Jump to content

Wikipedia:Peer review/April 2006

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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

Tikal the Echidna

[edit]

1st peer review

I'm striving for featured article status, so what do you think can be done to improve the article? --71.105.12.115 04:49, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It looks good to me - well done. Perhaps expand "personality" just a tiny little bit if possible. RN 05:09, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I'll try to fix those problems. Are there any other suggestions? --71.105.10.216 18:37, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


  • This article is a bit list-weighty; in other words, some of the lists should be converted to prose (paragraph form). For example, see "Voice actresses".
  • There are a few sections that are too short and that should be either expanded or merged. For example, Voice actresses is/are a bit short.
  • The lead of this article may be too long, or may contain too many paragraphs. For an article of this length, the lead should contain 2-3 paragraphs. Please follow guidelines at WP:LEAD; be aware that the lead should adequately summarize the article.
  • This article can use copyediting to ensure that the it exemplifies some of Wikipedia's best work. For example,
    • Starting randomly at Personality, has tried to stop her father in amicable ways and have never once have->has
    • In the cartoon, Sonic X, first comma unnecessary
    • also acts similar to her game -> similarly
    • Constrastly to the game, however Contrastly isn't a word
    • and perhaps other copyediting fixes for grammar/spelling are needed.
  • Thanks, AndyZ t 23:42, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I'll try to fix it. Is there any other advice? --71.118.84.247 04:18, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Every paragraph should have a citation. --Hetar 05:47, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Now that would be a bit strict; every section should have a citation if possible, but every paragraph may be a bit extreme, depending upon the nature of the article. AndyZ t 19:30, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I saw a featured article have four references before (Tikal's article has five)...unless that's not a citation...Anyhow I put references in the right place, reduced multiple links in the same article, adjusted disambiguation pages, expanded sections, merged short sections, alphabetized categories, and copyedited. Unfortunately, I can't reduce the resolution of the Sonic X image or make the Sonic Pinball Party picture any larger. I'm sorry! But that won't stop it from becoming a featured article, would it? --71.104.188.113 05:48, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So what other improvements can I make to the article? --71.104.189.245 03:55, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I really would like to have the article reach featured status - I've been working hard to improve it. So how else can this article be improved? --71.118.80.60 18:04, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bangladesh

[edit]

This article has improved a lot in the last month, most notably with the inclusion of a lot of relevant images, very detailed references for almost all the facts quoted, and standard sections as per country pages. The language has also been NPOVized to a great extent. So, I think we can move this into FAC, but before that, I'd like to hear other people's opninions in avenues for improvement. Thanks. --Ragib 05:22, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The only remaining point, IMO, is reducing size from 49kb to lower 40s, which is a reasonable figure for articles on nations. Rama's Arrow 05:28, 13 March 2006 (UTC) -> Done , size now 46KB, which should be ok --Ragib 03:16, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
With all respect, given the high level of referencing in this article, this advice is rather arbitrary and/or infeasible — as long as the article stays on topic and summary style is used, arbitrary length cutoffs shouldn't matter (FAC objections based on such cutoffs have been repeatedly over-ruled by the FAC Director — see Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Chetwynd, British Columbia for just one great example). Also, note that this article is 37kb when only the "References" and "External links" sections are cut out — this is much less than the 44kb Australia. Saravask 23:47, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Also, please check that there is no glaring difference between the account of the Bangladesh Liberation War/genocide in the Pakistan article and this one - Pakistan is also prepping for FAC. Rama's Arrow 05:42, 13 March 2006 (UTC) ->Actually, Pakistan's page describes it in one sentence in the history section and the text in this article is just an elaboration. Since Bangladeshi history starts at this point, an elaborated treatment of the war in a whole paragraph is needed, and done here in a crisp, brief manner.--Ragib 03:16, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The name of Bangladesh in the Bengali script sounds like bangladashe (the Bengali script is a perpetual problem). Also, the map in the infobox is not correct.The green patch depicting Bangladesh in the infobox map appears to have skewed to the left.
The portion where the highest point in Bangladesh is described (in Geography and Climate section) appears somewhat confusing, it takes time to make out what the writer is trying to say.--Dwaipayanc 05:51, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The Bangla script problem is actually a client side issue ... it happens with all indic scripts. Actually, this is correctly rendered in a unicode enabled browser. I assume that you are looking into it from Firefox/XP. In any case, to view unicode Bangla text correctly, that indic text support needs to be enabled in Windows XP. The text renders correctly in IE, and also Linux/Firefox and other browsers.
I agree that the highest point is debated. Keokeradong was always thought to be so, but a satellite survey about 2 years ago showed that's not correct. But whatever that is, I agree that the text should reflect that clearly. Thanks for the observation. --Ragib 06:09, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I agree abt the genocide part, there is need to be careful there. Also, a previous review mentioned the lack of attention given to Ershad, which still remains a problem.--ppm 05:59, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The cultural section needs a lot of work. Some of the prose is South Asian English, not English English, and some of the sentences are clumsy. Frex, "Contemporary Bangladesh keeps producing a substantial amount of litearture of all forms." That makes literature sound like the jute harvest. It would be better to say something about the number of newspapers, magazines, and books published, literacy, readership, and perhaps to mention the names of some well-known contemporary writers. Is there an article on Bengali literature?

The history section contains a lurid sentence which runs something like "Rape of Bangladesh was one of the worst genoicides in history, as bad as the genoicide in Cambodia" and there's a link to an emotional website. It was horrible, inexcusable, vile ... I hadn't realized that it was so terrible ... and I shudder to think that the perpetrators are still living at their ease. Still, it wasn't as bad as Cambodia, where Pol Pot managed to kill 25% of the population. The West Pakistanis didn't manage that in Bangladesh. Now perhaps "bad" is measured by population numbers, but that's a clumsy scale to use ... wiping out 100% of an Amazon tribe of 1000 people would seem "less bad" than killing 2000 people out of a population of 10,000,000. Perhaps you should leave out the judgements about more or less bad and just present the facts ... that's horrifying enough.

I'm sure that there are more nits to pick, but those were the biggest problems I saw. Zora 06:04, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There is an article on Bangla literature, which last time I checked was a copy of the relevant portion in the entry Bangla. In general, increasing culture makes the article longer, specially when we are already missing art and architecture there. Maybe we should shorten history?--ppm 06:10, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'll review in detail after the article is summarised and copyedited. Regards, =Nichalp «Talk»= 06:14, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


At the bottom of the article is a table on Holidays which virtually replicates the page on Public holidays in Bangladesh. One of the two tables should be removed - probably the one on the main article - and the information merged into the last paragraph of the Culture section which mentions Eid. Green Giant 06:58, 13 March 2006 (UTC) (Done--Ragib 03:16, 6 April 2006 (UTC))[reply]
Thanks, I've removed the holiday section. Most of the holidays are mentioned in the Culture section. --Ragib 02:51, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just something I noticed right away were three links in the middle of the history section that need to be converted into references or something. Looking at the page in the printable version makes the section look ugly with the URLs present in the paragraph as opposed to at the bottom like the references. Pepsidrinka 04:11, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for pointing that out, I've changed them to refs/notes format. I couldn't notice them in the normal view ... the printable view suggestion is great indeed. Thanks. --Ragib 08:07, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Another thing about the references; try keeping a consistent pattern with regards to the punctuation. I don't know if there is correct format, but have the references preceding the punctuations (e.g., commas and periods) or have them after them. Right now, some of the references come after a period and others come before a comma, it just looks un-professional. Pepsidrinka 04:20, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Nice article. Good amount of content. Two quick points now, I'll add more later.
  1. The article needs a copyedit to bring a better tone and style. For example, the second paragraph in the lead, just uses the words "east" and "west" to refer to East Pakistan and West Pakistan respectively. It has phrases like "ruled by the west" that need clarification. (Done--Ragib 03:16, 6 April 2006 (UTC))[reply]
  2. Image:PakSurrender.jpg has a non-existent template as a license. -- Sundar \talk \contribs 10:39, 23 March 2006 (UTC) (Replaced. --Ragib 03:16, 6 April 2006 (UTC))[reply]

Encyclopedic indeed

[edit]

A page representing the highest wiki-tradition, a truly encyclopedic page, The page has all the ingredients to migrate to the status of a featured page. It is really heartening to note that as of now the page has no redlinks, as such the user shall have the luxury to dig deep into the contents covered in this page. I am re- reading the page very carefully, and shall surely come back with more comments, if required. --Bhadani 08:05, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The only red link in Bangladesh now in Khanjan.I don't know what is that. Please try to make it blue! And as you guys have already discussed in the Bangladesh talk page, the article would be splendid with some more photos, especially on the cultural aspect. A photo of a rice field with farmers is so much representative of our mental picture of gram bangla (the rural Bengal). Have you thought about adding something on Transport/ communication in Bangladesh? The picture of that long bridge over Jamuna will be excellent.Bye.--Dwaipayanc 19:29, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I think the "Education" section should stay. Also, given the quality of this article right now, it should be put up at FAC immediately, so that more critique would be available. Other than that, minor issues: "$" should be converted to "USD" or "US$", non-breaking spaces ( ) and – need to be used consistently. This looks great — good luck. Saravask 23:47, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Absolutely agree with Saravask. Bangladesh should be put up at FAC ASAP.The article is great. If you see this FA you will see so many red links and a lack of photos.Compared to that and other FA like This Charming Man, Bangladesh is already superior, though potentially more controversial especially in the history section.Putting up for FAC will attract more critique than this peer review and faults, if any, can be mended quickly. Please go for FAC. Bye.--Dwaipayanc 09:07, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Note watch Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Pakistan for a bit. Any problems/comments noted there will automatically be useful for this article. Rama's Arrow 17:49, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Everything looks good except the subdivisions section. The problem is the main article links break up the prose and make for very short, choppy sentences. Consider merging that section with politics too. - Taxman Talk 21:29, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template

[edit]

Hi - I've just created "BangladeshTopics." Please help to customize and improve it. Rama's Arrow 17:03, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I'm updating it. --Ragib 02:49, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How about now?

[edit]

How is the article right now? I've commented in bold replies to most of the points raised above, so please take a look and let me know. Thanks. --Ragib 03:16, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Looks great. You have my vote at the FAC. It could help with a mild copyedit. I'll try doing some if I find time. On random inspection, I found two things that need fixing.
I'll put any other issues at the article's talk page or here. -- Sundar \talk \contribs 04:48, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks ppm. -- Sundar \talk \contribs 06:18, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Is the "10 million" figure for the refugees who fled to India not disputed? Rama's Arrow 19:37, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There are citations from the US State department, provided in the article Bangladesh Liberation War, I can copy that here. Thanks. --Ragib 20:05, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I added a reference for this statement. It's not widely disputed anyway (as opossed to numbers killed), numbers vary only from 8-10 million--ppm 03:21, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Also, I'd like to see something about the disputes over illegal immigration from Bangladesh into India in the article - there are large numbers of Bangladeshis in India, legal and illegal, and also many going to Pakistan. Rama's Arrow 19:37, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think that can be summarized in one sentence in the main article, I will work on that. --Ragib 20:05, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, but the article India does not have anything on this issue. If it's not an important enough topic in the India article, why is it crucial here?--ppm 02:15, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If there are an estimated 10 - 15 million Bangladeshis in India as a result of systematic illegal immigration, obviously its something relevant and important to Bangladesh. India has some lines on its expatriate community, but the illegal immigration problem from Bangladesh is not characteristic to India (while it is to Bangladesh, as these people are its citizens). Please note that 15 million would make roughly 10% of the present population, so I think you can't really ignore this. Rama's Arrow 15:43, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If someone would add a line about this in India, I definitely would not mind coz its important. Rama's Arrow 15:45, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'll see if I can find a reference. In any case, we must be careful not to depict other South Asian countries in India's terms.--ppm 03:56, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
okay i added a sentence in demographics covering this, along with more important immigration/refugee problems that concern Bangladesh--ppm 22:46, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've made some major edits to the page including copyediting. A few red links are introduced, it should be made blue, 1 citation needed, and the highest point mentioned. I've removed the =Education= section as per the Wikiproject countries which does not list it. I've also merged =sports= under culture and pruned away victories over Pakistan etc. The only thing remaining is the =History= section. Up till this point in 1966, its president Sheikh Mujibur Rahman was jailed and in 1969 was released after unprecedented popular uprising. the section is well summarised, but after that it becomes too detailed. Regards, =Nichalp «Talk»= 13:06, 9 April 2006 (UTC) (citation and highest point provided--ppm 05:54, 10 April 2006 (UTC))[reply]

The first map, which was previously quite deformed as Dwaipayanc noted, is now fixed. I think (unfortunately, in a somewhat biased way) that this is now ready for FAC. One particularly good thing about this article is that it's throughly fact-checked and footnotes are used extensively. Sheehan (Talk) 08:46, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Corinthian War

[edit]

A complex and little known subject, but I think this does a good job of covering it. I'm heading in the direction of FAC with it; any suggestions? RobthTalk 14:51, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • It would be very helpful if the article included a map that showed the position of all the various states, cities and battles mentioned. For example, I didn't see either Locris or Phocis on the map that is situated right next to the same section of text. The page could also use some more graphics to help provide visual interest. I found a couple of seemingly misplaced commas a bit disconcerting: "Corinth and Thebes, refused to send troops to assist...", "In the years, following the signing of the..." Thanks! — RJH 16:23, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, map is much needed, as well as more graphics (soldiers from that era, commanders, anything would be nice).--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 04:16, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks for the comments. I'm in the process of looking for a better map--I may have to get someone to create one. I may be able to get some other good images, depending on what I find out about the copyright status of photos of Greek vase paintings. In any event I'll keep looking. RobthTalk 23:48, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cat Stevens

[edit]

I’d like to see this article get featured status. I personally did a bit of work late last year cleaning it up. If there's still a ways to go, I'd like to create a to-do list for the talk page (although I don't think it's that far off.) A few more pictures would be great, but I haven’t been able to find any that could be rationalized for fair use. "Good article" status so far. Thanks in advance for any comments. Mrtea (talk) 17:37, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • His 1970's work, Tea for the Tillerman and Teaser and the Firecat (which are more or less the albums that made him famous to many), are given far too little coverage relative to other topics. The article is biased towards later events which would largely be ignored by the public if not for his successful 70's albums. More discussion on topics relating to the albums such as their success, themes, musical sound and reasons for success is needed. Other parts of the article might use a trim to restore balance. Cedars 00:43, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It's pretty good, but I agree with Cedars that the early career section needs more expansion. Some minor things it doesn't cover:
  • It never explains why he took the name "Cat Stevens".
  • Describe his major tours.
  • What about his collaboration with Alun Davies?
  • Mention his brief interest in Buddhism.
  • Who did he marry?
Thanks. :) — RJH 00:58, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot guys, I really needed some different perspectives. The article does seem a little slanted towards his later life and "controversy." I'm definitely going to add the important info that's missing about his earlier music career and life. Glad style and format seems to be in check. Mrtea (talk) 05:50, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • The biggest problem if you wanted to take this to FAC is the overall low quality of the sources. You'd probably need to get at least a few books and do some other wider research. Also there's too many short paragraphs that make the flow choppy. See User:Taxman/Featured article advice for more expanded reasoning and some other things to work on before taking this to FAC. - Taxman Talk 21:39, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the advice and link. I definitely understand it still has a ways to go before it goes to FAC. I'd like to see it get there one day, but we've still got work. Thanks again for the advice. Mrtea (talk) 20:29, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Eddie Guerrero

[edit]

I nominated this article as a featured article, but I realized that is lacks quite a lot to get there. Here are some of the things that have been commented by other users on the featured article page(probably more things need to be improved too, feel free to add comments).

  1. No inline citations
  2. Images lack fair use rationale
  3. Information about his life outside the ring
  4. Information about his schooling and childhood
  5. Image:Eddieguerrero37.jpg is marked with {{Non-free fair use in}}, but looks like it might be {{tv-screenshot}}.

Let's make this a featured article, Eddie Guerrero was a great man and he deserves a great article!

btw, allthough it would be in the spirit of eddie guerrero, please do not lie, cheat and steal when editing this article. Arnemann 16:22, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gerald Ford

[edit]

This is the most recent article from Wikipedia:WikiProject Michigan and Featured Article status is being sought. Any comments or suggestions are welcome. Jtmichcock 20:41, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • This will be a pain to correct but why are all of the footnotes using different citation methods in terms of access date? To create a consistency, I think that all of them should have the retrieval date following "accessed on". Thanks, AndyZ 02:20, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There are two types of cites: for those that are already dated in terms of news articles, dated essays, etc., the dates of the items are posted. The second set are undated webpages. In both instances, the readers know that the website has been posted for a certain minimal length of time. Like all other things, however, the suggestion will be considered. Jtmichcock 02:28, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overall, I like this article and appreciate the work that has been put into it. Most of my suggestions are minor.
    • I believe the marriage and family section should be expanded. Right now, it is considerably shorter than other sections and is a stub. I realize there's a redirect to the Betty Ford article just above it, but I think some more information, such as how they met, might be appropriate in this article.
This section was quite a bit larger but if you look in the edit history, someone insisted that the section be removed entirely (and delete any reference to Betty Ford because she had her own article(!)}. It was only after quite a bit of dialouge that I managed to get the small amount in there. I agree with you and will incorporate more into that section.
    • In the Nixon Pardon section, you mention "conditional amnesty programs" regarding the Vietnam war. I realize this was probably put there to keep the pardon's together, but it's out of place, with both the sentences right before and after dealing with a different topic, Nixon.
Ford actually announce the programs close together to attempt to ameliorate some of the expected criticism (it didn't work too well). What I can do is tie in the two portions together and better show how they were connected.
    • The article mentions him receiving a House of Representative award, but who gave him the award?
The entire House. It's kind of a Miss Congeniality award :). I will edit that into the sentence.
    • "Ford, like many of his generation, responded to the attack on Pearl Harbor and joined the military". I'm not a fan of this sentence, mainly the "like many of his generation" part as it sounds like an opinion.
Everyone remembers the Tom Brokaw book. I will delete "of his generation" and this should make it sound more even-handed.
    • "Ironically, as President, Ford pardoned Iva Toguri D'Aquino, treason as "Tokyo Rose" for her World War II propaganda broadcasts to Allied forces.[9]" This is out of place with the rest of the section, and I think means to say "pardoned Iva Toguri D' Aquino of treason".
That can be fixed.
    • Finally, a minor copyedit would work. I corrected some changes, but noticed a repeat of some words. For example, two sections end with "Ironically," (The above quote, and "Ironically, Douglas's later retirement ..." Another, "Ford has experienced a few health problems in the last few years" repeats few twice. Another, "In addition" begins the first two sentences of the same paragraph in the 1976 Presidental Election section. This is minor, I realize, and I'm just nitpicking at this point.
I'll look at the language. I thought that too about ironically and had deleted a third one. So, it could have been worse.
Thanks much. It was very helpful. Jtmichcock 22:40, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not a fan of the U.S. House of Representatives seal or the Vice President's seal being placed in the article; it doesn't really pertain to Ford. (I presume you just added these in, because I don't recall seeing them before.) Also, in the "Presidency, 1974-1977" section, the quote box ("Our long national nightmare is over.") is in an unusual location, being pushed to the left by the image. Perhaps this could be rectified? I'll try and post more comments here soon and improve the article as well. Overall, though, it's excellent. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 00:15, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I moved the text box over a bit so it's right above the photo. The two seals were relatively recent insertions to lead off the separate sections. Since there are no dramatic photos during the 8 months as VP, I felt the section needed some artwork to correspond to the occasion. And since the presidential seal is on the podium of the Presidency section, having the three seals of office looked like a good idea at the time. Jtmichcock 00:51, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jalal ad-Din Muhammad Rumi

[edit]

I've worked on this article, and would like to further improve it to FA status. I've run out of ideas for now, so suggestions/help would be highly appreciated. deeptrivia (talk) 18:14, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My comments

  • Citations - a lot more notes are necessary - especially on quotes of poetry, sayings, etc.
  • Lead - its small - should summarize his life, philosophy and influence.
  • Organization - its a very basic organization right now. I wonder if its possible to do more sophisticated - for example, life would be subdivided into early-pivotal-later-climactic-demise sorta. Influence of background philosophies/culture/ideas on and from Rumi should be told in the sections of his life, teachings, works, as one stream and not separate.
  • I usually don't like to see red links in an FA - please see if you can create articles on those topics.
  • A sense of comprehensive-ness is usually obtained if the article's size is around 32-35kb. The amount of text is reliant on the sources available to you, but there should be some guarantee of comprehensiveness. Rama's Arrow 19:35, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Image:Shams ud-Din Tabriz 1502-1504 BNF Paris.jpg is without copyright info - also, FU images must have an FU rationale to be in an FA. Rama's Arrow 19:43, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! I'm working on some of these points. Any non-commercial use of the images I uploaded is fair according to the source. I'll contact the guy who uploaded Image:Shams ud-Din Tabriz 1502-1504 BNF Paris.jpg for source. deeptrivia (talk) 03:51, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

DNA Resequencer (Stargate)

[edit]

A lot have been improved since the last review. Is there anything still to be done? Thanks! --Tango 13:24, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would say that the lead is a tad big. Maybe cut down a paragraph? American Patriot 1776 02:05, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's a good sugestion. It is a bit big. When I have more time i'll see what I can do. Tobyk777 02:14, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Palpatine

[edit]

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

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

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

" Ian McDiarmid required little make-up in The Phantom Menace and Attack of the Clones, he remembers, "I'm ... slightly aged [in Attack of the Clones]. In the last film, I had a fairly standard make-up on, but now, they're starting to crinkle my face."[50] "
The following words "he remembers" after the first sentence seem possibly awkward, but this is only my personal opinion. Could "he remembers" be changed to "remembering", "reminiscing" or something in a similar vein? LuciferMorgan 08:34, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I changed this to "he recalled". Please let me know if you find anything else that sounds awkward or needs to be addressed. Dmoon1 12:01, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

His force abilities (including lightsaber skills) probably could be split into a separate paragraph. His racism is mentioned and a quote by Count Dooku concerning Sidious's views is there too. Dmoon1 14:29, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I elaborated somewhat on his lightsaber skills. Dmoon1 22:06, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

I've run the text through a spell checker and there are no common spelling errors (there may still be a couple remaining); I can't speak for the grammar since I hate to proofread. I will print out a paper copy and go over it over the next day or so. Not sure what to do about an image comparing Palpatine to Satan. I haven't run across anything directly showing Palpatine as the devil, just that some academics have compared him to the figure. Dmoon1 14:29, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the suggestions. I'll see if I can address all of these soon. Dmoon1 03:28, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The quotes come from directly from the film which is being described. Dmoon1 18:01, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • A few terms are used that may be unfamiliar to non-fans. Sith, Expanded Universe, and Emperor's Hand. Some of this can be remedied by adding a couple of words of explanation. For example, perhaps in the intro: 'In reality, Palpatine is a powerful lord of the evil Sith sect . . . " or something.
  • The article asserts that Palpatine is 'a symbol of evil and sinister deception in American popular culture." This is true, but is it only in America? Does the character not have the same associations in other countries and cultures where Star Wars is popular? I'd think that at least Canadian culture would have this association, but maybe not?
  • Throughout the "Appearances" section, consider changing a few more sentences to describe what authors and directors are doing. For example, instead of "in the 1999 prequel film Star Wars Episode I: The Phantom Menace, Palpatine is introduced . . . " to "in the 1999 . . . Lucas introduces Palpatine . . . ."
  • The article is way overlong, and I think the "Appearances" section is to blame. I think it goes into way too much detail about Palpatine's role in relatively minor and secondary books and cartoons. I honestly think you shouldn't be devoting more than a sentence or two to anything but the actual feature films. Maybe Dark Empire or some of the stuff where Palpatine is indeed a central chracter. But he's almost not even in the Clone Wars microseries, yet that cartoon gets its own section! In short, I would take a long, hard look at the "Appearances" section and think about scaling it back by half or more.
    • I edited down the literature section, but I must disagree about the cartoons and novels. I'm not sure what you mean by secondary (to the films?), but they are important. Palpatine/Darth Sidious is influencing the entire plot of the cartoon (but I only chose a few of the more notable examples). The cartoon is not like some of the obscure video game references that have tried to pop up in some of the articles recently. It is critically acclaimed and has won several major awards. Additionally, almost all of the Star Wars novels have appeared on the New York Times Bestseller list. But you are right concerning the bulk of these sections, and it has been trimmed considerably look more like the literature section of Jabba the Hutt. Dmoon1 17:57, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think most of the KB length is being generated by the footnotes. It's probably around 35 KB, not 55. Dmoon1 17:57, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I removed some asides about other characters that do not have any direct pertinence to Palpatine (Vader's struggle between good and evil, Mara Jade's future nuptial).
  • Some of the quotes from interviews are given in the present tense ("Lucas says"), while others are in the past tense ("McDiarmid remembered"). I think either is acceptable, but try to make it consistent one way or the other.
  • I agree that the line about McDiarmid's life between trilogies (as an artistic director) should be cut. The article's about Palpatine, not McDiarmid.
  • The quote from John Shelton Lawrence seems to be referring to Star Wars action figures in general, not specifically to the Emperor's. I'd cut it.
    • The quote is explicitly about Palpatine and Luke Skywalker, you can see the actual page here.

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

Bill Gates

[edit]

We all know who this is. Should be featured status, Very close to FA, suggestions/comments? — Wackymacs 19:08, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Here's my take:
  • Make sure footnotes are done consistently. The book reference under =Early Life= should be an inline citation.
  • =Early Life= has a lot of short paragraphs that should be merged or expanded.
  • The dropping out of Harvard is mentioned in both =Early Life= and =Microsoft=, once may be enough
  • Watch the Weasel Words: "Some people have accused him of being inconsistent in this regard. It has also been pointed out that Microsoft often produces products that incorporate ideas developed outside Microsoft"
  • Change Microsoft eventually went on to be the largest software company in the world, earning Gates enough money to make him the wealthiest person in the world (according to Forbes Magazine) for several years to ...enough money that Forbes Magazine named him the wealthiest person in the world for several years
  • "Journalist Greg Palast suggests that the Gates Foundation..." should be footnoted.
  • I should have been more clear. I meant that this needs a source.
  • "a survey of philanthropy by The Economist..." should be footnoted
  • =popular culture= reads like a somewhat random collection of references. Try to organize around the archetypes that are mentioned.
  • I don't think that articles linked in the text need to be included in the see also section, but I don't know if that's in the MoS or not.
  • Works used as references should be separated from those that are merely further reading. If all those books under =sources and further reading= were used as references, the section should simply be called =References=. We can assume any book used as a reference is worth looking at for further inquiry
  • Footnotes are rather unevenly distributed between sections. Some have many, some have none.
  • Generally, the prose is a bit choppy. Sentence structure should more varied. Don't always start the sentence with the subject.

I hope all these points don't come across as negative. The information is generally very good. I think that if these points are addressed, we could definitely have an FA here. - The Catfish 22:21, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've fixed a few of the things you mentioned, better now? — Wackymacs 17:19, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It's a bit better now. I've struck a couple and clarified one and added another below. - The Catfish 22:06, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Another thing: "In contrast, his former associate Paul Allen has used his wealth in perhaps a more typical manner—owning sports teams, vintage airplanes, and multiple residences." We need a source that says that this is the typical use of wealth, rather than simply asserting it. - The Catfish 22:06, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is that image of a mugshot seriously adding anything to the article? Even if it is isn't there something else we can put there that is more appropriate for that section that adds more to the article and will be less inviting to flamewars? WhiteNight T | @ | C 06:13, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's a good image to use to represent what Gates used to look like when he was younger, and its a very widely used image as well. It should be kept, and I don't see how it invites flamewars at all. If this article ever gets featured and put on the Main Page it can be semi-protected. — Wackymacs 08:16, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Honest question - why should it be used over images like the ones with him and paul allen in the university or at a museam (such as http://www.hnf.de/images/museum/136_1374.jpg)? There are just as widespread and I think an image like that more accurately potrays the issue (I mean, he isn't famous for speeding, he is famous for working on computers and maybe the antitrust stuff). Anyway I won't push the issue much more - great work on the article BTW!!! I remember back in the day on the mailing list when I was literally chopping off half the article at a time it was so bad... WhiteNight T | @ | C 08:41, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The current image used links in with the context, which is the whole point in using it, and the copyright status of the other image that could be used is unclear. Thanks for the comment, yeah the article did used to be very bad. Still lots of work to be done though. — Wackymacs 09:19, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think the article, overall, looks good; but what caught my suprise was that he is a Scottish-American. What, out of general interest and could be interesting to the article, is his connection with Scotland? Thanks - Kilo-Lima|(talk) 19:44, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Knots Landing

[edit]

I submitted a previous peer review request for this article where I was advised to add more paragraph breaks. Then I went FAC and they said it wasn't wikified so I took care of that. What else, in your valued opinion, needs to be done, my fellow Wikipedians? Juppiter 03:15, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Let's see...

  • No discussion of critical reception, TV ratings, or potential stylistic evolution through the series.
  • For something that went through 14 seasons, I think most main characters can go for articles of their owns. After all, many single-season Anime characters have articles.
  • More use of Wikipedia:Summary style (for example, by splitting off individual seasons and summarizing the entire plot to a single section)
  • Sources are badly organized, and would be better put as footnotes.
  • Images at the end of a previous section is poor layout.
  • The "who lived where" section sounds like cruft, at least cut off the subsections (a table would probably fit the bill well)

At first sight, all of these definitely needs solving before the article has a chance for FAC status. Circeus 17:30, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • To help get to featured status:
    • convert those external links in the body (see "Behind the scenes" section) into footnotes with the ext. link at the bottom of the page,
    • format the "Sources" according to Wikipedia:Citing sources/example style,
    • Condense the season summaries (fourteen is a lot to wade through) using more concise and factual language,
    • merge the "Trivia" section into the article (trivia sections are often objected to as not being brilliant prose and that the section is redundant - either the info is trivial and should not be included or it is not trivial and should be discussed in the article),
      • for example "Gary went to get charcoal for the fire, when another car pulled up. To his surprise, Abby got out of it! She informed Mack, Karen, Gary, and Valene that she’d bought Claudia’s house"
        • do not use contractions in article writing
        • go for more of a synopsis rather than a story-like description.
  • ---maclean25 09:21, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hong Kong action cinema

[edit]

Please list anything that could possibly prevent this article from becoming featured. is it comprehensive? how is the referencing? the writing quality? anything else? thx. Zzzzz 20:17, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Having started and done a lot of work on Cinema of Thailand, I must say I'm flat-out impressed by Hong Kong action cinema. It's something to aspire to. References are solid (wish I had books), writing is accessible. Toward the end, I think there could be some more updating done - Jet Li making "his last martial arts epic" (Fearless), Jackie Chan still plugging away with The Myth. But hope seen with a return to form with SPL: Sha Po Lang. Maybe mention some up-and-coming HK action stars who will finally assume the mantle of Bruce-Jackie-Jet. Who are they? Wu Jing? Donnie Yen? Wisekwai 22:48, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
thx for the comments. updates are made with respect to jet li & jackie chan's latest activities. i dont think there is *any* hk action star to assume that mantle though - the 2 you mention are still not big stars after many years; if anybody it would be Tony Jaa who is so-far unconnected with hk cinema. anyway, its important to avoid original research for this article, so i think such speculation should be avoided. any other issues? Zzzzz 18:45, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ursuline Convent Riots

[edit]

I found quite a bit of information on this piece of early American history which I hadn't ever heard of. I'm particularly interested in people's thoughts about what kind of images people might find appropriate for the article. (There are several available from the Catholic University Archives, which I might get permission to use under GFDL.) -- MatthewDBA 21:15, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's a nicely-written article. There were several assertions in the "Background" and "Rebecca Reed" that could do with backing up with references. (Such as the statement that "Some authors... have speculated that discussion of the manuscript may have contributed ... riots.") The number of categories is perhaps bordering on the excessive, and some could be pruned as redundant. As for pictures, I'd expect for that period it would all be artwork anyway. So perhaps an image of the convent and possibly something portraying the riots? It might also be helpful to include a map of the area showing the riot locations, if that's possible. Thank you. — RJH 16:14, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! That's exactly the kind of feedback I was hoping for. I did prune back the categories (didn't realize there would be so many auto-added), and I added some references for the two sections you're mentioning. I think I have a sketch of the convent before and after the riots; I'll check with Catholic University about any usage restrictions. I'll also see what I can do about a map; I know there are some Wikipedia map resources but I'm not really familiar with them; I'll look into that. — MatthewDBA 12:40, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Industrial Revolution

[edit]

There has been a lot of work done on the article since March 2006. (I mistakenly said 2007 when first posting.) I recently got involved and shuffled sentences into paragraphs in the introduction and shuffeled around sections to re-structure the overall document. I've also added images. It seems like it reads pretty well and it might be time for another review. I just found this review page, but while it seems like some comments might still apply a lot of them no longer do. (The one specific question I would have would be regarding using the present tense in the sentence ending the first paragraph of the introduction (is v.s. was) -- in that the Industrial Revolution continues to develop and continues to change lives today.) --kop 18:13, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

March 2006 Review

[edit]

Comments most welcome - thanks! --PopUpPirate 10:18, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • History is written by the victorious. I am glad to see that the article gives arguments as presented by historians, and doesn't present their arguments as facts. Yes, there were many potential causes, but which were influential and which coincidental...we don't know, they are just arguments.
  • There is currently a lack of sufficient inline citations. Below are some instances/phrases that might require them (note: some can be simply re-worded to avoid citation):
    • "with some historians seeing the Revolution as..."
    • "...are also cited as factors,"
    • "One question of active interest to historians is..."
    • "Numerous factors have been suggested, including ecology, government, and culture." (either relate this to specific points to come in the text or perhaps provide a general reference)
    • " Benjamin Elman argues that..." (can you point the reader to where he makes this argument?)
    • "Kenneth Pomeranz, in the Great Divergence, argues that..." (currently does not appear in the references)
    • "modern estimates of per capita income..." (whose calculations are these?)
    • "the noted historian Rajni Palme Dutt has been quoted as saying, 'The capital...'" (ref quote)
    • "Some have stressed the importance of natural..."
    • "Another theory is that Great Britain was ..."
    • "...is the origin of the modern engineering industry." (just seems like a bold statement that could get challenged)
  • In "Causes", combine the two sentences about epidemics and larger workforce into one (use a semicolon if you have to) because they are both part of one thought, not two separate thoughts (sentences)
  • Why does "large domestic market" cause get its own paragraph but larger workforce, Agricultural Revolution, Technological innovation and colonial expansion have to share?
  • "...a condition that holds true even into the 21st century.", "...with modern concepts of automatic illegality." (keep the article on topic)
  • The "Lunar society" section appears to be a counter-argument of the "Protestant work ethic" sub-sub-section, rather than a separte theme like Protestantism. Consider merging these two sections.
  • Why does "Protestant work ethic" get a separate section opposed to the other causes listed in "Causes for occurrence in Great Britain"?
  • In the "Innovations" section intro, orient the paragraph to take the reader down from the general to the specific (ie. innovations such as making iron/steel and harnessing water/steam power resulted in inventions such as steam engine and flying shuttles...), and also introduce concepts discuss in the sub-sections like tramission/publication of ideas
  • Avoid those one-sentence paragraphs like "Josiah Wedgwood and Matthew Boulton were other prominent early industrialists.", "One of the earliest reformers of factory conditions was Robert Owen.", "During the Industrial Revolution, these different methods were improved and developed." and "In 1842, Cotton Workers in England staged a widespread strike."
  • I'm not sure the Luddites paragraph in the "Factories" sub-sub-section fits, maybe just keep them in the "Luddites" sub-section
  • In "Mining" please clarify what this sentence is saying: "Coal mining in Britain, particuarly in South Wales is of great age.", also the "Mining" section seems simplistic compared the other sections surrounding it, consider expanding (Innovation)
  • In "Metallurgy" I don't think the summary style is intended for use of articles that are still
  • In "Transportation" consider merging the sub-sub-sections "Navigable rivers", "Coastal sail", and "Canals" into one section about transport along waterways
  • In "Transportation" explain what each element meant to the industrial revolution (how it impacted, further enhanced/degraded 'progress'), rather than a straight explanation of the topic.
  • The introduction of "Social effects" should be more descriptive, and consider replacing the "&" with "and".
  • In "Child labour", "prehistoric times" is over-kill. Replace the external link with a footnote.
  • In "Housing situation" (odd title, maybe consider 'Public Health' or 'Slums' or 'Urban housing', etc.) the Sanitary Report (1842) is quoted without a reference. Btw, that is an excellent choice for a source.
  • Re-visit the "Luddites" section. They were not just a bunch of unemployed machine-smashers, but protester/activists against the new way of life that industrialization creates (ie. the new lower class; the large pool of unskilled labor that capitalists drool over). Smashing machines was a symbolic/rallying-the-troops (and I guess therapeutic) thing.
  • "Other effects" valiantly trys to lump a bunch of other changes to society into a few paragraphs, but it needs better organization. The start a new paragraph at "mass migration of rural families into urban areas" as this is about rural-to-urban migration whereas the previous sentences were discussing international effects. After this it seems like just a bunch of other effects were thrown together. Try to better relate them to one another in order to keep them in the same paragraph (or elaborate one piece into another paragraph - environmental effects like coal consumption might be a good candidate).
  • Consider moving "Marxism" and "Romanticism" into "Intellectual paradigms" (it is plural) and removing the "Criticism" heading.

--maclean25 23:33, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Lead is completly inadequate - it should be significantly expanded. Lose the 'Overview' section, merge everything from it into the lead. Lead is overview, after all. Some sections are stub-sections and should be expanded, ex. 'Intellectual paradigms' (which for some reason has one and only one subsection - aren't there more paradigms?), or 'Luddites'. More inline citations are needed. The article mentions Weber and Marx, but what about Durkheim?--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 02:37, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Automated review

[edit]

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

  • The lead of this article may be too long, or may contain too many paragraphs. Please follow guidelines at WP:LEAD; be aware that the lead should adequately summarize the article.[?]
  • The lead is for summarizing the rest of the article, and should not introduce new topics not discussed in the rest of the article, as per WP:LEAD. Please ensure that the lead adequately summarizes the article.[?]
  • If there is not a free use image in the top right corner of the article, please try to find and include one.[?] I'd move the Watt steam engine top right.
  • There may be an applicable infobox for this article. For example, see Template:Infobox Biography, Template:Infobox School, or Template:Infobox City.[?] (Note that there might not be an applicable infobox; remember that these suggestions are not generated manually)
  • Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (numbers), there should be a non-breaking space -   between a number and the unit of measurement. For example, instead of 6 miles, use 6 miles, which when you are editing the page, should look like: 6 miles.[?]
  • Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (headings), headings generally should not repeat the title of the article. For example, if the article was Ferdinand Magellan, instead of using the heading ==Magellan's journey==, use ==Journey==.[?]
  • Per WP:WIAFA, this article's table of contents (ToC) may be too long- consider shrinking it down by merging short sections or using a proper system of daughter pages as per Wikipedia:Summary style.[?]
  • There are a few sections that are too short and that should be either expanded or merged.
  • There are a few occurrences of weasel words in this article- please observe WP:AWT. Certain phrases should specify exactly who supports, considers, believes, etc., such a view.
    • arguably
    • is considered
    • might be weasel words, and should be provided with proper citations (if they already do, or are not weasel terms, please strike this comment).[?]
  • Please make the spelling of English words consistent with either American or British spelling, depending upon the subject of the article. Examples include: meter (A) (British: metre), organise (B) (American: organize), ization (A) (British: isation), isation (B) (American: ization), analyze (A) (British: analyse), travelled (B) (American: traveled), sulphur (B) (American: sulfur).
  • Watch for redundancies that make the article too wordy instead of being crisp and concise. (You may wish to try Tony1's redundancy exercises.)
    • Vague terms of size often are unnecessary and redundant - “some”, “a variety/number/majority of”, “several”, “a few”, “many”, “any”, and “all”. For example, “All pigs are pink, so we thought of a number of ways to turn them green.”
  • As done in WP:FOOTNOTE, footnotes usually are located right after a punctuation mark (as recommended by the CMS, but not mandatory), such that there is no space in between. For example, the sun is larger than the moon [2]. is usually written as the sun is larger than the moon.[2][?]
  • 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, DrKiernan 14:47, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Forth Road Bridge

[edit]

I have done a lot of work on this article - the subject of an awful lot of news in Scotland right now - to try and bring it up to a high standard, discussing its physical and political importance. A successful self-nomination as a good article was made last week and more work done since then. Erath 14:50, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • What's there is very good (good prose, excellent references, useful and attractive photos). I think, however, that there's a great deal that could be added. Off the top of my head I'm thinking:
    • A map showing the major roads of eastern central Scotland, which is needed I think to show the economic importance and utility of the bridge (and concomitently the great cost of its being unavailable). If the map showed as far east as Stirling and as far North as Dundee it should show what a pain either using the Kincardine crossing and the A985 or the A977, or the A9. I can make such a map, but unfortunately not for another month or so.
    • I think some mention of the impact of the bridge's construction on the economies and town plans of southern Fife should be made; I believe Dalgety Bay was constructed largely in anticipation of the bridge, and I guess a lot of the economic growth of Dunfermline (and the residential growth in much of Fife) can be attributed to the bridge.
    • It would be nice to see a photo of the bridge during construction; perhaps the local historical societies can help?
    • A photo of the toll plaza in the rush hour would do a lot to illustrate the issue of congestion; right now we say the bridge is congested with vehicles but none of our photos shows a vehicle.
    • A graph showing both the tolls and the annual traffic numbers, with years as the horizontal axis would be informative; if those data are available I can draw the graph.
    • A small in-car photo of the tollbooth (with the blue toll sign) would make a nice illustration for the tolls section of the article.
    • A photo of the old ferry would be nice (again, perhaps the historical society can help)
    • The table showing the proposed variable-toll scheme should be floated right, as it's eating a lot of vertical space. Perhaps the text could be colour-coded, or perhaps a diagram could be produced (perhaps a clockface-like piechart, showing the different toll regimes as different coloured pieslices). I could probably draw that too, if folks think it's a good idea.
-- Finlay McWalter | Talk 16:57, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The table has now been colour-coded and right-aligned. At least another couple of pictures will hopefully be forthcoming, but there probably isn't space in the article for them all. Erath 12:27, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Placing an illustration atthe end of the section preceding the one it is meant to illustrate is poor layout. If it is supposed to illustrate the section it is, then move it up.
  • If the ultimate goal is featuring,then you'll need to expand the lead

Circeus 01:49, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • What is the significance of being awarded Historic Scotland's Category A listed structure status? Is Historic Scotland an authority on architecture or heritage value? A map showing the bridges relationship with the two communities (especially Edinburgh) it connects would be nice. Can the potential impacts/consequences of the proposed expansion/twinning be expanded? Specifically, there is more to the opposition than a desire not to see increased traffic and more to the support position than wanting to see a replacement for a 40 year old bridge. --maclean25 19:01, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Saint Patrick

[edit]

There has been quite a lot of work done to Saint Patrick since the last peer review, and the article has been fairly stable for a while, so this seems like a good time to ask for a review. What needs added, removed, rewritten, referenced,...? Angus McLellan (Talk) 09:12, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment I thought the article is so good that I have put it forward as a Good Article nomination, and as a candidate for featured article with the Portal:Saints. The article is rich in academic references but they are unusually interesting. My only suggestion is that the preamble does not fully assert his notability; the impact of converting the Irish to Christianity had an important consequences for the spread of the monastic establishments during the Dark Ages is highly significant from a European perspective. --Gavin Collins 10:25, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Mauritius Command

[edit]

This article has been worked up from being a short stub, separated out this entry in the literary series of Sea novels by Patrick O'Brian. I have reached about as far as I can with the material available to me. I now need new pairs of eyes and more period experts to look at it. :: Kevinalewis : (Talk Page) 15:27, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please be gentle this is my first "Peer Review" request. :: Kevinalewis : (Talk Page) 15:29, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • It looks pretty good to me. I did have a question about which of the ships listed in the section 'Ships in "The Mauritius Command"' are actual historical vessels. Perhaps you could put a comment/explanation in that section? Thanks. — RJH 17:26, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Done - to the best of my knowledge - If anyone knows of others add them in. :: Kevinalewis : (Talk Page) 14:26, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • If I am not mistaken, two-sentence lead is usually considered to be insufficient. According to WP:LEAD: "The lead should briefly summarize the most important points covered in an article in such a way that it could stand on its own as a concise version of the article." Perhaps the plot introduction could be incorporated into the lead along with the first two sentences in "Major themes" section. --BorgQueen 18:08, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
expanded the Lead paragraph to suit - although not with the suggested items. :: Kevinalewis : (Talk Page) 14:26, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well done. It looks much better now. --BorgQueen 14:30, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, get this done I'll move on the another in the series. :: Kevinalewis : (Talk Page) 14:27, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Valuable information for inclusion into the article can include: over what period of time and where the book was written, where the novel fits into the author's career/life, critical reviews, and sales figures. --maclean25 05:52, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the observation - unfortunately I personally don't have access to any of the that information, any one who does can add it though. Thanks :: Kevinalewis : (Talk Page) 08:30, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Social Democratic Workers' Party (Netherlands)

[edit]

An article with quite substantial info. With proprer language and reference check, it has possibility of becoming a featured article. --Soman 12:20, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • The netherland politics template maybe not be appropriate for individual parties like this. Circeus' suggestion of using {{Infobox Political Party}} looks good. This is the template used for historical Canadian parties: {{Infobox_Canada_Political_Party}}. Criteria 4 of the featured articles criteria states that articles require images. Try to get a party logo or create map of showing where there support came from or get historical photos of leaders or rallies. Integrate the "Trivia" section into the article. Use inline citations (see m:Cite/Cite.php) to show where the references were used. --maclean25 03:50, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Althought it's "my" article being reviewed, and don't want to get involved in the discussion, I have one point about images. The party did not have real logo, but it used campaign posters. The dutch [Institute for Social History] collects these posters. I've mailed them, but they mailed back that they themselves use images of which the copy right status is either unclear, or they just publish images of which some-one still holds copyright, but they have never gotten in trouble over it. So I was wondering what wiki-policy was on images which are 100 to 50 years old, but have uncertain copy-right status C mon 08:18, 20 March 2006 (UTC).[reply]
Political posters can be displayed in wiki articles as fair use images. --Soman 10:15, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
At worst, a photography of the posters being used is allright, unless I'm mistaken. Circeus 13:46, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of Anuran families

[edit]

I created this a while ago as it took up far too much room in Frog. Now I have expanded it to include a table structure, which allows for example photos, and the species of that photo. I am now stuck as to how to improve it. I know that it needs to fill up the photos, but that will be a slow process as people gradually add frogs within a family. Other than that, can anyone think of extra columns to place into the list, or anything that is currently wrong with the list? My end objective is to create a featured list. Thanks --liquidGhoul 11:16, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • I'd clear the table so it's not limited in widthby the taxobox (eitehr that or drop the taxobox entirely, it's not really necessary)
  • This article is linked for more details about the taxonomy of Anura, so I'd suggest adding prose describing rapidly what differenciates the different divisions.
  • ITIS (or whichever system is most pertinent) or wikispecies links would be appropriate.
  • Ideally, I assume you plan to fill in empty cells?
  • Circeus 02:05, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think I have covered these things. Yes, I am planning to fill the empty cells, but as I said, it is not easy and will probably take a lot of time. On point 1, the table is only impeded by the taxobox in 800x600 resolution, and if I clear it, it looks really bad in higher resolutions (which I assume are the majority). Therefore I would rather leave it as it is, as it is only a corner chopped off by the taxobox in 800x600. Thanks--liquidGhoul 06:41, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, the table is rather impeded at 1020x800 (which is my resolution) It looks just inappropriate to have it stop that short from the side. (it's not a corner chopped off, the table stops 200px from the side!) Circeus 13:39, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't really know what you mean. The table never fills up the browser window completely, do you want it to do that? --liquidGhoul 21:43, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Llanfairpwllgwyngyllgogerychwyrndrobwllllantysiliogogogoch

[edit]

I suspect that this is cutting it a bit close, but I was hoping to get some feedback on how to improve this article in the hopes that we can bring this up to FA quality in time for 1 April, 2006 1 April, 2007 (not this year, I doubt we can bring it up that quicky). --Deathphoenix ʕ 18:50, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Gut reaction is this could struggle to get to FA without serious work, DYK? might be more realistic. The pronunication section needs to be more clearer and more accessible with the right style & characters. If you can squeeze out good, referenced prose on ALoan's points it has a chance. Don't feel confined to keeping everything relevant to the longest name thing, it's also a settlement in its own right. Nice one Deizio 16:25, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • (disclaimer: I haven't done any work on it, but would like to) I'm actually hoping to make this article more of a "normal place" type of an article with less emphasis on the long name. That would make the article seem even more April 1-worthy, IMO. I appreciate everyone's suggestions. --Deathphoenix ʕ 18:39, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Abû 'Uthmân Sa'îd ibn Hakam al Qurashi

[edit]

I would like this article to be peer reviewed to see how it could be improved. --Francisco Valverde 10:42, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Footnotes shouldn't be in headings
  • lead should be increased in length
  • Categorys should be piped with last name first in order to categorize correctly
  • Sources and references should be combined
  • See WP:CITE for ways of citing references
  • Inline citations are required to cite information (at least for WP:FA)

Thanks, AndyZ 02:14, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fardella Crime Family

[edit]

Wrote this article recently. I would like some review of it maybe to add anything anyone might know or to find any mistakes I have over looked.

(Gangland 02:32, 19 March 2006 (UTC))[reply]

  • I would suggest converting the bold subtitles to subsubheadings using ==== subtitle ====. Also, if the external links were used as sources, consider changing it to "References" instead of "External links". AndyZ 02:05, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Film colorization

[edit]

I think the lede discusses the technical aspects rather more than the controversy, which was rather notable. The sentence about reasons and controversy also seems vague. I think at least some of the reason should be enumerated, and at least a sentence discuss the controversy. Goldfritha 18:17, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • The footnotes need formatting using the correct citation templates.
  • Lead needs expanding.
  • Several paragraphs are unreferenced.
  • External links need cleaning up.
  • 'Integration', 'Restoration' and 'Documentary make-overs' sections are too short.

— Wackymacs 09:34, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

World Finance Corporation

[edit]

This is an article about an interesting and largely forgotten scandal; I took it upon myself to write an article on it and its central figure, Hernandez-Cartaya (see the other Peer review request). But I haven't really gotten any feedback, and I think it is a rather good article, so... --maru (talk) contribs 23:33, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • lead should be expanded.
  • Quotes should be cited
  • Per WP:MOS, the word "THE" should not be used in headings
  • Requires copyedit; the first sentence is grammatically incorrect because it shouldn't have a semicolon.

Thanks, AndyZ 02:28, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed the heading and intro, although I'm not too sure how to expand the lead. It seems to be a pretty fair summary as it is.
What quotes need citing? I was pretty sure I cited them all. --maru (talk) contribs 03:17, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The New York Times quote (even though it says New York Times, a citation should still be provided) and the one from the staff report. Thanks, AndyZ 20:32, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The NY Times one is now footnoted (the relevant article was already in the references section), and I've linked the staff report from where I got it- it was quoted in Kwitny's Endless Enemies; I haven't been able to track it down any further, to my lasting regret. --maru (talk) contribs 23:08, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Guillermo Hernández-Cartaya

[edit]

I've been working on this and World Finance Corporation pretty much alone, seeking to document this forgotten scandal. I'd like feedback. --maru (talk) contribs 23:32, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • The article should be categorized, like [[Category:Cuban people|Hernández-Cartaya, Guillermo]]. It lacks sections, which should be created. --AndyZ 02:26, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've added the two appropriate categories, and split up into sections. --maru (talk) contribs 03:12, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Facebook

[edit]

This article is the only GA about a website. Its 39kb; is that too long? It also needs a few more sources but other than that I'm trying to figure out what else to do with it. Any ideas concerning how to prepare the article for FAC would be greatly appreciated. — L1AM (talk) 22:23, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Because of its length, this peer review is not transcluded. It is still open and located at Wikipedia:Peer review/Degrassi: The Next Generation/archive1.

