreferenced), however, I think it serves as a good leader in to the stuff that is referenced, especially since that section seems rather listy to me. Crazyswordsman 03:07, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've tried prosifying it so that it loses that feel of a list, but wording that sounds like it's going to take you somewhere descriptive (instead only taking you to a score) only works the first one or two times. Ryu Kaze 03:23, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
We're going to need an image of wandering around in a town in "Gameplay", by the way, and we still need to finish working on the Development and Gameplay sections (though Gameplay's starting to look better). Everything else is pretty solid (enough to take us into Peer Review anyway), the only exception of course being References, which are kind of lackluster as noted above. Ryu Kaze 03:31, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'll get that image for you tonight. Crazyswordsman 11:09, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly, I am starting to dislike the peer review system. We place the FF8 peer review up for a week, and people end up posting their comments on the talk page, which is absolutely not their fault, but it shows how this system is starting to become obsolete. It seems that FAC is turning into the new peer review...— Deckiller 06:50, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Does kind of look like it. In any event, it's best to continue following protocol for as long as they think it's working. Ryu Kaze 12:53, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've finished adding my personal touch to every aspect of the article now. All image summaries and licenings have been updated, a new Characters image added, a field map screen added and tinkering with the prose everywhere is done until we get feedback or somebody else sees something they'd like to tweak. Ryu Kaze 18:19, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe we should submit it for FAC once as a practice, then make the changes, then submit it again? Crazyswordsman 22:41, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Generally speaking, there's plenty of time to make the corrections during the FAC process. Might as well go for it. Nothing to lose, all to gain. — Deckiller 00:43, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The prose still needs work; I'll go ahead and finish my copyedits in a bit. — Deckiller 01:37, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I just want to make sure that we all agree that it's ready before submitting it. Do you think we should put this on top and get outside help for it? Or can we make it a mirrror of Final Fantasy VIII and Final Fantasy X without removing the section on localization (Ted Woolsey's FFVI translation is probably the most notable of the seres, as it's the only one that is talked about regularly). Crazyswordsman 03:22, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's as good as it's going to get until there's been more constructive criticism offered. And, yeah, I'd keep the localization thing. It's notable, and not exactly something either FFVIII, FFX or FFX-2 had reason to include. Ryu Kaze 12:35, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Bot issues now addressed. Slight note, though: not counting references, the character count is significantly under 30,000 characters, so additional lead paragraphs aren't needed. Ryu Kaze 17:50, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bicycle and motorcycle dynamics edit

Any and all comments welcome AndrewDressel 14:53, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, Andy t 15:43, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The graphs and diagrams should be converted to SVG. WP 09:29, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Martha Stewart edit

This was a former featured article and when I tried to resubmit it for that status I was told that the bar for featured article has been raised since it lost that designation. The biggest problem I heard was that it was too short, but any other ideas would be incredible. --Alex 04:11, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kevin Spacey edit

Looking good to being a GA article soon. Any comments/criticism/additions/changes/etc. are appreciated. Mad Jack 07:31, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, Andy t 15:00, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The table is broken for some reason. WP 08:56, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Are you sure? What do mean? It doesn't seem broken... Mad Jack 16:27, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Battleship edit

I think this is FA quality, but I need to know what my peers think first. GangstaEB 20:31, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Overall it looks pretty good. I just have a few minor comments.
  • The first paragraph begins by stating that the name battleship was applied from the 15th to the 20th century. The second sentence then state that it evolved from ships spanning the 16th through the 20th century. Which one is it?
  • The expression "ruled the waves" may not be clear to some people, especially those who have not studied naval history. Would "controlled all ocean-based commerce" be clearer? Or at least explain what "ruled the waves" means.
  • Please link Galley, Age of Sail
  • The statement "Royal Navy based promotion on merit rather than lordship" seems questionable to me. Is there a reference that could be cited to back this up?
  • Only a few of the sections use in-line citations. It would be preferable if these were used throughout.
  • In a few places the page has links directly to web sites. E.g. following "partially carbonized". It would be preferable if these used the standard in-line citations, along with the {{cite web}} template.
Thanks. — RJH (talk) 14:59, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Stanton Drew stone circles edit

This article is about a small village with a prehistoric stone circle - I'm sure that more could be written about this henge monument, but I don't have the expertise, I'd also appreciate comments about the general structure and layout of the article. — Rod talk 18:24, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Andy, thanks for the automated review. The lead has three short paragraphs in line with WP:MOS - do you think these need to be longer? The headings which start with "The" are the proper names of buildings as described in their listed building descriptions - I though in this case the use of "The" in the title was appropriate? The categories are alphabetised so I don't understand that feedback. I've now made sure that all references start immediately after the punctuation as expected. Any further feedback would be appreciated. — Rod talk 08:28, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ladysmith Black Mambazo edit

This article could be well on its way to being a featured article, but I think some of the history sections need to be checked, so as not to create a sense of POV. The article includes a lot of detailed biography and history of the group, a (mostly) complete discography and includes references. - LBM 00:12, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program, and may or may not be accurate for the article in question (due to possible javascript errors/uniqueness of articles).
  • Please expand the lead to conform with guidelines at WP:LEAD. The article should have an appropriate number of paragraphs as is shown on WP:LEAD, and should adequately summarize the article.
  • Per WP:CONTEXT and WP:MOSDATE, months and days of the week generally should not be linked. Years, decades, and centuries can be linked if they provide context for the article.
  • Per WP:MOSNUM, there should be a non-breaking space - &nbsp; 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:CONTEXT and WP:BTW, years with full dates should be linked; for example, link January 15, 2006, but do not link January 2006.
  • Per WP:MOS#Headings, headings generally do not start with the word "The". For example, ==The Biography== would be changed to ==Biography==.
  • Per WP:MOS#Headings, headings generally should not repeat the title of the article. For example, if the article was Ferdinand Magellan, instead of using the heading ==Magellan's journey==, use ==Journey==.
  • Generally, trivia sections are looked down upon; please either remove the trivia section or incorporate any important facts into the rest of the article.
  • Please reorder/rename the last few sections to follow guidelines at WP:GTL.
  • Please alphabetize the categories and/or interlanguage links.
  • Per WP:WIAFA, this article's table of contents (ToC) maybe too long- consider shrinking it down by merging short sections or using a proper system of daughter pages as per WP:SS.
  • This article needs footnotes, preferably in the cite.php format recommended by WP:WIAFA. Simply, enclose inline citations, with WP:CITE or WP:CITE/ES information, with <ref>THE FOOTNOTE</ref>. At the bottom of the article, in a section named “References” or “Footnotes”, add <div class="references-small"><references/></div>.
    • To assist you with this, add {{subst:js|User:AndyZ/monobook.js/footnotehelper.js}} to your monobook.js file (mine is located at User:AndyZ/monobook.js) and then bypass your browser's cache by pressing: Mozilla/Safari/Konqueror: hold down Shift while clicking Reload (or press Ctrl-Shift-R), Internet Explorer: press Ctrl-F5, Opera: press F5. In editing mode, click on the "Footnote creater" tab that appears.
  • 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 01:51, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • It can be improved by reducing links to solitary years. A monobook tool allows this to be done with one click on a 'dates' tab in edit mode. You can then accept or reject the changes offered and/or do more editing before pressing 'Save'. Simply copy the entire contents of User:Bobblewik/monobook.js to your own monobook. Then follow the instructions in your monobook to clear the cache (i.e. press Ctrl-Shift-R in Firefox, or Ctrl-F5 in IE) before it will work. Hope that helps. bobblewik 19:19, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • End of article needs complete reorganization to conform with Wikipedia:Guide to Layout
  • Article needs more inline references
  • Reduce the number of one-paragraph sections
  • Discography should proably be move to a separate articles. It also contains a wee bit too much red links
  • lead needs expansion, see WP:LEAD
  • All images that are not free needs Fair use rationales for FA status.

