Jump to content

Wikipedia:Peer review/August 2005

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 (~~~~).

Dogpatch USA

[edit]

For the archived peer review of this article see Dogpatch USA Peer Review Archive 1
This article is near feature status. Only a few problems with sentence structure, reference, and may be a few italics problems. Hoping it will stay here a week or two and then become featured.--The_stuart 13:31, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

A good article, and it is clear that a lot of work has gone into it, but there are still some problems. The sentence "a kaleidoscope of characters and events would unexpectedly conspire to transform the pot of gold at the end of the Dogpatch rainbow into a financial roller coaster ride which eventually ended in failure" doesn't belong in an encyclopedia. The images also need more information. Some like Image:Dogpatch USA.JPG have copyright information at all. Others just have permission to be used in Wikipedia. Permission for use in Wikipedia is not enough. We need explicit permission that an image can be released under the GFDL. More photos of the park itself, rather than just advertisements, would add to the article. Trivia sections are also bad form. The points there should either be merged elsewhere or deleted. - SimonP 13:59, September 1, 2005 (UTC)
I have contacted the creator of the image and gotten him to release it into the public domain. I have also changed the lead to reflect a more "encyclopedic" tone. The trivia section, however, is kind of a difficult matter because the facts it lists are important yet don't seem to fit into the article anywhere.--The_stuart 21:39, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I integrated the trivia section, any other suggestions?--The_stuart 18:37, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ann Arbor, Michigan

[edit]

I decided to try to expand and clean up this article with the goal of one day getting it featured. Aside from climate (which I am unsure of the proper place to find that information) is there anything else that needs attention? Pentawing 01:09, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  1. Missing altitude
  2. =govt= very short. council strength; police, fire etc. can be included.
  3. =Nicknames=: not needed here. Merge with lead
  4. =Education=: subsections not needed
  5. =Culture=: too long. Summarise, move details into dedicated article
  6. =Events=: too detailed. Tone down, reduce to two small paragraphs and merge with =culture=
  7. merge =sports= with parent
  8. move =literature= to the new culture article.
  9. rem =infrastructure= sub heading
  10. move =sister cities= under culture
  11. + more images.

I'll review in depth if the above are taken care off. =Nichalp «Talk»= 09:31, August 23, 2005 (UTC)

I am currently expanding the government section. The "education", "culture," "events," "sports," "literature," and "nicknames" sections have been taken care of. I have seen "sister cities" as a separate section in other city articles. As for "infrastructure", I believe that it makes the TOC more organized and intuitive than if the heading were eliminated. Pentawing 00:42, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The only information I can find concerning elevation is for the airport (found at airnav.com), though I am trying to ascertain some values from topographic maps from topozone.com. Pentawing 18:44, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
In the US, elevations for cities are traditionally measured at the site of the Weather Service measuring station, which is usually at the airport. Other common locations, for locations without an airport or Weather Service station, are city hall or the post office. --Carnildo 05:29, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the information. The airport elevation was indeed noted. Pentawing 16:32, August 28, 2005 (UTC)


According to the Fed Aviation Facilities Directory, the elevation of the runway at Ann Arbor Airport (ARB) is 839 feet. That is probably as good an elevation as any, since the terrain in Ann Arbor varies due to the river valley.

Here's some economic information from Crain’s Detroit Business from its most recent survey of the largest public and private employers in Washtenaw County ranked by full-time employees as of January, 2004.

The top 20 of these employers are listed below

The largest employers in Ann Arbor include the University of Michigan and the University of Michigan Hospital. The largest employers in Ypsilanti include Eastern Michigan University, Trinity Health, and General Motors. The number three employer in the county, Visteon Corporation, is Ford Motor Company’s largest supplier and Visteon’s highly-paid employees are protected by UAW contracts.

Washtenaw County’s Largest Employers, 2004

Rank Company Name Employees Type of business 1 University of Michigan 15,594 Public university 2 University of Michigan Health Centers 8,569 Hospital & health center 3 Visteon Corporation 5,910 Automotive supplier 4 Ford Motor Co. 5,000 Automobile manufacturer 5 General Motors Corp. 4,739 Automobile manufacturer 6 Trinity Health 4,503 Health care system 7 U.S. Government 2,607 Federal government 8 Pfizer Inc. 2,600 Pharmaceutical company 9 Ann Arbor Public Schools 2,130 Public school district 10 Eastern Michigan University 2,088 Public University 11 State of Michigan 1,791 State government 12 Borders Group Inc. 1,406 Book & music retailer 13 Washtenaw County government 1,388 Municipal government 14 ProQuest Co. 980 Information databases 15 Standard Federal Bank, N.A. 934 Mortgage and financial services 16 City of Ann Arbor 820 City government 17 DTE Energy Co. 678 Energy company 18 Ypsilanti Public Schools 658 Public school district 19 Chelsea Community Hospital 639 Community hospital 20 Chrysler Group 564 Automobile manufacturer

Also of note is that Ann Arbor is the Headquarters of Flint Inc., the worlds largest privately held manufacturer of ink with reported revenues of USD$1.471 billion. Flint Ink is listed by Crain’s Detroit Business among Michigan's top ten privately held companies, and by Forbes among the top 220 Private Companies in the US. I don't work there, but it is an oft overlooked Ann Arbor Company which is interesting, considering its size)

Economic stability is provided, to a great extent, by the county’s two universities - The University of Michigan in Ann Arbor and Eastern Michigan University in Ypsilanti. These facilities are major employers which are not as economically sensitive to fluctuations in automotive demand as are industries found in the Detroit area. Recently emphasis on high technology research and development expansion has been a priority of the MEDC and other NGO organizations. The universities have attracted a variety of companies in technology industries in recent history.

There are many significant research-oriented high technology firms in the area are including - Environmental Protection Agency Emissions Control Laboratory - Pfizer Global R&D - General Dynamics (former ERIM), National Oceanic & Atmospheric Administration, Proquest - Terumo Cardiovascular Systems (formerly a division of 3M) - U of M Transportation Research Institute (UMTRI)

The University of Michigan ranked first in research dollars spent by public universities in fiscal year 1990, with much of these funds devoted to biomedical developments funding from the NIH.

Take this information and place it in the article as you see fit. Since you're working on it, it is probably good to have it in your style. Keep up the work and let me know if you want to catch up fro coffee at Zolas to talk about Wikipedia some morning. My username has a lot to do with my name. Best...--Ronreed 17:37, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Operating Thetan

[edit]

Note: I am not the one disputing any part of this article (Operating Thetan). I am just trying to bring it to the state that it would be in had the procedures at Wikipedia:Disputed statement been followed. -- Antaeus Feldspar 21:18, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

After having removed one's own reactive mind and thus attaining the state of Clear, one then goes on to remove one's Body Thetans (each of which has its own reactive mind) through Dianetic auditing.

This comment about removing body thetans is innacurate, as if removing body thetans is the only thing done after clear -- moved from comment made inside article by AI (talk · contribs) in this edit.

Rubik's Cube

[edit]

This was nominated for Featured Article last December (see nomination). It got 6 support votes and 6 object votes. Many of the objections have been resloved, including adding pictures of clean Rubik's Cubes, expanding the lead section, etc. I'd like this article to be prepared next time it goes to WP:FAC. Coffee 15:53, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

An in-line reference is preferred all the time. :-) (PS Well, I'm all at sea about the maths...) -- Jerry Crimson Mann 16:46, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The mathematics of the Rubik's Cube should probably be indicated by a {{solution}} label, plus some other minor hiccups. Other than that, I'll immediately support it as an WP:FAC --JB Adder | Talk 03:51, August 5, 2005 (UTC)
Very good read. Try nominating again for FAC. However, we need to improve the messy external links section and expand the inline references. — Stevey7788 (talk) 20:37, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I've made a couple of very minor alterations. What struck me when I first looked at the article, however, were the images: there are three very similar images clustered together at the top and then nothing until the "see also" section. I'd be happy to do away with at least one of them, and just have one Cube at the top of the article. (The "Rubik's Cube with a tilted side" would be my personal preference.) I can't see that any specific attempt has been made to address the issues which were raised in the 2004 nomination, either. In particular, I'd love to see a picture or a diagram to illustrate the "workings" section; and the "mathematical group" section is still written from the first person plural. Also, would it be helpful to link to b:How to solve the Rubik's Cube, somewhere? (This was recently transwikied to wikibooks.) And the article seems to lack much of a discussion of the cultural impact of the Cube, especially in the 1980s... a bit more content in "history", perhaps? Otherwise, a bit of a tidy-up in the "external links", it's not far off. Flowerparty talk 01:17, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
It may be difficult, but would it be possible to make the mathematics more accesible to the average joe? As it is, you might have some trouble getting it featured; one guy complained in my Carl Friedrich Gauss FAC that the math was too technical, and Raul refused to promote it untill I explained every single theorem in layman's terms.Borisblue 08:46, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Fantastic images; a major improvement over the last FAC. I like all three of them, though it might be better to move the one with the tilted side to the Solutions section and give a caption "The Rubik's Cube being solved" or something. I also still think that a dissected cube would be really interesting to show. The "Rubik's Cube as a mathematical group" section still sounds (and looks) like a graduate level paper. I'd also suggest moving the Patrick Bossert reference to the history section, I think it fits better there. Inline citations would be a real plus, and please, cut down on the external links. One or two online/software simulations is enough, one or two solution pages, the official records page, only one link to speedcubing.com, and maybe one link to a patent website. 8-10 links would be more than enough. --Spangineer (háblame) 14:45, August 11, 2005 (UTC)

I think that math stuff goes over everyone's head. I'm not sure what to do with it. Coffee 05:55, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I just took the easy way out. I moved the section to a separate article and left one sentence in the article with a link. I then combined that sentence with the stuff on physics and renamed that section. Does that work for everyone? --Spangineer (háblame) 17:43, August 16, 2005 (UTC)
Seems like a good solution. Flowerparty talk 18:04, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Note: at this point, some discussion about the link to Rubik's Cube as a mathematical group broke off on to user talk pages (mine and Spangineer's). I've brought it back here. Flowerparty talk 19:07, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Article needs a photo, or diagram, of a disassembled cube. Some artwork patterns (alphabet characters, checkerboard, etc.) might be nice, too.--J-Wiki 00:09, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Shaitan

[edit]

This article seems to be subject to much bias and not entirely academic language. Some parts of the article have been expunged for irrelevancy and bias, however the rest of the language is more than I am willing to deal with. Moreover, parts which are relevant to the word shaitan, not to mention scholarly, have been removed by previous editors for no apparently academic reason. Thus restoration and clean up of this article is requiring more than I am capable of providing, so I would like to request that some individuals who are capable go over this article. 68.163.3.152 04:16, 11 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

please use cleanup for this kind of issue. I've tried rewriting the introduction a little, and tagging the article appropriately. Mozzerati 20:53, August 24, 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Peer review/Iran

Cindy Sheehan

[edit]

Hi,

I put this article in for peer review because it needs a lot of info and it is a current event. It is rather sparse right now.

Request submitted at 23:45, August 9, 2005 (UTC) by 129.170.162.168
Tag it for attention or expansion instead; peer review is for articles that are almost ready to be featured. Thanks. Scott Ritchie 05:06, 10 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
IMHO, articles that need any type of help, other than a dispute, should be able to come here and get the help they need. I also would put {{currentevent}} at the top of the article. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 02:15, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Winkler, Manitoba

[edit]

I've been editing this article over the past few days. I'd like your opinion on how to improve it, since I feel it has the potential to be a featured article in the future. Manitoban 19:57, 13 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Good work so far. The article needs three relatively easy, but important, changes before it could be considered FA worthy. It needs a somewhat longer lead, needs a references section, and also some pictures. The content is quite good, but I would like to see somewhat longer history and culture sections, if possible. There are also too many one or two sentence paragraphs. - SimonP 03:10, August 14, 2005 (UTC)
I must say this has a good change of gaining FA status, provided it is expanded. You'd have to increase the length of single paragraph section first. Also some pix are required. Have you taken a look at other city featured articles? =Nichalp «Talk»= 09:01, August 15, 2005 (UTC)
I've had a look at other city featured articles that are most comparable in population size (that I know of) to Winkler. I'll work on improving the lead and expanding the smaller paragraphs, although I don't have a digital camera so I won't be able to get pictures myself. Thanks for your advice and insight. Manitoban 18:25, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Let me know when you're done, I'll review again. =Nichalp «Talk»= 20:38, August 19, 2005 (UTC)

hey manitoban let me know who you are, i live in winkler and may be able to assist with this

Template:Diamond

[edit]

I've created this template as a navigational box for use on major diamond-related articles. While diamond was being nominated (successfully) on FAC some months ago, there were some complaints that links to important sub-articles were hard to find; the "See also" list was also stripped from the article. I think of this template as a prettied-up "See also" list that can easily be put on the relevant articles as an aid to readers interested in reading more on given subtopics, and navigating the relevant articles. I should also mention that the discussion at Wikipedia:Featured topics inspired me to link the main articles on the topic together in a cohesive way.

