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 (~~~~).

Narnian timeline edit

I created this page a few months ago. I consider it to be solid in its prose and complete in its content. References section is short, but it all came from one (a book), and there's a web site to back it up. Hoping to get this to featured status (incidentally – would it classify as a featured list?). Thanks. --Fbv65edel / ☑t / ☛c || 04:14, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Skimming over both this list and the featured list criteria, I'm going to tentatively say that there are no major barriers to FL status apparent to me. -Fsotrain09 15:59, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Guess there's nothing else to be said then. Thanks for the comments – low in numbers tells me there aren't too many problems! --Fbv65edel / ☑t / ☛c || 20:48, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • These two sentences are a bit awkward: "The serious railway accident of British Rail, as described in The Last Battle, causes the death of Digory and Polly, and this takes place in 1949. While they die on Earth, they are transported to Narnia, where they witness its destruction, Narnian year 2555." They could stand to be broken up a bit, because at the moment they have the feeling of being run-ons.
  • You probably also need a citation for the assertion that experts and fans consider the timeline to have a bearing on the series. MLilburne 11:49, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Abyssinia, Henry (M*A*S*H episode) edit

Hello. This is an article which I originally created and worked on regarding one of the more notable episodes of the TV series M*A*S*H. It achieved GA status after about a week and a half on Wikipedia, and I had a couple of questions regarding what can be done with it. First of all, since this is a shorter article, and one on a specific episode of a TV show, would this be a suitable candidate for FAC? The article is researched well in my opinion, and has 20 citations from 10 sources. And then, secondly, if this article is suitable for FAC, I was also wondering what improvements can be made or any suggestions you might have. Thank you very much for any and all advice and help. - Hotstreets 18:29, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Looks interesting. I have a couple comments and questions:
  • The reference to service points says, "See goofs". It's hard to find the comment about service points on that page, though. I'd recommend explaining in this article why the issue about service points was an anachronism, and then direct the reader to the article about goofs.
  • Did the writers decide to kill off Colonel Blake's character as revenge for McLean Stevenson leaving the series? Or was his leaving amicable on all sides? There's a question about this in the McLean Stevenson article, though it might not be possible to find a true answer one way or the other.
  • "Spoilers end here" should come before the "Reaction and impact" section.
  • I'd combine all the references to the Wittebols article into one reference, instead of having two different footnotes for it and one general reference. Also, I think the "Footnotes" section should be titled "References". You might want to look at Wikipedia:Guide to layout#Standard_appendices for some more information on this. (In fact, I'm not 100% aware of this myself.)
Otherwise, I think you have a good article on your hands, especially one that really made an impact in the series. (It's certainly more encyclopedic than any Pokemon episode, for sure.) --Elkman - (Elkspeak) 20:19, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I am in the process of addressing your comments and concerns. Thank you very much for the feedback, and I should be "finished" with the revisions this weekend. Hotstreets 00:38, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I apologize for the long time it took, but I have done a variety of things to address your concerns:
  • Because the article List of continuity errors and anachronisms in M*A*S*H was very unorganized, I have spent some time reordering and reorganizing this article; while the process is not finished, the goal is for each season/episode to have space for goofs, and this currently has been done for Abyssinia, Henry. Now clicking on that "See goofs" link will take you directly to the "Abyssinia, Henry" subtopic of the goofs page.
  • Since I couldn't find much information about your second point (the writers killing off Henry Blake as revenge), I have not made any changes – while it was clear that he announced his departure long prior to leaving (hence the episode in general), I have not found any credible information suggesting that his death was a form of revenge by the writers.
  • The reason for the two separate references to the Wittebols book is that the later citation is from a later part of the book. In trying to be the most specific possible in my citations, I listed them separately since there is a gap between the material in the first cited section and the second.
  • Supposedly, according to WP:CITE, when you have a Footnote reference to a book/article, it is also suggested to have a complete Reference in a separate "References" section in alpha order, I guess I have always just followed this. I kept the section as is, since if other publications are used to cite the article, it would become more useful. However, if you still object, I can take it out. Please let me know.

On a sidenote, I have also fixed what automated review suggestions I thought applied to the article. Once again, thank you very much for your advice! Hotstreets 09:03, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hurricane Edith (1971) edit

This article about a Category 5 hurricane had been greatly improved in the last few days by User:Hurricanehink and is now a GA. What is needed for it to become an FA? CrazyC83 21:18, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Don't wish to earn the title of "Captain Obvious" but the "Aftermath" section seems a little slim? The rest of the article was a quite good read. - Tutmosis 01:12, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I know it's short, but there's nothing else about aftermath. Would it be better as part of the impact, and rename the impact section to Impact & Aftermath. Hurricanehink (talk) 01:31, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes I would definetely support such a merge. Small sections kind of ruin the visual dispay of the article, and for a good article like this it would be a shame. - Tutmosis 01:40, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You're right, it looks much better now. Hurricanehink (talk) 01:43, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do we really need to link all of those dates in the article? IMO, they're unnecessary and somewhat distracting. Gzkn 05:56, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • We do that for all tropical cyclone articles. If I were to change it for this article, it would have to be done for all 400 other articles. Such standards have been in place for a few years now (linking every date). Would it be better to remove some of the dates entirely, or just remove the wikilinks? If you think such a change would be required for our 400+ articles, feel free to bring it up at our talk page. Hurricanehink (talk) 17:14, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Ah, thanks for clarifying. Wasn't familiar with that standard. What was the reasoning behind it? Or is there an archived page somewhere where it was decided that I can read up on? Thanks. Gzkn 02:23, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • It's more just an unofficial standard the tropical cyclone project. We all just decided to link every date that we mention. It was never challenged, so that's just what we've been doing. Hurricanehink (talk) 02:34, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Charles Atangana edit

I've recently expanded and copy edited this article, and I'd like to nominate it to WP:FAC. Before that, I'd appreciate any comments on it. Are any terms too vague as to warrant explanation? Does everything flow well? Thanks for any help. — BrianSmithson 13:09, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Um, I suppose I should provide a bit of explanation, since Atangana is not very well known. He was a Cameroonian leader during the colonial period (he served under both the Germans and the French). He witnessed the futility of armed resistance to the colonials and instead tried to work within the system to the betterment of his people. It's an interesting story, and I hope others will find it worth their time to read. — BrianSmithson 07:53, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, AZ t 20:59, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks. Ran the Auto peer review myself before I submitted. Everything should be taken care of. — BrianSmithson 22:30, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is an excellent, fascinating article, and well prepared for FAC in my eyes. I made a couple of formatting and wording tweaks, but the only real issue I spotted is that I would like to see a citation for the traditional education of Beti boys (at the start of the early life section). This is very well done, and I greatly enjoyed reading it. --RobthTalk 06:11, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your edits and comments! The traditional education of Beti boys bit comes from Quinn, "Atangana", 486, so it is included in the next citation (after the following sentence). I suppose I could add another reference, but people on FAC seem to get all hissy if the same referece is cited twice in a row sometimes. :) — BrianSmithson 07:49, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, ok, I see. It's really a shame we don't have some good way to indicate what chunk of text a citation covers. With the tools we have, however, the way you have it is good. --RobthTalk 20:52, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Amanita muscaria edit

There has been much less development of fungi pages than of many other collaborations i have been involved with. I figured Amanita muscaria was a page that could one day be a FAC though needs alot of polishing! I figured placing it here was a good starting points for ideas as I felt a bit at a loss at where to continue.Cas Liber 05:44, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You're right, fungus just isn't a sexy content area to work in :)
  • There's a lot of images here for a relatively small amount of text, and most of them are just "another mushroom" - consider putting them in a gallery maybe? A side-by-side comparison of this mushroom with the edible one it's mistaken for would also be useful.

(tricky this. I would rather link to other mushroom pages than have images of related species on this page as there are other desirable images to have - odd colour forms/art/etc. I do agree about highlighting differencesCas Liber 00:54, 7 October 2006 (UTC))[reply]

  • The lead needs expansion, especially with where it's found geographically and where it originated - it implies Europe and North America but later suggests Siberia. Also, this is minor, but the phrase "easily exported" implies that it's done on purpose, which is probably not the intention.
  • Citations are needed for the locations of the varieties. A cladogram or some sort of evolutionary information would be nice if the research exists.
  • "Distribution and habitat" could use expansion.
  • The toxicity section needs references and some rewriting ("high rage"? that whole sentence sounds strange and possibly copied from somewhere?). In particular, only muscarine gets any mention of its chemical mechanism, but the claim is that other substances are responsible for the psychoactive properties. More on their mechanisms would be useful.
  • Popular culture is listcrufty and disorganized. The Santa thing sounds like a fringe theory and a lot of the other references are rather tangential without references (ie, Mario having similar-looking mushrooms isn't really worth mentioning unless it's known somewhere that this mushroom was the inspiration).
  • In lieu of the crufty stuff, more on the verified use of this mushroom in cultural or religious rituals would be a sensible expansion.

Opabinia regalis 01:03, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the input started to reorganise images as there are lot of the same thing (an adult red-and-white mushroom) without adding anything to the article.Cas Liber 05:48, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, are there any images of the spores or immature stages? That might be more useful. Opabinia regalis 06:00, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly what I was thinking, though spores are white so not much to see (unless you use black paper!). There is one subadult one on the page in the pop cult bit. Will check out commons.It is spring here in Oz so can't take any photos of it till autumn. Cas Liber 10:03, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
[[1]] - actually there's a bit to choose from here....Cas Liber 10:06, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Got a bunch of various growth stages, but would like them next to description section but can't make them go there. :( Cas Liber 10:22, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks dude ,gotta run as real life beckons for a few hours...............Cas Liber 22:51, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • You are very welcome, Take care, Ruhrfisch 00:28, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

More Cowbell edit

The layout of this article is all rather messy, as is the extensive list of Pop Culture references. I'd like to see other's view on this. I think if this article was worked on enough, it could gain Featured Article Status. NauticaShades(talk) 16:20, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Can "References in popular culture" be converted to prose since currently it looks like a trivia section? - Tutmosis 21:55, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • "References in popular culture" really *really* needs to be trimmed down. Bulletpoints such as "One of the fake loading messages in the MMORPG Auto Assault is "Adding More Cowbell" add little to the article. Also, inline web-page citations should be converted to the Template:cite web format. CloudNine 21:56, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cooch Behar edit

What do all of u think I can add more to enhance the quality of the article? Help me.

Amartyabag 09:09, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments. Please try to follow the guidelines laid out in Wikipedia:WikiProject Indian cities. There should not be sections like "Places to See" (can be incorporated in Culture, History etc), "Hotels".

Also, the article lacks inline citations. The article won't survive an FAC without those. Anyway, a really commendable effort for a town that does not probably have good number of web resource to work on. Keep it up. Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 07:28, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment More citations would be useful. I know this is a work in progress but that would make it better. I also think that if you could add some pictures that would make it better. This is from a first glance, but I will tell you more once I read the article properly. Thanks. --Antorjal 13:55, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, Ruhrfisch 15:41, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is a great effort. A few photographs would make it more valuable. The red dots give an impression of unfinished work. Can these be removed? -- P.K.Niyogi 02:26, 24 October 2006 (UTC).[reply]

Good work so far. I recommend a copyedit as some of the prose is awkward (Sport for example). Phrases such as "In course of time, Cooch Behar has been transformed from a kingdom to a State and from a State to the present status of a district, and Cooch Behar its district headquarters." feel awkward. Lead needs a little cleaning up as well. Some of the redlink subjects may already have articles; for example:

Besides mainstream Indian Television Channels, the town also receives Nepali Television Channels and Bangladeshi Television Channels.

There might be a article listing the television channels of those countries, but not necessarily under that name. CloudNine 21:51, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of British Columbia general elections and others edit

"Others" being:

I'm grouping these togther because they are all very similar in format and content, and so any comment which applies to one almost certainly applies to them all. Their peer-review sub-pages should re-direct here. I'm seeking general comments and sugegstions for improvements, in particular answers to questions like:

  1. Could / should there be more prose to accompany the list, or wuld this full outside the scope of the article?
  2. Is there any related information that is worth including on the page?
  3. Each list has a graph of seats per party for each election.
    1. Should this be full-size (like in the SK list) or a thumbnail (like in the others)?
    2. Should the bars indicate number of seats won (so the overall height varies according to the number of seats in the leglisaltive body, like this), or should they indicate the proportion of seats won (so the overall height is constant, like this)?
  4. Should the lists have most recent or oldest results at the top?
  5. How do the lists compare with List of Ontario general elections and Quebec general elections (which are in a very different style)?
  6. Is it worth having coloured bars to denote the winner, as per List of New Brunswick general elections?

For the record, the SK list is former featured list candidate (sub-page). It failed due to insufficient support.

Thanks in advance for any comments! Tompw 14:13, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Please see automated peer review suggestions here. If this is helpful, ask on my talk page and I will run the program for the other lists too. Thanks, Ruhrfisch 21:11, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Given most of the points are the same, I shall reply by point raised:
  • Infobox: Nope, none exsist
  • Length/comprehensiveness: As they are lists, relevant criteria are at WP:WIAFL... "the list covers the defined scope by including every member of a set" - which is the case for all except the Manitoba one (which lacks only 19th century details). So, the Manitoba list needs completeing.
  • Footnotes/references: Added a specific references section, depsite there being only one reference used/needed. (Namely, the provinical election authorities)
  • Copyediting: I would say the prose in the lists is well-written, but it is hard to judge ones own writing. I would welcome someone elses comments on this one.
  • Length of lead paragraph: Oddly, AB and MB have this, but not BC or SK. I personally feel that the lead paragraph is of an apropriate length.
  • Section ordering: made sure "references" section was after "see also".
Thanks for all this. Tompw 16:33, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ziff Davis edit

The Ziff Davis article has been on clean-up for about a year, and they are a pretty big company in the internet technology news field. I've tried to make some improvements in the past hour or so, and I'd like tips on how my fellow editors and I can improve it further. - CaptainAmerica 02:49, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • A fair-use representation of their logo would add some recognition at the start of the article. Mfields1 00:45, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • A graphic showing their growth by decade or year, either in revenue or number of publications or some way to show the change in size of the company.
  • Make a link to Davis and start an article on him.
  • Overall more graphics that are not so busy, at the top of the article. You might have to look for better cover examples with different colors. They don't look good.
  • The article could benefit from some additional sources (non web-based).
  • The article leaves me wondering, what did Ziff Davis do from 1927 until 1938? That's a big gap. Then it seems a large gap exists until 1952. In the history section, it is subtitled 'Fiction and Hobbyist Magazines" but the last paragraph discusses broadcasting. Maybe that should be a separate subheading? If the company has split into two or more divisions (e.g. publishing and web-based) maybe there's a way to show this differently. It might be possible to discuss the changes by decades. Mfields1 01:00, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  Habbo Hotel has had a peer review by Wikipedia editors which is now archived.

Habbo Hotel edit

Relisting for peer review, as I received no response last time. I'd really like for someone to give this article a thorough review, if not, a short note pointing out some obvious errors. Input on the talk page is limited, so please, any input will be much appreciated. Kind regards, –sebi 05:33, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Box at the top: "This article or section is written like an advertisement.". That's no good. Plenty of pictures, good (although be careful with copyright, that's a lot of fair-use images). There appears to be a lot of content about the in-game world, although not that much about the game itself. I think you should shorten the "Inside the Hotel" section. i.e., you probably don't need to explain the four in-game games with a paragraph each, just give them a sentence (e.g. Wobble Squabble - an elimination game played on inflatables in a swimming pool in the Hotel). The image under "Habbo eXperts" flows beyond its section, killing the line under "Sponsorship", you should move that image up so its under the previous heading. There are some table cells missing in "Current Hotels". --TheJosh 12:42, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The only pictures that we can include that are relevant to the subject are in-game screenshots, which are fair-use images, and so there's not a lot anyone can do about that. The inside the hotel section is just about the main cause of that advert tag at the top of the page, I'll discuss that a little further on the talk page. And I'm planning to expand the Habbo eXpert section and the Sponsorship section, so it might fit after I've finished. Thanks for the review, though :) –sebi 07:19, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Review by Giggy edit

Well, the advertisment tag isn't a good start.

  • The lead is to long and drawn out IMO - we really don't need that much of a gameplay analysis in it. Merge paragraphs 2 and 3, and shorten them both, so it's only a broad, broad summary.
I actually think the lead is a perfect size, but thanks for the suggestion anyway. –sebi 05:27, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That's because too much of the article is devoted to gameplay ;) If you shorten that and de-cruft it, you'll have to shorten the lead too! Giggy Talk 06:33, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
But the lead only covers a short history, credits and furniture, moderation and management and achievements in a short summary; these are the most important points of the article. I personally believe that there is absolutely nothing wrong with the lead right now. –sebi 07:13, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Expand the history section - discuss the idea, the creation, any problems in its creation, etc. That's a much more important section then gameplay etc.
  • Remove the subsections in the features section, and merge the whole thing into one paragraph on features - avoid gamecruft, this isn't a game manual.
  • Same with the inside the hotel section - a few paragraphs could summarise the entire thing. Precedent: [2] The current article discusses gameplay, and instructs, way to much - shouldn't be a game guide!
  • You only really need one paragraph on mods and experts, not all the (I'll say it again) cruft.
IMHO, the mods and experts sections don't look like cruft to me, the information in them is quite valuable. If you could point out a couple of advertise-y comments in those sections, I'll remove them. –sebi 05:27, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Moderators can be recognised by the prefix "MOD-" in front of their account name and by a Habbo Staff badge. - Does the article really need this? It's totally useless to someone who isn't/hasn't played the game. Habbo eXperts are given a badge next to their avatar to enable newer users to identify them easily - Same...and a lot of the gameplay based statements here fall under the same cat (only I don't want to cite the majority of the paragraph!) Giggy Talk 06:33, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Expand on the sponsorship section, wherever possible. This is something that the article SHOULD discuss.
I have an idea on expanding the section, I'll make the changes later on. –sebi 05:27, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Really? I wouldn't have thought so, the list isn't that long. –sebi 05:27, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but if you make a separate list article, you can discuss the hotels too, rather then just plonking them on this one. Giggy Talk 06:33, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What is there to discuss? I think that everything about the Hotel can be included in this one article, rather than expanding to other articles; the scope isn't that large anyway. –sebi 07:13, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • What's with the external links - where's the link to the HH home page, etc.?
As there are 29 hotels with 29 different home pages, the Current hotels list has all the links to the websites. –sebi 05:27, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There isn't a "main" hotel? Giggy Talk 06:33, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Nope. –sebi 07:13, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's all I've got for now...I've watchlisted this page, so ask any questions :) Giggy Talk 23:45, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Automated Peer Review edit

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

  • Please expand the lead to conform with guidelines at Wikipedia:Lead. The article should have an appropriate number of paragraphs as is shown on WP:LEAD, and should adequately summarize the article.[?]
  • Per Wikipedia:Context and Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates), months and days of the week generally should not be linked. Years, decades, and centuries can be linked if they provide context for the article.[?]
  • If there is not a free use image in the top right corner of the article, please try to find and include one.[?]
    • Nope, all pictures that could be of any use are copyrighted screenshots, so this can't be done. –sebi 02:25, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I know it sounds like a long shot, or just odd, but sometimes a picture of people playing the game is appreciated. Strange, yes, but most a few people ask for that sort of thing... Giggy Talk 07:03, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Watch for redundancies that make the article too wordy instead of being crisp and concise. (You may wish to try Tony1's redundancy exercises.)
    • While additive terms like “also”, “in addition”, “additionally”, “moreover”, and “furthermore” may sometimes be useful, overusing them when they aren't necessary can instead detract from the brilliancy of the article. This article has 23 additive terms, a bit too much.
    • Vague terms of size often are unnecessary and redundant - “some”, “a variety/number/majority of”, “several”, “a few”, “many”, “any”, and “all”. For example, “All pigs are pink, so we thought of a number of ways to turn them green.”
  • The script has spotted the following contractions: wouldn't, if these are outside of quotations, they should be expanded.
    • "Wouldn't" wasn't found in the article, it was found in the html comment text, so I'm ignoring this. –sebi 02:28, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please ensure that the article has gone through a thorough copyediting so that it exemplifies some of Wikipedia's best work. See also User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 1a.[?]

You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, Davnel03 15:19, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Xenomorph (Alien) edit

On behalf of User:Dark Kubrick, who asked me to help him write this: I'm going to try to keep an out-of-universe perspective on this article, but I need help in knowing what sections to add or delete. I'm planning on adding a "Depiction" section, and rewrite the Characteristics part for less cruft and speculation. Debate and Theories will probably go or be merged somehow. Plus I'll add a concept and creation section. Any other topics the article might need to cover? Thanks. Dark Kubrick. 19:22, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To be honest when I read a while ago I found it very informative for something that doesn't exist. But yeah, I think it'd be neat to take the fictional information on it's lifecycle (which fascinates everyone) and condense it into it's own section, and get on with the creature's popularity. Wiki-newbie 19:34, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The featured articles on fictional characters already provide a wonderful (self-explanatory) outline: Appearances, Characteristics, Concept and creation. - Tutmosis 23:28, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kinda obvious...I'm looking for more specific details...--Dark Kubrick 23:40, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Leonard T. Gerow edit

Need recommendations on what could be added to improve the article. Mfields1 18:42, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

references. - Tutmosis 23:30, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Big Brother Australia 2006 edit

As I've said in a previous PR, Big Brother Australia articles don't get as much attention as other Big Brother articles, so any opinions or suggestions would be much appreciated. jd || talk || 11:53, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

University College, Durham edit

I feel this is a decent bodied article, that now needs a review to perhaps check on its writing style and what further information could be given. Is it possible for it to reach featured status (i.e. how close is it and is the subject notable enough to have enough relevant info?) --Robdurbar 08:36, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Some thoughts on what I'd personally like to see in the article
  • First of all the article needs a spell check, I corrected a few errors in the opening paragraph and there are more throughout.
  • I also didn't like some of the use of commas. Some of the sentences/clauses come across as very clunky.
  • In the 1st paragraph is it correct to say that University College is in the Castle when not all of its buildings actually are?
  • Comparison of this college with the other Durham colleges (academic & sporting maybe?)
  • More/better pictures of inside the college buildings
  • A map/plan showing where the castle and other buildings are in Durham in relation to the other colleges
  • Explanation of the origin of the crest and motto
  • 'Formal' in the picture caption needs replacing with 'Formal Meal'
  • Can there be more about what makes this college different from any other one, maybe college clubs, sports teams etc.?
  • The part about the buildings could be expanded, maybe taking some info from the Castle article. Is the inside mostly still castely or has it mainly been converted to look like more modern buildings?
  • How do tourist & students interact? JMiall 18:15, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thank's for that. I've given it a thorough spell check and addressed one or two of the other issues bought up. I think it's fair to say that it is located 'in' the Castle - that's where its offices and reception are, for example - but I've clarified in the intro anyway.
The grammar/structure could probably do with going over; I tend to overuse commas/semi-colons and as I have written the vast majority of the text, it will have suffered from a lack of proof-reading etc. from other editors.
Crest/pictures are being worked on, at least that gives me something to focus research on! --Robdurbar 11:20, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ecco the Dolphin edit

I really feel this article could go all the way. It just needs a little push in the right direction. --Ppk01 15:48, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • I may be mistaken but it appears that the article will require a complete rewrite. The intro gives the impression that the article is about the character. If this is what is intended, then the storyline and gameplay sections are overly detailed, and should only be found in detail in the article about the indivdual games. There also should be a section on the creation and developement of the character, as well as critical reaction to the character. There need to be a lot more references with inline citations, outside sources required for the critical reaction and the creation. Make sure the characterists section about Ecco follow the guidelines at WP:WAF. Jay32183 19:11, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Ruhrfisch 02:33, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Antioxidant edit

Peer review prior to a month-long editing collaboration has been requested. Thanks for all your comments. - Samsara (talkcontribs) 09:37, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Are these reliable sources?, Sandy 15:01, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • No, I saw those in the article and thought they should be removed. - Samsara (talkcontribs) 15:58, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's not that the content is bad so much as extremely lopsided. There's way too much poorly sourced or unsourced nutritional stuff and not enough about antioxidants in cell biology (but I'm sure you knew that already). Most of what's currently in the "nutritional antioxidants" section should probably be devolved to the corresponding list and cleaned out of the main article, and the lead should correspondingly be fixed so it doesn't spend twice as much time on nutrition as on anything else. The current biology section should be expanded so that the individual examples can sustain their own separate paragraphs/sections. Also, currently the nonbiological roles of antioxidants are not well covered. Opabinia regalis 00:38, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I second ORs comments. Pictures to show how they work in the cell would be a good addition, mabye someone could make a diagram like this. --Peta 01:54, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Ruhrfisch 02:43, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Animania edit

Previous peer review: Wikipedia:Peer review/Animania/archive1

It's been a while since the last peer review, the article has undergone a little change since then, I've added one image (still yet to trawl through the photos taken this year to see if there's anything usable), and I'd like to see this article moved as close to Good Article (at least) as possible. Besides the lack of images, the only main concern was a lack of pages linking in, and unfortunately without spamming I'm not sure how many articles I could validly add a link in.