Circeus 02:46, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

North Carolina State University edit

Like many university articles, most of the contributors to this article are alumni thus there may be bias and boasting. I would like a peer review of the article too find points to improve so it can meet Wikipedia standards. --Thunder 17:29, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • It can be improved by reducing links to solitary years. A monobook tool allows this to be done with one click on a 'dates' tab in edit mode. You can then accept or reject the changes offered and/or do more editing before pressing 'Save'. Simply copy the entire contents of User:Bobblewik/monobook.js to your own monobook. Then follow the instructions in your monobook to clear the cache (i.e. press Ctrl-Shift-R in Firefox, or Ctrl-F5 in IE) before it will work. Hope that helps. bobblewik 19:35, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article is already at 45k (which is appreciably larger than the suggested 30k text limit) and needs expanding in just about every section. In cases like this, the accepted practice per Wikipedia:Article Series and WP:SS is to create subarticles for the larger sections and expand on the topic more fully in the subarticle while summarizing the subarticle and providing a link from the main article. Beyond that, my biggest beef is more of an aesthetic complaint with the large, unwieldy tables... they provide good information, but they dominate the page wherever they appear. Someone should probably scale those down and make them more visually appealing. --Vengeful Cynic 14:35, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree about the tables. They make the article look awful. The Academic Units Table and Varsity Sports Tables should be deleted, and the key points should be stated in prose. Also, the bullet points should be dramatically reduced (ideally, eliminated all together). Try to convert all of this to prose. For example, the bullet points for the four sections of campus are completely unnecessary. This should be in stated in paragraph form and the campus titles should not be bolded. There are also too many short sections that should be combined. For example, Technician, The Agromeck, and WKNC 88.1 should not have their own sections, but rather be three paragraphs within the same section. Some sections need to be expanded, while People should be cut down considerably and a List of North Carolina State University people article should be created. This article is probably under-references as well (20 refs not enough for an article of this length). Titles of magazines should be italicized - stuff like that should be looked for closely. Hope this advice helps. See FA's University of Michigan, Michigan State University, and Cornell University for good examples. -Bluedog423 01:29, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kryptonite edit

Just a general look over would be nice if we could get the article to GA status that would be great. Also if anyone could help with the section The "science" behind kryptonite it would be appreciated. BJK 18:44, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Just a couple of points:
    • It seems a bit heavy on the use of the words kryponite,Kryptonian,and Krypton. Use pronouns instead and don't repeat things like "his home planet, Krypton" when "the planet" will do.
    • Is Kryptonite supposed to be capitalized? The article has both capitalized and non-capitalized versions of both that and the versions types (Green Kryponite). Lowercase is probably better for readability.
    • External links are mostly to the same site Yomangani 17:08, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nathu La edit

First Peer Review

I have been working on this article for the some time now, and trying to get it to FA level. I believe most of the suggestions from the first peer review have been addressed and I would like to know if anything more can be added to the article. Other suggestions (like on language and structure) are also welcome. — Ambuj Saxena (talk) 21:04, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

*My take:

It's actually a fascinating article. Diamond in the rough.
Do we really need "Nathu La" in 6 different character systems? Narrow it down to the Chinese or Tibetian (pick one of those) and Hindi. It's not adjecent to Nepal, or the former nation of tibet. If you must have 3 languages, the third should actually be Bhutanese (I think that's the name.)
That first sentence is pretty long because of the alternative languages, so move this: "also spelled Ntula, Natu La, Nathula, or Natula" to the bottom of the lead as: "It can also be spelled also spelled "Ntula," "Natu La," "Nathula," or "Natula."
"The pass is 56 kilometres (35 mi) east of the Sikkimese capital, Gangtok, and 430 km (270 mi) from the Tibetan capital, Lhasa." First of all, Link both Sikkimese and Tibetan to their respective pages (that would be Sikkim and Tibet.) Second of all, Tibet is not a country any more. Please change that to "the provincial capital of Tibet." Yes, we all wish for Tibetian independence. See my userpage for a nice userbox.
For the readers' sake: "Although just 5 km (3 mi) north of the all-weather Jelepla pass, the Nathu La pass is blocked by snow in winters as it receives heavy snowfall." Could you please hint why?
Make Image:Nathula-area.jpg just a tad smaller to drop the indent on the following paragraph
Your image at the end "Image:Kalimpong town and nathula.jpg" is the best picture in the whole article. Find a way to showcase it. I would switch it with Image:Nathu La-Nehru Visit.JPG
Some may ask for written resources and references. Try to find some. Although I believe your internet resources are fine, some may not while going through FAC.
"Temperatures in Nathu La regularly dip below −25 °C (−77 °F) in winters.[2]" Could we get the top extreme heat as well?
Make Image:Nathu La-Chinese Post.JPG just a bit bigger so it bumps the line below it remaining in the paragraph to the same indent. Just for style if you want to put this image on the left side, which is unusual.
To be perfectly honest, I could only get through the first half of the article. Please fix the errors above and drop a line. Evan(Salad dressing is the milk of the infidel!) 01:50, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Reply'. Thanks for the review. I have addressed most of your concerns. Here are the select few that I couldn't. I couldn't find if there's a contrast between the two passes (Nathu La and Jelep La), which brings difference in one being all-weather, and the other not. I have removed the comparison there. Also, I couldn't find any references for summer temperatures in Nathu La. Since the summer temperature isn't awe-inspiring, it is not discussed anywhere. The print content on Nathu La is limited, and most information present is sourced from the boom of information about the place when the pass was opened. As you can see, most of the sources used in the article have been published in the first week of July 2006. The only major print sources are related to the Tibetan annexation by British, but I believe that reliable sources have been used in that context so explicit print sources are not essential. — Ambuj Saxena (talk) 10:55, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Follow-up:

You didn't showcase "Image:Kalimpong town and nathula.jpg" like I told you. I fixed this
Your picture distribution is not much improved.
Undo what you did with the Image:Location of Nathula.svg, keep it on the right.
Beautiful job with the pictures, though, in Flora and Fauna.
When you use i.e. use it like in commas like this "texttexttext, i.e., texttext"
You messed up with that here: "...ododendrons i.e. Rhodod..."
It could use a light copyedit.