Music of Italy

[edit]

old PR here. Pretty much entirely written by Jeffmatt and I. I think it's pretty good, but could maybe using some polishing. It is very large, but this is a really major topic. I am too close to the text right now to do the kind of editing it needs (and Jeffmatt probably is too), so please point to areas you think are bloated. Tuf-Kat 00:34, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's listed as an article with "invalid ISBNs" in the references, I guess. The "Instrumentation" subsection of Folk music has quite a few redlinks, something should be done about those. -Fsotrain09 16:37, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the comment. It is possible to blue-stub all of those red links, I suppose, but I am wondering whether it is not a better idea to simply unlink them, since they are just dialect words for the instruments mentioned in the same sentences. I saw the invalid ISBN note. A slip of the finger produces bad numbers, I know. I guess I can check them one at a time. Jeffmatt 06:29, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If they are dialect for the instruments, they could become redirects. That's a nice middle ground, IMO. -Fsotrain09 14:02, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello and thanks again. I have just linked about six or seven of those items to new music stubs--short but sufficient for the moment. I fudged on two or three others by rephrasing the sentences along the lines of "...bagpipe, called by different dialect names such as...etc...etc...". Anyway, the red links are gone. ISBN numbers....Is there such as thing as an ISBN reverse look-up? You type the number and the name of the book pops up? I bet the Feds have something like that! Call Jack Bauer. Jeffmatt 14:38, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'll work on a jazz article to clear out that last red link in the infobox. Jeffmatt 06:38, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That's done--at least a stub at Italian jazz. Jeffmatt 12:15, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Miranda Otto

[edit]

I have again expanded and improved this article on the Australian actress. I plan to renominate it for FA status in the near future. Any suggestions would be greatly appreciated. -- Underneath-it-All 03:52, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The intro needs some tweaking. It should be a better summary of the article. (And don't repeat Australian Film Institute.) The theatre section could use some expansion. How long did those plays run? What city where they in? The "Early life and education" section could use some work--it is vague in places. How exactly did her father influence her? Where did her mother live (at least in relation to Sydney, where her father lived)?
Overall this is a nice article, and a big improvement over its previous incarnations. I thought it was informative. Cheers, Fang Aili talk 20:22, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'll look over the article again within the next few days and try to incorporate your suggestions. Thanks! -- Underneath-it-All 03:15, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Girolamo Savonarola/list of film formats

[edit]

Ready to dump this into a new article, but just wanted to some last looks beforehand. Thanks! Girolamo Savonarola 00:54, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Wow, that's a lot of information. Firstly, once this goes into an article it will need an introduction and references. It would be nice to have an explanation of what some of the headers are (e.g. Negative pulldown) and why they are important / how they affect the film. Also it might be nice to have the country and possibly place of creation, though the table is very crowded as it is. CheekyMonkey 15:09, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Many thanks! I've tried a stab at a pitiful introduction and some further explanation of what qualifies, as well as a table legend. I'm going back to retrieve my references, so that may take a while longer to complete... I'm going to pass on the country/place of creation idea, as I think that the Creator column will probably do better to illuminate the answer to that question; I only list the country if I can't find any information on the creators. Anything else? Thanks again, Girolamo Savonarola 23:07, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • The intro and legend is a good start; the necessary characteristics section is definately useful. I think the creator column as it is (country if creator isn't known) is the best solution. As for other comments, if you intend to take this to Wikipedia:Featured list candidates then something that will probably be raised is the ratio of red links to blue links (which at the moment appears to be roughly 2:1), so some stub articles will be needed. Also the addition of some pictures may be suggested, although this isn't a FL criteria per se. CheekyMonkey 00:18, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Thanks again for the quick response. But let me get this straight - a FL nomination would be better served if I made a bunch of quick fluff stub articles for the sake of minimizing red linkage? Yikes. Girolamo Savonarola 01:23, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The header "Necessary characteristics" lists characteristics a film must meet to be in the list. However, readers encountering the header would expect characteristics a film must meet to be a film (or a successful format or something along those lines). An informal, nonencyclopedic article might say something like "What's in this list" where you wrote "Necessary characteristics." Can you phrase it along the lines of "What's in"? Or remove the header, placing this text in the intro section? Also, a column header says "First known film." The entries in the column are motion pictures. The use of the word "film" to mean both the medium and the cinematic work is confusing. Even though both uses are widespread, it makes sense to search for different words to prevent confusion. Any thoughts? Fg2 05:28, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your comments! I'm not certain I quite understand your comments regarding the characteristics section. Are you asking for me to change the heading to something informal and nonencyclopedic? Also, about the expectation that readers will mistake these characteristics for what a film must meet to be considered a film...while that wasn't what I was intending to write, I've looked over the requirements and...well, they seem like a fair definition to me. But let me know what you think might need changes. I've changed "first known film" to "first known work", although I think that the obvious fact that there is a column with individual entries obviates the fact that we're discussing motion pictures, not media. Again, many thanks, Girolamo Savonarola 20:20, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I wasn't clear. No, I would not advocate doing something nonencyclopedic. What I hope for, though, is a section header that says, in an encyclopedic way, what I was only able to express informally. Something along the lines of "What this list contains" or "Criteria for being in this list." So that readers will know that the ensuing paragraph is about the list, not about films. When I read the header "Necessary characteristics" I anticipated a paragraph about characteristics that a film would have to possess to be successful, or something like that. In other words, I found the heading confusing.
I'm also not advocating a change in the content of the section. It seems reasonable to list the criteria for inclusion in the list.
Thank you for the change to the column header. It seems more clearly descriptive now.
Fg2 01:00, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Once again, thanks. Does this work better for you now? Girolamo Savonarola 03:17, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It better describes the text that follows it. Thanks! Fg2 03:49, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Portuguese Communist Party

[edit]

(1st peer review)
The article has been identified as a good article, however it has failed the FA nominations. I want to know what it lacks. Perhaps a better grammar, thing that I am unable to give due to not being a native speaker. That has been the major objection. Please make suggestions, I would thank you very much for your help. Afonso Silva 22:42, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • It's introductory paragraphs needs a lot of TLC, including some dates, reorganization and a few phrases that explain terms. I'd also mention the PIDE in conjunction with the 'repression' of the party in the '33-74 (I infer) timeframe, but also ommisions like the name of the Estado Novo regime lead to a sense of weak article. (i.e. Strong Intro implies strong article. This one is not strong. It needs a lot more text to glue the buzz words and titles into something that can serve as a synopsis of the whole. This bareboned effort is no where even close to accomplishing that.)
    • I'd guess the current placement of the Principles and internal organization section means that 'most of the article' never gets read! As is, the article probably looses the interest of most any reader in the 'Principles Section', which I'd recommend as a sub-page and both subsections as something to be moved much lower in the article. Idealistic lists like that make dry reading no matter where you put them, so I'd go with the sub-page, but move it's organization subsection as the main prose (organizing and anchoring the sub-page) to very late in the article (5th or 6th section).
    • Bringing an example or two of the 'repressions' the party endured plus a little about it's resurgence in '74-75 into the article top would probably be advisible to generate interest to continue reading further to most readers, including some mention of it's current prominence or lack thereof.
    • Inasmuch as the "Authoritarian" (That word should be used appropriately in the introduction) repressing regime was one of the last European authoratarian governments, and that the revolution in '74 was virtually bloodless(!), I'd suggest you work those in early, almost certainly, into the introduction as well as other such 'hook' (sympathy garnering) factoids, such as the fact that the party champions universal education of the working class which the regime opposed, etc.
    • All that will take a lot of effort to remain NPOV, but as is, there is no 'momentum' to help the reader to want to read on in a dry topic (No 'Narrative SNAP')... something hard to accomplish in any long writing, but I believe necessary for FA status.
    • I can't venture an opinion whether the primarily English speaking readers (of Wiki) personal beliefs (and consequent cultural bias away from anything socialist or communist) would affect it's chances, but you might want to bear that intangible reality in mind if additional work fails to bear fruit. The connotations of either of those two words here in America are rarely if ever posative. Well, excepting perhaps Ted Kennedy. ~:)

Good Luck, but good work! FrankB 20:09, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • I strongly agree with some of FrankB's suggestions, as well as the suggestion made by Maclean25. Here are my suggestions:
  1. I would put the "principles and and internal organization" section after the history section, or, as Fabartus suggests, even later in the article.
  2. See if you can shorten the introductory paragraphs.
  3. I would eliminate the tables in the electoral results section. Instead, I would replace them with short verbal summaries of the results and of long-term trends (e.g., the PCP seems to be enjoying less electoral success in the last few elections). You could put the electoral results section in a separate article (titled something like "Electoral results of the Portuguese Communist Party").
  4. I agree with Maclean25 that the history section should be shortened.

Best of luck to you. – Hydriotaphia 14:47, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dunnottar Castle

[edit]

i am seeking peer review at the request of a wikipedian colleague. no interest in FAC, just want to make this a better article. i would be quite interested in any other historical facts, especially documentary referenced material. sometimes its difficult to dig out all the literature from the middle ages. this topic has been a daunting one because the castle is virtually a national symbol of Scotland. (See lead photo at Scotland in the Middle Ages, a photo i didnt take or place on that site! to understand that Dunnottar is quite a national icon for Scotland.) Anlace 19:53, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Done, thanks andyz Anlace 03:48, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
and now another user changed it back to the way i had it...good grief..which is wikipedia style?Anlace 15:08, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's a decent article, but it raised so many questions. The introduction states that the castle was built during the 13th century. The "middle ages" starts off by stating that King Domnall II died there, and William Wallace had a battle at that spot. But the first actual description of the castle states that in 1336 it was in ruins. So who built it? Why was it built at that location? Was it actually occupied by any royalty? What nearby town or village provided the logistics? If it played a central role in the history of Scotland, did it occupy a strategic position? Or was there some other reason? (It sounds like it is off in the middle of nowhere.) Could you use consistent metric units? (m2(?) as well as acres.) Finally, do you have a closeup picture of the main castle? Thanks!!! =) — RJH 16:11, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
good questions rjhall. heres what ive done
  • built by caledonians before 84AD, rebuilt in 13th cent by persons unknown
  • why this location: text now explains strategic location
  • occupied by royalty. text expands on the earlier references to royals. basically no kings or queens are known to have lived here for any lenght of time. but many stayed here. text now is fairly complete on the particulars.
  • metric units now consistent
  • closeup pics. dont have any but will get by mid 2006 and add then
thanks for the stimulating and substantive questions that led to much improvement Anlace 00:36, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • i have consulted your sources. i had read most of them previously, but one was most interesting that i hadnt seen: the cowan paper that came out in 2005. that was most helpful and ive added to the text on earlier history. thanks very much for your help maclean Anlace 00:36, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The following comment was found on the redirect page Wikipedia:Peer review/Dunnotar Castle and moved here as a public service.--Russ Blau (talk) 21:17, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Some comments:
    • At this location is the imposing gatehouse with apparent medieval defensive devices lurking for attackers treading up the cobblestone entrance road - Perhaps this sentence could be re-written in a more encyclopaedic style? Imposing and lurking are the words which jump out at me as not quite appropriate.
    • Mariscal held the fortress, in spite of tragic devastation - "Tragic devastation" isn't an objective enough term for Wikipedia articles
    • At about this same time in history Covenanters had been opposing the Bishops of Aberdeen and staged an important meeting in nearby Muchalls Castle. Events at Dunnotar and Muchalls Castles were to prove an important turning point in the English Civil War, and to promote willingness of the monarchy to come to terms with the ideals of the Covenanters. - two uses of the terms "important" - this should be qualified or supported in some way - see WP:PEACOCK
    • The Dunnottar fortress was defended bravely by a scant but plucky garrison of 80 men - Not NPOV
    • Many of them perished in this inhumane and squalid setting' - again, not NPOV.
SP-KP 14:39, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
i just found the above comment posted on the proper page. ive fixed some of the points you've raised and will study the others more carefully as i have time. some of your remarks are problematic {eg the words "lurking" and "squalid" are extremely accurate depictions of the historicalaccounts.

Philippines

[edit]

I just want to know what people think of this article, and how it can be made better. Being from the Philippines myself, I'm interested in knowing how the article looks through objective eyes. First of all, I realize there are no references, and that's a real problem that needs to be remedied. With that aside, I'd like to hear some constructive criticism. :) Coffee 14:46, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Long sections need to be summarised. The article on the whole needs to be copyedited. For reference, please India which is used to model many other country-based featured articles. =Nichalp «Talk»= 06:23, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It looks quite nice. I compared it to some of the previous nation FA articles and have a few suggestions:
  • In the history section I'd like to see a little more about the settlement of the archipelago prior to European contact.
  • The "See also" section of the Australia, Cambodia and India articles are nicely organized. Can something like that be done?
  • There are no sections on Transportation or Foreign relations, such as are found on other nation pages. I think the later especially is an important sub-topic on nation pages.
  • Do there need to be two countries templates down at the bottom? Cambodia, of example, only uses "Countries in Southeast Asia".
  • Most of the other country articles have a separate section for States and territories, whereas this article has merged administrative divisions and government.
  • Could the bulleted list of regions be converted into a nice table comparable to this: South_Africa#Provinces?
  • Optionally you could include a section on flora and fauna, or ecology.
Thanks! — RJH 16:47, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Philippines has incredibly unique flora and fauna which should really make its way into the article with its own section heading if not a summary + new article. --Aranae 04:43, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Coffee, I know you mentioned them already, but the lack of references would unfortunately stop this article from making the Good Article list never mind the FA list. When they are being added it would also be good if inline citations were included. This: http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Cite.php helped me do references in previous articles with a lot less pain than previous formats of footnotes and refs. It keeps track of numbers and you can use the same ref multiple times by just using the ref name from the second time you use it onwards. Regards SeanMack 03:23, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Catlins

[edit]

User:Avenue and I have been attempting to improve this article to the point of FA nomination. I realise there's still some way to go, but any advice on improvements from here would be welcome. Grutness...wha? 01:43, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • The lead should be expanded to fit WP:LEAD
  • Economy, History, and Transportation should be split up. History should immediately precede or go after Natural history.
  • Please use the   for the no-break space (25 kg). I fixed a few incidences, but the rest should also be fixed.
  • Please provide converted values for measurements in parentheses following measurements (of course using the above no-break space). See WP:MOSNUM.
  • Use standard abbreviations when using symbols (m instead of metre, ft instead of foot)
  • Not a direct concern, but please try to create articles for those redlinks.
  • The article requires inline citations- probably WP:FOOTNOTEs. Just providing 4 references doesn’t fit WP:WIAFA.
  • Can an infobox be used? Invercargill has one.

Thanks, AndyZ t 02:15, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks - I'll try to get onto those points ASAP. As to the redlinks, that's what I've been doing since I started WP'ing today (there are now about half a dozen left than there were this morning). As far as an infobox is concerned, I'm not sure - Invercargill has one becoause it's a standard used for NZ cities. NZ's administrative regions have them too, but The catlins isn't either of these... I'm not quite sure what would need to be in it. I'll have a think. Grutness...wha? 02:33, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Okay - I think that's most of the points addressed. I'm still not entirely convinced about the order of the sections, but at least there are now numerous footnotes, nbsp'd conversions, and a reasonable leading section, and the number of redlinks is down from 26 to 10. Any further suggestions? Grutness...wha? 09:27, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

For some examples of FAs that are about places, see WP:FA#Geography_and_places. I would suggestion the following layout: (1)Geography (1a)Climate (2)History (3)Population/Demographics (please provide demographics if possible) (4) Government (What type of government is there in this region?) (5) Economy -- and then the rest in w/e order makes most sense following that.
Transportation is rather empty- just one road and one rail line. Seeing that it is by the coast, isn't there anything else? (boat, plane, more important roads, etc.)
Citations should be added for numbers presented in climate
Per WP:CONTEXT, years without full dates should not be linked (oh never mind, I took care of it).
As shown in WP:FOOTNOTE, please move the citation after the period (w/o a space to prevent it from being bumped down to the next line). I'll do that speedily if you would like
As per WP:CITE please add citation information to external links under the references; consider {{Cite web}}
Try to avoid adding promotional sites to external links; see WP:EL
Please add image copyright information for Image:MegadyptesAntipodes.jpg- I doubt that GNU-FDL works here (see User talk:C00ch)
Thanks again. The article looks better now, but issues above should be addressed and it could be lengthened a bit. AndyZ t 22:50, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Reordered - check; citations for climate - check; citations after the full stops (no space) - check. Working on the full citations. Will need to find other references to replace the (very useful) ones on the promo site (sigh). Don't quite get the point about the image. GFDL seems to me to be exactly the sort of licence needed here - the comparison you give is to a cc licence (quite a different matter). If it's still a problem then I'll just have to find a different image. Then I can get on with extending the sections - some of which are very short after the re-ordering. Oh, and no - there's virtually no other transport to the Catlins - just that one road. Many thanks. Grutness...wha? 07:33, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've managed to extend a lot of the sections - even the Transport one (the Government one is still very skinny, but I don't think much can be done about that). And I replaced the penguin with a free-use sea lion (that sentence reads very oddly!) Grutness...wha? 10:30, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
(Edit conflict) I suspect that AndyZ's concern about the image is whether the person who uploaded it had the right to put it under the GFDL (e.g. were they the photographer?). The first image queried on their talk page has been deleted, because they didn't respond to the query. This could happen to the penguin image too. -- Avenue 10:37, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ah right. That makes sense. Anyway it's gone now, replaced by the sealion. Grutness...wha? 10:42, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wizards (film)

[edit]

This article needs attention. (Ibaranoff24 00:42, 3 April 2006 (UTC))[reply]

Effects of nuclear explosions

[edit]

A very important topic in view of current events, and something people will be looking for an accurate, up-to-date source on. So I ask, what keeps this article from being a Featured Article? I know there's going to be a lot, but that's always our goal, isn't it? Judgesurreal777 01:35, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • what keeps this article from being a Featured Article?
  1. History section almost absent. Please expand it. Reduce the dependence on tables and prosify as far as possible.
  2. Inline references needed where appropriate.
  3. Balance the sections. Some are long, and some are short. Expand/summarise where necessary.
  4. Cockroaches?

=Nichalp «Talk»= 11:57, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    • I'd say the opposite about the history, actually -- I think it would be better to scrap it to the extent that the history is just about the development of the nuclear weapon. The article would be most useful if it focused closely on the effects of a nuclear explosion; it would then serve its role very well as a subpage of the main nuclear weapon article. Christopher Parham (talk) 03:48, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The units are inconsistent, particularly for pressures.
  • Would adding the radii for damage to people due to shockwave pressure to the table be an improvement?
  • The Effects of a nuclear explosion section repeats itself & is unweildy, needs to be more concise & clearer. It should tie together with the following Direct & Indirect sections better e.g. the %ages don't include a figure for the EMP, presumably it's counted as part of the ionising radiation.
  • What is GR in the table? Presumably ground range.
  • Is a vortex ring not another way of saying mushroom cloud or at least to do with the shape of the mushroom cloud, these should be tied together.
  • At the top of the effects section a figure of 5% of the energy being ionising radiation is given then the ionising radiation section quotes 50%. Presumably one is measured at the nuclear device & the other is measured at an arbitrary distance once most of the ionising radiation has been converted into other effects.

Overall lots of good info but needs to be clearer & more readable by the general public. MGSpiller 01:17, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • This article apparently isn't attempting to treat the causes of a nuclear explosion, e.g. the design of an atomic weapon or the related physics. So it might be worth renaming it to something like Effects of nuclear explosions, or any name that better reflects exactly what this article is about. Another point: I'd like to see a little more on the applications, which are mentioned in the lead but not again. Christopher Parham (talk) 03:44, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Several stylistic issues:

  1. The list of possible uses of nuclear weapons needs to go lower here, or in a separate article.
  2. Give a good copyedit to the History of nuclear explosions section. It is missing several serial commas and should be split into several sentences to avoid a run-on.
  3. Severely needs inline citations. You also need to convert "bare" links to footnotes.
  4. Use {{seealso}}, {{mainarticle}} and other article-linking templates.
  5. It's missing several key details: for example, it talks about the equilibrium temperature of the surrounding areas, but does not tell you what that temperature is.
  6. A layman does not why you're calling X-rays "soft" - you need to explain more about that.
  7. Several grammar issues. I've corrected most of them, but you need someone to go over and copyedit the entire article.
  8. Weasel words. "Some eardrums would probably rupture..." do they rupture or not? Do you have a source for that?
  9. Overall, it is a bit too technical, and needs some "dumbing down" to be brilliant prose. It still checks out on everything else, though. Titoxd(?!? - help us) 00:31, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Guatemalan Party of Labour

[edit]

Article has been expanded significantly, but still needs improvement. --Soman 11:41, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • WP:LEAD should be expanded to be a brief overview of the entire article.
  • Comma use has to reach a concensus- per WP:MOSDATE, the article should either have dates that either all have commas or that don't. (On February 2, 1952 vs On August 2 1953). Note also that the year should be linked if the full date is provided.
  • The external links that are in the article need to be converted into WP:FOOTNOTEs, and citation information has to be added about them.
  • The article skips around from years and jumping back into the past (1952 -> 1945, 1949-> 1922, etc.), and should be chronologized.
  • Watch out for captalization errors ("However, Although communism")
  • Needs copyediting, with examples like:
    • On May 29 1978 the a massacre occurred in Panzós.
    • A CIA intelligence estimate in 1952 reported that the PGT had a membership of about five hundred and an undetermined number of sympathizers. (makes it sound that the membership was composed of "five hundred and an undetermined number" of sympathizers)
    • Meanwhile, the relation of the party towards the armed struggle was not uncomplicated. (complicated will suffice)
    • highlightened differences (highlighted)

Thanks, AndyZ 21:04, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

K. R. Narayanan

[edit]

The FAC nomination for this article failed to reach a consensus and more than one user voting at FAC suggested that the article be listed for peer review.-Pournami (Listed for PR: 12:42, 5 March 2006 (UTC)) The first part of PR-initial reviews by RJ and Nirav[reply]

summary of suggestions/concerns

[edit]

let me list suggestions/queries relating to content so far to be addressed: (this is meant as a checklist for Italo; pls look into/reply to)

  • try to integrate dates into sentences rather than adding them as an afterthought (should this be done?)
  • image copyright status: needs to be addressed satisfactorily prior to a 2nd fa candidacy (if that happens)(ok, so we'll worry abt this and abt final copyedit later)
  • lead: not enough : being rewritten
  • citation: will recheck for any missing citations.
  • specific concerns:
regarding POV
  • Are Descriptions of "high distinction" POV ?
  • Are "Opinions and Assessment of the presidency, issues with BJP and other stuff" "written in a neutral tone with adequate supply of references and facts."?
  • There is no information in the article on KR Narayanan's critics and opponents, both past and present. What are their opinons on his presidency and his career in the IFS?
  • There are only a couple of instances of criticism of his policies in the article, and both are terminated quite abruptly without elaboration. I find it hard to believe that Narayanan, as a senior member in India's political circles, did not have his policies criticized or questioned and that most criticisms had caste-ist undertones. You will need to research and elaborate on that.
  • His issues with the BJP towards the end of his tenure; criticisms of his presidency, etc should be discussed. Racial, caste-based criticisms need not be incorporated, but it should be noted in the article that he was frequently the target political adversaries because of his minority status.
  • I don't see much criticism of Narayanan's actions/speeches. What is critics assessment of his actions, his bid for re-election, his decision on Bihar President's rule? What was the BJP's rationale - you include Narayanan's personal criticism of the BJP, and the BJP's backtracking on Narayanan's nomination. It paints an unnecessarily bad pic of the BJP. This is also for many people, an inherent POV becoz there is no accomodation for Narayanan's critics.You must include an alternate assessment of Narayanan wherever.
  • but please try to inculcate any data on whether he failed at some of his objectives, of the BJP's rationale, of his shortcomings/assets in relation to other Presidents.
  • Its important to talk about the Bihar President's Rule issue, the communal riots, etc. a bit more.
reqiring Rewrite/clarify/better citation
  • there are many sentences that seem to glowingly discuss Narayanan's actions and legacy. President Narayanan's identification of problems of the Dalit community, of their oppresion, need direct citation.
  • I'm referring to the passage in "Concerns for Social and Economic justice and Communal tolerance" - "President Narayanan spoke on various occasions..." I think you need to elucidate the issues better - one gets the impression that adivasis and Dalits are in a miserable situation in India. If you say "oppression," "displacement," link to articles that describe the topics, or to sources. Re-write the section to explain better
  • asking you to be direct, succint in writing about it and giving sources.
  • Narayanan's personal assertions, in his speeches and private thoughts, need to be supplemented with outside views and facts.

-quoting comments by others, Pournami

Another round of editing, after that maybe invite a few more ppl to PR (God, this is getting nowhere, more hard work, more time than expected, all for what?)—Preceding unsigned comment added by Pournami (talk • contribs)

And there have been suggestions to remove/reorganize sub-sections.--Sahodaran 10:37, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Sahodaran...I truly understand your frustration, but trust me — there's light at the end of the tunnel. With all the points/suggestions incorporated, this article will be ready for FAC. Many of the points summarized above can be tackled through one or two sources. Given that Presidency in India is ceremonial at best, it is hard to find criticism of policies, etc that can be directly attributed to an Indian President. This can be defended during FAC. If something is not there, it's not there, we cannot be expected to invent sources just to satisfy NPOV. However, let us try to find whatever we can on the criticisms issue and incorporate that into the article. I will go through and copyedit for POV this afternoon. Hopefully this should ease some of your frustration with regards to the direction of this article. Thanks AreJay 17:03, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
AreJay,thanks a lot for your support,but seems that question to God was written by Pournami and she forgot to sign it.I dont think that this is getting nowhere,AAMOF I am enjoying all of it..:).Thank you once again!!--Sahodaran 03:27, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Italo's responses to suggestions so far

[edit]

Thanks, AreJay and Rama's Arrow, for your help and the nice comments and suggestions. I have some constraints on my time at present, hence I was not available as I would have liked to be. Pournami and Sahodaran have compiled a summary, which agrees with my own independent summary, so I think it is accurate.

  • Bias: I feel this is the chief concern expressed in the reviews, and I think this should be resolved first: Please read through the following explanations/suggestions:
(1) 'high distinction' : I feel this is fair. I am not aware that any one disputes that KRN's diplomatic career was distinguished. Chandrabhan Prasad's and Gopalkrishna Gandhi's obits, Hindu editorial, Manmohan Singh's condolence message, all support this claim, I feel (They can be cited if needed). That KRN was posted to China and the USA (the second after calling him back from retirement) also supports this assertion (even without going into the details of his achievements there); these are arguably the most difficult ambassador positions in the IFS (and I think no one else has been assigned to both posts). KRN was retained as Ambassador to China under Morarji Desai too, so there seems to been no partisanship in his high postings. If you feel this asseertion has been disputed by some, then we can consider removing the claim, or attributing it to sources. The details of his diplomatic career lack context in this article, I feel, and are perhaps better suited to the article on Sino-Indian relations; also, I don't have any hard references to discuss them.
(2) Opinions and assessment of Presidency : In my edits, I have thought it best to put in only facts, and to leave the readers to form their own opinions. I don't feel a comprehensive assessment has been attempted in the article. If there are specific points of concern, please continue with more detailed remarks. I have been particularly concerned to avoid biased language myself. I have also tried to attribute all the controversial/biased statements included. If you feel there is more to be done, please make specific suggestions and help.
(3) 'independent and assertive' : I feel this is not a biased phrase. In any case, that was not the intention; what is attempted is to summarise the nature of his actions in a factual manner. KRN was indeed independent and assertive, I think (as his actions described in the article reveal); what could be a matter of dispute, I think, is whether he was right or wrong to be so. It is also mentioned that other Presidents had not followed the same course generally. However, no opinion has been given about which course is right. When writing a lead summarising his presidency, something of this nature has to be said, I feel. I have attempted to state it in a neutral manner; if you feel it should be improved/changed, do make more specific suggestions.
(4) 'proved invaluable' : The additions suggested have been made.
(5) Criticism in the IFS: I did not come across any professional criticism.
(6) Criticism of the Presidency: This is very difficult to come by, as Rama's Arrow remarked, especially if one wants to include relevant criticism by relevant attributable sources. There are several plausible reasons, I think:
(a) Presidency has generally been considered a sinecure, and not much of public interest. (KRN was different, but it was not easy to change the notion of the Preseident in public discourse so soon.)
(b) The President is not a politician or policy-maker per se, but somewhat a consitutional trustee and guide of the political system, with a clearly circumscribed role to play; so the usual canons of political criticism fail. In particular, criticisms of his actions need reference to subtle constitutional points.
As far as I understand, most criticisms were fuelled by partisan considerations, by politicians who had felt KRN had not acceded to their wishes. In fact, criticism by politicians is suspect for this very reason.
Scholarly criticism by commentators have tended to give KRN good reviews. They have noted only a few points against Narayanan:
(a) He was excessively concerned about some judicial appointments (reference to K. G. Balakrishnan's appointment).
(b) His speech while receiving Clinton departed from the Government line; this was improper.
(Both by A. G. Noorani, in his assessment of KRN, already in the references).
I did not include this because these issues were discussed only in passing in the article until recently. I think these can be included as fair criticism now, where these events are now dealt with.
In relation with other Presidents, it is mentioned in the article that other Presidents has followed different procedures for appointing a PM. This shows a divergence of opinion. Perhaps this is not an evident criticism as the article stands now; so I suggest the following:
When KRN departed from this line, N. S. Reddy had died, and S. D. Sharma was already in ill-health and not involved in any public issues. R. Venkataraman had, however, been in good health. RV had stated that each President should decide for himself how to exercise their discretion. However, he stood by his own procedure, and stated that KRN should have invited Sonia Gandhi (second largest party) after the Vajpayee government had been voted out. It can perhaps help to cite this and say that RV had expressed dissent.
On other issues, scholarly criticism is lacking.
(a) KRN's 2000 Republic day speech can be considered as being against market policies. The Editorial by the Indian Express seems to reflect some of the views of critics, and could be included as a criticism. (I had not been able to locate this link before. Since we now have it thanks to Pournami, there is no difficulty.) It is also likely that the Government line was different on this matter.
(b) KRN's refusal to impose President's rule was criticised in both instances; however, it was interested parties, Mulayam Singh and L. K. Advani, who voiced this; they claimed they disagreed with KRN's reading of law in the matter, but did not go into the details. (These can be verified from the referenced reports on these issues.) Commentators did not fault KRN on these decisions, as far as I could see.
(c) KRN's speeches against Presidential form of governance and stability-oriented changes in the constitution were not taken well by the Vajpayee government. Commentators tended to see the President as fulfilling his role as a guardian of the constitution. Vajpayee sought to hush up the divergence that had surfaced, by clarifying that the basic structure would not be tampered with.
(d) Communal riots: The allegations made by KRN are important (and have been communicated to the Commission investigating the riots). I think it should be included in KRN's article. Vajpayee did not comment on the allegations. It does make the discussion one-sided, but I don't see what could be done about this.
(e) The BJP's opinion on KRN has not been voiced in an attributable form. Throughout his Presidency, the BJP refrained from explicit criticism of KRN, probably because of political etiquette. However, when discussions were on to find a successor, the BJP still did not break their silence. In the report titled `Elusive consensus' (references) this is detailed out. They claimed to oppose KRN's second term because of a precedent of no President having got it (Rajendra Prasad had a second term though). They also pointed to his ill health. However, the report says that privately speaking, senior leaders (under anonymity) admitted the main reason to be that KRN was not in tune with the BJP ideology. KRN in his interview seems to point to the same reason (This can be attributed, but is KRN's opinion of the BJP's reasons). Mulayam Singh's opinion is reported to be influenced by his dissent on the question of President's rule. That the BJP strongly objected to a second term for KRN is however, not in doubt, and is evidenced by the elaborate manoeuvres they carried out in the candidature stage. (This has been discussed in the article, neutrally, I think.)
As rightly pointed out, there is a gap in the discussion here. That the BJP denied KRN a second term is evident, but the reasons are not [in a scholarly fashion]. I hope from the above that there is a difficulty in writing about this in the article, unless one does original research. What I feel can be done to address this (without original research) is the following: Include references to Mulayam Singh's and Advani's opinions [not elaborated by them in detail, as far as I understood; point out this fact clearly] (in the section on President's rule), discuss briefly the nature of the disagreement with the Vajpayee government on basic structure (in the golden jubilee section), and discuss the anonymous quotes from the report in the Demission of office section. I think, with all the criticisms at the appropriate places, and this report at the demission of office section, the reader can deduce the nature of the tension between KRN and the BJP. Is this all right, and/or is there anything more/something else that you want to suggest?
  • Sectioning/Abridgement
(1) Participation in the elections: I think it should be part of KRN's biography; it is a notable event, and is mentioned pointedly in many obits, including Hindu's editorial. (Of course, a mention of this can be made in the article on Presidents as well.)
(2) Exercise of Presidential discretion: These are the most critical duties of a President, and should be here. (Again, a mention of KRN's innovations could be made in the article on Presidents.)
(3) Speeches: They are an important of KRN's work as a President. He was articulated his vision and concerns on various questions, and Presidents have been considered as educators of the citizenry on appropriate topics. Since they are separated off in a clearly marked section, I don't see how it could bog a reader down. It certainly gives a comprehensive understanding of KRN as a President and as a human being. I think this section should stay.
(4) 'Origins/Education', etc.: I think these sections deal with clearly distinct topics, and the titles clearly describe what the sections contain (I feel Early life is relatively vague compared to Origins/Education). Should they really be merged? Also the sections presently give different aspects of his career and life. I understand these may not be usual, but I don't see any convincing reason why this organisation is bad. (In my planned lead, the third paragraph will give a brief description of his life, so the section titles should be even more comprehensible then.)
(5) Gujral's quote: It clearly describes how KRN's elevation as President means to the ideals of Indian Republic, of the freedom struggle, and to the backwards classes of the country. This an important point that needs to be discussed in the article on KRN, in any case. Since this quote from a memorable occasion succinctly captures all that, I really think it should stay. (It can also be used in the article on Presidents.)
(6) Presidency: This section is long, but I think it is justifiable. The sub-section titles, I feel, clearly describe various important facets. I don't think merging them would improve anything. I feel the section can be made more accessible by including a lead paragraph in the Presidency section, summarising the various events/issues; this would make the titles of the sub-sections clearer, and help guide the reader. From reading the guidelines on summary style, I feel the size of the text itself (and not that devoted to referencing/citing) should be considered in deciding on condensing the article; I feel the size of the article is more due to elaborate citations rather than lengthy paragraphs, and that the text size itself is justifiable.
  • Lead: Have thought out a lead. But would like to settle the previous points before submitting a final version.
  • Citations:
(1) Nehru's request: Citation has been provided. (However, I feel this is not a controversial statement, and need not be cited explicitly. Biographies cover such things adequately.)
(2) Dalit affairs: The citation had been omitted by mistake, and has been put in. Thanks.
(3) 'pained and anguished' : Cited.
(4) Please continue to check for citations which might be required.
  • Personal life: Nothing much to remark upon, other than what is already in the article, as far as I know.
  • Images:
(1) Government images: I don't know how the legal situation of these images (five) can be ascertained, any more than what is already stated in the explanations in these images. If you feel there is some way we can do more on this, please advise.
(2) Image of Clinton and KRN: Yes, I think one of those images is nice to put in. (RJ: would you want to do it yourself, as I don't know exactly why they are free images.)
(3) FU images: Of the five images in this category, I think the rationale for the images of KRN voting, of KRN at WSF, and of KRN with Annan, can be strengthened sufficiently (as per RJ's suggestions). We shall work on it after the preceding issues are cleared.
(4) While images are not necessary at all, I feel some of those images are nice to keep, if possible.
  • Copyediting:
(1) Malayalam text of name: Yes. Will do.
(2) Sentences beginning with 'He' : Yes. Will do towards the end of this process.
(3) Combining paragraphs: Will look at the article and try to do this wherever I feel it is advisable.
(4) Years/Dates in sentences: I feel this adds unnecessary length to the article, and complicates the structure of some sentences which already have much to say about other things. Dates are given throughout the article as an aid to placing things in context, but I feel they should indeed be looked at as an afterthought; that is why they are placed in parentheses in the present version.

Please let me know if I have omitted addressing any concerns. Also, RJ, could you please indicate where you felt a discussion of critical views had been cut off abruptly, if I have not mentioned them in the bias responses already?

Thank you once again.

Italo 19:28, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

P. S.: As I was posting this, I noticed RJ's recent edit. I think I agree.

Comment: I am glad that there is a good understanding of what needs to be accomplished before we push this for FAC. I have done some copyediting to some of the earlier sections of the article. More will be on its way. With regards to Italo's comments vis-a-vis the "independent and assertive" phrase in the lead, I do not think we should be including this since it will invite objections during the process. Their question will be, you say Narayanan was considered independent and assertive; considered independent and assertive by whom?? Keep in mind that we need to present statements that are indisputable, and I'm not sure how strongly we will be able to defend the above phrase. AreJay 21:29, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Citation - there's a need for citation on the comment that Nehru said KR was the best diplomat. Rama's Arrow 22:06, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well,that too is already there,please see 1.This is it.--Sahodaran 22:27, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good work thus far. I haven't read through the article in as much detail as I would like to have, but this is much better. I will review the article again and copyedit the article. Here are some suggestions -- the image of the President's wife - please delete it. It looks out of place and it's copyright tag is questionable (see Rama's Arrow's comments re Government of India images). Also can someone go through the article and create stubs for all the red links? It shouldn't take too long, IMO, and there aren't too many red links in the first place. Thanks AreJay 03:54, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

red-link stubs: half-done, some more to go. -Pournami

New Cleanup (3/15)

[edit]

I have begun copyediting the article and here are some common themes that I have observed wrt the segments that I have reviewed. I am yet to read through the last three segments of the article:

1. Sentence Structure: There is an excessive use of parentheses and semi-colons. This lends a choppy structure to the article makes it very difficult to read and follow the thought process. Please replace all parentheses and semi-colons.

Also, the article uses a lot of ornate vocabulary and round about sentences. Sentences should be kept simple and to the point. Elaborate words will tend to confuse readers.

2. POV: Here are some POV statements that I have found thus far:

    1. "Narayanan had the singular honour of being the President.." why the phrase "singular honor"? He may have been the leader of the country during the golden jubilee, but the use of this phrase is unencyclopedic. Please remove and/or rephrase.
    2. "Address to the nation from the ramparts of the Red fort on the golden jubilee of Indian independence" What is the purpose of such a large excerpt from Gujaral's speech? If

the idea is to highlight his complements to Narayanan, please select the one or two sentences that directly relate to him and/or paraphrase the context of the speech.

    1. "Narayanan sought to correct what was a long-standing practice "...I changed correct to change. After all, who's to say what is correct and what is not?
    2. "President K. R. Narayanan's address to the nation...is a landmark.." References must be cited for this (I have added a {{citationneeded}} to it). Please specify a source that asserts that Narayanan was the first President to broach this topic on Republic Day.
    3. "and pointed out the wisdom of reposing faith in the common men and women of India as a whole, rather than in some elite section of society." Wisdom of reposing faith? Again, needs to be paraphrased to avoid POV.
    4. "and have set an important precedent concerning federalism and the rights of state governments." This sentence needs to be qualified with additional information. I don't quite understand what the sentence's intended purpose/meaning is.
    5. "This caused a problem in accountability, as the Lok Sabha had been dissolved and a caretaker government was in office." If a caretaker government was in office why was there a problem of "accountability"? Please explain/expand.

I will review the remaining three segments sometime tomorrow and provide my thoughts. Thanks AreJay 05:22, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re:-

[edit]
  1. Of course,whatever that can be improved should be improved.But it is tough to get away with the parentheses with years inside,as it has already been argued here.
Comment: For the sections that I copyedited yesterday, I cleaned up some of this. But there's many instances of parentheses and semi colons in the rest of the article. I userstand this is still work-in-progress. I just wanted that to be highlighted. AreJay 14:44, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    1. It is of course a "singular honour"; the fact that he was the president at the golden jubilee,the fact that he delivered the midnight speech at the central hall reminiscent of the tryst with destiny distinguishes him from other presidents and this should be mentioned in the article.But if the words need be rephrased,it may be done.
Comment: I'm sure it was a singular honor. But it is not for us to opine. This must be paraphrased. Singular honor is a phrase that will invite needless objections, because it is subjective. AreJay 14:44, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    1. It is not only meant as a compliment to KRN,it is something higher than that.It efficiently captures the importance of having someone like KRN as president.And the occation in which it has been said is really,really important,perhaps the most important occation we have;the PM's annual address at Red Fort,and this was even more important 'cuz the golden jubilee.I just want to quote Italo here

      It clearly describes how KRN's elevation as President means to the ideals of Indian Republic, of the freedom struggle, and to the backwards classes of the country. This an important point that needs to be discussed in the article on KRN, in any case. Since this quote from a memorable occasion succinctly captures all that, I really think it should stay.

Comment: My comment here was not that it should be removed. I didn't see why such a huge part of Gujaral's speech was directly quoted. This must be paraphrased. AreJay 14:44, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    1. It is not about correctness from a philosophical/subjective/relative p.o.v but about whether it is correct as per constitution.Objective rules on "Who all can vote?" has been laid out in the constitution,and the president too falls in this category.So the president is correct as per constitution if he chooses to vote.
Comment: then the qualifyer "per the rights bestowed to citizens by the Indian constitution" needs to be added if we're going to use the word "correct". AreJay 14:44, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    1. Quoting P. Sainath-

      When K.R. Narayanan addressed the nation on the eve of Republic Day, he handed down a scathing analysis of what has gone wrong with the country in recent years. Coming from a person holding the nation's highest office, it was not merely unusual but unprecedented.[1]

      Ammu Joseph-"President's unprecedented and unconventional commentary on the state of the nation"[2].Harish Khare reporting the event in The Hindu-"Perhaps never before has an occupant of the Rashtrapati Bhavan spoken with such candour and poignancy about the state of social and political affairs"[3].Hope these are sufficient.There was unanimity in the media that his address was unprecedented,and hence there is no controversy here,and hence no need of a citation,IMHO.UpdateThe required citations have been added.--Sahodaran 13:10, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    2. It is "he pointed out".He certainly *pointed that out*,he provided arguements for that;it is tough to get a one sentence,specific quote from this that explains everything,but here is one.

      This act of faith by the founding fathers meant that the governance of this vast country was not to be left in the hands of an elite class but the people as a whole.

    3. It means that we have a federal system of government,with well laid out rules,which should be honoured.The centre should not encroach upon the rights and authority given to the states by the constitution.Here are the details.So there is no factual defect.And the current sentence is enough I feel,but that might be because I am somewhat familiar with the whole thing.
Comment Ok. This can be added as a qualification to the statement in the article. AreJay 14:44, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    1. It is a caretaker govt.,not an elected govt.The the Lok Sabha had been dissolved,and thus a caretaker govt. is not accountable to the democratic process.
Comment: Isn't a caretaker government the same as an interim government? How is an interim government not accountable to the democratic process?? There may be a valid explaination for this, but that needs to be added to the corresponding statement in the article. AreJay 14:44, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Re:-Parliament is the supreme body as per constitution,every major decision of the government must get a consent from the parliament after proper deliberations,it is *accountable* to the parliament.When the parliament is dissolved,this cannot be done.--Sahodaran 17:07, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Update: Okay, it makes sense now. Please summarize the verbiage above and include it in your sentence. AreJay 05:43, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hope its ok now.Abt federalism,I dont know what more to add.--Sahodaran 05:08, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hope I've provided valid arguements.We can go ahead with the respective edits in the cases where objections have been cleared,and I am willing to clarify further on the rest.Thanks. --Sahodaran 07:39, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Done.--Sahodaran 05:08, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Some comments

[edit]
  • Lead needs to be shortened and tightened. We need citations for things like Indira Gandhi "requesting" him to join politics (also, KRN saying so doesn't make it a fact) and NDA refusing to support him the second time (AFAICT, it did not do so publicly, lots of rumours circulated in the press etc.). Other presidents have also had uneasy relationships with the governments of the day - Rajendra Prasad with Nehru, Radhakrishnan with Indira Gandhi (rather, it was in the reverse direction here), Zail Singh with Rajiv Gandhi etc. R. Venkatraman was the first President to return a bill, the postal bill, if I am not mistaken. That is more important than, say, voting in an election, imo. Each of the presidents would have broken some convention or the other - we should be neutral in assessing the impact. For example, the current president has broken several taboos by interacting with people more freely and undertaking serious diplomatic visits. I am sorry if I seem to be meandering, but KRN's achievements must be placed in his context - poverty, untouchability etc. in the lead rather than portray him as the best or only assertive president. What needs to be stressed and what is more interesting is how he made it in life despite hardships in life, not what he did in the position of president. Just as people ask why Zail Singh did not resign from his post if he was opposed to Operation Bluestar as he claimed, people also ask what prevented KRN from resigning due to his differences with inaction on Gujarat riots. I understand that these are difficult, tricky and probably even POV-ish questions to answer, but I believe that we should also have the critics' views finding some place even in the lead. --Gurubrahma 06:29, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you.NDA refusing to support him the second time-Elusive consensus,The political dynamics.And he was a President who defied stereotype;

KOCHERIL RAMAN NARAYANAN inherited the presidential office at a time the Head of State was firmly imprinted in the public perception as a "rubber stamp" figure. The occupant of the Rashtrapati Bhavan unfailingly acted on the aid and advice of the Union Cabinet, rarely if at all went public with his opinion. It was unthinkable that the first citizen could admit to a political vision that was at variance with that of the government of the day. President Narayanan defied the stereotype, pushing the envelope in areas that were previously unexplored but without ever becoming activist in a way that would have undermined his constitutional role. In his own words, he was "not an executive President but a working President, and working within four corners of the Constitution."

I dont know if someone will dispute this fact; not even the BJP.And isnt setting *official precedents*(like what to do if things are so and so), with scholarly and sound reasonings based on the constitution that blunts critics different from meeting more people and visiting more schools? I agree that the lead has to go a long way.And he not only "made it in life despite hardships in life" but also did a lot of unprecedented,important things.But I'll try to stress the first part too.And about your edit;"Narayanan is considered" has been changed to "was considered";he *is still being considered so* is a fact,even after his death,isnt it?--Sahodaran 08:17, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • lead length; perhaps can be adjusted/worked on. will happen gradually, i guess.
  • IG "request": If we require citation, we can have one of KRN saying so.
  1. I won't force any reader to believe that "It is a fact because KRN said so". (Call me an unfairly biased KRN fan. If I were just passing by this articcle instead of writing it, "KRN said so" would be all the attestation I would demand for *this* specific instance: of IG requesting him)
  2. We can have other citations, each of which are either based on taking KRN's words to be true, or (I hate to admit,) plagiarised from this article at the time of KRN's demise to write obits.
  3. The point is, please understand the difficulty of finding an appropriater citation than KRN's own words:
  • Indian newspaper archives online aren't available beyond more than 10 years back. So we can't track a news report from long ago saying, "IG asks..."
  • Non online sources are even more difficulter to obtain
So, you might ask, why not just remove the part about IG requesting? Here, the chief point perhaps isn't made so well in the article: perhaps needs to be explained with adequate citation that KRN was primarily interested in academic/journalistic career only and took up other assignments upon request of leaders he respected, and these leaders made these requests not as part of allowing concessions to dalits, but bercause they were impressed by his work, and were convinced he was the appropriate man for the job.
  • NDA non support: i hope the above links are sufficient.-Pournami

The point is, you cannot have op-ed pieces claiming something as fact. You can definitely say that "The Hindu" observed or a section of media regerded him as etc. SInce IG is dead, we have no way of knowing if she really requested him. You cannot say IG requested him in the light of evidence available, a better way of saying it is "KRN indicated in an interview that he wanted to continue life in academics but that he changed his decision after IG requested him" or some such thing. That is the difference between a FA and an ordinary article. "was considered" and "is considered" - I am ok either way, but the former is the right way of expression as it refers to that period. For emphasis, you can say "was considered" and "is still considered", though. My stress is not on having citations for everything but represent everything the way it is. --Gurubrahma 11:21, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • "It was Nehru's daughter, prime minister Indira Gandhi, who brought the nominally-retired KR Narayanan into the political sphere.[..]she persuaded him to stand for the lower house of the Indian parliament, the Lok Sabha."The BBC Obit."Narayanan entered politics at the request of then-prime minister Indira Gandhi"The Rediff Obit.Will these do?--Sahodaran 11:50, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Should do, good work!! It is important to have cited quotes such as these if you want it to get FA status. --Gurubrahma 13:29, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sahodaran and Pournami, you might want to go through the article and locate any similar WP:WEASEL words and address them with appropriate citations and/or change the sentence to reflect differences b/w fact and opinon. I agree with Gurubrahma, that's the difference between a good article and an FA article. AreJay 21:20, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Weasel terms

[edit]

the only two instances i found in the article were the ones already discussed. these are:

  • In India, where the office of the President is largely ceremonial without executive powers, Narayanan was regarded as an independent and assertive President who set several precedents and enlarged the scope of the highest constitutional office.
  • President K. R. Narayanan's address to the nation [1] on the golden jubilee of the Indian Republic (26 January 2000) is considered a landmark[2]: it was the first time[3] a President attempted to analyse, with due concern for growing disparities, the several ways in which the country had failed[4] to provide economic justice to the Indian people, particularly the rural and agrarian population; he also stated that discontent was breeding and frustrations erupting in violence among the deprived sections of society.
  1. K. R. Narayanan: Address to the nation on the golden jubilee of the Republic, 26 Jan. 2000. Retrieved 24 Feb. 2006.
  2. V. Venkatesan: "A wake-up call", Frontline 17 (3), 5-18 Feb. 2000. Retrieved 17 Mar. 2006.
  3. Ammu Joseph: "Areas of darkness", Humanscape, April 2000
  4. P. Sainath:"Iron in the soul, decay in the brain", Frontline 17 (3), 5-18 Feb. 2000. Retrieved 17 Mar. 2006.

i'll fix them myself, sometime; i know i'm slightly guilty in this regard, i had something to do with the introduction of these weasel words. as for the rest of the article; i didn't find any other such usages.

fact and opinion

then there are a few places where the adjective "important" comes in; someone might say the "importance" accorded is only thewiki-writer's subjective judgement; it's not the case as i see it; the word "important" is used to perhaps highlight the importance of the situation to an international audience, not necessarily familiar with the workings of indian parliament/presidency---Pournami 06:15, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • The description of the meeting between Narayanan and Karunakaran in 1991 sounds rather one-sided in portraying Karunakaran unambigously as a villian, because it comes directly from an interview with KRN. Will it be possible to add an opinion from a neutral source (which would be tough, it being Kerala politics !) about this issue. Tintin (talk) 06:49, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Laurence Olivier

[edit]

Archive 1

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

Two of the images are being used under a fair-use claim and in both cases the rationale is very shaky. The rationale given for Image:VivienLeighLaurenceOlivierinFireOverEngland.jpg sound much more like a rationale for why that image should be used in Fire Over England (where it isn't used) than why it should be used in Laurence Olivier. And Image:Oliviertimecover.jpg is a TIME magazine cover being used in an article with no discussion on the significance of the subject's appearance on TIME magazine. User:Angr 11:31, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I originally uploaded Image:VivienLeighLaurenceOlivierinFireOverEngland.jpg for the Vivien Leigh article in the belief it was fair use, however it turns out the film itself is public domain. I have retagged the image accordingly, and there is no problem with its use as far as I can determine. Rossrs 14:19, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, Andy t 21:42, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program, and may or may not be accurate for the article in question.
  • Per WP:CONTEXT and WP:MOSDATE, months and days of the week generally should not be linked. Years, decades, and centuries can be linked if they provide context for the article.
  • If this article is about a person, please add {{persondata}} along with the required parameters to the article - see Wikipedia:Persondata for more information.
  • Per WP:MOSNUM, there should be a non-breaking space -   between a number and the unit of measurement. For example, instead of 18mm, use 18 mm, which when you are editing the page, should look like: 18 mm.
  • Per WP:MOS#Headings, headings generally do not start with the word "The". For example, ==The Biography== would be changed to ==Biography==.
  • Please alphabetize the categories and interlanguage links.
  • There are a few occurrences of weasel words in this article- please observe WP:AWT. Certain phrases should specify exactly who supports, considers, believes, etc., such a view. For example,
    • apparently
    • might be weasel words, and should be provided with proper citations (if they already do, or are not weasel terms, please strike this comment).
  • Watch for redundancies that make the article too wordy instead of being crisp and concise. (You may wish to try Tony1's redundancy exercises.)
    • Vague terms of size often are unnecessary and redundant - “some”, “a variety/number/majority of”, “several”, “a few”, “many”, “any”, and “all”. For example, “All pigs are pink, so we thought of a number of ways to turn them green.”
  • Please ensure that the article has gone through a thorough copyediting so that the it exemplifies some of Wikipedia's best work. See also User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 2a.
  • You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions (and the javascript checklist; see the last paragraph in the lead) for further ideas.
  • Thanks, Andy t 21:35, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That's all? I'm talking FA here! ....(Complain)(Let us to it pell-mell) 06:15, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, now were GA. But suggestions are welcome. ....(Complain)(Let us to it pell-mell) 06:19, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Too many red links. Either create stubs for those pages, or remove them. Links are also repeated several times (ie. Jill Esmond is linked in one paragraph, and then in the paragraph directly after it). The opening also needs to be redone, you repeat Academy Award three times in the first sentence, and the sentence about him being called the greatest film actor of the 20th century needs to be sourced; avoid weasel words. Try something along these lines:
Laurence Kerr Olivier, Baron Olivier of Brighton, OM (22 May 1907 – 11 July 1989) was an Academy Award-winning English actor, director, and producer. Many film critics, including xxx and yyy, have regarded him as the greatest actor of the 20th century.[citation needed] His career stretched over several decades, prolific both on stage and in film, where he played a wide variety of roles, from Shakespeare's Othello, to a Nazi dentist in Marathon Man. ♠ SG →Talk 17:27, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That issue has been discussed on the talk page. As for the Academy Awards, whilst he was an Oscar winning actor and producer, he was only an Oscar nominated director. You see the difficulty? ....(Complain)(Let us to it pell-mell) 22:36, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It also places incorrect emphasis on his film career. ie by mentioning the film career first and the stage career second it suggests the film career was the greater of the two. He was first and foremost an actor - the medium/s is/are secondary. Do we have to mention the Academy Awards in the first line of his biography as if this was his greatest achievement? The links suggested are to film director and film producer although he directed and produced quite notably for the theatre. The "greatest actor" comment as suggested is attributed to "film critics". It's just too much about film. I greatly dislike the thought of using film titles to demonstrate a "range" of roles as it's very POV. You could pick any two films to demonstrate any particular spectrum so why these two? I agree the opening needs to be redone, but I don't think this is the right way. In it's current version Academy Award appears 3 times which I think is worse than what was suggested here. Rossrs 14:19, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The film emphasis has been partly removed. ....(Complain)(Let us to it pell-mell) 02:19, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Whose Line Is It Anyway? (UK TV series)

[edit]

Wanting help overall with this article. Have suggested breaking off the "games" section to do a system similar to the The Price Is Right in order to remove the cruft temptations from the main article and allowing more in dept discussion of individual games. Have also suggested making a single page with all the games with only a slight expansion from the current.