In particular, I'd like to know which GA criterion the article currently passes, and which it fails (I appreciate that there's a lack of reliable sources, although I wouldn't mind being told where I might look for more). Confusing Manifestation 01:06, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Make Way For Ducklings edit

Make Way For Ducklings is a children's book set in Boston, Massachusetts. As little as a month ago, the article looked like this. With a little bit of research, ample information was found about the book, its sales, its history, and critical and cultural reaction. I believe this article would make a great FA, but of course, I would love a peer review. A review is especially important, as there are not currently any featured articles on children's books. Thank you so much for taking the time! — Scm83x hook 'em 20:03, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The section on the use of page breaks in the book needs references. I added one {{fact}} tag for one statement, but probably another 2-3 are needed besides that one. Good work with this article though -- that a children's book article even has a section on such a technical aspect of literary criticism is great. -Fsotrain09 21:30, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The entire section is from one source, which is cited at the bottom of the section. I will add another ref in the top paragraph to make it more explicit. — Scm83x hook 'em 21:43, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This looks very, very good, and I'll be glad to pay close attention and pitch in to help with any featured issues it might have in the future. A few suggestions:
  • For sales, perhaps some approximate sales numbers would be more useful than Amazon/B&N ones that change daily, if not more. I'll see what I can track down for you on it, but if you beat me to it, that might be useful.
  • I'm not confused by them, but to kind of tag along with the thought above, the footnote style is a little odd if you're not expecting it. I'm not sure how to fix it, but while you're properly sourcing whole sections, some people might not understand it.
Otherwise, I like! --badlydrawnjeff talk 17:43, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks very much for the input. I've used that sourcing style in the past with no issues in all of my previous featured articles, so I don't think this should be an issue. I certainly agree that hard sales numbers would be better, but given that the book has been around for so long and its genre, actual dollar figures don't seem to exist. I figured B&N and Amazon were the next best thing. Thanks so much for the input, and I appreciate your offer of further aid. — Scm83x hook 'em 21:25, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If you've had no further issues, then I don't see it as a roadblock. I'm used to political articles in that regard, honestly. As for sales figures, I bet we could probably get an approximate idea of how many printings, what edition it's in, and some approximate sales figures as opposed to an actual dollar value. I'll see what I can do and replace it if I find anything. --badlydrawnjeff talk 23:29, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Found in two different references that it has sold over two million copies. Placed it in the sales section and the lead. — Scm83x hook 'em 21:11, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Silent Hill (film) edit

The Silent Hill film page has been GA for a few months now. The editors all did a great job and I'm looking to push its quality up higher, possibly to a higher rating or FA. I'm looking for any and all feedback and comments regarding the article.

Previous Peer Review: Wikipedia:Peer review/Silent Hill (film)/archive1

Plot is overlong. Move cast information and any minor stuff to a new section, ala Star Wars/Lord of the Rings articles. WikiNew 10:41, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Lead needs expansion. Quadzilla99 01:30, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

thanks for the comments! --Beanssnaeb 00:47, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Slovenian language edit

I have just read the article Russian language that is a FA. I was thinking of improving this article to a similar quality, I am open for suggestions what to do. Thank you in advance. --Tone 11:57, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The article is uncited; the first thing it needs is inline citations. Be careful of comparisons to other FA articles, as they may no longer be currently at FA standard. Good luck, Sandy 14:59, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The Russian language article was made FA in 2004! After a brief look I think it would fail on inline citations if nominated in 2006. With your Slovenian one you should cite more diligently if you want it to be FA. (Some random suggestions follow.)
  • It seems that there are a lot of sections that are stubs that reference other articles, you should expand those.
  • The map of distribution is not perfectly clear - the scale is too large and it is colour coded in 3 shades of green but with no explanation. Perhaps you should make the map smaller scale and explain the colour coding.
  • The last paragraph says: "Examples of the language in use are given at every topic in the Slovenian grammar article" - you should avoid referring to other articles so directly, instead give some examples and maybe do a {{seealso}} 06:21, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

James River Bridge edit

Please comment on how this article can be improved. Thank you. --NE2 12:02, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In section #2 History, I'd suggest that the year 1927 be referenced in the first sentence so that users don't have to click on the 7ref. Dharp66 20:33, 12 October 2006 (UTC)Dharp66[reply]

I don't know when the company was chartered, which means I need someone in Virginia to check the laws; I only have a reference that says that it was chartered by the GA. --NE2 20:44, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The L Word edit

Please give suggestions to make this article better. Any merging? Separation? Style Tips? -- TLW 07:20, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Most crucially, I think, the article needs to reorient its focus away from generally unencyclopedic content such as plot and character descriptions - which are all inordinately long and threaten to violate WP:NOT - and towards encyclopedic subjects such as real-world factors that have influenced the work, its reception by critics, the influence of the work on later creators and their projects, etc. The key guideline here is WP:WAF, which is highly recommended reading for anyone working on TV show articles. Of course, all the plot synopses could just as well be deleted as WP:OR, as they're unsourced. Also, per WP:TRIVIA, long trivia sections are bad practice. Sandstein 22:21, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting. Thanks for the information about the plot Synopsis. Most of this information can be reffered to TV Guide. I believe though then all of it should just be exported into new articles and citations added? -- TLW 00:40, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Citations added, certainly. I'm of the opinion - though others might disagree - that, since Wikipedia is not a TV guide, TV show plot synopses that are longer than one or two sentences are unencyclopedic and do not belong on Wikipedia at all. See WP:WAF in this regard, too.

Hastings, Ontario edit

Please tell me your opinions on the content of the article, and any improvements I can make. If you are going to edit the article yourself, please list what change(s) you made below. Thanks very much.

Dhastings 02:07, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Soxaholix edit

  • This is my first article from scratch and so I'd like to see what I can do better in creating new articles. General comments and suggestions for reaching GA status will be very appreciated. Thanks. ju66l3r 18:51, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think GA isn't that far away. But the "Characters" section needs a total rewrite in the light of WP:WAF (I've tagged it accordingly). Sandstein 22:07, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, thanks. I hadn't even thought to be aware for something like that in creating the article. If someone is skilled about out-of-universe conversion, I'd love some help on the section; otherwise, I'll take a crack at it myself. ju66l3r 22:33, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article doesn't appear to use any reliable sources, uses blogs as sources, and the first source listed - the Soxaholix website - appears to be a blatant copyvio (Wall Street Journal), which means the Soxaholix site shouldn't be listed anywhere on Wikipedia (it violates copyright). See WP:EL. Sandy 13:53, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The Wall Street Journal is not a reliable source? If the article's reference was simply to the WSJ "buy this article now" because it is subscription access only, would that be better? Or better yet, the citation could be plaintext and simply reference the issue and page number and force someone to go find a copy themselves? It's also difficult to understand the copyvio since only a link to the article and not the text was used here. The only blog used as a source is Deadspin (notable in its own right to have a wiki-article); the remaining sources are all independent (and in most cases, notable) awards for online sites. As for your contention that WP:EL demands Soxaholix shouldn't be listed, I can not find that passage anywhere within EL, can you please help me find it? I have spoken with the author of the Soxaholix website and referenced the Wall Street Journal article in our discussions and it did not seem to be an issue for him to have it on his website, therefore according to WP:COPY, there should not be a problem since I can assume there is no copyright conflict. From WP:COPY: "Linking to copyrighted works is usually not a problem, as long as you have made a reasonable effort to determine that the page in question is not violating someone else's copyright." I believe that to be the case, but as I said above, the link can be moved from the pdf to the WSJ "buy this article" page or simple reference to the article. ju66l3r 14:35, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have moved the link to the site and added the original publication date and page number for someone to look it up for themselves in microfilm/archive if they can not view the subscription-required page. I believe that's in line with Wikipedia policy for not linking to what you deemed to be copyright violation. I have also renewed contact with the website's owner as per above. ju66l3r 15:02, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
My final comment on this matter unless there is discussion: I have an e-mail from the site owner stating that the author of the WSJ article gave him explicit permission to post the PDF for others to read from the Soxaholix website. He also told me that in an upcoming website redesign that is planned, he will be removing that PDF in any case (alleviating any concern that is not allowed external linkage in your mind. ju66l3r 16:13, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'd suggest further checking into the exact wording of WSJ's copyright. I don't believe an e-mail from the site owner does it: I think you may need an e-mail from the WSJ. But I'm in over my head on that. If you want the article to attain FA, you may need to figure out where/who to run this by on Wiki: I haven't been able to figure out all the various copyvio fora on Wiki, but the last time I looked for them, everything I found had outrageous backlogs. One thing you might to in the meantime is just link to the WSJ for a fee URL, and then include only the relevant text which validates your inline citation as part of the inline citation. Good luck ! Sandy 18:28, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Forgot to add the relevant text from WP:EL: "Linking to copyrighted works is usually not a problem, as long as you have made a reasonable effort to determine that the page is not violating copyright per contributors' rights and obligations. Knowingly and intentionally directing others to a site that violates copyright has been considered a form of contributory infringement in the United States. " Sandy 18:30, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have now taken care of the link problem and also taken care of the in/out-of-universe perspective problem in the Characters section. If there are any other thoughts on this article, they'll be appreciated. Otherwise, I'll be submitting a nomination for this article to receive GA status soon. ju66l3r 18:35, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Thanks for running the script on my article. ju66l3r 02:48, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Geography of North America edit

This is my best article, please review it.Showmanship is the key 19:45, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Some more pictures would be good. People Powered 01:45, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The article must clearly define the geographic boundaries of North America. Joelito (talk) 16:44, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A few things (nothing personal!):

  • Some of the prose is very poor. For example "Relif maps of the United States partially shows why they've come to exist." doesn't make much sense to me. Go for a copy edit, or at least run the prose through a spell-checker at the very least.
  • Fix the citations (and add more). They should be in numbered order and after all punctuation.
  • Only the first word of a title should be capitalized (see WP:MOS).
  • More images as North America is such a beautiful region! There should be larger images as well (Wikimedia Commons must have plenty).
  • The Bibliography and Reference sections should be merged
  • Clean up the lead. I'm not sure why the peoples of North America are mentioned in the last paragraph of the lead.

It's a promising article however. CloudNine 22:05, 31 October 2006 (UTC) Wikipedia:Peer review/Islam[reply]

Atomic theory edit

Kurzon 19:06, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes it looks good. Nothing additional springs to mind in terms of content, since subatomic particles and quantum models of the atom are covered in greater detail by other articles.
  • Normally the introduction should provide a brief summary of the article.
  • There are only three inline citations and the article could use many more.
  • The article should clarify that "90 degrees" is an angle, rather than a temperature.
  • In the final section about quantum models, please use — rather than a hyphen for the em dash punctuation.
Thanks. — RJH (talk) 20:55, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pornography in the United States edit

The GA underwent a new part of edits. Feel free to indicate what should be done generally and added further. Thanks. --Brand спойт 07:21, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Do a grammar check. First sentence in the lead has subject/verb disagreement for example ("A and B has not existed..."). -Amatulic 22:56, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Christopher Columbus edit

This article was a recent Wikipedia:Spotlight collaberation. We think that our changes have improved it enough to make it nearly ready for featured. We removed large sections and placed them in their own articles. Thank you for your consideration. Bastiqe demandez 00:02, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure it's at featured status yet, but Good Article quality perhaps. WikiProject Biography rates it B-class, obviously the assessment was before our changes, so GA-class isn't that much of a stretch. The issue of stability does come in here, though... it was subject to a more or less constant flood of vandalism before I semi-protected it, and of course it has, inevitably, been drastically altered recently – Gurch 02:41, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to be unpopular with my Spotlight friends... I can't see GA yet, because I'm not fond of the references list. I'm picky, I'm allowed to be here. Feel free to disagree. I want to see all cite.php based references. *nod* Other than that, go ahead. Oh, can we stuff an infobox in there? I like infoboxes...pretty... :) ~Kylu (u|t) 05:18, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I am for all cite.php references as well... I will get on that, or you can as well! —— Eagle (ask me for help) 05:35, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
We considered an infobox at one point, but didn't think it would be particularly useful, so we didn't add one. But we could be wrong... if you can make one, then by all means go ahead – Gurch 15:27, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, looks like we have an infobox, and the Spotlight will work on those cite.php, we have all the websites in the proper format, but we don't have the books formatted yet. Give the channel a day or two! Also, I have done copyediting up to section 3 (on the voyages), I will finish copyediting in 2 days. —— Eagle (ask me for help) 22:36, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I would suggest extending the lead to comply with WP:LEAD and perhaps a few more references. Then it should be as good as gold for GA status. --Tarret 18:06, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Vietnam edit

Hi - I request the advice and help of all in making this a featured article. Rama's arrow 23:27, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Update the information. Much of the information from your sources are from the mid-1990s. Vietnam has changed rapidly during the last decade. DHN 02:09, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I find it very interesting and some good information about the spelling of Viet Nam, the country. I'm trying to determine the origin of the spelling: Viet = People, Nam= of the south, meaning the Vietnamese were not the people of the north, the Chinese.

The one-word spelling seems to have come from Western journalists sending telex messages. Charged by the word, Dien Bien Phu became expensive, as did Ha Noi, Sai Gon, Da Nang, etc. To cut costs they made one word, the style manuals picked that up, and it stuck.

The Vietnamese are a humble people and would never tell a foreigner their spelling was incorrect. When they use the name "Vietnam" as mention for Nam Dan, it's simply a case of the Vietnamese knowing Westerners (mostly Americans) wouldn't recognize or understand the proper spelling, so they continue the myth and continue to make money.

For myself, I'm using the term Viet Nam, as the older people would. Younger Vietnamese might use one word, and the Viet-kieu (overseas Vietnamese) have been raised with the single word version. That's all they know.

Using Viet Nam recognizes the original and local spelling, and begins to offer Americans a new look at healing from the American war. The one-word name is associated with the war, and the national psyche immediately interprets that name into emotional issues. It’s like a case of national PTSD. I believe with a new (which luckily happens to be correct) spelling, Americans of the war era will develop new emotions and appreciation for the country, and slowly leave the war. With a new war in our lives, we need healing from the past in order to better cope with the trauma and lies of the present. Thanks for any discussion.



I would recommend
  • Much more detailed citations throughout the article, especially in the areas most likely to be controversial, such as whether the Nam Viet was independent or Chinese-ruled, 20th century history, political structure. Also cite a source for specific facts such as the numbers in the Geography and Climate section, and in the Economy section.
  • More detail on the organization of the communist party in the section on government and politics.
  • Watch out for weasel words, for example "perhaps one of the most important".
  • Watch out for duplicated links. For example, Ho Chi Minh City and Saigon are both wikilinked in the subdivisions section, but Saigon redirects to Ho Chi Minh City.
  • Cite statements like "this has amazed many people."
  • The Culture section needs copyediting for grammar.
  • One long paragraph in the Culture section could be split up into multiple smaller ones,

and links to several sub-articles (Vietnamese cuisine, Vietnamese music, etc.)

  • In the culture section, is more discussion of the various ethnic groups contributions appropriate?
  • Does the overseas Vietnamese community deserve a lengthier discussion?
The Photon 02:55, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Chile edit

This article became a GA, and I want to know how to improve it so it can become a Featured Article. Any tips are greatly appreciated. --Esteban F. (con.) 21:12, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm curious about how it became GA with no inline citations? In order to approach FAC, the first thing you must do is thoroughly cite the article. Also, the lead will need to be 3 or 4 compelling paragraphs; sections and headings will need to conform with WP:LAYOUT and WP:MOS (there is currently something called miscellaneous which actually seems to be See also); short, choppy sections should be expanded or merged into other sections (example, National symbols, Language); and Foreign relations doesn't seem comprehensive and needs to be much longer. There are many sections that need to be more comprehensive: Culture is another. You can find some tips from other users at the bottom of WP:WIAFA. For comparison, you can have a look at Canada and Australia, but the first order of business is to expand the text and provide inline citations for everything. Sandy 22:25, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gorillaz edit

Resubmitting for peer review. Recently I've been adding citations and cutting down the fancruft. I'd appreciate any suggestions on what could be improved or expanded, notes on the interestingness of the writing and also whether the article meets Good Article status. - kollision 07:54, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  1. The "Fictional band history" section is much too long and should be trimmed drastically. It probably shouldn't need to be longer than 1/2 of its current length. This section also needs to be edited to have a more encyclopedic tone; its currently written a too stylistically and dramatically.
  2. There many very short paragraphs section "Phase Two: Slowboat to Hades (2004 – present)" and in the other sections to a lesser extent. These should be integrated into larger paragraphs and rewritten to allow better flow of the text.
  3. More inline citations are needed, each paragraph should have a few at least
  4. Material such as "This can be seen as the genesis of the musical style that continued into Gorillaz' first album" reads as original research and should be cited or removed
  5. The live performances section should be narrowed down to two or three of their most notable performances. If you can't write more than a decent-sized paragraph on a tour, it doesn't need its own section.
  6. There's a lot of speculation/original research/uncited material on the status of their website at various points in time. These really need citations from reliable sources, or else removed.
  7. Needs much copyediting - I'd save this until after the above issues are fixed, however. I highly suggest reading through the sections on eliminating redundancy and improving sentence flow in User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 1a and trying the exercises User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 1a: redundancy exercises. The prose doesn't need to be perfect for a GA, but this will certainly make it easier to get this article to a GA. Best of luck! Wickethewok 09:12, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mary Seacole edit

A remarkable Victorian lady who was born as a mixed-race free woman in Jamaica when it was still a slave society. She practised as a "doctress" in Jamaica, Panama and the Crimean War, and is sometimes called the black Florence Nightingale. She disappeared from public view after her death in 1881, and has only re-emerged in the last 20 years. Her life story is now taught alongside that of Nightingale in British primary schools.