Evan(Salad dressing is the milk of the infidel!) 12:48, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    • Reply. I thought by "showcasing" you meant to include the image in the article body, rather than the see also section. I had done that. Your edit is also fine. Earlier one of the editors re-normalised the images to normal size, and therefore you saw a difference in size of "Location of Nathula.svg". The comma issue is also fixed. I will keep on copyediting it as and when I see something awkward. — Ambuj Saxena (talk) 13:13, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

*My take The prose is excellent & and have adequate citations. But I have some thing to point out.
1) There should be a separate subheading ‘Notes’ and put the inline citations there. Inside the reference there should be the most used books and website names.
2) The infobox is not proper. How can a borded area checkpoint have an Indian Urban Infobox?? I am suggesting a new infobox (if it doesn’t exists) with the following parameters:
Infobox name should be border checkpoint
Name
Map
Countries
States
Districts
nearest_city
lat_degrees
lat_minutes
lat_seconds
lat_direction
long_degrees
long_minutes
long_seconds
long_direction
Area
Altitude
Annual Trade (in US $)
Number of people crossed
Main Transacted Items
Regulating Authorities

3)Map – Some thing like a South Asia Map with a close up of the area than the india map.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Amartyabag (talk • contribs)

  • Reply. I have broken up the references section and added often used/detailed reviews on the topic in the new section. The Infobox can be split, and I would be working on it soon. For this article, I think we can use Location of Nathula.svg itself if we colour it well. BTW, I don't understand what you expect to be written in "Regulating Authorities", or how you plan to get the data for number of people crossed. — Ambuj Saxena (talk) 10:54, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think we can write NA in 2006 with a footnotes that it has been started in June/July 2006. Regulating Authorities can be Government of India, BSF and Govenment of China, get the name of the military posted in chiina side.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Amartyabag (talk • contribs)

I'll be giving a heavy copyedit to the article to bring it in line with FA standards. The infobox needs to be changed as well as it does not reflect the true ststus of Nathula. =Nichalp «Talk»= 13:56, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

FBI Ten Most Wanted Fugitives edit

Alot has changed on this article from this version. I removed non-ten most wanted items because it was useless. Still pondering if they should be added. Just want to make sure it's ok for WP:GA and/or WP:FL. Note: This article is setup in a werid way, so the automated bot "thing" is not working correctly.   Shane (talk/contrib) 05:12, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Just a comment about the table. There is a faint white line just under the "FBI Ten Most Wanted Fugitives" image at the top of the able. Also, it would look better if there were enough text so that the Most Wanted table started below the FBI navigator. PS. I just noticed the text in the title image is "FBI Ten Most Wanted Fugitive" - the singular doesn't make sense as title of a table. --Oldak Quill 15:13, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Could do Image:FBItopten2000s.gif :-) I think it makes sence. That's why it's so confusing ;-) --  Shane (talk/contrib) 17:58, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That image doesn't look as good. You could modify the blue banner to include an "s" - not too hard. --Oldak Quill 18:53, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Done. :) --  Shane (talk/contrib) 19:04, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I guess this is pretty much done. Going to submit it to WP:GA. :) --  Shane (talk/contrib) 01:13, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't like the use of the word "current". It forces the page to always have to be updated, and makes it very awakward to port to text or (as has been done with the germany encyclopedia - to CD). I would rather "as of [whatever date]". Jon513 12:48, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pokémon Trading Card Game edit

I think that this article may meet the FA quality standards, but I made a mess of my last nominations so im deciding to put this to peer review first. Please write comments, cheers Minun (talk) 18:47, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Convert lists to prose. Remove fancruft, such as championship results. References are needed and the ones contained in the article should be properly formatted (see {{cite web}} for example). Joelito (talk) 22:56, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't really understand, can you put it into easier words, cheers Minun (talk) 10:23, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Maltese Falcon (1931 film) edit

This article has been drastically rewritten recently by an anonymous user who is completely oblivious to the criticisms that have been raised to his edits. When a fellow editor reverted some of the recent changes, and posted a message on the article talk page explaining why he had done so, said anonymous user reverted back to his own changes and responded rather curtly on the talk page "My source is the film, which you apparently have not watched." This was by way of explaining why he had included in the article highly-POV statements as to why the 1931 film is superior to the 1941 version. At this point, I feel the article is very close to worthless because of said POV statements, and is in need of peer review so that it can be rewritten into a real encyclopedia article. ---Charles 02:52, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • I don't think there is anything wrong with expanding the section on the more sexual pre-Hayes nature of the film especially if there was some comparison to the later version, but there are a lot of POV statements and the size of this section is out of proportion with the rest of the article.Yomangani
    • I have no objection to a discussion of the "pre-Hayes nature of the film," as you put it. Obviously, that is an important aspect of the film. What I certainly object to is the concentration on the sexual nature of the film to the exclusion of anything else. Furthermore, considering the degree to which this aspect of the film is regarded as so primary, I fail to see how it can be, at the same time, argued that this film is closer to Hammett's novel than the '41 version, when this overtly sexual content is not present in the book. This is a startling contradiction. Oh, and please sign your comments. ---Charles 17:29, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Sorry about the missing sig (I hadn't had enough coffee). I've edited the page to make it slightly more balanced and NPOV (I hope), but there is still a lot more about the sexual aspects of the film than anything else. The anonymous editor obviously regards it as a classic and superior to the 1941 version; it's a pity they couldn't fill out some more details on other aspects: plot summary,comparisons with the book and later versions, etc. Yomangani 17:47, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Oh, trust me, I am the same way first thing in the morning---that's why I do not even attempt editing until after noon. As to the issue at hand, I requested peer review because I really wanted other editors to look at the article and tell me if they felt the POV was over the top. I felt it was, and that the anonmymous user concentrated on the sexual aspect to the exclusion of everything else. Admittedly, I am at a disadvantage because, though I've read the book half-a-dozen times, and seen the "classic" 1941 version at least a dozen times, I have never seen the 1931 version. So, to some extent, I have to defer to the opinion of one who has---but, given the description in the article, this film bears almost no resemblance to the book. As I said above, this is puzzling, precisely because the anonymous editor claims the '31 version is more faithful to the book. This seems to be little more than an opinion. I appreciate your comments here, and the work you've done on the article. ---Charles 17:59, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Majin Buu edit

It could use some work. Nemu 00:45, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Red state vs. blue state divide edit

Request for general input on the article as a whole. Has potential to be a great article. -- Wikipedical 21:05, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Astrology edit

This request is mainly to obtain a broader perspective on how this article can be further improved. Any contributions/comments are welcome. In particular, I think the Astrology and science section needs a review. A problem in this section is whether the section is covered from a NPOV but still emphasis the majority (scientific) viewpoint as such. Thanks Vorpal Bladesnicker-snack 11:43, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like a pretty good job of covering this topic, and overall it seems pretty neutral.
  • I'm not clear about the purpose of the Flammarion woodcut near the top; it doesn't seem to have much to do with astrology other than being about the heavens.
  • The "See also" section seems overly long. Perhaps the list can be organized in some manner and sectioned up in a table based on sub-topic? Also if any of those topics are already listed in the above, they could be removed.
  • Since the motions of the Sun, Moon and planets are at the core of astrology, I think I would like to see a brief summary section or table on the beliefs associated with the different bodies in the solar system, particularly their supposed effects. (As per Solar system in astrology).
Thanks! — RJH (talk) 14:36, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
* That's a good point. I've removed that picture. Perhaps a different picture, like a natal chart will be applicable
* Suggestion noted for your other two points, thanks.
Vorpal Bladesnicker-snack 16:54, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Syracuse, New York edit

Archived peer review from 6/2006

It's been a year since I last had this article peer reviewed, and I would like to see if other editors feel it has met earlier requests to improve the structure of the article. I have mostly been working to reduce lists and split off articles. Thanks! -newkai | talk | contribs 16:56, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Aortic dissection edit

This article is the current medicine collaboration of the week and it would be really helpful to get some comments from non-medical people on what can be improved, aside from more references. --WS 15:54, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Warsaw Uprising (1794) edit

The article has recently been expanded and rewritten, but it definitely lacks attention, particularly from native speakers to correct the language. Also, there still might be some inconsistencies and the header might be lacking something. Feel free to join the discussion. //Halibutt 07:13, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Maltese Falcon edit