Also worried about cruft still existing in the Atmosphere section, but I think some points about common themes and jokes is still okay, but trying to avoid it sounding like nothing but a fan site. Also, what about splitting it to UK and US versions? Please help, discussions in the talk-page haven't really brought lots of help. -Thebdj 06:41, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Right now, the consensus seems to be to separate the "games" into their own page. I hope with a bit of work the Atmosphere/Running gags can be editted into something a bit more prose-like and edit it down to a smaller and more concise section that should hopefully work. I am not sure that the section for running gags would support its own article because I fear it could turn into a disaster but that might be what has to be done in the end. Hopefully, I can throw in some more on the British show, and I will try to get everything to American english. Thanks to everyone for the suggestions so far; I am going to wait a few days to see if I get some more ideas and input before making any major edits. Thanks again. -Thebdj 10:49, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The common sketches section is very, very long, and I'd agree with it being moved to its own separate list. Also, the article seems very light on references in comparison to the very thorough collection of information it presents. Nice job so far, though! Air.dance 08:19, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • It falls down because it's too thorough with the games and especially the running gags section. There's too much bullet-pointed stuff that gets less and less interesting for non fans and concentration could start to lag before the end. I think "Überfan!" will occur to many lay-readers. I would slim down the amount of bullet pointed games / gags info and try to introduce some more prose into the piece. For example, tell anecdotes about one or two of the running gags first, then include a few more with bullets. The background and atmosphere bits are good, although I would possibly have the atmosphere section before games. These are obviously style considerations, overall this is a good one. I would avoid splitting to UK / US pages as so much of their history is intertwined. I think many readers who are acquainted with both will be relieved to find they are together, although more info on the UK series is required, and you could be less in-depth about the US show. Splitting the games list into a separate article is more attractive, if you could bear to slash the games down to only the most commonly played you could legitimately make a full list as well. The running gags section really needs to be trimmed down, and might not make for the most encylopedic stand alone list. Nice one, look forward to keeping an eye on it, Deizio 23:42, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Minor issue; per WP:CONTEXT only years with full dates should be linked- thanks, AndyZ 20:34, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • This article is certainly quite complete, and fairly well-written. My criticisms: (1) The games section is way too long; fork off an article to include all the games, and only discuss the particularly famous ones in the article (helping hands, party quirks, singing games, world's worst, maybe two or so more). (2) The running gags section is totally uninteresting: it is interesting to note that running gags occur, but not interesting to list more than two of them. And many in the list are dull and obvious: so and so's height or weight or lack of hair. Might as well fork it off, but I'm not sure that would be worth an article even then, which is why I think you should just remove that section. (3) The article only has one reference: more should be found, even if they can't be inlined ones. Perhaps something could be incorporated about critical reaction to the show? (4) The basic atmosphere of the show should be covered before the list of sketches. (5) Finally, the article should either be written in American English or British English, not a mix of both. Mangojuice 20:40, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Criticism of Microsoft

[edit]

Any suggestions on how to improve this article :)? Thanks! Just another star in the night T | @ | C 01:56, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

congratulations on your bravery in writing such a work...this is a vry difficult topic because most of the proof of the premise is deeply hiddn in microsoft softwar...nevertheless you need more meat, more streamlining and less POV. the facts are devastating enough. here are some specific suggestions:
  • talk to some microsoft employees (or bettr ex employees) to seen how deep virus vulnerabilityt runs.

(most microsoft programmers wont even use int xplorer on their own home systems}

  • pursue vendor lock in (this is a big deal) microsoft seems to do the most damage here by embedding software glitches that interfier with vendors software they arent linked with
  • user unfrindliness: most users arent savvy enough to understand how poor the hierarchies are and how much bettr hierarchy could result if microsoft werent preoccupied with selling its allid services instead of guiding users. by the way their help hierarchy is really poor. i am an advanced user and i can often not find the right path

good luck on this important endeavor Anlace 14:33, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Per WP:CONTEXT, years without full dates shouldn't be linked.
  • Could a citation be provided for Aaron Contorer's quote?
  • Despite doing a great job at trying to avoid POV in such an article directly about criticizing a subject, there are some weasel words. For example, "The company has been in numerous lawsuits by several governments and other companies for what some consider to be unlawful monopolistic practices. " and "Some accuse Microsoft's licensing policy of aiding the spread of viruses." Who are these some? I counted at least 11 incidences of the use of "some" as a weasel word.
  • Web citations could use the citation method provided by WP:CITE (perhaps consider using {{Cite web}}
  • Thanks, AndyZ 00:35, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Care Bears

[edit]
See also: March 2006 peer review

After over two months, the concerns surrounding the quality and layout of this article about my favourite cartoon of all time have finally been addressed. There are no lists, no informal talk, and no original research anymore; the content is as NPOV and multi-dimensional as possible; footnotes have been converted per Cite.php; and I have shown vandals no mercy when it comes to editing this page.

Finally, I am now resubmitting it after way too many a personal delay (for the past one to two weeks!).

Unfortunately, it's all been a one-man show for the most part, and I want to know how much better this page can get. More Wikipedia users should participate so that it will finally get the star it humbly deserves. Please tell me how far I've succeeded. (It's important it gets the featured treatment before this year's over; 2006 marks the 25th anniversary of the toy line.)

And I say once more (from last time):

Cheer Bear, kiss me--and kiss me good--when this finally succeeds as a featured article! When it does so, the Kingdom of Caring--and of God--will rejoice! --Slgrandson 16:16, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • I've just quickly skimmed over the article for now, but I noticed quite a few one sentence paragraphs. These should be combined with other paragraphs if possible and, when they constitute an entire sub-section, be expanded if possible. Cheers, --darkliight[πalk] 06:57, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


  • This article is a bit too short, and therefore may not be as comprehensive as WP:WIAFA critera 2(b) is looking for. Please see if anything can be expanded upon.
  • There are a few sections that are too short and that should be either expanded or merged.
  • Please reorder/rename the last few sections to follow guidelines at WP:GTL.
  • Generally, trivia sections are looked down upon; please either remove the trivia section or incorporate any important facts into the rest of the article.
  • Thanks, AndyZ t 13:00, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

James Balfour Paul

[edit]

James Balfour Paul was a prolific herald, responsible for the first Scottish ordinary of arms. He deserves more information than that which he has been given. This Peer Review was originally put on the main article page by User:Kittybrewster and I moved it here.--Evadb 15:00, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Controversies about the Boy Scouts of America

[edit]

Thorough and well-documented article. So... how could it be better? -Alecmconroy 00:07, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well written, indeed...you could fix the red links- Osbus 03:34, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I hadn't anticipated a lack of negative comments. Should we send this over to FAC do ya think? -Alecmconroy 21:22, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A small point, but why isn't the TOC the standard numbered list as on virtually every Wikipedia article? It should be on there, just because following the norm on this would avoid a minor storm in a teacup on FAC. Thanks. Harro5 04:36, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent point-- I made the change.-Alecmconroy 05:00, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

MLB on NBC

[edit]

This looks like a featured article to me, but I want to make sure it is before nominating it on WP:FAC. I can't see anything wrong with it. ςפקιДИτς ☺ ☻ 17:42, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't had a chance to read the article carefully yet, but here are a couple of organizational suggestions:

  • Put the list of announcers on its own page. Most of the truly important ones are mentioned in the article text, and the list really clogs up the page as is. If nothing else, it should be moved to the bottom of the page.
  • Ditto for the Nielsen ratings.
  • The "External links" section can be cut down drastically. Actually, I can't find any link in that section that needs to be here. Each World Series has its own article on Wikipedia. 1998 World Series, for instance.
  • In order to be a Featured Article, in-line citations are needed. See Wikipedia:Citing sources for how to do this.

I'll read more closely later and see if there's anything I can suggest in terms of the writing. --djrobgordon 03:24, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  1. Done, at MLB on NBC broadcasters.
  2. To be at Ratings for MLB on NBC broadcasts. Done.
  3. To be done. Done.
  4. Can't exactly do this, because the article isn't "mine" per se. I thought that in-line citations were preferable for Featured Articles, not a requirement.

ςפקιДИτς ☺ ☻ 02:55, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Due to the sub-sub-heading "ABC and NBC Alternates Coverage of the All-Star Game, League Championship Series, and World Series: 1976-1989" the table of contents is stretched to an awkward size. Always be considering and re-considering the structure and organization of the article. Try incorporating the "Notes" sub-section into the "The Baseball Network: 1994-1995" section. There are two sections called "1960s", why are "1970s" and "1980s" sub-sections of "1960s"? The "1940s" and "1950s" sections could be merged to an "Early years" section. Consider placing that first paragraph of "1940s" about television's relationship with baseball into the introduction and keep the body of the article on the topic of "MLB on NBC". Were there regularly scheduled games on NBC with a regular format/theme/sportscaster in the 1950s or was it a sporadic hodge-podge? And of course inline citations are required, so the external links within the body should be converted to these inline citations. --maclean25 17:03, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. ςפקιДИτς ☺ ☻ 00:10, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Scranton, Pennsylvania

[edit]

I just fixed this incorrectly nominated peer review (due to a misspelling of Pennsylvania. Nominated by User:M2K 2. AndyZ t 02:06, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Uriah P. Levy

[edit]

Please comment on this article, Uriah P. Levy. —This unsigned comment was added by Joaquin Murietta (talk • contribs) .

  • I correct the peer review nomination. Needs Early life and Personal life. Per WP:CONTEXT, only years with full dates should be linked. A see also section only is supposed to have links to articles within Wikipedia itself. Everything else should be moved to “External links” or “References”. Thanks, AndyZ t 02:02, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. I will look up he early life and personal life, and do the links/ref edits right now. Thank you!Joaquin Murietta 05:30, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mariah Carey

[edit]

The first peer review for this article back in November (see Wikipedia:Peer review/Mariah Carey/archive1) was very helpful, but I've very recently performed a major rewrite of the article. I've tried to insert more reliable and print-based references, expand the information on Carey's musical style and influences, balance the critical appraisal with quotes and paraphrasing from Carey herself, and generally improve the prose. It's somewhat more detailed than previously, but I think that the new material is worth including. I'm considering taking it to WP:FAC, so I was wondering if people think that it's ready and what could be done to improve it. Thanks. Extraordinary Machine 00:01, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The article has expanded considerably and adheres to certain qualities. Although I'm not a fan of her music (well, except for one song), here are some suggestions:

  • If there are any redirects, make sure to correct them.
  • Could you include an inline citation for what made Carey's rise to prominence a "Cinderella story"?
  • After marrying Mottola in 1993, hit ballads such as "Hero" and "One Sweet Day" consolidated her position as one of Columbia's most successful acts. — this sentence may be changed often; various fans of Carey's may change "Hero" to "Dreamlover" or "One Sweet Day" to "Forever". Perhaps the albums Music Box and Daydream should be placed there instead?
  • Image:Dont4getaboutus.jpeg includes a logo; this is generally frowned upon despite being passable. Perhaps the logo should be cut?
  • Consider creating articles for all red links, although this is not necessary.
  • Carey made a notorious appearance on MTV's Total Request Live, where she handed out popsicles to the teen-aged audience and began what was later described as a "strip tease". — how was it notorious?
  • I dislike the word "hit" proceeding "number-one". For example, ...Carey the only act to have a number-one hit in each year of the 1990s. Consider using just "number-one" or "number-one success". However, I prefer the former.
  • The majority of featured articles on music artists contain a couple of samples.

Other than these few requests, I am impressed with the work that has gone into the article. —Eternal Equinox | talk 02:36, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    • I checked the links as I inserted them, as well as a lot of the already-present ones, but apologies if I missed any.
    • Inline citation added (to an article titled, coincidentially, "Cinderella Story").
    • All mentions of albums and singles in the lead have been removed per yourself and user:Rossrs below, so I don't think it will be a problem anymore.
    • I searched everywhere I could think of, and I couldn't find screencaps from the "Don't Forget About Us" video that didn't include a logo from a television channel.
    • I'll see what I can do with the redlinks.
    • "Notorious" removed.
    • Well, in other discussions I haven't heard anybody else say that they think don't the phrase "number-one hit" should be used, but I wouldn't mind if they were to be edited as such. I'm indifferent.
    • My computer currently isn't capable of creating sound samples, but I'll ask around.
    • Thanks! Extraordinary Machine 18:44, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Very Good. Very few issues: The intro is not very consistent. For example, you mentioned her voice in the second paragraph, moved on to something else, then rementioned it in the last paragraph. Secondly, I think you should include her albums instead of singles when talking about her being one of Columbia's biggest acts (just personal preference here). Thirdly, after skimming, I've realized that there are some places where new paragraphs should be, but arent. "Return of the Voice" was more appropriate for the comeback: it was her slogan/catch phrase or whatever. I think it should be included, but in quotation. Finally, a couple sentences are a bit disjointed— needs a better flow. Other than those, I'm absolutely impressed with everywhere else. GREAT WORK!! Oran e (t) (c) (e) 04:02, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have replied to some of your points at Talk:Mariah Carey. Could you give examples of disjointed sentences? It's just that my eyes tend to glaze over after I've read the same thing over and over. Thanks. Extraordinary Machine 18:44, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Very good indeed. The structure is great. The various phases of her career are handled evenly and sufficiently. Quotes, sources all well done. Image description pages are excellent, as are the images (with one exception). The total package is pretty impressive. I remember when this article was one of the worst articles on Wikipedia - what you have done is outstanding!!! I'll read though it a few more times, but for now I would look at these things :

  • I would avoid mentioning specific album titles in the lead paragraph and absolutely avoid mentioning the single titles. It's meant to be an overview - by spotlighting 2 particular albums and not the rest, and 2 particular singles and not the rest, it's POVish. The lead doesn't have to be substantiated to the same degree as the article text, because we should expect to go to the main article for further info. It should be a nice, broad, neutral, non specific summary.
  • I don't believe "unsuccess" is a real word. ;-) (from lead para 2)
  • "Voted as having "the greatest in music" in 2003" - doesn't make sense.
  • Agree that the Cinderella reference doesn't quite work. Perhaps citing an example of where the press used this term would put it into a more encyclopedic context.
  • "Daydream achieved career-best reviews" - I don't think this comment is supported. It's a lofty claim, so you need to prove that it was across a spectrum of reviewers, not just the New York Times, otherwise it should be reworded so it doesn't look so speculative.
  • "notorious" is not the best choice of word in describing her MTV appearance. I think you could remove the word without losing anything.
  • "as Carey has a tendency to rely too much upon music videos and lip-synched performances to promote her projects" - (my italics - this bit reads like a judgement). Should be reworded so it's just a bland fact.
  • some minor examples of spelling and grammatical errors. I'll go through when I have more time and fix these. (But there is no such thing as too much copyediting - read it through a dozen times if you have to)
  • Butterfly Melodies album cover does not qualify as fair use in this instance. It is not used to illustrate the album and as Carey's image does not appear, it does not illustrate her either. The album is mentioned only tangentially, almost as an aside, in the article. It really needs to be removed, I'm afraid.
  • Music samples would be great.
  • A suggestion - have a look at other featured articles for musicians/pop celebrities/bands (Kylie Minogue, Celine Dion, Johnny Cash, Duran Duran, New Radicals, Pink Floyd, The Supremes etc). The articles themselves are helpful, but the peer reviews and featured article nominations for them should be even more valuable. Hopefully if you can identify what people objected to in these articles, you can preempt any possible objections in regards to Mariah, and fix it before it goes to FAC. You know that people are going to object just because it's Mariah Carey so the less ammunition you leave for them, the better. Rossrs 10:29, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well, I got the idea of mentioning her most notable singles in the lead from The Jackson 5, though I agree with your point that it is POV, and as user:Eternal Equinox said above, it would just create edit disputes over which of her songs should be mentioned.
    • I found "unsuccess" on dictionary.com, but you're right, it does sound suspect. I've replaced it with "minimal success".
    • "Voted as having "the greatest in music" in 2003" has been clarified and attributed to a source.
    • Inline citation added (to an article titled, coincidentially, "Cinderella Story").
    • Well, it isn't completely speculative as I found it in Marc Shapiro's biography of Carey, so would it be acceptable to add a footnote to the specific page?
    • "Notorious" removed.
    • This was inserted by an anon earlier; I've removed it.
    • My eyes tend to glaze over when I read the same thing repeatedly, sorry about this!
    • The Butterfly Melodies album cover has been removed.
    • I'm unable to make samples, but I hope that you can help out with this.
    • Thanks, I'll go take a look at those. Extraordinary Machine 18:44, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If you have not already done so, you might want to go check out Wikipedia:Featured Music Project, which I found to be extremely helpful in my own nomination. I'm certain that, if you have most of the requirements for the FMP, your article will be 95-100% ready for FAC.--Ataricodfish 05:09, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I've just read the criteria listed there, and I think that the article meets all of them. I might ask user:Tuf-Kat to take another look at it, though. Extraordinary Machine 22:34, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think you need to include We Belong Together in the sound samples. Otherwise the most recent sample is 8 years old, which is not really appropriate for a current recording artist. I think also that one large sample box is a bit overwhelming. I would consider breaking it into 2, and having one near the beginning of her career and one near the end. Rossrs 01:18, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've added the "We Belong Together" sample and rearranged the others. I was worried about the "Career" section becoming too crowded with images and samples though, so I inserted three samples in that section and left the other three in "Style and influence" (and split the box up). Extraordinary Machine 22:44, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I understand that you didn't want to overcrowd sectons with images and samples. I think the first few you've done look good but I'm not sure that it works they way you have included the samples in "style and influence" because those particular songs are not discussed in sufficient depth to justify the inclusion of the samples there. But they are discussed back up in the career section. I'll give it some more thought because I'm not sure how to improve this. Rossrs 00:59, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've rearranged them again; now, the "Emotions", "One Sweet Day" and "Honey" samples are within the captions for the images that relate to those songs, while the other samples are beside paragraphs where the song or things related to it are discussed. Another option would be to move all of the samples to their own section near the bottom of the article (as on Marilyn Manson and Phil Collins), but I agree with you that it's better when they're placed inline with the text. Extraordinary Machine 18:34, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'd suggest using Image:Mariah Carey13 Edwards Dec 1998.jpg as the primary photo for purely aesthetic reasons, because the current one is long vertically and on higher screen resolutions causes text wrapping with the early life paragraph.--Fallout boy 07:25, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The website MariahDaily.com has generously licensed Image:Mariah Carey in January 2000.jpg (among others) under the GFDL, and I've inserted that at the top of the article instead. Extraordinary Machine 23:18, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think overall the article is very good - but my concern is that it is far too long. A lot of the information included doesn't really need to be there and could be either removed or edited down. A key example of this would be the style and influence section. Imo it is at least three times longer than it needs to be. Another example would be 2001-2004; it is a time with relatively little activity in her career - yet its longer than other sections when she was in her prime.

To make the article better, I feel it needs to be cut down by about a third. It should give a good overview of her career - a blow by blow account of everything isn't needed; and its also off putting to readers because its too time consuming to read at the moment... Rimmers 04:00, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have read a lot of criticisms directed at several articles about musicians for not providing adequate discussion of the musician's style, so I wanted to make sure that the article was comprehensive in that respect. I (and other editors of the article) have been trying to improve it by consulting featured articles about musicians, some of which are longer than this one; we certainly didn't want to get carried away and we only wrote about the more important points in her life and career. As for the 2001 to 2004 section; well, I think it would be misleading to readers and slightly POV to reduce coverage of the low point(s) of Carey's career. The fact that there was relatively little activity for her during this period is why it is so notable. That said, I've made an attempt to tighten the language and remove some of the more trivial material, and I've managed to shave 3kb off the article's size. Extraordinary Machine 23:18, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Potomac River

[edit]

The article for the Potomac River is an overall "good article" but it is missing content in many important areas including the sections on its history and its various tributaries and segments. The article is also lacking cohesiveness throughout. Because the North and South Branches of the Potomac River are intregal parts of the river and the watershed, the editors and contributors have decided to keep these branches as part of the main Potomac River article. For this reason, I've nominated the article to find better ways of weaving these sections into the article more harmoniously. Finally, I've nominated this article as a way to look for other ideas and opinions for improving it to become "featured status". The Potomac River is known as "The Nation's River" and shares an important place in the history of the United States. I look forward to the findings of other editors. --Caponer 21:14, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • One issue: why is the non-breaking space use only for kilometers and not miles? Also, per WP:CONTEXT, the years without full dates should not be linked. For WP:FAC, the article requires references (External links by definition are not sources) and inline citations. Thanks, AndyZ 22:12, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The long series of sections with similar names is confusing.
  • If a section is a list, it should be obvious from the TOC
  • The Floattrips(what is that??) table is weird-looking. Isn't the Wikitable class sufficient??
  • Circeus 00:33, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ethics of eating meat

[edit]

I found this page to be a jumble of paragraphs with wandering subjects and many POV statements. Over the past week I have done a complete reformatting and removed what POV content I found. Then I researched more information.

Though I have tried my best to remain nuetral, the lack of other editors on this article results in very little feedback. I am requesting peer review to confirm my NPOV, and to receive comments on the general layout and quality of the article. Thank you. HighInBC 14:13, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Looking over the edit history, I can see that you've been aggressive with edits on this page. Good work with tackling the subject and attempting to eliminate POV. Some opinions;
  • A couple awkward sentences slip in. One near the beginning, "It can be argued that not eating meat does not cause less harm". Is that a double negative meant to say "It can be argued that eating meat is harmless"? There are also some run-on sentences, such as, "Some believe that the current mass demand for meat cannot be satisfied without a mass-production system that disregards the welfare of animals, while others believe that practices like well-managed free-ranging and consumption of game, particularly from species whose natural predators have been significantly eliminated, could substantially alleviate the demand for mass-produced meat." That could probably be divided down to two or three sentences.
  • Peter Singer makes up the majority of the unethical section, so indirectly, the article is biased toward his opinions (As I'm sure there are other viewpoints). As well, none of Singer's comments or beliefs are referenced.
  • I agree with this, I wanted to remove this but I had already taken so much out. Without this section the arguments against eating meat become very limited. Perhaps I should either research this person and find a citation, or restate his arguments without referencing him. HighInBC 16:26, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are weasel words in the article, such as "Some would say that killing an animal..." I know it's difficult to avoid using them in this article since it's about critical opinions and rebuttals, but the overall theme on Wikipedia is to avoid such phrases.
  • In this case these weasel words are not meant to be smuggling bias into the article, the context of the article allows for POV statements that must be qualified. I do however admit that the appearance of weasel words/smuggling bias may be there. How can I avoid these types of prefixes without making POV arguments sound like facts? HighInBC 19:01, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would delete the quote from comedian Denis Leary. Not because it's out of place, but as the article doesn't show how he's an expert on these ethics, it probably doesn't belong.
  • I added that because there were no quotes on the 'for' side of eating meat. I think the statement would hold it's own as an argument in itself, so I don't see his lack of expertise being an issue. I will make a note on the talk page to get people's opinion on this. HighInBC 16:26, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Each section should be expanded. Right now, they're mostly stub length, and not all have rebuttals.
  • Good point, what I have now is based mostly on what was in the old article, and much had to be removed due to POV. I will try to flesh it out in the next few days. HighInBC 18:49, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I hope this is helpful. The article still needs work, but I can see looking at the editing history that you've devoted a good deal of work to fixing it. Best of luck with its completion. --Ataricodfish 15:59, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The inline external links should be converted to WP:FOOTNOTEs. My personal opinion on the rebuttals is that the bolded words "rebuttal" should be removed, and the lists for rebutting the topic should be converted directly into prose and added into the section. This looks difficult, but it would be best to shortern the headings (if possible!). The italicized sentence at the top of the article is useless and should be removed (at least I've never seen such a line used before). Thanks, AndyZ 00:11, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for your response, I will check out WP:FOOTNOTE. As for the italicized text, since this article is about an ethical issue it differs from other articles in that all the facts are poitns of view, and no actual truth of the matter exists. HighInBC 01:11, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Creating a great article out of this is going to take a substantial amount more research. I can only imagine how bad it was before you started tackling it. Now matter how hard you are trying, it is still heavily slanted towards the position that eating meat is not ethical. This becomes apparent when you look at the number of rebuttals against that position compared to nearly every point in the section on why it is ethical being rebutted. A problem you're going to have to overcome is that most people that would write about the ethics of eating meat are going to think it's not otherwise they wouldn't write about it. Few are going to try to truly just examine the issue, instead they are espousing a position. So if it is your goal, this is not currently near ready for FAC. Would need a lot more high quality sources and would need to be all prose, not so many bullet points. That's not a slam on you, it's just a difficult subject. - Taxman Talk 17:10, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for the input, the article was a real mess before[4]. I have not done much research at all on the subject but you are right that only people with a point of view(ussually against eating meat) seem to write about this subject. I do not have the energy or the interest do the research needed for this article. I was not hoping for FAC consideration at this point. I have reformatted the article into a less messy appearance, and removed blatent POV, but the content remains mostly unchanged. I will continue encourage people to add to this aticle to monitor this article to ensure that additions are constructive. HighInBC 19:15, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • In that case I would recommend stripping out all the uncited POV, otherwise what's there will encourage only more POV additions. Pulling it back to a small and concise article may successfully seed more future good contributions. I think less is clearly more in this case. Just note the changes on the talk page. - Taxman Talk 22:42, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • One area that this article is lacking is cultural and religious prohibitions/conventions with regards to eating meat. As religion has traditionally had a strong influence on a societies morals, information on the types of meats allows or banned along with the timing or processing limitations could be quite helpful. --Allen3 talk 17:45, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Infantilism

[edit]

The edit conflict has died down now and I feel it is time to get a wikipedia peer review of this article. It is a natural step considering its size and how much work has gone into it. --OrbitOne 17:06, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • The WP:LEAD should be expanded to fit WP:LEAD and become a brief overview of the article.
  • Words in section headings should not be linked per WP:MOS. Also, non-proper nouns should not be capatalized, with the exception of the first letter.
  • "Coercion" is way too short- the single sentence is unhelpful here. Either expand it or merge it.

Thanks, AndyZ t 18:03, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Scooby-Doo

[edit]

Although I don't know if I'm actually trying to push it for FAC or not (it could possibly make it, I think, with referencing), my primary concern is how the article could be improved, particularly in covering the program's rather complex brpadcast history. Any and all comments (about the article) are welcome. --FuriousFreddy 13:56, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Agree, referencing needs to be added. I went through and delinked the years that didn't fit WP:CONTEXT. I noticed that there are a couple of external links that are strewn throughout the article; they should all be converted to footnotes. Thanks, AndyZ t 14:16, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nepenthes rajah

[edit]

I have been working on this article on and off for several months. It is already a "good article" and has appeared on the main page under Did you know?. However, I would like to hear suggestions on how it could be improved further (with the ultimate goal of getting it to featured article standard). Thanks. Mgiganteus1 19:35, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's quite good and you've done good research. With a little polish you'll have a sure successful FAC. Issues: 1) The prose is fairly choppy in parts. It's particularly noticeable in some of the short paragraphs that don't define a full idea. Either merge them or expand a bit. 2) I don't think the origin of the name is the most important thing about the topic and that makes up 2/3 of the first lead paragraph. Start the lead with the most important information and work down, summarizing the whole article ideally in a balanced way. 2) The tone of the first two paragraphs in cultivation notes are too chatty and uses weazeling instead of just stating facts. The rest of the section is well cited, so just re do those two paragraphs to state the facts on the cultivation. Cultivation is probably a better section title anyway. Wikipedia isn't for giving advice. - Taxman Talk 20:13, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You'll want to look at the WP:PLANTS guidelines. Also, numerous identical refs are not combined, and there are several empty(!) ones. The conservation status link in the infobox doesn't work. The Gallery section should be titled as such. Also, that tiny-bitsy text for the captions? Normal size will do just fine. The current title led me to believe you were discussing the ecology of the species. References normally go before footnotes (apparently they don't necessarily), and are in full, not reduced size. If you're going to discuss etymology at lenght, you might as well make it into a short section of its own and include the genus name. Especially since it's a bit confusing (at first I spent a good 30 seconds trying to figure which part of James Brooke's name was used for the naming).
Prose issues:
  • was named in honoubir
  • the tendril joins the on the underside of the lamina
    • Missing word
  • The huge urn-shaped lower pitchers of Nepenthes rajah are unmistakable and for this reason it is easy to distinguish it from all other Bornean Nepenthes species.
    • That's pretty peacock to me. I'd state plainly that, say, it's the only bornean pitcher plant to have red pitchers, or whatever. Okay, what follows in the two next paragraphs is actually the description of what is unique to the plant, but that reads as only duplicating the description that directly precedes it. I'd start off by saying something along the lines of "Only N. rajah displays..." and making it clearer when that part ends, e.g. a single paragraph.
  • The last paragraph under "Plant characteristics" is a strange collection of disparate information.
  • Botanical Description of Nepenthes rajah is not a proper Wikipedia:Summary style article. It is barely longer than the section that is supposed to summarize it. It also ispoorly presented and uncategorized.
  • It seems to flower at any time of year and hybrids between [...]
    • The comment about flowering does not belong here, unless it is linked to the factthe species hybridize easily, and the link is not madein the text.
  • The description of all these hybrids is Off-topic. Keep only the taxonomic relations and changes in them, move the rest to the appropriate articles.
  • It's likely all of these described hybrids have names of their own, they should be given if at all posible.
  • While both Harvard and footnote citations are accepted, please choose a single system and stick to it!
I have taken your suggestions and criticisms into account and will make the necessary changes. Regarding the Botanical Description of Nepenthes rajah article: I originally placed this on Wikisource, but apparently it does not belong there, so I was advised to move it to wikipedia. The reason it is "barely longer than the section that is supposed to summarize it" is that I have added a lot of general information on Nepenthes to the main article (e.g. what parts of the plant different terms refer to) to make it easier to understand for the layperson. The botanical description, on the other hand, only deals with specific characteristics of this species. It is important that this article is not removed, in my opinion, as it has very detailed inormation that I am certain is not available anywhere else on the internet
If the article does not actually expand on the content of the section, then it is not necessary. You should get it speedy deleted as article creator. Circeus 23:44, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It does expand on the content of the main section, immensely. Simply compare the two. The botanical description includes very detailed information on every aspect of the plant's morphology with specific measurements given for each. The two sections cover the same thing but one is aimed at the average reader while the other would be more useful to a researcher or someone looking for a very specific bit of info. Mgiganteus1 00:25, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
My point still stand. Wikipedia is supposed to be reasonably useful to the layman as much as the specialist, but this is too minute information, and as such does not really belong on Wikipedia. Circeus 00:35, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It is not "minute". I have used several sources to write it and, as I said before, it is the most detailed description you will find anywhere. Period. I do not want to delete it, as it would be very useful for a researcher and as such is an important supplement to the article. However, I would like to know where I can put it. I have tried wikisource, but it is not a direct quote from a publication, so it does not belong there. Any suggestions? Mgiganteus1 00:52, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"It's likely all of these described hybrids have names of their own" - they don't. The two that do are mentioned already. Regarding citations: I'm in the process of switching them over right now. Should be done soon. Thanks. Mgiganteus1 23:19, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK, this is very peculiar. Several paragraphs in the "Cultivation" section are not displayed even though they are present in the code (i.e. you will see them if you go to "edit this page"). Some help in sorting out this issue would be much appreciated. It was an issue with the ref tags. I have sorted it out. Mgiganteus1 00:52, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've fixed that now. Mgiganteus1 19:06, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

John Brooke-Little

[edit]

John Brooke-Little was one of the great officers of arms of the 20th century. He was the founder of The Heraldry Society and served as an officer of arms for almost half a century. With his recent passing, the world of heraldry has lost someone very important. I think that improvement of his biography would be a great way to expose the wikipedia world to heraldry.--Evadb 10:08, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Probably another candidate for Requests for expansion, but some points:
What was his cause of death?
Some copyediting is needed. Too many sentences are of the form "He did xyz", and several paragraphs are one or two sentences long.
As someone who is unfamiliar with heraldry, I found parts of the article fairly impenetrable. More explanation of the significance of the positions he held would be helpful.--Oldelpaso 18:16, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've added a bit to the heraldic career section. I hope that this addressed some of your concerns. I'll see if there is anything I can find to help flesh out the other sections. Thanks for the input.--Evadb 07:48, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Since his death was recent, like brought up by Oldelpaso, the reason for his death should be provided. The part of the sentence "such time as the Sovereign chose formally to abolish the position of Ulster King of Arms or specifically to declare otherwise" reads rather awkwardly. I don't see the reason why there is a list under "Honours and appointments", since the rest of the section is in prose. Thanks, AndyZ t 21:27, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Good points all. Thanks.--Evadb 21:46, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've added a bit more information and cleaned up some parts. I also added a section on the Heraldry Society and the White Lion Society. Hopefully, these will be fleshed out as I find more information (now where did I put those old copies of "The Coat of Arms?" Thanks for the continued help. Any other suggestions?--Evadb 10:28, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is looking quite good, but most of the article is based on the recent obits. Are there any other sources (biographies? biographical articles?) that could be added? You may also get some opposition on FAC as a result of the lack of "inline" references (either in Harvard citation style or using the new "<ref>" format - see WP:CITE and m:cite.php. -- ALoan (Talk) 09:27, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Glad that it's looking better. I'd love to add some of the inline references. I'm not sure what the correct formatting is, though. Where might I find that? Perhaps someone could go through and suggest which parts need citations and I can add them. Also, I've got some other sources of material, but they are not on the same continent as I am right now. Hopefully, I'll be able to add some more information from them when I get my hands on them again. Thanks for the note.--Evadb 18:24, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Supernature (Goldfrapp album)

[edit]

I have recently added to this article about Goldfrapp's third studio album. Any suggestions on how to improve the article would be greatly appreciated, as hopefully it can be promoted to feature article status soon. -- Underneath-it-All 02:07, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Doctor Eggman

[edit]

I know this isn't the right place to put it, but the project page won't let me put this information there, so I'll put it here for awhile. I'm sorry if it's inconvient!

This article seems to be written cleary and about the subject. Is there anything wrong with it? --71.104.187.145 04:26, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I put this request in the right place for you. Maybe you can't edit the project page because you're an anon? -- RattleMan 19:01, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Is "He has an IQ of 300, the maturity of an eight-year old" factual? It requires a citation. Towards the bottom, I'm seeing screens and screens of black text without a single internal wiki-link. The article needs a reference section and inline citations (WP:FOOTNOTE). AndyZ t 21:04, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, then, I'll try to add footnotes. --71.104.185.157 04:33, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I had trouble but I added a few. Any other advice? --71.104.181.162 01:17, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Process drama

[edit]

Seems to be a legitmate topic, but it requires peer review for many reasons. It is unreferenced, very short, and could be expanded and perhaps even promoted to a featured article. My first concern is the citations and where to retrieve them, and my second is the topic's history and actors/actresses who have displayed such a trait characterized as "process drama". All suggestions welcome. —Eternal Equinox | talk 02:03, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Review Needed

[edit]

Darth Vader

[edit]

Very good article just needs some fine tuning...somehow. Thefourdotelipsis 06:19, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

First Peer review available at Wikipedia:Peer review/Darth Vader/archive1

Iron Mike

[edit]

I am requesting a peer review for this article because I'm hoping to find out what other information readers might be interested in. The article is not very long, but given the narrow scope of the topic and the scarcity of information, it seems comprehensive to me. It is referenced with footnotes and has sourced photos for each statue. I'd just like some feedback on what needs to be improved. Thanks! Kafziel 19:41, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Official titles should be in prose, I'd personally bold them too (they're kinda subarticles),but that's no requirement. The article's name is weird. I'd rather go for something like "Iron Mike monuments" or something, to stress that you are discussing a group of monuments. Otherwise, you seem to nail your subject pretty well. Circeus 01:57, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your suggestions. I've worked the official titles into the prose and bolded them. Hopefully that's what you had in mind. As for the title, I think it's the most appropriate per MoS, going by the principle of least astonishment. It's pretty rare for these to be called Iron Mike statues or Iron Mike monuments, so when they're referred to in another article it would almost always require piped links, like [[Iron Mike monuments|Iron Mike]]. Anyone searching for one of these would put in "Iron Mike", so it would get most of its hits from redirects. Hope that clears up the reasoning, and thanks again for your input. Kafziel 03:24, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's not close to ready for FAC if that was your goal. That's no offense, it's just not there yet. 1) Try to see if any additional sources exist that could lead to more information that would need to be added. Are there any serious military libraries or are there any museums that cover them? Don't fluff the article out, but it's so short there's definitely going to be concerns of comprehensiveness. 2) The lead is too short. See WP:LEAD 3) There are too many short paragraphs that make for choppy prose. Either merge them with related material or expand them into a full idea of their own. - Taxman Talk 20:41, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure what you mean about the lead - it's one paragraph long, which is enough for any article under 15,000 words, and obviously this is well under that.
I don't have any goals of making this an FAC, simply because it's short. Technically that's not a problem, because it is comprehensive, but the FAC process is enough of a hassle without having to explain that fifty times. There really isn't any more information on most of these, though. First of all, all of them date to an era when people didn't really keep track of every bit of trivia about things like that. Secondly, military records on that sort of thing are nonexistent (the US military didn't even keep comprehensive records of who attended boot camp until the 1990s). So the facts tend to be mixed in with myths and misconceptions. Original research would be the only way to make it longer. Is there anything in particular you would want to see?
Thanks for the feedback, and if you know of any other quality sources that have more information on these, I'd be happy to use them. Kafziel 19:36, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't really know anything else about it, so if there aren't more sources, just try to eliminate the short paragraphs and the article may be the best it can be. Try for Good articles if you don't want to go for FAC. - Taxman Talk 19:08, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hm, hadn't even thought of that. I'll keep tweaking it and maybe I'll do that. Thanks again for your help! Kafziel 19:14, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Added to disambiguation page. Kafziel 14:21, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

American Civil War

[edit]

What do you think of this article? It's pretty damn long, but it's very good - high quality stuff. Is it worthy of becoming a featured article? TheImpossibleMan 12:52, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Very long! If you want it to become a featured article, summarize the content, move detail to daughter articles; reduce the headings; and remove bulleted text. Then only will it have a better chance at FAC. =Nichalp «Talk»= 17:23, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I dunno about the length. World War I is much longer, and it's featured. If there's a lot to say, there's not necessarily a need to split it up. The 30kb length is a suggestion, not a requirement. I do agree about the bullet points and headings, though. Kafziel 19:09, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please don't go by raw length alone. I first look at the raw page size (removing refs, interwikis etc.) and then determine if the article can be summarised. If it can, I object. This article has ample scope for precis writing. =Nichalp «Talk»= 04:56, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Before it stands a chance at WP:FAC, the following have to be done:
The lead definitely needs to be expanded to meet WP:LEAD.
Needs references section
Requires inline citations- probably WP:FOOTNOTEs, see Cite.php.
The reasons for the start of the war takes up 1/3 of the article! It definitely has to be shortened down. By contrast, the aftermath is near nothing.
There are several see also links thrown into the center of the article, like "On the use of balloons, see Aerial warfare section on the American Civil War." I would suggest either incorporating them or adding them to the see also section.
Thanks, AndyZ t 20:36, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The article is about the most important and complex event in American history--tens of thousands of books. (Just look at a big bookstore and see whole bookcases of titles.) The article is too short since it has very little on the domestic --social--economic phases of war & role of women. The start of the war is much debated and needs to be explained. The aftermath of the war is very important and is fully covered in Reconstruction articles. Rjensen 22:50, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm glad someone else noticed that this article has been improving recently. Since I'm one of those who frequently contribute, I'll try to stay out of this discussion, just trying to get some perspective. I would agree that the article is still much too long, but several dedicated users (very significantly Rjensen) have been trying hard to make individual sections more consise and meaningful. The ACW page is a difficult one for many reasons (especially the quantity of shared-domain vandalism). I'm very interested in reading what other users might say about the page. BusterD 23:13, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think the article is pretty good, but needs a good deal of work before being offered as a featured article. There are numerous facts and assertions that need to be footnoted. A References section is needed to list the volumes actually used in preparing the article, versus recommendations on the other books people could read. (The judicious selection of footnotes could ensure that most of the well-regarded works actually appear in the References section.) Since there already is a very lengthy subarticle, Origins of the American Civil War, the introductory material needs to be pruned very significantly and I believe that for an article that will have wide, popular interest, the purely academic term "historiography" should be deleted. The templates for "Main Article" are generally misused; this article is the main one in most cases. The Analysis of the Outcome section should be moved to a subarticle and summarized briefly; the crude graphic should be replaced with one more visually appealing and with more relevant entries in the manufacturing and armaments categories. The "leaders and soldiers" section is not very useful; most of the important contributors to the war are listed earlier and a more comprehensive list already exists in another article. The short sections on slavery and foreign diplomacy would probably read better in the context of the narrative description. On the other hand, there should be additional material on the effects on the civilian population, the role of women, black soldiers, the life of the soldiers in camp and the field, medical issues, technology innovations, and how tactics compared to previous wars and affected future ones. Hal Jespersen 17:00, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The article has a good balance except for lacking on the social history of the homefront. The "Origins" and Historiography parts are necessary for two reasons" there is a high demand for it and the actual military goals and strategies were shaped by the origins. The separate article on "Origins" is not very good -- longwinded, rambling and not closely tied to the war,--so it cannot be a fallback. The Analysis section is essential to explaining what happened--otherwise you just have a meaningless jumble of 100 major battles (and hundreds more small battles). As for the military history, there are three layers. This gives a a brief overview with links to campaigns. In turn the campaign articles link to battles and leaders. Rjensen 20:50, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Hal Jespersen that the origin should be pruned down. It takes up a pretty large percentage of the TOC and the article. Just wondering, what is the difference between - "Slavery as a cause of the War", "Abolitionism as a cause of the war", and "Slavery in the Territories"? Thanks, AndyZ t 23:26, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
On origins. Slavery refers to Southern slaveowners causing the war; Abolition talks about Yankee abolitionists (John Brown etc) as cause; Territories deals with mini-civil-war in Kansas as a cause. All these are separate issues. Rjensen 00:47, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Slobodan Milošević

[edit]

This is a actual topic and the article is of high quality and long. Any proposals on improvement to get FA status? Off! 20:48, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • I suggest that early career be renamed early life because not all of it is on career.
  • Under "Downfall of presidency", there are 4 one-sentence run-on paragraphs that need to be fixed.
  • There are several external links towards the end that need to be converted to footnotes.

Thanks, AndyZ t 23:17, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bugatti Veyron 16.4

[edit]

I think this article is very good, just need any idea on how to make it even better! --Karrmann

  • A couple of quick things to start working on:
    • Would prefer if the lead were extended to 2 paragraphs (as suggested by WP:LEAD)
    • "1999 EB 18/4 "Veyron" shouldn't be bold
    • The list of 10 radiators should be converted to prose.
    • The external links should be converted to footnotes.

Thanks, AndyZ t 22:58, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Subway Restaurants

[edit]

Some of my favorite food comes from here, and they deserve a featured article! Its getting closer, but we need comments/suggestions first. — Wackymacs 06:12, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What's up with the title? I can't find any reference to "Subway Restaurants" as any official name. If it's not the official or most common name of the company, then fix the title to reflect this. Subway (restaurant) seems to be the most appropriate. It's the capital "R" that bothers me the most.
And what exactly do the little white dots on the map represent? There's no legend explaining them.
Peter Isotalo 12:07, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Consequentialism

[edit]

I have been working on this article for a couple of months with some helpful edits by others, but I feel that the page may too much reflect my own vision of what an article of consequentialism should be (not that this article is my POV, I hope). I would appreciate any comments, but particularly on any major areas I have overlooked. Any suggestions? Ig0774 01:25, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Leads need expansion badly.
  • It's possible that an article series template is appropriate. You might want to look in related article to see if there is one.
  • there is no apparent reason for the John Stuart Mill picture to be where it is.

Circeus 01:24, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Overall: massive improvement on previous version; great stuff; I'd make my students read this.
  • Balance, structure and length: good. Future editors should try to keep topic additions in offshoot articles rather than adding to this one.
  • Style: occasionally woffly or epic, but that happens to me too when I write too much. Some rephrasing and sharpening might be good at a number of points.
  • Opening definition: possibly add a couple of sentences to say what consequentialism is not, as well as what it is (e.g. distinguish briefly from deontology and virtue ethics).
  • Mill picture: keep until something better comes along.
  • Too many references to Peter Singer? The 3rd time isn't really necessary.

Caravaca 08:20, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Freddie Mercury

[edit]

Review for "good article" criteria.— miketm - Queen WikiProject - 12:43, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's great that the article has so many references. That will be a positive going into GA. That aside, however, there are big problems with the general structure and particular sections. First off, the lead is too short. It needs to be expanded and written in paragraphs (preferrably two or three), not isolated sentences. The Legacy section needs to be written in summary style, meaning get rid of the poll lists and write them out in paragraph style. Also I don't see why this section needs four subsections. Those subsections seem to be too particularized to have any significance anyway ('The world's first Indian and Persian rock star' can be mentioned, but it doesn't need a stubby subsection).
I think you also need more information about how he started in the business. Basically, talk about some of the early years. After the Early life section, the next section begins with the sentence, "Widely considered as one of the greatest vocalists in popular music, Freddie Mercury possessed a very distinctive voice." Yeah agreed, but you shouldn't write this so soon in the article. Information like that belongs in the Legacy section. As a general note, there's a lot about his impact and why he was special, but not enough on what he did. There needs to be a little more chronological history there. The Quotes section should be deleted. It is unnecessary and adds nothing to the article. Overall though, a fairly good job. I'm sure this will reach GA once these concerns are addressed.UberCryxic 16:13, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, The article has been improved a lot since the last review. In the first place, the introduction paragraph was expanded in order to better explain why the subject is of importance. The awkward Legacy section that once consisted of a series of bullet points has also been incorporated into an actual series of paragraphs. We also did a lot of work in order to better explain what this individual actually accomplished in terms of live performances and solo work, for instance. These issues were barely addressed at the time of the last review. As was suggested, the new article also has a couple of sentences dealing with the formation of Queen and involvement in earlier bands. As was suggested by UberCryxic above, the Early Life section was largely expanded.

I am now interested in further suggestions for improvement. In the first place, I want to ensure that the page reads like an encyclopedia article rather than a fan page. I also want to make sure that it is not too biased (that is very difficult for a fan!) In particular, I wonder whether there is enough criticism. I also wonder whether the article appears to have a neutral tone. Hope to hear some good ideas here. 67.190.44.85 03:39, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see the value added by the 1964 picture, as his face is hard to see and looks about the same as later in life.

The Axl Rose quote should be moved to the legacy section.

There's a picture of Mercury playing the guitar, but no mention of his guitar playing in the Instrumentalist section of the article. How much did he play the guitar?

"Over the years, rare albums..." should be moved to the Legacy section.

"They nevertheless remained close friends": Austin or the record executive?

Is Collins's quote on promiscuity notable?

The inclusion of Roger Taylor in the stamp is a controversy about postal service decisions, not the band, unless there's evidence that the band lobbied for a stamp breaking the policies. If so, that should be discussed in an article about the band, not about Mercury.