I am going to be adding further references (particularly from the main source, her autobiography) and there are some academic sources that may be fruitful (details on request). Any comments would be welcome before I take this to WP:FAC -- ALoan (Talk) 00:57, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • The lead is a bit brief, it should summarise the content of the article; the start of the second paragraph of the lead doesn't strike me as very logical. The recognition section is a bit disconnected. I'm not keen on the inclusion of dates in the section headings - since the sections are chronological it doesn't really need them. The notes would take up less space if you used the markup putting them in two columns. Otherwise, it's an excellent article. --Peta 01:45, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for a very prompt response. Yes, the lead needs expanding to about twice the size (I have done the difficult bit, which is the article, first; the lead just needs to sumarise it, but I am suffering from wood-for-trees at the moment!), and, yes, the last section is just a collection of snippets that needs organising (the sources mainly deal with her life, and are not strong on that aspect, but I think it is important). I put the dates in the headings, because the interest - and the detail - is so skewed to the period from 1850 to 1860. I would prefer to keep them in, to be honest. The two-column mark-up does not work in the classic skin, but I will investigate it for the benefit of others. Thanks for reading. -- ALoan (Talk) 01:53, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Virginia State Route 16 edit

I would like to know whether I should add anything; I plan to use this as a general template for other routes. Thank you. --NE2 22:12, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A clear or a few clear maps. Other than that I'm having a hard time thinking up how such an article should look to give any more suggestions. - Tutmosis 20:43, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Trapped in the Closet (South Park) edit

I would like to hear suggestions on bringing the article to FA or A status, including prose, styling, sources, etc. Also if anyone has further sources for interviews please provide them. Michaelas10 (Talk) 12:56, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • For my part I will attempt to work on prose and copyediting, but of course other help would be appreciated as well. I created a "to do" list, which we can use to focus our efforts towards bringing the article towards FA status. Is "A" status technically above "GA"?? I had thought that since GA required review, and A did not, that A was lower? At any rate, I think the article is already "A", and can be brought up to "FA" by implementing the "to do" list... Smee 18:05, 10 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]
  • The article uses a non-std. size of 200px, most television episodes use 250px. I personally find anything less at times too small. The infobox also violates MoS:L (South Park is linked in the lead-in and the infobox, they're almost practically right next to each other). The article also uses four fair use images. The Reviews section contains user reviews from IMDb and, these should probably be avoided, not only because they can change at any time, but because they're also not really very "notable reviews". You should seek out critic reviews (Try this search). The episode article is also in possession of a redundant "nav. box" (these are slowly being phased out), that should probably be removed. The plot section is well written, however (as I've requested prior (the request seems to have vanished, mind..)), note II will require a citation, "Tom Cruise locking himself in a closet is a reference to rumours of Cruise's sexuality", what rumours? How is it a reference? Television series titles also require italics (as per MoS:T). Finally the fair use rationales appear to be slightly weak in my opinion, episode captures should also state how they are fair use, e.g. "The image illustrates the scene in which x does y, this is notable because z[..]". Matthew 18:21, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The picture is 200 × 155, and increasing it any further might result in visible pixels. MoS:L isn't a policy, thus it can't be "violated". It also doesn't mention template linking, and there appears to be an acceptance templates are an external part of the article. I did not manage to find any non-user reviews which provide ratings, but I will look if there is anything useful to add from those who don't. There isn't a limit on the amount of images in one article claimed under fair use. Navigation box removed. Definitions don't require a reference, and the following sentence links to a section which provides references for each controversy regrading Tom's sexuality. All the series titles in the article are italic. The rationales don't necessarily need to explain the image's content, but rather an explanation on why is it important (e.g. "illustrates an important point of the plot which is being discussed inside the article and helps identify the characters"). Michaelas10 (Talk) 19:01, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Your answers do not address any of my (valid) concerns, addendum: "illustrates an important point of the plot which is being discussed inside the article and helps identify the characters" is a very weak fair use rationale and likely non-valid. Matthew 19:10, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I believe I've addressed all your valid concerns, and specified those which cannot or shouldn't be fixed. The provided rationale is quite a strong example; if you have anything to strengthen it somehow, it'll be very appreciated. Michaelas10 (Talk) 19:19, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I changed the images from 200px to 250px (excluding the infobox picture). Please let me know how it looks on your respective browsers - mine looks great actually... Smee 21:45, 10 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]
  • Thumbnail images should not include a pixel width, it conflicts with user preferences. Jay32183 18:20, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Roman Catholicism in Afghanistan edit

This article is very good, and I want to submit it for Featured Status soon. What does it need to be at FA quality? Thanks much! Judgesurreal777 05:33, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Feature Articles are usually a little longer, and include pictures. Wikipedia:What is a featured article? might be able to point you in the right direction. But, an interesting topic! Lankiveil 05:54, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • A nice start for that kind of topic. Try search for some relevant keywords in Google Books. --Brand спойт 10:16, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd disagree with the two previous comments- the criterion for an FA is not length, but rather comprehensiveness. Plenty of short articles have been promoted: the textbook example is Hurricane Irene (2005). Since this is such a narrow topic I think that the article is comprehensive despite its short length. I personally would vote support if this were put up for FAC, though I am not confident that it will pass. The most pressing need is a picture. Could you somehow get a picture of the chapel, or of Father Moretti? Borisblue 05:01, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I agree with this, but there was a lot of opposition to that article being promoted, based upon its length. As I said, they're usually longer, and most FAs are more lengthy than this is. Lankiveil 00:06, 19 October 2006 (UTC).[reply]
  • Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Ruhrfisch 03:30, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Increase Mather edit

Following several complains about the abysmal state of the previous version of the page ([3]), I tried to "clean-room" rewrite it to the current version. It's a big enough change that I'd appreciate more sets of eyes checking to see that I didn't inadvertendly make it worse ;). More specifically, there are a few concerns I have:

  • Completeness: Do I need to go into more detail on something specific, such as a time period?
  • Are the events mentioned arrainged understandably (One of the complaints about the original version was that it was confusing to follow)?
  • Did I cite all the stuff correctly? Mostly it's the actual citation formatting that I'd like others to check.

Anything else that comes to mind I'll listen to and see if they can be used to improve the articel. 08:20, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bookgrrl sez: Definitely better, good work! Couple of comments:

  • To my eyes it's actually over-sourced believe it or not! For example, birth and death dates don't generally need to be sourced unless there's some conflict over them. Also, you don't need multiple citations for a single fact (unless, again, it's controversial) so quite a lot of the footnotes can be removed.
  • Reference format -- The individual references are good. However the footnotes in the text are numbered but the ones at the bottom are not numbered, which is confusing. You can use <ref> tags to fix that, see here. Basically the text of the citation goes in with the first reference, for example
<ref>{{cite web|title=Mather, Increase. The Columbia Encyclopedia, Sixth Edition.  
 accessdate=October 12|accessyear=2006}}</ref>
After that you just use <ref name=citation_name/> similar to what you have done. Then at the end, instead of listing the text of the references you simply put <references/> and that will populate the list and number them appropriately.
  • To my eyes it's over-wikified as well. The purpose of Wikilinks is to link to articles that will enhance the reader's understanding of the main topic (in this case Increase Mather). As such, each and every date does not need to be Wiki'ed, and words that add nothing to our understanding of the man (e.g. "intoxication" "weather") shouldn't be wikilinked. Also, only the first occurrence of a term is generally Wiki'ed.
  • Still needs a little formalization on the wording (e.g. "he ditched that when it..." is pretty slangy!)
-- Bookgrrl 12:13, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Reply: I've removed the datesources, as the only real "contention" about them was someone's dyslexia. I've tried to hack at some other over-sourced stuff. I SRONGLY dislike the "new" references format. I've tried to cut down on the spurious wikification, and have cleaned up that sentence. Are there any other specific examples that need work? 09:44, 17 October 2006 (UTC) (I've also added a new source to clean up the confusion about his immediate family)[reply]

Scott Kolins edit

This is still a work in progress so I'm looking for suggestions whether of content or style. I'm fairly new around here. BTW, as an aside the article wasn't my idea - it was pointed out by a friend that though Scott was mentioned on many pages he didn't have a page. I thought to go about making one and had to seriously prove I wasn't being vain. FYI, this apage is about a comic book illustrator--Smkolins 20:37, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'd move the examples of his work gallery to a lower section in the article; somewhere around the trivia of references section. Harryboyles 04:13, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly. WP:LAYOUT. -Fsotrain09 04:44, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
OK, but why? It's a page about an illustrator and his work is kind of the point, isn't it? I'm not saying no - I'm just tyring to understand. I traced the WP:LAYOUT, which didn't really seem to say much about how to use pictures, to Images#Image_choice_and_placement which while specific also says almost nothing about what is shown. I do see that the page is stretched vertically so I wonder about stretching the box more sideways than verticle but that may address what folks are suggesting.--Smkolins 20:11, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So the next challenge - the bibiography.... On the one hand it only makes general reference to the source(s) of data and on the other hand isn't complete. Anyone got a good example how to do this?--Smkolins 02:08, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Al-Manar edit

I've really been working on this article, adding information form what seems to be the only extensive non-Arabic source (the book by Avi Jorisch). I am planning on adding more info from the same source, but I thought I'd get some feedback here first. I was especially hoping for feedback on sections 1 (history), 1.1 (banning of broadcasts), 2.1 (programs), and 2.2 (religion and politics). Those are the ones I mainly worked on.--CarabinieriTTaallkk 11:43, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just after a quick look at the article, I found that it faces serious POV issues. You are giving exagerate weight to Israeli or Western sources, while using very very few Lebanese or Arab sources. In general here are the views that should be equally taken into account:
  • A Hezbollah point of view which sees it as a news, entertaining and religious channel.
  • A general Lebanese (or Arab) point of view which sees it as an ordinary TV station with some remarks about its political orientation.
  • A general Western point of view with ambivalent opinions about the station.
  • A Israeli (US for some) which views it as a terrorist weapon with high level of criticism over its programs and contents.
Anyway, you won't go far using only one book over such a controversial topic. You'll have to take into account (more than half of the article) Lebanese source. CG 12:22, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is I don't speak Arabic and won't really be able to do much with Lebanese sources.--CarabinieriTTaallkk 12:28, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Where and how is this POV expressed?--CarabinieriTTaallkk 12:31, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, first of all, it is expressed by the glaring lack of Lebanese sources. Don't forget that this article is, before everything, a Lebanese topic. Imagine we write the Jerusalem article using only and only Palestinian sources and disregarding Israeli POV. Another expression: In the "Al-Manar TV (Lebanon) broadcasts" section, why did you display only the worst speech Nasrallah gave, and not the ones when he talked about Christians and Muslims understanding. Anyway this section does not belong here but in Hassan Nasrallah... and other things. I'll go over the whole article later, and make suggestions section by section. And finally, I know that the problem with these kind of articles is that most of the user speak English, however, I, and some other users, could help locating Lebanese sources. And with some search you could find Arab sources. For example, Al-Jazeera and the Hezbollah have both English websites. CG 13:43, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I did not write the section you are referring to. I was actually considering deleting the section and moving the links to the speeches to the external links. I don't think having only English-language sources is per se POV, but I agree with you that most English-language sources tend to be from a "Western" POV. The book I used is especially POV because it is primarily trying to prove that al-Manar like Hezbollah is a terrorist organization, which the US government should fight, so I had to filter a lot of its POV.
If you could help with Lebanese sources that would be great.--CarabinieriTTaallkk 14:35, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, like you said, it's not the fact the English sources that are POV but the fact that they are Western-biased. I also want to say that I would really like to see a lot more about internal politics (for example how the station gained popularity among christians when Nasrallah has made an understanding with Michel Aoun and stuff like that), which requires a lot of work and going through many many sources for such a controversial article (I can't repeat it enough). Anyway, I would be pleased to help you, but I'll be slow because I'll be busy this month, just watch out from my bad English ;-). CG 15:02, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • A comment. I don't think that putting Hassan Nasrallah in the infobox is suitable. He's neither a shareholder, nor a producter, nor a talk show host (I imagine that :-P ). Could you remove it? CG 15:04, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think Nasrallah should be kept in the infobox, because according to Beacon of Hatred by Avi Jorisch (pg. 20): "it [the Lebanese Media Group, the company that owns al-Manar] is operated by Hizballah members, reports directly to Hizballah officials, and takes its marching orders from Hassan Nasrallah's office." Jorisch cites an "Interwiev with Middle East expert granted to author on condition of anonymity" as well as this article in the Daily Star. I surely think Nazrallah is a key person, since he is the Secretary General of the organization that seems to control the tv station.--CarabinieriTTaallkk 15:30, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but this is the case for nearly every tv station or newspaper in Lebanon. The case for Al-Manar is not that different or unique. I don't know if this is the case in US, but putting Georges Bush as a key person for an affiliated Republican tv station or newspaper is also inappropriate. Out of subject: I recommend you to visit the English site for Al-Manar where you might find the info you want. CG 16:40, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Xbox 360 edit

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

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

Van Buren, Arkansas edit

This really isn't about the article, I'd like to know what others think of (mostly) my writing style as far being encyclopedic is concerned and where I (and the article) could use some improvements. akuyumeTC 05:11, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Something interesting must have happened in the history of this city more recently than 1862. The Photon 02:11, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • You need to convert the lists into prose (also consider the importance of the extracurricular activities before listing them all.. I know Van Buren isn't a huge city but certainly something more important in education exists besides the extracurricular activities that the school offers. maybe pick the ones that Van Buren is known for). Also, like mentioned above, the History section needs to be expanded. drumguy8800 C T 17:10, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the reviews (I'm still unfamiliar with process, so hopefully I'm replying correctly, also I didn't discover WP:RFF until after posting this.), I've decided that the list of activities should be moved to page on the high school, also I've found no citations towards the more recent times in the city's history, however I do know what you mean. Thanks again, akuyumeTC 02:28, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Alex Pettyfer edit

Minor actor, still could be FA quality though. What needs to be added or changed to get it there? Judgesurreal777 19:55, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's very short certainly, and considering Pettyfer has yet to have a full career, I think it'll be a long while before it's FA. Wiki-newbie 19:58, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sunday Bloody Sunday (song) edit

This article presents information about U2's 1983 protest song and single. It achieved good article status in June. Since then quite a bit has changed (diff), and I think it's time to test the waters here to see what needs to be done next. Some questions I have for general editors who might not be self-proclaimed U2 experts (as most of the editors of the article to this point have been):

  • The lead section. I've read over Wikipedia's advice on what an appropriate one looks like, and done my best to adapt the intro, but it still needs some work.
  • Images. Are enough used? Are they appropriate? Do they all qualify as fair use?
  • References. There are quite a few, but I'm certain more are needed. Where?
  • General layout and prose. I've compared the layout to other featured articles on individual singles, and I think they're fairly close. Is the information interesting and compelling? What still needs to be addressed? What parts of the article shouldn't be there?

Basically, I think it's pretty good, but it's been combed only by a group of U2 fans. I'm looking for the opinions of outside Wikipedians, I suppose. Thanks! McMillin24 contribstalk 20:41, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In the lead, I find two substantiation (sp?) problems. "The song's musical style can be considered militaristic..." begs the question, considered by whom? If the answer is critics and/or fans, that needs to be cited. On the other hand, if the answer is the article writer, we should not ask readers to accept our artistic interpretations, so a rephrasing would be in order. Likewise "It is considered by some to be the ultimate protest song by U2 and has become one of the band's signature songs." Who are these "some", and can their considerations be referenced to reliable sources? Other issues: please convert the "Cultural references" section into prose, per the embedded list guideline. And finally, consider a transwiki of the Bono block quote to Wikiquote. You have done good work here! -Fsotrain09 00:16, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the quick response and hints! I've worked on rewording and adding citations to the two parts of the lead section you mentioned, trying to avoid weasel words like "some" altogether. The cultural reference section has been rewritten (vaguely drawing from the FA Buffy the Vampire Slayer), but I haven't addressed the long block quote yet. McMillin24 contribstalk 03:48, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Former municipalities of Norway edit

I think this list is useful (although there could be even more blue links), comprehensive (more so than the Norwegian version it was based upon) and factually accurate (good references). It is also stable and uncontroversial. I also reckon it is well-constructed, but I would appreciate feedback on the table - is everything understandable? The lead section provides a good background and overview, I hope it's not too long.

The table of contents criterion is not applicable to this list. Also, I don't know what images would appropriate here. Punkmorten 16:59, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pixar edit

I think this page is of good quality, possibly good enough for Good/Featured Article status. I have requested this review to point out any flaws that may need to be amended/removed entirely, before any nominations take place. RMS Oceanic 22:47, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Overall excellent content. However, the article needs significant grammatical/editorial revision.dpotter 21:05, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Recommend rewrite of lead section, eliminating repeating information (wholly-owned subsidiary of Walt Disney) and clarifying the most distinctive/notable aspects of the company (most notable for feature films or renderman?). Watch for similar stylistic gaffes throughout the article. An example is the lead sentence in Executive leadership section - in which Steve Jobs is referred to in an introductory tone - with a description of his position at Apple - followed by the verb "continued", implying previous reference. dpotter 21:05, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Recommend that the article uses last names for all references past the first as per WP:MOS. Watch out for repeating wikilinks. dpotter 21:05, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Review for repeating content (e.g. profitable arrangement mentioned twice within 3 sentences in "Disney & Pixar"). dpotter 21:05, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article could perhaps benefit by refactoring the History section and the Disney/Pixar section. The latter section details a lot of history regarding this strategic relationship, why is that not part of the history section? Concurrently, the History section contains "Early history" followed only by "Business in transition" - these do not appear to be parallel thoughts. I suspect that these sections could be combined and reorganized in a way that integrates the Disney relationship into the corporate history and describes its impact upon the company's business trajectory. dpotter 21:05, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
As per your advice, I have made a number of changes. Is there anything else you spotted, or perhaps I overlooked? RMS Oceanic 09:40, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Matrix edit

Next peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.

A groundbreaking film, both in story and special effects. Any tips please? Wiki-newbie 20:27, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Every statement tagged with {{fact}} needs an inline citation from a reliable source. -Fsotrain09 22:16, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So just the two? Wiki-newbie 15:35, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The two statements explicitly tagged as needing citations, yes, and any other statements of either precise and/or controversial fact. -Fsotrain09 22:36, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This article is amazing. You might want to expand your critical reception a bit though. Dev920 (Tory?) 19:05, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am too new to the scene to advise you on formatting and house style, but here are a few comments on content. You have done very fine job on the Synopsis, although arguably it is over-long. Conversely I was disappointed that the 'Influences and interpretations' section was so short. You note that 'The Matrix makes numerous references to recent films and literature, and to historical myths and philosophy including Messianism, Buddhism and Gnosticism'. I would have been interested either:

In a few sentences outlining the comparisons between the Matrix pantheon and these schools of thought, and including both Vedanta, and Advaita in the list. (Especially the latter: 'Brahman is the only truth, the world is unreal'), or

At least pointing to some such discussions along these lines elsewhere. If The Matrix has a value which is more than mere entertainment it is surely in bringing these ideas to a mainstream western audience, even if they are largely unaware of the parallels. Its only an opinion of course, but this to me is more pertinent than your assertion that in the 'first metaphor is hidden the most profound meaning of the entire film.' Ben MacDui 17:30, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, Ruhrfisch 20:42, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment It looks like the plot synopsis can be thinned out; it seems overly detailed. The trivia section needs to go, merge relevant information in appropriate places and delete the rest. Jay32183 02:05, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A few points:

  • Plot synopsis is too long - consider creating a child article and making the section shorter, and an image to illustrate a part of the plot may be useful.
  • The lead should be slightly longer; you may want to mention the film's impact briefly in the second paragraph.
  • Remove or move trivia. For example, this should really be in the Carrie-Anne Moss article:

In 1993, Carrie-Anne Moss appeared in a short-lived science fiction television series called Matrix.

Good work so far. As a fan of the film, I'd like to see a good an article as possible :) CloudNine 15:47, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I second CloudNine on the Trivia section removal, but would add that if you decide not to remove it, the section at least needs to be checked for compliance with the embedded list guidelines. Good work on this article! -Fsotrain09 16:55, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The section on the significance of names needs to be sourced - otherwise it seems like original research. Trebor 10:56, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Henry Doorly Zoo edit

Just looking for some feedback. I've added a ton of pictures and added info about the major exhibits. I'd also be interested in any other good zoo articles on WP. The best I've found is National Zoological Park (United States).

What didn't the article tell you about the omaha zoo that you'd want to know? Cburnett 03:30, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am familiar with the Zoo, and I like the images alot. If you're shooting for a Featured Article level, the galleries will have to be trimmed and I suggest they all be placed in Commons, if they aren't already, and linked with a {{commons|Henry Doorly Zoo}} link to a category page where all the images can be seen there. This link goes into the top of the cited references section usually. I would expand the history and especially the genetics research sections...I do know the Zoo is heavily vested in work in species preservation related to animals from Madagascar so that can be expanded. I would ditch the admission section...seems too much like advertising. The main thing the article needs, however, is to incorporate all the lists into paragraph style texts as much as possible. Don't forget to mention the efforts to get Pandas there at the zoo and convert the references into cited references using the templates from here. I'll go ahead and make sure all the images are in Commons and provide a link for you in the refs.--MONGO 04:49, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Only two pics are not on commons and those were there prior to me "going to town" on it. I'll have to look into the genetics research more Ideally, I'd like to expand those species lists much further. Best case, I guess, would be a separate article List of species at the Henry Doorly Zoo with the notable species in paragraph form like you suggest. Thanks for the ideas. Cburnett 05:36, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I dug into and pulled out admission prices back to 1999. Maybe I'm weird and find that historical trend interesting. How about you? Cburnett 06:29, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There have been a lot of enhancements over the past 5 years that probably still make it a great value for the buck...but no doubt an almost doubling of the single person adult entrance fee in 7 years is a lot. Can we use cite.php for the references as the only way anyone can check most of them is to hit the edit this page link and cut and paste them into a new window. You have the makings of a potential FA here with some reorganization I believe.--MONGO 06:37, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You lost me on the cite.php bit. I can click the "[6]" next to the year and it jumps me to the references section which has the exact link I used to pull the prices from. I'm not sure where having to edit the page to copy a url to a new window is necessary... In short: I'm confused. :) Cburnett 06:52, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The first ref that links me to an external link i can then go to is ref #1 in the section beginning in Scott Kingdom of the Seas Aquarium. The ones above, I click them and nothing happens.--MONGO 06:56, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I see. At home I get a list of 17 references but at work I only see 5 starting with the aquarium and nothing changed between viewings so I'm apt to believe it's a wikipedia issue not a how-I-did-it issue. Open to suggestions though... Cburnett 13:42, 11 October 2006 (UTC) I now see all 17 at work so I dunno what's going on... Cburnett 16:00, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I put some comments on the talk page. Sorry for the inconvenience. A mcmurray 06:39, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks. I replied there but the jist here: yeah, I was a bit liberal in internal linking of units and I agree that admission prices are probably for wikitravel but I changed it to a historical look at admission prices instead which I think makes it more encyclopedic (draw any trends or conclusions you wish from the data) since the 1999 price does nothing to get you in the zoo now. Cburnett 06:52, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Ruhrfisch 02:47, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article reads like a list and picture gallery. The article seems to be useful for lookign up facts but the prose is so far broken apart by lists and galleries of animals as to be unreadable. Also you may want to re-check the facts "the Desert Dome's geodesic dome is also the world's largest". In fact it isn't even half as big as the worlds largest. -Ravedave (help name my baby) 20:58, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sorry, that's the world's largest glazed geodesic dome according to the zoo. I have fixed it. As for prose: agreed like I've said above. Cburnett 22:43, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Philippine National Railways edit

Just came by to see what I can do to improve this article. Although it is questionable whether it will reach FA status, especially due to a lack of information (unlike the more successful LRT and MRT articles, which are FAs already), it will be nice if I can get this peer reviewed, even for this article to reach GA status. Any comments (and additional resources) are highly appreciated. --Sky Harbor 13:41, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to see Template:Infobox Public transit incorporated into the article. What do you think? - Tutmosis 20:26, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Seems fine with me, but I don't know where I can put it. --Sky Harbor 05:41, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Beside the lead. The images would have to go though. - Tutmosis 15:46, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Okay I put a little draft up on the talk page of how it would look. Further paramameters can be added though. - Tutmosis 15:53, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I decided to shift some of the pictures around and insert in the infobox. --Sky Harbor 14:15, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mohegans edit

I would like to get this article ready for the featured article consideration. Comments are appreciated. --Zonerocks 23:11, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Here are some overall observations, without getting into the text itself. I see that the German version of this article is featured: You could use this as a model for the structure of the article. Run it through a translator like to see how the sections are organized. Also, incorporate any images it uses. The History section should be broken up into sub-sections; it's quite long as it is. "Mohegans today" should be, chronologically, at the end of the article. There is an extensive bibliography but I see that it has been in the article for a long time, so likely those aren't sources that have been used for most of the article. For featured article consideration, you will need to engage these sources, and inline citations (WP:CITE) are required. In terms of the Wikipedia manual of style (WP:MOS), header titles should be in "Sentence case", and you have a link glitch in the "History" title. Hope this helps–Outriggr § 03:05, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I deeply appriciate your help. I will get down to it quickly. --Zonerocks 14:17, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • This needs massive cleanup into proper English. Some of it is still in German, for example "Algonkian Sprachgruppe" is "Algonquin language". Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Ruhrfisch 18:46, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Whoa, what a gobbledy-gook babely mess. Just started to fix it, doing a side-by-side comparison with the German. Not a registered user (yet?) or frequent Wiki contrib (maybe my 2nd or 3rd) so there's typos, errors of link usage, and various other mistakes.