However, I'm not sure if using a template as a nav box in this manner is a "good thing", a "bad thing", or a "thing that nobody cares about". So I turn to you, faithful PR editors, for input. I would love to hear your feelings on the general use of this type of template and the specific usefulness of this one. Any edits or suggestions regarding the template itself (format and/or content) would, of course, also be appreciated. Many thanks. Bantman 18:08, August 15, 2005 (UTC)

  • Not strictly a peer review request, but I'll bite. I think you have to consider where the template is going to go, the template you have made is long and would take up quite a bit of right aligned space, where images normally go. So you might want to look at making it shorter and fatter if it's going to go into the lead of the article, or making it horizontal and adding it as a footer in an article. I like series boxes as long as they're relevant to the immediate topic. --nixie 03:44, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Interesting. Since you made it, use it. But my only concern is that the topic may be to small. Also, does this mean every mineral and rock in the ground gets a template? But since you worked on it, sure, use it. HereToHelp 21:38, 20 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Jumpsuit

[edit]

I find this a good article about a certain type of garment. The only things missing is perhaps some more notes as to the history of the garment and about manufactoring. John Anderson 14:01, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Yes, but it's a little on the short side, and like you pointed out it's missing a history. Also the bulleted lists should be replaced with regular text. Thanks. :) — RJH 14:47, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • as RJH noted it is a bit on the short side and having the picture running down the whole right side of the article hardly seems ideal, perhaps it can be scaled down or a better free use image can be found of a person in a jumpsuit. Jtkiefer T | @ | C ----- 07:19, August 18, 2005 (UTC)

Republican Party of Minnesota v. White

[edit]

I did some major rewrites on this, but I'm fairly new and don't know how much more work it needs before it could (possibly) get up to FA status. Any small grammar/spelling fixes that I missed would be appreciated :). GregAsche 19:33, August 16, 2005 (UTC)

Snowtown murders

[edit]

This article is the Australian collaboration of the fortnight, an Australian drive to improve the article to FAC standard. Undoubtedly it's not there yet, but I'm not sure what else it needs to reach such a lofty standard. Article presently features a hand-drawn map and references. --fuddlemark 20:47, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Gender roles in Islam

[edit]

The article as is stands, with the exception of the first paragraph (Background) to which I helped, is almost entriely original research. The Source given to back up statements in fact state the opposite. For example the source given to back up the statement: "Obviously this is a vision of Heaven that is more likely to appeal to men. Eternally virgin dark-eyed Houris are unlikely to appeal to many women" actually says "The life of women in Jannah will be as pleasant and happy as the life of men. Allah is not partial to any gender. He created both of them and He will take care of both of them according to their needs and desires. Let us all work to achieve the Jannah and then, in sha’ Allah, we will find there what will satisfy all of us fully." - It needs to be severly NPOVed to boot. It ignores the "Science of hadith" and selectively picks Hadees that suits the cause, ignores the isnad and context, and suggests that that is all the source that is needed. Help Needed here badly! --Irishpunktom\talk 15:52, August 29, 2005 (UTC)

Archived Early per Wikipedia guidlines and concensus above

KaDee Strickland

[edit]

I've been working away at this article in its corner of Wikipedia over the past couple of months, and have included information on the actress's roles in the films she has been in, quotes from critics reviewing her work as well from as the actress herself, and images that relate to the accompanying sections in the article. However, nobody else has touched the article (apart from minor edits), and I would really appreciate the opinions of people here on what they think of the article in the state it is in now, and what they think could be done to improve it. Thank you in advance. Extraordinary Machine 03:26, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • The references seem a bit extreme; e.g. it is unlikely that a review of The Sixth Sense really has much to say about her role as Visitor #5. You might want to prune that list to highlight the works that actually served as major sources for the article text. Christopher Parham (talk) 06:41, 2005 August 24 (UTC)
    • Thank you for your comments. I wanted to make sure every statement in the article was supported by a reference, especially weasel terms such as saying that The Sixth Sense got good reviews and Anacondas was panned by critics. According to WP:NPOV#A_simple_formulation and WP:AWT, statements like those should only be used if they are backed up by a source, which they are. Since there hasn't been a great deal written about this actress yet (at least in one place), I obtained the information that I used in the article from many different places. Once again, thank you. Extraordinary Machine 13:49, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would appreciate any further comments from anybody regarding the state of the article and how it could be improved. Thanks in advance. Extraordinary Machine 17:09, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm about to nominate the article at WP:FAC, so I'm archiving this request. Extraordinary Machine 02:06, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Brihanmumbai Electric Supply and Transport

[edit]

This article is about the transport and electricity company synonymous with the city of Mumbai (Bombay). Would like to know if there is any angle not covered. (PS At this moment, I've not added the references, will do so. Kindly ignore). Will also add some images soon. =Nichalp «Talk»= 15:28, 25 August, 2005 (UTC)

Jean Schmidt

[edit]

A profile of the Republican Member of Congress-elect, chosen in the special election in Ohio on August 2 that attracted national attention. Article has photos, maps, references. I'd really like to see this make featured status by September 6, when she'll be sworn in. It needs a good proofreading to start--I've looked at it so much, my eyes have glazed over and I know I'm not seeing problems. I am also submitting for peer review my article on the losing candidate, Paul Hackett. (See Wikipedia:Peer review/Paul Hackett/archive1 for that.) PedanticallySpeaking 19:18, August 17, 2005 (UTC)

  • A very good article, feature-worthy I'd say--impressive level of detail. One note--I won't object over it, but many people prefer inline footnotes to the external-link style of citations you have here (look at Education in the United States for an example of an article that uses this style). Good luck on the nomination. Meelar (talk) 19:39, August 17, 2005 (UTC)
Thank you, Meelar. I personally dislike the footnotes. Ta bu shi da yu urged footnotes when I was working on Mark Felt and I really don't like how that turned out because of the amount of work and they being hard to use. This is why many of the references have an annotation explaining what's from those articles. But no matter how I annotated it, someone would be unhappy. Thanks again, Meelar. PedanticallySpeaking 19:49, August 17, 2005 (UTC)
  • It looks good and reads well; I can't really find anything to criticize (but then I'm just not the nit-picky type). The big Ohio map would be better with the district boundaries on it; I could do it myself if I weren't so lazy at the moment (or maybe I will...) Nice job, and I think it's feature-worthy. Good NPOV work by the way; articles on divisive political figures are hard to pull off. Antandrus (talk) 19:53, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I made a new Ohio map showing where District 2 is. Antandrus (talk) 15:59, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • So nothing to say about the actual content of the article, just criticism about the photographs? I've given a rationale for using the pictures. PedanticallySpeaking 17:43, August 19, 2005 (UTC)
  • It's a methodically researched, balanced, informative article - the ideal of what most Wiki political articles should be, honestly. My only complaint would be the duplicate information in the Hackett/Schmidt pages, particularly under "Both Parties Claim Victory". I think you may be better served moving that to the general page for the OH-2 election to free up a bit of room on the individual pages, especially since Schmidt is now in Congress and she may have years and years of issues and events we will have to document. --JamesB3 00:24, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks very much, James. A little later on I think the "both parties" could be cut or scaled back. For now, since it is so fresh I think it ought to stay. Again, thanks. PedanticallySpeaking 17:11, August 19, 2005 (UTC)

Cerebellum

[edit]

User:Nrets and I have put a lot of work into this article. We think it may be featured article-worthy. We would appreciate wiki experts to comment on the layout, style, and graphics; writers to comment on our language; laypeople to comment on the level of comprehension (is it too technical?); and neuroscientists/anatomists to comment on the accuracy. Semiconscious (talk • home) 22:51, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wow. I mean, just like, wow. Must be a great article - I hardly understood half of it ;)
Joking aside, it is clearly that the editors know what they are talking about. Personaly, I feel that a lot of this article goes straight over my head. For instance (and this is where I started having problems):
The embryonic cerebellum develops from the superior dorsal aspect of the rhombencephalon. In the mature mammalian brain, the cerebellum comprises a distinct structure at the back of the brain. The cerebellum is of archipalliar phylogenetic origin, shared as a prototypical brain structure by animals from the most elementary to the most advanced.
Well and good, but what does that mean in laymans terms? I am not saying the article must be dumbed down to the lowest common aspect, but perhaps a explonation in terms a layman can understand is needed (or explonation in parantheses, as you have done in some parts of the article)?
Apart from that, a good article, well written (the parts I could understand ;) ) and certainly well illustrated. I think it deserves a wide readership. WegianWarrior 07:03, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've attempted to make this section more clear, giving more simple examples that can be easily digested. Let me know what you think. I must say that it's certainly a pleasure to get this kind of feedback. Thank you my Norwegian friend; skoll! Semiconscious (talk · home) 09:54, 20 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's better, but still quite technical. Perhaps I just miss the right words, not having been educated in the field? Anyhow, it's more easily digestable than it was, without (I think) loosing it's factuality. Oh, and it's skål! =) WegianWarrior 09:33, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Semiconscious - I think that this article is very close to featured quality, speaking from a reasonably informed scientist's perspective. I think this is a model for a well-written, technical article on neuroanatomy for Wikipedia. I appreciate the fascinating bits of information you throw in, like: "patients suffering archicerebellar lesions carry identification cards indicating the nature of their medical condition so as to avoid suspicion of public drunkenness by the police" and the clear writing in the dysfunctions section. Also, the pictures are great: clear schematics, well labeled, and a beautiful fluorescence image of Purkinje cells.

That being said, there are issues with this article: the anatomy section really is very, very technical. It's not unclear, it's just dense, but that's fine. But I think that you need to tie it together with a layman's overview which describes how the divisions, layers, penduncles, and deep nuclei interrelate. Leave the hardcore anatomy for neuroscience-interested people to look into. Also, the section on the cortical layers is very hard to follow. This is a tough section to write since the neural circuitry in the cerebellum is quite complex. However, our task as Wikipedians is to make this information as accessible as possible. I can try to help out with this, since I know something about the pathway, but try to think of ways of really outlining very clearly what the pathway means, and what a layman would need to understand from that section.
Two more smaller things: I would like to read a little bit more about the evolution of the cerebellum - you only have one sentence. Some more information would be very interesting. Also, there is little mention of the current unsolved mysteries about the cerebellum - after all, we really don't know much about it's function. I think that laying out the mysterious nature of the cerebellum would be a good way to draw a reader into the rest of the gory neuroanatomical details.

Great job, guys!! Mr.Bip 08:32, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thanks for the feedback Mr. Bip. I've tried to integrate your suggestions into the article: I think I've cleared up some of the technical language to make it a bit more friendly. As you said however, with a topic such as this it's difficult to avoid a certain level of jargon. The language must be spoken to get across the idea. If you can help with the cortical layers section I would greatly appreciate it, as I have no idea how to clean it up!
  • I've added more to the cerebellar evolution and development section. This is far from my area of expertise however, so I've not added much. I've also included a few statements scattered throughout — as well as a closing statement — that mention some of the current conundrums this structure presents to modern neuroscience.
  • Thanks for your excellent comments, man! Semiconscious (talk · home) 09:54, 20 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

What are people's thoughts about this going up as a FAC? I've never done it before, and I've never seen an article like this up there, so any advice and feedback would be great. Semiconscious (talk · home) 08:14, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Sorry - I've been busy and haven't taken the time to do a close reading of the article. I think this article is as ready for FAC as anything. You've made good changes, and the article looks professional. Go for it. Mr.Bip 19:21, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wolf

[edit]

I've been organizing and working on this article a bit, hoping to submit it to FAC soon. I think the section on howling would do nicely with an image, and the references could be expanded. Any suggestions? Sango123 23:33, August 19, 2005 (UTC)

  • Would love to see this as FA. I'd like to see more on wolves in myth / fable - there's a link to werewolves but maybe a bit of text on that in the main article would help. If the images are ok (re: copyright tags) then its ready for submission now imho, save the addition of the werewolf stuff. --PopUpPirate 23:48, August 19, 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment - Great myth / fable additions! I'd support as FAC if you put it there! --PopUpPirate 21:21, August 23, 2005 (UTC)

Phishing

[edit]
Previous Peer review: Archive1.

I have submitted this article once for a peer review, and I have decided that I will submit it again before trying to submit it to be a featured article canidate. This article has been cited 3 times by sources outside of wikipedia, and since phishing has become a big issue today, I would like to see this become a featured article. One thing that i mentioned in the talk page is that this article has too many links in the external link section. I think it needs to be cropped, but I am not sure what links should stay or go. Suggestions in that department would be useful as well.--ZeWrestler Talk 13:12, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Neat article!
  1. One sentence paragraphs --ZeWrestler Talk 03:53, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Many other grammer errors - I tried to do an overhaul of the first early history paragraph as an example Looks good --Ryan Norton T | @ | C 16:50, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  3. There was no references header - fixed
  4. The article needs to be a bit longer in general... one idea would maybe to go into the phsycology of it a bit I think its long enough now more or less... delving deeper into the phsycology would be good but at this point its long enough to satisfy a good number of people --Ryan Norton T | @ | C 16:50, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Early History should probably just be History fixed --ZeWrestler Talk 11:55, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Phishing headers should be named more appropriately, such as "EBay phishing example" or something done --ZeWrestler Talk 12:00, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Split up the first paragraph under early phishing on AOL - its LOOONG, also I don't even think you need a header there, but that's a personal preference More or less dealt with, I believe --Ryan Norton T | @ | C 16:50, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Another idea would be to take screen shots of the fake sites and compare them to the real ones
Anyway, keep it up, its pretty good --RN 23:50, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Mentioning social engineering would be a great idea although you're already doing that a bit - in fact its pretty good as is (although you could say something like after years of getting the same email someone may not notice the difference between the mails or something, or after years of not visiting a site like paypal may have thought their account was hacked into while they were away or something etc. --Ryan Norton T | @ | C 16:50, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • To expand the article i added a damage caused by phishing section. The seciton needs to be filled in though. I'll work on that part when i get home tonight. I still believe that the article has a few too many links. Can someone take a look at whats there and prune some of the unneeded ones. I've already gone ahead and pruned a couple myself. --ZeWrestler Talk 12:52, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Someone has suggested that the antiphishing article gets merged into phishing, is there any prospect of doing that?--nixie 04:05, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I merged the articles and put a redirect on the anti-phishing article. Source 9 in the article is not working correctly with the template. can someone fix it so the title of the article shows up on the page in normal view. Other than that, what else should be worked on for this page? --ZeWrestler Talk 03:40, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

nixie left a few suggestions in my talk page for the phishing article. i'm posting them here for all to see.