Is the list of instruments used worth including in an encyclopedia article? The main portion of the article already refers to "various keyboard instruments" and "extensive use of synthesizers."

Good luck with your revisions to an already fine article. VisitorTalk 16:49, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Great to see your advice here. I think that you have a lot of really good points. I am trying to incorporate some of these things. In the first place, I completely removed the stamp controversy, the Phil Collins quotation and the discussion regarding the value of solo albums. We will have to see if other users put them back in. I also changed the sentence that was not clear regarding "the two remaining best friends." User:138.67.44.69|138.67.44.69]] 00:19, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

GLOCK

[edit]

Article has had many revisions since last review. Looking for new feedback. Thanks Gtstricky 17:40, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I Am the Walrus

[edit]

History of Poland (1939–1945)

[edit]

Recently this article has undergone a substantial edit (still continuing in some sections), and as a result has been greatly expanded and has quite a few inline citations. Those citations will be standarized over the coming days and I expect that some sections currently being discussed on the article's talk page will be NPOVed over the coming days as well. Assuming that my expectations are correct, what other comments do you have before this article is submitted to FAC?--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 22:04, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This article reeks with POV and inconsistencies. It just went through an extensive edit war (which I don't see ended BTW, just wait for Molobo or Halibutt revert me again). In the midst of an edit war some new sections written in a very controversial form were added to the article, which didn't help neither its style nor NPOV.
Aside from that, the article goes great length into many things way too narrow for such a broad article as History of Country. Some of this stuff was added to and article just recently in order to bring it closer to a popular view in today's Poland that likes to see itself as a reemerging European power with all her past problems blamed on neighbors and all her own past wrongdoings being denied or down-graded.
Among other inconsistencies are many repetitions within the article added to it just to put an extra emphasis on things while they bring no new info.
Finally, it would have been batter to put ALL pre-September 1939 material to the previous article in the series. All events that eventually ended with the war are very interrelated and should be kept together in the previous article. This article would than be entirely about Poland in the WW2.
In conclusion, this article needs so much improvement at this stage, that peer review is premature. If its editors get to reason, it might be ready in a couple of months, but only if the spirit of cooperation is returned and the opponents try to cooperate rather than call each other names. In the current stage, the peer review is a waste of time. This is just my opinion of course. --Irpen 22:47, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Irpen, thank you for your comments. Nonetheless I'd like to hear from Wikipedians not involved in editing this article, as I am afraid we both (and some other editors involved in working on it) may be too concerned with our particular POVs to see the 'big picture'. Things like pro/anti German/Polish/Russian POV are always worked out in the end, and I am confident we will resolve that part of the problem soon.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 23:14, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hearing from others is always a good thing to look for. However, there are several venues to call for outside opinions. During the major edit conflict, the right venue is the article RfC or a listing at the request for a Third Opinion board. This is exactly the kind of article we have here. Peer review is the process for rather stable and rather high quality articles to seek for the way to improve them to bring them to FAC level. It is not the case here, and I think a peer review is the wrong venue. Not that it will hurt the article, but other editors expect relatively high quality from the articles placed for Peer review. They come to the articles listed for Peer Review list expecting a FACable article which needs recommendations, rather than a major cleanup or which is in the midst of an edit war. So, I see it as a process violation. That said, I don't mind a peer review. I just wanted to make sure that reviewers understand the what is the situation with an article they are reviewing. --Irpen 23:29, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If I didn't think the article is stable and developed enough for PR, I wouldn't have posted it here. Looking at article's recent history, only one section seems to be edited extensively ('Treatment of the Polish citizens under Soviet occupation'), the rest are stable. Whether they are comprehensive enough, and whether the article is missing some other sections or issues, as well as if it is compliant with MoS, is what I want to ask others about.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 01:05, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


A proper lead section is needed for one. Another thing that should be done is some condensing of the text; Summary style is an FA requirement now and that guideline states that articles exceeding 50KB of prose are almost certainly too long. So far I count 48KB of prose. Some prioritizing needs to be done on what should be in this article vs in daughter articles. But that can wait until after the other issues you mention are fixed (but still before FAC). --mav 01:48, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Part of the reason why the text is so long is that some users pasted stuff in it from other articles in order to throw it off-balance. I objected to no avail. Other users wrote whole new sections that would have belonged to other articles, at least in this length, or could have been articles on their own, again to make a point on this or that issue. The talk page records my objection to such a bad faith expansion of the article with details too narrow for such a broad topic. They fell into deaf ears. --Irpen 02:06, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Subarticles certainly should and will be made in the near future, currently we are debating what to keep and what to remove, and I certainly think that a 'too long' article is better than a stub. And Irpen, there is only that much that I can take you trying to paint yourself as the sole neutral contributor to the article: you with your pro-Russian POV are no saint either.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 02:20, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Piotrus, my POV may not be neutral but it is not pro-Russian. Please don't be throwing labels. I also have a thing or two to say about POVs of some here. This aside, another important detail about this very important parade has just been added to the article as well as another extremely important long quote of Molotov. With such important expansions, good luck with ever seeing this article at FAC, which I honestly, would love to see possible while not seeing it happening. --Irpen
What label would you prefer, just out of curiosity? And we don't need to be so pessimistic. Having FAed such controversial and related topics and History of Poland (1945-1989), Katyn massacre or Polish-Soviet War I feel confident that we can FA this one too. All it takes is some time and good will.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 02:35, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Queen (band)

[edit]

Former Good Article. What needs to be done to bring the article back to GA status?— miketm - Queen WikiProject - 07:25, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Remove all but the most necessary pictures of the albums. Then start making fuller paragraphs. WikiNew 10:44, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In general, it needs more citations, especially inline citations about specific things. (Platinums, numbers, quotes, etc.) You seem to be using cite web - that's good, but the template needs to be filled out as much as you can - authors, for example, and publishers. The online citations all need a 'last accessed' date, in case they ever 404 on us, then we can use the Internet Archive. The testimonials from other musicians - couldn't that be said to be part of Queen's influence? I'd suggest you move the quotes into that section. The tone sometimes reads a bit unencyclopaedic - the League of Copyeditors may be able to help you there. Hope this helps. -Malkinann 22:15, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Solar panel

[edit]

Hello, I would like to get this as a featured article, since it's a very notable topic and deserves to have the highest status. —MESSEDROCKER (talk) 21:40, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Some issues to be cleaned up before FACing it:

  • The lead is way too short- see WP:LEAD. WP:WIAFA requires a lead that is a brief overview of the entire article.
  • The mathematics ("50*24/1000*.08=$.096)") isn't necessary, as long as there are citations for the numbers (remember, NOR!)
  • More citation information has to be added to the references- see WP:CITE, and consider {{Cite web}}.
  • Putting 8 images immediately at the beginning of the article inundates it. Consider spreading around the images, some on the left sides, some in different sections.
  • Per WP:CONTEXT, years without full dates should not be linked.

Thanks, AndyZ 00:41, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The article doesn't flow as well as it should - it seems a bit strange to launch straight into current development. Some suggestions:

  • Include some information about the origins of solar panels - when were they first used, who first sold them commercially?
  • As solar panels are arrays of photovoltaic cells, consider putting the section about solar cells higher up.
  • Consider moving the tables to the end of the article
  • Try to reduce the number of one sentence paragraphs.
  • Either expand the cost of solar photovoltaic panels section or merge it with another, short sections are a common reason for objection on FAC. Oldelpaso 17:36, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Is it ok if I make it a subsection of a larger section? —MESSEDROCKER (talk) 20:42, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that would be fine. Oldelpaso 10:56, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  1. The lead needs to be expanded
  2. Map of USA needs to go. (Country specific)
  3. Reduce the number of images at the start.
  4. History of the development of solar panels needs to be present
  5. All costs/prices should be removed and so too =Cost of solar photovoltaic panels=. These figures are unstable.
  6. An explanation on how the photovoltaic cells and heaters work is needed. It should be accompanied by a diagram and if possible an animation. This section should be the core of the article.
  7. It is claimed that if a quarter of the pavements... Please avoid weasel terms and country specific information.
  8. =Solar panels on spacecraft= is too long. Move the content to a dedicated article and summarise it into a small paragraph under photovoltaic section.
  9. =Current development= needs to be present much later in the article.
  10. What about solar power in developing nations?
  11. =World solar power production= : Not needed. This should be in the solar power article. Not in the panels article.

Regards, =Nichalp «Talk»= 09:34, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

All my comments have not been addressed. Costs are still mentioned. A brief account on the working of the panels can be included. History needs to be expanded. Most sections could do with another paragraph. In the USA,; Germany has adopted an -- more countries need to be added as I'm sure a lot more countries have adopted a pro-solar power approach. =Theory and construction= could do with a graphic showing a sectional view of a solar panel. =Nichalp «Talk»= 16:15, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Costs are still mentioned, indeed. However, the prices remaining are old prices. Seeing as they're, say, prices for 2005, prices from 2005 can't change. So it's not exactly instable content, or do you have another reason to not like prices? —MESSEDROCKER (talk) 21:20, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, but prices where?? Prices are dependent on many factors including taxes etc. The prices mentioned would be in the United States, and since this article has a global scope, it would be out of place to have such data here. =Nichalp «Talk»= 04:32, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That is a great reason. I'll go ahead to removing prices. --Messedrocker editing as anonymous coward 204.8.195.187 15:06, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, I have, in one way or another, dealt with the suggestions listed on this page. Are there any other suggestions that come after I've improved the article? [5] —MESSEDROCKER (talk) 01:49, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • The first footnote is useless and can probably in some way be incorporated into the text.
  • The rest of the references starting from number 8 need citation information (again, see WP:CITE). Please also break up the links for retrieval dates: March 27, 2006 instead of March 27, 2006.
  • I would suggest breaking up the references that aren't footnotes and the references that are footnotes. In addition, more footnotes should be added (there are only 4 as of now).

Thanks, AndyZ t 02:00, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Just does not feel very comprehensive. Needs some more general references and just more in general, which should help identify areas important to the topic that are missed here. Specifically solar cells are often promoted as an alternative energy source that doesn't produce greenhouse gases. There's little in this article about that aspect, and what is there is either in the lead and not expanded on later or in the current development without much context. There's also nothing about the net environmental impact. Studies considering the emissions during production should be considered. A few I've read place the carbon break even at 15yrs plus or something. Cost break even at various power prices should also be discussed, not just mentioned once in the lead and not developed. The article is also not very balanced with prioritization given to the more important aspects, and less to minor details. - Taxman Talk 19:18, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Charles Whitman

[edit]

This is the man who all the "Sniper in a belltower" references are based on, in 1966 he climbed the University of Texas tower and shot more than 50 people, before police reached his plateau and killed him. We've all seen a dozen references to "climbing a belltower, rifle in hand", so I'd love to see Wikipedia's article on the man be as thorougly informative as possible. (as of this writing, we are just working on adding some additional early photographs of him, and the first year of his marriage and such.) Sherurcij (talk) (Terrorist Wikiproject) 08:54, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There's still quite a bit of work to be done with the content. The section describing the events leading up to the shooting is wildly out of order. It says he killed his mother, went home, wrote the note, went home, killed Kathy, went home, killed Kathy (again), wrote more notes... what happened there? Further down, in the tower, first he shoots the family of tourists with the sawed-off shotgun, then it is noted that he had a sawed-off shotgun in his trunk. Then it talks about the victims (I can't tell who is who there), and then suddenly starts describing Whitman's outfit. Also, it seems that the shotgun is included in the "3 rifles and 3 pistols", but a shotgun is neither a rifle nor a pistol. No mention is made of his footlocker until he arrives at the campus; I'm not sure whether he loaded the weapons in the locker or in the rifle case he bought at Sears. I tried to do some fixing, but it's so muddled I don't really know where to begin, and I'm no expert on this subject. Kafziel 19:26, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The shotgun is not included in the 3/3, for the record, I'll try to make that clear. I fixed up the context on the note/home/wife/mother bit, it seems betwen edits the "returning home and killing wife" was still listed twice, thanks for the catch. I think the footlocker was just a problem of not defining what he was packing his equipment into earlier, so I tried to fix that up, hopefully it's better now. (unfortunately we don't seem to have an article at Rifle case or anything similar, and I'd prefer not to explain what one is...not sure what to do there) - I also moved the contents of the trunk up before the incident started, thanks Sherurcij (talk) (Terrorist Wikiproject) 19:44, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Definitely delete "References in popular culture." FAC folks hate bulleted lists. Much of this can be deleted and the balance made part of the Aftermath section and written as prose. Get rid of the Simpsons reference for sure; it very much demeans the subject matter and the tone is really unwelcome. I would consider framing the portions of the suicide note into Boxes. Check out the Gerald Ford article I am working on to see what I am talking about.
One additional thing I would recommend is to try to contact some of the survivors or family members. Seriously. Many will be willing to help you out. Jtmichcock 02:58, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Added: I went through the last section and noted where citations are needed. Jtmichcock 03:08, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Hrm, I'd disagree on the Popculture References section, it's not large enough to merit its own article, and I feel it is important to give a sense of context in any similar article. Going to try and take your advice on those textboxes though, they sure look sexy in the Ford article :) Sherurcij (talk) (Terrorist Wikiproject) 03:43, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Another thing I hit FACs on all the time is internal links not being set up correctly. A featured article should have perfectly formatted links, with no redirects. For example, right in the first paragraph, "sharpshooter" redirects to Marksman and "United States Marines" redirects to United States Marine Corps. You don't have to change the wording, especially not for the "sharpshooter" link (because that's a different badge in the Marines) but pipe them all correctly to avoid the redirects. Kafziel 04:26, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speaking of the "sharpshooter" thing, I don't like the wording there; it makes it seem as though he was singled out for special training as a sharpshooter. He just went through the basic Marine marksmanship training, the same as everyone else. I know that's a new development, since the re-write of the introduction, but it should be fixed (probably just removed, since it almost goes without saying that Marines are trained in marksmanship).
I also notice some possibly conflicting information: If he joined the Marines in July of 1959, he would have needed to stay out of trouble until July 1962 to earn a Good Conduct Medal. But it looks like he lost his USMC scholarship because he was arrested in 1961. So the 3-year requirement would start over, and he was court-martialed in 1963. So, assuming both of those offenses are true, I don't see how he earned the medal. Stranger things have happened, but it's something to double check, at least.
Okay, that's all for now. Keep it up! Kafziel 04:43, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, went through and fixed up all the piping problems, wouldn't have thought of that on my own, thanks for the catch. Also nixed the marksmen bit as you suggested - though I'll leave the Good Conduct Medal details for someone else to hopefully pick up so I don't have to wade through learning about it(gasp!). Can I ask your opinion on the "New, expanded introduction"? Personally I'm not a huge fan of going into that much detail, and prefer to give just the bare details. (I initially had the awkwardly-worded, but concise Born June 24th 1941, Charles Joseph Whitman is known for ascending to the observation deck of the University of Texas' Tower and Main Building, on August 1, 1966 and shooting at those below. His 90-minute attack killed 15, and wounded 33 others. In addition, he had killed both his wife and mother earlier, and was shot dead by police himself., now it's stretched out to three long paragraphs covering his tumor, the contents of his suicide note, his arrest, etc. Better to pare it back down to just the details and then work chronologically through the article the rest of the way, or leave it as-is? Sherurcij (talk) (Terrorist Wikiproject) 05:01, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The article is long enough that the lead should be at least 2 paragraphs long, per WP:LEAD. I recommend that the dates of birth and death be formatted like other bios, and the re-written lead be combined with the original lead. Here's my suggestion:

Charles Joseph Whitman (June 24, 1941 – August 1, 1966) is best known for ascending the University of Texas' 27-storey tower and shooting passersby in the city and campus below. Whitman's rampage lasted 90 minutes and he killed fifteen and left thirty-three wounded before being shot to death by Austin police.

Whitman was an Eagle Scout and a former U.S. Marine, and his attack was carefully planned and executed. On the eve of the attack, Whitman killed both his wife and mother, leaving a suicide note urging that his life insurance proceeds be donated to mental health research and requesting an autopsy to determine what had caused his breakdown.

Change it how you see fit, of course. Kafziel 14:27, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

9/11 conspiracy theories

[edit]

I worked on 9/11 conspiracy theories: made some significant changes into the article, rewrited some stuff for improved readability and removal of NPOV, added some data, removed what I found irrelevant. Main focus went to WTC 7 section, From unofficial explanations to conspiracy theory section and slightly reorganizing sections. I'd like this work to be reviewed, to be sure I'm working in the right direction, and actually improved the article quality. All comments, directions for further improvement and contributions to improve the overall quality of this article welcome. Izwalito 06:58, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • As per WP:V, the article requires references. (Note that External links are not references; if they were used as sources the section should be renamed references.) Quotes need citations, (as in inline citations- WP:FOOTNOTE- not inline external links). Since there are 126 external links in the article, I'll try to help out by converting them all to footnotes (but without citation information- that has to be done with WP:CITE) AndyZ t 13:26, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I went through and mass converted the 157 inline external links into footnotes (hopefully I didn't mess anything up in the process). Now they need to be cited properly according to WP:CITE... AndyZ t 14:07, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Wow - what huge article. If you ever want to get this featured you should adhere to Wikipedia:Summary style to farm off much of the detail to daughter articles and articles on particular conspiracy theories. Even if FA is not what you are after, doing that will greatly improve the readability of this article. --mav 22:06, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

At the moment I'm wondering if it wouldn't require less work to completely rewrite the article from scratch in order to meet quality standards than to try to clean it up. In its current state the article fails on several points: it features no reader friendly formatting, no clear and succinct global overview, no adequate source linking, contains some obsolete or irrelevant stuff that should be put in separate articles (the larry silverstein quote for example), and as you said it is big, certainly too big. Izwalito 18:00, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Izwalito,

As I'm sure you read my thoughts on the main talk page, I have since returned the WTC 7 section to a more organized and more summarized state. The edits you provided were lengthy and added very little to the understanding of the conspiracy theories in relation to Building Seven. The wording went from a smooth, fluid flow into a jagged, broken mix. The grammar as well as the sentence structure was remedial and difficult for the average reader to follow.

The repairs I made did include some of the newer additions, as well as a slightly different format from before. Keep in mind as you make adjustments to the article, the brevity necessary to keep a reader interested.--Doctor9 00:06, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You shouldn't be too sure. I just came back to work more on this section to discover almost all my work has been edited out, with references and wikification gone. what you called returned and repairs seems more like a revert to me. I have now read your message on the talk page and answered it. I'm not gonna fight over this and instead will quote a certain Niccolo Machiavelli:
It ought to be remembered that there is nothing more difficult to take in hand, more perilous to conduct, or more uncertain in its success, than to take the lead in the introduction of a new order of things. Because the innovator has for enemies all those who have done well under the old conditions, and lukewarm defenders in those who may do well under the new. This coolness arises partly from fear of the opponents, who have the laws on their side, and partly from the incredulity of men, who do not readily believe in new things until they have had a long experience of them.[6]
Izwalito 13:57, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This article is a mess, terribly POV ("What Are They Hiding?" ??) and badly written ("It is indeed undeniable that large airplanes hit the twin towers as the event has been caught on video and widely broadcasted in mass media, the Pentagon attack is different, video of the attack are known to exist as they have been confiscated by FBI agents minutes after the explosion but have not been released to the public." ??). Quoting Machiavelli is irrelevant other than to suggest that you are driven by non-encyclopedic motivations. -- Jibal 18:08, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Without mention of the videos the FBI Confiscated from the Sheraton Inn I do not see how this article could be considered factual. it is a known fact that the Sheraton Inn security cameras captured the entire attack. With the FBI withholding this valuable evidence it is clear that the murders that took place that day can never be fully understood. I am not saying it was a missle that hit the Pentagon, but I am saying that all physical evidence points to that "best guess." If the USA Government and Wiki wants to prove their innocence in this conspiracy then the Sheraton Inn must be mentioned prominantly in this Wiki and the US Govt must release the Sheraton Inn security camera video from 9/11, PERIOD. There is nothing more to discuss. my username is "isassexe" and I have edited this page on April 17, 2007 at 2:00 am

Milos Konopasek

[edit]

I am working on my very first Wikipedia article, a brief biography on Milos Konopasek, a key figure in early advances in computer-based analysis software. Have posted a draft article and would like some general feedback from a more experienced Wikipedian on how to improve it, thanks. Digiterata 03:56, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Good job for a first article. Some tips:
    • Please wikify the article by using internal links, with [[ ]]. (I linked several terms in the 1st half of the article- however please note WP:CONTEXT; not everything should be linked).
    • The article should contain the correct category, using something like [[Category:Czechoslovakia|Konopasek, Milos]] (of course use a more specific category; general categories are not used).
    • Please divide the articles into sections using ==Section name==. The lead (which is the beginning of the article before the Table of Contents) should be a brief overview of the article; for guidelines see WP:LEAD
    • Please list sources used underneath a ==References== section. Even better, provide WP:FOOTNOTEs to cite specific statements.

Thanks, AndyZ t 23:37, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Latin profanity

[edit]

Any expansions would be welcome. I've tried to deal with each major topic under a series of similar headers. A couple of specific improvements I'd like to see would be: 1./ to improve (and make any needed corrections) in the translated poetry; and 2./ if speakers of some of the other or smaller Romance languages could chime in with any reflexes that exist in them, especially among the words that AFAIK vanished without trace. Smerdis of Tlön 17:39, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Quite enjoyable to read...as I am a latin student, I look forward to using them in class. However, the article isn't too well organized, especially in the long description of each individual word...bit confusingOsbus 00:04, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Some notes about the article:
Please do not use personal pronouns in the article (as far as I can tell the only instance is the use of the word "our" in the lead)
Convert the list in the lead into prose.
The "Profane Latin words" section is redundant since that is a simple rephrasing of the title of the article. Convert the rest of the sections from === === to == == .

Thanks, AndyZ t 00:46, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Gods Must Be Crazy

[edit]

Fifth peer review: Since I'm expecting a trip to Barbados in less than an hour as I'm typing this, I'll try to get it down in a nutshell:

I was in love with Godsmania the first time I saw the original movie on my computer. But before that, I watched the trailer at Video Detective, and my stomach and feelings churned every time I thought about it.

I laughed so much while enjoying it, especially when Mr. Sein tripped over a garbage bin at the local school!

It's so funny, and so special, yet so controversial, it deserves featured status anytime soon. I've started to improve it with an infobox and a picture of the famous "end of the earth" scene. Tell me what to do with article when I get back to the Nature Island... --Slgrandson 17:11, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


  • Well, lets start with the obvious--expansion and references. Perhaps the movies could be separate articles, but I'm ok with things the way they are.
  • Information to include would be how did these movies to in their original release? These movies have achieved somewhat of a cult status, why not talk about that?
  • More analysis of the movies.

Hopefully this will provide a place where you can start. They are truly great movies, so good luck. PDXblazers 23:29, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Torchic

[edit]

Request: I've been working a lot on this article, and wanted a few tips on where to improve next. I know the In the anime section is pitiful, so don't comment on that, and help with notes and refs would be good. Much thanks Highway 20:06, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Not a big issue, but like is done in Wikipedia:Footnotes the inline citation usually goes after the period, not before. Per WP:CONTEXT, years without full dates should generally not be linked. The article could also use a copyedit with spelling errors (like "evole", which I corrected) and the use of it's (it is) instead of the correct its. Other errors include Torchic prefers stays . Thanks, AndyZ 20:18, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for your comments, they gave me some pointers I didn't know about. The article was kinda choppy, so I've been re-writing sections, opposed to writing it fresh. Thanks, Highway 20:44, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    "It's", footnotes and "prefer stays" are all amended, I've just to proof read it now, Thanks much Highway 21:07, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Try to make the article accessible for those of us who do not know anything about Pokemon. For example, the first sentence of the video game section "Choosing a Torchic, or any Fire-type, as your starter Pokémon is considered a steeper learning curve than choosing Treecko or Mudkip." Use specific names as examples of a generalized category. What is Treecko's (specific name) relationship to this sentence? He is a non-fire-type character (general category)?
  • Please fact-check "covered all over by a fluffy coat of down feathers".
  • Integrate the "Trivia" section into the prose of the article (or create a foreign-name table) or just remove those fun facts as trivial for the purpose of this article.
  • Concerning the references, is Bulbapedia a Wikipedia:Reliable sources? The Bulbasaur article that got featured status was criticized for not doing the research that normal FAs are expected to do. The "multi-billion-dollar" franchise probably has a few books, articles, interviews that discuss these creations. Show us evidence (through references) that an exhaustive search has been done.
  • In the intro please provide a more descriptive overview of what this thing is. It's a cartoon chicken. A chicken that...what? I gather it is chicken that is trained to fight. What is its goal? Does it fight an evil empire or free a princess?
  • Also, please review the article Spoo, as it is my opinion, that article balances well fanboy(story details)|cruft(trivia) with encyclopedic analysis. --maclean25 19:57, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you very much : ) I'll look into that, a couple of responses to that -
    • The down feathers mistake is just because "down" leads to a disambiguation.
    • The trivia section is designed because all of that information was formally in the introduction (if you don't believe the awfulness check all the other articles), so that's why that there is, the trivia section can also be found in Bulbasaur, but if you can suggest a place for it that would be good also
    • The references/external links are a template for all articles, I removed the template for torchic, but I haven't changed the content much
    Thanks much for all the comments, Highway 13:46, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Here are my observations:
    • Italicise game names. Make sure commas and "and"s are not linked. They are two separate games in the same article.
    • Right align the card image.
    • Fix the copyright of the game screenshot - you certified that it was fair use, not me.
    • "Many gamers have criticized the Advanced Generation artwork as a whole, since Ken Sugimori, the designer of all of the first and second generation Pokémon, led the design team, resulting in the Pokémon appearing in a more naturalistic style, compared to the anthropormorphistic style of the Pokémon Red and Blue and Pokémon Gold and Silver games." - source it please.
    • "Ep" should be "Episode" - try not to abbreviate.
    • "A little-known fact that most players overlook when playing with the Torchic Star card, from the EX Team Rocket Returns set" - POV if ever I did see.
    • You just can't reference Bulbapedia. Please learn from my mistakes at Bulbasaur.
  • Overall, looking good but it needs some serious tweaking. --Celestianpower háblame 22:20, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm working through your comments Cel, the non-numbered ones are the ones that have been fixed, what exactly do I need to do with Bulbapedia? Highway 00:58, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Fixed everything on Cel's list except the Bulbapedia thing, since I have no clue. I also remedied most of Toxic's comments, but I'm not exactly sure what a copyedit is.. *feels dumb*. Thank you for the comments Highway 01:13, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    You have referenced Bulbapedia. You cannot do this - remove Bulbapedia from the references section.
    A copy edit is basically an extensive grammar, spelling, punctuation and wikification check.
    Another thing I've noticed: Ch. should be Chapter and it's not "Episode 12. Foo", it's "Episode 12: Foo". Also, you can't reference a Wikipedia article. --Celestianpower háblame 10:05, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I thought as much, but that's where I got the information, any ideas on how to link it? How can you use any other website but not Bulbapedia (dire as it is)? I also did have a check, CLW checked it.. Highway 13:08, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Technically, you should reference just any site but Bulbapedia is worse as it's editable by all, it's a wiki. --Celestianpower háblame 14:06, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
So, is there any way to connect any wiki with any article? And it is dire.. Highway 20:07, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The first two sections are completely devoid of inline citations and could use a copyedit. Also, don't reference the criticism of Torchic's appearance in the lead unless you go into it in further depth farther down the article (which wouldn't be a good idea, as it isn't something that should go in Torchic's article, but rather on the Pokémon article or a daughter article. Titoxd(?!? - help us) 00:08, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

World War II

[edit]
Previous Peer Review located at Wikipedia:Peer review/World War II/archive1.

Cut "United States industrial capacity" section. I am living in the Arsenal of Democracy but this is out of place here. Rmhermen 04:10, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


I just fixed up this article, shortened some sub-sections, enhanced others, added pictures, etc. Let me know what you guys think. Is this good enough that it can become a featured article, if not, what should I change to improve it. Mercenary2k 12:16, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Likely not, this article is good. Every year it gets majorly rewritten - and becomes another yet another good article but it never reaches a level of stability where most people are happy with it. Rmhermen 14:36, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Matsuo Bashō

[edit]

I am planning to improve this to featured quality, but first I'd like to know where it's most deficient. Ashibaka tock 13:54, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. A few items I would note:
  • The lede is quite short. At FAC, they like to see at least three paragraphs.
  • You mention at the opening that his name when he was a child was Kinsaku, yet the name never comes up again. With three other names, unless you have a really good reason, I would drop the childhood name.
How the heck did this guy feed himself? Seriously. He apparantly moved all over and I can't figure out how he paid his expenses. How did he publish? Who were his sponsors?
  • If his father was a samurai, was he also? He works for the same local lord, but is it as a samurai or otherwise?
  • What's a Bashō hut? There's no explanation. Don't assume your readers are familiar with the terminology. This is particularly true since I don't have a firm understanding of his religious
  • You state that in his third hut "he took in a nephew and a woman friend, Jutei, who were both unwell." yet they nephew and woman friend just disappear after that. What is their significance? If they are not significant, why are they mentioned? What about his parents? What sort of upbringing did he have - harsh, kind?
  • Tsuboi Tokoku became his lover. I assume this was a male but only because there is a citation to a volume on Homosexuality and civilization (but you need to point this out in the article). How did being gay influence his work, or did it not influence it? WHat social reaction would he have gotten for being gay? Or was he closeted?
  • Since this is an author, there must be an extant bibliography. I found this on Barnes and Noble. Note: Bibliography (works by the subject of the article) and References are two separate sections.
  • Re: the haiku: "Travelling sick; My dreams roam, On a withered moor." Where is this from? You need to cite sources.
  • Two references are unlikely to pass muster. There have to be more references you can cite. Look at the nature of haiku as a form and provide some historical materials. If you are going to cite to the volume Homosexuality and Civilization, you need to add this to your references.
  • Three footnotes are inadequate and several more items need citation. You state that "Shiki not only criticized Bashō but also reformed hokku according to his own tastes in the late 19th century." Where does this come from. Other statements are made of a similar nature that require citation.
  • The second two footnotes are simply html links with no description. Check out the featured articles posted on the mainpage and see how the text can be interwoven with a link.
  • You have divided the article into Life and Works sections. This should all be integrated together. I would focus first on giving the reader a general introduction of the time period, the castes and other background data. Next section: Talk about his childhood, where he was socially, his family's beliefs and status. Next: His wanderings and how he came across haiku and what significance it was to others. His popularity: who were his fans? How did he aggregate followers? His death: how did he die? Stomach illness is vague. Is there anything more specific?
  • Prose on the article needs a lot of attention, particularly the first part; it comes off as a bunch of declarative sentences stuck together into paragraphs. As the article nears the end it becomes more fluid and I sense you are more "into" this section -- and it shows.
  • When citing books, only the hardbound is needed. Also, use the following template that's becoming almost required in FACs:
    • {{cite book | author= | year= | title= | id= }}
  • You need more images than one. Try to obtain a map showing where the subject lived, where he travelled to, etc. Also, since the haikus are all in the public domain, consider using frames to move the quotes from the Quotes section (and the "Quotes" should be deleted because we have WikiQuotes for this material). Look at the boxes on the Gerald Ford article for what I am doing as a sample.

Hope this helps. Jtmichcock 02:37, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It does; thanks. I'll start work on this shortly. Ashibaka tock 17:12, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The biggest hurdle to FAC with this article is probably getting the prose to a higher standard. There are no easy solutions for this but mixing in information from more sources might help, as would getting a set of fresh eyes to look at it and make edits. I will create a map of his travels in Japan and see how that looks in the article. I contacted you on your talk page about a potential map. --maclean25 19:12, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The intro is truly horrible. Quite aside from its shortness; I mean, "today, after centuries of commentary, he is recognized as an author of hokku." No, really? I was very much expecting to see something along the lines of "today, Basho is universally agreed to be the greatest hokku poet ever, hailed as the 'God of Haiku' by his countrymen". Also, more sources and especially quotes from primary sources would be good, in addition to simply expanding the article. There's not too much discussion of 'context' - what came before, and how Basho was such a watershed in haiku; I vaguely remember a line which went like this: "Without Basho, we would still be licking the spittle of old man [Matsunaga] Teitoku." Little is mentioned of his travel diaries, and as others have pointed out, how he actually lived is not really touched upon. This could be done so much better than it is; as I've said, Basho is possibly the single most important Japanese poet, up there and and mebbe even exceeding the likes of Teika and Hitomaro (to name two). An article on Basho should be at least as long as the one on Teika. Lord knows there is more material in English on Basho! Far too little space is devoted to, among other things, his travel diaries. --maru (talk) contribs 03:14, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Lord of the Rings (1978 film)

[edit]

MUCH improved since the last peer review. A lot of new information has been added, and all of the issues discussed in the previous peer review have been dealt with. What's the concensus, guys? (Ibaranoff24 00:21, 28 November 2006 (UTC))[reply]

  • You should try to merge the trivia into the article or delete overall per WP:TRIV. Also the sountrack section seems quite out of place, I would rather wish to see it as prose in the Music sub-section in the Production section. Lastly, the lead could benefit from some expansion. - Tutmosis 16:54, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Okay, I moved the information about the soundtrack album to its own article and linked it from the "Music" section on the film's article, I moved some of the trivia into the main article, and I deleted the rest, because I couldn't find anywhere where it would be suitable to place it. (Ibaranoff24 19:05, 28 November 2006 (UTC))[reply]
  • I think the Plot subsection could do with condensing a bit - it seems a bit long at the moment. And the lead should be a bit longer: it should include something about the reception of the film. Apart from that, the prose is the main issue to be dealt with. Oh, and a few of the images need fair use rationales (and I don't think fair use images are supposed to be uploaded in high-res). Trebor 20:53, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Alpha Phi Alpha

[edit]

I have updated this article with suggestions from contributors and adminstrators suggestions. I am requesting a second peer reivew before requesting featured article review. thanks to everyone for prior help and for any additonal help from everyone. Ccson 04:44, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • First off, several minor issues. The lead at most should be 4 paragraphs, per WP:LEAD. All years with full dates should be linked, as shown in WP:CONTEXT. Only the first letter of a heading should be capitalized (besides proper nouns), so words like "Expansion" should not be capitalized. AndyZ t 22:09, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nancy Hughes

[edit]

This character has recieved attention from the media, including CNN, as Guinness adds her as the longest-running television character with a single actor. Which ways should we focus on developing this TV character article? -- Zanimum 22:13, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I liked the infoboxes on different Coronation Street articles, so I went ahead and added one to Nancy's article. I say the list of who she's related to is too much, and could be converted to more readable prose. Mike H. That's hot 00:30, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Voyage: Inspired by Jules Verne

[edit]

I have no idea what I need to do to improve this article, and I need to know its major faults and I need an objective second opinion. Please, if there is a problem with fair use of images, please tell me what to do. I think that everything has been done correctly, but people still say that it is incorrect. HOW, exactly? also, if prose is bad, please inform me. If i'm wasting my time getting this peer review because the article is so bad, please tell me that as well. --Paaerduag 10:26, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

First, you need references, preferably inline. See Wikipedia:References for more info. I also think that the article, especially the latter sections, could use more ilinks (see W:BTW). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 18:20, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program. They may or may not be accurate for the article in question (due to possible javascript errors/uniqueness of articles). If the following suggestions are completely incorrect about the article, please drop a note on my talk page.
  • Please expand the lead to conform with guidelines at WP:LEAD. The article should have an appropriate number of paragraphs as is shown on WP:LEAD, and should adequately summarize the article.


  • Per WP:MOS#Headings, headings generally do not start with the word "The". For example, ==The Biography== would be changed to ==Biography==.
  • There are a few occurrences of weasel words in this article- please observe WP:AWT. Certain phrases should specify exactly who supports, considers, believes, etc., such a view.
  • This article needs footnotes, preferably in the cite.php format recommended by WP:WIAFA. Simply, enclose inline citations, with WP:CITE or WP:CITE/ES information, with <ref>THE FOOTNOTE</ref>. At the bottom of the article, in a section named “References” or “Footnotes”, add <div class="references-small"><references/></div>.
    • To assist you with this, add {{subst:js|User:AndyZ/monobook.js/footnotehelper.js}} to your monobook.js file (mine is located at User:AndyZ/monobook.js) and then bypass your browser's cache by pressing: Mozilla/Safari/Konqueror: hold down Shift while clicking Reload (or press Ctrl-Shift-R), Internet Explorer: press Ctrl-F5, Opera: press F5. In editing mode, click on the "Footnote creater" tab that appears.
  • The article will need references. See WP:CITE and WP:V for more information.

Scrabble letter distributions

[edit]

This is now a pretty solid and comprehensive list, but I thought I'd get some more feedback before applying for Featured List status. Soo 01:43, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • You should really get the full list of right characters for Arabic and Hebrew. Shouldn't be difficult to paste from other articles.
  • The explanation in the Welsh sections are confusing at best. Could be simplified to something like "using letter combinations for the tiles X, Y, Z... is illegal".
  • Circeus 02:58, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
What order do the letters come in? They seem to vary from most freqent (in English, for example) to alphabetical (in Afrikaans, for example.) This should be consistent, at least. I'd prefer in order of frequency, since that tells us something we may not already know.--Cherry blossom tree 11:20, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The letter and count combination is quite hard to read. How about experimenting with some different formatting. For example: using bold and small letters:
  • 1 point: E ×12 A ×9 I ×9 O ×8 R ×6 N ×6 T ×6 L ×4 S ×4 U ×4
If you decide to change the format, a good search-and-replace function in a text editor would make it straightforward to apply.
I've done this now, although I'm not convinced it looks good. What do you think? (I couldn't do it on the Arabic section for the reason discussed below.) Soo 21:08, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've just experimented with a space between the × and the count. I think it looks better with the extra space. Perhaps you could try posting on some Arabic project/talk page for help with those letters. Colin°Talk 21:32, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The brackets in the Arabic section aren't paired - is this a typo? Colin°Talk 16:36, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    They are actually paired correctly, but there seems to be some weird BiDi complication that causes most browsers, include Firefox and Opera, to display them wrongly. If you look at Opera's edit view then you can see them in the right order. I'm afraid I have no idea why this happens and no idea how to fix it. Does anyone else? Soo
    Now fixed, thanks to User:Plugwash. Soo 16:06, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think the table of contents is too long and distracting, but I'm not sure if there's anything you can do about that. :( Also, the internal links to outside sites are discouraged (I've been reading the Manual of Style!) so it's probably better to use footnotes and link to the sites in the references section. And it could use a few images - maybe you can use the ones on the Scrabble article? Another thing - are you sure it's accurate? How can we check the numbers? Anyway, it looks good. Sarah crane 20:29, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Is the new table of contents better? Soo 21:33, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    That looks great! How'd you do that? I'll have to check it out. . .
    I disabled the default ToC and replaced it with a manual one. That makes it a bit more difficult to maintain the page but in this case I think it's worth it. Soo 15:21, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I've also fixed the references up to something a little more authoritative. Soo 16:06, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • A picture would be very nice. Maybe Image:Scrabble tiles wooden.jpg? Hmmm...actually, the license on that image apparently is not entirely compatible with GFDL. This would prove problematic when this article were to come to WP:FLC. So if you can fix the problems with the tag, go ahead. If you can find a better one (there's nothing worthwhile in the "Scrabble" category on Commons), please do include it. NatusRoma | Talk 09:07, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I have tried photographing my own set (English) but the tiles are amazingly shiny so I either get glare or, with no flash, a dark picture. Perhaps someone more photographically competant can come up with something? Soo 09:39, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Think I fixed it. The current photo isn't great but it's better than nothing. I'm working on photos for a couple of other sets too. Soo 10:48, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mazda Cosmo

[edit]

I think that this article is very good, and on its way to becoming featured, I just need some ideas on how to improve it. --Karrmann

This article is coming along, but there are a few issues that should be resolved before you start on the rigorous Featured Article process.
  1. Inline referencing. One of the primary reasons to object is the article lack's of inline referencing. Though the references section is definitely better than many articles, it is almost necessary that they be inline; you can see how at Wikipedia:Inline Citation. It is encouraged you use the style set out at meta:cite. This is simply a way for us to double-check and prove that the article is factually accurate and prove that our claims and numbers can be sourced, per Wikipedia:Verifiability.
  2. Comprehensiveness. Another featured article criteria is requires our work to be comprehensive. We dont want to just know about the production of the car itself. What was the industry reaction, and did it affect any other companies and car models? Is there a little history you can provide about the cultural impact and history of this vehicle in regards to its market? Can we see some pricing information? There are a number of good featured articles about cars right now. I believe that the most recent one to pass, though a bit more eccentric, was the De Lorean DMC-12. Other featured articles include Ford Mustang, Volkswagen Type 2, and Mercedes-Benz 450SEL 6.9, though some of these were featured a long time ago when criteria were less stringent.
  3. Brilliant prose. Another criteria is that "the prose is compelling, even brilliant." This article seems very fractured to me. The writing is, admittedly, a little on the dry side, and it is interspersed with short sentences and lists. See Wikipedia:How to write a great article and Wikipedia:The perfect article for some good advice.
Hope this helps. Let me know if you need another pair of eyes on this article before you begin the Featured Article process. — Rebelguys2 talk 23:24, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I echo Rebelguys2's comments about inlining the referencing, comprehensiveness and prose. I'd also add:
  1. More Human Interest: Who designed the car? Who pursuaded management to build it? Who was passionate about it? What market was it intended to attack and why? What races did it win? What awards did it get? Was it profitable? How many were made? How did it stack up against it's competition? Why did they eventually discontinue it? What notable people drove them? What did the reviewers have to say about them?
  2. Infobox: The wheelbase and length type stuff that's embedded in the article can go into the Infobox. Also, I don't think you're using the standard automotive template...although I could be wrong about that. The photo is normally the first thing in the infobox.
  3. More Infobox: There are quite a few fields in the standard automotive infobox that you've missed out - it's sometimes hard to fill them all in - but in view of standardization, it's a good idea to try.
  4. Better Photo's: Somehow the photos seem kinda bleaugh - some photos of the car out on the open road - the showroom pictures are rather sterile...I know this may be hard to fix. The photo of the green car is rather small - when I open it so see it better, it's hardly any larger than the thumbnail.
  5. Redlinks: The two redlinks in the 1990-1995 section could definitely point to real articles - I'm just about certain there are articles about in-car nav systems and touch-screens - it's just a matter of doing a search to track them down.
Not a bad start though - you seem to have most of the technical stuff in there - it just needs some more human-interest stuff to make it a compelling read. SteveBaker 00:13, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Timeline of Apple Macintosh models

[edit]

I've put a lot of work into this, and would like some others to sanity check it. I'd like it to become a featured... something (list, maybe?) eventually, but for a FL it presently has to many "red"links... So, any suggestions? -- grm_wnr Esc 10:43, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The timeline looks nice, but a text form should be added. The timeline should be an addition to the article, not be the article.Circeus 14:20, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree. Of course an article called "Timeline of Apple Macintosh models" can only consist of a timeline of Apple Macintosh models. It's not in another article because the size of it would blow up any article - best for it to stand alone (see the abridged version in Apple Macintosh). A text version of this would be even longer and infinitely less useful, but I can see if I can extract it from the source code - I can imagine one use for one, and that's redlink checking. -- grm_wnr Esc 14:36, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There are MANY issues with transmitting information that can be transmitted by text with only an image, the biggest of which is that such infomation is virtually inaccessible to blind (The caption cannot in away accurately describe the entirety of information carried by the picture) and color-blind people (color-coding is nice, but lost and the entire thing very confusing)! Also, having nothing but an image (because timelines are nothing but images without the usual image frame) in a section will always be poor layout.
The timeline syntax is nice and useful, sure, but like any other thing, it should not be abused in articles. Circeus 15:01, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I see your point, but it is tedious and error-prone to maintain two sets of redundant data. I have entered a feature request to make plaintext timeline output possible into bugzilla (bugzilla:5400) - that would be the most elegant solution to the problem at hand. In the meantime, I will try to construct a wikitext version of the timeline in the article, but it will have to omit much of the information the timeline has. And it will take a while. -- grm_wnr Esc 18:09, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
As far as I can tell, there are two things for each model: release date, and retirement date. It can't be that much to list in order. Circeus 18:21, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
And the type of Mac it is, but your point still stands.--HereToHelp 00:45, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm working on it, see User:Grm_wnr/sandbawxII. -- grm_wnr Esc 13:22, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Looks very nice to me! While I'mat it, I'd like to point another flaw in the Timeline syntax that makes an image-only timeline undesirable: It cannot distinguish between red and blue links. Circeus 04:04, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Text version has been added. -- grm_wnr Esc 21:34, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Liking the text version. Excellent work. Covington 04:42, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Perfect Dark

[edit]

I think this a good article with a lot of information. M2K 20:15, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, it's a lot of information alright.
  • From the lead: "[PD was released later]... and perhaps for this reason.. [wasn't as successful]" This is basically speculation. Frankly I'm not even convinced of the validity of this statement.
  • The lead seems to have a lot of minor details in it (variable enemy height, the Japansese name that wasn't used). Move those into the main article section and keep the lead to what major sections are about.
  • The development section reads very strangely, due to what is apparently an adherence to a single interview. It needs to be reorganized in a more orderly fashion, with fewer block quotes. You don't need to quote everything (particularly when sources are cited). If you must quote, try to get the single most important bit out of the quote. Right now there are three block-quotes of several sentences, plus a few single-sentence quotes. It seriously impairs the readability of the section.
  • You need a Gameplay section to describe the game in its most general terms. The "single player" section just jumps right into talking about how difficulty affects objectives, ammo, shields, auto-aim, but you haven't introduced any of these concepts in the article. Assume the reader has never played Goldeneye before (or, for that matter, most other FPSs).
  • Half of the "single player" section talks about co-op, which is by definition not single-player.
  • "Perfect Dark included a variation of the co-operative concept which as of 2005 is still not seen in other games: counter-operative." I read this and I'm like WTF? You really, really need to explain exactly what makes this different from, say, a Tom Clancy game or Counterstrike.
  • Storyline: Holy crap that's long. You absolutely do not need to describe every event in the game; imagine if the Final Fantasy VII article was written like that; it'd be hundreds of pages long. Stick to major events and overlying themes. What is Joanna's overall purpose in the game? What is trying to be accomplished? Simply dumping the plot on us without making any attempt to summarize it is useless; we can just play the game to get the whole plot.
  • I would move all comparisons to Goldeneye into its own section. Again, assume the reader hasn't played Goldeneye or read its article.
  • Discussion about what individual Sims do is pretty crufty: I would get rid of it.
  • Discussion on the AIs weakness should be cited (if left in at all), I think.
  • Weapons: Too big. Just too big. I wouldn't even bother listing all of them.
  • "by holding B and pressing the Z button" - get rid of it. It's FAQ material and doesn't really hold any encyclopediac value.
  • Easter Eggs/Etc: Again, too much.
  • You mention the impact of the game in the intro, but never really mention it again. Find out about sales, reviews, critical acclaim, rewards, and whatnot. Condense all the information on "little problems" or whatnot into a single section.
Hope that helps a bit. The biggest problems are just the sheer amount of stuff in the article, and no mention of the game's general gameplay. Nifboy 19:41, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yay Agentsoo! You've cleaned the article up and out! Nifboy 02:23, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the article is definitely much better now. And I'm the who wrote a fair portion of the extraneous crap that was trimmed!--Drat (Talk) 03:20, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It's never a nice feeling when someone deletes stuff you've worked so hard on - I know because it's happened to me several times. But ultimately it's all about making the encyclopaedia as useful as it can be. Thanks for understanding! Any more suggestions for enhancing this article? Soo 08:54, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Is this article close to the level where it could be considered for FA status? If not, what can be done to improve it? Soo 16:35, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There still isn't anything on the market performance.--Drat (Talk) 02:30, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm working on that. Unfortunately Nintendo are fairly unsporting when it comes to disclosing their own sales figures. Does anyone know where I might find such useful things? Soo 09:57, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, problem solved :) Soo 01:36, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Vermaport

[edit]

All the information that I am aware of is included in this article. (J.reed 20:24, 30 March 2006 (UTC))[reply]

DirectShow

[edit]

Second peer review (first here). I had some insanely helpful suggestions the first time, which I believe I have taken care of. So, any comments are welcome - particularily is it sufficiently readable to the laymen-non-programmers and is the intro good/comprehensive enough? Thanks! Just another star in the night T | @ | C 08:11, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Homer Simpson

[edit]

Current WP:AID article. Could use suggestions on cleaning up and expanding the article. Gflores Talk 17:17, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • It's good from an in-universe perspective, but it would be better if it described Homer as a cultural artifact of our own universe. See User:BrianSmithson/Writing about fiction or User:Uncle G/Describe this universe for an idea of what I mean. — BrianSmithson 20:02, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree with Brian; the principles of his "writing about fiction" guide are well-founded. To address this article specifically:
    • As Brian mentioned, the article should place greater emphasis on treating Homer as a fictional character and an element of popular culture. Information on how Homer was created, how he's performed by the voice actor, every time such-and-such Magazine has named him one of the 50 Greatest So-and-So's ever, mentions of appearances outside the TV show (like the Intel and Mastercard commercials), Homer-specific merchandising, how writers and producers of the show have described him, their challenges/pleasures/whatever of writing for him, etc.
    • There needs to be some sort of clearer distinction between Homer's well-established character traits (eating too much, making poorly informed judgements, etc.), as opposed to single-episode trivia ("He runs a gossip website under the alias "Mr. X"; an IQ of 55, etc.)
    • Some better explanation of his individual relationships with his family members. The Simpsons is intended to be a show centered around a family unit as a whole, but the article makes almost no mention of how Homer connects to his wife and children. How does he interact with Lisa, with Bart, with Marge? The article doesn't say.
    • The "Names and Aliases" and "Religion" sections are just lumps of trivia without any cohesive structure. The former could be converted to a single sentence of prose (Like "In the course of his scheming, Homer has adopted numerous aliases blah blah blah examples"). There are some other sections that are just silly and uninformative (like "Homosexuality") that can be removed.
    • The construction "In episode XYZ, Homer..." is definitely better than not citing the relevant episode at all, but it appears too frequently in the article. Better to simply cite the episodes with footnotes.
    • Careful with POV, especially in statements like "As a rule, Homer's stupidity has generally increased with each passing season" (not really verifiable; in fact, the show's current executive producer, Al Jean, has actually said on DVD commentaries that he's tried to make Homer a little less dimwitted since taking over the job a few years ago).
    • Andrew Levine 03:58, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Andrew brings up a good point: DVD commentaries are gold for articles like this. Be sure to use them as a source as you retool this article. — BrianSmithson 13:37, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • A major problem with this article is that people read to much into jokes etc. This is evident in sections such as Homosexuality and Religion. The truth is that Homers sexuality, attitude to relgion etc. change from episode to episode depending on what is needed for the storyline or for jokesSt jimmy 10:30, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WIP (AM)

[edit]

Cableguytk (talk • contribs) thinks this article is "is fine as is", so i though why not put it up for why not put it up for Peer review, and what everyone else thinks. --Boothy443 | trácht ar 09:19, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Idit Harel Caperton

[edit]

I have been working on this article for a couple of months and it is now listed as at Wikipedia:Good articles. I would like some disintersested eyes to look over the article to get ideas regarding what steps need to be taken to get it up to featured status (eventually). Any ideas will be considered and grealt appreciated. Cheers. youngamerican (talk) 14:09, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The intro doesn't make her notability clear. In plain English, tell me why I should care about her. She is "a researcher and theorist in the field of the relationship between juvenile development and new media technology"? What the heck is that? Is that some crazy way of saying she designs video games for kids? The introductory paragraph should be able to give readers context for the subject without making them go to another article (in this case, New media) to decipher the euphemisms. I agree with your previous note on the talk page that it looks like an introduction for a keynote speaker. It's getting better, but the intro still needs work.
Also, if you plan to submit this as a featured article candidate, you should change the reference format to the new "cite" style. In theory, reference style is a matter of personal taste. But in reality, you will encounter problems if you keep the footnotes the way they are.
I hope the suggestions help, and good luck! Kafziel 15:00, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have worked on the intro, per your suggestions, and will continue fleshing it out. I will also research the new cite guidelines to save myself a headache down the road. Cheers. youngamerican (talk) 15:16, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Good improvement on the intro wording. Makes much more sense now. Kafziel 15:31, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have started working on conversion of the references tothe new format. I have, however, hit a snag on the one that cites a chapter in an edited compilation. As soon as that issue is solved, the conversion will be completed. youngamerican (talk) 16:26, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There was some misplaced HTML at the bottom of the page; it caused the entire remainder of the page to be included as a footnote, making it disappear. I moved it to the end of the actual reference, and now the references work. Just convert the rest of them over to the cite format and you should be good to go. Kafziel 17:06, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Done. youngamerican (talk) 17:21, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The lead should be expanded to a minimum of 2 paragraphs, as per WP:LEAD. Thanks, AndyZ t 20:58, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Started. I will continue fleshing out the lead. Thanks. youngamerican (talk) 21:15, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Overall, it looks good. However, there are certain things that need to be adderessed:

  1. Remove the wikilinks for individual years. Per the Manual of Style, individual links should not be linked. While the MoS is just a guideline, IMO, wikilinks to individual years offer next to nothing in terms of relavence. However, do wikilink dates. The only way to format the dates per the individual editors' preferences is to wikilink the dates.
    1. Done. youngamerican (talk) 19:34, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. They were also the founders of the first private high school in Israel. Add a reference for this.
    1. Statement removed pending me finding the ref. that I used for that. youngamerican (talk) 19:34, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. In the Early life section, the third and fourth paragraph consists of two sentences each. Try to merge them.
    1. I did a re-format on that section. I will continue to tweak it until improved. youngamerican (talk) 20:01, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. There is no consistency when refering to her. She is refered to as "Idit Harel Caperton", "Caperton", "Harel", "Harel Caperton", "Harel-Caperton", and "Idit Harel". This needs to be fixed, regardless of what you choose. IMO, "Caperton" is best to use, as mention of the husband is minimal. If it still is ambiguous, try "Harel Caperton" (if her name really is hyphenated, use the hyphenated version and correct the article title).
    1. Done. She goes by "Idit Harel Caperton." youngamerican (talk) 19:47, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. In 1991, she published a book, Children Designers, which won the 1991 Outstanding Book Award from the American Education Research Association. - Add a reference for this.
    1. Done. youngamerican (talk) 19:34, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. One thing that bothered me, though it is a matter of person preference, is the space preceding the citation. I'm just used to seeing the citation directly following the punctuation (or the word), that the space slightly irks me. Once again, if this is how you prefer it, don't change it to conform.
    1. Done. youngamerican (talk) 19:34, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Add references for the individual awards that MaMaMedia has received.
  8. Explain what FOCAS is and what the ATLAS Institute is.
  9. You may want to replace "reared" with a synonym to avoid any ambiguity with non-native English speakers. Perhaps "raised".
    1. I will look into synonyms, although "reared" is gramatically correct. People are reared, animals and crops are "raised." But I will try to find a correct synonym that will not confuse non-Anglophones. (PS: I will soon address your other concerns. Cheers.) youngamerican (talk) 19:34, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pepsidrinka 18:52, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh my, Pepsidrinka just gave you more than half of my list; what's left is mostly minutia.