This is the article about the Dashiell Hammett novel, and unfortunately it is a mess. The description of the plot is long and plodding and basically tells the entire story of the book, but in language that is so dull one could not possibly find it engaging. The ending of the novel is ruined, but the article is not very informative beyond that. Surely, an article about a film should be able to say enough so that you understand the basic story, should tell you something about the author, and the context within which the book was written and published. The Maltese Falcon, I dare say, is an important book, and well-loved, but this article would hardly give that impression. Furthermore, there is an edit war underway between myself and two other editors as to what image is appropriate to illustrate the article. Rather than risk a 3RR violation, I bring the problem here, and ask the question: Is it appropriate to illustrate an article about a novel with an image from a film adaptation of said novel; and, if so, which picture should it be? I would really like to see this article improved, and welcome any and all helpful comments. ---Charles 03:56, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

1) Image: This article is about a book, so illustrating it with a film still strikes me, at best, as a second choice to a book jacket. And more to the point, if you're going to use a film still, it ought to be from the most well-known version (the 1941 Humphrey Bogart version, not the 1931 Ricardo Cortez version).
2) Plot summary: My high-school English teachers frowned on plot summaries as padding for essays, and man, that guideline applies here: 2800 words of plot summary is far too much, being, what? five percent of the length of the book itself? Blow-by-blow is plotcruft, so when I get the chance I'll go after that with a chainsaw. --Calton | Talk 06:46, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Take care not throw the baby out with the bath-water. Wikipedia is not a paper based reference, nor is it a school essay. The bottom line is: how pertinent is the information contained in the plot synopsis? If it's irrelevant or not pertinent to an understanding of the work then can it, otherwise let it stand. But 2800 words of plot, as you say, does seem a little overzealous. Sjc 09:41, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
PS I took a look. Get those scissors out! If not, I will :) Sjc 09:43, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you both, Calton and Sjc, for your comments. I am glad to see that I am not the only one who felt the article was burdened by that long plot summary. Someone definitely needs to go after it with the hedge-trimmers. As to the picture, Calton, you and are in complete agreement. I am currently looking for an original book cover image that is in the public domain. I'll let you know as soon as I find one. ---Charles 19:12, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
PS Had I looked at the article first, before commenting here, I would have seen that you already replaced the picture, Calton. Thank you. VodkaJazz has done some admirable work on the article as well, and his compromise (using all 3 pictures for the time being) will work temporarily---as he himself said, it remains to be seen what the article will look like after some heavy editing. ---Charles 19:53, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

French people edit

What more should be done to the article before it becomes a featured article candidate? —this is messedr͏̈ocker (talk) 21:01, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Noyabrsk edit

Somebody expanded the article but in tone of traveler's guide. Could somebody rewrite it in more encylopedic way? Luka Jačov 18:02, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Monarchies in the European Union edit

I'd like to make this a FA, but I'm unsure as to what exactly I should add. Former monarchies would be too complicated and unscientific, as there'd be no specific grounds on which to exclude monarchies which controlled only part of the territory of today's states. I've been thinking about including a section about the actual political powers of the monarchs in the respective states, but apart from that, I'd need suggestions. Ideas, anyone? Thanks in advance! —Nightstallion (?) 15:04, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Is the bit on support for the monarchy in the British Commonwelth really relevent in an article on the Monachies of the European Union, since these counties aren't part of the E.U.? Also I think the Current Monachies section would look a lot neater if there were proper headings for each nation rather than just bolded names in the text. Links to main articles here e.g.:British_monarchywould be helpful --Greeny 01:19, 04 July 2006

Well, I thought it would be relevant as the Commonwealth Realms are all in personal union, sharing a head of state and all that... And I had been thinking about sub-sectionising it, but that would make for very short sections, wouldn't it? —Nightstallion (?) 05:51, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Roman numerals seem a bit funny; most articles don't seem to use them. Nevertheless, if kept, Benedictus XVI and Carl XVI Gustaf should be fixed. smurrayinchester(User), (Talk) 20:06, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    While I would have preferred using the Roman numerals for stylistic reasons, the fact that they don't seem to work for many people and the fact that they don't exist for XVI has made me give in, I've changed it. ;) Any other suggestions? —Nightstallion (?) 11:42, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    The manual of style recommends not using superscript for ordinals (20th not 20th for example). Other than that, the list seems very good. smurrayinchester(User), (Talk) 14:34, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Mh. But isn't it technically *wrong* not to use superscript ordinals? I'm no native English speaker, but I learned it that way... —Nightstallion (?) 16:07, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    No, it isn't. The only guide here is usage, which varies; English has no Academy. To my eye, and I am a English-speaking pedant, superscripts are slightly archaic. Septentrionalis 16:33, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Paris edit

Past peer review

The Paris article has been undergoing several minor changes over the past months, but has had much added acclaim over the same period: it is now A-class in three seperate categories! I think now may be the time to make those last final improvement that will raise it (finally) to FA class. This is a major article, so quality (and precision) is not to be taken lightly! Any constructive suggestion would be helpful. THEPROMENADER 12:35, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

FA reviewers tend flip a lid if more than a sentence goes unsourced. Let alone a paragraph. As the Paris article has unsourced sections, then I think there still needs to be a lot of work in rectifying that. Ironically, the lead is the most heavily sourced section, but leads don't generally require references, as the material should be sourced below. I recommend taking a toothpick to the article and beginning the laboriously tedious task of adding references to each detail. I think Sheffield was the last city to pass FA, but I doubt even that would get through now due to lack of sources.-- Zleitzen(talk) 09:20, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Since you seem to know more than a thing or two about this, perhaps could you help by adding an invisible <!-- source needed --> or the like tag to sentences you think need sources? There is, of course, the [citation needed] template as well - but things can get pretty ugly with too many of those. Anyhow, thanks for the input. THEPROMENADER 01:10, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hello ThePromenader. Rather than go through the article and make a bit of a mess of it, what I've done is detail where I believe the FA crowd will expect to see citations in this sandbox: User:Zleitzen/Paris sandbox. My flags have not been an exact science - but it should give an idea of what is required. It may look daunting, but sections like the history section could be covered by only 2-3 main sources, preferably reputable historical book sources, with other points patched together with web citations. Some of the flags may seem so obvious as to not need citations, and much of it I knew to be easily verifiable. However, they'll still need to be visibly cited to escape the FA hawks. It's an exceptionally well written article by wikipedia's standards - I added strike-throughs to only 2-3 sentences, these I believed were a touch too personal and bordering on original research. However, I do think the article is too long to pass FA at its current length. The education section in particular could be farmed out to a sub article leaving a paragraph or so remaining.-- Zleitzen(talk) 05:22, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

George W. Bush edit

Hello all! Where is the citation for this information???

<The weapons of mass destruction that the Coalition of the Willing invaded to capture have been found, but not in great quantaties. To date no significante evidence of nuclear or biological weapons have been found. There has been over 500 artillary shells found containing weaponized chemicals specifically Sarin and Mustard agents. These chemical agents, specifically Sarin gas have been used at times agains US troops by Iraqi insurgents.>

I did not read any news reports about more than 500 artillary shells found containing weaponized chemicals specifically Sarin and Mustard agents."

Where is the citation for this????