Since I know enough German to fix the text, I hope you agree with my strategy of giving that priority, to the point where I'm (for now) going to leave obvious typos, errors of link formation, bolding etc (which I'm still learning by observation) to others, in favor of translation work, which is something I can do. (If you don't agree, let me know, I'll change tack.)

Got thru the first 3 paragraphs. This is gonna be a ton of work, not promising to do it all, but will do what I can. Kudos to the Germans, by the way, for a good article. Mathglot 06:33, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Polar exploration edit

This article just went through the gauntlet of Wikipedia:Spotlight collaboration. Here is a before and after. Wowee. Anyways, sources should all comply with cite.php, and there are sections that have their own articles (i.e. Northwestern Passage). Enjoy, hoping to bring this on to be a GA or FA. JoeSmack Talk 00:29, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • "It is also a historical period" I dont see how since you said it dates back to 325 BCE. So how is roughly 1700 years a period?
The first sentence of the First Attempts section is this: "Some scholars believe that the first attempts to penetrate the Arctic Circle can be traced to ancient Greece and the sailor Pytheas, a contemporary of Aristotle, who, in c. 325 BCE, attempted to find the source of the tin that would sporadically reach the Greek colony of Massilia (now Marseilles) on the Mediterranean coast.[1]" ....who, in brief, got lost and went as far as iceland. That was the reference to 325 BCE. JoeSmack Talk 16:28, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Instances of "Some scholars/historians believe/think" should definetely be cited or an example of one notable scholar/historian be given.
  • "he may have been the first Westerner recorded to penetrate the Arctic Circle." please state someone who thinks so otherwise the sentence sounds as analysis (which basically means original research to me)
  • "1421 was not a peer reviewed work." is quite short, can it be merged or even deleted ?
  • "before finally escaping the frozen seas" can it be reworded to sound more encyclopedic?
"For several months they suffered from scurvy, total darkness and madness before the frozen waters were reduced enough to navigate back home." - is this ok?
Yea sounds much better. The one before sounded like something from a novel. - Tutmosis 21:40, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I added a cough*few*cough fact templates.

Anyway other than that, a wonderful article and I'm glad Spotlight turned out to be so effective. You guys should be proud. - Tutmosis 01:30, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh yea, the lead definetely needs works. It should summarize the article. Currently it just explains what polar exploration is and how old it is. - Tutmosis 01:32, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, WP:SPOTLIGHT will attempt to improve. —— Eagle (ask me for help) 03:33, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well it's a decent start, but frankly this article needs more development. Here's a few comments that are hopefully of some use:

  • The sentence "Even still, physical contact with some remote areas such as the Antarctica continent has only occurred in approximately the last hundred years" is a little vague. Could this be more concise?
  • What is "journeying through these perils by sight"?
  • The article states that, "Some scholars believe that the first attempts to penetrate the Arctic Circle..." But what about the Ipiutak remains that date back as far as 2550, including a Point Hope, Alaska village dating to ~600 B.C.E.[4]? I strongly suspect that non-western people were the first to explore the region above the arctic circle, and to actually live there.
  • Why is there nothing about the Roald Amundsen expedition that was the first to the south pole, or the disastrous expedition of Robert Falcon Scott? C.f. South_pole#Exploration

Thanks. — RJH (talk) 17:38, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

F.E.A.R. edit

Plans are made to have it copyedited, and the issues on the to-do list are being taken care of. However, constructive criticism from the peer review folks before FAC never hurts. Any suggestions are welcome. JimmyBlackwing 05:15, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Another great video game article. I have one concern, the game seems to leave out music. Only thing I remember being mentioned is that the sound effects were physically made and recorded. Oh a mention that some critic praised the music/sound. Can more be added? Other than that I'll definetely vote support at fac. - Tutmosis 16:28, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Good catch. More information about the music has been added to the "Atmosphere" section. JimmyBlackwing 17:25, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Ruhrfisch 02:10, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks for the suggestions. I've made the image captions more concise. I think the lead summarizes the article well as it is, however. In addition, I do not see any weasel words outside of quotes, and dates are already linked in the way you described. Finally, as I stated before, it will be copyedited to remove poor wording, redundancies and the rest. JimmyBlackwing 20:20, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ian McDiarmid edit

I was wondering if anyone had any suggestions. Would this qualify as a good article? Please let me know what can be done to improve it. b_cubed 17:50, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • First off, what the heck is up with the list of stage productions—why is there so much spacing? I'm going to remove that. Now, suggestions:
    • this article needs to be referenced heavily, with actor articles, this really isn't all that hard: Go find the IMBD or whatever listing of every movie he's been in then google every play annnnnd add a reference next to where its listed.
    • His life needs to be expanded a lot (biographical stuff)
    • Criticisms
    • Praise
    • Why is there an entire section dedicated to Star Wars films..?

Good luck. drumguy8800 C T 04:17, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Banksia integrifolia edit

Looking like its ready for FA just wanted to get some opinions and have the PR bot run over the article to check for any minor issues. Gnangarra 15:16, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Intresting tree article. Im sure it was hell diging up information on this. My only issue is the bolding through out the article of some terms, to my knowledge that isn't proper MoS. Would italics be better? - Tutmosis 15:59, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This is one of the easier species for information as its has such a large distribution area, Italics are used for taxa naming, i'll check on the bold it should be used for common naming in the first instance. Gnangarra 16:15, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Good work! I do wonder whether you should mention Joseph Banks et al. in the lead. It seems pretty trivial to need repition in the lead. If you do believe it necessary I think you should mention the aboriginal names first. As it is now it makes the European collection more prominant than the information that predates it. Also if that stays in the lead you should de-link the names repeated in the taxonnmy section.--Birgitte§β ʈ Talk 04:09, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting. Hadn't thought of it that way and chronologically that makes sense,I have never seen it written anywhere else like that....Might have a play with it.... cheers. Cas Liber 05:31, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unity Church edit

I'm interested in learning what can be done to improve the article. As a member of the church, I know a great many details about it, but also run the risk of creating a non-neutral point of view. --Scottandrewhutchins 00:25, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The redlinks should be dealt with; create stubs or black them. More references, references, references! And those references you have should be used for inline citations, which are a must-have if/when you decide to take this through either the GA or FA processes. -Fsotrain09 03:36, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I would appreciate [citation needed] marks. They might look messy, but they'll help me so that there won't be as many. --Scottandrewhutchins 19:07, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have adding a few. Please remember to sign your posts on talk and Wikipedia: pages. Thanks. --Fsotrain09 18:13, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Chalukya dynasty edit

Contributions requested are

  • Please review for grammatical accuracy, consistancy, citations etc.Dineshkannambadi 15:36, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article is expected to be of FA quality. So I request the reviewers to please review the article for accuracy, presentation of the matter, WP:NPOV, overall style/format of the article, and any other criterion that is required for FAC. Thanks. - KNM Talk 19:21, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • After looking at the repetative structure of the article. I think that you need to split this with two daughter articles. One on the Badami and the other on the Kalyani. Then this article should focus on what was common of all the Chalukyas. But I am know nothing on the particular topic. I just find the structure of "Foo of the Badami" "Foo of the Kalyan" "Foobar of the Badami" "Foobar of the Kalyan" etc. to be a problem.--Birgitte§β ʈ Talk 20:57, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sir, thank you for your quick reply. These are my first thoughts. While seperating these dynasties into seperate pages does seem attractive, there are some concerns. I am concerned about a breakage in continuity of cultural idiom. Historically, the Kalyani Chalukyas have been considered successors of the Badami Chalukyas not just in chronology but also in the very essence of empire building.
  • In the field of architecture (for which they are both famous), the Kalyani Chalukyas produced a style of architecture called Vesara (originally spawned by the Badami dynasty), but with a gradual and growing inclination towards dravidian (south indian) building tradition. This is why their style is sometimes called "In-between" style, meaning a bridge.
  • In the field of literature, the Kalyani Chalukyas continued the Jain tradition (in Kannada language) that "perhaps" started with the Badami dynasty but with a gradual emphasis towards Shaiva and Vaishnava literature.
  • The Eastern Chalukyas during this period underwent their own cultural changes due to cross influences from Western Chalukya (present day Karnataka state) and Pallava-Chola empires(Tamil Nadu state). These influences are reflected in their language, literature and architecture. They are generally dealt with as a seperate kingdom, which is why an main article for them was included.
This was perhaps one of the big reasons to keep the matter in one article.
These are my thoughts.Dineshkannambadi 00:07, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Birgitte, Thanks for reviewing it. You are right on daughter articles. However, the two daughter articles (actually in the article they have been referred as "siblings" :) ) have been already created. The paragraph introducing those sibling dynasties is:
These are the Chalukyas of Badami, who ruled between the 6th and the 8th century C.E., and the two sibling dynasties of Chalukyas of Kalyani or the Western Chalukyas and the Chalukyas of Vengi or the Eastern Chalukyas.
Eastern ChalukyasWestern Chalukyas and Eastern Chalukyas are two separate articles outside of this main article Chalukya dynasty and have been mentioned in this article a paragraph each for the reasons as mentioned above by User:Dineshkannambadi. More detailed information on these two daughter / sibling dynasties are covered under respective articles without going into too many details in the main article.
I hope it is clear now. - KNM Talk 00:32, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I believe KNM meant :::Western Chalukyas and Eastern Chalukyas are two separate articles.........Dineshkannambadi 01:09, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oops! my bad. Corrected just now. Thanks for pointing it out Dinesh. - KNM Talk 02:21, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sister pages have been created. I went ahead and moved the "Foo of the Kalyan" and "Foobar of the Kalyan" into the sister page for Kalyani Chalukya. Now the main page for Chalukya dynasty contains info on the Parent dynasty, attached articles for sibling Kalyani and Eastern Chalukya dynasties. This was one of the main requirements by reviewer Birgitte as well as the automated response Dineshkannambadi 23:36, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Backgammon edit

First review: Wikipedia:Peer review/Backgammon/archive1

I am hoping to nominate this article for FA within the next few weeks, but I believe it still needs some work before going there. I would appreciate any comments or suggestions so I can take care of them before then. ptkfgs 15:24, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Very nice article, I loved this game as a kid but never quite understood the doubling cube before (and I remember re-reading "Hoyles" three times trying to figure it out). My only real concern is the lack of information under vareties is at odds with multitude of information given under history. These games either are similar to Backgammon to deserve being covered by the article or they are not. They cannot be derserving of detailed coverage in one area and not the other.--Birgitte§β ʈ Talk 20:41, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! I think the best solution to this problem of balance might be to discuss some of the more backgammon-like variants here in the article. I'll see about coming up with a couple of paragraphs there. ptkfgs 20:48, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

HSV Senator Signature edit

Tell me anything that could make the article HSV Senator Signature a better and more injoyable one. Please fell free to add stuff or contribute to HSV Senator Signature, but make sure to add your references.

Um, you don't appear to have added any references, which needs to be done. It also focuses almost solely on the history of design - there's nothing on sales, popularity, critical review, people involved in design, etc. Trebor 10:59, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Medici bank edit

I've written a comprehensive and detailed article here. But I think I may not have integrated it well or just been too idiosyncratic in places - it hasn't been edited much by other people (or at all). It's a really important topic in history, so I think it deserves good solid coverage. --Gwern (contribs) 01:38, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • There are some one sentence paragraphs which could be expanded or linked up. Conversely in the history section there are some uber-paragraphs that probably need breaking. It's 73kb and difficult to read all the way through - if the information is all worth keeping, create subpages and summarise them on the main page. I think it goes into too much background in general, I find it hard to understand what's going on. The diagram section is ugly as a long list, and probably not needed. The order of sections is also quite confusing, I would've thought the history section should go first. Referencing is fine. Could do with a decent clean-up, overall - probably from someone who hasn't edited it yet. Trebor 23:49, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • As above, cut down on the information by moving to daughter articles. Also, the founding and decline headings seem a bit overreaching; could you divide them up in subsections? Lead needs to be longer for an article of that length. Bank heads should be a seperate section rather than a subsection. Does the section 'Organization and type's first paragraph need to be in there? CloudNine 11:54, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ray LaMontagne edit

Well, after getting The Fray to GA status, I decided to take it upon myself to give one of my other favorite artists that same distinction. I beefed up the article with sources galore (btw, if "References" appears blank, that's a bug with the gallery tag that will hopefully be resolved soon) and some more information about his life, but prose is still my weak spot. If you have any suggestions for how to expand the article, I'll gladly listen to them as well. Basically, I need someone with great English skills to do a copyedit of the article. Thanks in advance :) Teemu08 06:01, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I incorperated what I could from that. I would also like a human's perspective as well. Teemu08 06:18, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sparks (band) edit

Past review(s): Archive1

Resubmitting the Sparks article as it has been very stable for a long time and requires fresh eyes for its development. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by KaptKos (talkcontribs) 09:27, October 21, 2006 (UTC) (UTC)

To do (based on comments below - please correct/add to)

  • Cleanup external links
  • Update infobox
  • Use listen box for samples
  • Complete/expand discography
  • Expand album pages
  • Fair use justifications/free use images, imporve image descriptions
  • Improve Inline citatations for Style section
  • Legacy/influence section
  • Improve lead section to conform to Wikipedia:MOS
  • Cp-ed to cleanup POV
  • Switch to a single ref style
  • Add appropriate witty quotes
  • Cp-ed to remove duplicate detail from different sections
  • Expand history/background detail

--KaptKos 09:44, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • The external links needed some cleanup (I just finished organizing them). Although the fansites might need to go.
  • I also updated the infobox to {{Infobox musical artist}}.
  • Could organize the samples in an appropriate section near the bottom. See Nirvana (band)#Samples or The Beatles#Song samples. (see Wickethewok's comment below)
  • The singles needs to be completed (obviously).
  • The album article pages need to be expanded (not directly related to this article, but would help improve this article's information).

 Heaven's Wrath   Talk  18:53, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Here are some suggestions for ya, nice work so far.

  • Actually, per Wikipedia:Music samples, samples should typically be in listen-boxes next to the paragraphs that mention them.
  • One thing I noticed about the language was that you use the phrase "[year] saw the release of..." a bunch of times in the article. You should probably switch up the sentence structure a little bit.
  • If you wanna get this to an FA, you're going to need to probably have some better fair use justifications or get some free-use pics.
  • The first several sentences of the style section should probably have some inlines somewhere, as the article makes some pretty specific claims/comparisons.
  • I don't know how much more info is available on this band, but it seems like there could be more detail. Did they have recurring themes in their music? Any particular legacy/influence on other bands?

Hope my suggestions are useful. Cheers! Wickethewok 17:46, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nice article, enjoyed reading it. Just a few suggestions:

  • The lead should ideally comprise 3 paragraphs. Maybe the current lead could be split in two at the 'Despite the many genres' section, followed by a para on the current revival. Also Sparks have been hugely influential, and it'd be worthwhile in mentioning a few specific bands in the 2nd paragraph.
  • Words such as 'lush' and 'dramatically' could be seen as POV.
  • Add more descriptive captions to the images.
  • Change the references style to "div class="references-small" (looks tidy). Also consider using a standard <ref name="X">{{cite web | author= X| year= X | title="X" | work=X| url=X | accessdate= October 21 | accessyear=2006}}</ref> format for all refs.
  • Perhalps the "style" section should come after "History". This is no big deal, and there's no 'rule' as such, its just more usual.
  • Both Ron and Russell are quite witty in interviews, try incorporating quotes into article, where appropriate.
  • Just a comment: If your going for FA, and you should, the preference for sound files seems to be towards the 'Sound sample box' format. That said inline is sometimes used as well.
  • Disog. section is disproportionally large compared to rest of article. If you want to expand the History section, maybe subscribe to Questia or Rocks back pages for a month and see what you can dig out.

Other than that, great work! - Coil00 21:06, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My impressions:

  • In the lead, what kind of 1960s music does "60s homage" refer to? I've also added links to the other genres you mention — you might want to check if I've interpreted them all correctly. Also, "uniquely crafted artistic pop songs" could mean a lot of different things, in my experience; the description of lyrics and arrangements work better to convey what you might be describing, but I think this part could be more descriptive.
  • Claiming uniqueness twice in the opening seems a bit overreaching, no matter who you're talking about.
  • The "Style" section seems to duplicate a bit from the "History" section (sometimes verbatim, eg. "a major influence on artists such as Depeche Mode, New Order and The Pet Shop Boys"). Also, it introduces some aspects of their history in vague details before the history section discusses them more specifically; maybe you could put it after the history section, and thereby be able to refer back to details of their history more concisely.

The rest of the article looks much better formed in comparison, so I mostly focused on these sections. –Unint 22:15, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wow! Thanks everyone for the great response, all very contructive and helpfull, much appreciated.
  • First off, the POV problem has to be addressed, I could try but I think at this stage it would be better for someone else to cp-ed the suckers out
  • Fair use images is a big issue, any suggestions gladly accepted
  • I'll try to address the layout, duplicate detail, MOS, ref format and sample issues raised as ongoing tasks
Thanks again for the fantastic response--KaptKos 11:49, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Turkish Airlines Flight 1476 edit

I've started and working on this article since October 3 (first day of the incident). All kinds of comments will be appreciated, also contributions will be great. My biggiest concern is about article is about hijacker(s) part. At first press thaught that there were 2 hijackers, and in references and reports its like ANSA reported that police detained both hijackers. What can i do about these parts, i guess best way is using as plural because at that time all presses were thinking there were 2 and reporting like that. Thanks --Ugur Basak 00:27, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's very good. What would add significantly to it in my opinion, would be to add a picture or two: perhaps a map showing where the plane was hijacked etc (I remember seeing a map like that on the news, although I can't find one in any of the external links to use as a source) or a photograph of Ekinci (the BBC has one [5], although it will likely be copyrighted, and I don't think fair use would cover that). Failing those, a photograph of the star victim - the Pope - may do. We have many free photographs of him.--Rudjek 11:59, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've copyedited the article per suggestions from peerreviewer, also used it again. I'm not sure only about issues, lead and copyedit parts. I also add a picture of the Pope. Rest of the article needs a living peerreviewer. Thanks --Ugur Basak 11:05, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Immune system edit

This page undergone an extensive rewrite since it's last peer review, mostly by myself, and I could really use some feedback on issues such as layout, flow, understandability, length, ect...

Thanks so much to anyone willing to read this article--DO11.10 21:45, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • The lead of this article is too long, or may contain too many paragraphs. Please follow guidelines at WP:LEAD; be aware that the lead should adequately summarize the article.
  • When writing standard abbreviations, the abbreviations should not have a 's' to demark plurality (change kms to km and lbs to lb).
  • The lists, especially under "Surface Barriers and Mucosal Immunity", make the article harder to read; please convert these to prose (paragraph form).
  • 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.
  • 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 interlanguage links.[2]
  • 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.[3]
  • Watch for redundancies that make the article too wordy instead of being crisp and concise. (You may wish to try Tony1's redundancy exercises.)
    • While additive terms like “also”, “in addition”, “additionally”, “moreover”, and “furthermore” may sometimes be useful, overusing them when they aren't necessary can instead detract from the brilliancy of the article. This article has 22 additive terms, a bit too much.
    • Vague terms of size often are unnecessary and redundant - “some”, “a variety/number/majority of”, “several”, “a few”, “many”, “any”, and “all”. For example, “All pigs are pink, so we thought of a number of ways to turn them green.”
  • As done in WP:FOOTNOTE, footnotes usually are located right after a punctuation mark (as recommended by the CMS, but not mandatory), such that there is no space inbetween. For example, the sun is larger than the moon [2]. is usually written as the sun is larger than the moon.[2]
  • For an article about a very important system, I think more different references can be placed into the article; this is the first time I've seen notes for a single reference reach up to bb.

You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. (Ignore the <ref> tags above, this was generated mostly by JavaScript) Thanks, AZ t 00:15, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for taking the time to read the article, and for your insightful comments. Your suggestions will definitely improve this article. It just goes to show that one's mind rarely surprises itself. Thanks again--DO11.10 21:09, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, the major limitation of this article is its massive length. There are already a lot of subarticles, but you could make the TOC a bit more manageable by not having quite so many subsections - four layers deep is just too many. The subsections of "phagocytes", for example, could all be merged up into a few paragraphs in a single section; just because something has a main article doesn't mean it needs its own header and main template. Also, I'd strongly suggest creating intermediate-level articles on adaptive and innate immunity, which would shorten this article and make it more readable.

Other than the length, the content is good, though it could use some organization. The early sections are very listy and need prosifying (this will lengthen them, which strengthens the argument for splitting the article). There's also a couple of images that could be improved - for example, the image of a dendritic cell is too cartoony; a more detailed drawing or an image of a real cell would be more illustrative.

The references also need work. The extensive reliance on textbooks isn't so bad (though all those little notes to Immunobiology might better be formatted as citations of pages/chapters in a notes section, with the text listed in a separate reference section). But referencing other Wikipedia articles is generally bad; importing the relevant references makes them easier for a reader to track down. There are also a few uncited statements floating around; "B-cells may be named for the bursa of Fabricius, an organ unique to birds, where the cells were first found to develop" stood out. Opabinia regalis 01:22, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Hello, DO11.10. I comment you on taking on such a broad subject. A good deal has been mentioned on formatting, so I'll focus a bit on content. Here are some suggestions:
    1. Innate immune system : There isn't much more than the briefest mention of the complement system. A thorough article on the immune system isn't complete without at least a small section describing it. Plus, the desciption of the innate immune system focuses almost entirely on its cellular aspects, giving an incomplete picture to the process (did you know, for exmaple, that there is mounting evidence that SLE is caused by a deficiency in c1q?)
    2. Autoimmunity and Hypersensitivity are two entirely different things. To lump them together in one section is not something I advise.

There is alot more work to be done, and I'll be happy to help when I get the chance. Unfortunately I sort of have my hands full at the moment. Hope these help; expect more in the near furture. – ClockworkSoul 05:36, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, so many great suggestions! Thank you both for your very helpful ideas. I have been reading up on WP:SS for a while, I as guessing that this would be the best way to split out Innate and acquired, do you agree?

It is funny that you mention the Bursa part... there was apparently a (somewhat) nasty discussion about that before I began editing this article, which is why I hesitantly left it in.

Great idea about the refs, although I also own Janeway 6th edition and Kuby, which basically has much of the same content, and I could include those as references also, I just really like the idea of pointing to online textbooks.