  1. There are some remaining references to simply Caperton
  2. Move her birthplace from parentheses at the top to the Early Life section. In its wake, you could mention her nationality in the lead.
  3. The "Early life" section, should contain some mention of her first marriage and move to the U.S. The mention of grandchildren in that section also seems out of place, though short of a major shakeup, I don't have a remedy.
  4. Lead: give a few words of explanation of what the MaMaMedia company is.
  5. Academic career:Children Designers: can "standardized post-test examinations" become "standardized examinations"?
  6. MaMaMedia:Startup: make clear that the company's primary product is a web site
  7. MaMaMedia:Development and expansion: "Approximately 10%-20% of visitors register to join the MaMaMedia community." Is this stat from 1997?

×Meegs 20:09, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It would be good if there were a few more images of Idit Harel Caperton (preferably not fair use). It is not completely necessary, but it make the article more attractive. GizzaChat © 20:20, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
She has informed me that she has some more images that could be used, but I'm not sure about whether the photos could be used without her or the photographer personally uploading them. I have, therefore, tried to err on the side of caution. I will, however, follow up and see what can be done with the images she has emailed me. youngamerican (talk) 20:24, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A few observations I would make:

  • I echo some of the suggestions above regarding citations being needed in the first sections.
  • There is an NPOV problem in a few sections although I notice a few of the adjectives have been pared. I am aware that Negroponte's laptop idea has come into some harsh criticisma from folks like Clifford Stoll, see here and the most recent issue of Time Magazine (Are Kids Too Wired?). Although Caperton is not on the front line of this debate, the debate should be mentioned.
  • The Reference section 1) I would rename Notes and then 2) Do two additional sections: Bibliography for Caperton's own writings (alone or with others) and References for other works on the topics.
  • One sentence says in part: "led Caperton to actively support efforts to foster, build, and sustain peace in the Middle East and throughout the world." Other than a link to a Middle East-based program, it's difficult to see how this relates to the rest of the article. In other words, I'm not certain how her "support" (as opposed to "leadership") in Middle East peace defines what she does now.
  • In terms of scholarly work, I think you need to reference the fact that her experiment with the Boston kids and computer programming for fractions hasn't been replicated (as far as I can find). Also, there's a real question as to whether the short term benefits of these types of programs translate into long term acheivements (see the debate about Head Start for some idea of the debate). I would specify whether there are any follow-up studies on the group.
  • You state that "Her mentor Seymour Papert described her work in this area as "a Trojan horse" in the field of education technology and cognitive psychology"(cite needed too). I don't know exactly what Papert meant. I might be obtuse but I think he means it's a disruptive approach. If so, how was it disruptive and what are the consequences?
  • "World Wide Workshop Foundation" - who else is involved in the foundation? Where does it funding come from? Are there any notable projects its been involved with?
  • Writing is very good (except for the few minor POV problems noted).

Overall, quite a good piece. With some working, it should be headed to Featured Articleland. Jtmichcock 21:58, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks everyone for the reviews. I will soon address all of the points raised, but I think I need a little wikibreak. youngamerican (talk) 12:39, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Viking

[edit]

I wish to have the article peer reviewed. The points of interest are Viking Ships and The Viking invasions: a commercial war, but I also want to see a full peer review. My main concern is the lack of references, but there have also been claims of self contradictions. --OrbitOne [Talk|Babel] 22:32, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I have a few comments which I hope are of some help:
  • Yes it definitely needs references.
  • I think I'd prefer it if the first paragraph were entirely about viking history, and any etymology was moved down to the second paragraph. Thus "Vikings were Norse warriors who raided the coast..." The bit about the "loanword" just seems distracting.
  • The entire introduction could stand to be another paragraph longer. Likewise I'd like the article to jump right into the history, and save the etymology for later. I'd like to enter the "The Viking Age" section as soon as I start reading.
  • The article definitely needs more artwork, and possibly a map. There should be a nice graphic right at the top that shows a viking and possibly a longship.
  • There are some citations in the text that could be converted to inline references. (E.g. Sawyer, P H: 1997.)
  • Finally I'd like to see a section about the consequences of the Viking activities.
All IMO of course. :) — RJH 17:33, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the first introduction section should probably be a summary, not so much about the word. Sarah crane 20:08, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to raise a couple of points, mainly regarding the structure of the article:

  • The structure of the article is quite unclear and the reader might feel a bit lost. IMO, the sections about Viking ships and Historical Records should be placed after the description of events (Viking Age). (Btw, the section about historical records may parhaps discuss more the image of Vikings in the chronicles written by monks - their usual victims.) Books and Movies can be perhaps put together. Some very short sub-sections (merely paragraphs in fact) should be expanded or their headings should be droped.
  • The Viking Age section is not very comprehensive and its sub-sections are too short. The core of the text is devoted to a theory with little support from scientists. I think it should include main events of the Viking Age, main wars and raids. This key part would also need a map of Viking raids.
  • Similarly, it would be nice to illustrate the Ships section by a picture.
  • There are also too many unnecessary red links to non-existing articles (for example about movies).
  • I would also suggest to include a part about a typical Viking career (sea-kings and so one) and a few words about the life style (campaigns, religion, slaves, etc.).

Tankred 17:23, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, this was linked from the front page! Cool. That's a good excuse to clean it up... Sarah crane 13:58, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The current edit war should be resolved and more sources should be added. Inge 13:29, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I wish the article would reflect a modern view, instead of 1800 century romantics. Dan Koehl 07:49, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I once again remind about the important written source of the saga of Egil Skallagrimsson.

He clearly writes; Björn var farmaður mikill, var stundum í víking, en stundum í kaupferðum, which translates in english: Björn was a great traveller; sometimes as viking, sometimes as tradesman. As a written source it indicates that no viking were a tradesman, as viking.

I also remind you about the attack of arabic pirats in the middle sea, who are called vikings. Yes, also arabic people could be pirats, and therefore they are sometimes called vikings in the sagas. There are however, no written sources stating that a viking was trading peacefully. And you will never find it.

You can write in the article that vikings were traders that performed trading, but its not true, and not 1 source suports this rmaontisims which started from 1910.

The article is just full of myths, which are not supported by written sources from the very period. Its a shame.

Dan Koehl 19:28, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dark matter

[edit]

I am nominating this article as I am soon doing a Physics project on this topic and how it affects the possible end of the universe. I intend to improve this article in parallel with my own work. I would appreciate any comments that can be made about improving the article. Thanks. --Darth Revert (AKA Deskana) (talk) 14:19, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It looks pretty cool; perhaps a little on the technical side in a few places, as in the "Alternative explanations" section. (Which may put off younger, or non-technical readers.) Just a few small issues:
  • Rather than using inline links, could should reference them using inline citations and put the links down in the references section.
  • The formula for the gravitational energy needs to have either a link to a page with the currently-accepted fuction, or put that function in the text as well (so the reader gets a before and after comparison).
  • There is a one-liner entry that states "Another proposed explanation is Nonsymmetric Gravitational Theory." I think this needs to be expanded into a paragraph with a brief explanation.
Finally I would really like to see a section on proposed scientific experiments for detecting and examining dark matter. Thanks!! — RJH 15:59, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This article may look ok. to non experts, but unfortunately it is a pretty bad article. The main problem with the article is that it mentions facts in an unbalanced way.
The introduction is ok. The next section starts with a big paragraph about Kristian Birkeland. This is totally unjustified. He could be mentioned in e.g. a footnote. Then the last sentence of that paragraph is Professor Peebles and Professor Ostriker, both of Princeton University investigated dark matter. So what? There are also some other professors who have investigated Dark matter. These two professors are quite big names in the field, so mentioning them can be justified, but you have to place it in some context. I.e. what they did and how that has influenced dark matter research.
The next paragraph is ok.
The last paragraph of the section is again pretty bad. Was Prof. Sumner the first scientist who proposed that CDM could be the hypothetical neutralino? If not then there is little point in mentioning him. The UK Dark Matter Collaboration is one of about 20 dark matter searches in the world. It hasn't yielded the strongest constraints on dark matter.
The last 3 sections are of better quality. There are some issues here about mentioning the latest research findings. I think it would be better to move all these paragraphs starting with "in 2006 scientist x from university y found result z, etc." to a special section devoted on the latest news.
I've been hard on the editors here, but note that I have been editing here too and I am thus partially responsible for the big mess this article has become. Count Iblis 13:20, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

First thing that comes to mind is that this needs more Wikipedia:inline references. 'Dark matter in popular culture' is just a stub section and should be expanded. Some pictures would be nice, too.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 21:55, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band

[edit]
  • A superb article, in my opinion. Is there anything stopping this article from becoming Featured? TheImpossibleMan 11:30, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • The first thing I always look for is inline citation, which is lacking in this article. The References section at the end is half the battle, but WP:WIAFA encourages inline citation as well. --JerryOrr 20:02, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Being a Beatles fan myself, I have read most of the facts in this article, and know that most of them are true. However, with no sources, no footnotes, and no apparent references, this doesn't stand a change of passing FAC. Other little things:
      • I'm not sure if A Day In The Life deserves its own subsection of the article, as great a song as it is. If it does deserve a subsection, it probably shouldn't be under the heading "Historical relevance."
      • Release History and Recording Details should either be significantly cut down, removed from the article, or subbed out. Likewise with the chart performances and Grammy nominations. If they're significant, work them into the main body of the text.
      • I'm not sure if the stunning album cover belongs under the heading "Technical Innovation."
Best of luck with this article, I'll be keeping my eye on it! The Disco King 03:46, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Warner and Swasey Observatory

[edit]

I wrote almost a hundred stubs back in December and now I'm going back to the best ones to see if I can get them on the Good Articles page. Before that, I thought I’d put it up for peer review since I’ve only dealt with stubs before. What should be done to this article to have it meet GA criteria?--Rayc 21:45, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • It looks pretty decent, but I think it could be expanded. What I don't see in the article, for example, are some of the significant results or contributions by the observatory. I don't see a list of the observatory directors (Jason John Nassau, William Bidelman, R. Earle Luck, &c.) There's also some information here and here that I don't think I see included. Thanks! — RJH 15:01, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

V for Vendetta (film)

[edit]

/Archive 1 - Old Peer Review from April 1st.

Greetings,

this article is about the film "V for Vendetta", it's an action thriller, based on a adaptation of a comic by Alan Moore. We've had this article up for peer review before when it was in a much earlier state. We're hoping to get it into a FA status. What do you think could stop this article from becoming featured? Is there anything that needs to be cut? Be expanded? Are there any readibility, writing, POV, or Original research issues that jump out at you? Comments are welcomed. Thank you.--P-Chan 21:23, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It looks a lot better than the last time I'd seen it. The "differences" section that held my primary interest is now much more succinct and hits nicely both on Alan Moore's key complaints and on the key differences in the film without being bogged down too much in details. I haven't looked through the whole thing yet, but I think it's already a lot better than many of the featured articles we have at present. The last sentence needs to be changed somehow though, as it's confused. I'm not sure how it's using the term anarchy, but it seems to be implying it's in the sense of chaos. In actuality it's open-ended, leaving it unclear as to whether things will go as V intended (a peaceful anarchy) or back towards the establishment of a new government. Sarge Baldy 22:07, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Changed Content: Hi Sarge, it's always good to hear your comments. You're right, in both of the stories the ending is cut so that it is very open-ended. The scope of the last sentence has thus been changed so that it only reflects how the regimes were overthrown.--P-Chan 02:32, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

South Korea

[edit]

I'd be grateful for any ideas on how to best improve this article. I know we still have some distance to go before this is FA material, but that is the goal. Please advise... -- Visviva 09:19, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • This article's looking really good, but I'm gonna get nit-picky (to help it get great). Things that strike me on my first read through:
    • I notice that you've footnoted the issue over the name. It's good to disambiguate, but according to WP:Ref, this needs to either (a) be in a separate section from your references, or (b)be in a section labelled something like "Notes and References". My personal preference would be to see footnotes and references separated; one recent FAC article which did this really well was Rabindranath Tagore.
    • Why was Korea divided by the Soviets and the Americans? Why did they then try to reunify? I'm sure that this is dealt with in the seperate articles, but for my tastes, the summary is a **The "Provinces and Cities" section seems a bit off. It's basically just a list, and I'm not sure if it adds a lot to the article. Maybe the lovely map could be added to Subdivisions of South Korea and that article could get a reference in the "Geography" section.
    • Korea's incredible economic growth. It's fairly well-described in the article on the Economy of South Korea, but I feel like South Korea's astronomical economic growth deserves more treatment in the main article. Their rise from one of the poorest nations in Asia to one of the richest gets one paragraph, while some not-as-exciting developments in the past 5-10 years gets three paragraphs.
    • Some important claims in the "Demographics" section aren't cited. Examples:
      • There are 378 000 foreign labourers in SK, and half are illegal
      • This estimate is likely low
      • 85% of Koreans live in urban areas.
    • Also in that section - A tautological statement: "the annual birthrate has dropped steadily...as a result of people choosing to have fewer children that in the past."
    • In the culture section, Japan doesn't get mentioned at all. Japan and SK have a funky relationship, given that Japan is a former colonial power, and Korean attitudes towards Japanese culture are similarly interesting. Korea had some severe cultural restrictions on anything from Japan from post-WWII onward - it's mentioned in the Contemporary South Korean Culture article, and since this ban wasn't lifted until 1998, I think it's really significant. In general, I don't think there's enough in this article about SK's relations w/ Japan.
In general, I think that this is a strong article, but the referencing is spotty, not enough facts are cited, and footnotes are mixed with references. The people at FAC are getting pretty stern about this kind of thing, so I think referencing should be your number one priority. This article is looking very good, though. Keep up the good work! The Disco King 03:34, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the great comments! Those are mostly very well taken, and I (or maybe someone else?) will get to them ASAP. However, I would have to take issue with the idea of removing the "Cities and provinces" section. This is a fairly standard section in country FAs; see, for instance, India#States_and_union_territories, which is also little more than a list. Again, thanks for the input. -- Visviva 03:42, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, one more thing -- what do you mean by separating footnotes and references? There are already separate "Notes" and "References" sections. Should specific citations actually be separated from informational footnotes? That seems complicated, especially since some footnotes combine the two functions. -- Visviva 03:44, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
For another good example of what I'm talking about, see today's Featured Article, Katie Holmes. References and footnotes separated. This is a matter of personal preference, really, and you'll see other FAs doing this differently (such as, for example, Algerian Civil War), but it's getting to be more in vogue to do it the way articles like Katie Holmes are doing it. My biggest issue with the footnotes, however, is that not all of the important facts in the article are cited. The minor problem is whether they should be divided into a section of footnotes and a section of references or not. (If you keep them together, WP:CS recommends calling the section "Notes and References." Hope that clears things up. The Disco King 03:32, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
OK. I've been a bit snowed-in by work lately, but I will be acting on your recommendations soon. Thanks again for your input! -- Visviva 05:38, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Francis Burton

[edit]

This is the first article I've put a lot of work into for wikipedia. Therefore I'd like the opinions of others as to what needs improvements and what is good/bad about it. --Richard Clegg 12:13, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, congratulations on a very good article on a potentially tricky subject! I enjoyed reading it immensely.
Odd bits and pieces that I noticed:-
  • "It may have been this early travelling that made Burton consider himself an outsider for much of his life." - is this original research? If not, it's just the sort of statement that will have a reader wanting to reach for a reference. Overall, the article still needs more references. If you feel that you would just be citing reference [1] all the time :-), that probably means that you need to draw from a wider pool of reference. Really, and article of such depth should be littered with references. Seven source documents and thirteen inline references feels light.
  • To extend that subject, I can't find any official guidance on this, but the page references in parentheses e.g. ([1] page 3) jar my reading experience. I feel that generally inline citations should smoothly run past the eye and not intrude on reading. If you wish to include page numbers (and that's a reasonable idea in most cases), you could do so by breaking the multiply-quoted references into several separate <refs> - e.g. the Lovell reference. I'm not sure you really need to cite a page reference every time though - if someone is going to go to the trouble of delving deeper to find a cited document, they will probably read all of it.
  • I seem to recall that Burton was thought of as being amongst the best swordsmen of his era. I think the article could probably do with a reference or discussion of this, perhaps a small section of "public belief vs actual skill and experience" if that's relevant, and the effects this may have had on his life. At the moment, other than mentioning that he studied fencing and wrote a book on swordsmanship, the article doesn't cover this subject. For an alleged virtuoso of the sword, I find that unusual.
  • I like the level you've permeated the article with an impression of how he was widely believed to be a rogue, a controversial figure in Victorian England. Excellent work on that. Overall, I like the prose a great deal.
I hope that helps a little. I'll see if I can get time to look again later. --Estarriol 14:38, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the help -- maybe I should do the references in a slightly different way. My main sources of reference are the Lovell and Brodie biographies which are excellent. I have relied on the Lovell one more mainly because it has a better index (also it is newer) -- perhaps I will leave out the page references as they will presumably change according to edition in any case (on the other hand, it's a huge book and it can sometimes be hard to find a particular quote). Burton was widely regarded as a good swordsman but I don't know if he formally competed (though he wrote on the subject) -- I will read up on that to see what I can find. Your input is greatly appreciated. --Richard Clegg 15:02, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have now improved the referencing and found a nice quote about his abilities as a fighter. I like the new style of referencing I have put in -- I use ref tags with page numbers but do not include author and publisher info if the reference has appeared before. It means the inline references are less jarring but the reference list at the bottom of the page does not contain too many repetitions. --Richard Clegg 13:18, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Looks quite good. Can we have a map of his life travels? 'Chronology' section is rather strange - something I have not seen in any other bio article. I'd recommend moving it to the very bottom. You may also want to separate biography from his works - i.e. have a separate section on his voyages and discoveries, and another on his translations, as currently the info on those is spread throughout his biography. A few more pictures wouldn't hurt. With those improvements I'd expect to see it on FAC soon. Good job!--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 21:53, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the comments. I'm not sure quite what you mean by "separate biography from his works" -- I've mentioned the most notable books he wrote throughout the article but also included a limited biography at the end. (Apparently Burton wrote so much that no complete biography of his works has ever been published although some partial biographies exist). I will create a map of his Hajj and add that (I suspect a map of all his journeying would not be practical as he was a global traveller and it would be incredibly hard to compile. I'm hoping to get permission to use some pictures of his tomb from the people who run the support fund and I'm also looking for other pictures which are out of copyright and can be used here. I've moved the copyright as you suggest. Thanks lots for your help and advice. --Richard Clegg 09:00, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Orion Nebula

[edit]

I think this article covers the topic of this famous and beautiful emission nebula reasonably well, although perhaps there are a few other esoteric astrophysical topics that could also be included. What do you believe this article needs to make it FA-quality? Thank you! — RJH 19:52, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Damn! I've had a half-done rewrite of this article sat on my computer for ages waited for me to finish it, and now I've been beaten to it. Great to see this article deservedly expanded from its previous stubbish length. Ionised nebulae are my field of expertise so I'm keen to review and work on this article, but may not have time for the next couple of days. In the meantime, you might like to compare with another ionised nebula article, Cat's Eye Nebula - already an FA. I'll post proper comments as soon as I can. Worldtraveller 16:08, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That would be excellent. Thank you. — RJH 15:28, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Plano Senior High School

[edit]

I have been working on this article for a long time with the help of such other school editors as User:Harro5 and others from the school project. It is listed as a good article and is a showcase article at the schools portal. It features mostly GFDL and PD photographs and cites a multitude of sources to verify its content. I would love for this article to show up on the main page someday as a featured article, and I would like feedback to that end. Thank you so much for taking the time! — Scm83x hook 'em 21:04, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Great to see Wikiproject Schools really having an effect on Wikipedia content. From top to bottom:
  • Lead: Could use some slight expansion to be a true article summary, and the statement about the Mascot should be definitively in the main article (probably the athletics section).
Tad bit of lead expansion with moving high school system explanation here. This is what the hopkins article does. What do you think? — Scm83x hook 'em 13:28, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Looks much better. Staxringold 13:39, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Plano's high school system: Does this really need it's own major section? Maybe make it a sub-section of history?
Taken care of, see above and below. — Scm83x hook 'em 13:28, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well done. Staxringold 13:39, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • History: Very well sourced. My only things would be merging the PHSS section mentioned above, and attributing the "citizens 'were perfectly happy with their school and would like to be left alone.'" quote in the Brown v. Board of Education paragraph (which can probably be merged, it's very short) as it has no ref.
Yea, that entire subheading had the same source so I just sourced at the end, however, I have merged some paragraphs and added an extra source tag for clarity. — Scm83x hook 'em 13:28, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yep. Staxringold 13:39, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Academics: This is the thinnest section, IMHO, and the section in need of the most work. First, a lot of the stubby one/two sentence paragraphs should probably get merged together. Second, if you could find/dig out a course catalog and give a little more depth to notable bits/departments within the school, to give a little bit of flavor to what is going to be a dull section in a school article. Also, the sentence "Yearly, the school administers more Advanced Placement tests than any other school west of the Mississippi River, and the second most tests in the United States, 2,237 exams in total." could really use a source. Finally, the NMS info should either be summarized or compared to some kind of averages (and put into a table) to be in context.
Yea, what a dry section it will be indeed! But, if I can find more info about the electives that Plano offers (which are plentiful) it should be better. — Scm83x hook 'em 13:28, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
More information is good, but a source for what you have would also be helpful. Staxringold 13:39, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Extracurriculars: Very nice formatting/sourcing on the information you have, but some kind of non-athletic EC info would be nice.
Athletics really win the day in Plano even though academic teams kick just as much butt. I will round up info on all academic teams shortly and add it to the article. — Scm83x hook 'em 13:28, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the News: This section has to be merged into the article/removed. One of the requirements of an FA is stability, and an ITN section inherantly isn't.
Merged to appropriate sections. — Scm83x hook 'em 13:28, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Duly noted. — Scm83x hook 'em 13:28, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Very good article, mostly just housekeeping stuff. Staxringold 21:53, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Unlike Staxringold I was very pleased to see a "Plano's high school system" section in the TOC, thinking "Oh, great, this is just what's missing in school articles, a bird's-eye view that places the school in perspective, a section that speaks to people who're not students of the school and perhaps even to the international reader of the international encyclopedia!" Very disappointing to see what it really was: about athletics exclusively! (At least show some awareness that school athletics are not of this huge importance everywhere in the world.) Nine tenths of readers are immediately excluded by the first sentence "The organization of Plano high schools is particularly unusual" without mentioning what kind of default organization it's unusual in relation to, sigh... and, I couldn't believe this, the word varsity is not explained and not even linked! See, this assumption that everybody has the frame of reference of an American high-school student is the blight of school articles. :-( Practical advice: I'd love to see a "Plano's high school system" section that lived up to its name, it would lift you above the rut of school articles, but I realize it may be a lot to ask. I agree with Staxringold that the present one is misplaced (as well as ignoring the needs of the majority of readers), though the info seems valuable (insofar as I can undertand what it says, which isn't very far). I've only glanced through the rest, I'll read some more later, but I urge you to do a general overhaul from the point of view of "How do people not US high school students need to have our information presented in order to understand it?" and "What information about the school is interesting to the outside reader, as opposed to merely to our own students?" Bishonen | talk 14:27, 1 April 2006 (UTC).[reply]
I have eliminated the section and moved the explanation to the lead. I have eliminated all references to athletics in the lead and placed them in the extracurriculars section. I hate to say it, but the reason why the section sounded so focused on athletics is because that is (rumored to be) one of the main reasons why the administrators changed to the current format. Of course, that's just a rumor. Let me know if this clears up your confusion/concerns. — Scm83x hook 'em 13:28, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • As an Australian, I found the section "Plano's high school system" very difficult to understand. In fact I have somewhat no idea what the section is talking about. I also found the entire article very difficult to read. Overall the sentences failed to follow fluently into each other and it was a case of stumbling from fact to fact with very little guidance at all. This grammatical issue really needs to be addressed. MyNameIsNotBob 10:58, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It is very difficult to write an article where there may be more than 10 years between events in a fluent style, but I will try. I have rewritten the PHSS section. Please let me know if you can understand it now. If not, let me know what is confusing you and we'll fix it together. Thanks. — Scm83x hook 'em 13:28, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, it clears up my immediate confusion to do with that particular section, but not my overriding concern, which is generally the big one for all school articles. I quote myself: "I urge you to do a general overhaul from the point of view of "How do people not US high school students need to have our information presented in order to understand it?" and "What information about the school is interesting to the outside reader, as opposed to merely to our own students?" I think there is more to understanding the article — compare MyNameIsNotBob's complaint — than the issue of fluent style. It's a matter of imaginatively putting yourself in the place of a reader whose cultural circumstances are very different from your own. I know that's not easy. And I know I speak so generally here that it won't be much use to you; I'll try to return with specifics. Bishonen | börk börk börk 13:50, 2 April 2006 (UTC).[reply]
  • Thanks for the offer to come back with specifics later. I appreciate it. As you have properly diagnosed, I am having trouble taking myself out of the United States and writing this article. I have never gone to school outside the United States so I would appreciate input from those who have regarding what is confusing or US-centric. Thanks again! — Scm83x hook 'em 00:04, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • OK, to be going on with:
  • You have a stumbling-block right in the Lead, where the junior=11 grade, senior=12 grade conundrum is presented as an arithmetics puzzle for the outsider to work out, before s/he can understand how the first sentence relates to the last. And you have to click on two links before you can even start thinking... compare WP:LEAD: "It is even more important here than for the rest of the article that the text be accessible".
  • 80% of a graduating class going on to tertiary education: this needs to be related to some kind of national or regional average or likelihood in order to give a sense of whether it's a lot or a little. For instance, it wouldn't be "vast" at all where I come from, where youth unemployment is high and getting a job straight out of high school is all but impossible. Feel free to be a little more specific and statistics-oriented about where Plano graduates go on to, if you have interesting info about it. That might say more than bare figures, and the mention of "such as Harvard and Yale" (!) has already left a question mark about it in the reader's mind, since their fame actually is world wide. And when was this situation exactly? That's not clear.
  • This quote comes from the local newspaper in 1915, so that's the timeframe applicable. The paper listed all of the students going on to higher education in that school year, and Harvard, Yale, and the other were all listed. I have added the year for clarity. What else should I do with this to improve it then? — Scm83x hook 'em 18:23, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I see. I suggest you mention the Plano Review in your text, count those students, and actually quote at least the overall figure, plus the figures for Harvard and Yale. Incidentally, IMO it wouldn't be wrong at all to use a phrase or so actually in quotation marks, from the newspaper article; quotes give cool local color. Bishonen | talk 10:09, 5 April 2006 (UTC).[reply]
  • ...aaaand: please explain or link, or preferably both, the word credit (education). No, I'm quite serious. It's not merely that other school systems use a different word; it's more that the whole "credits" way of thinking about school qualifications isn't universal.
  • The subdivision of the History according to the three names for the school is very clever and helpful, btw! :-)

A little more:

  • The structure of "Extracurriculars" is a little strange. It's the parent of three subsections (of rather too uneven length, which is a problem), "Athletics", "Wildcat marching band" and "Academics". And yet the information directly under the parent heading is also all about athletics. It needs to be moved to "Athletics", AFAICS, unless there's some compelling reason not to. This info is also a little unclear, and does not come in the most helpful order. It's more reader-friendly to start with a "topic sentence", and join the whole up into one paragraph — I'd do it, if I understood it better. Are the first two sentences general rules (or Texas, or Plano rules?)?
  • Does "The school will move District 9-5A" mean "move to"? Why will it move to a different class — won't it be as large any more?
  • Oops on the grammar, but the realignment is just a move within the same class size to a different division. District 9-5A is division 9 in the 5A class. Every 2 years (biennially) the UIL does this realignment. No one is ever sure why they make the moves they do; it just happens. — Scm83x hook 'em 16:59, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wildcat marching band: "led the band for twenty-one years and wrote the alma mater". Huh? As in, the beginning of the school anthem...? Please see Alma mater, especially the bit about who will understand this usage.

That's it from me. This is a promising article! Bishonen | talk 16:45, 5 April 2006 (UTC).[reply]

Alma mater is current usage in the United States for an entire school song, as in "The choir sang the alma mater during the graduation festivities." Applejuicefool 19:13, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I think the article Alma mater should be edited to reflect this, then, because it doesn't now. And be linked to. Preferably the Wildcat marching band reference to it should be phrased so as to be clear anyway, though — people like to be able to read straight through without having to click on the links. Scm83x, your rewrite of the "Extracurriculars" bit is excellent, you're really good at this process! :-) Bishonen | talk 23:22, 5 April 2006 (UTC).[reply]

Internal combustion engine

[edit]

I nominated this to begin work on more real-life properties. Any advice on how to improve it? - A Link to the Past (talk) 06:34, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Needs many more references.--Yannick 05:16, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The structure should be rethought. The mechanics and operations sections are probably more relevant and belong ahead of the history section. And I'm not sure that the applications subsection belongs in the history section. The "Principles of Operation" heading is confusing as currently place and should be removed. Each of the items below it deserves a very brief definition, rather than being a pure list. I suggest the "Classification" heading should be retitled "Variations". Section titles should avoid repeating the title of the article, for example the "engine pollution" section should just be called "pollution". And why is "pollution" part of "Classification"?--Yannick 05:16, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Didn't the earliest applications have to do with mine ventilation and drainage?--Yannick 05:16, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've never heard of a proposal for a hydrogen fuelled ICE. Hydrogen fuel usually means fuel cells. That material (under "Fuel and oxidizer types") along with the battery powered electric motors (in the applications section) and other stuff should be removed to a section about competing alternatives. After all this is supposed to be an article about ICE's not about car engines.--Yannick 05:16, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • More balanced coverage would be beneficial. This article is mostly written about cars, and more material about aircraft engines, stationary engines, tool engines, etc. would be beneficial. But since the ICE is best known for propelling cars, a link to the automobile belongs right in the introduction.--Yannick 05:16, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is great potential to expand the pollution section. "Moderately high" is meaningless. Quantities of pollutants, number of engines in operation, estimates of death toll, etc., would be much more valuable.--Yannick 05:16, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The ICE is a big topic that will eventually require daughter articles to be spun off. It may be helpful to keep that in mind while reorganizing it.--Yannick 05:16, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Try and standardise the image widths a bit if poss, and get references. --PopUpPirate 23:01, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Shotgun house

[edit]

Still a bit rough around the edges, but I think nearly all of claims are referenced to reliable sources. It's still a work in progress but I think it's ready for a peer review. Sources on the topic are a bit scant for whatever reason (I guess people'd rather write about big fancy old houses than modest shotguns) but you can definently scare up some sources even with just Google scholar. If there's anything glaringly uncited, I will try to fix it. Thanks!--W.marsh 17:24, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Well, I don't really like the Trivia section, or any Trivia seciton for that matter. Either rename it or find a way to incorporate it into the rest of the article. -Osbus 21:39, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hey this isn't FAC :-p but yeah I know it needs to go. --W.marsh 21:43, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I always thought that shotgun referred to the likelihood that a shot through the front door would hit everybody within, a tribute to the narrowness as well as to the lack of substantial construction in the interior walls. The ones in New Orleans look to be stick built instead of made from brick or rough timber, which that construction was replacing. There are brick shotguns, but I think they were a later innovation, and even then probably didn't need to have brick room dividing walls. This idea that a shotgun blast would pass through without striking anything sounds like some sort of watered down PC Yankee contrivance. A shotgun can be just 2 rooms deep, doesn't have to be 3, 4 or 5. Elvis was born in a 2-room shotgun. There are a lot of pre-stick-built two room houses in the south built on the hall-and-parlor plan, a dog-trot plan, or a double-pen plan. Agree with Osbus on the trivia comment --Paleorthid 22:40, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The shotgun-fires-straight-through theory is common in folklore, but all the sources I've found that had heard of Vlach's research accepted that it was at least plausable that the name was really of African origin. The article mentions the common shotgun theory though, right?
As for the materials, shotgun houses were originally built with wood exteriors mostly. As most are 100+ years old, the exterior has usually been redone to the point of unrecognizability, often more than once.
The trivia section is going, once someone either takes it out or rewrites it in prose. I think saying something about it's role in southern culture is important... but I haven't been able to rewrite it yet personally. --W.marsh 22:56, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Roman Charity

[edit]

I think I've done a good job thus far, but I'm sure the community could improve it. This was a huge artistical motif in the Baroque and Neoclassical eras and merits a spot in Wikipedia.--Esprit15d 15:09, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Indian Institutes of Technology

[edit]

Requests for Reviewers: A lot of improvements have been made in this article in the recent past. Please post your comments on how this article can be improved to get Featured Article status soon. Please take care of the following issues while going through this article:

  • Look for Non-neutral Point of Views. As large parts of the articles have been added by people deeply associated with IITs, there is a good chance of unintentional addition of POVs.
  • Look for missing data/link. Again because of the reason mentioned above, we might have missed including information that was quite obvious to us but not public in general. Not knowing anything about IIT will be a great asset for the reviewer.
  • Look for missing citation. Please indicate statement that need citation, but currently don't.

-Ambuj Saxena (talk) 20:58, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Are there any commonalities of student culture at these universities? As in what life there is like for the students? More information on the programs availbale might be nice as well. Arundhati bakshi 17:42, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment/Response:I am working on a common cultural section detailing similarity in life and details of cultural fests. I will add it as soon as its finished. -Ambuj Saxena (talk) 19:04, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Search for Whiz Kids: Inside the Indian Institutes of Technology’s Star Factory by M Kripalani, P Engardio, L Nathans, published in Business Week in 1998. Most major libraries will carry back issues of Business Week. And for what it is worth, there is this blog: ITT Global-Archives. --maclean25 16:07, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment/Response:Thanks for the reference. I will surely look it up in the coming few days. However the IIT Global one seems to be a collection of opinions and is unlikely to benefit the article. Anyway, I will definitely go through it. -Ambuj Saxena (talk) 19:04, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • University of Michigan has a good structure to begin with. Go through that article and try and match it with similar content.
  • That table at the top needs to go
  • A picture in the lead would be better that a map
  • An infobox would be a welcome addition
  • There's hardly any history between 1960 to date. Expand
  • Remove titles like Sri, Pandit etc.
  • Subsections detailing each IIT (max 2 paras) would be a good addition.

I'll review once again the structure is molded simlar on the lines of UoM. Regards, =Nichalp «Talk»= 16:09, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment/Response:Have gone through UM Article. The biggest problem I feel with this article is that since it is about a collection of Institutes, the standard infobox templates won't do. I will have to custom-make one myself for this article. Picture can definitely be replaced. I have temporarily moved the KGP Building up and replaced it by IIT Roorkee Main Building. Titles have been removed (although with a frown as I am used to refer them as such). Will add subsections about IITs soon (tomorrow itself). I am keeping the table untill a substitute is worked and agreed upon. The idea was taken from Ivy League. History between 1960 to date....never heard of any change apart from the fact that JEE pattern kept changing(which should be addressed in its own article). Anyway, will try and find something on it. -Ambuj Saxena (talk) 19:04, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Some comments:

  • It's a very good start, and Ambuj has done yeoman's work. The only thing it's missing are the little intangibles.
  • The language is a little clunky in certain places (there are many examples; "Setting up of more IITs" as a title, is reminiscent of Someone set up us the bomb)
  • There's a lot that needs to be referenced (i.e. Quality of education, Dangerous Precedents, the whole criticism section as bold comments are being made unreferenced)
  • The IIT family section is far better than the previous box. As opposed to pictures of all the IITs in the IIT family section, why not interspace the geographic map with some of the stronger pictures?
  • The article maintains NPOV quite well
  • Many of the photographs are too small -- I wouldn't go as far as Michigan State University's photography, but I'd expand the size of some of the images
  • Budgetary information? Is it available? e.g. Research budget, etc.
  • There have to be more notable alumni.
  • Infobox for the top right? It will be difficult, as Ambuj says, but it would be a great addition.
  • Little things may need definition for the global audience (e.g. IT-BHU Varanasi and ISM Dhanbad at the top, UP and AP as abbreviations, etc.)

Just my .02. Hope it's useful. I'll try to edit a bit also. -- Samir (the scope) 18:05, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment/Response: Thanks for your appreciation. I have rephrased parts that were clunky. If any more are present, do point them out. Now, only Quality of education is left unreferenced with relevant references added to others. I wanted to have an aggregate statistics on no. of patents filed, etc., but couldn't find any sources. I found the IIT pictures strong enough. If you find any better picture, do change it. A lot of images are there in the article, you may even exchange one from IIT Family section. I couldn't understand how the photographs are small. I have included as many high resulotion photographs as possible. However, I don't want to add photos of size over 1MB unless absolutely necessary, which I didn't find need of. Most of the images are pretty good in resolution (in my opinion). Budgetry information is now added in Education section, also added the reference. More notable alumni added. Infobox to me seems a very distant possibility owing to special nature of this article. Links to IT-BHU and ISM Dhanbad exist. I don't want to bloat the article further as I feel it is starting to get bulky. If you feel the need to do it, I have no problems. I have another request. Can you confirm whether the Dilbert's strip qualifies as fair use or not. We should avoid such issues at later stage. -Ambuj Saxena (talk) 16:11, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Good, but some issues need fixing before it is ready for FAC. The most difficult issue to fix will be the writing. Almost throughout it lacks clarity, I'll try to point out specific examples, but I won't be able to cover them all. There is a lot of writing where you have to already know what it is about to understand what is being said. Context needs to be provided to ease the reader in. 1) The lead is not a proper summary of the whole article. It should have 3-4 full paragraphs and cover all the most important points about the institution. What is it about them that operates jointly and what about them operate separately. Because that is a unique structure, that should be made clear in the lead. Why are the Indian Institute of Science and Indian Institutes of Management mentioned in the lead? Are they important to IIT? How? Also it appears 17,000 and 14,000 are the total figures not figures for each school. 2) The history is probably too long given it's relative importance to the overal topic. Strive for balance in coverage and prioritize what is most important. Anything that gets more space should get it because it is more important. 3) How are there 3,900 spots available in a class and 17,000 undergraduates? How many years is the program? 4) What language are studies conducted in? Is it different for each? 5) "Strength of students" is very awkward phrasing, just mention how many there are. 6) Education section should give the grants figures in consistent units. Either millions or crore, but don't switch. 7) The last half of the 'Quality of education' section needs to be reworded for clarity and probably needs a source. 8) "with a few claiming to have coached around one thousand selected candidates (nearly a fourth of all admitted students)" is unclear. Is that thousand a per year figure? Becuase the 4000 appears to be. And do those making up the few each claim a thousand or is that their total claim? What's the source? 9) 'Relevance' needs citing. Or just remove it as most people accept graduates don't need to work in the exact field of their undergraduate studies, or even a related one. Or cite the criticism to support inclusion. 10) What are "National Cadet Corps, National Service Scheme and National Sports Organization"? Provide some context. Why are they important? 11) How long do the cultural festivals last? 12) The "Sports Meet" section's first sentence should make it clearer it is a limited event and not an ongoing sports season of competition if that is the case. 13) Some of the media references seem overly minor, expecially the Cinema, but in fact most of them seem to barely justify inclusion. The nonfiction should be obtained and used as references. What's the relevance of noting there are books about the school? 14) Small paragraphs and sections should be merged or eliminated. Anything 2 sentences or less really breaks up the flow. If a section is just one paragraph it probably doesn't justify a section. I don't see a major reason the individual institutes can't be in the same section with their own paragraphs. 15) The world rankings should be merged into the academic quality discussion and expanded. What significant factors do the rankings institutions give for not having a higher ranking? Those might be significant criticisms that warrant further research. That was a lot, but you did ask :) - Taxman Talk 17:36, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment/Response:Thanks for the excellent review. I will handle it point by point. Firstly I knew that the problem of lack of clarity will arise, not only because of my overly assuming people's knowledge about the subject, but also because of my not-so-good-english. 1) The lead has been re-written. Though still not comprehensive, it now covers a lot more points on the various aspects of the subject. Information about joint/separate work has been added. IIM and IISc details have been removed as irrelevent. Total figures problem was solved by you. 2) History has been shortened. Although I have been suggested by others that history is short, I have done my best to remove not-so-relevent parts. 3) There are 17,000 undergraduates and they belong to either 4 year(BTech) or 5 year(Dual degree or Integrated MSc) courses. Divide 17000 by 3900 and you'll get a number between 4 and 5. Does this needs to be mentioned. I have already mentioned that BTech course is 4 year program and MTech course is 5 year, separately. 4) Language of study is English, and this has been added. 5) Strength of students replaced by plain english. 6) Units are now consistent. 7) Quality of education section has been removed as its subjective as well as unreferenced. 8) Yes, its 1000 each per year. This was already mentioned. The problem is this big that's why JEE was restructured. Although there's an overlap between some as a good number of students attend coaching classes as well as subscribe to coaching material from separate sources. They get counted in both. Should I mention it in the article? Reference has been added. 9) Relevence section has been removed. 10) Information about NCC, NSS and NSO have been added. I will try to get atleast stub articles on them. 11) Duration of cultural festivals is 3~4 days and has been added. 12) It annual sports meet and now the first sentence reflects this. 13) Lot of media references have been deleted as non-notable. 14) All individual sub-sections about IITs have been merged. Now no sections is just one paragraph. I will try and merge more paragraphs so there no single or double line paragraphs. 15) World Ranking has been merged with education. Will add more info on it soon. I haven't been able to find the non-fiction books in the library. Chances are there aren't any copies in whole Kharagpur city. Feel free to add more comments/criticisms. -Ambuj Saxena (talk) 07:00, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Good improvements. I'll just mention on a few specific points. 3) is fine I guess I didn't see that. 7) Objective information on the quality of the education really needs to be covered. What are the important viewpoints? So this needs some research. For the rankings, check this source, I've seen it used in other articles as another international ranking . 8) That's still just not clear. So overall very good improvements, but you're still going to have to recruit someone to work with you on the English. There's nothing wrong with it not being your strong suit, but the article can't be a successful FAC without clear writing. - Taxman Talk 12:30, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


History and IIT family HI - I perceive some problems between these two sections. The history details the formation of these institutes across India. The following section does repeat this very info when discussing each IIT separately, while adding little new info. I think one needs to add more information on what distinguishes each IIT, in a better organized manner, such as making each IIT a sub-section in IIT family. Rama's Arrow 19:58, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There needs to be more on each IIT. Right now its not enough. Rama's Arrow 20:00, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Deep review
  1. They are known especially for their undergraduate degree programs remove this sentence as it is also known for MTechs.
  2. spell out 7 in the lead
  3. The Indian Institutes of Technology are also referred to as IITs -- the acronym should come in the first sentence.
  4. Remove last para in the lead. It talks of the the JEE and not the institutions as a group.
  5. order to move the country ahead -- cpedit
  6. History should be renamed to =Establishment of IITs= since it has little to do with history of all. Expand on it. Agiations etc should be covered, and why the particular institution was selected. Merge =Expansion plans= under this.
  7. 5, Esplanade East - not required
  8. Please give the location of MIT
  9. Wikify Jogendra Singh and Nalini Sarkar
  10. first class institutions -- how about elite?
  11. ' declaring this institute -- declaring it
  12. Jawaharlal Nehru, the first Prime Minister of the Republic of India, --> J N, India's first PM
  13. Also include the countries that assisted in the setting up of each institution. Wasn't IITB set up with Soviet collaboration?
  14. established itself as an excellent academic institution. -- "excellent"? There must be some additional reasons to add.
  15. Is IIT-Delhi in Delhi or New Delhi? Please verify.
  16. How much funds do the IITs get from the government? Education in the IITs are subsidised, so please mention the costs per student as of 2005. Also what are the other sources of income?
    1. What about government controls over the cirriculum? Can the government prescribe books, hire teachers etc? What is the exact level of autonomy that the IITs have?
  17. Structure of the management of IITs seem to be absent. Is it run by a dean, does it have a board of governors? Does a government have a hand in their selection? See Brihanmumbai Electric Supply and Transport.
  18. Wikify the dates.
  19. Please use metric units as first preference.
  20. claimed to be the largest among all the IITs. -- weasel word. Please support by solid references or remove.
  21. the capital of Maharashtra. -- extra text; remove
  22. Location of IITM is not given. Is it within Chennai city? Similarly with Kanpur.
  23. Institutes of Technology (Amendment) Act, 1963' -- Italicise
  24. 'all IITs is done by the Joint Entrance Examination -- copyedit
  25. Institute of Technology (Banaras Hindu University) and Indian School of Mines (Dhanbad) also select student through IIT-JEE. not needed.
  26. BTech, Dual Degree and Integrated MSc courses in IITs. -- expand these terms
  27. tough subjective pattern of questioning? -- how about "highly competitive"?
  28. ...their Qualifying Examination -- expand on this exam
  29. general category, SC, ST and PD categories -- These are terms unfamiliar to non-Indians. It should be logical to promote the =Reservation= policy before this section.
  30. resit --> ...attempt the examination in the future
  31. A section ... students taking coaching. -- avoid debating on the reasons. This should be in the JEE article.
  32. Which IIT is most sought after?
  33. Snip the Dual degree discussions.
  34. IITs are also hired by government organisations for surveys etc. Please add. eg.
  35. IITB also has a geology department. Please check.
  36. Rankings should be promoted to a top level heading
  37. Use British English spellings. (honoring-->honouring)
  38. =Factors behind success= should be given a better title.
  39. Include Mandal Commission I in the article. Very important to the setting up of reservations and the mass protests in the early 1990s.*=IITs in the media= -- plain trivia section. should be removed. The Dilbert part can be included in the =Sucess= story.
I've not finished... I suggest you start working on the above points. There's still a lot more to add. Regards, =Nichalp «Talk»= 11:55, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the excellent review Nichalp. Will get back to you as soon as I am done fixing the issues. -Ambuj Saxena (talk) 14:42, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment/Response:Below is the response point-by-point:
  1. Done.
  2. Done. It is anyway already mentioned in first sentence before.
  3. Done.
  4. Done. Removed the sentence that was very deep about JEE. Another author suggested to specify in the lead how the IITs are connected, hence I am keeping the first sentence of the second last paragraph. Open to negotiations.
  5. Done. I was quoting Jawaharlal Nehru, though no quotes are shown. Still I copyedited.
  6. Done. Agitations about Assam students was anyway covered!
  7. Done.
  8. Done.
  9. Done.
  10. Done.
  11. Done.
  12. Done.
  13. Done.
  14. Yet to do.
  15. Done.
  16. Done. Exact estimates are difficult as infrastructure and faculty are shared.
  17. Done.
  18. Done. Tell me if any more is left.
  19. Done.
  20. Done.
  21. Done.
  22. Done.
  23. Done.
  24. Done.
  25. Done.
  26. Done.
  27. Done.
  28. Done.
  29. Done.
  30. Done.
  31. Done.
  32. Yet to do. This is a subjective question and choices vary year to year. Will even be difficult to quote neutral sources. Still I will try. Anyway, a link to India Today's Top 10 Colleges exists already.
  33. Done. Tell if it isn't sufficient.
  34. Done.
  35. Done.
  36. Done.
  37. Done.
  38. Changed to "Success story". Is it acceptable? Actually even I am in search of a neutral title, but couldn't find one yet. Saw "Success Story" in your review so thought why not give it a try.
  39. Done. Please go through to confirm if this was what you asked for.