Hi All - With a better version in place, I request your help. I think the best thing we can do to fight instrinic POV issues of this article is to make it a featured article, that will be solidly defensible against vandalism and POV-warriors. It will also significantly help WP's reputation to be a reliable source on an important person. I must state here that this is not an article on the Bush administration, War on Terrorism or Iraq War. The data and prose must always focus on Bush the person, the individual. Rama's Arrow 19:51, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note the size has reduced from 106kb to 64kb. Rama's Arrow 19:56, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It could certainly stand to be shortened some more. Especially with all the offshoot articles, much information could be further summarized in this one.
On the "Early Life" section in particular, it is far from chronological. The numerous jumps around in time make it difficult to build an accurate picture of GW's development through childhood and early career. Lyrl 01:11, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, Andy t 15:38, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • There's some key aspects missing needed detail, such as medicare reform and health savings accounts, but mostly, there are too many unsourced statements for the article to have a realistic chance at FA status. Make sure all of those are fixed, and that all citations are made in one consistent format. Titoxd(?!?) 23:53, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Additionally, many sections are too dense, meaning that they are not illustrated enough. Titoxd(?!?) 23:57, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not sure you have a prayer to get this featured — I don't see any way it can meet the stability requirement. Also, you're never going to be able to please the people that are clammoring for more detail on certain items, while keeping it to a reasonable length. To be shorter, which I believe it needs, you'd have to find some more detail to move off to daughter articles, not an easy task. Finally, while there are many cited facts, there are few very high quality references, and not enough cited facts to support the whole article on such a contentious topic without truly authoritative overall references. If you discovered what are considered the highest quality references on him and obtained and cited them, you might have a chance to quiet the edit wars. Then defending the article's quality would be easier because if no one could find a source with higher quality, they couldn't justify changes. As to form and structure, it seems to have everything looking right. Beyond that I don't really know enough about the topic to tell you if it is balanced right or has any major POV issues. - Taxman Talk 18:29, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Old PR edit

this article is locked in an edit war, could use some level heads and neutral Points of View... maybe especially from wikipedians outside the U.S.A. Since this is a highly visible page, it seems to me unsuitable to keep it protected. See what you can do to help reach consensus. Thanks.Pedant 08:48, 2004 Aug 22 (UTC)

The article seems fine for now. Because of vandalism and edit wars, I see no reason it should not remain locked until after the U.S. elections in November. Davodd 23:22, Sep 10, 2004 (UTC)
Yes it seems okay. I think the one part that could be improved is in the foreign policy section; giving a rationale behind the various policy decisions. RJH 09:56, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Fine for now but it still has a couple factual errors. There should be some mechanism for addressing them... for one, regarding Bush's first company: "Some of this funding came from Saudi Arabian nationals including the bin Laden family" this was partisan campaign disinfo. It shouldn't be in an encyclopedia. -=Steven
Um,it should be removed provided that it is wrong,shouldn't it?--CAN T 08:21, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ARCHIVED!

New PR comment edit

I think that George W. Bush article should be featured.It is very well written and informative already. And vandalism is not a reason it should not be.sasha_best

See WP:WIAFA: 2.e "stable" means that an article does not change significantly from day to day and is not the subject of ongoing edit wars. This article will not become featured in the near future, but it can be improved to a more neutral point of view.
Now, onto the actual discussion about the article...
  • Check all the links. There are some duplicates, and some are pointing to disambiguation pages.
  • Verify that the images qualify as fair use; I'm not sure Image:Indy cover 22 july 2006.jpg qualifies with the way it has been included.
  • There are two references made as regular links, unlike the other refs in the articles. The first of those two isn't linking to the actual page with the information, but to the general source itself.
And finally, it could use a copyedit and more sourcing. For example, take a look at the first paragraph of "Domestic agenda." I think that explains itself. ♠ SG →Talk 21:46, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Also, there are a lot of citation needed statements that need to be fixed. ♠ SG →Talk 16:29, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The article is excellent, and vandalsim shouldn't be a problem with the page being semi-protected. 0L1 13:54, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Featured status in asturian wikipedia edit

{{Link FA|ast}}

Criticism and public perception edit

Bush's leadership on national security and for his war on terrorism following 9/11 have won him emotional support from a large number of Americans,, but he lost most of it because of the US soldiers killed in the Irak-war. Bush has also enjoyed strong personal and working relationships with foreign leaders, but had severe problems with Gerhard Schröder and José Luis Rodríguez Zapatero and other foreign leaders opposing the Irak-war. If this paragraph is called Criticism it has to critizise at the points even if they are obvious!--Stone 16:47, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I see lots of POV issues edit

In the 3rd paragraph, it discusses partial birth abortion and faith based initiatives. These are sensitive subjects, and furthermore, Bush spent very little time on them. How about energy policy? Patriot Act? Promotion of democracy? Social security reform? Reorganizing our government around fighting a war on terror? Bush signed the PBA ban because Clinton vetoed twice. If Clinton had signed it, Bush would have not. It was an issue before Bush came to office, and this context is relevant, and why it should be removed from the 3rd paragraph.

In the Katrina section, no blame is given for the poor levies, and for the weak response by the mayor and the governor. From reading it, you would think it was all Bush's fault. Also, Michael Brown had overseen a number of disasters before, but no one had criticized them.

The environmental policy section leaves out the fact that the Senate voted against Kyoto 95-0 before Bush got into office. Bush formally withdrew, and is blamed for its demise, but it was a dead duck already. This context is relevant.

There is no mention of Bush re-organizing the US gov't to fight terrorism. The patriot act is mentioned in passing in one place, and the other time it is used to criticize bush for 'perceived excesses.' No explanation of what those excesses were.

In other words, I think the article sucks right now.KeithCu 02:57, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

History of Singapore edit

Archive 1

Many editors have contributed to this article. It has just been reorganised and copy-edited. Any comments appreciated. --Vsion 05:59, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pokémon edit

This article needs help! I am generally lost, it's more than one person can handle. A lot too much. Thanks, Highway Batman! 15:07, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I strongly suggest that you consult many more print sources. See this Google Book search for some ideas. Also Google Scholar. You can probably get a lot of good information from the web, but print sources are still very important, especially for a phenomenon like this. Good luck! — BrianSmithson 15:28, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Its still in Category:Articles with unsourced statements, we should add more references Minun (マイナン) 15:53, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, and move some parts to sub articles Minun (マイナン) 19:22, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A great article. Could probably use some source citing though. Gang staEB• ice slides) 12:21, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

University of Arizona edit

Just curious as to what comments you all have as to what could be done to improve this article. Thanks! Tuvas 17:08, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, Andy t 00:33, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The logos should be SVG or at least PNG. WP 04:14, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Goldfish edit

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

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

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

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

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

  • Thanks for the suggestions. Can you give me a letter grade for FA articles? Like B+? A? Etc. QuizQuick 02:37, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I would say it's C+, mostly because there seem to be a lot of statements unsupported by any sources. With sources, it would probably be a B+. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 00:04, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • You may want to consider putting the online references in inline format, e.g. <ref>{{cite web | url=... | title=... | accessdate=2006-07-14}}</ref>. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 08:34, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

CornerShot edit

I think it is Good Article quality, but I want to know what my peers think before nominating it. I know it could use more info around the standard gun's section. Does anyone else see anything else wrong with the article? GangstaEB (sliding logs~dive logs) 13:03, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

by Jon513
  1. The word new in the first sentences doesn't make any sense in an encyclopedia. Imagine if you were reading and old Britannica and it says a cotton gin is a new invention! Remove it or consider replacing it with "invented in whatever year".
  2. All of the pictures on the page are copyrighted and a fair use rational for all of them is questionable considering that the page it a bit crowded with pictures. I recommend removing all the picture except for one and put it in an {{Infobox Weapon}} (see Uzi submachine gun)
  3. This article fits into more categories, start by looking at other guns and see what categories they are in.
  4. The references should be change to a {{cite web}} or {{cite news}} as appropriate.
  5. In general more reliable sources are need (a joke forum!)
  6. While there is no need to repeat everything said in Urban warfare there should be some discussion on the need to create such a weapon.
The preceding review was by Jon513 on 16:06, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There is too many forms to just put in infobox weapon. GangstaEB (sliding logs~dive logs) 16:50, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There are also variants of the Uzi. Jon513 05:37, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

New Rome, Ohio edit

I tagged this for POV some time ago. Apparently things really were this bad but when I requested the author to add citations he removed my tags.