I actually did have a section about the complement system in the article, but I felt that a)it was difficult to find the right "place" in the innate system and b) that the article was getting too long, which I can see, other agree with. It appears that I will need to split the article. I think that then I can really give the complement system and hypersensitivity/allergy the attention they deserve.

How do you find the original piece on the complement system? Any suggestions, however small, would be appreciated. The complement system is is really not my forte.

Complement System

The complement system is a biochemical cascade of the immune system that helps clear pathogens or mark them for destruction by other cells. The cascade is composed of many small plasma proteins, synthesized in the liver, primarily by hepatocytes, which work together to:

  • trigger the recruitment of inflammatory cells.
  • "tag" pathogens for destruction by other cells by opsonizing, or coating, the surface of the pathogen.
  • disrupt the plasma membrane of an infected cell, resulting in cytolysis, and causing the death of the pathogen.
I agree that we need to make the complement system a more substantial part of this article. It really is one of the most effective and important mechanisms of the immunological response. I will try and sift through my 3rd year immunology notes for some useful information. --|T 20:27, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Elements of the complement cascade can be found in many species evolutionarily older than earlier than mammals including plants, birds, fish and some species of invertebrates.

Thanks again for the great comments--DO11.10 19:47, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gilles Villeneuve edit

I'm looking at improving this up to Featured Article status (it's currently at GA) - any suggestions on what needs to be improved upon, clarified etc. will be appreciated. Thanks, Alexj2002 14:27, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • One thing I haven't (dared!) approach yet. Criticism of GV. Nelson Piquet and Keke Rosberg are both on record criticising his approach to driving, as are some other, lesser, drivers. If this could be worked in sympathetically it would, I think, improve the balance and depth of the article.
  • Re-reading it I think the language is also still not neutral enough - not quite encyclopaedic in tone and rather partial in places. Hope this helps.
  • The section on San Marino 82 also probably needs a clearer description of what actually happened in the race. 4u1e 23 October 2006

Red vs. Blue: Out of Mind edit

Looking for ideas and suggestions on how to improve the article. Perhaps one day for FA status. The Filmaker 21:00, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, for starters, we should probably hold off on seeking GA/FA until the season 5 DVD comes out. Perhaps Rooster Teeth will have some out-of-universe commentary on this. We need to find out who the voice actors for Delta and York are. Other than that:
  • We should probably follow the convention of recent video game FAs, in which Synopsis is divded into "Setting and characters" and "Plot" subsections.
  • It seems that we might be assuming a little too much background knowledge about the main Red vs. Blue series. More context would help to make this a better standalone article.
  • Screenshot(s) of the main characters would be good.
That's all I can think of for now. — TKD::Talk 22:11, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with TKD. However, I don't see why we couldn't move for just GA after this peer review. More information that will probably be on the season 5 DVD set can be added after its release, and then we can go for FA.
Also, OoM is currently listed as Start-class; I think it should be B-class since it doesn't need substantial editing, though screenshots and voice credits are considerable elements that are yet to be added. —Cliff smith 17:14, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • References other than the official site are needed. See WP:RS. The Background section should go before the plot. CloudNine 16:49, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Ah, excellent points, especially about third-party sources. I've found a couple: [6], [7]. Not much, but then again the mini-series has only been finished for a couple of months. Depending on how many more sources come in, it may be better to disperse the content here to the other Red vs. Blue articles. But a wait-and-see approach is probably best for now, especially since the mini-series was really meant as an interlude into season 5, which is still in progress. — TKD::Talk 06:56, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oh, and the Plot section should probably be condensed. There's only about 20 minutes of material here. — TKD::Talk 06:56, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

DuMont Television Network edit

I would like to get this article up to Featured Article status by the end of the year. I know references and such will be needed soon, but I'm more interested in obtaining feedback on how the article might be improved in terms of things like clarity, layout, consistency, WP:MOS, etc. Feedback (positive or negative) appreciated. Firsfron of Ronchester 04:01, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • I would remove "This would come back to haunt DuMont later." doesnt seem encyclopedic, leave foreshadowing for fiction novels.
  • Words you use I do not understand: "signed on" and "signed off", "hookups", "experimental" when referring to a station, "station-to-station link", "sign on", "coaxial cable", "radio network", "five-station cap", "go dark", "distressed" when referring to a station, "call letters". Search for these using CTRL + F
I suppose most of those should receive wikilinks. They're common terminology in "broadcast speak"; I'm glad you were able to point out areas that wouldn't seem clear to the "average" reader. I will certainly try to provide better explanations for their meaning, either in the article or by wikilinking.
  • Added {{fact}} templates, please replace with footnotes.
I will certainly do so.
  • "received a network license" what is a network license, and who gives them out? experimental stations dont need a license?
The FCC awards licences, but only awarded three for DuMont, five for each of the other networks. Part of this article tries to explain why this helped lead to the company's downfall, so it's really, really important.
  • Why through out the article is CBS and NBC constantly mentioned as comparison? Seems kind of pov to point thing out so much about whose better/faster/richer than who when?
I'll try to remove any POV, but it's not point of view to state NBC and CBS were companies with deep pockets: that's a fact. DuMont had no money, which, again, led to the end of the company.
  • "DuMont was an innovative and creative network" How?
The very next sentence explains how: "DuMont programmers had to rely on their wits and on connections in Broadway to provide original programs still remembered [today]."
  • "DuMont also holds another important place in American television history." again not encyclopedic but essay-like.
  • Some words that start a sentence bring down the encyclopedic tone: Instead, before then, Nevertheless, Also, In any case, etc.
  • I dont like when facts are crammed into brakets = " (including a fully-functioning theater)" please make them part of the sentence.
Easily done, thanks for pointing that out.
  • "Among some of DuMont's better-remembered programs:" Better remembered by who?
By the few people who remember the network at all.
  • Whats "Big Town"? no description for that program.
Will fix.
  • "so their programs got clearance only if the primary network" clearence for what? dont each network have its own channel?
No. As the article states, there weren't enough TV stations for four networks. In these earliest days of US television, the four networks had to compete for air time on local channels: whoever had the best-looking shows, and whoever had the most money to throw around, got the most air time. Most cities only had two or three television stations, which is why it's so important to note the wealth of NBC and CBS (see above).
  • The section titles seem very essay-like. Also i would put Programming, Halted at the start, The end in a "History" section. I would Put "Halted at the start" first. I would rename "Halted at the start" to "Beginning" or something less descriptive. I would also rename "The end" to "Closure"
Very good suggestions. I'll try to impliment them.
  • Very random sentence even though I undestand its ment to give an overal description of why it closed but still something you would put into an essay. "The FCC's Dr. Hyman Goldin said in 1960, "If there had been four VHF outlets in the top markets, there's no question DuMont would have lived and would have eventually turned the corner in terms of profitability. I have no doubt in my mind of that at all."
  • I think the article suffers from no path. The company time periods are scaterred around. Also a lot of analysis. Encyclopedic articles arent about analysis but about stating facts. Example most of "The end" section.
  • "What about the DuMont stations?" should be merged into a new or "The end" section.
  • "List of DuMont affiliates" better off as a wikilink in "See Also" or merged into existing section.
There is absolutely no way the list of affiliates will fit into this existing article: it would make it far too large. I can certainly change it to a See Also section.

Not trying to bring the article down but give suggestions. Good luck. - Tutmosis 00:47, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, I appreciate all of these suggestions. Thank you, Tutmosis. I'll try to impliment your suggestions into the existing article. Thanks for also adding the fact templates where you feel further references are needed. I'll work on all of this. I've commented more above. Again, thank you. Firsfron of Ronchester 01:33, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Cool! Thanks, semi-automated Ruhrfisch! :) Firsfron of Ronchester 19:27, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You are welcome - I am not a bot, but AndyZ used to do this with a bot and the suggestions are javascript generated so I use "semi automated". Anyway, hope it is helpful and of use, Ruhrfisch 03:24, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It is very helpful, thank you. :) I'll work these suggestions into the article. Firsfron of Ronchester 03:46, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Great article! Lead section could use a little more information about the network apart from its history - perhaps a notable show or personality associated with the network. If nothing else, note the network's innovation and creativity in the lead section. Recommend that you rewrite the informal/folksy portions of the lead section ("never found itself on solid ground financially","signed off for good") with clearer descriptions. Did they declare bankruptcy? Sell their assets? If unknown, perhaps "ceased broadcasting" Be on the lookout for representatives of the ASPCS (American Society for Prevention of Cruelty to Semicolons). Every one of your semicolons should be replaced with a colon or a period. dpotter 21:17, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your note, Dpotter. I appreciate your suggestions for expanding and improving the lead. Your suggestions have been very helpful, because I already knew the lead was short, but lacked ideas on how to expand it. I did an automated search for semicolons, and found it used in only threesentences. The first one, DuMont began with one basic disadvantage; unlike NBC and CBS, it did not have a radio network from which to draw revenue and talent. can certainly be changed from a semicolon to a colon. The second one, DuMont aspired to grow beyond its three stations, applying for licenses in Boston (or Philadelphia, depending on the source) and Cincinnati; this would have given the network five stations, the maximum allowed by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) at the time. doesn't make sense to replace with a colon, although I suppose it could be split into two sentences. WABD became WNEW-TV and later WNYW; WTTG still broadcasts under its original call letters. also would be strange with a colon. Anyway, thanks for the helpful advice. I'm working tonight to incorporate these suggestion into the article. Firsfron of Ronchester 03:41, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, the lead needs to be expanded in order to fit in with guidelines at WP:LEAD. Titles such as "What about the DuMont stations?" seem a little chatty to me, and more inline cites would be nice. Interestingly enough, if the article was to get to FA status, it would be the first article about a television network to do so - but crib some tips from other GA network articles. CloudNine 20:16, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your suggestions. I will work to expand the lead. I can change the title of the heading to something like "Fate of the DuMont stations" or something like that. There are already 43 in-line citations in this article. At some point, the footnotes become intrusive, and I'm not sure how many more reliable sources I can find for a forgotten network that has been dead for more than 50 years. Anyway, thanks. Firsfron of Ronchester 20:48, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tropical cyclogenesis edit

Listing nomination nominator didn't complete fully, and notifying him. I think, generally, any comments would be appreciated. How the article could be improved, or if there is something that might need explaining in simpler terms. – Chacor 04:03, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That is correct. Is there anything missing that needs to be covered? Is everything described in enough detail? Is there enough wikification? Thegreatdr 07:57, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
At points, the text needs a bit of clarification. For example, in the Warm waters, instability, and mid-level moisture section, it talks about "Average ambient atmospheric conditions" A description of what is "average" would be beneficial to the non-expert reader. On the Coriolis force section, it talks about "gradient wind balance" - while I get the idea of what the article is saying, a reader not familiar with the text won't grasp it. Unfortunately, I haven't had the time to read the rest of the article as it stands, as I haven't had the time, but that's what I've seen so far. Titoxd(?!?) 03:47, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've accounted for the wind forces mentioned in the article, which should be stated simply enough to be understood. I also introduced a couple "Main article" lines to lead the reader to the wikipedia article which has a more in depth explanation. Will have to do more searching for average atmospheric conditions aloft...all I could find initially was tropical tropopause temperature. We really need the average 500 mb/hPa temperature for this article, or a tropical sounding profile. Thegreatdr 04:07, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It appears the opposite was needed. The tropical cyclone article was in error by saying tropical waves are the main focus for tropical cyclogenesis. Tropical waves are only important in Atlantic and some northeast Pacific tropical cyclogenesis, according to the references found in this article. Tropical waves forming from Africa are not known to survive very far into the central Pacific, let alone the western Pacific ocean. The articles should now be more similar. Thegreatdr 19:29, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
After re-reading tropical cyclone, I went ahead and moved two sections from the tropical cyclone article into this article and reformatted appropriately. Thegreatdr 21:44, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Changes have been made to remove the title of the article from section headers, correct the one case where the reference at the end of the sentence was not immediately after a period, and removing the articles "a" and "the" from the lead of the headers. Also, the citation needed for Vamei was added. Thegreatdr 14:02, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dental caries edit

Please review for breadth of coverage, spelling/grammar errors, and the general writing style. - Dozenist talk 21:12, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Since caries is apparently singular and plural, I think it would be helpful to establish this, either explicitly or implicitly (by starting the first sentence "Dental caries ... is a disease..."). I would also suggest the use of the two alternative names for the disease more often: the phrase "dental caries" occurs five times in the lead. A sentence like "Compared to coronal smooth surface caries, proximal caries progress quicker and takes an average of 4 years to pass through enamel in permanent teeth." confuses the pluralization issue too!
Since we all know this subject as "cavities" (well, that's an assumption I'll make for North America, at least), using that term occasionally would be helpful. For example, "An estimated 90% of schoolchildren worldwide and most adults have experienced dental caries" becomes simply "An estimated 90% of schoolchildren worldwide and most adults have had cavities". Maybe it sounds less "clinical", but that's not always a bad thing.

Overall the article is very good and comprehensive. –Outriggr § 05:42, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Ok, here goes. Because I know what a great contributer you are and how high your own standards are, I'm going to be really picky;)

1. Animals. You knew this was coming -- yes, they're uncommon in companion animals, but what about other animals? FR says that for "For most non-human mammals, the presence of caries is evidence of bad general health and nutritional deficiencies." No citation is given there, but this needs to be addressed.

2. Prevalence in developed World You talk a bit about them being more common in North America and Asia and less so in Africa. It would be nice to explore differential rates in different developed countries. And when you say:

"In children aged 5 to 17, 80% of dental caries reside in 25% :of the population"

this holds only for California. Is it the same world-wide? Significantly different?

3. History FR gives a bit of uncited data on the origin of human caries. This is important. Here's a free translation:

[Human] Caries probably appeared in the Neolitich (7000 years :ago in Europe), perhaps related to the consumption of flour when populations became more sedentary, abandoning hunting as a :primary food source. Human teeth dating from this period that come from groups who were still hunters and gatherers (including sweet berries) do not contain caries.

4. Causes What about Tobacco use? And medical disorders such as Hyperthyroidism and Hyperparathyroidism? Perhaps a bit more on the potential vaccine (though not much; it has its own article)

DE says that there are "several theories on the development of caries. Today the chemo-parasitical Theory of W.D. Miller is generally accepted. Thus, caries result from several pathological factors causing the desctruction of dental tissue in several stages."

Maybe you should go into this more, though I can't comment further on it (due to my ignorance)

5. Images Would these images help illustrate the article?

6. Pseudoscience. I know this article shouldn't get bogged down by crank theories about caries. But a mention of the most prominent ones is in order.

You've done what looks like an excellent job so far. I hope these critiques will be helpful as you *hopefully!* try to bring this article up to featured status. --Zantastik talk 01:51, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks everyone SO MUCH for all the ideas. It took forever to try to address as much as I could. Here is a summary of what I ended up doing:
  1. Created article about dental caries in animals and linked to it at the top of the page.(Got the idea from the featured article, Pneumonia)
  2. The 80/20 stat was not just for California, but I found a better ref stating the the ~80/20 finding in the U.S. and Europe.
  3. Found more information concerning the distribution of the disease around the world.
  4. Found and cited information about the history.
  5. Specifically mentioned other influencing factors that cause tooth decay, including dry mouth and tobacco.
  6. I do not really know if those images would really be helpful. They look a little basic and the information is in the article, but if some of ya'll would like it in the article, then by all means we can stick them in somewhere.
  7. I really do not know if there is much "crank theories" about caries, but in the history section the tooth worm idea is mentioned.
  8. I expanded the lead section to conform to WP:LEAD.
  9. Headings were modified to conform to WP:MOS#Headings.
  10. Reordered the last few sections to follow guidelines at WP:GTL.
  11. Citations were found for all the {{fact}}s.
  12. And thanks to Jersyko for doing a copyedit.
-Dozenist talk 22:42, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You're welcome, though I don't recall if I've done a copyedit to the rest of the article (aside from the history subsec). Brainrot, you know. · j e r s y k o talk · 22:54, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Joseph W. Tkach edit

This article has reached GA. I would like to know what is needed to get this to FA. Any suggestions are welcome. RelHistBuff 13:31, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Additional graphics would definitely improve it. Can you get a better picture of Tkach?
  • I would like to see more detailed biography of his early life, and family life. The article only touches on this lightly.
  • The article seems slightly biased against Tkach. It may be that such a figure would be difficult to present in NPOV. Mfields1 01:11, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I will look for some more photos and expand the earlier part of his life. Concerning bias, the sources on him tend to paint him as either a saint who saved the WCG or a demon who brought down the WCG. I tried to keep the article down the middle course. If you see a bias somewhere, please let me know where and I will try to fix it. Is it the part concerning his legacy (the message there is pretty negative)? RelHistBuff 08:24, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that was the section that caught my eye as being negative. Maybe there is a different section title that could be used, or in some way, could the positive aspects (if any) be presented first?

I added two more photos and more details on his early life, in particular his family's interest in the WCG and his conversion. As for the final section, detailling the collapse of the church would at first appear to be a negative assessment of Tkach to most people's eyes. But interestingly, the details of the collapse are from sources that are supporters of Tkach. I have tried to show this dichotomy of views on the collapse so that this section will be appear more neutral. RelHistBuff 11:56, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I like the renaming and rewording of the last section. IMHO is is balanced. Is there a way to add a graph of church membership by year, or church income? I think may add to the article. For the lead photo at the top, is a color photo available? I'll try to think of a few other ideas that would help get the article to FA. It looks well researched. Mfields1 21:21, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That's not a bad idea about the statistics. I'll take a look into that. I am not sure if a color photo exists though. RelHistBuff 21:32, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I found a color photo which is taken from the same source as the b&w one in the lead section. Unfortunately, the resolution isn't very good so I think it's better to stay with the b&w one for the moment at least until I can find a better one in color.
I have taken a look at the sources for data in order to make a chart. Unfortunately membership data is inconsistent. For example, concerning membership, sometimes the numbers refer to US membership, sometimes to worldwide membership, and sometimes it is unclear. The revenue numbers are better though as the articles refer to audited financial reports. I have uploaded a chart, but unfortunately the data for 1995 is missing (due to late publication). However, one can easily see the fall starting from 1990 and continuing through 1997. RelHistBuff 15:17, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I got the 1995 data from another source. The graph is now complete. RelHistBuff 14:14, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A couple thoughts...

  • I would remove some of the duplicate wiki-links for items like "Herbert W. Armstrong" and "Worldwide Church of God". They really only need to be wiki-linked on their first appearance in the article.
  • A pronunciation guide to the last name Tkach would be helpful.
  • A link or wiki-source to the full text of the Christmas Eve Sermon would be a plus.
  • Considering the importance of the doctrinal changes implemented by Tkach, it seems like the section Changes brought by Joseph Tkach should be expanded with more details. A couple questions that crossed my mind was if these changes were made unilateral or did Tkach consult the elders, conduct a study, etc? In particular, I'm curious about details of what maybe provoke these changes. A somewhat related question on the section title, instead of listing these as "changes" wouldn't "Reforms" better describe them?

Overall I think this is an excellent article on a difficult subject. I think with more details to flesh out the subject it could be well on its way to FA status. Agne 11:21, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I implemented the first two. For the third, the link was there already in a footnote at the end of the paragraph, but it could be easily missed, so I footnoted it directly on the first reference to the Christmas Eve Sermon. As for the fourth, I will expand it over the next day or two. RelHistBuff 12:01, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ah yes, I didn't realize that link was to the full text. It just appeared to be an excerpt. Thanks for clarifying. Agne 12:18, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have added an explanation of what triggered the reforms and some details of the decision-making process. The feedback has definitely helped to improve the article and I am open to more suggestions and criticisms. RelHistBuff 10:42, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Would it be possible to add a cover from The Plain Truth to the page? It would add something to the description. Mfields1 01:02, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good suggestion. I will look for a relevant cover page. RelHistBuff 21:00, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I found some covers, but unfortunately they aren't really relevant to Tkach (most are on prophecy and current events). More improvements in the article have been made recently. Additional suggestions on how to get this to FA are welcome. RelHistBuff 10:47, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fin Whale edit

Previous peer review: Wikipedia:Peer review/Fin Whale/archive1.