  1. More on identity theft, mabye in the damage section
  2. Whats the damage outside the US [1], I know it's also a problem in Australia but I haven't found anywhere that says how bad it is in Australia
  3. Whats the legal situation outside the US UK, I think you can also be prosecuted in Canada
  4. A second paragraph could be added to the lead to briefly discuss damage, legislation and anti-phishing.

Other than that, the article is coming alone greatly. --ZeWrestler Talk 03:53, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Great job - I finished copyediting and I think at this point it has a good chance to pass FAC - a couple issues with the links though -
  1. Maybe trim out a couple of the lesser quality links
  2. All of them need a description

Looks great --Ryan Norton T | @ | C 16:50, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Belgium

[edit]

The former featured Belgium article has been modified along the lines suggested in the preceeding review, reasons to remove the featured status, and first trial to get re-featured. In particular, history has been strongly reduced, almost all pictures have been replaced by better ones, the culture section has been re-structured and the reference style has been improved. I am expecting your comments and suggestions. Is this page now ready to be re-featured? Vb 10:44, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Review
  • There are too many maps. Please remove the ones in the =history= section and replace them with more apporpriate photographs
    • I removed one -- see comment below
  • reduce Demographics, language, literacy and religion to ==Demographics== done
  • ==Communities and Regions of Belgium== needs to be reduced to the subdivisions/regions of Belgium. Those extra details can be pushed into the subarticle.
    • This comment has been addressed by addition of a sentence specifying how important this topic is for Belgium and why this information should not be further summarized Vb 09:29, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • The geography has too many images. remove 1 done
  • The page size is 37kb which means that long sections will have to be cut down to under 30 kb. It is imperative that the page size be pushed to less than 30kb for now, because when actual copyediting work starts, the size shoots up drastically.
  • Please use the countryinfobox template done
  • remove the bulleted text from geography. What is the highest point? Are there any regions below sea level? Use the non breaking space ( ) between a number and a unit. C, mm, etc. done
  • Trade is made together...? done hope it's clearer now
  • move the bascilica image up done
  • ==Politcs== and ==Culture== sections need to be cut down.

Ok, once these are taken care of, I'll move on to more stuff. =Nichalp «Talk»= 18:33, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Nicholas,

Thank you very much for your review. Many of your comments are very useful. Others are less so. I hope your comments are first hints to a discussion and not definitive.

  1. Your comment about ==Communities and Regions of Belgium== is not correct. This administrative division of Belgium is very typical. Belgium is the only country in the world with such a division. It appears at first sight very complicated and strange to foreigners but it is like this. It is so important that this double division (Communities and Regions) is written explicitly at the start of the constitution. There are no hierarchy between the Regions and the Communities! Those legal bodies are overlapping but do not correspond to the same geographical regions. They both correspond to different conncepts which are not shared by all Belgians. The present description is the result of a very difficult compromise. What you describe as details are not details but constitutive elements of the country. If I would apply your suggestion, any Belgian passing by would directly edit the page to include what you are calling details.
  2. The sections ==Politcs== and ==Culture== are quite difficult to digest more. Could you give me some hints about what in your opinion should be cut down? Politics is now divided in four paragraphs: legislative. executive and justice, political parties and lobbies, current policies. I personally think all four parts are informative and difficult to digest further. For example cutting into the fourth paragraph will automatically lead to non NPOV. Cutting it utterly is a bit stupid. This paragraph was born because some editor wanted to add info about nuclear phase out. I thought this is an interesting info but is NPOV if and only if other current Belgian politics are discussed to a comparable extend. About culture, talking about Belgium culture requires to speak about its artistic production. This is not because the article about Nepal does not include it that every country article should mimic that! :-) The culture of Belgium is not only its food, folklore and sport! If you want to be a bit informative you need to say a bit more than Belgium is well-known for its pop music. If I would do as you suggest any Belgian passing by will edit the page and add the info I suppressed in a non NPOV style (depending whether she is Walloon or Flemish).
  3. About the size 36K is a usual size for featured articles. I think what you say about explosion of the size is correct but must be addressed as the copyedit find place not afterwards.
  4. The pictures of geography have been chosen to please as well the Flemish as the Walloons. NPOV is a very important point which has to be taken into account when writing this article -- at all levels! If you don't do that the page shall be very fast vandalised!
  5. The highest point of Belgium is the Signal de Botrange at 694m (as written in the article at its place, i.e. at the description of the Ardennes). Belgium has no notable region below the sea level but there are also many other things that Belgium don't have.
  6. Why don't you like the list in Geography? I didn't do it but I like: it it helps reading.
  7. The maps in history are important because the political meaning of Belgium has changes very much during history. The first map shows for example the roman province Belgium was located much more in France than in today's Belgium. The second map shows for example what was the location of the Bishopric of Liège which was distinct of the Burgundian Netherlands or that the Duchy of Brabant was split over the Belgian-Netherlandish border. People reading the article must realize Belgium was not clearly localized in history! And was also not really corresponding to a particular people or ethnic group. I think the maps are helping very much in attaining these aims.

So I thank you once again for your suggestion and I hope you understand why I shall not implement them in their entirety. I have not the time now to make all the changes you suggested with which I agree. I'll do that tomorrow or later.

Vb 17:41, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Review

I would ask you to have this article copyedited before I can review again. =Nichalp «Talk»= 15:57, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Nicholas,

I think now all your remarks have been taken into account. Some editors have copyedited it and I believe one could remove the copyedit flag. Vb 13:17, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Pan American World Airways

[edit]

This article has gone through peer review before (see archive). However, I am wondering if there are further ways to improve this article to featured status. In particular, I am wondering about images since half the images have questionable copyrights. Pentawing 21:03, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Flag of Belarus

[edit]

Since I know that my last few FAC's failed due to grammar and possible POV problems, I was wondering if people would like to see if yall could help me fix these problems. Thanks. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 06:40, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Not related to grammar or POV, but the claim of {{PD-BY-exempt}} for Image:Belarus flag finial.jpg is almost certainly incorrect. It's a crop of an otherwise-copyrighted photo, so it isn't covered by any of the situations listed in the template. The image doesn't add much to the article, so it should probably be removed. --Carnildo 07:27, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I realized I have another copy of the finial in the article, which is closer to the bottom at "Similar flags." I will remove the photo. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 17:13, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I've given the article a copyedit, and it looks pretty good. I'd like to suggest that the table of colors of the flag be converted into prose—take one or two of the color schemes and incorporate them into the last paragraph of that section. There are also two long quotes in the body of the article, and those perhaps should be paraphrased. The first (the one that describes the flag) should be incorporated into the first section, since that's where the primary flag description is. I'll let you know if I see more... --Spangineer (háblame) 17:24, August 16, 2005 (UTC)
I am keeping the table, since I am comparing four source and two color schemes. Even if two groups use the same color scheme, such as Pantone, different numbers have been found. So, as a vexillologist, I have to introduce the debate (without adding my own results, since it is OR). Plus, as for the long quotes, I wanted to copy the quotes verbatum, since they are laws. Plus, I am going to move my construction sheet drawing back to the middle of the paragraph, since I am doing the same thing as Flag of Hong Kong did with their sheet. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 17:45, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Eh, ok. --Spangineer (háblame) 04:26, August 17, 2005 (UTC)
I've gone through the article and given the text a polish. I've also added the Belarussian text from the military flag. (Silverhelm 20:48, 19 August 2005 (UTC))[reply]
Sweet, thanks. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 21:05, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Elf

[edit]

By the combined work of a great many contributors, this article has successively evolved beyond the 33kb limit, and it is about time it had a peer review. Opinions on style, encyclopedic relevancy and references would be especially appreciated. --Salleman 17:42, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Edit: Please give me your opinion as to whether I should add the 30 or so works of modern fantasy mentioned in the article to the reference list? How do I reference "the Harry Potter book series" for example? --Salleman 07:47, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Not bad. Merge the tiny paras into larger, more readable, move all external links from main body to notes section. Perhaps a few more pictures could be added? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 19:31, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Old PD images of elves are hell to find, really. Only the act of God directed me to that one by Richard Doyle. Promotional images of fantasy elves can be found in abundance, but I don't know if spamming that section with them is going to make anyone happier. I have added an image (of questionable quality) of Marcus from Bad Santa as an example of a Christmas elf, though. I'll start working on the short paras later.
Try using Wikipedia:Boilerplate_request_for_permission. Quite a few artists/companies are willing to give some images free (PD/GNU FDL/CC), provided they got some recognition (link back, name, etc.). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 20:06, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
It looks good, but I agree with Piotrus that something needs to be done about the one sentence paragraphs. I would also like to see references from more than one author. - SimonP 22:36, July 16, 2005 (UTC)
We actually have two scholarly references, with a runner-up in Keightley. Schön is the reference for most of the "Scandinavian elves" section. I just don't see the point in noting every second sentence, and I don't know the academic system to refer a whole section to a particular work. On top of that we have a vast amount of original sources, mainly from the "fantasy elves" section. But I agree: references is the major problem with this article.
Edit: I have made the note system more homogenous and mentioned Schön in a note.
  • I've seen mythical elves referred to as "trooping fairies" in English lore, as they were believed to travel in well-organized bands. But I don't see this mentioned here. Probably the modern fairy section could be split out into it's own page with a brief summary paragraph on the Elf page. Thanks. — RJH 22:47, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Trooping fairies, as opposed to singular fairies, are fairies (whatever one puts into that word; usually mythical/folkloric beings of human-like manifestation in general) who appear in groups. It is not a synonym for "elves." --Salleman 20:19, 18 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • It seems to be written like some parts of the Witch article that I had been cleaning up a while ago, but the organiztion is fairly good and much better than the witch article. — Stevey7788 (talk) 17:23, 18 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I think it is misguided to demand a lot of references, as most of the information on Scandinavian elves are common knowledge (at least to Scandinavians). But I am afraid that people will demand such references, since this subject is very sensitive to information from popular culture and original research. That said, I think the article is excellent.--Wiglaf 08:59, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I completely agree with Wiglaf and I for one would object if the article was FAC:ed in this state. It is quite pointless to use footnotes for things like word etymologies or quotes from texts when it is already clearly stated in the text where the quote comes from. Footnotes are not supposed to be used to reference obvious, undisputable and uncomplicated facts like these. They're supposed to be references to quotes when the text doesn't disclose the source (but avoiding to mention this in the text is just silly) or explanations which would fit in the text for whatever reason. The type of footnotes used are also not helpful since you can't click one to get straight to the notes-section. Simply listing what works that have been referenced in the "Reference" section is enough. There's also a factual errors in the article:
  • The helpers of the Swedish Santa are separate creatures from elves. The full term for them is actually "tomtenisse", where "tomte" is actually the key word and is the term for the Swedish "house gnome" (or something like it), which is a completely different creature. Nisse is often used separatly, though. To Swedes a "tomte" or a "nisse", or the two combined would under no circumstance be associated with elves like in English-speaking countries and including them in this article is very misleading and strikes me as very Anglo-centric. Furthermore the plural form of nisse is nissar, not nisser.
  • The word "alv" in Swedish is these days only used for the elves in Tolkien's books and the latter day RPG offspring, and they are not male, but rather androgynous and used for both male and female elves. The older form is "alf", with "alv" being the modern spelling, and is considered to be more or less synonymous with älva. The Swedish elves of folk myth that are known to most people are refered to as älvor and are (historically) indeed feminine even by grammatical gender. Älva is never used to refer to Tolkien's elves, female or male.
Peter Isotalo 13:41, 11 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Tomtenissar for Santa's helpers may be more common than plainly nissar in Sweden, but not so in Norway and Denmark, where nisse indeed is pluralized as nisser.
  • Although there is a male elven king, I believe he is called älvkonungen or älvakonungen in the accounts, so you are probably right. Alv is just a reformed spelling of alf from Norse mythology. There is work to be done on the Scandinavian elves section. I'm in the process of reading some books. :) --Salleman 20:32, 11 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Swap some of the image justification about, so that Post Tolkien Fantasy Elves looks neater... that image could do with being on the right OR shrink the text under the image OR expand the text to the right of the image, so the list below is all in line. Minor point on an otherwise great piece. --PopUpPirate 17:19, August 11, 2005 (UTC) - edit - done it --PopUpPirate 17:20, August 11, 2005 (UTC)

Sunset Boulevard (film)

[edit]

Have done a complete rewrite of article and have added references.

Very interested in any comments, particularly regarding the images. Searched every place I could think of and wasted hours of my life, searching for public domain or free images, to no avail.