Now; I am not questioning the validity of the article; it simply needs to be rewritten to sound like an encyclopedia article. --Quentin Smith 11:59, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, AZ t 14:08, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • [Article author] I removed the tags because you flooded the article with them (often multiple tags in the middle of sentences) in your second attack on the article (the first had generally claimed POV without explanation out of lack of knowledge of the subject matter). A reasonable use of in-line citations would be great, but there's no need to make the text unreadable until they're added. In the interim, I added a large references section to make the article's reliance on stories by major news media outlets (that were previously available through the external links) more clear, and I pointed out on the talk page where the two statements in the article that you doubted the most were easily verified, with direct quotes from major news stories. Something else I would appreciate help with is the addition of the village's early history, as the article only documents the final decades of the now-abolished village after the corruption became widely known. Postdlf 15:24, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Martin Mattner edit

I have recently been working on this article and would like to have suggestions to make it better. I have made sure I have sources for everything, but am wondering if it could have more information. Please just tell me anything that needs improving. Thanks, Jasrocks (talk) 04:09, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rugby union at the Summer Olympics edit

Póvoa de Varzim edit

I would like this to be a good article. Useful for diversity in wikipedia. This article needs native English speakers editing. thx--Pedro 13:48, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • A few comments
  • I started a copyedit, but it is tough going as there is a lot of literal translation, so I've had to guess some what is meant by some words (mounts is particular challenging). I'll come back to it later.
  • The article is too long - it needs spliting or trimming (there is some repetition)
  • Some Portuguese terms need explaining as a native English speaker won't know what they mean.
  • It needs references.
Yomangani 16:02, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yes, that's why I need help. Mounts aka mountains, but these are not very height... so mountain is not the best word. What kind of terms needs help?
  • I've a tendency to make long articles; it is a matter of style and what I think are the reader needs. My aim is not WP:FA, but WP:GA. I also like to use synonyms; the problem is when these don’t make any sense in English. :P
  • I used some books, obviously, I can just put their references at bottom, but making citations, I can't as most of those books I don't got them any longer. This same article is being translated into Spanish and they are putting references with citations, linking to websites. But even the city hall and a newspaper has retrieved information from the Portuguese article. So, should this article reference to references that used wikipedia as reference?

Thx a lot for your help!--Pedro 18:24, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Almocreve were people that had cargo animals and merchandizing and went from town to town. Just corrected some of the words you didn't understand.--Pedro 18:39, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Amphibians of Australia edit

This article obviously needs a bit more work, but I'm stumped for what else to include in it. The photos column should be filled up if possible, but that will be very hard, unless I can find free licence images some were else on the net. The article looks pretty good and has a good format, but probably needs a copyedit and spell check etc. I want it to become featured but don't really know if it should be a featured list or article. Froggydarb 09:28, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, Andy t 00:17, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The table is good, but perhaps you could specify how many species in each genus instead of or as well as how many in each family? Sabine's Sunbird talk 01:24, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's much better. Sabine's Sunbird talk
  • I'd like to learn more about the causal connection between these species and the fact that they are found in Australia. Fossil evidence? Impact of human invasion of Oz? There seem to be a small number of areas where there are no frogs; again, why? What patterns can we see in the distribution of various taxa? Is the Cane Toad the only introduced species? Should this information go in the lead? What about islands? What about the relationship to other special fauna of Oz (snakes, goannas, herons etc.)? Are there predominantly aquatic frogs? If not, is this to do with the presence of crocodiles? The article doesn't yet feel comprehensive, but it's looking good, and I'm sure with 8 to 12 weeks more work, could be an FA. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 13:28, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks, that is really helpful info. However I'm not sure that there is a casual connection between Australian amphibian species, except that they are all in the same suborder. There are so many different types of habitats that Oz frogs inhabit there isn't really any connection. Froggydarb 23:08, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • There needs to be information on things like the relationship between the Australian amphibian species, and others around the world. E.g. the relationship between the Myobatrachids from Australia and the Sooglosids from the Seychelle Islands. Or the relationships between the Austrlaian Hylids and Microhylids and the rest of the Hylids and Microhylids. Why New Zealand has primitive frogs and Australia doesn't, even though they were once connected. The very close connection to New Guinea, and the geological causes for this. Why there are no salamanders or caecillians in Australia etc. A lot of this I still don't know about, so I want to help to expand my knowledge, however it is pretty complicated and I need some good resources for it. --liquidGhoul 01:54, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • What do you mean by "relationship". Froggydarb 04:24, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • With the Myobatrachids and Sooglosids, I mean they are closely related. They were almost placed within the same family, but were seperated (can't remember why, I think it was just geography). They are closely related, and it helps to define the origins of the families and species. Knowing the relationships between the Australian Hylids and Microhylids, and those around the world helps to define the origin of the Austrlian Hylids and Microhylids. Same with the one Ranid, if it is more closely related to the Asian Ranids than the American, African or European, then Asia is, most likely, the origin of that frog (though it is simple with this species, it is much more complicated with the others). It is important to know how and where we got our frogs from. They may have evolved here, or moved from another area (and if this is the case, which area?). --liquidGhoul 05:22, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Space Shuttle program edit

Seems like a good article on a major topic, I would like to try to get it up to WP:FA status. --GW_Simulations|User Page | Talk | Contribs | E-mail 20:10, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kazi Nazrul Islam edit

Hi - please help me make this an FA. This Fire Burns.....Always 18:31, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This involves the lead and early life. will come back later with more.

  1. first line uses Bengali twice, somewhat redundantly.
  2. "..eligion, music and literature. Working as a journalist," -- A link is mising here. He returned to Bengal, and started working as a journalist
  3. Following the death of his mentor Rabindranath Tagore in 1941, Nazrul began losing his voice and memory. --No correlation whatsoever.
  4. "Whilst stationed in Karachi, Nazrul learnt Persian and the art of writing, and was exposed to Hindu religion, music and literature." -- this contradicts what is being said in "Early life", that he was exposed to hindusim when wandering around in Bengal.
  5. "kaviyals" -- needs to be wikilinked or explained
  6. early life -- if I remember correctly, there was an Asansol period, where he worked at a bakery for a while in the named town. This is not merely trivia information, his working class affinities can be traced back to it.

--ppm 17:47, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • More comments:
  1. 'known as the "Cultural capital of India" ' -- was it? I think its more appropriate to describe it as the cultural center of Bengal.
  2. I believe Agnibeena was banned. This should be mentioned
  3. The discussion on women is simply too long, and similiar stuff is repeated all over the article
  4. "Nazrul's creativity diversfied as he explored Hindu devotional music by composing bhajans and kirtans, " -- he write more Shyama Sangit's than :#these forms
  5. "Lord Byron of Bengali literature."--honestly haven't heard this one. ref a bit weak, too.