I will get back to you as soon as I can write "Done" against all points mentioned. -Ambuj Saxena (talk) 06:13, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Briefly replying to certain questions: 1> I meant spell out the number 7 in the text. 2> The last para in the lead is not up to the mark, I'll copyedit it later. 3> Success story is a little poetic. I'll think of something better. =Nichalp «Talk»= 18:31, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I came so late

[edit]

I came here so late - I am sorry. But, I find that Ambuj had really done a nice job, and perhaps all the points raised have been appropriately attended to. I wish success of this article as a FA. --Bhadani 08:23, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Trobairitz

[edit]

I would like to get this article to Featured Article status, if possible. Some specific things I'd like others opinions on: I'm a musician, not a lit crit person, so if I've missed an important work in the literature, please let me know. If there's a section which should be expanded, or points clarified I'd love to know. Thanks very much for your time, Makemi 07:21, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • It reads well; I'm just starting to go through it. I've found an interesting difference in the text for A chantar (by La Comtessa de Dia) -- the Historical Anthology of Music by Women (Indiana University Press, 1987) has the first line as "A chantar m'es al cor que non deurie" -- I'm not sure what the difference is; two different sources? Is the spelling of Occitan, i.e. Provençal, non-standardized, or subject to differing modern interpretation? --but that's a minor point.
A common request on music articles attempting to reach FA status is to have musical examples (i.e. sound samples). I can certainly help with a notated sample, since I have a score for A chantar, but it could be difficult to get a sound clip in .ogg format that would be GFDL (I'm not an expert on the rules on short clips of copyrighted material, and would defer to someone else who does this a lot). Antandrus (talk) 16:53, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Antandrus, I'll check on the spelling, there are a number of possibilities for the difference, including different orthographic interpretations, different manuscript sources, and different "Modernizations" of spelling. The Bruckner book gives the title in the article, and is apparently based on the manuscript Paris, Bibliothèque Nationale, fr. 1592; parchment; 13th century; Italy. The only extant song with music extant is in Paris, Bibliothèque Nationale, fr. 844; parchment; 13th century; France. (aka Chansonnier or Manuscript du Roi). It would be great to get a facsimile of that, or an edition if you could get one which wouldn't be under copyright (I guess we could use one as fair use, but that can get tricky). If I can find an edition I might be able to make a recording myself, which would be GFDL, it would just be technological problem to be overcome. Makemi 18:51, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Most scholarly editions of medieval song mark plicas differently from other ligated notes. The second note of A chantar is a plica (at least in the manuscript shown in facsimile). In stemless notes, plicas are often shown as x's. There is a portrait of Beatriz de Dia in one of the manuscripts which could be added. (Whether or not the photographs and microfilms of these objects are copyrightable is up to debate--scholars generally get permission to reprint them because of the threat of lack of access to the original if they do not get permission, but I'm not sure that the photograph of a manuscript constitutes original, creative work.) --Myke Cuthbert 02:14, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I figured for the "edition" (created from the facsimile) I would make it as easy as possible to read for people not experienced with early notations, and then if someone more experienced was interested, they could just look at the facsimile, which is right there. Frankly, for myself the ideal is a cleaned-up version of the manuscript, ligatures and all, but I want it to accessible, so that's my compromise. plus no one knows how plicas were necessarily performed, so why pretend they weren't full notes by putting an x when they might very well have been sung normally.
As for portraits of Beatriz de Dia, there is already one on the page. I didn't see one in the facsimile I looked at, which manuscript has another one? Finally, I think we're pretty safe copyright wise. I think it's pretty ridiculous to claim copyright on one page of a manuscript that's 750 years old. Now, if we were making a real full edition of the full manuscript and selling it, that would be a different story, I admit. Thanks very much, Mak (talk) 21:20, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
A couple of things to put into consideration: Per WP:MoS, only proper nouns in headings should be capatalized; example "Sources of Information" -> "Sources of information". Some inline citations (footnotes) appear before the period, some after, and some after a space after the period. Like is done in WP:FOOTNOTE, I would suggest that all of the citations be moved to after the period. The sentence "Bruckner discusses the difficulty in labeling the trobairitz as either amateurs or professionals. " is useless, as there is already a citation for the paragraph. Thanks, AndyZ 23:57, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've standardized the placement of refs and fixed the "Sources of Information" heading. I've added facsimiles of the extant music, scanned from a microfilm. They're still not great, but the best I can do so far. It's frustrating because the copyist didn't make it clear, to my eye at least, whether certain neumes were supposed to be on the line or the space. I'll see if I can find a better microfilm or facsimile, but I'm not particularly hopful, short of going to Paris. In addition to all the other difficulties with the manuscript, it has been cut up to get the best capitals, so the piece doesn't seem to be complete. Stupid manuscript vandals. I also fixed the Bruckner sentence. Thanks very much for the comments Makemi 01:16, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've just made a paper-and-pencil edition of the first verse (from the facsimile), now I just need to figure out how to get it onto WP. Anyone know how to put up sheet music examples you make yourself? Thanks, Makemi 02:25, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If you're comfortable with the way it looks, you can scan it; if you send the resulting file to me as an e-mail attachment I'll photoshop it and make it into a .png or .jpg. Alternatively you could use a notation program (I use Finale for this kind of thing). Antandrus (talk) 05:21, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've just made a PDF version using Lillypond and it's on the commons (Image:A chantar2.pdf), but I can't figure out how to make it into a .png. It seems like it should be really easy, but my brain is fried from figuring out new software all day. Also, with Lillypond you can make versions which look like solesme (sp??) notation, which is basically what the manuscript is in. Do you think it's worth it to have another version, or should I just have the facsimile and a dots-with-slurs edition? Makemi 05:29, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I uploaded it here Image:A chantar3.png (cropped, png) -- let me know if you want the Lilypond info on the bottom. :-) Antandrus (talk) 05:56, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Back to your first comment Antandrus, the Historical Anthology text seems to be based on the Chansonnier du Roi manuscript. I don't know enough about orthography to expound on the merits, but I'm tempted to use the version of Bogin and Bruckner, since they both are very close (see User:Makemi/Workspace2) and are more complete. I don't know though. Makemi 23:46, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've found other problems with the Historical Anthology, so I tend to agree that you should go with Bogin and Bruckner. Antandrus (talk) 02:38, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Absinthe

[edit]

I would like a fresh set of eyes to look over the article. To check if the lead section is effective. To make sure grammar and spelling are accurate and there are no weasel words. I'm unsure how well it flows for those who don't know the topic and if everything is understandable and NPOV or if areas need to be moved or expanded. Any other comments are welcome. Ari 18:39, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • On the lead--paragraph 1 "Sometimes incorrectly called a liqueur, absinthe does not contain added sugar and is a liquor or spirit." but in paragraph 2 "absinthe has a taste similar to other anise-flavored liqueurs." By saying "similar to other anise-flavored liquers" implies that it is a liqueur. This is something that you should clear up.
  • In the preparation section--the like to the traditional ritual should be in the form of a note. Its current marking is distracting.
  • The etymology section is very awkwardly placed. Going from 'revival' to 'controversy' is a natural flow, but the etymology secton breaks this up, and doesn't make sense in its position. Perhaps place it as the first section, or in another more fitting place. Hope this helps. PDXblazers 23:42, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks that does help, I'll work on fixing that. Ari 00:16, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Not a bad idea, I'll get on that as well. Ari 04:20, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've edited all the current suggestions into the article. Ari 21:56, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • I suggest going through the article and checking to make sure the links aren't leading to redirects or disambiguation pages. Just in the first couple of sections, addictive, psychoactive, adulteration, and wormwood don't take the reader straight to where they should be going. That's something I hit a lot of articles for when they are Featured candidates. Kafziel 23:39, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the suggestion I've gone through and disambiguated as many as I could find. Ari 20:40, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Great article my only suggestion is that you rephrase the lead sentence "In fact, high alcohol content and a suggestive reputation are now considered to be its most active ingredients". Cedars 07:14, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the grammar corrections. I changed that sentence slightly but I'm not sure if it made it any better. Ari 20:40, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Extremely readable, great prose. Any chance of bigger pics for images 2/3/4 (Anise / Grande Wormwood / Reservoir glass)? --PopUpPirate 23:23, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

They are a bit small. Ok I removed the size constraints to enlarge them.Ari 17:12, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article is really looking excellent. If and when you want to nominate it as a featured article, I'll be happy to support and help however I can. Kafziel 17:18, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. On the talk page Katefan showed interest in expanding the arts and literature section. Since there are entire books writen on the subject the expansion will make a more complete article. After that I think a nomination might be in order. Ari 18:00, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fujiwara no Teika

[edit]

Between the work me and Cool Cat have done on this article, I think this may one of our best biography articles on a Japanese poet, but I know there's room for improvement, hence this review request. --maru (talk) contribs 17:28, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • If you're giving an example poem, and one of the columns is the table is Japanese... how about actually giving the 'Japanese', rather than a transcription (there's width for three columns though, of course). Also, as several of the images contain readable text, it'd be nice to give a translation of it on the image description pages. There is also a commons image that purports to be of him. Romanisation style is inconsistant. Prose could probably do with a copy edit. As waka is such a key word in the article, could probably do with expanding on its meaning in the lead, rather than relying on people already knowing it or diverting via that article. Prose could probably do with a copy edit. Props on the article being much more informative than the ja.wikip equivalent, though. --zippedmartin 09:30, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I would've given it in the original Japanese if I could, but my references only gave transcriptions, and adding actual characters is beyond my skill/knowledge with computers anyway. Likewise, my linguistic skill is incompetent to fix the romanization (I think; I'll need to check. More specific examples would be good - I know that there is some inconsistency between Sadaie no Teika and Fujiwara no Teika romanizations, but are there any others?). But I'll definitely add that picture, and I've long planned to clean up the prose.
And it is pretty cool that I added more than ja's editors did, but I suspect they have for more poems linked to their article than we do. :( --maru (talk) contribs 21:02, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, you've also got the fun of hiragana vs. old vs. modern kanji as well. But, a little googling on likely phrases...
http://etext.virginia.edu/japanese/hyakunin/images/onna97.jpg
権中納言定家
こぬ人を　松帆の浦の　夕なぎに
やくやもしほの　身もこがれつつ
(also ja.wikiquote)
Second one can be found at http://www.saigyo.org/saigyo/text/futami_teika.txt
0169
しかばかり　契りし中も　かはりける
此世に人を　たのみけるかな
Note, I know nowt about Japanese poetry, in any form... You could probably do with an expert. --zippedmartin 00:23, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It could defintely use an expert... I'm so far from an expert my computer system can't even display those hiragana or kanji at all. --maru (talk) contribs 19:38, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, *nix sux. :P --zippedmartin 03:30, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree. Windows never did a sterling job. It's more a matter that I started with a bare-bones system and never bothered to set up Japanese fonts. --maru (talk) contribs 03:42, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I suppose I should update this; I've added that picture you mentioned, reworked the text of the biography so as to hopefully clarify the clan issue, explained the inconsistent Sadie/Teika thing in the comments, and spent a few moments with apt-get so I can see those hiragana/katakana/kanji etc. --maru (talk) contribs 01:18, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Clan issue should be resolved now. It explains why poetry was significant and what it had to do with clans. Looks much better. I think it can be a FA now. :) --Cat out 10:51, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Portal:Iraq

[edit]

I would like to have your comments on how this portal can be improved, in best case to featured portal status. I think Iraq is a very important country, and it therefore desveres a good portal.

What do you think of the design, content etc.

Thanks, Snailwalker | talk 16:28, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hmnn...I might just be colorblind, but the red/aquamarineish color doesn't quite work out for me...- Osbus 03:38, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've tried to make it a bit more greenish now. I don't know if you like it better now? -- Snailwalker | talk 11:20, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah...I like it more, esp. since it's the green pictured on the flag. Oh...inspiration- how about putting green stars on white for the background? Or maybe not. -Osbus 00:47, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Nah good idea, but I don't think it would be better. Does anyone else have any comments about the portal? Snailwalker | talk 15:53, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fix the red link to Nature at the top. Either add content or remove the link. Pepsidrinka 16:22, 7 April 2006 (UTC) Also, fix the formatting so there isn't this big gap of green at the bottom right, whereas the bottom left continues to have content. Pepsidrinka 16:23, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've fixed the link, but I'm not sure about the formatting, I think it depends on the screen resolution cause the empty space is in my left side (I use 1600x1200). Does anyone know how to fix it? Snailwalker | talk 17:53, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think I've fixed the problem with the width, if no one complains, I'll propably try to feature it...Snailwalker | talk 18:21, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Northrop Grumman

[edit]

This is the third largest arms manufacturer in the world, so it's pretty important. It has way too much influence on our government, so I think it ought to have a good article. I've done a lot, but what does it need to be better? (This is my first time putting an article here, so please be nice!) Sarah crane 21:56, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's not bad as it is, but standards for our "good" and "featured" articles are pretty high right now. There's a few major issues you ought to touch on before anything else.
  1. Sources. You need to concentrate on citing your sources. Wikipedia sets the threshold for inclusion of information in an article based on verifiability, not absolute truth. As a result, to help with verifying sources, you will need to add in a references section with inline citations. You can find a guide to the recommended way of doing so at meta:cite. See any recent featured article for examples on how to go about doing so.
  2. Neutral point of view. The controversies section is, well, controversial. However, if you cite all of your claims, and you are comprehensive in covering all sides of the issue, you should never have a problem with neutrality.
  3. Comprehensiveness. This article seems to very barely touch many related topics. We want articles to be comprehensive. Can you, for example, give more information about the various "sectors," go more in-depth in regards to those "scandals," and give us just a better idea of how the company goes about in the production of their products and services? Can you give us more information on possible business competitors and its impact on this industry? And so on.
  4. Brilliant prose. Another featured article criteria is that "the prose is compelling, even brilliant." This article contains too many single sentences and lists. You should try to convert the list of products into prose and, at the same time, discuss those more extensively if necessary. The single sentences, in addition, often only scratch the surface of a potentially major topic; if they are fleshed out, the content will be too.
Hope this helps. Best of luck! Let me know if you need someone to take another look in the future. — Rebelguys2 talk 23:40, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Rebel. All my sources are from the internet, and I have links to those sites. Is that good enough? I've looked through CITE, but it's horribly complicated. I tried to be neutral, but, well, it's hard. Calling them a "defense contractor" is seems deceptive, since most of what they sell is for offense, not defense. Calling them "war merchants" would be more accurate, but I guess Wikipedia can't say that. I'm not sure how to be more neutral. Could you help with it? And I want to be more comprehensive, but I only found a couple of web sites that go into any detail about the company. I guess I could add more about their so-called competitors. (They've merged with most of them, and tried to merge with another, and are working with their only remaining real competitor on a huge project started last year.) But details of how the business is run is very secretive, for obvious reasons. Oh dear. Brilliant prose. Well I only got a 580 on my verbal SATs, so I don't know about brilliant. :) I'll try. Sarah crane 13:53, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Some images of their products would be nice. Defense contractor is ok, I think. The last two sentences of the intro need sources. Maybe talk a bit about their successful products and their impact. Also, if there is any pertinent news about the company, then it should be added. I can help changing the external links to proper citations (just remind me :)). Side question: Do you work for the corporation? GfloresTalk 19:22, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, this is an online encyclopedia, not a place for your personal views. You say "It has way too much influence on our government, so I think it ought to have a good article." By what standard to you say that Northrop Grumman has too much of an influence on our government? What criteria are you using? This is your own personal belief and, while you're welcome to it, not everyone will share that belief. Your prejudices should not color the article. You also say "Calling them a "defense contractor" is seems deceptive, since most of what they sell is for offense, not defense." "Defense contractor" is the official, accepted term for someone who supplies for the Department of Defense, and your own personal views on that matter are immaterial. This is not the place for you to preach your views on the US's foreign policy. It's not that Wikipedia -can't- use your snide little "war merchant" comment, but rather that Wikipedia would desroy its credibility by doing so, and it would go against the very basis of NPOV. You also say "But details of how the business is run is very secretive, for obvious reasons." Can you back that up? What information do you want that would be available on other companies? Anyways, welcome to Wikipedia. Please, though, remember there are those of us who disagree with you. Stating your opinions as if they were fact is not likely to go unnoticed. (oh, and in the interest of full disclosure, I used to work for NGNN before I decided to leave the defense sector and go back to college). Izuko 02:01, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I want the article to be NPOV. But that doesn't mean I have to pretend I don't have any opinions. I do have my own personal beliefs, and thank you for welcoming me to them. :P You're giving your opinions here, just the same as I was, and I don't appreciate being chastised for voicing my opinions. If I said that sort of thing in the article, that would be inappropriate. But should I have to censor myself on this page? I don't think so.
You may have as many opinions as you wish. However, the article is not the place for them. If you want to make your stand against defense industries, get a blog. Also, I did not welcome you to your beliefs, I welcomed you to Wikipedia. Don't misrepresent what I say.
Quote: "This is your own personal belief and, while you're welcome to it, not everyone will share that belief." Silly person. Sarah crane 13:37, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I give my opinions here, because this is the talk page. My criticizing you is not based on your opinions, but rather that you used your opinions to justify your edits. That is unacceptable. If wikipedia supported editors makeing changes based on their opinions, this site would be practically useless. So, no, you're not being chastised for voicing your opinion, you're being asked not to continue allowing your opinion to influence the article. So drop the false "oh poor me" act, it's not fooling anyone, and you're not going to get any sympathy from me. Izuko
I don't think my opinion influenced the article undully. Like I said, I didn't call NG a death-merchant in the article - I called them that here. And yes, you chastised me for it. Please don't be a jerk. Sarah crane 13:48, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I did not chastise you, however, I did challenge you. If you're going to stay around wikipedians for long, you should learn the difference. Being challenged on your views is not censorship, it is not chastisement, and it is not rude. I chastised you on letting your views affect how you edited the document, and even your most recent changes still show that same level of one-sidedness. Izuko 21:10, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed the unsourced, and grossly POV "contraversies" section. If someone wants to ressurect it, please add in sources and possibly responses on behalf of the company. This is not a place to take your political activism. Also, is ologopolywatch a significant source, or are they partisan? Izuko 02:08, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WHAT?!?! That's awful! You just remove material you disagree with? How can you do that? It wasn't unsourced, as you know, because you deleted the sources too! What the hell? Sarah crane 11:12, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I know, I suck for taking out unsourced NPOV material and bringing the article back to some semblence of acceptability. I'll go commit seppuku right now.
I don't think your sarcasm is helping. Do you? Sarah crane 13:46, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
How can I do that? Actually, it's fairly easy. See, there's this edit tab at the top. Lets you do wonderfull things. I imagine you're already acquainted with it. And, yes, your rant against NGC was unsourced. Anyone who cares to do so can easily see that's the case, so please don't make wild accusations. Sources, by the way, are not just "this person said this." That's hearsay. Sources tell you where and when the person said that. If I said that the Pope heartily endorsed NGC, it would not be sourced, unless I could show that he actually did so.
There was a frickin' link. If you think it needs better sources, why not say so? Why delete the material? There weren't any sources in the "Business units" section either, but you didn't delete that. Why? Because you didn't disagree with that section, just the controversy section. Sarah crane 13:46, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
A link to another wikipedia page that does not support your view is not a source. Yes, there was a link. No, it was not sourced. Why did I delete the material? Because it was so grossly flawed that it would be easier to re-write it than to correct it. Even now, it should be deleted. However, since you seem to insist that it stay there, I will make my arguments against it, instead of getting involved in an edit war. None the less, if you have an axe to grind with NGC or other defense contractors, Wikipedia is not the place for it. Izuko 21:10, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
And, for the record, I did not delete the material because I disagreed with it. I removed it because it utterly failed to meet Wikistandards. As I've said, this is not a blog. If you want to try to post a real contraversies section, made of facts and sources, instead of highly POV slander, feel free. But don't complain that I got rid of your previous attack. Izuko 12:17, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
So what's better, suggesting improvements, or deleting? The section was not highly POV slander. It was not an attack. It was a list of controversies. You're being an ass. Sarah crane 13:37, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That's right, I am an ass. However, I'm also an ass who makes sure he's right. I'm the kind of ass you get pissed at because as much of an ass as I am, you can't say I'm wrong.

Ok, and after I posted all this, I checked the page again. Sarah, use the preview feature. Collect your thoughts and put them all in one edit. There's no excuse for a steady stream of Sarah crane edits. In a space of two days, you've practically forced all other contributions off the first page of the history section. It makes it hard to track changes, difficult to follow the history (seeing as you have to go through ten thousand minor edits to get to something signficant), and makes one wonder if your edits are off the cuff "whatever I feel like putting in" instead of well thought-out. Izuko 21:14, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would just like to say, "Please do not bite the newcomers". Sarah has only been on Wikipedia for a week, so please keep the tone appropriate. Thanks. GfloresTalk 23:48, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't been wearing kid gloves, but I don't think I've been all that brutal. Izuko 01:10, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
From my long experience with USENET/WWW/etc I have developed a thick-skin as far as what is said to (and about) me on-line. When I showed up here I like many others had an advantage in that regard. You and I may not feel that you've been strictly "brutal" in a general sense from our viewpoints, but on the other hand, many newcomers may easily perceive this differently and become very upset (not to mention discouraged!) when reading talk like "So drop the false "oh poor me" act, it's not fooling anyone, and you're not going to get any sympathy from me". This is not acceptable to most here much less something we want newcomers to experience.
That isn't to say that Sarah Crane is perfect and blameless (she did apologize), it takes "two to tango" after all and she is very new here. But, disregarding the article content dispute in question, as people who have more experience as far as "how things are done" on Wikipedia and considering the fact that Sarah Crane has shown in her short time here that she wants to be a productive editor, we need to consider that kid gloves may well be appropriate. Otherwise, in light of what has happened in many other newcomer situations, we risk losing a good editor altogether.
I, as well as others, will work with Sarah Crane to help get her up to speed on the many aspects of being a contributor including advice about avoiding personal disputes. For your part, I do hope that you'll consider my view regarding being more careful about how we treat new (or even old) editors who sincerely want to contribute to Wikipedia.
—-- That Guy, From That Show! (talk) 2006-04-05 21:35Z
Well, since you're an admin, I do believe I lose automatically. None the less, I strongly disagree with your position. Being new to wiki can be an excuse for a great many things. However, not playing the type of games Sarah is playing is not exactly wiki-specific. The reason I told her to drop the "oh poor me" act was because she was playing the victim. You'll even notice how she ran off to your page to cast me as the Big Bad Wolf. Maybe I should even change my name to "some ex-employee from Northrop Grumman," since that's evidently how she sees me, and how she reports me.
None the less, I'll try to be a little less blunt. I don't believe in candy-coating my words, but it seems I'll have to here. However, I still don't intend to give her edits free pass, which also seems to offend her, judging from her comments on your page. Izuko 22:53, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
As Sarah said, you can cut down on the sarcasm, it isn't helping. Regardless if you believe Sarah is playing the victim, your tone was (and continues to be) inappropriate. Sarah has apologized on several occassions and you have not done the same in any way. Doing so would relieve tension on both sides. I also suggest you re-read WP:BITE and Wikipedia:Etiquette, as they serve to make communication amongst Wikipedians more civil. GfloresTalk 23:45, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm afraid an apology is unlikely to be forthcoming from me. However, I will be less blunt in the future. Izuko 01:29, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Izuko, first of all, I am not an admin. Second, I have specifically encouraged her by mentioning several times that she is very welcome to ask for help and advice on my talk page. Third, her not "naming names" is not unusual, to be frowned upon, or an indication of bad character. I would prefer that people not name names in many situations and instead just briefly mention the issue so that I can look at it without specifically looking at comments by person X first.
I'd like to add that it is not helpful to characterize her as having "run off" to my talk page. This is not by a long-shot the truth of the matter and it is extremely uncivil to put it that way. She stated her view of the situation (with an apology!) and asked for me to look at it as well as possibly add some input (CITE). Notice that I was not called in as an attack dog. She sincerely asked for input which is what people should do when part of a personal conflict that doesn't seem to appear to be abating.
—-- That Guy, From That Show! (talk) 2006-04-06 00:02Z
Now, now, don't be so rash to accuse me on incivility, shouldn't you Assume Good Faith? Anyways, it's regrettable that you choose to see my viewing her as having run off to your page to "rally the troops" as being uncivil. I guess we just won't see eye-to-eye here. Izuko 01:29, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Contraversies Section

[edit]

To say that the contraversies section needs help would be a gross understatement.

1) The first sentence states that 85% of NGC's income comes from the government. This, of course, is not exactly unusual for a defense contractor. Nor is it exactly a problem or contraversy. It's there to support the second sentence, which accuses NGC of "influence peddling." This is a weasle-word type of accusation. What are the criteria for influence peddling? Any company that lobbies congress could be accused of influence peddling. Also, Sarah has failed to show how the income and heavy lobbying imply influence peddling. For this reason, the comment should be removed.

2) The quote supposedly from the World Policy Institute is unsourced. The next citation leads to a site called Foreign Policy in Focus. Does this group represent a significant and qualified viewpoint, or is it a partisan site? Nor does it explain why having three major defense contractors is a bad thing, especially considering that many of them operate as effective monopsonies. Certianly, it does not qualifiy as a contraversy. Maaaaybe a criticism, but it would have to be beefed up to support that. Also, the cited page notes that the merger put NGC on part with Lockheed Martin. If anything, this increased the number of players at the top of the field from two to three. Also, the comment about the "merger mania" was about the industry, not NGC in specific. At the very least, this seciton should be sourced to FPiF, not the WPI, and moved elsewhere.

3) The final commment in the first paragraph notes the monies given by NGC and TRW, as well as their lobbying efforts. Why is this under contraversies? How does it support accusations of influence peddling? Does it exceed what other similarly sized and functioned organizations have done? Can a connection be made between the contributions and lobbying, and actual influence peddling?

4) Sarah then notes that many politicos have pushed for buying more items that NGC sells. But isn't this part of a push to enhance the military as a whole? Is this inconsistant with what they would normally do? Has NGC been specifically targeted for purchases to the excusion of Boeing or LM? Where's the citation for this statement?

5) Again, the subject of the same type of normal campaign contributions come up in an effort to support the idea of influence peddling. But is there anything to actually connect those two ideas? How does Studeman's connections to the Clinton-era CIA figure into things? Does the CIA buy aircraft carriers and missles? What other corperations have connections to high ranking government "insiders"? The same goes with incidents of name dropping.

Frankly, that entire subsection is nothing but original research on the part of Sarah. She used blogs and activists (including one associated with "Scooter" Libby) to back up her own original view. Nothing in this section should be included unless it's attached to signficant sources, and the conclusions are drawn by those sources, not by the editor.

6) War profiteering: Again, we're dealing with opinions and POV. Who is CorpWatch, and why are they given significance? Again, activists and bloggers are the evidence of the day in this one. And the link to "Why We Fight" doesn't even mention NGC. One would expect a citation on NGC to actually mention them. One would also expect the citation to be more than just an editorial.

7) Scandals: The first and second sentences are acceptable.

8) Again, the source for the defective drones goes, not to a news article, but to an activist site, where the only information noted is just a general description. Nothing about the specifics of the issue, or where the case is going. No reliable source available.

9) The issue over overcharges: Well, at least we have a reliable source for it, but the Washington Post article can't actually be read. Kind of makes verification difficult. And, of course, back to CorpWatch, for the partisan view.

Basically, other than the Saudi Oil scandal, the entire contraversies section is unfit to go into the article. It is nothing but hints and allegations to try to support Sarah's POV. Additionally, no attempt was made to cover both sides. She simply gave the complaints that the partisans have, and let them be the last word. "Contraversy" implies two sides.

Now, the question is, why should the section not be dumped overboard again? Can anyone here see anything salvageable in it? Izuko 21:10, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good points. Just a general statement: I don't think a "Controversy" section in itself needs to be absolutely neutral (but it must be verifiable). The controversy section is to report on what others have found fault with the company on. Representing a significant minority standpoint there is acceptable. Articles on other companies, such as ExxonMobil, Altria Group and Nike have sections reporting on people critical to the company. The defense industry certainly has some very vocal critics, and I think they should be included. That said, the controversies section could certainly be improved and cleaned up, but I don't think a wholesale deletion of it is the way to go. Henrik 11:55, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
NPOV is the number one rule of Wikipedia, and is never optional. That's from the head of the entire WP project (if you need me to, I can find the reference again, I forgot to save the url to it, so I could take a little). The question is whether the minority is significant. Also, presenting activist and bloggers as sources gives the false impression of signficance and leads to the mistaken belief that more people hold that opinion than really do. Reporitng criticism is one thing, but I wouldn't report Michelle Malkin's views on Clinton on his entry. If you dig deep enough, you can find a minority that believe anything. The question is whether or not their beliefs are really pertainant to the subect being discussed. Now, I figure, maaaaybe, I could fix the entry, but it would require an entire re-write of what Sarah wrote. Izuko 16:16, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Izuko, I'm sorry you don't like the controversies section (it's spelled controversy, by the way), but Wikipedia can't just remove the controversy section from articles every time a former employee objects. As to your specific points, I have added references to every statement you complained was unsourced. None of it is "original research". I'd love to improve it, though, and all constructive criticism is welcome. Sarah crane 15:57, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, noes! I've been criticized for my speeling! I guess it's true what they say about those of attack spelling having run out of anything else valid to say. As for your references, most of them are unreliable sources. Or maybe I should quote Little Green Footballs to respond to them. To say that you've provided references is not the same as saying they're sourced. I could reference the Westboro Baptist Church for "evidence" that gays are going to destroy America, but that would probably be rightfully deleted as vandalism on any page that was not specfically about that conflict. Sources have to be credible and reliable. Also, as for your belief that it's not original research, let me ask you this. Where is your source for the thesis statement of that section, "This, along with heavy lobbying, has led to perennial charges of improper lobbying and influence peddling."? That's your opinion and conclusion. If you want to espouse your opinions and conclusions, get a blog. Oh, and I'm sorry you don't like the fact that I was a former NGC employee. I guess you'll just have to learn to live with it. Izuko 16:16, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't criticize you for it. I just pointed it out, so you would know. It wasn't an attack on you. Please calm down.
About your point: the homosexuality article does link to conservative sources that claim homosexuality is harmful. It doesn't say "homosexuality is sinful", but it does say "Many. . . interpret their sacred texts as holding homosexuality to be unnatural or sinful". It doesn't claim that homosexuality is "contrary to the natural law", but it does say that the Catholic Church believe this. In the same way, the NG article should not say "NG are merchants of death", but it is entirely appropriate for the article to quote someone else as saying that. Sarah crane 18:21, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The article on homosexuality cites credible sources, academic journals (ie, peer reviewed, instead of just blogs and activists), and -major- institutions (one would be hard put to consider the Catholic Church to be insignificant or minor, especially in the field of morality). Hence, the entire point of my comments. Your references are not adequate for use as sources. Nor do they actually support the point you want to make (they are, effectively, weasle arguments - full of sound and fury, yet signifying nothing). To frame them as signficant contraversies is to give them undue weight. Now, if you want to outline the pacifist response to NGC and present it as such, those references would gain a bit of signficance, within that very narrow venue. Izuko

Lack of Neutrality

[edit]

Sarah crane has admitted herself that she believes that Northrop Grumman are "War Merchants" as she states. She isn't being neutral in this. But rather being extremely biased and against this corporation. They are a defense corporation, nothing more. It is no different from World War II where Howard Hughes, Pan Am, Boeing, Ford, etc were sucessful in World War II.

Like for example, you talk about the presence of Northrop Grumman in Colombia and the first thing you do about their action is that they help spray fields in Colombia. But Google Searches can show me plenty of other reasons why Northrop Grumman would be in Colombia. But they're not relevant? I'm sorry, but wikipedia is not your soap box to push your views about Northrop Grumman

Also, I watched the movie "Why We Fight" personally myself and this movie does not talk about Northrop Grumman that much except with the small mention of being the manufacturer of the B-2 Spirit. But the source for "simply selling death" part quotes "Why We Fight", a movie, which never talks about them except by small mention. Relevant? I think not. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ViriiK (talk • contribs)

I do have my own opinions, and I don't apologize for them. However I work very hard to be NPOV in the articles I write. I may be biased, but the article should not be. Please judge by edits based on what I say, not on who you think I am. As for Why We Fight, I replaced that source with others that would be more appropriate. Sarah crane 15:47, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ViriiK's changing the links from ologopolywatch to GlobalSecurity.org is appropriate, in as much as they are well respected as defense analysts, as opposed to partisan activists. I still believe that the entire government influence section needs to be removed, in as much as there is nothing of substance in it, nor is there ever likely to be anything of substance. The scandals portion needs to be beefed up with 1) real citations, 2) a better explaination of the what is really going on, and 3) NGC's responses to the allegations (remember that the lawsuit is still a matter of allegation, and not a settled case). If those can be done, then the scandals subsection should be made a section on its own. Izuko 11:08, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I fully agree with the change to GlobalSecurity.org, that was a definite improvement. As for the government influence section, it widely believed (at least in some circles) that there is undue influence.. it is fairly well referenced now, but the prose needs work. NGC responses should definitely have some room, it is completely non-existant now. But the controversies section is only a day or so old now, it should be given a bit of time to mature. Henrik 12:05, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Are those circles signficant, or are we to list every complaint held by anyone against the company, down to the shipyard worker who got fired for violating a tag-out? Until the criticism leaves the partisan activist stage, I'd say there's no room for it here. Plus, the supporting evidence, here, is used to support what amounts to original research on Sarah's part. She brings in a bunch of facts and figures and tries to make them support her own POV, instead of dealing with reputable sources whose arguments and conclusions are supported. For this reason, I think it should be scrapped. Oh, and please don't edit my posts. It was not my intention to post the above in response to ViriiK's post, and it should not have been indented as a response. Not a big change in meaning, but still... Izuko 15:38, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think we agree on that the question really boils down to "Is the NGC-is-an-evil-industrial-complex view significant enough to warrant mentioning in the article?" There are a number of sources for this view, so it isn't *just* Sarahs POV, she has sources to back them up. The second question is then "Are the sources quoted reputable?". My current view is a "probably" on the first and "undecided, but leaning towards it" on the second. They certainly promote a POV, but that is not a capital punishment. Henrik 17:59, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
How big of a view do they represent? And do groups that oppose anything they view as miltary-industrial complex really warrent being mentioned on each company's page? And that still deosn't address the fact that her arguments don't support her conclusions.Izuko 23:47, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OligopolyWatch is not a partisan activist site, by the way. They're pretty neutral. CorpWatch, on the other hand, is not at all neutral -- but I don't understand why people want to remove all oligopolywatch links. The article, if you read it, is more pro-NG than anti-NG. As I said on the talk page, there is info in the OW article that I can't find anywhere else, so it should still be a source. Sarah crane 15:47, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Because we're not interested in pro-NGC vs. anti-NGC. We're worried about having an article with reputable sources, as well as having one where the sources back up the conclusions stated. If I am not given reason to do otherwise, I'm going to kill the war profiteering section, as well as the government influence. I'll move the scandals section to a main heading, as opposed to a subsection. You've introduced this mess. We believe it has no merit, by the standards of wikipedia. Please, clean it up. And that includes giving -both- sides of the story. "Mend it don't end it" doesn't apply here, because I see nothing substantial that can be mended, save the scandals subsection. Izuko 15:56, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The reason is that it's significant, and it's sourced. The section has many more reputable sources than any other section, and more than most other articles. Please don't unilaterally remove content. Sarah crane 16:01, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The section has very little in the way of reputable sources. Please don't unilaterally vandilize articles with your POV. Izuko 16:18, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(I have removed a chunk of comments from here and pasted them onto the talk page of this Peer review. They were rather off-topic. This peer review is about this particular article. If I have removed something you said about the article that was on topic, please feel free to add it back in - concisely--Commander Keane 15:17, 6 April 2006 (UTC))[reply]

Comment Great work - I was expecting loads of POV but it's just dandy. 1 point, "Products" could do with converting into prose, rather than a list --PopUpPirate 23:14, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I'll do that. Sarah crane 00:19, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've done that now. Better? Sarah crane 15:02, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Just the ticket --PopUpPirate 19:05, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sarah, would you mind witholding any more edits for the time being? I plan on doing a re-write/reorganization of the article that I think may be satisfactory to both sides. If the rewrite is accepted, it would be easier to change that within the new framework than to go back and try to rework it in. Izuko 14:53, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. You might want to put your reorganization at Northrop Grumman/Temp until its accepted. Sarah crane 15:02, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. That would reduce the need to bold/revert/discuss.Izuko 16:02, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

University of California, Berkeley

[edit]

I want to put this article through peer review mostly to gather suggestions on how to find the right balance between depth and comprehensiveness, as well as article organization. The Student Life section, mainly the Student housing and Student groups subsections, seem especially problematic. The former seems to go into too much depth; it seems to be more comprehensive then the actual main student housing article, and longer than would seem necessary for the main university article. The latter brings up the question of which student groups to cover for a campus with "over 700" such groups, and how deeply to cover each one. Also, the "contributions to computer science" section seems a bit out-of-place; may be the main content should get its own article and then the highlights written into the History section? - Gku 09:38, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm pretty sure University of Michigan was recently featured. You might find it a helpful resource for your questions about formatting et al. Kaisershatner 17:59, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Michigan State University can be used as a guide as well. It's the only other university FA besides Michigan. Arcimpulse 03:26, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
After skimming through this article, there are some gripes that I have about it:
  1. The references are in URL format. I would prefer using the MLA bibliography format or something similar (this allows people to know when the website accessed was produced, given that webpages change constantly).
  2. I noticed a lot of external links within the main body of the article. Normally, these links should be in the external links section.
  3. When it comes to FAs, lists are generally frowned upon. Try converting the lists to prose whenever possible.
  4. The section about UC in pop culture should be in its own separate article. Such pop culture sections are constantly edited by people who want to leave their mark on articles, no matter how trivial (which leads to the article's becoming "unstable").
  5. The Contributions to computer science can be summarized further and combined into a section focusing on overall research. I known that UC Berkeley is closely associated with Lawrence Livermore, and that there is a lot of research in the biomedical field. Try to expand on those.
  6. Finally, try to keep boosterism under control. Instead, try to find some negatives concerning UC Berkeley (e.g. sharply rising costs due to state budget shortfalls)).
Feel free to ask if you have any more questions (I was the one who got the University of Michigan article to FA). PentawingTalk 04:18, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've tried to get rid of the boosterism and introduce some negatives (e.g., large introductory classes, professors more interested in research than teaching). I agree with the above criticisms (computer science, UC in pop culture) and I would add that the section on student housing is too long. But someone else will have to shorten these. [AT] April 24, 2006

National Collegiate Athletic Association (Philippines)

[edit]

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

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

Nellie Kim

[edit]

This article is my first big affair in Wikipedia. I started it about a year ago. It had overgone major work since then and seems pretty comprehensive, well-structured and neutral for me. I want to receive comments and a broader perspective on how it may be improved. Cmapm 12:10, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The lead is very crowded, I think you should move the colored image further down. Also, the fact that the first sentence is written in the past gives the impression that she's dead. How about, instead of saying "was a Soviet gymnast", put "is a former Soviet gymnast"? --Fritz Saalfeld (Talk) 08:02, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for suggestions. I changed it to "a retired Soviet gymnast", which I see to "comply" with other similar articles. Did you mean, that the lead "is crowded" only due to the image or that it's style should be adjusted too? I'll also think of moving the image somewhere below later. More comments and opinions are welcome! Cmapm 14:57, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I moved an image into Olympics section. If you wish, please, have a look there and comment on its size and placement. Cmapm 06:39, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I was refering only to the image. It's much better now. --Fritz Saalfeld (Talk) 14:16, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Muhammad Ali Jinnah

[edit]

Hi - I request the participation and help of all in an effort to improve this article and make it an FA. It has a lot of good data, but there are also serious problems of loaded POV, un-encyclopedic language and text and unverified information. There are also issues regarding the appropriate spelling of Jinnah's name. I ask all contributors to please work according to Wikipedia:What is a featured article?. Jai Sri Rama! Rama's Arrow 16:07, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

agreed

IMO, the sections "Jinnah in the eyes of his contemporaries" is wholly unencyclopedic and unnecessary. The "Modern views of Jinnah" section must be much smaller, concise and factual critical evaluation of Jinnah's views, actions and modern criticism. There is a lot of POV and factuality problems in these sections. I hope we can effectively iron out these issues. Rama's Arrow 17:06, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Saying and Quotes section should be removed after being moved to Wikiquotes. CG 12:57, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments -- Why not organize criticisms of Jinnah into a "Criticisms" section, like Che_Guevara#Criticism? You could also add a timeline and create a "Legacy" section for the less critical material from "Modern views on Jinnah" (especially all the stuff under "A new understanding of Jinnah and partition" and "A secular Jinnah"). The article needs significant copyediting — I've done some as an example. But overall, the writing is not too bad (not nearly as bad as at Fidel Castro or Cuba, for example). Saravask 07:21, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've created a "Modern views of Jinnah" that succintly and soberly establishes criticism and appraisals of Jinnah. However I'm sure citations and more detail is necessary. Rama's Arrow 17:45, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article is quite good and covers almost everything I would think would be needed, not knowing the subject. Most troubling is the lead stating "distinguished" when it would be better to simply supply the various things that make him distinguished, such as honors, accolades, etc. When looking in his 'Early life' section for what made him distinguished, I pretty much just see more statements saying he was skilled and respected, but few to no facts backing it up. The rest of the first lead paragraph discusses how popular he is, but ignores the other side of what is covered in 'Modern views on Jinnah'. Also after the early life section there is very little on him as a person, entirely focusing on his work. While that is mostly warranted given his position and why he is important, it goes a bit too far. The modern views section refers to "non-religious personal behavior." but nowhere can I find that elaborated. Finally it is stated that his "birthplace and date of birth are disputed; however, it is generally believed that...", but only one source is cited, and certainly not one that would rank high as a Wikipedia:Reliable sources. So try to get a hold of a couple very reliable sources and use those to cite the article. With reasonable effort the article could be a FA soon. - Taxman Talk 14:18, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree with this. Also, there is no question of citing some books specifically written about Jinnah alone? It seems odd that all the citations come from books written about Indian politicians who mostly opposed Jinnah — this is like writing a biography on the Dalai Lama using only info gleaned from books on Mao Zedong or Zhou Enlai. This proxy sourcing is probably what underlies the issues of comprehensiveness and sourcing raised by Taxman. If you can't get hold of any books, use Google Scholar to get info. Also, still needs a light copyedit for flow and to remove padded wording/bulky phrasing. Saravask 00:09, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Much better. Saravask 23:31, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't have any access to books on Jinnah, which is why I've had to rely on websites and Patel's biography. But I take exception to your view that there is something inherently flawed about using Patel's biography - I've only used the facts, not imported Gandhi's POV. While there should be a book on Jinnah as a direct reference, and I will use Google scholar, I don't think there is anything wrong with the citations provided from Patel's bio - a source is a source. Rama's Arrow 12:47, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I should have said a "reliable source is a reliable source." In any case, I don't think there is a problem with Patel's biography being a source, even as there is a need for a book on Jinnah to be primary ref. Cheers, Rama's Arrow 13:15, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tenebrae (film)

[edit]

article is about a horror/slasher "giallo" film directed by horror legend dario argento. what could stop this article becoming featured? any and all comments welcome. is it missing anything? does it need expansion, if so in which areas? are there any major un-cited assertions? any problems with the writing? thanks. Zzzzz 12:33, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My main overall criticism is that it just lacks detail. Although there are no hard rules about FA length, an article of fewer than 1500 words is almost certainly too short. This is especially the case here where about half the article is the plot summary. The plot section is also rather too long for my taste, and lacks sources (I don't see this a problem personally but others do). The Response section should be expanded; review scores, if such things can be found, are particularly useful. At a smaller level, one-paragraph sections are generally to be avoided. The writing is mostly good but occasionally a little clumsy, such as "a metal sculpture with sharp spikes that lands on, and gorily impales, the demented writer". Essentially this article is heading in the right direction for FA but has a good way to travel yet. (By the way, thanks for your comments on my own FA nomination - hopefully our interaction will benefit both articles!) Soo 17:06, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
First, thanks to Zzzzz for thinking the article is good enough at this point to be put up for peer review. And thanks to Soo for your kind words about my mostly good but occasionally clumsy writing. I appreciate your valuable criticisms. I'm not sure if I agree with you about the plot summary being too long: Argento is notorious for his often incomprehensible storylines and I tried my best to keep the narrative details as clear as possible without being too convoluted. However, if other editors agree it should be shortened I will try to condense it. I agree that the "Response" section should be expanded. Tim Lucas wrote two excellent but conflicting reviews of the film and both should probably be referenced (the snippet that appears is from the more negative of the two), and it would probably be a good idea to provide quotes from Maitland McDonagh's analytical Tenebrae chapter from her Argento book. Your comment about the one paragraph section is understood but in this case the actual title of the film is a bone of contention amongst fans and I thought it should be addressed in a subsection for easy reference. If someone can think of a better place in the article for this particular info it would be appreciated. Also, should the lead paragraph be expanded or is it fine as is? Hal Raglan 14:38, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

article is now much longer and more detailed. any other issues to prevent it becoming featured? Zzzzz 10:54, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Eva Perón

[edit]

I was hoping that someone with some experience would offer some insight into how this article could be improved. I have already worked hard on this article, but I am relatively new to Wikipedia and therefore inexperienced. I think that overall what this article needs is stylistic direction, including notation, etc. I think that I have done all I can to add to the factual aspect of this article, but now it needs stylistic direction. I think that this article deserves the work because Eva Peron is a huge icon and international icon, and arguably the most famous South American in history (aside from, perhaps, Che Guevara). I think that an icon of this magnitude deserves a "featured article" treatment, and I myself am not able to provide that at this point. Also, this English language version of the page is currently used as the template for several foreign language Wikipedia pages, so any improvements to this page will result in improvements to many other pages around the world. Thank you. Andrew Parodi 09:28, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, that's a great article! It's better than some of the featured ones I've seen. I learned a lot. Good job! Sarah crane 16:14, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. That means a lot to me. I've worked hard on this article. This article is basically the result of more than a decade of research, which included a trip to Argentina. Andrew Parodi 21:12, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • For Featured Article consideration it will require proper inline citations. This can be started by converting the external links in the body into footnotes (see m:Cite/Cite.php and Wikipedia:Citing sources#How to cite sources). The FA criteria requires an "appropriate" use footnotes which, in this case, means they should direct the reader to reliable sources that back up opinions or statements that could be challenged. Some of these statements can avoild referencing with more appropriate wording (see WP:AWW and WP:APT) For example, statements like these require a reference:
    • "Eva María Duarte's birth certificate places her birth at the city of Junín, Buenos Aires Province, but there are some doubts around it."
    • "Some versions suggest she..."
    • "Nevertheless, other versions supporting the certificate indicate that..."
    • "Eva has often been credited with organizing..."
    • "Most historians, however, agree that..."
  • See Wikipedia:Manual of Style (headings) for the appropriate wording of section titles. The sub-sections "Eva moves to Buenos Aires" and "Eva's childhood" could be merged into a section called "Early life".
  • To help the writing, avoid those one- (or two) sentence paragraphs.
  • Refer to Joan of Arc and Hugo Chavez for well-done articles on similar cultural figures. --maclean25 17:24, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the suggestions. I have wanted that proper type of inline citation, but I haven't known how to do it. Thank you for showing me how. I will study the Joan of Arc and Hugo Chavez articles and see where improvements can be made. This is very exciting. Andrew Parodi 21:12, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Neutrality

[edit]
Where do you see a lack of neutrality? -- Andrew Parodi 05:44, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  1. (commonly known by the affectionate diminutive Evita) Affectionate? Diminutive? You'd be better off cutting out those adj.'s
  2. First Lady she came to exercise more power and influence within the government than anyone but her own husband.
  3. she wielded a charismatic influence that has few historical parallels outside of hereditary monarchy.
  4. During her life, Evita was the most powerful woman in Argentina, and most historians agree that she remains the most powerful woman in the history of her nation and the entire South American continent. At the time of her death, she was arguably the most powerful woman in the entire world. I stopped reading after this blatantly biased sentence. --Osbus 20:52, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your responses. I'll address each concern below:
I agree that the term "affectionate diminutive" is a bit biased, but it is factual to state that the name "Evita" was a nickname and was used affectionately by the Peronist supporters. In official documents, she was never known as "Evita" but as "Eva Peron" or "Maria Eva Duarte de Peron." In other words, those who referred to her as "Evita" did so out of affection; those who did not like her, such as the military, the oligarchy, etc., never referred to her as "Evita." They referred to her either as "Eva Peron," "Eva Duarte de Peron," "that woman," or worse....
The statement that she exercised more power and influence than anyone within the government but her own husband is not a biased statement. It is backed up by a great deal of research and many biographies. If anything, my treatment of this situation in the article is far more neutral and middle road than what is often said; it is often said that she had MORE power than her husband, which is not true. And the fact that she was so powerful, the second most powerful person in the country during her time, was one of -- if not THE -- main reason her opposition hated her. It is relatively uncontroversial to say that she had more power than even the Vice President under Juan Peron; the Vice President's name is all but lost to history because Evita outshined him in every regard but military ceremonies.
The statement that she weiled an influence with few parallels outside of hereditary monarchy is factual. She was basically the Princess Diana of South America. She was loved by the poor and working classes of the entire continent, not just Argentina. In the words of a man that I knew who was from Ecuador, "Eva Peron was like the mother of the working class of all of Latin America." Further, this statement is a paraphrasing of a direct statement from scholary biographies. Even Eva Peron's strongest critics, such as Mary Main (author of The Woman with the Whip) would not argue that she was loved deeply loved. Again, this deep love the working class and poor felt for her was one of the reasons the opposition hated her so greatly.
The statement that she was the most powerful woman in South America during her life, and most likely remains the most powerful woman in South American history, is not biased. That is a verbatim transcription of statements of many scholars. That she was arguably the most powerful woman in the world at the time of her death is also a commonly made statement. We must remember the context she is in. She died in 1952. When Eva Peron first became First Lady of Argentina in 1946, women in Argentina were not even allowed to vote. In other words, women were very powerless at this point.
Perhaps what really happened is that you were surprised by the, well, emotional content of the article. Evita is a very controversial and very emotional figure. She is perhaps one of the most fought over, debated, analyzed, hated, and loved figures of the 20th Century. All of which makes me think that writing an objective article about her may be too difficult.
However, because all of the issues I address above have been written about by scholars, perhaps this issue can be settled by directly referencing the scholars themselves. Maybe I'll rework the intro paragraphs to directly reference the scholars who made these statements.
Thanks again for the feedback. -- Andrew Parodi 22:03, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, referencing the scholars would be a great idea, or readers like me will be left in the dust with blatant bias. And the fact that scholars have been saying this does not mean anything- scholars may be biased themselves. I'm almost positive that there is at least one scholar in this world who agrees Peron was not the most influential.
Don't start the article with adjectives. Your purpose is to show the reader how Peron is the most influential, not just merely tell them. I have no problem with your saying she was influential. I am a little concerned with your saying she was the MOST powerful woman in the ENTIRE world. In saying that, I still believe that it is biased. Btw, if you are copying verbatim, you should cite/reference the scholars anyway.No problem for the feedback.--Osbus 22:51, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I am "copying" the content of what people have said, but not the form. I don't think people can copyright facts, such as the fact that she became first lady in 1946, etc. About the statement that she was the most powerful woman of her time, I can source that statement as well. But it is probably better if I do describe how she was powerful. She was something of "liason" between Juan Peron and the unions.

Toward the end of her life she was given the title "Spiritual Leader of the Nation," which means that, in a way, it is hard to objectively describe the power she had because it was not a "rational" power; it wasn't institutionalized. I mean, what exactly is the "role" of a spiritual leader, and how do you verify that the spiritual leader held true power?

Oh, lastly, I don't think I wrote that she was the world's most powerful woman, but that she was "arguably" the world's most powerful woman. I have never heard it argued that she was the most powerful woman in South American history. I think most agree with that statement.