A link to this article appeared on Wikipedia's main page on October 23 in the current events section. It has been cleaned up significantly and in-line citations added since its last peer review. I'd like to get an idea of what it would need to push it into good or featured article quality. An older version of this article was listed as a featured article candidate and time hasn't run out on that yet even though I don't think it's getting many eyeballs any more, so I'm not sure if I'm doing things out of order by requesting another peer review at this point. Neil916 (Talk) 07:51, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • One comment I'll add in response to a question raised during the previous peer review is why the common name of the species is capitalized. The article falls under WikiProject Cetaceans, which has decided to standardize the capitalization of all species common names. Neil916 (Talk) 08:07, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Cetaceans project or not, "fin whale" is a sufficiently common-sounding term that it looks awkward capitalized. What's the reasoning behind that standard?
    It's a long debate, and I agree that it looks awkward. See some of the historical discussions at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (fauna), Talk:Spinifex Hopping Mouse, and other places. It's not a standard that I support, but for now it's the community consensus and I have not been able to generate any consensus to change it yet.
  • The phylogenetic tree and Image:Fin whale.jpg clash on my screen, so that the lower image is pushed to the right, leaving an unslightly leftmost gap.
    When I view the article at 800x600 resolution, I see that the taxobox and the phylogenetic tree get squished together, so I get several one-word lines mashed between the images, but I don't see the problem with the Image:Fin whale.jpg image, which is in the next section. What browser are you using and at what screen resolution?
    1920x1200, Firefox under Windows. I still see the problem at 1600x1200 though. Opabinia regalis 00:32, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Hmmm...I don't think I have a system available with the horsepower to handle 1920x1200 to test it myself, but it would explain the problem since the paragraphs would be very wide and shallow. In HTML markup, there is a way to add a tag to say "don't insert this picture until the left/right/both margin(s) are clear" or something to that effect, so I'll try to figure out how to implement that in Wikipedia. I had been assuming the problem you were describing was a result of your screen resolution being too low. Neil916 (Talk) 07:30, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Ok, I've experimented with inserting breaks between sections and repositioning the images. Can you check if this is still a problem on your browser? I don't have a system that can display greater than 1280x1024, and it looks ok on that resolution and lower resolutions. Neil916 (Talk) 16:58, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do you know what exactly the branch lengths on the phylogenetic tree represent? (Genetic distance or assumed time to coalescence, or nothing in particular?)
    As I understand it, the lengths of the branches do not mean anything. The branches represent evolutionary divergences, not timelines. So, for example, the Rorqual phylogenetic tree shows that the Bryde's Whale has a closer evolutionary relationship to the Sei Whale than the Southern Minke Whale.
    OK - sometimes these are plotted with an explicit axis; just wanted to make sure it was correct. Opabinia regalis 00:32, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why the size difference between hemispheres? Is the magnitude of that difference statistically significant?
    I'm not sure I understand your question. Are you saying size in terms of the size of the North Atlantic Fin Whale vs. the size of the Antarctic Fin Whale? Are you referring to the size of the existing population? The size of the habitat range? The primary reason why the three main groups of Fin Whales (North Pacific, North Atlantic, and Antarctic) are described is because they are generally recognized as different subspecies that do not interact or interbreed.
    I was referring to this sentence: "It reaches lengths of up to 24 meters (79 ft) in the northern hemisphere and 26.8 meters (88 ft) in the southern hemisphere". If that's referring to the northern and antarctic species, it would be clearer to name the species rather than the location; I read it as implying regional variations. Opabinia regalis 00:32, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I believe it's an inconsistency resulting from different sources that referred to the regional variations in terms of location rather than subspecies. I'll work on that section. Neil916 (Talk) 07:30, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The whale has a series of 56-100 pleats or grooves along the bottom of the body...." - any chance of an up-close image of this?
    I doubt it, due to the difficulty of photographing this fast whale. The image of the whale shown on the stamp does depict the grooves, and the diagram on Baleen whale also shows the grooves, but I'm not sure if including that diagram would be too redundant on this article. What do you think?
    That's fine - I think the other diagram might be extraneous considering this has quite a few images already, but I don't have a strong opinion. Opabinia regalis 00:32, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The prose could use some minor work; in particular there's a lot of switching between singular "the fin whale..." and plural "they..." (eg "The Fin Whale was relatively safe from most whalers due to its quick speed and the fact that they prefer the open sea")
    Thanks, I've been hunting down such inconsistencies.
  • "most hunted cetacean in history" is a big claim without a footnote, even if it may be implicitly supported by the next sentences.
    Agreed. I have removed it until a source can be found.
  • I don't know anything about whaling, but 10 whales per year for a widely distributed species doesn't sound like a lot. Some sense of scale (eg, a corresponding number of some non-endangered and plentiful species) would be useful here.
    I'm not sure that the article is trying to imply that 10 whales per year is a lot and I've taken care not to imply whether it is good or bad per se, it's simply providing information of the current status of whaling for Fin Whales.
    There doesn't have to be any implication one way or another; it's just hard to have a sense of scale on the subject. Compared to the earlier numbers (750,000 in 74 years? wow.) it seems like a miniscule "why bother" kind of number. Opabinia regalis 00:32, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I think the relevance is that this whale is still listed as "endangered" by several international agencies, so any commercial hunting of the animal is still very controversial. I've uncovered more sources containing information about different causes of mortality for this whale, natural and not, so I'm hoping to expand/rewrite this section in the next few days.Neil916 (Talk) 07:30, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why is there a redlink in See also for Restaurants in Iceland?
    It was a nonsense addition from an anonymous user last night who has a history of adding nonsense to that article. I removed it an left a note on the user's talk page.

Opabinia regalis 06:24, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your feedback. Neil916 (Talk) 16:16, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, sorry, I forgot to come back to this. The image conflict problem is resolved now. Looks very good! Some of the recent material, ie in the abundance section and the lead, could use a quick prose run-through (for example, "This shows a substantial recovery compared to a survey in 1976 showing..."). IIRC naked years don't need wikilinks, and somewhere there's a mention of the "2007-2008 season" where only one of the two years is linked. The abundance section has a lot of great data - maybe a table would help to keep track of which trends are in which places? Opabinia regalis 03:06, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Finnish Civil War edit

This one had a peer review before which didn't receive that much feedback but during the GA nomination it was improved greatly. Now it is a GA and quite nice article overall. Now before possible FA nomination we'd like to have some reviewing. --Pudeo (Talk) 21:14, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Very impressive! For FA nomination, I would focus your efforts on the lead. See WP:LEAD. This is a long article, and the lead does not adequately summarize its contents. Only two paragraphs, and one of them uses most of its words to describe alternate names for the war. In a very summarized form, I suggest answering the big questions of the article: what was the background to the conflict? The results? For example, it says "The Civil War was in many ways a major catastrophe for the Finnish nation and society" toward the end of the article. That's something the reader would want a brief explanation of in the lead. I'd suggest four paragraphs (others might say three).
Have an independent party review the prose to find improvements in sentence structure (always a good thing). I could offer some assistance, but it's probably too big an article to do it all. For example, A renewed attempt of russification began which was called "the second period of oppression 1908-1917". is awkward, and since it's in quotes, who called it that? Surely they didn't tack on a date range at the end? In general, there are a lot of date ranges in the form "during 2000-2006" which might be better written as "between 2000 and 2006".
Minor details: Full dates should be linked so date preferences can format them; years by themselves should not be linked. See WP:DATE.
With a bigger lead, you will do well in FAC. –Outriggr § 11:29, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Some thoughts...

  • The tags on Image:Civil War Prison Camp in Helsinki.gif, Image:Suojeluskunta.jpg, Image:General Strike Helsinki 1917.jpg, Image:Peasants in finland.jpg and Image:Tampere war victims 1918.jpg are obsolete and needs to be replaced.
  • In the section Background the line "Hence, the country was already divided many years before the Civil War" and the rest of the paragraph sounds very "essayish" in contrast to Encyclopedic (especially with the absence of an in-line cite to a source with such a summary). My recommendation would be to re-write and merge the content of that paragraph into the paragraph right above it.
  • I would be aware of "POV Buzzwords" like the "unfortunately" in the line "Unfortunately, the social divisions and the heritage of the old regime led to a severe power struggle between the Social Democrats and Conservatives.". Fortunately (no pun intended) these can easily be reworded or removed without radically altering the content. Similar is the "merciless" in "The battle in burning Tampere was the first "city war" in Finland, merciless fighting, the Whites advancing house by house and the Reds retreating street by street.".
  • Also with POV is the "assessment" of point of views being included in the article with lines like "However, this view is one-sided, an even more relevant cause being that since autumn 1917 there was no politically sound government which could use these means of control in the country."
  • There are a couple areas that would be served well with an in-line cite. I've added a few tags to help out.
  • I would work on the red links with at least stub article creation. Pertinent topics like the massacres mentioned in the section Red and White terror should have a little more context because of how much they relate and support understanding in this article.

Overall, I agree that it is a great article. I would be very aware of POV which I think will be scrutinized in FAC because of the sensitive subject matter. Agne 12:10, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A bigger lead is now in User:RelHistBuff/sandbox/FCW. It's too long at the moment, but hopefully it will be modified to an appropriate form. Other changes made in the art. also, according to your review, thank you. --Ilummeen 18:03, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Peer review/Finnish Civil War/archive1

Hello! Here are my observations so far:

  • Lead now seems too long (I notice above it used to be too short). The first paragraph (quite long) summarizes the whole article nicely, but then the next paragraph goes into the background leading up to the war and stops, instead of succinctly summarizing whole article from background, through war, to the result. Perhaps work on that first paragraph, splitting it up into 2 or 3 paragraphs and adding to it just a tad, and cutting out the rest and merging anything it had with the main article below.
  • In the lead: "both as troops and weapons" is a tad confusing. Do you mean both countries contributed both of these? Also "as" should probably be "with" and should be switched around thus: "with both troops and weapons"
  • "The Civil War is the only conflict in the history of Finland that has caused a major dispute even on the name of the war" -- assuming this is saying that this is the only conflict to have a major dispute in naming the war? If so, perhaps re-word to "The Civil War is the only conflict in the history of Finland that has caused a major dispute with the name of the war"
  • "Finland had been a northwestern part of the Russian Empire since 1809, autonomous Grand Duchy of Finland, led by the Russian tsar and priviliged, Finnish estates with no democratic rights for the common people" seems like it has some incomplete clauses in there.
  • This sentence is a little confusing "The general strike of 1905 (due to defeat of Russia in the Russian-Japanese war) did not solve the problems as the Tsar could still regain his power and withdraw the power of the new Finnish parliament, established in 1906, based on broad universal suffrage." It doesn't really establish cause and effect and seems to start saying one thing, and then finishing off with explaining the Finnish parliment. Did the strike cause the establishment of the parliment? If so, state that first, and then say how this didn't solve the problems as the Tsar could, etc., etc.
  • Not really sure what this sentence is trying to say: "The Russian Empire faced heavy pressure from the other European mights, the power policy resulting finally in the First World War in 1914." pressure to do what? and do you mean power struggle instead of power policy?
  • "Economic problems such as unemployment and lack of food increased the fewer among the Finns." "increased the fewer" doesn't make sense
  • "By the beginning of the year 1918, a "dual power" and "multiple sovereignty" had been formed in Finland and the Guards had become independent means of power even within their own policies" part in bold doesn't make sense to me.
  • "As a result, the social conditions, standard of living and self-confidence of the workers rose slowly, but consistently between 1880-1914, socialism, nationalism and liberalism as the political tools" doesn't really make sense; seems to include partial clauses
  • Which English spelling style is the article choosing? It seemed mostly American, so I corrected spellings with that in mind, but I also noticed a few UK spellings...
  • "In 1917, the Finnish people stood at the crossroads where the old regime of the estates was slowly changing to a more democratic society accepting the power of the common people also, but the direction of the development was still uncertain and became a matter of heavy political dispute and fighting" is rather awkwardly worded.
  • "Conservatives aimed at keeping power endangered by the new revolution in Russia" doesn't quite make sense. Do you mean "Conservatives aimed at keeping power that was endangered by the new revolution in Russia"?
  • "Furthermore, the Battle of Tampere was the ultimate example of a civil war with "brother rising against brother", Finn against Finn" this declaration seems a little strange, since that is the definition of a civil war
  • "The Germans initiated the attack on February 18 having demanded "requests for help" from the smaller countries west of Russia beforehand in order to provide an excuse" attack on whom? Russia? Might want to make that clearer.
  • "At the same time, a moderate non-socialist, the eventual first president of Finland, K.J. Ståhlberg, elected July 25, 1919, struggling for parliamentarism, wrote" I know what you're trying to say here, but it's an awfully long list of qualifiers before we get to what he wrote. Not sure how to rewrite that....

Also, might want to mention that the universal suffrage was not limited to men-- it was the first European country to grant suffrage to women, if I remember correctly.

All in all, great job though! --plange 05:43, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you --plange for the great comments and a special apology for forgetting you ladies with suffrage to women in 1906. I'm glad you noticed it, if you had not, I would be soon attacked by a female "flying detachment" of my own tribe at home :):) --Ilummeen 14:59, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No problem! Are you Finnish? I lived in Kerava for about 10 months back in the 80s :-) I was an exchange student (from America). I remember while there several things the Finns were proud of (and rightly so) about their history, and one was female suffrage, and the other was gaining their independence (and keeping it through the second world war). I thought I remembered something about soldiers on skiis but couldn't remember which war... This was an interesting read for me as I didn't realize there'd been a civil war. Moi moi! --plange 15:16, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Shaw and Crompton edit

This article (which deals with a town in England), has been developing for some time now, and is possibly at it's endgame in terms of contributions by the local editing community.

I (as a significant contributor) would like this article to reach Wikipedia:Good articles status, and feel a peer review would be the most appropriate step for assistance with this. Therefore, constructive comments (personal and automated) that help in this respect would be highly appreciated. Jhamez84 20:58, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

December 2006 edit

Now in December 2006, I am re-entering the article for a peer review (automated and manual) in an effort to further the article.

I believe the previous suggestions have been met and thus hope to receive new recommendations for moving this article towards WP:GA. I believe the format of the article is fine, it is any objectionable statements or other such entries which could be brought inline with the more obscure policies of Wikipedia as soon as possible, which I am looking for. Thanks, Jhamez84 12:53, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Brain-computer interface edit

Hi, this article just passed a GA and I'm hoping to eventually try for FA, but having worked on it for a while, I'm starting to get blind about the overall impact it makes. I'd really appreciate your comments on whether it grabs your attention, is consistent and keeps you reading. Grateful for your opinion on whether the summary style works and whether all the style manual components are correct. Cheers--Saganaki- 06:06, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It looks pretty decent and I enjoyed the subject matter. Here's a few comments:
  • Some FAC reviewers seem to like an article to be relatively self-contained. But when this article uses terms like "motor cortex neurons" and "phosphenes" without clarification, it requires the reader to fork from the main article for clarification. The second paragraph of the "Prominent research successes" section, for example, does a good job of explaining the terms without need for a drill-down.
  • Errors: "defintion", "targetted"
  • Some additional terms could be usefully linked: integrated circuit, retinal implants, visual cortex, macaque monkey, algorithms, mathematical filters, neurophysiology, zucchini, congenital, stroke, laser, peripheral nerves, dura mater, scar-tissue, epileptics, and quadriplegic.
  • In the sentence, "from an integrated circuit to a silicon chip," aren't these currently redundant terms? I'm not sure that there is a digital computer that doesn't rely on an IC circuit on a silicon chip.
  • "very existence of BCIs suggests that consciousness and mind can be reduced to the physical qualities of the brain, posing great questions for modern philosophers of the mind." This is perhaps debatable, but from a purely logical point of view I'm not sure I agree with this sentence. The existence of an interface to the brain does not require that the consciousness be a purely physical quality. The brain already provides the requisite interface between the physical sense and the mental consciousness. Beyond that, however, does this really raise any new philisophical issues beyond those that are already up for discussion regarding the physical nature of the consciousness? This topic is also not covered by the remainder of the text.
  • The terms "explosive" and "amazing", where they occur in the text, are too non-neutral for an encyclopedia article.
  • First section, first paragraph--please use an em dash rather than a dash. HTML code: &mdash;
  • The term "optic-nerve cuffs" is used but not defined.
  • This statement is ambiguous: "He also found that dispersed groups of neurons in different areas of the brain collectively controlled motor commands but due to technical limitations was only able to record the firings of neurons in one area at a time." Was this a problem in the lab or a limitation of the monkey brain? Undoubtedly the former, but it should be clear.
  • I had some difficulty understanding the sentence, "real-time reconstruction of complex motor parameters using recordings from neural ensembles". Perhaps it could be clarified for the average, non-specialist?
  • Comma needed in "...hand manipulation skills, making them ideal..."
I hope these were somewhat helpful. Thanks. — RJH (talk) 15:25, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, that's an excellent critique. Get working on improvements right away.--Saganaki- 00:06, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Glad I could help. Something else came to mind:
  • Have there been any ethical discussions or criticisms of this technology? If so, a "Criticisms" section could be an interesting addition. This could also cover potential military applications and clarify concerns about mind-control or other potential abuses, &c. — RJH (talk) 17:17, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks again. — RJH (talk) 17:17, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've been thinking about that and it sounds like a good idea. The way I'd approach it is to write a summary and then link through to ethical talk in Brain implant and mind control. Here's why. Currently, there are relatively few criticims of BCIs because:

  • the research is focused on fighting disability
  • there has been no special attention from animal rights groups
  • BCIs have are being used to acquire signals to control devices rather than the other way round. The exception to this is vision research.

This could change in the future, for example today's brain pacemakers which aren't considered BCIs could become a lot more sophisticated. Neurochips could also develop further, for example the artificial hippocampus. I would say that the ethical considerations related to BCIs will be very similar or the same to those as for Brain implant and mind control where a debate has already begun. So because the BCI article is already v. long and to avoid duplication I'd suggest creating a preamble then linking to these pages for the full story. Think that works?--Saganaki- 00:08, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes that sounds good, assuming that there are suitable references. — RJH (talk) 21:33, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've added the ethical considerations section - intend to source it better if I get time. There are also a couple of loose ends to tie up (for example the one sentence claim about Philip Kennedy being the first to develop a wireless BCI). I wonder, after that, whether its ready for a FA review, but my gut feeling is its probably worth encouraging more peer review here first? --Saganaki- 14:23, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Arabian horse edit

I would like to get this article to a place where it could be a featured article. Please review in particular the use of citation, citation format (please fix anything that's improperly formatted!), use of images (I'm not happy with the quality of the photos, but they're the best I can find that's GFDL or otherwise available so far), comment on length (but please don't cut any major sections without discussion, it got so long for a reason!), and look over the "controversies" section (almost everything in there is a result of a disagreement of some sort).

I don't know if this article can become a featured article or not, but I'd like to see what non-horsey reviewers think. Arabian horses are, for some reason I can't quite fathom, a rather controversial breed, and many issues have to be handled delicately to avoid upsetting those who care. Montanabw 06:53, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, Shadowfax. Erm, a larger lead for one, and I'd like to see a photo rather than a painting in the infobox.Wiki-newbie 19:54, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Will work on the lead, have yet to find a good enough photo in the public domain to use as a headliner of GOOD breed representative. Montanabw 04:22, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Here's my view: (This is all I had time for, I'll come back later.)

  • "It is one of the oldest breeds, with ancestry dating to the ancient world."
    • Redundant, something needs to be done.
  • "Arabian bloodlines are found in the ancestry of almost every modern breed of riding horse."
    • Try "The Arabian horse is related to most modern riding horses."
-See the repetitive redundant and clumsy wording pattern? I will go on.
  • "The Arabian developed in a desert climate and lived in the desert in close association with humans, often being brought..."
    • try to combine the verb: "The Arabian developed in a desert climate. During this time, it was often greatly cared for by its human owners."

Serious work here needed:

  • This closeness to humans helped create a breed of horse with a good disposition, quick to learn, and willing to please. On the other hand, the breed is also classified as a "hot-blooded" breed of horse, and this same sensitivity requires Arabian horses to be handled with both competence and without abuse.

Notes: Contradictory. To fix this, specify that although it is a horse of good disposition, it requires respect and sensitivity from its owner.

All for now. --Evan(Salad dressing is the milk of the infidel!) 22:29, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I see where you are going with this. Given that this is the lead, which needs to be simple and concise, some material is well worth changing, though some is in the "terms of art" realm (the ancient breed stuff, and the fact that Arabians are not merely "related" but are the foundation stock of most modern breeds especially) and has to be edited with caution to not change the meaning--or to make such a broad statement that the anti-Arabian people start charging in and screaming that the article is POV-pushing <sigh>. So I welcome your ideas and I agree that "un-clunkifying" the language is necessary. Montanabw 06:05, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Switzerland edit

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

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

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

D1 Grand Prix edit

I have requested a peer review as I would like this to be peer reviewed as I feel there are plenty of people who know better about this subject than I am. Also there needs more than what is featured. Do bear in mind this is my first request, thanks a lot. Willirennen 16.10 25 October 2006 (utc)

Web operating system edit

We're discussing sources as well as content. The general need in this article is to cover both the well verifiable uses of the term as well as numerous popular uses of the term. A previous article, WebOS started out on the subject of a particular project at UC Berkeley, and then over time it meandered into the various popular uses of the term -- but without a clear and concise presentation for the reader. The objective in this article is to make this presentation covering all aspects of the use of the term. - JohnPritchard 01:19, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merged WebOS, Webtop and Web operating system edit

It's been tough to realize the collective opinion on the subject of these articles. It's my estimation that it comes down to merging WebOS, Webtop and Web operating system into one. Such was far from my first choice as individual articles seemed nicer hypertext, but with such strong reactions to individual articles covering these subjects it seems clear that this is the will of the community in the neighborhood. - JohnPritchard 04:19, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, "will of the community" is also at debate. Naturally. - JohnPritchard 11:03, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There's a former Afd (closed) as well as a deletion review on the topic of this name Web operating system. - JohnPritchard 11:03, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment edit

  • Comment: I got to be honest with you, I've got zero clue about what the article is talking about. - Tutmosis 02:51, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, taking one sentence at a time, where is the first place that you feel "lost"? - JohnPritchard 11:37, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Umm the first sentence, I dont understand what are "network services for internet scale distributed computing". - Tutmosis 13:05, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm.. I'm starting to get the picture. We'll work on it. - JohnPritchard 13:49, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bad Religion edit

Hi. Someone nominated this to be a featured article, but I don't think it's ready yet. However, I think with some more work, it can get there. This is a band with a long history who should have a good article to represent them.

From what I can tell, the intro paragraph needs some fleshing out, and I have some ideas as to how to do that, although any takers would be great. The biggest problem is that the article lacks references. Where can we get them besides BR fan sites? I don't think that they're any more reliable than anything else out there, so anyone with previous experience working on another band's wikipedia page would be most helpful. I'm going to start looking, but if I find something that's deemed unworthy, it'll be an exercise in frustration.

I reshaped the Influence and Tributes section out of a cluster of small paragraphs, but now I'm not sure if people will balk at it because it's so "listy".