--ppm 15:08, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Unless I missed it, there is no mention of Nazrul running for election, and his communist leanings (friend of Mujaffar Ahmed, pioneering leader of CPI and Nazrul also was involved with "Langol"-- a leftist paper for a while). But this is just an example of the problems with dealing with Nazrul. Having read a number of biographies of the guy, I know that everyone potrays him in a different light (unlike, say Rabindranath), and so there is a risk of losing large chapters of his life if one depends on too few sources. To paraphrase Nalinikanta Sarkar, Nazrul's lifelong friend, Nazrul was like the mani-faceted Krishna, showing different people different aspects of his being--ppm 18:52, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Johnny Depp edit

Turned this article from a great big structural mess to - what seems like - good enough for a "Good Article". Any comments appreciated. Mad Jack 20:58, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You should summarise the awards in a paragraph, maybe just list the most significant ones, preferably with brief comment on nomination statement or some such. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 11:18, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Images are a problem. Three unfree images, one of which claims to be promotional, but is taken from a commercial information provider with no indication that the image was a work-for-hire for Depp or his agents. The other two are both from films, show the same character, and one is used purely decoratively in violation of Wikipedia:Fair use criteria. Jkelly 04:52, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Chronology of works by Caravaggio edit

This looks as if it's not far off from featured list status. Any suggestions for ways of improving it? (Not a self-nom.) [talk to the] HAM 14:23, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • I'm far too close to this list (and to the main Caravaggio article) to be impartial, but I do feel it's pretty good - as complete, or near-complete, as we can make it, although there does seem to be an extra Lute Player to be noted (the main article on this painting has information), and a Holy Family with John the Baptist (listed in Puglisi simply as a Holy Family and not thought by her to be genuine). Apart from that aspect, I think we need to have some way of indicating how solid the various attributions are - some are rock-solid, like the Saint Matthew cycle, others are dubious, like some of the John the Baptists, and many are in-between. PiCo 17:02, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The references at the end took a short time to decipher. Might help to use {{cite book}}. Gimmetrow 23:45, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Satyajit Ray edit

This article has gone under some improvement in the last few months. It is probably time to get some input from the community. --ppm 17:35, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Review by User:Ambuj.Saxena
  • I have found problems starting the lead itself.
    • Infobox can be more detailed.
    • ...regarded as one of the greatest auteurs of...(WP:PEACOCK)
    • ...he was profoundly influenced by the humanism of Rabindranath Tagore...(how do we know that)
    • His inspiration came when he attended a screening of Vittorio De Sica's The Bicycle Thieves in London, which convinced him of his future in filmmaking. (Can be copyedited for clarity)
    • Compeleted in 1955, Pather Panchali is a milestone of humanist filmmaking and changed the course of Bengali and Indian cinema. (POV)
    • -- should be replaced with &mdash;(—)
    • Ray was profoundly affected by the people and the prevailing socio-economic conditions of Bengal...(how do we know that. Also POV)
    • Due to Ray's level of involvement in every aspect of filmmaking, his films demonstrate a level of personal expression rarely experienced in the cinema. (Original Research)
    • Look for these issues throughout the text.
  • — Ambuj Saxena (talk) 18:09, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'll agree with all of Ambuj Saxena's concerns except the one involving WP:PEACOCK. I belive this falls under "Don't Hide the Important Facts".--ppm 18:49, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My comments edit

Hi - its great to see a prospective FA on this great man's life. Here are some points of criticism:

  1. Lead it appears to fragmented (6 segments), and monotonously beginning with "Ray..." A lead must be a cohesive and succinct summary of the article, written in brilliant prose that should compell the reader to actually read the whole article.
  2. Satyajit or Ray? please refer to him consistently, and as Ray. Also don't add his name to subsections - no need for "Satyajit Ray's Craft," as nobody expects you to talk about someone else.
  3. I don't think Shatranj Ke Khiladi is an "Urdu" movie - its pretty much Hindi with Urdu overtones.
  4. Filmography please see WP:MOSBIO - I don't think this section should be included (it should be placed into one of Wikipedia's sisterlinks or Filmography of Satyajit Ray). This is also vital in reducing the article size from 60kb.
  5. See also template consider creating Template:Satyajit Ray in which you link forks, films and associated articles.
  6. Reception, Influences and legacy deal with common subject matter. Please subdivide the content of these sections into "Criticism and legacy," and "commemoration" (Indian and foreign reception should be added here).
  7. Organization while the prose is very good indeed, I'm afraid the organization isn't - the "Career in films" section begins with analysis of "Pather Panchali," becomes a summary of periods of his work, and then again breaks into specific "documentaries" and "unfilmed." I suggest an organization on the lines of one main section of period summaries, which focuses on his personal life and succession of works and progression in the industry - the importance of "Pather Panchali" in this section should not be for the film itself, but on how it played a role Ray's life. This section should discuss how Ray's career transformed, changed and moved through different levels - also discuss relationship with other artists, filmmakers and actors - and personal life is very crucial. A second main section that tackle specific films types - Bengali, Hindi/Foreign, documentaries, which discusses Ray in specific context to work done on these films - include your analysis of "Pather Panchali" and other notable films through this section, but don't talk about just the films - keep focus on Ray.
  8. Filmcraft should incorporate more of how Ray's filmcraft was received, analyzed and understood now.
  9. Balance of POV please make sure that along with praise of Ray, there is substantial discussion of any failures, criticism and personal episodes of difficulties in Ray's life. It is important to describe how Ray received the Oscar on his sickbed.
  10. Bengali Politics while Mrinal Sen and others are openly communists, Ray was their contemporary and his political and social outlook must be elucidated.

I hope this helps - this article needs re-organization and some copyediting, but only because the subject matter is so damn diverse and important. Cheers and good work! This Fire Burns Always 08:08, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]


  • Very valid arguments. I must object on Satranj, though. I saw it yesterday (:) yes I am hooked on Ray), and the certificate that they show at the beginning indetifies it as a Urdu (and only Urdu) movie.--ppm 18:45, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • One more point. I understand the need to focus on the person and not his films. But Ray pretty much lived through his art, unlike say Tagore or Nazrul Islam. Chapters of Ray's biography by Robinson read like: The Trilogy, Charulata, Days and Nights, The Calcutta Trilogy, etc :)--ppm 18:56, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No it is not necessary, but you have to make an assessment of how to reduce the article size. At present even the timeline seems unnecessary and space-takin - I mean, doesn't the biography itself offer a timeline of events? And is the infobox necessary for a film director, when his date and place of birth are given in the first line of the article? Some articles like Katie Holmes are not as copious, and the filmography is not large. This Fire Burns Always 20:04, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cribananda's comments edit

Lead: I see a pov in the opening sentence. It is not encyclopaedic.

regarded as one of the greatest auteurs of twentieth century cinema for his subtle, austere and lyrical style of film-making
sounds more like an essay to me.