I suppose, as you said, I need to remember that there are people who know nothing about her. I have known a great deal about her since the early 1990s, and so it's hard for me to write from the perspective of someone who knows nothing or little about her. But thanks for the suggestions. Andrew Parodi 03:50, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

NFL Draft

[edit]

Wikipedia:Peer review/NFL Draft/archive1

If no one objects here, I'll go ahead and re-nominate this as a GA. False Prophet 16:27, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


  • See if possible if there is a free use image that can go on the top right corner of this article.
  • The article will need references. See WP:CITE and WP:V for more information.
  • Please provide WP:CITE information for references/footnotes. See also WP:CITE/ES; templates like {{Cite web}} and {{Cite book}} may be useful here.
  • This article needs footnotes, preferably in the cite.php format recommended by WP:WIAFA. Simply, enclose inline citations, with WP:CITE or WP:CITE/ES information, with <ref>THE FOOTNOTE</ref>. At the bottom of the article, in a section named “References” or “Footnotes”, add <div class="references-small"><references/></div>.
  • Please expand the lead to conform with guidelines at WP:LEAD. The article should have an appropriate number of paragraphs as is shown on WP:LEAD, and should adequately summarize the article.
  • Per WP:MOS, the first letters of words in heading should not be capitalized unless: 1) it is a proper noun or 2) it is the first word of the heading.
  • 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==.
  • Per WP:CONTEXT and WP:MOSDATE, years, decades, and centuries without full dates generally should not be linked. For example, January 2006 should not be linked, instead change it to January 2006. Also, please note WP:BTW and WP:CONTEXT, which state that years with full dates should be linked. For example, February 28, 2006, should be come February 28, 2006.
  • Please do not extraneously bold items outside of the bolding in the lead.
  • Unless you suggest I merge the event articles into this article, and add info about the events without an article, making this extremely long. Or, could re create the article on the combine and leave the list. Which do you prefer? False Prophet 15:46, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Zaib-un-Nissa Hamidullah

[edit]

Hello everyone. I wanted a peer review of this article to make sure that all my references, etc. are in order, and that the article is worthy of good, or even featured, article status. Be brutally honest if you find it necessary.--Le Grey Intellectual 17:35, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Brutally honest...here goes
  1. Cut out the very's and ever's. For example, Zeb-un-Nissa Ali was born in 1921 to a very literary family and to ever speak at the ancient Al-Azhar University.
  2. great poet Iqbal Do I detect bias?
  3. She grew up in a tightly-knit Anglo-Indian household filled with Bengali thinkers and philosophers of the age; as her father's house at 48, Jhowtalla Road was something of a meeting place for the Calcutta literary circle. Wrong use of the semi-colon.
  4. Her later writing was deeply affectedCut out deeply.
  5. After moving to the Punjab in 1942, Zeb-un-Nissa was in for a shock. What is this, The Da Vinci Code? Esp. since the stuff after isn't too shocking.
  6. Partition You should explain that, or link it to another article explaining the term.
  7. All the copies of the first edition had been snapped up in 3 months. Say had been sold, not snapped up.
  8. the ambitious and talented Zaib-un-Nissa Cut out amibitious and talented.
  9. soon established herself as an outspoken and fearless writer You've said this twice. I'd suggest keeping the later one.
  10. Many of her biographer have Biographers is plural.
  11. In 1951, she left Dawn, due to Mr. Altaf Husain's by now unbearable sexist policies By now unbearable? Explain how they were once bearable. I thought he was a nice guy, judging from the previous paragraph. If you make those kinds of statements, then explain them.
  12. Through its pages she 'sought to foster feelings of amity and unity throughout the country'. Why is this in single quotation marks" Reference the speaker.
  13. Begum hamidullah Capitalization
  14. Starting with 'Please, Mr. President!', a very emotional open letter in which she pleaded with Ayub Khan to stop ordering the police to harm students taking part in demonstrations; she wrote a series of critical editorials Again, wrong use of semi-colon.
  15. beloved Cut out the adj.
  16. The format is a bit odd. Shouldn't it be in chronological order, with Early Life, Career, and then Death?

Sorry, but this article is a bit far from FA. You'll need to expand and organize all sections, and there is tinge of bias. Even if you use quotations, quotations canbe twisted to shown bias. For example, you have not included a quote from one of her critics. Hope I helped...--Osbus 23:15, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't want it to be an FA yet. I understand that there's still a long road to go. I just wanted to know what people thought of the article so far. Thanks for the tips, though. --Le Grey Intellectual 17:14, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ayn Rand

[edit]

This was nominated at WP:FAC on 20 March, prematurely in my view, and I voted against with a number of others. Since then it has undergone extensive referencing and editing, but mostly by a small group of editors. Some broader feedback would be appreciated. Kaisershatner 14:40, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Very nice work. A few minor comments:

  • In the "philosophical influences" section, it first states that she "claimed to share intellectual lineage with John Locke...". But this is not expanded upon. Could this statement at least have a reference?
  • Toward the end of the "Childhood & education" section, the word "university" is used without an article (i.e. "a", "the").
  • There are a number of year entries (such as 1979) that could be linked. Also Patrecia Scott can be linked. See WP:CONTEXT. I think wikilinking just years by themselves is discouraged. Kaisershatner 14:05, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The "Literary criticism" section begins with the words "Other critics argue...". Is there a paragraph missing here? Or were the sections re-ordered at some point?
  • What was her age in the publicity photo? Are there any more images of Ayn Rand that could be included? If not then perhaps a relevant book cover?
  • Finally, does there really need to be that many categories? Perhaps some can be consolidated where one is in a superset of another. You can probably get rid of the "Articles lacking sources" tag.

Thanks! — RJH 17:56, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks so much for the comments, I'll get to work on those. NB that there was a huge controversy about categories, much of which predated my involvement, I think it's still on the Talk:Ayn Rand page. And the "lacking sources tag" is there because there's still a "citation needed" template in there ({{fact}}). I'm looking for that reference. Kaisershatner 18:22, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Noticed a few things...
Thank you very much. Comments interspersed where further discussion might be warranted. No comment means fixed. --Wilanthule 19:35, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  1. She believed that man must choose his values and actions by reason; that the individual has a right to exist for his own sake, neither sacrificing self to others nor others to self; and that no one has the right to seek values from others by physical force, or impose ideas on others by physical force. Wrong use of semi-colon. The text after a semi-colon is always an independant clause.
  2. but who nevertheless perseveres to achieve his goals.But and nevertheless in the same sentence is like a double negative, you use one or the other but never both.
  3. From an early age, she displayed a strong interest in literature and films. I'd cut out strong, and other extraneous adjectives in the article for that matter.
    • Good comment, but I'm kind of on the fence on this one. We woudln't say that someone demonstrated "ability in mathematics" from an early age if he started proving big theorems at age 8. Sometimes intensifying adjectives are justified. What do others think? --Wilanthule 19:35, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Well, if he really did start proving theorems at age 8, one would include that in the article. Then readers would then know how strong his ability was. I think that, as a general comment, you should inform your reader of the ability and let your reader make his/her own judgements about the extent of the ability. --Osbus 21:41, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Alissa burned her diary, Refer to her by Rand, her last name.
  5. She arrived in the United States in February 1926, at the age of twenty-one, entering by ship through New York City, which would ultimately become her home. A bit choppy, so I'd revise it as At the age of 21, she arrived in the United States in Feb. 1926 by ship through New York City, which would ultimately become her home.
  6. The novel deals with issues as complex and divergentCut out complex, and just say divergant issues.
  7. , She seems also to have respected the American rationalist Brand Blanshard. First, that should be a period, not a comma. Second, I don't know what you mean be "seems to have respected". Either explain it, or cut it out.
  8. stated that he was the only philosopher who had influenced her What? In the previous paragraph, you said "Rand also claimed to share intellectual lineage with John Locke, and more generally with the philosophies of the Age of Enlightenment and the Age of Reason.".
  9. Rand herself The herself is extraneous
  10. including such prominent anti-Communists as Put the such right before as.
  11. although there are pockets of interest in Europe Not sure what you mean by pockets. How about saying there was interest in Europe.
  12. Rand and Objectivism are less well known outside North America, although there are pockets of interest in Europe, and her novels are reported to be popular in India[54] and to be gaining an increasingly wider audience in Africa. Split this sentence in two.
  13. Not sure if Bibliography is the right word. Rename it Rand's Works.

This is a clear, well-written article, though it is a bit long (68 kb). But in my opinion, the length is justified, and this article is on its way to FA. --Osbus 00:11, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your help and attention. Your suggestions improved this article substantially. --Wilanthule 19:52, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No problem. --Osbus 21:41, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You have convinced me on the remaining points. The changes have been made. :) --Wilanthule 23:27, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Great...I'll be supporting this once it's on FAC. --Osbus 01:23, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Care Bears Movie

[edit]

Fourth peer review: The day after submitting the Care Bears article in this area, I am more confident (at least right now) that this will be deserving for featured status sometime soon. It's a more complete article than the one on its sequel, whose nomination failed. At least it (and the C.B. article) need some more work before such submission (the CBM page needs a screenshot or two). Please tell me what you think of it so far. (I'll add in a fair use rationale for the DVD cover as soon as I'm done with this.)

Kiss me the best way you can, Cheer Bear, when this makes the grade! --Slgrandson 23:04, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Small things:
    • The table under Soundtrack needs to be aligned
    • Notes should be renamed; at first I thought they were footnotes.

Thanks, AndyZ 00:47, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Took me some time to respond, but at least I've addressed your concerns, and now what else can I do? The only thing left to do, I presume, would be finding at least two screenshots. --Slgrandson 01:37, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • The screen shots near the top break up the text on my browser; if I move them down to right before the line "Meanwhile, at an amusement park" in the source text, the problem goes away, but I'm not sure if this would help on other browsers. The Disco King 03:56, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Took some time to respond, but I've aligned both of them along with the infobox. Sadly, it'll be some more weeks before it becomes featured (along with the main article)... --Slgrandson 18:37, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Genesis (band)

[edit]

Over the course of the last three weeks, I've spent a lot of time completely revamping this article, standardizing the article per WP:MOS, expanding on existing content, adding images and audio samples, where necessary and creating stubs for most (if not all) red links within the article. This is my first music related article PR and I would really appreciate some feedback on the progress so far — my goal is to try and push the Genesis article for WP:FAC in about three or four weeks. Thanks! AreJay 21:02, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe you could consider replacing that {{List of Genesis members}} template with a timeline (meta:EasyTimeline). It'd avoid having a template that is linked to by a single page. Either that or substing it back into the article if it is not actually meant to be used on more than a page. (Don't forget to get the template and redirect deleted afterward) Circeus 02:20, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I think I'm going to take your suggestion and move {{List of Genesis members}} back into the article. I tried working on the metawiki <timeline> format, but found it quite frustrating in getting a proper alignment, etc, although I like the concept and didn't know until now that such a template was available. Thanks AreJay 03:27, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I won't deny that I haven't got any slighest idea as to how Timeline syntax works. besides, I firmly believe the infoshould also beavailable intextformat for the visuall impaired's benefits (although in this case the Timeline is a truely schematized version of the info that is otherwise spread to the article, some people use it to put information that is not coveed in text.) Circeus 03:59, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey AreJay -- As an obvious fan of the group, I appreciate the work you've put into this. However, I do believe the article needs a good copyedit as some POV and grammar errors slip through. I have a bunch of suggestions for you, which I hope are helpful.

  • Change some of the "Peter Gabriel"'s and "Phil Collins"'s, as well as other band members, to "Gabriel" and "Collins". I think you can mention their full names in the lead once and once again in the article when they're introduced, but their last name's fine each subsequent time.
Done AreJay 02:29, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Some members of the band ..." should be moved from the lead and into the article, as I think the lead works best when it closes with the band's hiatus.
Done AreJay 02:29, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't think you should mention all the names of members of The Spoken Word, The Garden Wall, and any lesser member of these groups with the exception of Genesis members. It's confusing reading the section, as it's a bunch of names that really have no signifance to Genesis. Perhaps a separate article for their information, such as Prior Bands of Genesis Members, or something tidier than that, for the extra information.
Done. I will perhaps work on Prior Bands of Genesis Members later AreJay 02:29, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are many looooooong paragraphs which can be broken into two-four smaller paragraphs. The first two paragraphs of "The beginning", for example, are monsters.
Done! AreJay 02:29, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Avoid calling the songs "classics" and "favourites", as well as unsourced statements about how popular a song/album/album cover is among fans, as that's POV unless a critic confirms it.
  • More should be put into why Banks (and really, the whole band) fueded with Gabriel during The Lamb sessions. It's not clear when reading that section, and it's important for why Gabriel left the group.
Done AreJay 02:29, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • It says it became apparent that Collins should be the lead singer, but doesn't tell why it was so apparent. Also, "Another factor that may have influenced the positive response was that Collins sounded "more like Gabriel than Gabriel did"., even though it's quoted, still feels like an opinion because of the "may have influenced" part. Just needs to be rewritten to clarify it's not the author's impression with a quote to back the author up.
Done AreJay 02:29, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Take out the Bret Ellis spoof information -- it's placed in the wrong spot, not in chrono order, and Ellis spoofs several other 80s groups in his book / movie, too.
Can you clarify your objection? Rarely are Genesis songs used in the soundtracks of mainstream movies. I thought it's inclusion to be pertinent to the section that discusses how the songs from the album were used in various commercials etc. I have therefore moved the section down a few sentences. AreJay 02:29, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd move the Discography and "other releases" sections to another page, like Genesis Discography.
This section is already on another page. I'm only including the template in the main article. Did you want me to move the "other releases" section to the template as well? AreJay 02:29, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • And finally, a copy edit for grammar. This includes proper commas and quotations marks, as well as elimination of redundant words, "Phil Collins joined the band on August 4, 1970 and the band played a handful of gigs as a four-piece band before playing a few shows with guitarist Mick Barnard" says "band" three times in one sentence. So that you have another pair of eyes reading over this, I'll be glad to help with a copy edit when I have another free moment this week.
Couldn't agree more! I ran spellcheck yesterday, but I could definately use some help in copyediting the article. Thanks for all the great suggestions — I'm sorry I wasn't able to get to them sooner; I was away all of last week. AreJay 02:29, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There's not a lot I see that hasn't been covered above, but here's my thoughts, most of them minor:

  • The whole article does need a general copyedit:
    • Much of the prose could be tightened up by eliminating redundant words, combing for passive voice, and just tightening the prose up generally.
    • I noticed a couple of full dates that aren't wikified for user preferences.
    • Many song/album titles have capitalized prepositions, articles and conjunctions, which are generally lowercase across the Wikipedia.
I have cleared most if not all of these AreJay 02:29, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • The article should be combed carefully for slang; one example I noticed was "sacked"
    • A singular noun that ends with "s" doesn't use the dangling apostrophe when indicating a possesive tense; in other words, multiple use of Genesis' and Collins' should be amended to Genesis's and Collins's.
Done AreJay 02:29, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • The MLA style doesn't tend to be used on Wikipedia, although the MOS isn't definite on the issue. Changing underlined references to italicized is easier on the eye, avoids confusion in regards to the underlining that some web browsers do to indicate an active link, and is sure to be a complaint in an FAC.
I don't think any complaints with regards to MLA during FAC can really hold any merit. WP:MOS does not prescribe a definative format for references and citations, as you say, so as long as editors follow some format, consistantly through out the article, it shouldn't matter what format they use. In fact, WP:CITE links to MLA formats in its "Further Reading" section. I have used the MLA format for my previous (successful) FACs and did not encounter objections with respect to the style of formatting for my citations. AreJay 02:29, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The discography and "other releases", with cover art, chart numbers and certifications, take up a disproportionate number of inches in the article, and the art is too small to see. They should be split into a separate article, keeping just a simple year:album list in the main article of major studio releases.
Point taken. I will work on this in a bit AreJay 02:29, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I find the side-box template with the lists of the band's members over the years confusing and leads to too much repetition of members such as Rutherford, who have been in every iteration. I would prefer to see a list of band members with the years they were part of the group, placed low in the article. I also agree with Ataricodfish that all the info about members of pre-Genesis bands in the early paragraphs was confusing.
I completely redid that section. Can you take a look at it and provide some feedback on whether or not this format is any better? Thanks. AreJay 02:29, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • A minor mention of Mike and the Mechanics, especially in regards to why Paul Carrack was being considered for vocalist after Collins left, might be of interest to people, as many might not know that it was a Rutherford side-project which had pretty notable success on their own.
Done AreJay 02:29, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • There's still a few spots that could use a couple of references, most notably the bits about Genesis being the first band to do 4 consecutive shows at Wembley and pioneering the use of various concert technologies.
I've searched all over the internet for possible references. I've found zilch so far. I'm leaning towards deleting those sentences. AreJay 02:29, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Rhapsody music playlist should probably be removed per WP:EL "Links to avoid" #7, since it requires an external application to use. Make sure you assess all the external links per the policy.
Done! AreJay 02:29, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

These critiques are all pretty minor but are the kinds of things that will really need to be addressed to get it through an FAC. Overall, this is a very good article, and as someone who isn't a Genesis fan and knew next-to-nothing about them before reading it, it taught me a lot. Instead of just pointing them out, if I get a chance in the next week or two, I'll try to address some of the problems myself. Congratulations for all the good work so far. - dharmabum 23:50, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Really appreciate your comments! I have made changes based on your suggestions. Can you please review the article and comment on whether or not it looks any better now? AreJay 02:29, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Dharma and Ataricodfish have raised some excellent points — I'll start working on making the necessary changes to the article sometime tomorrow. Thanks! AreJay 01:30, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Comment Way better than most FACs already, the right hand side infobox is a nice alternative to the footer template on articles like Iron Maiden and Dream Theater --PopUpPirate 23:03, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Responding to AreJay Hey there -- I've begun a copy edit of the article through "The Peter Gabriel Era", and will continue to edit more as I move along. I essentially tidied some of the sentences, as there were several run-ons and (in my opinion) each album lists about four-five songs on the album, so I cut this back to two for clarity as anyone unfamilar with Genesis won't know these pieces. I've also attempted to remove a lot of the passive voice (i.e., the verbs "was" and "is") into active, which involved some reorganization of the sentences.

In response to your comments above, the reason the Ellis reference should probably be deleted as its somewhat misleading. Genesis and Collins were not thrilled with how the songs were used in the movie (although they had approved the songs), and as the movie came out over a decade after the album its out of place with the article's chronological order. I've also read that Ellis did not like the group which is why he satarized them, although I have no reference for this. Finally, both the book and the movie reference many other performers, including Whitney Houston and Huey Lewis, so its inclusion isn't really unique. If the movie caused a resurgance in sales for the album or a return of their songs to the Billboard chart, ala Queen's "Bohemium Rhapsody" in Wayne's World, it might be noteworthy, but otherwise, it's no more noteworthy than mentioning that Collins was parodied on South Park, which is something I've had to edit several times while watching the Collins page. Just my opinion, of course.

Comment: I can see your point of view. I think it's best that I get rid of that section. Thanks AreJay 19:36, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have found some more unanswered questions as I've moved through the article, though;

I will highlight my comments in green as I finish addressing the suggestions listed below. AreJay 19:36, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • When Anthony Philips leaves the group, the article mentions doubts that they could continue without him, but there's no reference to this. As the sentence references someone's feelings, it should probably be referenced. Done
  • Why did they fire drummer John Mayhew and why did they rally afterward? According to TB, they didn't feel Mayhew was good enough. This is from the same article that I used to reference the first bullet above.
  • How did Collins' join the band? Considering his influence on the group in later years (and how they had already kicked out a million other drummers), his entrance to the group probably shouldn't be summarized in one sentence. Done
  • Why were they aware that Barnard wasn't up to their caliber? Was he a temporary member of the group, and was he fired? I don't think I understand your first question. Can you clarify? There's nothing to suggest that Barnard was a member of the group — certainly he was not involved in the recording of Nursery Cryme, which was Genesis's next studio album. The only information I have on Barnard was that he played with Genesis on the road for about six months; they felt that he wasn't good enough and decided to replace him.
The article states, "The band felt that Barnard was not up to their caliber of musicianship, they sought a proper replacement for Phillips." I guess that Barnard was a temporary replacement for Phillips while they were still proactively looking for another performer. I might have just misread the quote while editing the article, so I believe it's fine as is.--Ataricodfish 20:05, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for all the questions. I like where the article is going, but there are still too many important pieces of information which are summarized in one sentence. Although *I* know how Collins joined the band, someone new to the article might wonder how he appeared out of nowhere in the group. No, I am unbelievably thankful to you for raising questions. I have been working on the article for a while and obviously, I am glad that you were able to read through the article and point out issues that I would have certainly overlooked. AreJay 19:36, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Best of luck! I'll continue with my copyedit as I find time. Let me know if you disagree with any of my changes.

--Ataricodfish 18:06, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

2005 Atlantic hurricane season

[edit]

This article is comprehensive and detailed and has been slaved over by Wikipedia:WikiProject Tropical cyclones for a long time now. We finally have all of the sources necessary for the article to be fully sourced, so this nomination is largely for the purpose of getting some ideas for final changes before an featured article nomination.

Also, as there has been some controversy regarding the format of the article within the WikiProject, it would be really great if some reviewers from outside the Project could give their unbiased opinions on the formatting. Thanks. —Cuiviénen, Monday, 3 April 2006 @ 21:36 (UTC)

To put more context, most of the controversy has been on whether List of 2005 Atlantic hurricane season storms should be merged back into this article, as it was taken out due to the extreme length of the section. That article has already been peer reviewed, and the discussion can be read here. Titoxd(?!? - help us) 21:43, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I still feel the economic impacts section is far too short. Several of the storms, especially Dennis, Emily, Katrina, Rita, Stan, and Wilma can produce at least a few more paragraphs. --tomf688{talk} 00:08, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've added considerably more about Stan and Rita and a bit about Beta, but Emily, at least, seems to have had no significant economic impact. I'm working on gathering information on Dennis and Wilma right now to add. —Cuiviénen, Wednesday, 5 April 2006 @ 01:18 (UTC)
      • Okay, there isn't really anything to say about Wilma, but I've added a sentence on Dennis agricultural impact. Remember that economic impact is only what sort of effects a storm has on the economy; general destruction is covered elsewhere. Other than oil and agricultural damages, I don't know what there is to cover. —Cuiviénen, Wednesday, 5 April 2006 @ 01:26 (UTC)

M1 Garand

[edit]

Nominated to see if its up to featured article status. Nominated it for featured status once before (failed), but the article has grown a lot, was wondering if there's anything else the article's many editors need to do. --Banana! 21:11, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

P. K. van der Byl

[edit]

A recent failed Featured Article candidate, possibly because it was nominated too soon, this biography of Rhodesia's Foreign Minister under UDI is now extensively referenced. Comments at the FAC nomination suggested the writing could be improved generally but failed to suggest any way in which this could be done. I would also like to know if more could be made of the fact that after 1976, subject enjoyed very little actual power in Rhodesia (this is hinted at in the article but no source stated so explicitly). David | Talk 17:06, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Repeated use of UDI sounds rather awkward. If I'm reading the article correctly, it's simply an abbreviation for unilateral declaration of independence. Perhaps you could substitute in a similar word or phrase as appropriate. For instance, independence, independent, or the declaration. "Shortly after UDI..." could become "Shortly after declaring independence..." --NormanEinstein 18:02, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • UDI is most definitely NOT the same as Independence, and the text should not be changed. As a British colony (albeit self-governing since 1923), only Britain could legally grant Southern Rhodesia independence, and successive British Governments refused to do this unless and until majority rule was guaranteed. Since the white minority Government of Smith refused to agree to Britain's terms, Smith declared "independence" unilaterally and illegally on 11 November 1965. The Lancaster House agreement of 1979 restored Britain as the colonial power de facto, in addition to de jure, with an electoral process aimed at achieving majority rule. The nation received its Independence only on 18 April 1980. Peter McBurney, 2006-06-13.

Anju

[edit]

I'd be pleased if a non-player video game character such as Anju was able to reach featured article status. The process has already been accomplished by silent protagonist Link, however, I believe that Anju would set a precedent for other characters who do not have developed articles. Any comments, other than expansion? —Eternal Equinox | talk 16:24, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

see User:BrianSmithson/Writing_about_fiction Zzzzz 10:39, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Are there any other suggestions? —Eternal Equinox | talk 19:37, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No references. Article doesn't state who was responsible for the character design/script, image doesn't state who drew it. Anju should probably be disambiguation, it's a commonish name for things other than this character. --zippedmartin 22:33, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps it's a good idea. I'll create a disambiguation following this peer review. —Eternal Equinox | talk 22:59, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Halloween (film)

[edit]

this article should be quite close to featured status now.... please comment on any issues at all that could prevent it becoming featured, no matter how minor. thx. Zzzzz 19:37, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • The two red links need to become blue links or be removed. (Under the heading "Production")
this appears to have been already taken care of. there is no more redlinks under "production". there is still 2 redlinks in the article - compass international pictures and carol j. clover but they are significant enough to get their own articles eventually.
  • I am not entirely in favour of having "All URLs last accessed April 19, 2006." down the bottom of the references, when one reference is verified later on, what do you do?

MyNameIsNotBob 01:34, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

added "unless otherwise stated" so if individual ones are verified later they can be put on the reference line itself. Zzzzz 09:33, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

any more comments? Zzzzz 11:04, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Acamprosate

[edit]

I don't see this article becoming a Featured Article anytime soon, but I'm wondering what more I could do to this article. Another thing I need to know is which websites/printed medical journals I could use for this kind of subject, since I may know what's needed but not necessarily where to get it. —MESSEDROCKER (talk) 22:35, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's kind of short. Maybe expand on development and approval process...-Osbus 23:04, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
For articles, Pubmed would be the logical place to start; a search for "acamprosate" here turns up all kinds of interesting articles. Of course, in most cases you will only be able to get the abstract, unless you're fortunate enough to have access to a university library. In terms of the article, it would be great to have some more coverage of possible chemical pathways. Although nothing may be certain, surely there are some hypotheses about how this drug might work. What exactly is this "equilibrium"? -- Visviva 14:23, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
What I did was added a section about studies involving acamprosate and its effectiveness versus other drugs. How was that? —MESSEDROCKER (talk) 00:44, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wizards (film)

[edit]

This article needs attention. (Ibaranoff24 00:42, 3 April 2006 (UTC))[reply]

Dragon Ball Z

[edit]

I think that there are a few things holding this article back from being really good, and I want some examples. -Malomeat 03:33, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • The lead section is too long, should probably be three paragraphs, and there is too much discussion of the preceding and following work related to the subject of the article. That can be moved into an "introduction," such as "before working on DBZ, the author wrote..." or "the previous series dealt with..."
  • The section "Filler" should be retitled "Minor plots" or something like that
  • Currently the article is dominated by the long list of characters table and the huge list of sequels. Is it strictly necessary to include it all in this format? Kaisershatner 14:45, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Let's see here...

  • Personally, I'm fine with the lead size, but I'm big on WP:IAR when it comes to exact paragraph numbers. The only thing I'd move is the mention of Neko Majin.
  • Plot: It's... okay. It's a little too event-oriented for my tastes (Goku fights, Goku trains, Goku learns that somebody else did something some time ago). Like most bad plot summaries it details the first arc, generalizes the next few arcs, and trails off after that. I would stick to the most general form, but that's my personal preference.
  • Fandom: The fandom doesn't matter. Once you start talking about the fandom you drift into fancruft, fanon, and other Wikipedia no-nos. Stick to citing sources showing how or why DBZ is "the most popular anime worldwide" (emphasis mine). Rename it to something like "reception" or "response".
  • Censorship: Too big in general. I know the "frothy mug of water" is infamous in the fandom, but the fandom doesn't matter. It'd really help if you could cite reasons why the censorship matters.
  • The rest: Liiiists. Lots and lots of liiiists. I'd prosify them if they weren't so goddamn LONG. Eeesh. For starters, you might move the list of games to something like "list of DB games" and leave a link and small section on the main page.

Hope that helps a little. Nifboy 01:53, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Palm Island, Queensland

[edit]

This island is the most beautiful with some very inte3resting history Phenss 11:41, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

article is very brief. needs more information about its geography, climate, history, people. All of which needs to be sourced. At the moment it is a bare skeleton, and you've got that structured nicely, but each section needs to be expanded upon. The main thing I notice is that there are far too many images. Try to be ruthless - it's a beautiful place but one or two good images are more powerful than trying to depict everything that you appreciate about the island. Also 3 images of car bodies rusting away? I don't think even one is needed, but 3? Rossrs 13:39, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

new request:
The article has obviously changed greatly since the April 2006 peer review and it has been quite a few months since the Collaboration and successful Good Article nomination. I realise that the history section needs to be summarised and moved into a new article of its own, which I'm not very good at doing, but i'd appreciate comments on other ways that the article could be improved. Cheers, WikiTownsvillian 01:19, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Here are some suggestions for the lead paragraph, which in all honesty is not very clear. From what I've read the main body of the article is in much better shape, but I don't have time to do more at present. If I fail to get back to this inside a week feel free to badger me.

'or by Aboriginal name'. Surely 'by the Aboriginal…' done
'of about 2 000 people'. Why not '2,000'? done
"Palm Island is an island, which is also known as Great Palm Island, or by Aboriginal name Bukaman[3], and it is a community of about 2 000 people, although not officially named, the settlement is called Palm Island, the Mission, Palm Island Settlement or Palm Community by default.[4]."
This is a snake and poorly syntaxed. It has two periods at the end and far too much in bold none of which is necessary. Suggest "Palm Island, also known as Great Palm Island, or by the Aboriginal name Bukaman[3], is a community of about 2,000 people. The main settlement is named variously; Palm Island, the Mission, Palm Island Settlement or Palm Community. done, with slight revision: "is a community of" changed to "is an island with a resident community of"
"The Island is situated" no capital 'I' required. done
See WP:LEAD. This section should summarise the entire article, and have at least a sentence for each section in the TOC.

Hope that's helpful. Ben MacDui (Talk) 20:06, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Australian Catholic University

[edit]

Have been working on this article on and off for a few months and would like to eventually get it to Good or Featured article status Soundabuser 10:18, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

At the moment, after looking through it, this article has a lot of work needed before being eligible for good, let alone FA, status. Here are some things that need to be addressed:
  1. There are quite a number of lists, especially in the Faculty and schools section. By convention, lists are frowned upon for FA articles. Turn these lists into prose.
  2. The Faculty and schools section only mentions academic units. Is there anything else relating to academics, such as rankings (though when it comes to rankings, try not to use an indiscriminate amount of boosterism. Try to also find some documented negatives concerning the university).
  3. I noticed from the university's website that the staff does conduct research. However, no where in the article does it mention what research is conducted.
  4. More description about the campuses are needed, especially the settings (modern or classical) and the general makeup of the student body.
  5. The lists of faculty and alumni should go into their own separate articles. This stabilizes the article since people have a habit of adding various figures to these lists, no matter how trivial the person is.
For an example of university FAs, see University of Michigan and Michigan State University. PentawingTalk 06:40, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Countdown (game show)

[edit]

A complete article on a British television classic. What more can be done to bring this to FA status? Soo 14:25, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, to start with, you will need to cite your sources. --JerryOrr 19:55, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please expand the lead to reach WP:LEAD. WP:WIAFA stresses that the lead should include a brief overview of the article.
Add a references section. External links by definition were not used as sources. If they were used as sources, please change the title of the section to "References". They should then be cited according to WP:CITE, possibly using {{Cite web}}.
The article also requires inline citations. Inline citations generally appear in the form of WP:FOOTNOTEs- I would suggest using meta:cite format. When doing this, please cite the information found in the chart under "Champions".
"Countdown in popular culture" is way too short+weak; please either heavily expand or merge w/ another section. BTW, per WP:MOS, the section should simply be renamed "In popular culture".

Thanks, AndyZ t 01:02, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ditch the big Winners table, it detracts from the article and a list of names (in this case) is pretty meaningless. Thx! --PopUpPirate 23:17, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I would disagree, but maybe make it a smaller table, and put it on the right hand side, down the side of the text. Batmanand | Talk 23:19, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Transhumanism

[edit]

This article seems pretty comprehensive, has a good lead and inline references. Any comments before it is off to FAC would be much appreciated.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 21:45, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes it looks pretty good to me. Nice job! The only minor issues I might have would be a rather lengthy introduction; a majority of the article focus being on criticisms, and the inclusion of Theodore Kaczynski as a "militant". But nothing I can't live with. Thanks! :) — RJH 15:10, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The lead has been shortened. The focus on criticisms actually provides an opportunity to present transhumanist positions and arguments quite well. The inclusion of the Unabomber as a militant can be justified by not only by the fact that this word is sometimes used synonymously with terrorist but also the coherence and relative influence of his neo-Luddite manifesto, http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Industrial_Society_and_Its_Future --Loremaster 18:37, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. — RJH 15:38, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • This article is well on its way to becoming a FA but still needs fine-tuning. Some comments:
    • Footnotes & references (Footnote numbers are current to the date stamp below but are subject to change):
      • The "Notes" section does not seem to be formated consistently. Some provide ext.links, some I have to track down in the references.
      • The sources used for footnote numbers 1, 6, 10, 11, 12, 18 do not appear in the Reference section.
      • Footnote 3 misquotes the subject.
      • Where does TransCentury UPdate's "100,000 viewers" figure come from? I do not see it in the footnote source.
      • Footnote 17 gives the first name of the author; should be last name.
      • Footnote 19 is empty - is that where this claim of a quantum leap in the mid-21st C. comes from?
      • In Spirituality, what is footnote 13 used to reference? The source does not seem to relate to what is written in that paragraph.
    • History
      • This reads like the history of an industry or organization, not an intellectual movement. I'd prefer to see more about the origin of the concept and how that changed over time. The Bostrom-A History of Transhumanist Thought reference did a great job at this.
      • I don't quite get what the first sentence in the second paragraph of History is is saying, can it be expressed more clearly?
      • What was this about "Alcor Life Extension Foundation"? It is abruptly introduced but not explained. Why did it become a nexus?
      • That parapraph about the "early 1980s at the University of California, Los Angeles" is confusing and the footnotes did not help. How does Space Tourism and EZTV Media relate to the activities (conference, convention?) at UCLA?
    • Also...
      • The last paragraph/sentence of Spirituality should probably be expanded. The current version simply states that papers have been written on the subject. But, what about them?
      • Some of the thumbed-images, like "Converging technologies", could use better image captions, please see Wikipedia:Captions.
      • There is an image of "Digitalism" in the Spirituality section, but the section does not explain what it is or how it relates to transhumanism. --maclean25 20:19, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, Maclean, for pointing out all the details that have been bothering me as well. We'll work on this during the next few days. --Loremaster 21:57, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Maclean:

This article is well on its way to becoming a FA but still needs fine-tuning. Some comments: Footnotes & references (Footnote numbers are current to the date stamp below but are subject to change): The "Notes" section does not seem to be formated consistently. Some provide ext.links, some I have to track down in the references.

I've fixed some of this and gave a rationale for leaving some Notes as just links.

The sources used for footnote numbers 1, 6, 10, 11, 12, 18 do not appear in the Reference section.

See previous comment.

Footnote 3 misquotes the subject.

I fixed this.

Where does TransCentury UPdate's "100,000 viewers" figure come from? I do not see it in the footnote source.

I don't know the answer to this.

Footnote 17 gives the first name of the author; should be last name.

I fixed this.

Footnote 19 is empty - is that where this claim of a quantum leap in the mid-21st C. comes from?

I don't understand what he means by 'empty." It seems ok to me.

In Spirituality, what is footnote 13 used to reference? The source does not seem to relate to what is written in that paragraph.

This should be fixed by someone who knows the Hughes reference.

History This reads like the history of an industry or organization, not an intellectual movement. I'd prefer to see more about the origin of the concept and how that changed over time. The Bostrom-A History of Transhumanist Thought reference did a great job at this.

This should be fixed by someone familiar with the Bostrom piece.

I don't quite get what the first sentence in the second paragraph of History is is saying, can it be expressed more clearly?

This can be improved by someone familiar with FM-2030's work.

What was this about "Alcor Life Extension Foundation"? It is abruptly introduced but not explained. Why did it become a nexus?

I think this has been fixed; at least Alcor is explained. 'Nexus" seems clear, but maybe should be changed?

That parapraph about the "early 1980s at the University of California, Los Angeles" is confusing and the footnotes did not help. How does Space Tourism and EZTV Media relate to the activities (conference, convention?) at UCLA?

I rewrote some of this section.

Also... The last paragraph/sentence of Spirituality should probably be expanded. The current version simply states that papers have been written on the subject. But, what about them?

Fixed by Loremaster.

Some of the thumbed-images, like "Converging technologies", could use better image captions, please see Wikipedia:Captions.

Fixed.

There is an image of "Digitalism" in the Spirituality section, but the section does not explain what it is or how it relates to transhumanism. --

Fixed.

maclean25 20:19, 7 April 2006 (UTC) --StN 04:03, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

--StN 04:09, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lincoln Town Car

[edit]

This article has shaped up very nicely, and I would like some ideas on how this article can be improved, and maybe some day it could become a featured article! --Karrmann

  • The layout is rather confusing. I think that all of the first several sections should be subsections underneath the History section. In addition, please provide WP:FOOTNOTEs where appropriate. Thanks, AndyZ t 00:57, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's not considered good practice these days to provide 'low grade' links - and (especially) the practice of linking every year number is no longer acceptable. I agree with AndyZ's comments about organisation. We have the year numbers marching down the article with section headings about vehicle models intruding occasionally - I'm not sure what I'd do to change that - but I don't like it the way it is. This fragmentary appearance is made worse by the profusion of small tables (in one case with just one actual entry!). These would be less intrusive to the flow of the article if they were combined together into a single table at the bottom of the main body of text (before the References perhaps). Aside from that, I think this is a great article. Well done! SteveBaker 14:53, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your great input. I have given your suggestions considerable thought and have been able to make what I consider to be significant improvments to the article. Thank you and please let me know any more suggestion you might have towards improving this article. Best Regards, Signaturebrendel 03:08, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I deleted the remainder of the year links for you. Two further things: Firstly, you should convert your references to the inlined <ref> format and use the {cite...} format so you get all the information about the books/websites/whatever nicely organised for you. Then you can tag your text with your references so people can easily see which reference backs up which facts. Secondly, the article is rather light on links throughout. This is more evident now that the year links are gone. SteveBaker 04:41, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

History of Burnside

[edit]

This article details the history of Burnside, a local government area in the Adelaide Metropolitan Region, South Australia. It is comprehensive, well referenced and spans from Aboriginal history to the present day. michael talk 04:32, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers for that. I've broken the intro paragraph in two, but I've restored the image sizes - most viewers are not wikipedia users and unable to adjust their image size preferences. I'll take any suggestions for rewording the intro sentence. I'm stumped personally. michael talk 12:56, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Emil Jellinek

[edit]

I know it has some spell problems. Though, I saw that´s the best article of the Internet also. Give it a chance, please.--AndresArce 17:50, 10 April 2006 (UTC)Andres Arce[reply]

It looked like it had been machine translated into English. I have been through it and done an edit. Some of the language is still a bit clunky but I think it now can be read. Malcolma 19:29, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Watchmen

[edit]

I think this page has the potential to be a good article, but at the moment it is bogged down with certain issues. The main one at the moment is whether or not a "Themes" article should be added to the page or not. Whilst there are certain themes present in the novel, they are not verifiable, and, when written in the article, verge on being POV (see the talk page). Any suggestions on how to resolve this would be appreciated, as well as any suggestions on how to improve the article in general (perhaps referring to other comic book articles?). Thanks Adasta 23:48, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Morphy

[edit]

The article is detailed and well researched but unfortunately deeply POV-ridden, for example:

He was extremely polite, cultured, quiet, and reserved. In appearance he was small in stature, slim, and always impeccably dressed. His sense of sportsmanship was of the highest caliber, and his combination of brilliant play and personal modesty made him a welcome guest everywhere.

However, User:Drogo Underburrow objects my editing of the article, and redaction of comments like "an invaluable resource" and "a great book", on the basis that I haven't read the relevant books. I wondered if Peer Review might clarify the situation. Also other suggested improvements to the article would be welcome. Soo 16:53, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As this edit is your only contribution to the article, I question the good faith of this request. Inline citation however, are a good method to attribute value judgements without cluttering up the prose needlessly. --zippedmartin 22:24, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that I have not edited the article ought to tell you that I am neutral with respect to it. Perhaps you should read WP:AGF and check out my edit history here before making accusations. Soo 11:18, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Asuming it doesn't mean you're never allowed to question it. It's never stopped people throwing policy pages around innappropriately, for starts. Peer review is simply most effective when active editors on the article request it, and are willing to put in work to make changes suggested. As you're unlikely to go and get the reference book, look up relevant passages, and then edit the article, there's not really much good me saying to you "inline citations are often useful for value judgements". If you're coming to peer review because you had an argument with someone on the talk page, you're probably not here for the right reasons. Just leave the pov tag if you like and get back to creating and editing articles. --zippedmartin 16:26, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I was going to reply to this, but then I thought, "Why bother?" Soo 19:22, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Should be: I was going to reply to the content of this... 24.16.251.40 03:17, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Grendel (novel)

[edit]

A number of editors have edited this article; mostly, they are interested in the novel as favourite reading, however, now is the time for independant eyes to review and edit it afresh. Also, anyone familiar with the novel, but who have not contributed so far, please check the factual information, accuracy of what is there and what should be included. :: Kevinalewis : (Talk Page)/(Desk) 13:08, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A few things to point out (as someone who has not read the book by the way)
-I believe the intro needs to be reworded. Perhaps a little bit more substance in there would be good too.
-The plot introduction also needs to have more.
-The spoilers are out of control. I personally don't think there should ever be spoiler warnings, but certainly not 2 sets of them.
-'in medias res' is a nice term, but I imagine about 95% of the people who read the article would have to click the link to know what is being talked about. I know I did.
-"Main Themes" is listed as a stub section, but it's not even that, as there's nothing there. Something should be done about that.
-The movie 'Grendel Grendel Grendel' is spoken of twice. Is that neccessary?
-In the plot summary I see lots of problems with punctuation and conjunctions.
-Sounds like 8th grade writing, with perhaps (just guessing here) pieces of the actual text used, such as "greeted by moonlight", "goring him", and "enraptures and seduces".
-Use of Names and Pronouns doesn't seem balanced.
-Plot Summary seems just to be a list of events as they took place, rather then a summarization of the book as a whole.
-The Characters in "Grendel" section needs to have more, perhaps a list of the characters (without the red links), or maybe if enough of the characters get mentioned in the plot summary, lose the section altogether.
--Chuck 13:35, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Made changes to 'in medias res' issue
The Characters added
Trivia worked into Main Themes section
Spoiler section thus reduced to one section. :: Kevinalewis : (Talk Page)/(Desk) 14:46, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've attempted to reword the introduction (though I seem to have taken out some of the substance, sorry). MikeBriggs 16:13, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So, I wrote the original article, mostly in one night. I think most of the language problems come from the fact that the plot summary was reduced almost by a third, since it had sprawled on so long. The 8th grade comment was cute, but the pronoun use, unusual terms, and choppy style are a result of this. I'm sorry it's so sloppy, but I'm just too busy to fix it up. Donbas 23:17, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I was of course being very critical above. It is not a bad article. I was certainly able to understand the plot from reading it. --Chuck 03:26, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I went through the article and edited it extensively for wikification (many errors in basic grammar, spelling, neturality) and also to make it more in the format of a factual summary. The article still needs input from readers who are willing to comment on the themes in the novel - specifically, discussion of the philosophy expounded by each of the main characters. Preferably, these would include links to schools of thought as well as some discussion about what Gardner may have meant.

Thanks in addition for referencing the Grendel opera. Irregulargalaxies 04:03, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  1. Should split up the plot section into sub-sections. Personally, I would subsume the plot sections as follows:
  1. Plot
  1. Plot introduction
  2. Plot summary
  1. Various attacks and dialogoues...
  2. etc.
Also, you should probably either fill out or remove the main themes section. --maru (talk) contribs 00:31, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Final Fantasy X

[edit]

I'm nominating this page as I think it holds to a high standard of quality, and I'd like to see it become a Featured Article. Therefore, I'm requesting this Peer Review in the hopes that some creative advice can be given to myself and other editors of the page, and hopefully allow us to achieve that with it. Thanks in advance to all who offer advice. Ryu Kaze 00:06, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Some of the prose features extremely long sentences that I don't mind, but many readers will find hard to digest. I've started to break a few of them up.
  • Some of the character, trivia, and location information could be trimmed.

— Deckiller 14:58, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Lead: No complaints.
  • Gameplay: Needs a more general introduction before jumping into the battle system. This can be as simple as "As in previous Final Fantasy games, the player (controlling Tidus) explores towns and dungeons, solves puzzles, and fights monsters."
  • Gameplay subheadings: Each section is only one or two paragraphs; I'm not sure the subdivisions are much needed.
  • Battle System: Again, introduce it in a more general context before jumping into the differences between it and prior FF games.
  • Sphere Grid: The first paragraph is not "brilliant prose". Unfortunately, by Smerek's law, I can't think of a good way to correct this. Not using the word "allocate" would be a start. The second paragraph is fine.
    • I've edited the paragraph in question, since it seems to have been further muddled with extra information. I'm still not 100% happy with it, but right now it's the direction I'd take it in.
  • Story: I can never figure out how much is appropriate for a plot summary. But do note that the three CVG FAs with an actual story (LoZ:MM, LoZ:TWW, and StarCraft) cover the game's plot from start to finish, not just the introduction of the major elements. Here it's just as important because FFX sets up the plot for FFX-2.
    • Thank you! I get it now!
  • Characters: The designer info is good (if a bit lengthy), but note that the only other mention of the other characters is embedded in a spoiler warning.
  • Reception: Totally needs expanded.
  • Trivia: As above. Trim it.