Have trimmed the images down from what was there before in order to use fair use images only sparingly. I think what remains is essential, but I'd appreciate any comments about them, or any other aspect of the article. Thanks. Rossrs 14:31, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't yet had time to read through it, but it looks good. One thing that jumps out at me is the total lack of categories. - SimonP 14:59, August 4, 2005 (UTC)
Well it's a difficult film to categorize. Thank you for noticing that I accidentally deleted them. Have now restored them, plus the "other language" links. Rossrs 15:09, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
For the most part, the images look good, but Image:SunsetBoulevardCast.jpg is of much higher resolution than is needed for the article, and it needs an explanation of why its use in the article constitutes fair use. --Carnildo 19:54, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
OK, thanks. I'll give it some thought. Rossrs 21:04, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I've replaced the image with a lower resolution version of the same thing, and have added a fair use rationale. Rossrs 13:11, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Names of the Greeks

[edit]

I have added lots of information on the older article, essentially re-writing it, and I think its finally up to level with WP:FA. I've think I've maintained NPOV. It may require corrections in prose and language. Please comment or edit on any mistakes. Colossus 17:08, 13 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

My Belarusy

[edit]

Trying to get more Belarusian stuff up to Featured content. I am not sure what yall suggest in putting in here, but since it is a national anthem, I figure you guys have a few suggestions. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 04:26, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Personaly, I think perhaps a map showing where Belarusia is, and/or the Belarusian flag might be appropriate to put in there. On the other hand, is it needed to have the entire lyrics quoted in the article? The article states that it is the 'unofficial title' for the anthem; might it make more sence to rename the article to the official (in english, off course =) ) name? Other than that, the article seems to be a bit dry and lacking.. the feeling I get after reading it is pretty much summed up as "And?". How do the population of Belarus react to the anthem and the changes in lyrics? Do they feel pride in the anthem, accepts it or disagree with it? How popular is it to use it? For what occations is it used? WegianWarrior 09:20, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I got the law, so I can say when and where it is performed. While "My Belarusy" is the unofficial title, the official title is National Anthem of the Republic of Belarus. I will still keep the article at this title, but I will make a note that the title is unofficial and where the title came from. I have the title in english, but I will make a note of it in the lead. I will also check other articles on national anthem to see what I can find, but I am not sure how a map or flag could be used. The reason why I have the full lyrics here is that the anthem officially has three verses and the refrain repeated 3 times. I can check the reaction and I have saved the other possibly lyrics that could have been adopted in 2002. Do they feel pride in the hymn? I am not sure. If your looking for something about the public reaction like you saw with Russia's hymn, I will try to find it. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 16:33, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Single Transferable Vote

[edit]

I first found this article a few days after British Columbia had their referendum on it that barely failed in no small part due to a lack of voter knowledge about STV. Over the past month or so I, with the help of a few others, have been working quite heavily on it, and I'd like to get some fresh eyes to give it a good once over and make suggestions. I'm particularly interested in opinions about the articles length, as I believe it may be borderline too long and redundant in some parts - smoke em out if you spot em. Thanks! Scott Ritchie 06:52, 10 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I think the content is very good. Two things that should be tidied up are stray sentences that should be merged into paragraphs, and incorporating the html links in text into a list of notes using Wikipedia:Footnote3. If you're worred about the length the section on counties that use STV could be move to another page and described in this article in summary style, the table of contents is very long and this would help reduce the lenght of both the article and the TOC. I don't think it is too long as is, except for the lenght of the TOC.--nixie 04:16, 11 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thansk for the eyes. I took a stab at most of the stray sentences I could find - the chief culprit seemed to be the history section. I think it looks a lot cleaner now. I'll take a stab at footnoting soon, but in the mean time is there anything else to clean up in the text? Scott Ritchie 09:54, 11 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, hi - I have never engaged in Wikipedia editing before, but I noticed what may be a very minor typo: the line, "Example: in a 1,000,000 voter constituency with 4 seats, the quote would be 250,000 votes, not 200,001." I am presuming that the intent was for the word "quota" rather than the printed "quote." Hope that helps?

Anarcho-capitalism

[edit]

Prior Peer Review: Wikipedia:Peer review/Anarcho-capitalism/archive1

Well it failed an FaC nomination, so I'm doing this again for some dispassionate input from people outside the Ancap/Anarchist POV debate. Saswann 17:34, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like a well put-together article that maintains a reasonable level of neutrality. The "Anarchism and Capitalism" sub-section gets too much early coverage and should be placed at the end of the "Philosophy" section. (As a reader I want to get the full picture concerning the philosophy before digressing into such nuances.) The large "An anarcho-capitalist model of political ideologies" chart mucks up the next section title when the browser window is too small. :) — RJH 19:14, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Broke out "Anarchism and Capitalism" into it's own section, and, as the chart followed it, seems to have corrected the other issue Saswann 17:13, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Lord of the Nutcracker Men

[edit]

It's been expanded a lot since it was created, but there isn't as much to add, because it doesn't have the notoriety of modern books like The Giver, Lord of the Flies, and Harry Potter. Toothpaste 02:41, 10 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Overall it looks good. However the sentence that reads, "A main theme of the book is the pointlessness and irrationality of war," doesn't connect with the remainder of the same paragraph. It might, for example, be more appropriate at the start of the following paragraph concerning the father. Also do you have any additional information concerning the fact that this book has become required reading in American High Schools? For example, when was this decided and by whom? Thanks. — RJH 14:56, 18 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Brown v. Board of Education

[edit]

Aguably one of the most important cases in the history of the Supreme Court of the U.S., the article on Brown has recently undergone substantial expansion. I am hoping that this is on the way to featured article status. however, I am concered that the subject of the effects and outcomes of Brown are undercovered, and that there may be too much "really, my home town isn't full of bigots" explanation of the situation in Topeka. Therefore, I humbly request peer review.... Rick Boatright 23:20, 9 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Not a bad article, although I think there are too many graphics and photos. I'm not sure why we need to know what Monroe Elementary looks like, for instance. IMHO, the "Supreme Court" sidebar and the map indicating which states had racial segregation at the time is all the graphics we need.

Also, the ==Myths== page needs to be cleaned up. --Micahbrwn 03:37, 10 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the self-congratulatory photo of Thurgood Marshall and company dates to the earliest versions of the page. Monroe Elementary, I added in order to show the "Not a dilapodated tar-paper-shack"- but you're probebly right that what I need to do is just make a "Monroe Elementary" page. what sort of cleanup of myths do you have in mind? -- ThanksRick Boatright 03:48, 10 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • One problem with comprehensiveness is that (legal) criticism of the decision in Brown is not discussed at all. Christopher Parham (talk) 04:34, 2005 July 10 (UTC)

ouch. You're right, but that sure feels like stepping into a Roe v. Wade tarpit. But you're right. Rick Boatright 13:54, 10 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Is [2] this the sort of criticism you have in mind? I -think- I can re-work Justice Thomas position from Jenkins.... or perhaps quote his opinion. Rick Boatright 15:59, 10 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

    • I don't think it needs to get anything like Roe v. Wade, where obviously the controversy is the main issue. But a couple paragraphs would fill out the article well. The first paragraph here [3] has a couple good points:
"In hindsight, I believe that the Court’s opinion had two major defects. First, the Court failed to show that its decision was really an outgrowth of previous rulings. By the time that the Court decided Brown, the handwriting was on the wall; the constitutional invalidity of segregation had been all but established. A firmer ruling, more rooted in a legal context reaching back well over 50 years, would have discouraged the kinds of resistance that made integration so protracted and difficult. Second, the Court did not specify the remedy for segregation – and when it did so a year later, in Brown v. Board of Education II, it gave the nation a formula (“all deliberate speed”) that encouraged southern resistance."

Re: "cleanup of myths", I really don't know what I have in mind. To be honest, I don't think that section even belongs there... since its essentially a whole lot of what Brown isn't. Also, the listing of myths with bullet points doesn't sit right with me. Perhaps it would be better to reformat into concise (and brief) paragraphs. Something along the lines of how snopes.com debunks urban legends, perhaps. --Micahbrwn 16:17, 10 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Well, I disagree about having it here. A quick google search for Brown returns that essentially EVERY page includes the "walked two miled across a dangerous rail yard at night, in the snow uphill both ways" myth. I think that this common misperception in the popular culture is 'important', and deserving of a mention in that it is part of being enclyclopaedic about Brown. "The case behind brown is frequently misunderstood." ... perhaps a "myths" section isn't quite the right way to do it, but the content belongs. I'll think about the Snopes idea. Rick Boatright 17:25, 10 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • The information is useful, but having it is a separate myths section is not a good idea. Perhaps it would be best to integrate it into the ==The case== section. - SimonP 19:54, July 10, 2005 (UTC)
  • While this is not bad for a normal article, and I commend the authors for their work, this article needs a good deal of work before attaining featured status. The socio/political implications of the ruling need to be discussed at length, and the ruling itself needs to be dealt with in far greater detail. Furthermore, the history of how Warren succeded in getting a 9-0 vote, how his political skills helped here, the death of the former chief justice, these all need to be discussed. The case was re-argued -- the oral arguments, easily available, need to be analysed. This article cites no law review articles and no books on the Warren court (even a general history of the Supreme Court would be helpful here); there is a substantial literature on the subject -- print academic sources need to be consulted. Not to be too discouraging -- I've never gotten a featured article myself -- just keep plugging away! --Zantastik talk 20:06, 10 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I understand a ==References== section, and understand the idea of using footnotes to printed sources, but I think I strongly disagree that a long discussion of how Warren succeded in getting a 9-0 vote etc should be incorporated into the body of the article. Doing a reasonable job, and balancing the -as you pointed out- ample secondary literature, would require a book length text. As to the socio-political implications, that mostly happens under the various "Civil Rights" pages, _all_ of which refer to Brown. But I'm afraid I'm one of those who feel that the old 32K limit for articles was a GOOD thing, and that a CLUSTER of articles around a complex issue serves the wiki better. Rick Boatright 20:52, 10 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

      • I never said that a "long" discussion of how Warren succeded in getting a 9-0 vote was needed, but the unanamity was very difficult to obtain and is generally regarded as a masterstroke -- if a southern justice had dissented, some scholars consider that the decision would have proved to be significantly more difficult to implement. Thus, the 9-0 vote was very important and Warren, an apt politican, was able to obtain it after a great deal of effort. The article needs to discuss this; read any book that deals with the case -- you'll find ample material. Point taken about the implications of the case; still, adding a little bit there wouldn't hurt. But I just don't think that such an important aspect of this matter -- how Warren got a 9-0 vote -- can be dispensed with. And consulting 10 books or so for an article doesn't reauire the author to write a book-length article; think of short-ish academic articles, for example. --Zantastik talk 20:00, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. That I can do. as to 10 books, HA! Way way _way_ over that now. Working WINNOWING the references section before posting it.... Thanks Rick Boatright 22:16, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sybian

[edit]

Ok folks, I tried to pull off a FAC, but I failed big time. Of the issues that were introduced:

  • Copyright OK photos
  • Use in porn industry
  • Sales figures
  • Need for NPOV/Objective commentary
  • Impact on society
  • More sources
  • If I miss a few, you can see the FAC page at top.

I took care of the photos, so only two remain (one is GFDL and the other has been released for us to use with no problems). My pal Leo is taking care of the sales figures and the "made to order" question. I need suggestions on how to solve all of these issues and try to make this article Featured. Also, if you also wish to object to having this page being on the Front Page, make the comments on my talk page or this talk page. Thanks. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 21:33, 18 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Goodness me, that thing looks intimidating! Other things you may want to include: Similar devices and a comparison; how widespread is its usage outside of the porn industry (some, erm, research on Google showed up a lot of different sites); you make some passing references to the medical pros and cons... have there been an instances of people being hurt by this thing?; a copyedit wouldn't hurt... I did a spelling check and found a number of errors that I fixed. I would love to see this on the front page some day. Zerbey 22:01, July 18, 2005 (UTC)
I had similar devices added it, but I was told it sounded like a promo. I will add it it, but it needs to be cleaned up. I will check up on the medicial issues. I know some porn sites are dedicated to showing women ride the Sybian, and there is a nickname for it and similar devices: "f...ing machines." I cannot really provide links to any porno site, since that is asking for trouble. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 22:06, 18 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Gyeongju

[edit]

July Collaboration for the South Korean counties & cities WikiProject. Looking for advice on what should be added, subtracted, or polished in order to bring this article up to the highest standard. Thanks in advance! -- Visviva 03:58, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Very detailed and has a lot of information, but please re-organize the article because the table of content shows that the contributors sticked info into the article without organizing things. Some changes on the headers, and move some sections around. — Stevey7788 (talk) 17:26, 18 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Is it any better now? I'm not really sure what standard to follow. -- Visviva 18:08, 18 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Stevey7788's comments helped me to see the disorganized state of this article. (Thanks!) I've done a general reorg and edit, and I think I have solved a lot of the cohesion issues. I'd appreciate any feedback on what more needs to be done. For instance... would it be a good idea to spin off and summarize the "History" section? -- Visviva 15:00, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Blade Runner

[edit]

This article is a failed FAC candidate. I believe the majority of issues have been taken care of; but to help ensure a smooth third nomination by me; I'd like to submit the article to scrutiny. I'm particularly concerned with any sections that could/should be added to make the article comprehensive; but given my passion for the subject matter I'm not the best person to figure out what those might be. - RoyBoy 800 01:34, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It looks good, one of our best articles on a film. My major concern is that having Themes in Blade Runner as a separate article doesn't seem like a good idea. I would want to see more on themes in the main article, and some things sent to the subarticle, such as the full debate over Deckard's humanity, seem out of place. I suggest summarizing themes and integrating it into the main page. A single 40Kb article is less of a problem than two arbitrarily divided ones. - SimonP 13:19, July 14, 2005 (UTC)
I cannot see reintegration as the better option; certainly the section needs to beefed up, and I admit neglecting it over a matter of indecision on my part on what to use (my lead or the original, and quite marvelous, original text) which is in the BR article now. I suppose if I can't beat'em join'em, meaning I should integrate the two and expand it a touch; maybe into five paragraphs. - RoyBoy 800 00:53, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It's good, but still needs improvement. Creators section should be renamed into Production or something similar and include information such as when filming began and ended. I felt Synopsis was confusing and in some cases way too detailed. When an important charachter is introduced take the time to introduce that charachters role (not just using parenthsis) and maybe a little of that charachters personality. When describing events avoid too much detail, and I also felt the synopsis section used to many short awkward sentences. Influence and Awards should be moved after Synopsis and Themes should be moved between Synopsis and Influence and Awards. Also you are missing information about the Cast. Use Casablanca (film) and Wikipedia:WikiProject Films as guides.