- Cribananda 20:54, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it is POV per se, see Gauss or Muhammad Iqbal, for example (both featured article). If one thinks the statement is false, that is another question.--ppm 21:46, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My objection is less to 'one of the greatest...' (though I would rather have a prominent) than it is to subtle, austere, and lyrical. I have no issues with calling someone one of the greatest. In fact I strongly supported this in the Shakespeare article. - Cribananda 01:27, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Good point--ppm 16:53, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pictures edit

Hi - there is a problem with the fact that most of the pictures are fair use as screenshots, posters or book covers. The fact is fair use probably is not justified here because the topic is Ray, not these respective works. I think most of these pictures will have to go. To make this an FA, you need more pictures of Ray (which is not hard since all prior to 1946 are PD). However, you'll have many object votes citing improper FU images and an over-dependence on images that don't depict Ray. This Fire Burns Always 02:47, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Some comments edit

IMO, the large size of the article can ne decreased by creating some fork articles. For example, the whole section of "Career in Films" can be decreased in size by creating a number of daughter articles like "Early film career of Satyajit Ray", "Later film career of Satyajit Ray" etc. I am not sure if such namings sound good though! But creation of daughter articles are needed, as such large critical discussions about the films in the main article can make people relucatant to read the article thoroughly. Also, precis form should be followed as far as possible. This job is difficult for those who are not familiar with Ray's works, but with an author like ppm (who is absorbed in Ray!) we can do it.

And Rama, can you give us an example on such kind of a template (Template:Satyajit Ray)? If not available, we can start one anyway. --Dwaipayan (talk) 13:04, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See Template:Muhammad Iqbal. This Fire Burns Always 19:59, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Focus edit

Hi - a continuing issue in the data/substance of this article and of potential forks, as well as pictures is that there is a lot of detail about his films but not on the person. The argument that Ray lived through his work is POV, and you need to focus on the person, and through him on his work and personal life. I don't get much information on Ray's character, thinking, behavior and day-to-day life, which is supposed to be first in a biography. If the article is asserting the Ray lived through his work as a fact, the article should then make clear what the reader should understand about Ray by reading so much about different films. This article is not "The Making of Pather Panchali," etc.

I mean here you have a versatile man of versatile work and skills, living in the tumultuous era of Bengal, and its so hard to extend beyond a listing of his films and foreign reception? This Fire Burns Always 20:13, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Great point which should (and will be) addressed. However, Ray openly claimed to be uninterested in politics, almost never made speeches, almost never signed a document protesting or supporting this and that (which I contrasted to Tagore before). Someone is interested about what he thinks about naxalite movement (for example)? She must see Pratidwandi, there is simply no other way. --ppm 01:13, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
In any case, I think the issue is very important and I am trying to make changes to take this in consideration.--ppm 02:14, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Timeline and infobox edit

Are these necessary? The infobox is ugly and merely repeats the details of his birth given in the first line of the article, and given he is not a political office-holder, I don't think it is called for at all. Also the timeline has a paucity of events to record, which makes it unnecessary - most details on when he filmed what are already well-covered in the sub-sections, aren't they? These two boxes add nothing to this article, so I request their removal. This Fire Burns Always 21:28, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

done--ppm 23:48, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The new template edit

I see there is a new template now - films directed by Ray (Template:Satyajit Ray). However, this template seems not appropriate for this article, as a template for this article should contain not only films, also literature. Also, the present template merely repeats the filmograohy incompletely (the template does not contain the English names). IMO, this template is very good for individual movie articles, but not for this article. Also the placement of the template is odd.--Dwaipayan (talk) 18:00, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Works of Satyajit Ray must not display FU images. This Fire Burns Always 20:50, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yep. That was a bad mistake. Thanks for removing the images.--Dwaipayan (talk) 10:02, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Review by Ragib edit

  • Early life
    • "took a decisive turn" - from what? Did they migrate to west bengal? Did they start participating in arts and literature? The sentence is confusing.
    • "nonsense rhyme" - why is it withing quotation marks? The word is already wikilinked.
    • Norman Clare - redlink, either create article or get rid of the redlink

General comments: The Apu years section is too long. Perhaps it can be reduced by 5 to 8 sentences. Same goes for section 3-5. Many of the sections provide brief summaries of his films. Since this is a biography article, you might consider reducing those summaries to one or two sentences ... interested readers can always go follow the film article link.

These are my comments for the time being, I'd try to add some after going through the rest of the article (which is quite long at 49KB, should be reduced to at least 44KB or so). --Ragib 20:00, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Review by SandyGeorgia edit

Hi, I was asked to have a look, but there is so much productive commentary already, that I feel like I should have a look again in a few days. For now, a couple of really trivial suggestions:

  • Put the categories and interwikis in alphabetical order
done--ppm 01:46, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Put the References in alphabetical order
done.--ppm 01:44, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Use the smaller font size in notes (see the Notes section in Muhammad Iqbal)
done--ppm 01:44, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Lots of inline citations – very nice. On first glance, I did see some paragraphs with no citations, though, so double check that everything that needs to be cited is. Also, someone can doublecheck me on this, but:
    • Seton 1971, pp. 33
    • Seton 1971, pp. 112-115
      • I believe it should be p. 33 and pp. 112-115 (isn't pp. only used when there is more than one page?)
done--ppm 01:59, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I haven't had a detailed look at the prose yet, since it seems like there is still a lot of work going on, but the article does feel a bit longish, and some of the text is overly verbose. I can see right out of the starting gate some ways to shorten it up - picking a random paragraph - combine and shorten some of the sentences, and take out some of the overuse of adjectives (make sure it reads like an encyclopedia entry rather than a fan review):
    • Ray's last three films, made after his recovery, have a very distinctive style, largely due to the strictures put on him by doctors. Shot mostly indoors, they are much more verbose than his earlier films.
      • Ray's last three films, made after his recovery and with medical strictures in place, were shot mostly indoors, have a distinctive style, and are more verbose than his earlier films.
    • Ganashatru (An Enemy of the People), made in 1989, is regarded by some as a weak film by Ray standards, and seen as an exercise to get back into filming after prolonged illness.[26] Made from an original screenplay in 1989, Shakha Proshakha (Branches of the Tree), , is seen as film of greater qualities.
      • The 1989 Ganashatru (An Enemy of the People) – his first film after the prolonged illness – is regarded as weaker than his other films,[26] while Shakha Proshakha (Branches of the Tree) is considered superior and of "distressing beauty".[27]
    • In this film of "distressing beauty",[27] an old man, who has lived a life of utmost honesty, comes to learn the corruption three of his sons, and the final scene shows him finding solace only in the companionship of the fourth, uncorrupted but mentally ill son.
      • In this film, an old man who has lived an honest life learns his three sons are corrupt; in the final scene, he finds solace in the companionship of his fourth, uncorrupted but mentally ill son.
    • In Agantuk (The Stranger), his last film, Ray lightens the mood, but deals with issues more universal. A stranger visits a family claiming to be a long lost uncle. Through his experience, ranging from eager acceptance by the child of the family to apathy and suspicion by the elders, Ray weaves questions about identity, nature and civilization with characteristic lightness of touch.
      • Ray lightens the mood in Agantuk (The Stranger), his last film. A stranger, claiming to be a long lost uncle, visits a family, whose reactions to him range from eager acceptance by a child to apathy and suspicion by the elders. Ray weaves questions about identity, nature and civilization into the film, with characteristic lightness of touch.
    • In 1992, Ray's health deteriorated due to heart complications. He was admitted to a hospital, and would never recover.
      • In 1992, Ray's heart condition deteriorated, he was admitted to a hostpital, and he never recovered.
    • An honorary Oscar was awarded to him weeks before his death, which he received in a gravely ill condition. He died on April 23, 1992.
      • While gravely ill, he received an honorary Oscar, and died several weeks later on April 23, 1992.

I hope that's a start. I don't know that the article is too long, as much as the prose is overly verbose and can be tightened up. Regards, Sandy 22:01, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Peer_review/July_2006&oldid=192827537"