Hope that helps a bit. Nifboy 22:39, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot for your feedback. It'll be taken into account. Ryu Kaze 22:44, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Very helpful feedback. IMHO "Sphere Grid" would deserve its own heading as it is notably unique in the franchise. ~ Flooch 04:39, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Story: this summary is a bit wordy in parts.
  • Characters: I have some reservations about how the designer interviews are integrated into the article, and have been considering creating a section called "Background and development". On the other hand, they also fit quite well into their respective sections, so I am reluctant to do this without other opinions. Thoughts? ~ Flooch 04:39, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Agreed. I think a resonable trim for the story section is 30 percent. Normally, trimming plot summaries is my forte, but I think I'll give Ryu the honors for this one :) — Deckiller 04:43, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I see you guys have been working on trimming it all up. Nice edits. As far as trimming the story further goes, I'll try, but I really don't know if it'll be possible to condense any further than its current state while maintaining coherency. There's absolutely so much to FFX's story that relates to either the main plot or Tidus' own place in it (which is integral due to the relationship between him and the player) that it's not going to be easy, and we're down to the barebones of that now, it looks like. I will try, though.
As for the developer info, I think it should remain where it is. It really does fit there, and I just can't see the justification of two different sections to talk about different angles of the same subject. Thanks for all your help, guys. We really are making something special out of this. Ryu Kaze 11:11, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well... damn. I've spent nearly the last hour working on trimming, right? And when I started, the page was at 48 kb, right? Well, it's still at 48 kb, and that's after shrinking several sentences in the Story section and punting several parts from the Trivia section (they were repeated on their respective subjects' pages). I don't think it's getting any smaller than this, guys. The Story section can't go any shorter than this without being impossible to understand, the Gameplay sections can't shrink any further without becoming stubs and the Character and Geography sections won't be FA worthy if they lose any developer info. Obviously, Reception is small enough as it is, and that's just with it containing terribly relevant info. Merchandise is the only thing that we could shrink, but I'd advise against that. The article size style guide does say not to sacrifice relevant info for the sake of length. While one might argue that it's not as relevant as the other stuff (which would be true), it does provide diversity in information, which is itself quite relevant.
By the way, remember that the invisible stuff we don't see when looking at the main body of the article (extra text for links and references) is part of that 48 kb. Ryu Kaze 11:56, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I just managed to reduce it to 45 kb by adding a bunch of reference shortcuts and removing a chunk of invisible text that had been left in the Character section. 45 kb sound okay to everyone? Ryu Kaze 12:06, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
44 kb now. I found a few more shortcuts I could add. Ryu Kaze 12:13, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Looking it over further, I suppose we could sacrifice the Ultimania section if everyone thinks it necessary. If we do, though, we'd have to do the same on the Final Fantasy X-2 page for consistency's sake. I'd hate to lose the info, but if that's what you guys think we should do, just say so. Ryu Kaze 12:18, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, what the hell. I'll go ahead and do it. Ryu Kaze 12:19, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Even taking out that whole extra paragraph on Ultimania only reduced the page to 43 kb. I really really don't think we can -- or should -- drop anything else. Thoughts? Ryu Kaze 12:29, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Good work on your latest edits Ryu. The article file size isn't a problem to me. However, the overall coherence is, and to at the moment, the article is in it's best shape ever, even if it is at 43kB. I'm going to take a break, come back in a few hours, read over the whole article and see what other things I can think of.
P.S. OMG, learn to use the Show Preview button more! You're monopolizing the edit history! :) ~ Flooch 12:50, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, I'll take care of it. Good catch. Ryu Kaze 15:14, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, we're down to 42 kb and I think it's about as good as it's going to get. If anybody else agrees that it's ready for FA, I'll go ahead and nominate it. Ryu Kaze 15:21, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I tightened it a bit too: All sales are now on"Reception" and the opening paragraph just links to it Renmiri 14:51, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd suggest completely removing the Trivia section. You've already moved most of the salient facts (like sales figures, etc) into appropriate parts in the main body of the article, and I think that the remaining items under Trivia are truly trivial and don't warrant inclusion in the article. FACs can be brutal for this type of article, so keep it on PR for a few more days and solicit all the suggestions you can. :-) --NormanEinstein 21:45, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your suggestions. Personally, I think half of the Trivia info (the development stuff) is worth keeping, but I really think we could ddrop the rest. Ryu Kaze 23:05, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have gotten a lot of good feedback by game fans on the "blitzball photo shoot" trivia bit. I'd like to keep at least a one liner on it with links to the blitz page. The JAT interview where the "mystery" of Tidus 2 voices is explained trivia bit is also one of my favorites but that one I have to admit that it may be gamecruft Renmiri 14:35, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ooops! Nevermind, both of my wonderful pieces of trivia are gone! ;) - Carry on with the removal then Renmiri 14:51, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
They were, indeed, nice. I hated to see any of the Trivia go to be honest. I even saved the JAT thing to my harddrive. Ryu Kaze 14:55, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks to recent edits by Renmiri and Flooch, the article's down to 40 kb. We managed to reach your target size, Deck. Good work, guys. Ryu Kaze 21:36, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Article looks great now. I'll go through and make any minor touchups I see, but I think we're ready for FA nomination unless anyone has any other suggestions. — Deckiller 21:46, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'll try to trim it down tonight, but the story section is still at least 10 percent too long IMO. I highly recommend reducing at least 3-4 lines out of it somehow, just to make the overall article look balance and concise. Then again, this is based on my experience, which may be different then what we'll see in thia FAC. — Deckiller 22:15, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've no objection to the nomination going ahead. As far as trimming the story further goes, I'm not sure if that would be possible at this point while maintaining coherence. FFX's story confuses people who actually played the game enough as it is, really. Ryu Kaze 22:38, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I second Ryu's, but let me see if I can trim a bit out of it.. Renmiri 16:47, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Cut almost 600 chracters (10%) and put the story in sequence. Does anyone want to scrub it up a bit more ? Renmiri 18:15, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps it's just me, but I think some of the sentences read kinda awkwardly. — Deckiller 18:16, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You want to do it or should I? *cranks chainsaw* Ryu Kaze 03:43, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Meh.. Good job Ryu. I saved the guy's work to wikibooks, just in case. What kills me about this guys who want to make a game manual out of a Wikipedia FF article is that when I invite them to help me do it at Wikibooks all I hear is silence! Renmiri 16:47, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yep. I had the same problem over at Smash Bros. Melee. Nifboy 17:32, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Honestly, I prefer the way the story was fixed up prior to Floorch's revert. I think Renmiri did well in condensing the necessary information. I recommend going back to it. — Deckiller 20:05, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Refer to [8]. Please do take the time to read both versions, as I genuinely believe the revert is much easier to understand. Sequence is well and good but Renmiri left the second half of the Story section in a shambles. For a reader that knows nothing about FFX, the revert is much easier to follow. Also, the revert only applies to the second half of the section. The first half, last edited by Deckiller, was kept. ~ Flooch 20:22, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ah ok, I see what you're saying. The only major issue I see with the second half is some of the sentences may be a little awkward because they have so much info in them. Other than that, I can understand the revert. — Deckiller 20:30, 19 April 2006 (UTC) [from my talk page. Flooch 21:07, 19 April 2006 (UTC)][reply]
Some of the recent changes were good, but please mind proper capitalization, guys. Refer to the Mythology page's archives for the list. Also, why are we omitting Rikku from the story summary? Ryu Kaze 21:35, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, and "temples" (in addition to being lowercase) should be plural. Ryu Kaze 21:36, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There's a few subtleties of the story that were missed here. Lines like "fighting Yu Yevon without the Final Aeon prevented him from making a new Sin" are not entirely correct, as he could have used Ifrit or any of them; we should just not make reference to aeons there. Ryu Kaze 21:50, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Okaaaayyy and apparently my changes didn't take effect and I didn't notice this before closing that window. Fuck.Duck. Ryu Kaze 21:56, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I saved it to clipboard, so I still have it... but the changes aren't showing up. Oh, and guys, we should try to make "1,000" always be "one thousand." More encyclopedic. Ryu Kaze 21:58, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, almost all numbers should be spelled out. — Deckiller 21:59, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
My changes finally went through. Praise be to Yevon. Ryu Kaze 22:00, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
What the... *looks a few messages up* ...duck. Deck, is something wrong with the servers? It's like the page is flopping back and forth between new and old edits. Ryu Kaze 22:02, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, the servers have been awkward all day. It took me over three minutes to register an edit on the FFX page earlier. — Deckiller 22:04, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The main page was actually down for a few hours today. And there's definitely something fishy going on -- Ryu's last edit on the article wasn't as extensive as advertised (see diff) ~ Flooch 22:16, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oh what the fuckDuck. It said it took it. Jesus Christ Yu Yevon. Give me a little while to go back and do it all again, guys. Ryu Kaze 22:22, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, thanks for giving me the window to do it in. It's done. Ryu Kaze 22:49, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is there anything anyone really feels would get in the way of an FA vote at this point? I mean, even with all we've done to the story section today, it's not that different from what it was before. And we're at that target kb size now. I think we should go ahead and nominate it and see if it can make it. We could always make minor tweaks during the nomination process. Ryu Kaze 23:43, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I still recommend waiting a couple of days just to make sure no people says "Refer to Peer Review" ;) — Deckiller 00:06, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Could you elaborate on that concept for me? I'm not sure if I get it entirely. Does it mean "I've looked at the Peer Review and think there was something there you missed, so I'm referring you back to it cryptically" or does it mean "I think you could have had a longer Peer Review"? Sorry if this is a stupid question. Ryu Kaze 00:26, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it meant that, if the FA reviewers see that the Peer Review hasn't been touched in a couple days, then it's an old review and the article has been changed accordingly. — Deckiller 19:01, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the clarification. Ryu Kaze 04:08, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Story: Ahem... Guys, I thought the idea was to shorten the story section... From Deck's latest (and excellent btw) edit of my abridged version to the current version you guys added 1,500 characters!!!
Isn't there a way we can fix the omissions of Deck and mine shortened version instead of reverting to the longer stuff ? Renmiri 13:51, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I mean, I love the details of how Sin was crafted an all, but those belong in the mythology or the magic of FF pages not here on story IMHO Renmiri 13:54, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your feedback, the issues you addressed have been remedied. :) ~ Flooch 18:22, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, that was what I was trying to point out earlier; some of the details aren't necessary for the main page. Looks great now. — Deckiller 19:01, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it does look a lot better. Good job, Flooch, and good suggestion, Ren. Ryu Kaze 19:24, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, it looks great! Renmiri 00:40, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


It's a gorgeous map, but a little unsightly with the numbers. How about this one instead? Ryu Kaze 03:19, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That is the original one I scanned from my book, isn't it ? You can see I cut a bit on Zaon's side... It is the same one I added the numbers to, only in better resolution. The reason I didn't suggest this one is because it is so good and big that it may get the img police on our case. I've had enough battles with them, but if you guys think it is worth it, I can do a decent scan of it with both sides showing! Renmiri 03:32, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's worth a try if there's no objections from anyone else. Ryu Kaze 12:47, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
OK, the scan is here [9]. Can anyone tell me what is the max scale I can have for it and still stay kosher with the copvio limitations ? Renmiri 22:01, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Holy crap. o.o *saves* Well, I'm sure it would be a lot smaller than that. XD That's a great scan Renmiri. It looks gorgeous. I'm honestly not sure what a safe size for the image would be. Though if it were anything smaller than this, the details wouldn't be all that visible. Ryu Kaze 23:48, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think we should. Ryu Kaze 14:30, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The more I think about it, the more I think that we definitely should since it displays the game's art style and is a great example of the asian inspiration. I'm going to go ahead and add it in. Ryu Kaze 22:41, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed 100%, that is why I went into the trouble of scanning it twice . Renmiri 05:22, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Good work, Ren. Ryu Kaze 14:28, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Any other suggestions? Ryu Kaze 01:34, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
esolThis user is NOT a native speaker of English and uses English as a Second Language. Please be patient with tipos typos and error grammars!
Oooo - I leave that in the capable hands of the English native speakers here and also leave a msg at JarlaxleArtemis page, he is great at tweaking narrative! I gotta confess I'm not en-N but esol Renmiri 02:38, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Whoa, seriously? I would have never guessed that. What is your native language, Ren? Ryu Kaze 03:04, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

maybe its just me, but i hate red links.... in my opionion, the red links should be taken out, or someone should make a page for them: Motomu Toriyama, Takayoshi Nakazato, Shintaro Takai, Fumi Nakashima, and whatever other ones there are. maybe just a single page labeled "Final Fantasy X Staff" then just have them linked to the apporpriate sections.... but thats just my two cents -Xornok 18:12, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good point but I think the proper thing to do is to either stub them (create a stub page for each) or link to their page at IMDB.

Ike Altgens

[edit]

Please see talk page for rationale. RadioKirk talk to me 05:10, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nice, thank you :) RadioKirk talk to me 19:50, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Quote from book added per suggestion. Any more takers? :) RadioKirk talk to me 17:21, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • The article gives a good description of how the photos were taken but perhaps provide more detailed descriptions of what his photos show: both in the Wikipedia:Captions and in the prose in the body (also a more detailed description on the image pages would be useful, too). --maclean25 05:27, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, thank you :) RadioKirk talk to me 12:45, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

William Gillette

[edit]

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

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

  • The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program, and may or may not be accurate for the article in question (due to possible javascript errors/uniqueness of articles).
  • Per WP:MOSNUM, there should be a non-breaking space - &nbsp; between a number and the unit of measurement. For example, instead of 18mm, use 18 mm, which when you are editing the page, should look like: 18&nbsp;mm.
  • Generally, trivia sections are looked down upon; please either remove the trivia section or incorporate any important facts into the rest of the article.
  • Please reorder/rename the last few sections to follow guidelines at WP:GTL.
  • Please alphabetize the categories and interlanguage links.
  • This article needs footnotes, preferably in the cite.php format recommended by WP:WIAFA. Simply, enclose inline citations, with WP:CITE or WP:CITE/ES information, with <ref>THE FOOTNOTE</ref>. At the bottom of the article, in a section named “References” or “Footnotes”, add <div class="references-small"><references/></div>.
    • To assist you with this, add {{subst:js|User:AndyZ/monobook.js/footnotehelper.js}} to your monobook.js file (mine is located at User:AndyZ/monobook.js) and then bypass your browser's cache by pressing: Mozilla/Safari/Konqueror: hold down Shift while clicking Reload (or press Ctrl-Shift-R), Internet Explorer: press Ctrl-F5, Opera: press F5. In editing mode, click on the "Footnote creater" tab that appears.
  • Please ensure that the article has gone through a thorough copyediting so that the it exemplifies some of Wikipedia's best work. See also User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 2a.
  • The Legacy section is weak, and a Reception/Criticism section would help to make it more comprehensive.
  • Double check for typos, for example manager.He was and least resistence.
  • There are excessive commas: the puritan leader, who founded the town, In fact, his father, Francis, who (you already introduced the father), And, when , director and actor, by Gustave , pantomime segments, that were , etc.
  • Fix up redundancies. He was a popular actor in the history of the United States. is unnecessary and probably should be merged with the first sentence, along with a citation. Through his association with this play his association with is unnecessary, as you already stated that he wrote it; Through this play is enough. he broadly amassed fans all around the world - if he amassed fans all around the world, then broadly is obviously a redundant word.
  • You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions (and the javascript checklist; see the last paragraph in the lead) for further ideas.
  • Thanks, Andy t 15:17, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The article is in serious need of some serious library research to back up a lot of it. I won't deny that. I'll have a look at some of the other points when I get a chance! Thanks! --JohnDBuell 17:32, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Green Party of Canada

[edit]

I think it's generally a well-written article that could use some minor tweaking, and thus I'm nominating it for peer review. Ardenn 06:54, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Two quick things to take a look at: the lead needs to be longer to provide readers with a summary of the article. Aim for two to three paragraphs, and see WP:LEAD for ideas. If your end goal is to become a featured article, references and sources will be required. Checkout WP:CITE and some articles that use referencing to get a feel for the method. --NormanEinstein 13:13, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Some comments:
    • The article requires references (put all sources used in writing the article in a "References" section and leave the "Ext.links" for recommended further (online) readings see Wikipedia:Guide to writing better articles#External links (also called Further reading)).
    • Inline citations are also required to show where the sources were used and to reference those 'debatable' points (see Wikipedia:Footnotes#Footnote overview.
    • All the links in "Provincial and Territorial Green parties" are already displayed in the {{GPC}} template, so this section is unnecessary.
    • Sections that consists of only lists (like "Leaders" and most of "Election results") are frowned upon. Consider converting the leaders into a table and use prose to describe what each person did as the leader (how they influenced the party). See Bath School disaster#The day of the disaster or Saffron#Chemistry for ideas integrating tables into prose.
    • Very short sections are usually signs that something is not right with the organization of the article. For instance, the one-sentence section "Current policy debates" can be merged into "Policies"
    • The "History" should be written as in summary style of that main article (see Wikipedia:Summary style --maclean25 04:51, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Freemasonry

[edit]

This was once a truly great article. It is now being disputed for factual and neutral accuracy. I would like a peer review so we can get it back up to feature article status as it once was. Ardenn 16:30, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if i'd be able to really make a good review of this article, but one thing that struck me was that, well, it's really long. I mean really long. Is it at all possible you could take some of that and put it into other articles, such as a "symbols of freemasonry" or something? Homestarmy 23:47, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The Lead section is totally unencyclopedic, as a review of the guideline will show. It should provide an overview of the subject and the article's contents. Instead, it mentions nothing of FM's origin, mythic or otherwise, and contains hardly any mention of the succeeding nine or so sections. Since my first attempt at redacting this was reverted, I think I'll leave it up to you guys to decide if it should be fixed. I also edited the lede to rm "organisationally," which I'm not sure is actually a word in English, but whatever.
The article is 75k, and while that's not deadly, there is a lot of dead weight that can be trimmed. History of Freemasonry still runs on and on, and could be cut into two paragraphs or less, with the rest moved into the subarticle. The article you're writing is supposed to be an overview of Freemasonry in general, not an exhaustive review of its history. Good luck! Kaisershatner 17:36, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jesus

[edit]

(October 2005 Jesus peer review located here: archive 1) (April 2006 Jesus peer review located here: archive 2)

We seem to have reached a relative low point in things to be edited. We've recently instituted a newly re-done section on the teachings section, the only citation needed tag seems to concern the Star of Bethleham and something about Jupiter and Saturn being in conjunction I think, and really, it seems most everything else is referenced. So therefore, I think its high time for yet another peer review, Does anyone think this might nearly be an FA? What about A class? The only disputes really left now are some UFO theory on the talk page right now, and occasionally people edit the wording in the excruciatingly discussed introduction and make people unhappy, but other than that, most of the new content proposels constitute adding in good amounts of material which may or may not really be necessary. But hey, if anyone has suggestions about more material, it can't hurt. Homestarmy 20:09, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There's a references section which could all do with in line use. I also think a point the article needs to make is what Jesus was preaching: love most of all. Wiki-newbie 20:27, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • I read through the narrative portion which gave me enough issues to not need to go further.
    • References still need work throughout the narative section. Here is a sample paragraph The Gospel of John describes three different passover feasts over the course of Jesus' ministry. This implies that Jesus preached for a period of three years, although some interpretations of the Synoptic Gospels suggest a span of only one year. The focus of his ministry was toward his closest adherents, the Twelve Apostles, though many of his followers were considered disciples. Jesus led what many believe to have been an apocalyptic following. He preached that the end of the current world would come unexpectedly; as such, he called on his followers to be ever alert and faithful.
      • "some interpretations" and "many believe" need to be properly detailed and referenced. This is a commmon problem throughout the narrative portion of the article.
    • Also the Bible is not being cited properly when it is used as a reference. Especially when you are using direct quotes you need to give the exact edition you are quoting. I also believe you should use the proper citation template whenever you use the Bible as a reference. However beyond even that, it would be better if you could find a more reliable source as to use as a reference. Preferably one that examines several older copies of the Greek manuscripts (which it identifies) in order to write a scholarly opinion focused only on the matter Jesus, rather one that examines unknown versions and translates them with the idea of providing a complete holy book in English. Maybe there is not such a reference, but I would find it surprising.
    • Also I wonder about the scope of what you are trying to do in the narrative. Rather than summarizing the important opinions on various portions Jesus's life (which have daughter articles) and puuting them into the context of why this is important, the article seems to want to account for every discrepency mentioned in the scriptures. This is a problem throughout the narative portion, but a good example is Many scholars hold that the Gospel of John depicts the crucifixion just before the Passover festival on Friday 14 Nisan, called the Quartodeciman, whereas the synoptic gospels (except for Mark 14:2) describe the Last Supper, immediately before Jesus' arrest, as the Passover meal on Friday 15 Nisan; however, a number of scholars hold that the synoptic account is harmonious with the account in John. Try to focus on telling an account of Jesus and if people disagree about things explain why they disagre and what that really means. Avoid making tis portion of the article about the Bible.--Birgitte§β ʈ Talk 19:59, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Much of the narrative part has been refactored somewhat recently, though alot of it was re-arranging sentences and choosing different words and whatnot. Homestarmy 03:51, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • A quick glance shows the same problems I outlined above. I will not waste my time going over an article when the nominator neither responds to my review nor makes significant edits to the article within a week. I think it unacceptable for people to make nominations for Peer Review when they are not prepared to immediately to significant work to the article. To many nominations never get more than the semi-automated review and it a shame for people to waste time on unresponsive nominators.--Birgitte§β ʈ Talk 18:44, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cowboys Are Frequently, Secretly Fond of Each Other

[edit]

Originally submitted to FAC. Since then has gained headings and lost weasel words. Still needs information such as ratings and previous single. Hyacinth 08:18, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Am I to assume that nothing is wrong with the article? Hyacinth 01:25, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I don't think there is anything wrong persay. I'm thinking its probably just a little short for FA's liking, but it seems totally complete. I think you might get away with actually including the Boondocks cartoon in the article itself, instead of just linking. -- Zanimum 15:55, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Theatre Royal, Drury Lane

[edit]

One of the most important theatres in London since the Restoration period. Looking for areas of improvement before FAC-ing. I'm sure I must have missed plenty of crucial points in the 350 years of history I've tried to cover. I know the lead's short, and ideas about what else should be in there would be great. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 04:27, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good, although I'm not a regular on FAC so I've probably missed stuff that they will pick up upon. One thing though is the red link to patent theatres in the intro. Might be an idea to create a stub as its not obvious what they are until the middle of the article. RicDod 10:17, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, that is something I've been meaning to do, but haven't gotten around to yet. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 14:58, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Looks lovely! I'll take a good look later. But it seems to me that you run into the Same Knife problem a bit. Owner repairs the knife by putting a new haft on it; next owner repairs it again, by putting a new blade on it. Is it in any sense still the same knife? The physical playhouse is destroyed by fire and rebuilt from the ground up a number of times; the enterprise or "company" starts over from scratch a number of times. So in what sense is this the same theatre? The name? The street? Indeed, what is "*a* theatre"? I'm not putting this forward as an objection to having an article about the Theatre Royal, you understand. I think it's great that we now have one. More as something that I would look for having explicated/defined up front. Perhaps indeed in the lead section, where you say the Theatre Royal "is a theatre" but then go on to speak of the present theatre being the last in a line of different theatres that "opened in 1663 (burned down in 1672), 1674 (demolished in 1791) and 1794 (burned down in 1809)". How many knives are there? (Three?) Bishonen | talk 11:22, 18 April 2006 (UTC).[reply]
  • Congrats on a truely marvelous article! Your work has certainly paid off and you included the ghosts! I made a few minor corrections here and there. The only thing that I see missing is about how the theatre acquired it's name as the Theatre Royal. The first paragraph under the First theatre section states it was called the Theatre in Bridges Street but then the final sentence refers to it as the Theatre Royal. I will check the Oxford Companion to the Theatre as I think it has an explanation. I'll do it once I get home from work. *Exeunt* Ganymead | Dialogue? 20:53, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Ganymead! That's a good point about the naming; I think in point of fact the "official" name of the place was largly undefined in the early days, but maybe I'm incorrect about that. I saw your edits, they were good, especially fixing the Joseph Grimaldi link... as for "Humerous", I blame that blackguard Pepys for letting me down with his poor spelling ability. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 21:00, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I'm home and i've consulted Oxford. I swear it explained the name, but I can't find it. It may be in the Cambridge Guide to Theatre which I will take a look at during my rehearsal in a few minutes. After reading the entry in Oxford, I've noticed a few details and things that you may consider expanding on or including. Once I get back from rehearsal, I'll note those on the articles talk page for you to consider including. One point I did notice was that Oxford spells the street "Brydges", I know spelling was a bit dodgey (sp?) in that era, but do all of your sources use "Bridges"? *Exeunt* Ganymead | Dialogue? 21:14, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It's a mixture. See footnote 2's mention of that. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 21:48, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sure the spelling at the time was all over the place, but my modern sources seem to agree on using "Bridges". (Apparently the Oxford Companion has its own idea about it, I hadn't looked there.) Bishonen | talk 22:28, 18 April 2006 (UTC).[reply]
I'm back from rehearsal. I printed out the article and read it while waiting (a long time) to go onstage. After re-reading it, it's still a marvelous article, but I think it's missing a few things. The article really seems to concentrate on the building and it's managers with some (but still too little, IMHO) discussion of performances. Certainly, the number of plays that premiered there (including Bish's...I mean, Vanbrugh's The Relapse) is impressive and the number of famous actors treading its boards is outstanding. Comparing your article with the lengthy article in the Oxford Companion, probably 1 quarter of the Oxford article discusses performances while I would say your article comprises less. In addition, there are a number of interesting details that Oxford points out that I think could fatten the article up a bit. I'll pull out those facts and leave them on the article's talk page this evening. Oh, and one other thing, I think when this goes to FAC, you'll be asked to expand the intro. Ok, off to the article talk page. *Exeunt* Ganymead | Dialogue? 03:00, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Those are very good ideas. One reason I've skimped on the players and performances is that I've felt a little unable to determine which actors and plays were the notable ones deserving of mention and which would just look like strange trivia. Certainly my discussion of plays is completely imbalanced toward ones with rushing water or galloping horses right now (what!? No monkeys?!). —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 04:13, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm very interested in that picture; where's it from? What play is it, is it Psyche? —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 20:16, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It's Ariadne, see bolded text above. From here. Bishonen | talk 21:10, 19 April 2006 (UTC).[reply]
  • About players and performances: no galloping horses or dancing real live monkeys, but would you like me to add a few lines on the plays of the 1660s and 70s at Drury Lane, before the 1682 merger? It's just 20 years out of 350, I know, but those 20 years saw more important new plays than did, say, 1700—1850. Drury Lane was the home of talk drama, in counterpoint to the Duke's Company's emphasis on spectacle, scenery, "opera", and machines. As I point out in Restoration spec, Davenant and Betterton of the Duke's Company were hugely more successful than the King's Company at Drury Lane, which was riven by conflict between powerful actors at odds with management and with each other (Michael Mohun and Charles Hart especially). And Killigrew was always being wrong-footed by Davenant's greater initiative and energy. There were good reasons the King's ended up getting eaten by the Duke's. But what I don't mention in Rest spec, which I see as going nicely here, is the other side of the coin: the fantastic dialogue-driven Restoration comedies, now classics, that were being produced at Drury Lane. Especially the very first seasons of the 1674 theatre are miraculous, with George Etherege's The Man of Mode and William Wycherley's The Country Wife (an, ahem, Featured article) and The Plain Dealer. In plays like these, also, the strengths of the obstreperous Drury Lane actors made them co-creators of the distinctive kind of repartee — Charles Hart and Nell Gwyn are credited especially. Of course you could perfectly well do this yourself, with the help especially of articles Restoration comedy and The Country Wife (which has a potentially useful bit about some important Drury Lane actors). Most of the other stuff I've linked here is unreconstructed 1911 EB, to my shame. Bishonen | talk 22:11, 19 April 2006 (UTC).[reply]

Call of Duty 2

[edit]

This needs a little bit of cleanup (especially the Multiplayer section, sheesh) and reliable citation. It could also use a little bit more information. I'm sure we could make this top 10 X360 game a FA! (In other words, please review, but more importantly please help!) — Ilyanep (Talk) 18:29, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I changed some of the outgoing links as notes to actual inline citations, will convert the rest in a bit here :-) --lightdarkness (talk) 18:19, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I changed them to <references />

Here are some style considerations:

  1. The reviews section should cite who says what, instead of "some said" and "others say" it would be better to write which magazine/homepage (IGN or what not) represent that view of the game.
  2. References should be much more clear, mentioning where they were published and who the author is.
  3. The gallery section might be spread out through the article, inserted at points where they are mentioned - that would make a much more compelling article.
  4. The external links section should really be weeded out - having a general site like xboxdream.com as a link gives nothing to the article.

I hope you find this useful, Poulsen 07:56, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. What I've done so far is re-done a few of the references sections in order to include "IGN:..." instead of just "Call of Duty 2 Review". I dispersed the screenshots in the article, and it's a lot less boring this way. I'm about to weed out the external links section. — Ilyanep (Talk) 02:48, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Same-sex marriage in Canada

[edit]

This article is good, but needs some work so it can eventually be re-nominated for feature article status. Ardenn 07:00, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • I suggest the following:
  • WP:LEAD- please shortern the lead, to a maximum of 3 paragraphs, so that it is brief and terse
  • WP:V and WP:FOOTNOTE- instead of imbedded external links, convert them to inline citations. There are also many numbers that should be cited.
  • WP:CITE- (in addition to the footnotes) have citation information for the sources used (consider {{Cite web}}
  • WP:MOS- remove the "the"s in front of the headings
  • WP:WIAFA- simplify the long ToC, and "that the prose is compelling, even brilliant"
  • Thanks, AndyZ t 19:38, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Illmatic

[edit]

This is the wikiproject hip hop's first collaboration effort. We would love it if some one took the time to provide their own feedback before we submit this article for FA-status. Thank you Chubdub 22:33, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Here goes:
    • The lead should be expanded. For the size of this article, WP:LEAD suggests no less than 3 paragraphs in the lead. They should concisely summarize the entire article.
    • "released on April 19, 1994 through " should have a comma after 1994 (see comma (punctuation))
    • According to WP:CONTEXT and WP:DATE, years without full dates should not be linked (I'll fix that)
    • "MC Serch, the former member of the group" the should be changed to a
    • "that Nas did not have recording contract " did not have a recording contract
    • "A potent treat" Needs period.
    • 'Cultural notes' should be prosified (converted into prose form) or integrated into the rest of the article.
    • Per WP:MOS, "The music" should become "Music"
    • Again with WP:MOS, "Music Sample" should become Music sample. However, I would suggest that the single music sample be moved into the article somewhere; for example see Music of the United States.
    • Per WP:AWT, "many feared he was in the process of falling off" could use a citation. Outside of that one sentence I don't believe there are any other weasel words.
  • Thanks, AndyZ t 00:08, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Is it proper for an article to have a "Trivia" section. I know that by definition, its unencylopediec, and I certainly know a lot would rather have it turned into a prose, but according to WP:ALBUM:
Describe history, trivia, themes (musical or lyrical), a consideration of its specific influences, specific followers, where it fits in its genre and what leanings it may have toward others, reasons for the order of tracks (if any), etc. Also, synthesize the general critical reception of the album, being as detailed as possible.

I just want to be sure before I make any major changes to the format. Again, thanks for the advice! Chubdub 09:37, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would avoid a Trivia section if you're planning to nominate this as a FAC, it's often a reason for objections. --Fritz Saalfeld (Talk) 14:45, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kirby (Nintendo)

[edit]

I've decided to give it an individual nomination - suggestions of how to improve this? - A Link to the Past (talk) 07:05, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Just some random comments:
    • A screenshot of Kirby using his powers would be nice (a la Wario).
    • Some of the body paragraphs are a little unfocused; one paragraph starts talking about Beam and then switches over to multiple abilities per power, then back again.
    • A general description of the Kirby series would be beneficial, I think.
    • On the other hand, the abilities and items (which make up a grand majority of the article) should be scaled back.
    • Strange, there's no description of a personality anywhere?
  • More as I think of them later. For now, though, class. Nifboy 14:13, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think the entire ==Kirby's Powers== section should go. It's too crufty for an encyclopedia. Wikipedia isn't a game guide. - The Catfish 02:48, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yunmen Wenyan

[edit]

I did a lot of research for this article, and it hasn't really changed substantially in the past few weeks (aside from some pictures being added). In short, it has plateaued, and I'd like some suggestions and opinions. --maru (talk) contribs 20:47, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you can, fix the red links. Either rename or get rid of Trivia.--Osbus 01:28, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No, unfortunately I cannot. But what name would you suggest for the Trivia section? --maru (talk) contribs 02:37, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps "Media"? The article is in much need of references to back up the various assertions. The word "stele" is used but is not linked or explained. — RJH 14:34, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've given the rename a shot, and linked stele, since we have a good article on it. Incidentally, how is it not referenced? I thought I'd done a reasonable job with that. --maru (talk) contribs 21:56, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes you have general references. But the convention has been to include inline citations referring to specific pages on specific books. Otherwise everybody would need to look through all of your references to check every detail. The use of inline citations is described on Wikipedia:Citing sources. Thanks! :) — RJH 18:15, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Done. --maru (talk) contribs 23:30, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cutman

[edit]

This is the first article I wrote completely from scratch without any template to follow. Any and all feedback would be appreciated. Thank you! --CasualFighter 21:23, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it's a good, informative, well-written article, and one that very usefully fills a niche of missing information in the mixed martial arts sphere. Congratulations! I did find a few ways I think it could be improved however:-

  • I'm not entirely sure how, but I think the opening paragraph needs a re-think, bearing in mind the usual considerations of how much a reader who is ignorant of the general topic, or one who had come from an oblique link (e.g. someone following a link from the film article Million Dollar Baby), would understand the context. Although you've obviously written it with this in mind, I'm not sure it currently goes quite far enough. It's not really clear for example, if we assume the reader knows nothing about combat sports, that cutmen operate only during the breaks between rounds!
  • Nothing I've seen in the article explains *why* cuts stop fights (i.e. what are the safety considerations that cause combat sport fights to be stopped on cuts), and which ones are more likely to stop them than others. This is a central discussion for this article... although it's almost begging to be, or be part of a separate article and have a summary section here. It may already exist - whatever, it needs to be part of this article or linked and highlighted here. Let me know if you need help on this.
  • I would like to see inline reference links, I think this would make the references a lot more usable and help kickstart a reader's personal research.
  • Vaseline may be a genericised trademark in most of the English-speaking world, but unless the non-brand term for it is unrecognisable, I still think it's better/safer to refer to it by it's non-brand name (in this case, Petroleum jelly). Or perhaps Vaseline (petroleum jelly) in the article.
  • The article could generally do with more wikification of terms. For example, there's a solid article on Nosebleeds (which is also the article for Broken Nose). Even some terms that currently don't seem to have an article could do with a wiki-link where an article would be useful - what about Athletic Commission, a term that would not be immediately understandable even to many semi-informed readers? The article could be wikified a lot more than it currently is, and I think this would be of use to many readers. Again, this is an area I feel qualified to help directly with if you wish assistance.
  • To cover the entirety of a subject, you need to think laterally. Cutmen (or at least corner-men acting in a cutman capacity) have been important in fiction - Million Dollar Baby, Rocky, probably several others. A "cutmen in fiction" section would probably be good.

That's all that occurs to me for now, I hope it's helpful. Good show. --Estarriol talk 15:05, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • I think this is an interesting article, but it's got a big problem in that it talks about normal practices for cutmen and such without citing any reference works on their practices or routines. Is it just your opinion and observations or did you get it from reading a book? If it came from books and magazines, or documentaries, the article needs to cite them, otherwise it's full of original research. Night Gyr 00:35, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • My bad, I missed the section at the end of references. This is why inline cites are useful. More inline cites mean that it'll be easier to see where you're drawing your facts from. Night Gyr 00:40, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Planetes

[edit]

This article has gone from being simply a translation of the Italian article (which was a Featured Article) to a very detailed and well-researched article that has gone far beyond the Italian original. Keep in mind that yes, there are a few missing links. But that aside, I would like to know how to upgrade this to at least Good Article status. --TcDohl 16:26, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • needs a "creation" section discussing the authorship, with words from the creators themselves if possible. needs a "legacy" section discussing the impact, significance, other mangas and anime that were infleunced by it, what the creators did next, anything other than the manga and anime. a "reponse" section detailing sales, critical and commerical response, viewing figures etc. Zzzzz 16:34, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Where would you suggest I go and get some sales statistics? --TcDohl 21:22, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Spoiler warning: Plot and/or ending details follow.
Almost no meaningful content and a lot of utter bull... impressive. But seriously, any form of serious secondary source would help the article a great deal. But, as directly fixable points:
  • Relationship between manga and anime is confused, the structure and a fair bit of the prose implies the anime came first.
  • There's mention of the style of the manga, at all.
  • There's no meaningful mention of the style of the anime, just a misleading sentence about the portrayal of weightlessness.
  • There's no mention of the shows creators, bar a redlink to the director.
  • The lead is poor, and US-centric.
  • Bullet points are terribly overused, as are notes to backup uncontroversial statements: "the Planetes manga is a 5-part graphic novel series available in English from TOKYOPOP.[17]"... I mean...
  • The description of the plot, and themes, is terribly uncritical: "set a precedent of portraying a highly multicultural cast of characters respectfully and with minimal use of racial stereotypes" OH, COME ON! Of the three black characters that appear in more than one episode, two are terrorists, and the third is the kind of sambo 'comic' character I thought the world had grown out of. Even has seven children, cliche cliche cliche.
  • Spoiler section contains no meaningful content, either cut it, or discuss the ridiculously chauvinistic ending.
  • Dunno about sales figures, but if you want TV ratings you can get them from a back issue of Newtype.

Anyway, this is a *good article*, as anime articles go. It's just... less good by other standards. --zippedmartin 23:14, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I understand a whole lot of the suggestions you say. Anyway, I thoroughly disagree with your assertion about the racism. Anyway, if you count Hakim as a "black" terrorist (who is actually Arab), then you also have to include Ismail-sempai (from the manga), Ahmad Ibn Fadlan, and his daughter (who are also Arab), neither of whom are terrorists. Lavie is definitely not a "sambo" character. He's not even black, he's Indian, and doesn't have the characteristics of a "sambo", save the dark skin. Who cares if he's got seven kids? It gives the character a clear motivation throughout the series and not simply as "because he's Indian" (though I've never heard the one about Indians having many kids).

I also don't understand how the lead is US-centric. I live in Canada, and I don't really see how that's so. --TcDohl 02:37, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum: Fee is also black, and several chapters in Volume 4 of the manga were about Fee's hermit uncle in the American South who was wrongly accused for crimes because he was black.--TcDohl 02:51, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't disagree that the manga is different, but *in the anime*, the three main darker-skinned-than-japanese characters are either terrorists or racially stereotyped comic characters. I dunno who's been covering that wikip sambo page with links to African American that have been confusing you, 's an Indian character. There's a better term for what I mean (the kind of comic, incompetent and selfish manservant character), but I can't remember it atm. Anyway, whatever preaching the anime does on globalisation issues is thoroughly underminded by its institutional-rasism in characters is portrays.
The lead is I guess more just not-very-good than amerocentric - needs to be three or so paras, the current emphasis on the english language releases just looks a bit silly. --zippedmartin 16:11, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What three characters? Lavie, Claire, and Hakim? You know, you totally forgot about Fee, who is actually African American. Anyway, you still try to explain everything about Lavie, but I still haven't heard of that stereotype. If he were French, then that'd be a stereotype. And if you haven't noticed, most of the SDF were white. The "executive committee" of the SDF were all white, save Hakim. The smoking room bomber was white. The guys that took Dolph hostage were white. The Von Braun invaders were white. Also, Claire didn't start out to be a terrorist, only a victim of bad circumstances. And if you include her as an evil "black character", then what about Temara? He also was a victim of circumstance, but he turned out to be good. The characters in the anime portrayed in a less favourable light are almost all white. Locksmith, Dolph's successor, Edel's ex-husband, Colin, etc. --TcDohl 17:30, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You're missing the point, white 'baddies' doesn't change the fact non-white-non-asians are largely portrayed in a negative way, and conform to the very stereotypes the article currently claims are avoided. (French? I don't get that. You clearly have different French stereotypes where you come from). Fee would count I guess under my clarification, but is clearly mixed race (jesu, I feel like a neo nazi going into this kinda detail) and more to the point, first-world. It's the third^H^H^H^H^H less developed nations that really get it in the neck from the anime. I guess if it's just reinforcing what you believe anyway (and Hollywood certainly believes it), it might be less of a sore thumb. Anyway, that's one point out of... lots, look at the others if you disagree with that one. Arguing over one sentence is not a productive way to spend peer review time. --zippedmartin 18:22, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't find the ending mysoginistic, either for the anime or the manga. In the manga, Tanabe goes back to work and goes on a whole other thing with Fee and Yuri. Hachi goes to Jupiter. If you're talking about the anime... do you really expect a pregnant woman to go and do a very dangerous job in space? That's not mysoginistic, it's just putting safety first.

Oh, and the trickster image that you were trying to explain. I thought of the French because of the whole mime-trickster stereotype. --TcDohl 18:30, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As the article is terribly anime-centered atm, we'll be talking about the anime for as long as you think plot points are more important than gaping holes in the content of the article. So, if the only way you can deal with your vocal and idealistic female lead is by leaving her disabled and pregnant at home while the guy goes off to pursue his career, you'd still consider joining a feminist association? Look, what's lacking is not me bitching about these minor things on the talk page, it's any kind of *serious* criticism in the article. Which, unfortunately, you're unlikey to find in English, and certainly not on the internet. --zippedmartin 18:57, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Trivia section must go, or merged with the article --Jaranda wat's sup 22:17, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Try to merge trivia with article. Incorporate see also into main body and remove the section when empty. Plot should be next to characters. Realism, themes, reaction should go together (and trivia probably should be merged into it). Finally, why do we have manga section but no anime section?--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 16:43, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Spoilers end here.

Slavoj Žižek

[edit]

I believe this article does a pretty good job of explicating the thought of a recent philosopher/social critic. But the organization is not as tight as it might be. I'm also not quite sure how best to handle the extensive bibliographic references. Some semi-notable criticisms were moved (by me) to a daughter article, which I think improves the undue emphasis issue. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 16:55, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Address the parts of the somewhat obscure language which is used to explain his concepts (derived from Lacan). Also, there needs to be more in the criticism section, but not too much. --Knucmo2 21:53, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The writer of this article does not seem sufficiently familiar with Zizek's work. Some of the definitions are not clear at all, too vague and inarticulate.

The Daily Show

[edit]

I've been trying to do a bit of work on tightening up this article, but I'm not really sure where to start. Any ideas or suggestions would be great! Thanks, Shoemoney2night (talk) 08:47, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Chondoist Chongu Party

[edit]

Article that has some rather unique material, shedding light on details of North Korean political dynamics. --Soman 15:28, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No section headings and few wikilinks other than dates. Also, using just one source is a bit dodgy, as we are relying on that source's neturality. The content is interesting, however. Robdurbar 17:05, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew Wiles

[edit]

I am nominating the Andrew Wiles article, because a structure has been created by making sections without content to create a page with lots of information on Wiles' work, and life, what people think of him, his affect. Some sections have been added that have content. I have tried to includee the mathematics of his Taniyama-Shimura work. Timothy Clemans 17:37, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The TOC is overwhelming. I would get rid of all of the subsections about the announcement of the proof, and just have a single level two heading called "Announcement of the proof". You can still include a little material about the rumors swirling around the Isaac Newton lecture. It would also be good to remove the level three headers from the section on the correction of the manuscript. Put in some text, and I'll have more to say. NatusRoma | Talk 18:18, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for suggestions. They have been very helpful. Timothy Clemans 19:23, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have to do other things. I am trying to improve it. I'll hopefully be able to work on it later. Thanks again for your suggestions. Timothy Clemans 19:55, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have been able to do a lot of improvements. I am still working on this. There is a lot of writing issues that I have found. Timothy Clemans 22:42, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You've done some good work so far. There are a few things missing from the article: 1) Details about Wiles's youth, besides his interest in mathematics. 2) A description of what he did between graduate school and his work on the Fermat proof. The lead says that he did work on Birch and Swinnerton-Dyer before working on Fermat's last theorem. A short section on that work would be nice. 3) The work on the proof itself, both the process of proving it and some of the mathematics involved. Also, the article is very technical, which is inevitable: be sure to add wikilinks to the articles on the mathematical terms mentioned in Wiles's article. Finally, if you plan to nominate this as a featured article candidate at some point, you will need citations within the text. I'm guessing that you're relying on Simon Singh's book, inter alia: see WP:CITE if you need information on when and how to cite content. NatusRoma | Talk 18:01, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I will be able to print some stuff this week and Andrew Wiles article is one of them that I'll print, so I can study it and write some work up and then publish it on the article. Thanks again. Timothy Clemans 19:45, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bristol

[edit]

This page had a peer review a year ago and has since been improved by members of WikiProject Bristol. We are hoping that it is ready for submission as a candidate for featured Article but would appreciate any comments about what is needed to get it ready for this stage.— Rod talk 16:05, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Some initial suggestions, let me know if any need clarifying:

Lead

  • Is the fact that the location is "between the cities of Bath, Gloucester and Newport" a significant enough item of info for the first sentence of the lead?
  • In the lead, shouldn't the population figures be quoted as "approx", "at least" etc, rather than exact?
  • Didn't the Industrial Revolution last a lot longer than just the 1780s?
  • "unitary districts" should be wikilinked
  • the coastline is on the Severn Estuary; the Bristol Channel starts at Weston-super-Mare (however it would be a shame to lose a mention of the Bristol Channel from the lead, so can we retain it in some other form)
  • The Lead shouldn't really contain any referenced statements - instead it should contain summary info of referenced statements elsewhere

History

  • wikilink first occurrences of Norman, and any centuries
  • where was the 1257 bridge and does it still exist?
  • can we give an idea of the extent of the city at each stage of its development e.g. when in the 14th Century it expanded to include some suburbs, which present-days areas are these?
  • might this benefit from some subheadings?
  • shouldn't plague have an initial capital?
  • what form of "suffering" did the Royalist occupation result in?
  • Can we source the comment that few slaves were brought to Britain, and how few?
  • scandal - POV
  • What were the riots about?
  • penultimate paragraph - why "despite", and which museum?

General

  • Removal of redlinks by stub creation would be desirable
  • Can we reference any unreferenced stuff
  • There are a few places where the canonical when-to-wikilink approach hasn't been adopted

More to follow later. SP-KP 17:47, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Economy

  • "reliant on" a bad choice of words in that it requires a higher degree of evidence than simply saying that these areas are significant current contributors to the city's economy.
  • what's the relevance of combined Bristol/B&NES/S Glos/N Som GDP figure?
  • the city is "more affluent than" the UK as a whole ... I think we mean that the city's average inhabitant is more affluent than one chosen at random from the UK as a whole, don't we?
  • how has unemployment rate changed over the years - is 2005 a representative point in time?
  • what does "since the port was leased" mean?
  • important - one of those "to be avoided at wikipedia" words
  • Is HP in Bristol or S Glos? Not sure where the boundary is. Likewise BAE at Filton
  • luxury - pov?
  • "will include" - crystal ball - see WP:NOT
  • Aerospace stuff could do with its own subsection

And more later. SP-KP 18:16, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re: hiistory being subdivided: I personally don't think it should be: this is in summary style, so the subarticle is there for expansion. There are nine paragraphs in the history section, and since it's in summary style, I can't see it being expanded. I am not a fan of excessive subdivision, and don't think nine paragraphs is enough to need them. Other people might like them though?
Re: HP and BAE: they're both in SG, but as is made clear in the article, we're talking about Bristol in all is definitions, not just the officially sanctioned boundaries. Since they're in the contiguous built up area, and employ many people from the city, they are relevant. Similarly, UWE's main campus is not in the administrative boundaries, but is clearly considered to be Bristolian.
Re: aerospace section: as per the first point, I'm not sure a subsection is neccesary. Joe D (t) 18:33, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Response Thanks for the comments. I've had a go at fixing some of the identified problems in the lead and history sections, but don't have the expertise for the economy section.— Rod talk 19:39, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Culture

  • Again, quite a long section - can we split up using subsections?
  • Prestigous - POV
  • "thriving" music scene - POV
  • can we wikilink the musical styles
  • what is a "cultist" band?
  • what does "This music is part of the wider Bristol urban culture scene ... and still thrives" mean?
  • "will become" - crystal ball
  • is @bristol worth a specific mention?
  • "fame" - a non-to-ve-used-at-wikipedia word
  • Animal Magic - "cult"?
  • what was the "18th century Gothic revival"?
  • what is "mature verse"?
  • what was the "Romantic movement"?
  • what was Robert Southey noted for? Likewise Coleridge
  • what was significant about the marriage of Southey & Coleridge to "the Fricker sisters"
  • Did Wordsworth spend more time in Bristol than anywhere else?
  • all listed comedians are contemporary - is that due to the choice of examples or is this a recent phenomenon?
  • "world famous" - POV
  • are inline external links OK per MoS? I thought we didn't do that in FAs, but I may be wrong
  • unusualness of Brizzle & whether visitors will hear it ... I don't know about this - if they arrive via the Bus station, they'd have to have earplugs in not to hear it!

Politics & government

  • what does "elected in thirdws" mean?
  • rogue s on the end of Parliament

Demographics

No comments on this section

Physical geography

  • "forms to" typo
  • Does Exmoor really shelter Bristol?

Education

  • "major" institutions - POV
  • the mention of the Create centre - seems a bit incongruous, if not spammy
  • what is a "city learning centre"?
  • "important" again
  • Festival of Nature - not really an organisation, more a recurring event
  • Not quite clear about the Humphrey Davy thing - was the gas discovered in Hotwells? What was his work there and was it connected with the discovery?
  • Given that this section veers off into science rather than education is it titled correctly?

General

  • The article is very light on ecological info given Bristol's ecological uniqueness. I'd suggest this topic has it's own major section. I should volunteer to write this, I suppose!
  • Section ordering - maybe needs some more thought? Major basic topics like demographics & physical geography are late on in the article, while specialist topics like culture & economics are early.

One more push and I should complete the remaining sections SP-KP 11:36, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Education: could be either "Education and academia" or "Education, science and technology"? Regarding the Create Centre, the city council seem to consider it a big deal, but I don't know how notable or influential it really is. Comparative visitor numbers for these things would help establish their notability, I'll try and find some. Anyway, how's this for phrasing?
  • Culture: the section could be subsectioned (though, again, it falls within my personal limits of acceptable section length), but I'm not sure how to go about it without having an absurd number of them, with each paragraph getting its own header (which IMO would be far more harm than help). If it's subsectioned, I'd go for 4 headers along the lines of: "Arts", "Leisure"/"Sport & leisure"/"Sports & events", "Media" and "Dialect".
  • Ecology: is it worth turning the Physical geography section into a "Physical geography and ecology" section? The Phys Geo section is currently quite short, and by combining them one can relate some of the ecology to the geology and location.
Joe D (t) 12:48, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Transport

  • "Recently" i.r.t. the airport should be a specific date range
  • First were should be First was

and finally

  • Can we work some of the "See also" links into the text? I'm thinking of Maltese Cross (under Culture?), Wills (under Economy?). A See also list should only really contain things we can't fit in elsewhere. SP-KP 17:47, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Update I've been working my way through the problems identified (thanks for all of them) & sorting the referencing format & doing stubs for red links. In politics I'm not sure of a better way to word the bit about how the councilors are elected in rotation. I would agree with the suggestion that history should be sub divided - what headings would you suggest? It would be good to combine physical geog with ecology (Bristol's ecological uniqueness ? POV is it more unique than anywhere else?) and possibly rearrange sections - but not sure of the best way to do this. Any further suggestions/improvements welcome.— Rod talk 08:44, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Just to respond on the ecological uniqueness point, what I'm talking about here is really uniqueness by association with the Avon Gorge. As a city (without the gorge) Bristol's not unique at all, but with the inclusion of the gorge, we have (in roughly descending order of importance) two or three tree species unknown elsewhere in the world, a dozen or more (?) nationally rare plant species, some of which are found nowhere else in Britain; and some (not sure how many) insect species which are recorded here and nowhere else or at few other sites in Britain. No other "normal-sized" British city comes close to this (London is a bit of a special case because it's so big). SP-KP 12:03, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not convinced History should be subdivided, but if it must, how about something like "Pre-Norman", "Mediaeval"/"Pre-industrial revolution" and "Modern"? Unfortunately, the pre-Norman section would be disproportionately small unless expanded a little... Joe D (t) 12:52, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK so basically ecology needs to be summarised from Avon Gorge?. I will have another go at the history section & possibly sub section, but I have a few other questions:

History

  • I'm having problems finding much evidence of a Roman settlement at what is now Inns Court (apartfrom a dig in 1997 which found "Wall foundations, timber slots, pits and postholes" - can I delete this & leave it covered by "There were also isolated Roman villas and small Roman settlements throughout the area" - further info as identified & added to History of Bristol.

Politics and government

  • Can I delete the sentence saying who the leader, deputy & leaders of political parties are - ? notability, ? having to be updated each time there is an election etc
  • The bit on race relations (although referenced) contains a couple of red links ? can I remove Paul Stephenson ? notability

External links

I've added a stub on Stokes Croft, but I don't think it's mentioned anywhere in the Bristol article now. Chris Jefferies 08:46, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks - it was a redlink on the template "Settlements on the A38 road" which is now hidden - but useful for other articles anyway. — Rod talk 09:37, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To help editors see which of the above suggestions are left outstanding, can I make one more suggestion - using this technique to strike through those which have been actioned?

I've done strikethrough for the ones I can remeber doing - I just don't like editing other peoples contributions without their "permission" - even though that seems strange on wikipedia.— Rod talk

American Mutoscope and Biograph Company

[edit]

There truly is intense bias on either side of the said article, which puts All tyhe information in question. So I am placing this for "Peer review". Please read the "Old" posting below...

OLD POSTING A new company, either a continuation of the oldest film studio in the world, or just named after it, depending who you talk to, appears to have both threatened Wikimedia legally and launched an edit war. If anyone reading this has knowledge of American cinema, your efforts to help source the current article would be appreciated. -- user:zanimum

American Mutoscope and Biograph Company NEW

Now, this is a "New" peer review request my me --Roger the red 02:21, 5 September 2006 (UTC) to verify and add information to the article stated. I unfortunately will be busy on other things, but welcome editors interested in adding, correcting, or clarifying items in this article. --Roger the red 02:21, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Administrator

[edit]

(Copied from "Talk" page)

I had asked for assistance from Wikipedia administrator Samuel Wantman to help go by Wikipedia guidelines and edit the article. You have again changed and reverted the article back. Reverting this many times can intitiate a 3RR action. Because of the difficulty I may not be editing on this article for awhile, but working on ohters since there is an obvious bias. This has been forwarded to the administrator.

--Roger the red 21:26, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Roger, Walloon has not done anything unusual that I notice. He removed something with citations that back up his statements. If you think it is unclear that there was a complete sale of assets of the company, you should find a citation that backs up that statement. You should be talking with Walloon on this page to sort this out. It is not the role of administrators to be the arbiters of truth. I have no knowledge about this subject. My view is that I see editors working in good faith to improve this article. What I don't see is your effort to discuss this with Walloon. It is very normal for things to be removed from articles because they are uncited and contradict other information. When this happens, and you think the removal is in error, consider it a challenge to find a source that corroborates the information that was removed. If you find the source return the material with a citation. -- Samuel Wantman 01:24, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Samuel, thank you for your time and input. I am concentrating on another article at the moment, but I will do just that. I also will put the article up for peer review. By this, others as well can join in with thier input, which will free me to do other things. Also, what citations and references will be valid, and acceptable to Wikipedia policies? If I find a legitimate, verifiable citation and that is removed as well, let me know the next step is on what to do. I understand you must be neutral, and I appreciate the guidance you have given me.

--Roger the red 02:06, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Peer Review

[edit]

After consultations with other editors, we have decided to put the article up for peer review. I also neeed to devote more time to other older silent film companies. T

The editor "Walloon" posed a couple of informative references that need to be clarified. the below is part of that posting, along with the questions at hand.

  • 1. "Actually, it is very clear. Not only was there not a "complete sale" of "all the assets", there was no sale of assets — because there were no assets to transfer, as the article says." *1.
  • 1. Please quote the article which states (i.e. "because there were no assets to transfer".
    • 2. "Biograph Studios donated its film collection to the Museum of Modern Art circa 1939.[1] (See: Iris Barry, "Why Wait for Posterity?" Hollywood Quarterly, 1945/46, pp. 131-137.)" **2.
    • 2. Please clarify how Biograph Studios donated the film collection to the Museum of Modern Art in 1939 when the company went out of business in 1928?
    • 2. "The last trade of Biograph stock was reported by The New York Times on December 27, 1928, p. 39."


I invite All editors for thier input and information.

Thanks,

--Roger the red 03:32, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Peer_review/April_2006&oldid=621092395"