Alright, although I'm confused as to where its confusing, and why would I want to cut details of events, but then upgrade character details (which I agree with)? - RoyBoy 800 00:53, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Explaining the charachters will help with the confusion. About too much detail, sentences like this: "However, Leon surprises Deckard and knocks his gun to the ground before beating him senseless in an alleyway. Just as he is about to kill Deckard, Rachael shoots Leon in the head." This can be condensed into something similar to: "Leon suprised Deckard and they fight, and just as Deckard is about to be killed, Rachel shoots Leon in the head." MechBrowman 01:30, July 17, 2005 (UTC)
While I appreciate your help, you getting rid of "useless detail" is in effect diminishing the quality of the synopsis. "Deckard visits the Tyrell Corporation to meet the company's owner" is completely at odds with the storyline that Deckard was "sent" there to test wether Nexus-6's can be detected; not to "visit" or "meet Tyrell". You asked to expand on the character detail, but then remove my newly constructed intro of Rachael. Frankly I'm annoyed having spent over an hour agonizing over what to insert without bloating the size of the synopsis. Generally speaking your version lacks dramatic nuance, and contains several typos; and while I'm no expert at tense putting "had" in several places is confusing. - RoyBoy 800 04:26, 18 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The part about visiting Tyrell Corporation I had to rewrite last becasue there was absolutely no indication in that paragraph about what mattered to the main plot. Taking so much time to explain why Deckard went to Tyrell Corporation is too much detail. All you need to explain is what happens there, because what happens there effects the main plot later in the film.
Neither version has "dramatic nuance". Both are generally awkward reads, and basically poorly written. I feel my version is better only because I took out scenes and long explanations of facts that don't belong in a synopsis.
The information you put about the charachters was not what I meant at all. I meant their personality or at least what your first impression of what the charachter is like. Not if they are bearded and in their thirties. This is just my opionion about how much needs to go into the synopsis. The main problem with the synopsis is it's flow and sentence structure, and if more detail would make it sound better I think thats fine. No matter what, the Synopsis needs more work. MechBrowman 14:50, July 18, 2005 (UTC)
Agreed, I gave it another whirl. - RoyBoy 800 06:55, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
It's much better, good work! MechBrowman 12:47, July 19, 2005 (UTC)

This sentence: "It could be argued the strong visuals serve to create a dehumanized world where human elements stand out. Furthermore the relationship between Deckard and Rachael could be essential in reaffirming their respective humanity." Sentences like this need to be avoided at all costs. Who is arguing this? What is "it"? For example instead say, "Other critics have countered that...". MechBrowman 15:48, July 14, 2005 (UTC)

Understood, thanks. - RoyBoy 800 00:53, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I've performed a copyedit of the article, along with some other changes, such as resizing some of the pictures (the billboard screenshot seemed a bit too big). MechBrowman summed up a lot of the things I thought while reading the article, but I thought I'd share my opinions anyway:
  • The sections should be as follows: Lead Section, Synopsis, Themes, Cast, Film critics (renamed as Criticism), Awards and nominations, Influence (split Influence and Awards into two sections - see below), Versions, Soundtracks, and Literature, TV and games (renamed as Literature and games - see below), followed by See also, References, and External links.
  • The Synopsis section should have the actors' wikilinked names in parentheses after the first mention of their character in the text.
  • The Themes section needs expanding. This shouldn't be too difficult, since the main themes article is so long.
  • Closely related to the above, a cast list section should be created. Apart from Harrison Ford, I had absolutely no idea which actor played whom until I consulted the IMDb page.
  • In addition to the awards table, a list of award nominations the film received could be compiled (I believe it was nominated for a few Oscars, although I'm not sure about that). Then, the Awards and nominations section could be split off from the Influence section.
  • The Soundtrack section could do with some quotes from critics.
  • The Literature, TV and games section doesn't mention any television productions related to the film. If there aren't any, just rename it Literature and games.
  • "It has been widely hailed as a modern classic in league with 2001: A Space Odyssey and praised as being as influential among science fiction films as Metropolis." - by who?
  • "Deeley secured financing for the film from a range of sources (which later proved to be a problem)" - why?
On a more general, slightly less actionable criticism, the whole tone of the article seems a tad fannish and POV. There's a lot on what future films were influenced by Blade Runner and how it is thought of now, but I didn't really get a sense of the mixed reception the film supposedly received upon its release. That said, if not quite FA-worthy yet, this is by far one of the better film articles I've seen on Wikipedia. Good work to all those who have contributed to it. Extraordinary Machine 20:16, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Wheew, I'll get to all this in a bit; re: "widely hailed", I think I got that from BFI modern classics. Thanks. - RoyBoy 800 00:53, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, great work. The article is now friendlier to the casual reader than the previous version. I'd recommend providing sources for the quotes from critics, though, and also integrating them into the text (and could you find out their names, if possible). Also, the Cast section now seems very POV... perhaps more critical quotes here would reduce the fannish tone (e.g. "Some Critic said Hauer was "powerful" in his role). But like I said, apart from that, great work. This is definitely on the road to becoming FA-quality. I also applaud you for keeping major spoilers confined to the Synopsis section. Extraordinary Machine 20:58, 18 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Understood, and much thanks. - RoyBoy 800 06:55, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Spice Girls

[edit]

Second request. Tell us anything that needs to be improved on the article. --Winnermario 01:36, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I did it for you, but next time archive the old request instead of blanking it. It's at Wikipedia:Peer review/Spice Girls/archive1. -Greg Asche (talk) 01:44, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Section titles: Some problems, especially with the very-similar-sounding In the beginning and Birth of Spice. More clear, less cute?
  2. "...it is claimed that they are the biggest-selling girl group of all time, with reported sales of over forty-five million albums and thirty million singles." Should be able to pin that down to a specific authoritative source and lose "claimed" and "reported" weasel-words.
  3. In the beginning: The writing in this section often sounds non-encyclopedic and like it was written from the point of view of someone in the room with the band. Example: "Things became tough when many arguments broke out, and the tension was only increased by promises of a record contract that never seemed to materialise". It needs to be established how we know this information. If it is based on specific quotes, use them.
  4. "In 1996 they changed their name to 'Spice Girls'..." Maybe I missed it. What did they change their name from?
    You missed it. "Touch". --Winnermario 15:43, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    So I did. Sorry :-) Bunchofgrapes (talk) 20:10, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Birth of Spice: Consider shorter sentences. Some of these long multi-clause sentences are a headscratcher to untangle.
  6. Five become four: "This was a shock and Geri was extremely frustrated, and only added to her desires of leaving the group." How do we know it was a shock, and she felt frustrated? Similar to the writing problems in the In the beginning section.
  7. Career records and achievements: I don't like sections like these ("lists of trivia") and would prefer to see the information in the appropriate sections.
Bunchofgrapes (talk) 03:46, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Appointment to the Order of Canada

[edit]

Another fork article for Order of Canada. Unlike the other one I nominated for PR, I have pictures for this one and it has not been listed for VFD. However, I still think we could feature this one without placing it on the front page. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 01:37, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Removal from the Order of Canada

[edit]

This article is a fork of Order of Canada, which also has Featured Status. I just want to see if this article is good enough to become Featured. I am not sure if article forks are good subjects for Featured status and I also do not think we can really put this on the front page. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 23:57, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Panama Canal

[edit]

This article has been substantially expanded and mostly re-written since its previous attempt at FA status. I believe that all the issues raised in the previous FAC have been dealt with. I think it's now pretty much ready for FAC, and I'd like to have some input as to what remains to be done to get it there. Thanks in advance... — Johantheghost 15:12, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Issues still remain such as the presence of list material and ugly subsections. Manual of style for units ( ) not followed. =Nichalp «Talk»= 09:41, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks for looking at it, but can you clarify what you mean please? What do you mean by "presence of list material"? Obviously there are lists, but the MoS allows that. And what do you mean by "ugly subsections" specifically? I'll bring the units in line with MoS as per your comment. — Johantheghost 13:14, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        1. You've used a lot of bulleted text. It will need to be rewritten into prose.
        2. Each section needs to have about two paragraphs. Some sections such as the lake is a bit short of material. =The future= needs to be merged with History.
        3. Linking to the Panama Canal Authority (ACP). site inline is considered bad style. Wikify it instead and create a new article. =Nichalp «Talk»= 13:31, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  1. I'm sorry, where does it say I can't use lists? There are 3 lists in the article, which is not what I would consider "a lot", and in each case the lists are genuinely describing list-type information. The layout of the canal could be made into prose, but I think is far clearer as a list of stages; the list of crossings and the list of improvements are obviously lists, and making them into prose would be a mess.
  2. "Each section needs to have about two paragraphs" — can you show me that rule in the MoS? In fact, the MoS itself has lots of one-paragraph sections. I don't think there's anything wrong with that, depending on context; eg. Alajuela Lake is clearly one of a series of sections, which in general clearly deserve to be sections. Yes, the bit on Alajuela Lake could be longer, but I don't really know what else there is to say. As for merging The Future with History, I really have trouble seeing your logic here. The sequence "History" - "Current Issues" - "Future" makes a lot of sense to me, and they clearly deserve to be separate sections.
  3. "Wikify it"? What new article? You mean an article about the ACP? Actually, the manual of style specifically says "A link going straight to the target is preferred over a link relying on a redirect.", and shows an example equivalent to what I've done (see WP:MOS-L). Since this is not a reference about the entity under discussion, but a link to the entity under discussion, I believe this is the appropriate style for this situation. — Johantheghost 14:24, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
You needn't get so defensive over the comments. :) It is generally accepted that the article should be mostly prose, and if it is possible to convert lists to prose then it should be done. Other than the last list, I think the first two can easily be converted to prose. The MoS in question actually talks about the =External links= section. As I've said, having the link inline is considered bad style, it disrupts the print and aural rendering of the text. You've given valid reasons for the rest, so I won't press on, though ideally the =Future= section is really an extension of the history. =Nichalp «Talk»= 05:13, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sorry if I sound defensive, but I'm struggling to understand your points here. The article is mostly prose, and I just can't see how I can rewrite the Layout as prose -- keeping all the distances, heights, etc. -- without it being an unreadable mess. Want to have a try? But as it stands, I think it's a lot more useful to anyone who wants to extract information from that list -- eg. how many miles of man-made channel are there, how many miles in fresh water, etc.
  • "The MoS in question actually talks about the =External links= section" -- no, I was quoting the "Internal Links" section -- look down towards the end of that section. But I didn't know about external links disrupting the aural rendering -- what is the problem with that? How is it different from Wikilinks? Does WP:MOS-L need changing?
  • It's true that Future is really an extension of History, but so is Current Issues, so they could all be merged into one huge section. But it's better to break things up, isn't it? Actually, the Future section as it stands is much more an extension of Current Issues than it is of the History section. — Johantheghost 12:52, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Why dont you give prosifying a shot? I can do it, but I don't have much time on my hands these days. As for the aural rendering, its to do with inline text linking, not at the =external links= section. =Nichalp «Talk»= 11:09, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I did; it looked like a horrible mass of figures, so I didn't even bother committing it. Re "=external links= section", what I actually said was "I was quoting the Internal Links section" of WP:MOS-L -- please refer to my earlier comment. If you can let me know what the actual problem is, I'll see about fixing it. — Johantheghost 14:12, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The problem with the inline links recommended in WP:MOS-L is that in the printer-friendly and aural versions of the page, the URL is rendered inline, which — particularly for aural rendering — disrupts the flow of the text to an unacceptable degree. I've therefore created the Panama Canal Authority article and linked to it, as recommended by Nichalp. — Johantheghost 16:27, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Autism

[edit]
previous peer review

Dana Gioia

[edit]

Profile of the chairman of the National Endowment for the Arts. It's been here for nearly a year and nobody has touched the substance. I'd really like opinions about its chances as a FAC. PedanticallySpeaking 15:40, July 16, 2005 (UTC)

  • I think the article is presently lacking sufficient content to make it a featured article, the writing style is also too familiar, here's an example from the lead:
he has been chairman of the National Endowment for the Arts, the United States government's arts agency, and has worked to revitalize an organization that had become gun-shy after the bitter controversies that surrounded it in the late 1980s and early 1990s.