Any ideas, suggestions or other forms of help are most appreciated. Thanks in advance, m13b 16:55, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A good way to get some solid references are band or band member interviews. Search around, im sure there are a bunch. --Beanssnaeb 01:46, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There needs to be stuff on who influenced them as well as who they influenced. On the dvd jay bentley cites Adolescents as an influence anyone know of any others? 10:45, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually found an article this morning quoting Bentley about the Adolescents, as well as other influences.  :) m13b 14:04, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It should explain how they got back together86.132.211.64 18:09, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent point. Took a shot at it. Kinda wish I had more references though, I hate reusing that same page. Then again, it is an excellent article, so I really shouldn't complain. m13b 18:49, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, worked on a lot of that stuff, subsequent runs of the script look much better. m13b 19:21, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

New Jersey State Constitution edit

This is the second peer review for the article. I was just dissapointed with how little look-over it actually got. Please make your comments; fresh eyes welcome. Any general status comments wanted!Evan(Salad dressing is the milk of the infidel!) 22:51, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Previous Peer Review

  • Can the Defunct Versions section be expanded? Secondly I would like to see some information on how it was adopted. Also it needs a copyedit because some parts dont make sense, example: "Paragraphs traditionally in Article I, eg, the banning of ex post facto laws is in Article IV "Legislative." First it makes no sense, then why can't the footnote be at the end of the sentence? Why is an abbreviation used "eg"? Also some unsourced statements come off as analysis, example: "New Jersey's constitution is often a target of criticism." - Tutmosis 00:21, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mount Tambora edit

Since a couple of days, I have made a revamp of this article. It was full of misleading images and unsourced statements and very long quotes. I have put well-defined references and removed some unverified statements. Here, I would like other opinions from reviewers about this article. Any suggestions, critics, corrections and direct copy-editing are very welcome. Thanks in advance. Cheers. — Indon (reply) — 12:23, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I looked into the introduction, and I think it is very good (links all work, refs are good). Also, really like the birds eye view graphic. Only question from intro is “explosion sound was heard until Sumatra” - perhaps you meant in Sumatra, suggestion would be to “explosion sound could be heard in Sumatra”… ... ? just a suggestion Dharp66 19:48, 12 October 2006 (UTC)Dharp66[reply]

Response: Thanks a lot, Dharp66. I have changed the intro as you suggested. I'm going to ask some people to help copyediting the article. — Indon (reply) — 07:27, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The article looks great. Could the one lonely bit of trivia be incorporated into the text somewhere? User:Wayward might accept a request for copyediting if you ask him. --Peta 01:48, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Response: Thanks, Peta. Yes, the only trivia is a bit lonely. It was put by someone. At first, (s)he put it in the main text and I put it later at the end, because I think that it is a non-notable information. I was going to remove it, but I don't want to get into an edit war with him/her. I'm going to wait for other contributors/reviewers to copyedit that information. Perhaps, I'm going to put it in the footnotes. Oh, and thanks for pointing me to Wayward. I'm going to ask him. — Indon (reply) — 07:27, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments: I have added notable quotes at the end of the article. Could somebody please make a review of the article? Thanks. — Indon (reply) — 08:24, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Quotes normally go on wikiquote. Mabye a few could be worked into the section on the eruption? --Peta 04:51, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Good point. I've taken two quotes and embedded it into the section. Thanks. — Indon (reply) — 09:17, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Question: Do you think that the article is eligible for the WP:FAC? — Indon (reply) — 11:27, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Ruhrfisch 02:58, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes, I've read it. It's a cool program. I have fixed the unit of measurement, a heading started with "The", and some redudancies. The only things left, when I ran again the script, are wikilinks of months and days, and wikilinks of full dates. I don't think if I put all dates from chronological history of the eruption into wikilink, then it would be wise and makes a better readability to the article. Also that the year 1815 is repeated over the entire article and it wouldn't be good to have all wikilinked. Or am I wrong about wikilink of dates? Is this issue harmful for submitting this article to FAC? — Indon (reply) — 14:07, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I understand that you only wikilink dates if they are month day and year. Also, you only need to wikilink the first time something is in the article (so I would not link 1815 and even if I did, I would only link it once or at most once per section). Hope this helps, Ruhrfisch 04:01, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Yes, that what I meant. So wikinlinked only the first appearance important years (1815 and 1816), the date of the eruption 10 April 1815 and some years in the table of selected vulcanic eruptions. — Indon (reply) — 16:39, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • Sounds good to me - you can link just years if they are important, of course. DIdn't mean to say otherwise above. Take care, Ruhrfisch 03:37, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't know much about volcanos, but are inactive volcanos "extinct," as written in the first line of the 1815 section, or are they "dormant" as I've come to understand the term? --badlydrawnjeff talk 12:19, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
An "exinct" volcano is one that will never be active again, a dormant volcano is not active but could be - whether one can be sure an inactive volcano is one or the other I don't know. however I just recently changed "thought to be non-volcanic" to "thought to be extinct". (i have presumed it was known to be of volcanic origin - all mountains in the Sunda arc are) Ie, the statement has more to do with its perceived state at the time rather than its actual state (which hindsight was indeed "dormant"!). THe other point is, did the locals at the time no about a distinction between "extinct" and "dormant"? Maybe the article needs to say "for long a time dormant,..." if we can find a good reference. --Merbabu 12:34, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oh yes, the statement of "long thought to be non-active" is in the source, cited at the end of the sentence. — Indon (reply) — 12:53, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
OK, but to nit-pick, in technical terms, non-active volcanoes are described as either "dormant" or "extinct", depending on their state. Thus i suggested "For a long time dormant,..." lol - maybe it is not that important. --Merbabu 13:04, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
For me, it's all right to replace the word, as long as it has the same meaning. I was just to reply your remark: "if we can find a good reference". Cheers. — Indon (reply) — 13:07, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Liaquat Ali Khan edit

I want people to review the article I have made. Make suggestions for the improvements that can be made. I still believe that the article has a scope for expansion even after I have added considerable ammount of information. (Gambit pk 13:54, 17 October 2006 (UTC))[reply]

I just read the section about the death. Some comments :

  • The State dept release provided as the reference to this section (ref.9) says that he was killed on Oct 15 while this article and Saad Akbar says Oct 16
  • the security forces immediately shot the assassin : differs from the reference which says twice that crowd killed him (that is the story that I am also familiar with). Which is the right one ?
  • real culprit behind the murder. Is this a guess, or has it been established that Akbar did not do it on his own ? Tintin (talk) 06:53, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Ruhrfisch 18:26, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I do not feel that the lead adequately summarizes the article. There is nothing in the lead about his legacy or criticisms of him, yet the article has an entire section on those topics. -Fsotrain09 04:19, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Indiana Jones edit

A really iconic character. Any suggestions? Wiki-newbie 15:05, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Distinction between real archaeology and what Indiana Jones does

I recently got into a debate with an anthropologist user here, who changed the term "archaeologist" to "antiquarian" in the articles on Indiana Jones, Indiana Jones 4, and Harrison Ford. I reverted these edits and put a warning on his talk page. He took offense and a debate ensued (see User talk:

I pointed out that the films present the Jones as an archaeologist. This user said Jones doesn't perform archaeology; rather, he's a treasure hunter and grave robber. The user felt that antiquarian is closer to what Indiana Jones actually practices, although the antiquarian article also needs some association with grave robbing.

I have to admit, this user has a point, and the distinction between real archaeology and what Indiana Jones does should be made in all articles about Indiana Jones. =Axlq 15:42, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I certainly believe that at least a section of the Indiana Jones articles should deal with the real life distinction between what a real archaeologist does and what Jones does. No matter what the film represents Jones as, the differences should be noted. I admit that grave robber maybe a little harsh for antiquarians, as it was the educated class taking artifacts from sites with no regard for the context nor culture it was associated with. They didn't do it always for personal gain in the same way grave robbers did. Antiquarians was a form of archaic archaeological thought focused only on the antiques themselves. In this way, Indiana Jones exemplifies antiquarianism rather than archaeology. I think it is important to note the distinctions between the two. 16:20, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Now moved to Wikipedia:Peer_review/Automated/Archive 4#Indiana Jones

I guess that's fair enough. Can anyone recommend good sources on Indiana Jones as an influential pop culture icon? Wiki-newbie 15:39, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ralph Bakshi edit

A lot of work has been put into this article overtime. I'd like to know how well the various editors who worked on this article have done, and what more could be done to bring this entry to featured article quality. (Ibaranoff24 23:33, 21 January 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Yannismarou edit

Very nice in generel. Some remarks for further improvement:

  • In the lead: "animated feature films that were aimed at adults ", "He pioneered animation with adult themes". IMO this looks like a repetition; maybe you could combine the two similar assessments.
  • "and it was unquestionably aimed primarily at adult audiences—something that had previously been unheard of. Creator Robert Crumb, however, hated the film, and eventually wound up killing off the title character in retaliation." Proper referencing needed here.
  • "animation scholars accused him of not producing "real" animation, but simply training artists to trace over live action." Citation needed again; otherwise it is weasel.
  • "Bakshi turned away from race and cultural issues and began producing fantasy films." The connection of this paragraph with the previous one looks to me a bit sheamless.
  • "Another unmade Bakshi project was to be called Bobby's Girl, to be made from a screenplay he co-wrote with a young and ambitious Canadian named John Kricfalusi." "Unmade" and then "to be made". Have in mind that if you go for FAC the prose must be brilliant.
  • "The series was widely hailed by TV critics, and it is still prized by collectors of TV series today." Again citation needed. Try to ahve at least one citation for each paragraph.
  • "to Bakshi's earlier films Coonskin[17][18][19]". Try to avoid more than 2 citations in a row. You can combine them in various ways in one citation. See for instance Tourette syndrome or W. S. Gilbert.
  • Last paragraph of "Controversy and criticism" also needs citing.
  • "He is widely believed to be the inspiration for the character of Comic Book Guy on The Simpsons and Ralph the Guard on Tiny Toons Adventures and Animaniacs." Who believes that?
  • I added a [citation needed] in "Influence".--Yannismarou 09:18, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Your concerns have been addressed. Please take a look at the current revision. (Ibaranoff24 18:52, 26 January 2007 (UTC))[reply]

The Colbert Report edit

I am trying to promote this article to FA. Problems mentioned in the previous nomination for FA status include prose and references. ISD 18:50, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lead should be two sentances, with a new sentance for "stars comedian..."

Truthiness should probably include Colbert's comment: "I don't trust books, they're all fact, no heart. And that's exactly what's pulling our country apart today. Let's face it folks, we are a divided nation.... between those who think with their head and those who know with their heart."

The "wrist violence" section should be renamed "wrist violence and painkiller addiction" as the latter seems a parody of Rush Limbaugh's Oxycotin addiction.

Should definitely include a section about the White House dinner speech and President Bush's response.

It might be worthwhile to include a comment about Colbert's interview of Presidential candidate Ron Paul. It seemed to me that in that interview, Colbert slipped out of character to show his genuine personal admiration of Paul's perspective, but then went back into his schtick.

The Charlie Rose interview is superb, showing more about the character and also about the real Colbert.

Happy to particpate in bringing more wikiality and truthiness to our understanding of this foremost flagaphile.

VisitorTalk 23:56, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Óengus I of the Picts edit

I would appreciate a peer review of this article before submitting it for FA review. Thanks, Angus McLellan (Talk) 16:45, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • I have to mention an article published by Woolf. There is a revision of the Nechtan v Óengus passage. Essentially, the exactatores of Nechtan are not his tax-collectors, but the "oppressors" of Nechtan. That changes the whole interpretation of these events. The article was published this year. I shall email you a pdf version. Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 03:41, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks very much. Incoporated, now needs to be added to Nechtan, which I'll do today. Angus McLellan (Talk) 12:33, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I know how hard it is to bring together so many sources pertaining to such obscure figures and commend everyone involved in the work. I am ready to vote for the article when it is nominated and my advices are very few. Could we find more images? If the name of his capital is known, we could show our readers how it looks today. I would like to see the style of ISBNs unified. Some external links should be merged to primary sources: Bede is a source, whether he is online or not. I'm not sure whether Gaelicisation may be called an "artifact" but perhaps my poor command of the language is to blame. The word "greatest" in the last sentence is inherently POV (even if sourced) and should be replaced with a more specific term. --Ghirla -трёп- 17:25, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • ISBNs formatted and Bede added to the refs. I'll add a map showing roughly where things were. The picture at Escomb Church shows the sort of thing Nechtan and Óengus were having built in eastern Scotland. I don't think there was anything resembling a capital at this time; important forts and religious sites, but no towns or cities. Other points have been fixed, I hope: no more "great" and no more "artifact". Thanks ! Angus McLellan (Talk) 12:31, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is a very interesting article, but I find it quite confusing. I think you might need to give more background into the whole political situation in the British Isles at the time as well as Picts in general.
    • Maps would also really help. Alot of the article depends on understanding the geography of Northern British Isles right now.
    • Also are there any clan symbols that you could use as images?
    • In the section on St. Andrews you mention David be choosen as he was a usurper, which implies Óengus was a usurper as well. But who did he usurp?
    • At the end you say his son is the first Pictish king's son to become King. Why was this odd, were they matrilineal?--Birgitte§β ʈ Talk 14:59, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'll certainly add a map, and I can expand the background. Sorry to say that there aren't any symbols.
Who did he usurp ? Everyone else who thought that they should be king, I suppose. The Talorgan son of Drostan who was drowned in 739 [if he was the same person who is called Nechtan's brother in 713] perhaps. Alex Woolf doesn't actually say who he has in mind, but in Ireland anyone whose great-grandfather had been king was considered a candidate. In Northumbria in the 8th century the succession was disputed among various families who claim descent from Ida of Bernicia, who died in the 6th century, none of which had provided a king until the 8th century. There are many apparently Pictish-related people who are named in the annals in the early part of the 8th century of whom nothing is known: Fergussan son of Maelchon; "the son of Artabláir"; Finguine and Gartnait, sons of Deleroith; Congal son of Dargart; Cináed son of Der-Ilei; "the son of Mathgernan"; Simul son of Drest; Talorgan map Han. Given that the people who appear in the Irish entries are kings and princes, bishops and abbots [but these are usually distinguishable from other people], and sometimes poets and historians, we can assume that most of these people are Pictish kings or their relatives. It's plausible that anyone notable enough to appear in the annals was a king or would have claim to be one.
Pictish matriliny used to be a popular idea, not any more. Bede mentions it, but the current belief is that he does so because Bridei and Nechtan, the sons of Der-Ilei and Dargart, claimed the kingship through their mother. No genealogies of Pictish royalty survive, and the annals almost always give a name and patronym only, so identifying the grandsons of kings is very difficult. It is only the existence of Irish and Welsh genealogies which allows historians to make sense of lists of kings which would otherwise seem to include many unrelated kings.
Thanks for the comments ! Angus McLellan (Talk) 16:11, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Map added. Hopefully it helps with background. Thanks again for all comments ! Angus McLellan (Talk) 00:55, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Heraldic visitation edit

This was recently upgraded to a Good Article, and I think that it can be an FA with a bit more work. I wasn't the main contributor to the article, but would be glad to implement any suggestions that others have. It is a unique and interesting topic that is not covered very broadly elsewhere on the internet.--dave-- 13:37, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • The article is generally short compared to most FA articles, but the long thing is typically frowned upon.. and as I'm not familiar with Heraldic visitation, I wouldn't know how to expand this article. The one thing I can see is that it probably needs another image. drumguy8800 C T 17:08, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've added a map showing the numbers of visitations per county. --Dr pda 14:26, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • A few more sources would be nice to back up the facts. Another picture would be good. It would also be good to flesh out the national differences in visitations. 21:41, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
  • It might be nice to have a table listing all the counties, the dates they were visited, and possibly by whom. I've seen such a list somewhere while looking for info for other articles, possibly in Noble's History of the College of Arms or an old edition of Burke's Peerage. A mention of the fact that Clarenceux King of Arms has heraldic jurisdiction south of the river Trent, and Norroy King of Arms north of it would probably be worthwhile. Also, wasn't there someone (a herald-painter?) who pretended to be a herald carrying out visitations? Are there any well-known examples of people who were using arms unlawfully? Dr pda 00:10, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The list of counties, etc. might make the article too long. There were a lot of visitations, weren't there. It would be good to quote evidence of a case where arms were defaced during a visitation. How was the power to visit enforced?--Forlornandshorn 18:40, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've found the list I was thinking of, it was in the 1937 edition of Burke's Landed Gentry. A quick count reveals there were about 150 visitations, which would indeed be too long for a table in the article. Maybe it would be better as a List of English heraldic visitations which could be linked to the article. I'll need to find a PD source though as simply copying the list from Burke's would be a copyvio. Dr pda 00:17, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • It would be interesting to know from the visitations what houses have blended / assimilated other houses and what are the current representations of the 'say - early' visitations. For example, was a coat of arms awarded to a house known for being an excellent brewer? If so, is the current representation of that coat of arms one of the fine beers we enjoy today ? Dharp66 22:27, 18 October 2006 (UTC)Dharp[reply]
  • Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Ruhrfisch 03:51, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Slipknot (band) edit

November 11, 2006 Review here
March 14, 2007 Review here
December 23, 2007 Review here

I'd like somebody to give a review of this article. I have spent the past few days working on this article and I submitted it as good article nominee, which it achieved. Ultimately I would like this article to be a featured article and I would like some peer response and input on how either me or other editors could get this article up to that standard. Rezter (talk) 13:19, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

J Milburn edit

Well, I've found a few minutes, and, as promised at WP:HMM, here's my review.

  • "The band underwent many line up changes before releasing their highly successful début album Slipknot in 1999, during the recording process of which; guitarist Jim Root replaced Josh Brainard, which was the final line up change of the band." That sentence is rather clumsy- perhaps it would be better to say something like "The band underwent many line up changes before releasing their highly successful début album Slipknot in 1999, before reaching the final lineup of _______________ during the album's recording."
  • "Since which the band have released a further 2 albums and are expected to release a 4th album in 2008." Perhaps name the albums, so as not to lean towards recent events? Also, perhaps "since which time" instead of "since which"?
  • More information about the pre-formation Slipknot would be good if it is available- it's currently just a list of names. What did they do? Could it be bulked out enough for its own subsection? At the moment, the freestanding paragraph looks a little out of place, especially as single sentence paragraphs are frowned upon.
  • Grammatically, the sentence is a little odd (I'm not going to say it is wrong, as I probably don't understand semi-colons as well as I should) I would phrase it as "Early formations of a band were beginning to form as early as 1992 with the core band members, Shawn Crahan, Anders Colsefini and Paul Gray, enlisting the help of guitarists Donnie Steele and Quan "Meld" Nong." Also, repeating the word 'form' twice jarrs a tad.
  • "The band continued to develop their vision of what the band would be," Perhaps "The members continued to develop their vision of what the band would be,"?
  • "band Sipknot after" Why is that italicised?
  • "after their song"- after which song? Maybe "after their song of the same name"
  • "(which subsequently evolved in to (sic) which appears on their début album)" Song name in speech marks.
  • "until they thought the band was ready" Repetition ruins this line. Perhaps 'until their music was fully developed.'
  • "By this time the band had a lot"- By what time?
  • "to make a recording," I'd delink that, looks like over-linking to me.
  • "local studio, SR Audio with Sean McMahon." You need to close the parenthesis with a comma after 'Audio'
  • "April 4th Slipknot"- I'd add the year, and then link both the date and the year.
  • "to realise again" I'm British too, but this is an American topic, so the spelling should be American- 'realize'.
  • "released Mate.Feed.Kill.Repeat. on Halloween." More details about the release- date and year (on top of the fact you say it is Halloween) and label.
  • Is that considered the band's debut album, or an EP? Perhaps you could make that clear?
  • Why are all the references clumped at the end of the paragraph? Doing that kind of defeats the point of footnotes.
  • I've just noticed the complex heading hierarchy you are using. I would personally remove the sub-sub-sub headings- ('first recordings and live performances', 'more changes and growing popularity', etc) compare to other featured articles on similar topics (Slayer, Nightwish, Tool (band)...) and you'll see that most articles don't do that.
  • Actually, now that I have said that, I see that it would probably be best to rename the first history subsection to 'Early years (pre-1998)' so you can bulk that first lonely line into a paragraph and put that as the first paragraph in the section.
To give an idea about what those two above changes look like, I have implemented them in my sandbox if you want to take a look.
  • "being heard by the right people" That isn't NPOV. Say who these people are, not that they are 'the [adjective] people'.
  • "By the summer of 1997 Slipknot went back to the studio, they were constantly honing their craft and writing new material and they were writing music which required more vocal melody." Again, seems a little POV, plus, seasons vary by nationality. Try- "By mid-1997, Slipknot had returned to the studio having developed new material requiring more vocal melody." As that is still rather subjective, a reference is definitely needed.
  • "band Stone Sour, this" Link? Also, a full stop would be better than a comma.
  • "The gap on percussion was the filled by Greg "Cuddles" Welts who was to become the first and only member to be fired from the band, again there was a spot free on percussion it was filled by Chris Fehn." Another clumsy sentence- try "The gap on percussion was th filled by Greg "Cuddles" Welts, who subsequently became the first and only member to be fired from the band. He was replaced Chris Fehn." More details on the firing would be nice, too.
  • What does "attained numbers" mean? That's not a phrase I am familiar with.
  • Again, it would be better to put the citations after the facts, rather than at the end of the paragraphs.

Right, I will have to finish this review another time. Overall, the article looks to be well researched and have excellent potential, but needs to be tweaked at a structural level, and needs a thorough copy-edit. I can see this article reaching featured level with a little more work, and if this review gets a couple of editors having a good sift through the article, I suspect that it won't take too much more work. J Milburn (talk) 21:08, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your review, LaraLove did a copy-edit of the article and I have adjusted the article along with some of your recommendation's. I would like to see what you make of the rest of the article if you ever have time to finish your review. Rezter (talk) 22:53, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Found some more time, so I will finish the review now.

  • "In July 2001, Q magazine named Slipknot as one of the "50 Heaviest Albums of All Time"." I would call the magazine Q instead of Q magazine, as that is the accepted title. Also, the magazine name should be in italics.
  • This may be a little rich coming from me (I overuse them) but you continually use commas in a way which I do not think is correct. For instance, this line really hits me- "The band had created a huge fan base and the expectations for their follow up album were great, Slipknot went back in to the studio in early 2001 to work on a new album." Why is that comma there? It seems to be two separate sentences- it should be treated as such, or perhaps just stick an 'and' in there. In any case, the sentence is a little vague.
  • "In the same year Slipknot released their second visual output with the released of their DVD Disasterpieces." Reference?
  • "2002 also saw the first serious musical projects outside of Slipknot." Make it clear that this means side projects of the members. As it reads now, you mean any serious musical project at all, whether related to Slipknot or not.
  • "their band Stone Sour" Link?
  • I'd lose the accents on 'début'. They don't seem to be needed in English- [8].
  • "Root, Taylor, and Gray also contributed to the album. In 2006, Root and Taylor once again returned with Stone Sour releasing their second album Come What(ever) May. Jordison drummed for several bands while on tour including; Ministry (2006-2007) and Korn (2007). He also produced 3 Inches of Blood's third album Fire Up the Blades which was released in early 2007. Later in the year Crahan revealed a new side project in the form of Dirty Little Rabbits." That whole section is horribly unreferenced.
  • "Slipknot are known for their often chaotic and energetic live shows" Reference?
  • ""[are] not generally quotable on a family website"," According to whom?
  • "The band is known for its attention-grabbing image." Reference?
  • "The members wear matching uniform jumpsuits and homemade masks." Ditto.
  • "The masks have been subject of much criticism, generally thought of as a gimmick to try sell their product." Reference? If you are hoping to get this to featured article, everything is going to need to be well referenced.
  • "several band members" Repetition of this phrase needs to be dealt with.
  • Section title- "Band Members"- decap 'Members'.
  • References in regards to dates and numbers would be good.

Right, I have now gone through the whole thing. I am happy to continue with general comments (for instance, I really would reccomend not just sticking all the paragraph's references at the end of it) if you like. J Milburn (talk) 15:08, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK I have looked over review and here's what I've done/think.
  • Done
  • Done
  • Sourced
  • Done
  • Done
  • Done
  • Sourced
  • Sourced
  • Done
  • Done
  • Done
  • A lot of criticism comes from supposedly "true" metal fans. I can't be sure of what is considered a reliable source for this, I have added one from Urban Dictionary
  • Done
  • Done
  • Could you be more specific?
I have actually order two new books [9] and [10] on top of the one I already have [11]. Once I get both of these two books I intend to resource as much as possible. I was thinking of using a system similar to the one used on the U2#References article were they list the books and foot note each statement with a page number. Do you think this is a good system or do you know of a better one. Thansk again for your help. Rezter (talk) 20:10, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Today I received my two new books and I have resourced the majority of the "pre-1998" section and a few misc sources throughout the article. The only thing I haven't addressed on your list is "References in regards to dates and numbers would be good." which I don't completely understand so could you be more specific please? Rezter (talk) 20:37, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Urban dictionary is not a good source, at all- I'd remove that. I like that system of citing books in footnotes. Sorry about the number and dates thing- I was working down the article, and so it was obvious to me (at the time) that I was referring to the discography section. Sorry about that, I was probably rushing to finish. In any case, I was referring to the release dates and the sales figures in the discography section. I'll have a quick glance over the article now. J Milburn (talk) 22:04, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The very first paragraph in the article is a single line- why not just make that part of the next paragraph?
  • Sorry- I have just realised that the number of albums sold (or, at least, the certifications) are cited.
  • I wouldn't bold the awards they have won- I would just tack "(winner)" on the end.
  • Yeah, just to repeat now I have seen it in the context of the article, the new reference system looks great.
  • Great to see the number of footnotes in use, as well as the fact that they cite the specific fact rather than the paragraph- the article is now looking great, but I haven't reread the prose yet.
  • Sorry, I've just realised I misinterpreted my own comment too- no wonder you did! By 'dates and numbers', I meant the dates which the members were part of the band, and the numbers which the members have on their jumpsuits.