What controversies? Someone outside the American arts community has no idea what this means. It is short of biographical information, is he married, does he have children, what did he do between 1983 and 1992 etc. The dispute with Donald Hall seems to have been quite significant in the relevant circles and should probably be described in more detail. Since he is actually an artist himself I would also expect to see more in depth discussion of his work like the biographies of other featured writers. --nixie 07:20, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The disputes over the NEA funding people such as Andres Serrano, Karen Finley, and Robert Mapplethorpe were national news and the subject of many hearings in Congress. To describe them here is inappropriate--the material belongs better on the NEA article. As for the time you cited, I quote the article: "After college, he joined General Foods Corporation and served as vice-president of marketing from 1977 to 1992, when he quit to write full-time." I did not talk in detail about his writing as I know little about poetry. Notices were placed last year asking if someone could help in this regard but there were no takers. As for his family, I have heard of him speak of a wife and his son, who died young. But I don't have specifics. I'll see what I can find out in this regard.PedanticallySpeaking 15:29, July 21, 2005 (UTC)

Federico García Lorca

[edit]

I reckon this is now a reasonably complete account of this famous poet and playwright's life and work. Would value any further comments or contributions. --Ngb 17:45, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Overall, good article. A few things thought: Personaly, I prefer seeing articles without red links in - at least some stubs should be made in my opinion. The list of major works read like a, well, list. Could each entry perhaps be expanded somewhat? Perhaps something like:
  • El maleficio de la mariposa ("The Butterfly's Evil Spell")
A symbolist work drawing inspiration from Yeats and Maeterlinck, especially the latter's L'Oiseau Bleu (1905), the play deals with an injured butterfly, temporarily stranded amongst other insects, which flies away despite the cockroach's love for her.
Just a thought off course - but I think it'll give people a better overwiev of his works. WegianWarrior 18:44, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
It's a good point. I have written very basic stubs for all but one of Lorca's plays, which I will get round to fleshing out properly at some point -- is it general practice for information from these to be reproduced in articles about their authors? --Ngb 19:00, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Honestly, I don't know if it's common or not - however, I think it will make the article easier to read. WegianWarrior 06:57, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Image of Lorca has unverified copyright status. Borisblue 01:51, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Spite

[edit]

Hi. In fair division, a branch of theoretical economics, there is a thing called spite where a player acts against his own interests in order to hurt someone else. So I started a page called spite.

But the concept is much broader. How about some knowledgeable wikpedian adding some examples of spite/spiteful behaviour from literature or politics or psychology?

Robinh 13:48, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Try to remove that self-reference in the first line. Phoenix2 17:57, July 19, 2005 (UTC)

Someone should give some empirical examples of this, and elaborate on the psychology aspect, it can be a considerably large motive to human behavior. Raskolnikov The Penguin 02:35, 2005 July 21 (UTC) García Lorca

Mahjong

[edit]

I re-submit this article for peer review, after loads of fab photos and diagrams have been added. I drew all the Mahjong tiles by myself — sheer drudgery, but I'm happy with my contribution. :-) -- Jerry Crimson Mann 11:36, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I believe this is a largely comprehensive article about the general principles - no specifics yet. However, this article may require proofreading, and perhaps more detail (for one thing, no one I know knows the American rules, so information on American rules may be questionable). Still, comments are desperately needed. kelvSYC 05:08, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)

The history section focuses a bit much on North America and Europe. I'd like to see more history on the influence and popularity of Mahjong in Asia. --Malathion 12:43, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Expanded. :) -- Jerry Crimson Mann 06:24, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Nice, thanks. What you've added is interesting and I'd like if you could expand even further, but it's fine for now. Two more important things:
  • The article has some POV language and unsourced claims, for example saying The most reasonable theory... Most reasonable according to whom? Why is it more reasonable than another theory? You need evidence to back up such a judgment of "reasonability", but it's best not to make them at all.
  • It's a bit heavy on the fair use images and at least one of them doesn't have license information at all. Please make sure all the license info is accurate and try to replace fair use images with free license images, or cut them outright. --malathion talk 10:36, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
POV and licence fixed. :) Wanna know is it erroneous to use fair-use images? Some illustrations are captured from movies, so {{film-screenshot}} tag is used. With the guideline provided by Wikipedia, I think my use is legitimate. -- Jerry Crimson Mann 15:15, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I don't think it's erroneous, no. But I think that the article is excessively heavy on the images, especially since they all seem to be coming from a TV show that has limited significance to mahjong in the grand scheme of things. I just think the image content of this article needs to be toned down a bit, and those images could be axed without disrupting anything else in the article. --malathion talk 00:39, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I do think it's erroneous. The article isn't commenting significantly on the movie, it's about the game. note the first counter example in what's not fair use in Wikipedia:Fair use is "An image of a rose, captured off of a record album jacket, used to illustrate an article on roses." You're using these images to illustrate aspects of the game rather than comment on the movie (eg Image:MJ flower.jpg). Second, fair use images should be "no larger than required for the web based article". The previous example is 960 by 536, which is too large. The thumbnail that is 250 pixels wide is large enough for any fair use image that you need to include. Finally, and most importantly, fair use is for images that we have no other way of obtaining, surely you must know someone who has a digital camera and a Mahjong set. Matt 05:56, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Show me those pictures with less significance, please. To me, these pics help very well with the visual explanation of the contents. (One more thing, though trivial: those images are from Mahjong movies, not simply a TV show :) ). -- Jerry Crimson Mann 14:36, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I think at the least the following images could be cut without removing anything meaningful from the article:Image:MJ_Gong.jpg Image:MJ_Pong.jpg Image:MJ_discarding.jpg Image:MJFilipinoMaids.jpg --malathion talk 03:37, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

San Gabriel Valley

[edit]

If you go into this article's history, you can clearly see that someone, using an IP beginning with 172.xx, has spent an incredible amount of time and energy preparing this for Wikipedia (see the talk page). However, I am not going to nominate it yet for a featured article, as I feel that something does need to be improved. Does anybody here have any comments on this article? — Stevey7788 (talk) 17:30, 18 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I agree Stevey. It's good but it lacks the sense of being "complete". I think firstly there is a disproportionate about of space dedicated to the ethnic composition of the population, firstly in the "People" section, then also in the "Asian American" section. I think these should be condensed into one section, and abbreviated. By comparison, the other topics are covered very briefly, and could be expanded a little. I also think the two lists that follow on from the lead paragraph would be better at the end of the article, although I also think that where possible lists should be converted into prose, especially for FA consideration. There are several cities/countries/regions already listed as Featured Articles - maybe the easiest way to determine a suitable format would be to look through them, especially articles such as Gangtok, which are fairly recently promoted. They're all different, but have certain characteristics in common, so adapting those ideas into this article can only improve it. The other big issue is that it lacks references. If it gets nominated for FA without references, it'll get jumped all over, I'm afraid. Rossrs 15:19, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Templon

[edit]

This article has been peer reviewed before, but I wasn't able to implement all the suggestions at the time. But I've tightened up the prose, deleted some stuff, added footnotes, added a bunch of fair use pics whose copyright has expired -- I'd love to find some photos, but can't find any that aren't copyrighted. Anyway, this is a fairly important feature in Byzantine architecture, and I'd love to bring it up to FAC quality -- any suggestions? Thanks! The PNM 02:01, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • It's a nicely detailed and well put-together article on a very specialized topic. :) The only issue I had was a somewhat heavy reliance on architectural terminology, with which I am fairly unfamiliar. But as long as the terms are cross-linked, that's okay. I did find a few obscure terms which were lacking links: trabeated, polychrome marble, and chancel barrier. Also there were a pair of terms, with which I was unfamiliar, that had red links: Deesis and epistyle. — RJH 15:10, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the feedback! I'ved made a stub for Deesis (along with a photo, which should help), and epistyle is just another word for architrave, so I changed that. I hopefully fixed polychrome marble (linking to the multi-colored and marble pages) and I just deleted trabeated (it means, consiting of horizontal beams laid upon each other -- pretty obscure, but an entablature is trabeated by definition). I'm still working on chancel barrier -- it probably deserves an article, but it might have to do with a stub (it's basically the divide between the apse and nave). But thanks -- hopefully it's looking better. The PNM 16:05, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Social evolutionism

[edit]

This is one of the most important social theories and quite an interesting subject, I think. Over the past few weeks I have research this subject, written the article on social evolutionism based on sociology coursebook and various online sources, and after some discussion on relevant talk pages, merged this article with the cultural evolution now a redirect. I'd like to hear your opinion on the article in its present state - especially as I think it is comprehensive enough to be FAC soon. I am also considering moving it to socio-cultural evolutionism. Any comments highly appreciated. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 19:59, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • The article is nicely written, comprehensive and raises some interesting points. I only found a few minor syntax and spelling issues. ("a anthropological") It could do with some illustrations, even if they are just images of the important theorists mentioned in the text. A few minor issues:
    1. I'm a little sceptical about some of the generalizations that are used. The subject matter makes a number of inferences concerning European thinking as a whole. Europe predominantly thinks society is in decline, or Europe's self-confidence is crippled, for example. I'd like to see such generalizations be made more guardedly, or backed up with data or quotes of expert opinion.
    1. The conclusions concerning Marshall Sahlins's Evolution and Culture seems backwards to me. If there is a general diffusion of cultural influences, wouldn't that tend to reduce uniqueness?
    1. The article could do with a link to Guns, Germs, and Steel in the "see also" section. — RJH 14:57, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Albion (Gundam)

[edit]

One of the better articles about a ship from the Gundam Universe, I think. The page has been upgraded and added to several times, and now I'm looking for additional comments/suggests/thoughts on how to further improve it. TomStar81 09:16, 23 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Aren't there several alternative Gundam universes (series)? It would be good to have the lead mention which alternative Gundam universe the ship's story take place. If this is not the case, I'd appreciate the names of the series that went before and after to get the feel on the chronology. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 12:25, 23 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are several Gundam universes, as you said, but the majority of ships from the Gundam universe are either from the mainstream Universal Century timeline (which Albion falls into) or are from the Cosmic Era. I added a notice in the first line about the ship being from the Universal Century timelime. TomStar81 18:47, 23 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Does any information exist on who designed the ship (a particular cartoonist or anything like that) and if the design was based on any real world or fictional existing design? When did the ship first appear? Any real world facts about this would really complete the article. MechBrowman 03:40, July 24, 2005 (UTC)
  • Item A): Albion is an evolution of the Pegasus class assault carrier, so it stands to reason that she would be based on the lead ship of her class, in this case White Base. Most of material written for Gundam 0083 would support the claim that Albion is based on the old White Base design, but Albion is a greatly improved version of the Pegasus-class, hence the line about her looking very different from Grey Phantom and White Base. According to Mecha Anime Headquaters Albions principal design was by Shoji Kawamori, and Mika Akitaka cleanup cleaned up the sketch. I will check into the other points raised and adress them as I am able to. TomStar81 05:39, 24 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
It would be great if you add that information about the animators, along with what epsiode, series, ect. and the year the ship was first seen. MechBrowman 04:37, July 25, 2005 (UTC)
Rest assured, I will, but I like to solve all raised problems or insert all suggested material at once, otherwise I tend to forget what I put in and what still needs done. Be patient, its coming ;) TomStar81 05:40, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry I did mean to come off that way, I was just expressing approval of the information you were collecting. On a side note, I do not believe there is a particular rule in regards to calling a ship "her", but I do think it sounds less encyclopedic when it is done. MechBrowman 13:43, July 25, 2005 (UTC)
  • Noted and Adressed. Sorry the previous info took so long to collected, I had two sorces that didn't agree with each other, so I had to find a third to confirm which years the series and movie were released. TomStar81 21:14, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Papua New Guinea

[edit]
  • I agree with malathion about the sections, and I also feel that there are too many one sentence paragraphs. The article also probably has too much information. A general overview page should not contain statistics such as are in the geography and economy sections. A big problem is that almost all the images are unverified. They will need to be sourced or removed before the page can become a FA. - SimonP 02:38, July 25, 2005 (UTC)
  • Compress the article, its too long. Some of the sections are half-baked like the demographics and geography. A poor copy and paste done here. THe table headings are misused. There shouldn't be any sub headings for a country article. =Nichalp «Talk»= 19:06, July 25, 2005 (UTC)
  • Agree with all the above. It's too long, and really quite messy in parts. Bit too much random detail - for eg. in the Demography section - and too many sections and sub-sections. People have obviously been putting some effort in, but it needs to be snappier and more readable. I suggest a relatively short main article giving an overview, divided into major topics (History, Politics, Geography, etc), with links to more detailed articles on those topics. A possible model is the main article for Australia. -- 163.1.81.102 12:04, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Prevenient grace

[edit]

I'd love to get feedback on this article, which I believe to be a pretty good one, as I hope to nominate it for featured article status. Thanks for any help! KHM03 23:38, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  1. The "Doctrine in other sources" section needs more than one example, and the current one could do with some context/explanation.
  2. The "Objections to the doctrine" section could do with a bit more authority-if possible the criticisms of notable theologians or religious leaders could be cited to support the assertations made- "Some Christians (believe)" and "Wesleyans and Calvinists agree that man is totally depraved".
  3. "The article is official doctrine not only for The United Methodist Church but for many other Wesleyan denominations as well."-give some examples of other Wesleyan denominations that embrace this doctrine. Deus Ex 23:56, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Kammerlader

[edit]

Previous peerreview at Wikipedia:Peer review/Kammerlader/archive1. I hope for more inputs to this article about what I believe to be the first breech loading rifle in widespread service. I do hope to be able to make this into a FA-worthy article at some point, and any pointers would be helpfull. WegianWarrior 13:19, 4 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It looks pretty good to me. The only parts that may be of concern are where you say that "A photo of _____ can be seen here." Links become outdated and broken, so I'm not sure that approach is a good idea. It may be better just not to mention the photos within the text. — RJH 16:13, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Makes sence to me. Rather than having to 'borrow' a lot of images and claim fair use on each and every one, would one possible idea be to have a subsection in the 'External Link' for images? Should be easier to update / keep track off. WegianWarrior 17:03, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
It looks well done, the biggest issue that would keep it from being a FAC is the lack of research. I don't want to create any issues like the Krag FAC, but the overal very clear consensus is that a number of quality references are needed (more than 6 ideally for me), and inline citations to them for important facts are valuable too. - Taxman Talk 20:04, September 12, 2005 (UTC)
Main problem would be that there simple isn't a whole lot of sources out there, and a lot of the ones I've found are pretty much verbatim copies of each other. I am still looking for sources either online or in print to back up this article. Still, if this article don't make it to be a FA, at least I can - with the help of y'all commenting - make it the best article I can. WegianWarrior 07:28, 13 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good. My only concern is the copyright status of Image:Kammerlader 1.jpg: it looks like you created it by photographing a collection of photos. If so, what is the copyright status on those photos? --Carnildo 21:53, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Those photos I've photographed is hanging in the Armed Forces Museum in oslo, Norway, and as such is a work of the Norwegian Goverment (represented by the armed forces in this cause). It's generaly held that such works are free to be used for educational purposes, as born out in the Norwegian copyright law, sections 13 (personal use) and section 18 (Collective Works for Use in Education, etc). I can certainly testify that the photos in question has been on display for a lot younger than the five years required in the law =). Seeing as how it's US laws that should be followed for Wikipedia, it is also possible to claim fair use I guess... I'm not sure if a photo of a photo is considered a work of it's own under american law. WegianWarrior 07:25, 13 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not an expert in Norwegian copyright law, but assuming you aren't claiming additional copyright on your photograph, Image:Kammerlader 1.jpg would be "educational use only", not "public domain". There isn't a copyright tag for that situation because it isn't a very free license. --Carnildo 20:34, 13 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I am not here. Some suggestions: lødig, what is this? The sentence "In the early 1800s, the Norwegian Army decided that the nature of warfare was changing away from the massed ranks firing in volleys, having observed the American Revolutionary War, the Napoleonic Wars and the short Swedish campaign against Norway in 1814 and also taking lessons from the Gunboat War." seems a bit unwieldy. However, this is a fantastic article otherwise! I was wondering if an infobox footer would be out of the question... though it might be an abuse of templates. Great work :-) - 203.134.166.99 07:48, 13 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Since you're not here, I really appricate your comments =) I tried to explain lødig in the text, but I'll try harder - possible by simply wikinilinking to Gauge (bore diameter), since that appear to be the english word =) I'll also see if I can't rewrite the sentence you pointed out to something a bit more easily wielded. Infobox footer.. I'm a little confused - which template you had in mind? WegianWarrior 08:34, 13 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

'Fate of the Kammerladers' section is very small, can use some expantion, now it looks like a stub section. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 11:55, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Expanded that section, as well as added more information. WegianWarrior 09:17, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

What about the "Various Civilian Models" of the Kammerlader? Guapovia 21:17, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Charilaos Trikoupis

[edit]

Sysin made an excellent start, and I believe this article has the potential to be a featured article. People are starting to straggle into the newly-created Greek Wikipedians' notice board, but it would be useful to have non-Greek Wikipedians look it over, since we want this to be relevant to as broad an audience as possible. --Jpbrenna 8 July 2005 03:31 (UTC)

My issues about this interesting article are:

  1. No references.
  2. No specific sources.
  3. Unconventional format (look at some featured biographies).
  4. How many times, precisely, was he prime minister?
  5. Lead para should summarise the rest.

—Theo (Talk) 23:44, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Infant Communion

[edit]

Jenmoa has questioned my objectivity in this matter. Personally, I have no objection to the idea that these points might be made in a manner that is more politically correct, as long as it is clearly expressed...

  • A clear definition of what Infant Communion is should be placed into the first sentence of the article. Beyond that, the article seems to focused primarily on Catholic practice. Are there other Christian denominations that also practice Infant Communion? If so, are there any variations or limitations placed on the practice? Also, how does infant communion relate to open or closed communion? --Allen3 talk July 8, 2005 00:37 (UTC)
  • The writing style is a little whimsical, and sort of seems to romanticise the practice. I suggest rewroiting it in simple language and builing on it form there. --nixie 8 July 2005 10:22 (UTC)

I've made a few changes... --Sophroniscus 22:33, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • The Protestant section is disproportionately short - and too US-centric. 'Mainline' - as the linked article confesses - is a US term. I could add something on the Church of Scotland - but you need to find out about practice in Anglicanism, Lutherism, etc - outside of the US. Hope that helps. --Doc (?) 18:45, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I know little to say about the subject. I know of no Denomination that allows such Communion, though I would suspect that most follow the Roman Catholic rejection of the Apostolic practice. But who am I to say? --Sophroniscus 19:20, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It is clear that Lutherans have, at least, considered the issue under the name Paedo-communion. --Sophroniscus 21:36, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Several things:

  1. Interesting article with a coherent flow.
  2. There are no specific inline source citations.
  3. As Doc says, the article remains too US-centric.

—Theo (Talk) 22:52, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Trafalgar

[edit]

This ought to be WP:FA on October 21. It has had significant expansion since its last peer review (the credit doesn't go to me). More comments please and also try to keep it in the public eye. I think the consequences section needs work. Dunc|☺ 21:02, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Perverted-Justice.com

[edit]

I've been tinkering with this article lately, and am interested in seeing how it could be improved further. A lot of people have very strong opinions about the organization in question, which has made keeping it NPOV difficult, but I think progress has been made. One area in particular I'm not sure how to deal with is that a lot of the critisism seems to be a little outdated, referring to previous issues that have been resolved (to whatever degree). Suggestions? Fieari 07:52, July 23, 2005 (UTC)

Please employ the {{note}} and {{ref}} system. Content wise: it could be good to counter the criticism with a mention of high-profile figures who support the site. I believe Bill O'Reilly is all for this sort of stuff...
Also, try to find out whether other countries have or are debating in Parliaments the possibility of introducing such sites. There has been a minor public debate about online sex-offender registries in Australia recently. Hope that helps. Harro5 07:27, July 26, 2005 (UTC)

FoxTrot

[edit]

This is the second peer review. (Archive1) The article has seen consistent improving since the last peer review; and I believe it meets Featured quality with the exception of references. Which at worst can be sprinkled into the article and refer to compilation books. - RoyBoy 800 15:55, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Expand the LEAD, maybe include some of the prominent characters or history behind it or something. It's too brief. Kaisershatner 18:47, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yep, WP:FOOTNOTEs will be needed. Outside of referencing, sections like "Other languages" need more information, or should be merged into other sections. About every single image in this article needs a fair use rationale- see WP:FUC- this is certainly pushing WP:FUC to the limit. See WP:DATE for date-linking issues, for example "May 7th, 2005" should be "May 7, 2005". Images (outside of those book covers in the tables) should have captions as per WP:WIAFA. The ToC is also pretty long, and should probably be cut down a bit. Thanks, AndyZ t 20:01, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Zambezi

[edit]

A river that I have hitchhiked along the course of, swum in, fallen in, drunk from, canoed on and generally got very familiar with, so a while back I thought I would work on its article which was formerly far briefer than befits the fourth longest river in Africa. Anyway, I'm no hydrologist, and have taken an awful lot of content from the 1911 Britannica, so would really appreciate more eyes on the article to tell me what else it would need to bring it to featurable quality. Worldtraveller 21:36, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Some points. 1) There is a wikipedia:wikiProject Rivers which might have some useful tips. 2) The river infobox is needed. The units formatting are bad. 3) Its best to have it in metric with the imperial equivalents alongside in brackets. Use a non breaking space (&.n.b.s.p.;) between the unit and the number 4) Towns along the river? 5) The river in local culture: Is is worshipped/revered by locals etc.? ancient settlements along the banks? 6) please don't start new paragraphs with a left aligned image. 7) Flora and fauna of the river? =Nichalp «Talk»= 12:45, August 4, 2005 (UTC)

Great, thanks for the comments! I am now working towards including the sections suggested by the wikiproject. Have added infobox, and formatted units. Points 4 and 7 will be covered as I work on point 1, point 5 I will do some research on. Point 6 I'm not sure about, is that a general style guideline or more of a personal preference? My own preference is to alternate images left and right. Worldtraveller 15:34, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

A left aligned image at the start of a section makes it harder to read. I'm not against left aligned images, but would like the left aligned images not be immediately after a new heading. It can be left-aligned wrt the second paragraph though. =Nichalp «Talk»= 17:51, August 4, 2005 (UTC)

The article looks very good. Please include any references you have used in a reference list. I have two questions - has the river been used for transport? Does the flooding affect human settlements? Fauna would make an interesing addition, there are probably at least a few species of freshwater fish that are endemic to the catchment.--nixie 03:24, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the comments! I have added references, and a small section about transport as well as sections about the economy, ecology and wildlife of the river. The 'middle river' section mentions the annual Kuomboka festival when the Lozi king moves from a compound in the flood plain to one on higher ground - should that be made more prominent somehow? I've added a bit about fauna but probably need to do more research there. Will hopefully be able to expand on that, and also find out more about the river in local culture, in the next couple of days. Worldtraveller 12:44, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Have done further work on this now, including a bit more about wildlife, a section listing major towns, expansion of transport section, and a few other small tweaks. Any more thoughts, anyone? Worldtraveller 16:04, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Queer theory

[edit]

I think it would be useful to get some feedback on this article. Voyager640 19:30, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Needs more references and an expanded discussion of the history. --malathion talk 21:10, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Coriolis effect

[edit]

Over the past months I have been researching the available knowledge about the Coriolis effect. I believe the subject of the Coriolis effect merits an article with the length it now has. I think it is an underestimated part of Newtonian dynamics. The Newtonian dynamics of the Coriolis effect is rather counterintuitive, and I felt there was a need for animations. The animations in the article are manufactured by me.

(There are in all 6 animated gif's. Thus the article will take a long time to download for people with a telephone connection to internet. Is there a recommended maximum Kilobytes for text plus images?)

I have tried to structure the article in such a way that the level of difficulty builds up gradually. The article is long because I take it slowly. My research of information available on the web has convinced me that a lot of people are quite baffled by the Coriolis effect.

In preparation for applying for Featured Article status I am requesting peer review now. I will have to convince other people that the Coriolis effect is really cool physics and worth such a long article. --Cleon Teunissen | Talk 12:00, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • The aritlce does a good job of describing the material. On your question about length, the wiki software will warm you when the page is over 32kb, it pops up when you edit the whole page, this article isn't over that size yet, and besides there is no size restriction applied to featured article candidates.
The lead section should summarise the content of the article, at the moment it doesn't do that. You should also list all the sources that you have consulted to write the text. The article doesn't actually discuss the Newtonian dynamics of the Corolis effect, not in those terms anyway, so you may want to make that aspect more clear, the work of Gaspard-Gustave Coriolis in this area could be expanded on too.--nixie 02:09, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
About summarizing the content: there is a bit of a dilemma there. The physics of the coriolis effect is counterintuitive, so I feel the article must proceed carefully. A more inclusive summery than the current would consist of sweeping statements, which might be confusing to some readers.
Previous versions mentioned relativity theory, which is unnecessary, for no relativistic effects and/or velocities are involved. Classical mechanics suffices. In discussing moment of inertia the article uses newtonian dynamics only, and that is all there is to it: the current discussion is an exhaustive discussion. By contrast: in an article about for example the Doppler effect, there are good reasons for discussing first the newtonian context and then the relativistic context.
The important sources, the ones that made the difference, are listed in the External links section: The fluid dynamics demonstrations of MIT, and the meteorologist Anders Persson. Other than that it is general knowledge.
I can add a section with some background about Gaspard-Gustave Coriolis. Currently the historical information is in the section about the formula
--Cleon Teunissen | Talk 05:09, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Missingno.