Well, I have not gone over it in as much detail as I did last time, but it is looking far better, and certainly doesn't seem far from being ready for FAC. Good work. J Milburn (talk) 22:25, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Peer review by LaraLove edit

By request, I've reviewed the article. As a copy-editor, I went ahead and took care of that along the way. In my changes, I removed the album cover image. Fair use only applies to such images in the article specific to the album.

Some additions I feel should be made include:

  • Did they have any musical influences?
  • Why was Welts fired?
  • When did they sign to Roadrunner Records?
  • The article states "mixed reviews", but does not include any negative reviews. Rather than two good reviews, one positive, one negative.
  • Has there been any controversy with any of their songs or performances?

References should not be placed mid-sentence. It should come immediately following punctuation, no spaces before, no punctuation after. Also, it isn't necessary for the lead to be referenced as it is a summary of the article and any information should be referenced there. If the reference that I moved to the infobox that was reverted is going to stay in the lead, it needs to be moved to the end of the sentence.

If you're going for GA, you may want to discuss changes made by the reviewer on the talk page before reverting them. Drop a line on my talk page if you have any questions. LaraLove 21:40, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for your help with this article.
  • I could try find sources which state the artist's musical influences if you think that it will make the article better. Do you maybe have an example of an article that has this so I could have more of an idea of format and structure.
  • I have added why Welts was fired.
  • I'm having trouble finding out the exact date that they signed to Roadrunner records.
  • I have removed the "mixed reviews" section as most reviews are positive.
  • The only incident I have heard of is this: [12] personally I don't think it's worth mentioning as that is the only story I have heard of.
Thanks once again for all your help and any more suggestions are always welcome. Rezter (talk) 22:53, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style. If you would find such a review helpful, please click here. Thanks, APR t 01:20, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Docklands Light Railway edit

A lot of unverifiable work has now been removed etc, not by me much. I was hoping to ask how else this could be improved in order to reach Good Article status. Also, does the Future section present any problems? Simply south 19:42, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Some comments:
    • The prose in the lead is a little choppy and could do with tightening, as the sentences there are rather short: "The DLR system is undergoing constant expansion. There are also almost 40 stations on the system."
    • Some questions it might be useful to answer in the article: What voltage is the power supply? How did the corporation acquire the land to build track and stations upon? Is it profitable? How many passengers use it daily? Has it received praise or condemnation from various groups? Any similar systems elsewhere?

Hope this helps, BillC 22:44, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • My comments:
    • I suspect that the GA reviewers will want to see more citations; one per paragraph for the body of the article is a good rule to aim for. It seems that most of the sources that you're using are produced by the DLR itself. Are there any outside sources, books, newspaper articles that you might be able to cite? I agree with BillC that it would be very helpful to have some information about how the public and outside commentators felt about the DLR. Was there any controversy about its construction? I know there was quite a bit of controversy about the Docklands project generally.
    • A source that I just found, which you might want to take a look at:
    • Personally I don't see a problem with the "future developments" section, but some GA reviewers might object to the list of stations in the middle of the article.

Let me know if you have any further questions.MLilburne 17:53, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The list of stations is a bit controversial as it also is under List of London Underground stations. Even though the system is completely seperate, many things are shared with the LU and so it was decided that for these reasons, the stations should stay there. Simply south
Would it make sense to leave the stations in the LU list, but also to have a different list that consists of only DLR stations? Seems to me that would be a reasonable compromise. MLilburne 18:53, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Scars (band) edit

I don't want this article to be of Featured Article status. I know the criteria behind Featured Articles and know this band's relatively short background would not accommodate a Featured Article status article. I just want it to be a good article, an article that will befit the high quality of talent behind this group. And yes, I'm speaking from a biased perspective, but I do think that sometimes fans can create awesome things. Anyway, this isn't about fanhood, lest this run afoul of NPOV, but rather QUALITY. And that's what I'm aiming for -- a quality article. (Krushsister 04:06, 23 October 2006 (UTC))[reply]

  • The intro paragraph is very long
  • The article uses jargon that may be unfamiliar to a reader, especially non-native English speakers. What does "Steve McLaughlin was pounding the skins for the band at around this time" mean?
  • The overall tone of the article seems a bit like it's written more for a tabloid newspaper than an encyclopedia. It's a bit on the casual side. Neil916 (Talk) 11:06, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I made some minor edits, in order to bring the table of contents to the top, and to make the text flow a bit better. I hope you don't mind, and feel free to revert it if you want.

  • I agree with Neil that some of the wording is ambiguous. Could you rephrase the "pounding the skins" line?
  • Could you also add some more sources? You obviously know a lot about this band. I have never heard of them, and would like to know where the info came from.
  • I think you're doing a great job with this. Thank you for contributing to Wiki.Jeffpw 15:27, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Needs expanded lead, which should act as a summary of the article and affirm the band's importance, however minor.
  • Trivia section needs general cleanup - either accommodate the information into the body of the article (providing it's encyclopaedic) or remove it.
  • Generally needs more inline cites. Also, they need a cleanup - author, article name, magazine/website name, date of publication, last accessed date etc. LuciferMorgan 18:43, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Underground (stories) edit

  • Reading through this article, it seems clear to me that it is not yet FA status - really just looking for feedback on exactly how it needs to be improved to reach that, and for feedback on which parts of the article need strengthening in general. Phl3djo 15:09, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The sections are often only a paragraph long - try to expand them or else link them up under more general headings. Trebor 23:40, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mousepad edit

I've been having some minor conflict with an anon user who's introducing some of what I consider overlinking/redundancy/stylistic problems into the article. (Take a look at the history to see the full extent of the situation.) I'm not sure how to make's edits into better ones, but I don't want to discourage someone from editing; I think a peer review would be helpful so that somebody uninvolved in this conflict can step in and take a look at actual content. I don't think I need mediation or anything, but a fresh eye would be appreciated. Switchercat talkcont 01:59, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Incidentally, this article still isn't the best, but I figured it'd get more response here than on the talk page. Switchercat talkcont 02:07, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The article needs to be referenced throughout.

It's unclear in places, such as: The invention of the mouse pre-existed the invention of the mousepad by about seventeen years - does that mean the mousepad was invented 17 years after the mouse? ...and published in 1979 - what (was) published in 1979?

Some of the sentences don't show encyclopaedic quality: The Corepad Deskpad XXXL, possibly the largest pad on the market, is a massive 90cm x 45cm. - the use of possibly doesn't inspire the reader to have confidence in the rest of the article. The use of "massive" is unnecessary (and I suppose slightly point-of-view).

The lists within the text are inelegant, not especially useful and incomplete so cut them down to the main ones (I'm looking at the ones of manufacturers and possible materials).

I think you've dealt with anon correctly so far, and should continue trying to talk to him, but also clean-up or revert his edits as necessary to keep the article decent. Trebor 20:06, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sustainable Development Strategy in Canada edit

  • Hello, I am the creator of this article and I am requesting a peer review. I was hoping that at some point in the near future I could escalate the article to a FAR. Octopus-Hands 00:18, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hi, I believe we've met. :) You mean an FAC, not FAR. Anyway, here are some suggestions:
      • The article currently focuses on simply listing the aims of the SDSC. There are many more kinds of information required to give a complete view of the topic:
      • What is the history of the SDSC? For how long has it been in effect? When was it first proposed? And by whom? Is the SDSC the result of a law that has been made? If not, who enacted these directives?
      • The implementation of the SDSC is somewhat vague. What is actually being done at the national, provincial, and local levels?
      • There are a lot of very short sections. Some of them may be merged together. This will make the table of contents shorter.
      • Does the concept of the SDSC have its critics?
      • The only sources used in the article are the official websites of the Canadian government. This means only one perspective is given in the article.
      • In fact, a lot of the material seems copied directly from the Government websites, with the wording changed only a little.
      • Has there been press coverage of the SDSC?
    • As I mentionned, this is a very strong first effort, but it will need to take a much broader view in order to become a featured article. Andrew Levine 00:32, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • After a quick look there are a few things which stood out to me.
    • Picture is too big and crowds screens, and I am not what it has to do with the topic.
    • Too many sections. Most are only one paragraph. These need to be combined into a simpler structure.
    • I did not see a section on any oppositon to this program.Birgitte§β ʈ Talk 18:47, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gaetano Bedini edit

This article require cleanup :) Please help me ;) --Genovese 13:36, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Prison Break edit

This article recently became a Good Article. I'm looking for feedback that would make this a featured article candidate. Jtrost (T | C | #) 13:35, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that there's much, if anything, that needs to be edited before going after FA nomination. The article is concise, very well-referenced, and is devoid of any fancruft. The article is currently a GA; I think it deserves A-Class status after this peer review if the future FA nomination fails. —Cliff smith 02:26, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually, I think that there's one thing that could be significantly improved—the references. There's plenty of them, but their appearance can be improved by using the notes and refs technique employed by other articles like Red vs. Blue, which is a FA. Check it out and you'll see what I mean. —Cliff smith 05:31, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is a very comprehensive article, in fact, I was looking for who to thank for writing it. I guess it's just an example of the positive side of Wikipedia (collaboration). :) 01:09, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

AC/DC edit

This article reached the GA status about a month ago and now I'd like to know how it could be improved. Any feedback would be appreciated. Thanks. No-Bullet 20:22, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Upon reading the Article, this is what I found that should be changed:
  • Per WP:DATE the only time a date should be hyperlinked is if it is one of significant importance, or if the full date is used
Done. No-Bullet 04:05, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • 2 of the smallest sections are influences and discography, the Influences should talk about who influenced them, and possibly who they influenced. In a Band article, the influence section should be one of the biggest sections. see Pink Floyd for an example of this. The discography should have the album covers for all major albums, as for what qualifies major is up to you.
Added covers to the discography section. I didn't find an influence section on Pink Floyd, but I'll try to expand it. No-Bullet 04:05, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Consider copyediting the article. I diddn't look for spelling or grammar, but a copy edit is a good thing to do.
  • Consider expanding the history section into it's own article with a good couple of paragraphs that gives the reader a good understanding of the general history.
  • Some things to reference:
  • From Early years "...was sacked after passing out on stage (reportedly because someone spiked his drink)..."
  • From Continued Success "It was their sixth album, Highway To Hell...that propelled them into the top ranks of hard rock acts..."

Hope I could help, Wikipedia's False Prophet holla at me Improve Me 00:28, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks :) No-Bullet 01:40, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • All direct quotations from any bandmembers need inline citations.
Done. No-Bullet 02:36, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Any observations on the band's success/lack of, their legacy etc. would need inline citations also. If they weren't inline cited, this'd be accused of original research (when I believe the nominator wants this as FA). LuciferMorgan 17:38, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Carbon nanotube edit

This article seems like it deals with many areas of the subject. Could you please provide some comments/feedback for how this article could be improved. Any help will be appreciated! Snailwalker | talk 01:08, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The biggest thing that stands out here (and also the most annoying to fix, thanks to cite.php) is the references; linking individual articles is good but the full citation should be written out, as static links can change/die/etc, and it is useful for people familiar with the field to see at a glance who or which paper is being cited. There are also some references in the text in the (Soandso, 2002) format, but they aren't and can't be linked to the refs list because the names aren't given. Other stuff:

  • The lead says "recently discovered" - even the 1991 date isn't really that recent.
Well compared to the history of graphite, diamonds and other carbon based types, I'd say that 1991 is pretty recently
  • The first image caption says "three types of carbon nanotubes" - I don't see three types in that image, I see two orientations of one thing, which is kind of a generic hollow pipe. I don't think this image is especially explanatory. The second, animated one could also be slowed down a bit.
First one done, I'm not that good at gif-images, so I don't know if anyone else can update the image?
  • The history section is very name-heavy, which would be fine for a review where readers could be expected to know the people involved, but for an encyclopedia article they can be devolved to the references.
  • Add a 3D image of armchair vs zigzag tubes?
  • Some sections are very stubby - fullerite, thermal properties, laser ablation, etc.
Some done
  • In the properties section, there's a sentence about nanotubes being one of the strongest materials known to humans. I know nanotubes are a favorite of the futurist/scifi/etc. people, but this just sounds strange, like there's an expectation of stronger materials being known to some other species.
  • Some numerical data is uncited (magnetic moment of nanotori, nanotube density, etc.)
  • Applications section is obviously listy - it would probably be more useful to choose a few important applications and explain them in prose - especially the bike, since the image at the bottom kind of comes out of nowhere. Perhaps create a subarticle for applications.
  • History/timeline section should have its own subarticle.
  • More information on the chemistry, rather than the industrial processes, of nanotube formation would be useful. In particular, what molecular events trigger the formation of nanotubes vs buckyballs, single-walled vs multi-walled, etc.

Opabinia regalis 04:23, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot for the comments, I'm working on them right now. More comments would be appreciated. What do you mean be the references? Snailwalker | talk 11:20, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Nice work (especially the applications section)! I like the new header image, with the question of whether it would be better to leave the animation in the top right corner and put the new one with the explanation of the nomenclature? Also, now that the history timeline has its own article, the history and discovery sections can probably be merged into a single section with only prose.
The reference problem comes from the fact that there are just static external links to the articles being cited, but no standard citation giving the authors' names, the title, the journal, etc. This makes it impossible to connect the nonstandard parenthetical citations with the references list, and presents a problem if Nature for example ever changes the internal structure of its website and breaks the links. To fix it, you'd have to a) convert the parenthetical citations to be consistent with the rest of the article, and b) give the standard citation format in addition to the link. (There is a template {{cite journal}} used for formatting journal citations like those to Nature; IMO it's obnoxiously long, but it gives you an idea of what parameters are needed.) Fixing it would be rather tedious since the references are in cite.php format and therefore scattered throughout the text rather than concentrated in one place, but there may be a tool floating around for extracting the references that would make it easier to work with. (My opinion: I wouldn't bother fixing it unless the goal is GA or FA status. But that's just me.)
References updated Snailwalker | talk 11:50, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The most significant content omission I see in this article is the lack of chemical or molecular-level information. For example, the article says "Under high pressure, nanotubes can merge together, trading some sp2 bonds for sp3 bonds", but there's no mention of the chemical mechanism. The same goes for the reasons nanotubes specifically are formed under the conditions used in the industrial processes. I'd like to know what causes the "curl" in a flat sheet vs a single-walled tube vs a parchment-scroll multiwalled tube, and whether the production conditions can be tuned to give more of one type or another (assuming they don't produce homogeneous results already). Also a comparison to the internal electronic properties of helicenes would be interesting if the data is available. Opabinia regalis 22:36, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm the way I understand it, it seems that scientist don't really know what makes the nanotubes, they just add a lot of heat and hope it'll work. That's why when you make carbon nanotubes you'll get a lof of different tubes in various lengths scattered over a large area, you can't really control the process.Snailwalker | talk 11:50, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • A topic of current interest with nanotubes and other nanomaterials is environmental and health impacts. You may consider adding a section regarding these issues. Leeannedy 20:43, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Electric Six edit

I've done a lot of work on this article, and it is currently listed as a good article. My perception is that it isn't ready for the Featured Article process; I want to find out what it needs to attain that status, but I realize that wasting everyone's time by nominating it for FA isn't the way to find that out. Thanks! Dylan 20:01, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Ruhrfisch 02:38, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks - I've incorporated what I can from that. Dylan 04:07, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'd like to see some more content in the article - at the moment it's mostly album releases and line-up changes. For example there's nothing in the article on any notable tours that Electric Six have had or on major festivals they've played at. Also pictures haven't got Fair Use rationale which means they don't meet the FA criteria (and shouldn't have passed GA!). Alexj2002 20:32, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Christian views on contraception edit

I'd like to get this article really tight and submit it for good article review and status. Here are some things I am thinking it would be good to have reviewed for

  1. Where it might currently grade as per Wikipedia:Version_1.0_Editorial_Team/Assessment.
  2. Is anything important being left out? Emphasized wrongly, too strongly, or not enough? Etc.
  3. Does it make good sense to a non-expert?
  4. Etc.

CyberAnth 01:04, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • A couple of things, mainly regarding aesthetics:
  1. I don't think the lead is quite appropriate - it sounds like the opening to an essay, rather than to an encylopaedic article.
  2. Shouldn't the "Catholic Collaboration Effort" box be on the talk page?
  3. It's strange to have Main article: XXX piped to redlinks.
  4. The TOC seems oppressive to the visual flow of the article. If it could be moved to the right, it may look more recognisable as a Wikipedia entry.
  5. Is "as one can historically trace" normal prosaic style? "As can be historically traced" is probably more objective.
  6. The long quotes in the pictureboxes should be moved into the body of the article, with the picture there merely as a reference.
  7. Reference #44 appears to be broken.

Hope some of this helps! Seegoon 23:04, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks tons! This is extremely helpful!
Anyone else have any other helpful points like these?
CyberAnth 06:32, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • A couple of things:
  1. The article seems to rely on blockquotes a little too much. Could you summarize more of those quotes?
  2. There doesn't seem to be anything on the attitudes of the Orthodox church towards contraception. Orthodoxy is a very significant branch of Christianity, and the article will be incomplete without a discussion of Orthodox views.

Hope these are useful to you. MLilburne 09:55, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Protestant section samples viewpoints from moderate to conservative, but I don't see any liberal Protestant denominations or clergy mentioned. Durova 02:00, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks much. You have both made excellent and helpful points! CyberAnth 03:26, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In my quick read I saw no mention of christian views on ecological concerns. Where is the debate (to use the language of Genesis) about the possible conflict inherent in human 'multiplying' and in exercising appropraite 'dominion' over creation? (Just nigel 15:59, 29 October 2006 (UTC))[reply]

Hamilton-Burr duel edit

Lead, addressing issues related to failed featured article status.Sabar 05:45, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So much work to be done. I lost what I had written earlier. Everything I write will be somewhat hasty, so I apologize. Keep your citations behind your period and quotation marks. Put the intentions of either dueler before "The duel". Mention Burr's killer intention first. A sentence like "Burr's intentions, simply, were to mortally wound Hamilton." This would be fine. Then add your detail about him being a good shot, and wanting to shoot Hamilton in the heart, etc. Use your templates. Cquote can be used here: "rubbed his face, lips, and temples with spirits of hartshorn, applied it to his neck and breast, and to the wrists and palms of his hands, and endeavoured to pour some into his mouth." Hamilton revived a short time later whereupon he remarked on a still undischarged pistol in the pistol case and claimed that he had no intention on firing at Burr. Hamilton remained silent except for answering questions. The last of the letter says Hamilton informed Hosack that "his lower extremities had lost all feeling, manifesting to me that he entertained no hopes that he should long survive." [18] And here:"I have resolved, if our interview is conducted in the usual manner, and it pleases God to give me the opportunity, to reserve and throw away my first fire, and I have thoughts even of reserving my second fire."[21] And here:"General Hamilton says he cannot imagine what Dr. Cooper may have alluded, unless it were to a conversation at Mr. Taylor's, in Albany, last winter (at which he and General Hamilton were present). General Hamilton cannot recollect distinctly the particulars of that conversation, so as to undertake to repeat them, without running the risk of varying or omitting what might be deemed important circumstances. The expressions are entirely forgotten, and the specific ideas imperfectly remembered; but to the best of his recollection it consisted of comments on the political principles and views of Colonel Burr, and the results that might be expected from them in the event of his election as Governor, without reference to any particular instance of past conduct or private character."[11] So use them. The difference between "Background" and "Cause" is blurry at best. Either substantially differentiate them, or merge them. Your lead, which has already been discussed by my predecessor, is sloppy and the posterboy of run-on sentences. Again with the intentions thing: your coverage of the fact that in no way Hamilton planned on killing Burr is shotty. Please state this fact first, then cover details. Can we have a picture of where Weehawken is? Like you did with the shot of the monument by overview. Get the place of Weehawken like that, and find a suitably licensed picture of the monument. It's out there. --Evan(Salad dressing is the milk of the infidel!) 11:05, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, I did some cleaning up. I need to think on the wording of how to place the men's intentions before the duel, since one of the sources of his intentions comes after the fact. Sabar 19:42, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I started this over the summer and likely won't have the time to finish it any time in the next year. It is based on my cursory readings of primary and secondary sources. Really, someone just needs to assemble all of the primary accounts of the duel, as they were given over the next few decades, and read a few of the most recent secondary sources (Fleming, most importantly) if you want to make this featured. I don't know who initiated the last featured article candidacy, but needless to say, it was premature. savidan(talk) (e@) 17:15, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The lead could use expansion. This is probably the most famous duel in United States history. It's certainly the only one to involve a sitting vice president. Greater depth on the background is probably appropriate. If I remember correctly, Hamilton actually received the greatest number of electoral college votes in 1800 and Burr was second. Hamilton broke the congressional deadlock by throwing all of his votes behind third place Thomas Jefferson. Then (I think this was subsequently) Hamilton campaigned against Burr's unsuccessful bid for governorship of New York State. It ought to be explicit that Burr actually spent the last eight months of his vice presidency on the run from felony arrest warrants in two different states. To expand the aftermath a bit, this duel is the origin of the rivalry between Columbia University and Princeton University (Hamilton was a Columbia man, Burr was a Princetonian).[13] Also, has historical analysis of the duel or its participants shifted over the years? Durova 01:50, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Zoophilia edit

A failed featured article candidate. Needs a check on neutrality (frequently disputed, see talk page) and how this can best be improved. Further points of interest are if the terms zoophilia and bestiality should be in one single article or two separate articles as the terms are not synonymous as some people incorrectly assume and what images would be fitting for such an article as some see the current artwork as portraying a too colorful and unrealistic image. Any comment is welcome though! BabyNuke 14:08, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • It is 110kb and a mess. I am not even going to try to read it unless it is considerably reduced. The order of sections at the bottom (notes, external links, category template) is also wrong - look at a featured article to see it done correctly. Trebor 23:29, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]