[edit]

This article is an amazing example of the well explained and detailed stuff you get on Wikipedia that you wouldn't find elsewhere. It's not my article in any way, but I think it deserves to head towards featured status as an example of the interesting things you can find on Wikipedia. Please check it out and see how it could be made more accessable to a broader audience, or have more information from the talk page included within the main article. --Pengo 02:02, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The first step on the road to featured status will be adding references to the article, and preferably inline citations. Also, it would be nice to turn the seemingly unconnected bullet points in the first section into some sort of prose. Christopher Parham (talk) 04:14, 2005 July 27 (UTC)
You're right about it being an interesting article. However, I was disappointed to see that after I had read heaps of information, up popped a table of contents. Headings need to be added in earlier (perhaps: "History", "Origins of the glitch", etc.) and a well-defined lead will need to go before the TOC, explaining what the glitch is and in which Pokemon games it appears. Harro5 09:40, July 28, 2005 (UTC)
I could say why it appeares when something like that happenes. otherwise I wrote it in the 'M section in discusion, The one about the slot fillers.-darkmewham

Sealand

[edit]

Not a self nomiantion. I just thought it was a great artical. Almost FA standard Richy 10:26, 10 August 2005 (UTC) Wikipedia:Peer review/Iran[reply]

Nirvana (band)

[edit]

A "landmark" band, and the article is kind of complete. I just need to know what else it needs to get FA criteria. Igordebraga 23:43, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The References section is severly lacking. We should have much more in there, and with citations for specific parts of the article (see Kurt's article for examples of how to do that). The biggest problem with this and the Kurt article is that they are so lacking in citations that they really aren't trustworthy enough to consider them featured article quality. And, as has been said of the Kurt article, there are plenty of biographies out there of Nirvana and/or Kurt that could be used as references that simply haven't been. -- LGagnon 00:59, August 3, 2005 (UTC)
I consider the Nirvana articles to be some of the best on Wikipedia and I am extremely disappointed that Kurt Cobain is not a featured article. Here are a few suggestions to help make this article a featured article.
Some parts of the article are too wordy, consider rephrasing the following sentences:
After recording, Vig initially started off to mix the album as well but both Vig and Nirvana were not satisfied with their results so they decided to call in someone else to mix the album.
While popular perception after the fact was that the band wanted this distorted masterpiece, they were actually unhappy with certain aspects of Albini's mixes.
The extensive note on Axl Rose might be better as a footnote:
(Cobain's version of the story was that Courtney had jokingly asked Axl to be the godfather of Frances Bean. Axl responded by telling Cobain to "shut up his bitch". Cobain turned to Courtney and said, "Shut up, bitch!" eliciting laughter from the Nirvana entourage.)
The Discography section needs copyediting. The most obvious example is, "a only few hundred CDs do." Also always start the other information with a capital letter. If you know anything about formatting, the look of the section would be greatly improved if the tables were further indented than the sub-headings.
I feel the Sucide dispute section is out-of-place in this article. It really has little to do with the band because as noted, "Grohl and Novoselic have remained silent in the matter." It is already covered in Kurt Cobain and should be deleted from the Nirvana article. Its removal would probably be welcomed by the less devoted reader, for whom this article is just on the verge of being too long. The section is well written, so maybe it would be better to move it to Talk:Kurt Cobain with a note that the authors of that article might like to integrate it with the current article. If you do remove it, remember to change the reference to the section at the end of In Utero.
Optionally, you might like to add a few extra sentences on the post-band life of Grohl and Novoselic. (Right now I think you just have something to the effect is now a member of Foo Fighters/is now a member of Eyes Adrift. A quote from either or both on Cobain's death might really enhance the article's depth.
Finally, for the article to have any chance of being a FA, you will need to expand the references and include inline citations. You can do this using the ref/note tags.
I really like this article and I hope it becomes a feature article. Hopefully, I will be able to devote some more time to helping out with it in the future.
Cedars 01:26, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Nice improvements. Keep up the good work. Cedars 07:51, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wario

[edit]

It has a lot of information, and other than game descriptions (and I know, the game descriptions should be trimmed), I'd like to know what else there is to do. -- A Link to the Past 21:50, August 2, 2005 (UTC)

Well, there isn't anything major that I can see directly; however:
  • The article is written very much from the perspective of someone introduced to computer games, and it might be a bit confusing for readers who don't know too much about how they work (e.g. "power-ups" are mentioned without reference to what they actually are).
  • The content of the article is well thought out, but some work will need to be done in making the tone of the article a touch more encyclopedic - I understand, however, this is difficult to do for computer games. The article is definitely written from a gamer's POV, and although there are no NPOV issues as such it should present the article matter in a more observational way.
  • The level of detail gone into about game descriptions and plots is a bit too high. Some of the information could do with summarising and/or condensing to make the article a little more readable.
  • References - I understand this is difficult for computer games, but in general all articles on Wikipedia should have references cited as per Wikipedia:Cite sources to avoid the appearance of original research. Claims made in the article should have some reference to other sources for verifiability.
That said, however, it is an excellently presented article in general, and provides a good summary of the factual matter being discussed. Clearly, a lot of hard work has gone into the article, and I am convinced the issues above shouldn't be too difficult to solve. Feel free to drop a note on my talk page if you need any further assistance. --NicholasTurnbull 23:20, 10 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Jarmann M1884

[edit]

I believe this article is close to being ready for FAC, but need input from other editors to make it even better. Anything thats needs to be added, rewritten or taken out? Would also appriciate copyediting by someone with a better grasp of written english than myself =) Old request for peer review at Wikipedia:Peer review/Jarmann M1884/archive1. WegianWarrior 07:33, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • It's good quality article—I didn't see any glaring deficiencies. It would probably be a good idea to fill in the "??" entries in the table. Did this weapon ever see use during a conflict? It didn't sound like it did. — RJH 16:31, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. I've filled out as best I could, and also added info on the closest the Jarmann came to be used in anger. Anything else I could improve upon? WegianWarrior 04:58, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I've also expanded a few sections considerable after getting hold of my reference again (never let friends borrow books), and would appriciate it if you had a second look. Thanks =) WegianWarrior 08:31, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Melbourne High School

[edit]

Hi I think the article should be considered for FA status. It probably needs more references but is comparable with the best high school articles on Wikipedia at the moment. Please comment. --Celendin 12:45, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Just a note... careful with those images! They show students, presumably minors and presumably without their consent, in sufficient detail to be readily identifiable. Bad! Please fix. -- Visviva 14:37, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
B-list images. Uh-uh. :-/ -- Jerry Crimson Mann 15:06, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Low-quality pictures with no copyright information (I suspect they are copyvio), article is mostly lists, no references. Not at all ready for FAC. Christopher Parham (talk) 16:50, 2005 July 17 (UTC)
Images need some information. Please also consider a few header fixes, like de-capitalization. — Stevey7788 (talk) 17:21, 18 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The main logo is pixelated at that size, the other pictures (apart from having no information on their source or copyright status) are also of low quality, some sections are just poorly formatted lists, and the whole thing reads more like a press release for the school than a close-to-FA-worthy Wikipedia article. I'll give credit where it's due to the Institution section (which should probably be renamed to History), but even that's dodgy when there aren't any references. I can see the effort that has gone into it, but it's a bit of a mess at the moment. Extraordinary Machine 21:08, 18 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
A source or five might help. --BaronLarf 02:28, July 29, 2005 (UTC)

Piet Mondrian

[edit]
I think there is a shortage of art-related featured articles on wikipedia.  I believe the article on Mondrian can become one.  The article is comprehensive, well-written, and nicely fleshed out.  However, I think improvements can be made.  I am specifically looking for feedback regarding tone and content, but I'd welcome any suggestions that would help the article --Sophitus 22:24, July 18, 2005 (UTC)
  • You only have one sentence (the "even a child could do it" thing, promptly refuted) that suggests that anyone does not admire his work. You might want to quote (in whole or in part) Salvador Dalí's famous putdown of Mondrian: "Critics have for several years used the name of Piet Mondrian as though he represented the summum of all spiritual activity. They quote him in every connection. Piet for architecture, Piet for poetry, Piet for mysticism, Piet for philosophy, Piet's whites, Piet's yellows, Piet, Piet, Piet . . . Piet, Piet, Piet, Peep, Pity, Piet. Well, I Salvador, will tell you this, that Piet with one "i" less would have been nothing but a pet, which is the French word for fart."
    • That is simply an amazing quote, I can't believe that in all my research I never came across it. I will look into it and probably add it. For any others who are reading this, I'm looking for feedback like the user's above with regard to missing content as well as the writing style and tone of the article. I was hoping for a bigger response on peer review. --Sophitus 04:24, July 21, 2005 (UTC)
    • While I agree that the article might benefit from some contrasting opinions of Mondrian's work, I don't think this quote adds any value at all. If it wasn't the product of a notorious personality like Dali, it would be taken for what it is, a childish rant by a jealous egotist. =craigz August 13, 2005
  • I've made some minor alterations to the first paragraph, which I felt was refuting some point of view or other for no reason. More widely, however, I would like to identify two main areas of concern:
    1. References; there aren't any of significant value: one link to a site in Dutch and a handful of links to the images on guggenheimcollection.com. If the main sources of information are offline (i.e. they are the books listed at the bottom) then this needs to be indicated within the article.
    2. Redlinks; the "Major works" section is letting the article down somewhat. What links do exist seem to be randomly directed at either individual article pages, as in Broadway Boogie-Woogie, or simply the image pages, as in Compostion No 10. I feel the list of works would be a good candidate for a child article at Major works of Piet Mondrian or something similar.

Also, some of the sections tend to be a little dry; describing the paintings in an almost clinical manner without giving much actual insight or context: how were these works received by the art community at the time, etc. Flowerparty talk 23:37, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

    • Thanks for the suggestions. I have to admit that I'm pretty busy right now, but I hope to begin working on the article a lot in about a month. In the meantime, any more comments are most welcome. --Sophitus 03:01, July 29, 2005 (UTC)

General Motors streetcar conspiracy

[edit]
Request submitted at 18:48, July 27, 2005 by 192.203.205.129 without comment. --Allen3 talk 00:31, July 29, 2005 (UTC)

Makuria

[edit]

I, regrettably, have no background in Nubian history, but several months ago I began working in this area to try and fill in some of the huge gaps in Wikipedia's coverage of African history. I am quite pleased with this article and hope to get it up to FA standards in the near future. One problem is that it needs more images. I am pursuing a couple avenues to get some, but if anyone else has some images of sites or artifacts from this period they would be much appreciated. The article also likely needs some copyediting. - SimonP 13:23, July 29, 2005 (UTC)

I added a few scraps of information that hadn't made their way from my notebooks to Wikipedia. About the only critical comment I have (besides endorsing your request for images here) is the rather unimportant question whether the History section ought to be near the beginning -- where it is now -- or should be after the extensive discussion about the culture, economy & religion of Makuria. (For all I know, this may be following established guidelines -- if so, can someone point me to the page with that information, so I can correct some articles I recently wrote?) -- llywrch 21:18, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your improvements. The order of sections approximately follows the standard set out at Wikipedia:WikiProject countries. Those guidelines only really apply to modern nations, and to my knowledge there is no official structure for ancient states. - SimonP 21:44, July 29, 2005 (UTC)

Edgar Allan Poe

[edit]

I am reopening this peer review in the hope of more new comments. After a failed FAC nomination, this article obviously needs further review and editing to improve it to a level whereby it is worthy of featured status. I will now be actively looking to improve the wording of this article, and would like some feedback about where to focus my attention. Harro5 11:16, May 23, 2005 (UTC)

  • Copied from FAC: This article needs a lead section and some de-POVing. It is currently rather too sympathic to Poe, especially in three last sections. For example, there's no doubt (and the article needs to mention it) that Grisworld's work was defamation, but the general tone of the section shows the author(s) is rather partial. The Legacy section struck me as pretty good overall, however. Phils 11:17, 14 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • It seems these concerns have been addressed. Phils, please have another look. Harro5 02:31, May 24, 2005 (UTC)
  • The lead is too short, a lead should summarise the key points of the article, three decent sized paragraphs usually covers it. The overall struture is quite poor, there are two sentence paragraphs all over the place. The life section seems throughly un-developed given that the death + memoir section is twice as long. There is no real description of any of his works, just some big lists, some of the big works should be described in more detail or there should be a discussion of his literay themes. How was his writing percieved by his contemporaries? Referncing could be improved. --nixie 06:56, 24 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Eggerland series

[edit]

I have written this article about the Eggerland series and would just like to know if readers think it's clear and explanatory. Do the pages about individual games help? I thought it was good to keep the general series info in one big page and game specific info in separate pages. --Sivak 21:10, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

First thing that strikes me is the lack of references; that is needed if you ever plan on taking this to FAC. WegianWarrior 07:57, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
References, eh? I had actually thought about this, but I'm not entirely sure what I could reference as a lot of this is simply my observations from gameplay and me being descriptive. Do you think the instruction manuals would qualify as a valid reference? Or maybe the HAL Corporation itself (as they are the makers)? That's where quite a few of the game terms come from. I'm not providing the solutions to the games, so no referencing could be done on that topic. Any insight would be appreciated. --Sivak 17:04, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
References would be written sources that supports what the article says - either in hardcopy (books and magazines) or online. WegianWarrior 03:10, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I do know of some places that have scans and copies of the game manuals. There's also one site I have in the links currently in English which contains some general information. I also included a Japanese site, although I'm not sure if that's good or bad. There is no Japanese counterpart to this article (yet). There's a French site with information about Eggerland Mystery and the solution. Do any of these sound like they would be valid? Thanks. --Sivak 00:19, 30 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Fauna of Australia

[edit]

I've rewritten this article from a list to probably the only article on Wikipeida that comprehensively covers the diversity of fauna from one country. I'm looking for comments about the text, is there anything confusing, or that you though would be mentioned and isn't; and also for comments about the balance of topics covered. Thanks. --nixie 02:33, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Well yes, that first sentence threw me a bit. When it says, "including over 83% of mammals, 89% of reptiles, 90% of fish and 93% of amphibians", does that mean 83% of mammals, &c., native to Australia? Or 83% of mammals, &c., world-wide? You may want to split off the part of the sentence that begins with "including" and clarify to what it applies. Otherwise it's a good-looking article. Thanks. :) — RJH 14:26, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
RJH is right about that phrase; maybe "many Australian animals are found nowhere else including over 83% of the country's mammals, 89% of its reptiles, 90% of its fish and 93% of its amphibians"? Even that's not right (presumably), because it's probably talking about number of species, not population. Also, it's bad form to use summary style for an article that doesn't exist (Natural history of Australia). The article also needs a thorough copyedit -- there are fragments and other structure/punctuation errors throughout. --Spangineer (háblame) 17:30, July 25, 2005 (UTC)
Just noticed the last sentence of =Invertebrates= section: "Australian lobsters do not have claws." That sounds bad, just tacking it on like that. Is there a notable australian crab lobster species that could be discussed, to which could be added the phrase "this lobster, like all australian lobsters, does not have claws". --Spangineer (háblame) 17:34, July 25, 2005 (UTC)

I've cleared up the problem with the lead, and copyedited the bulk of the article, although I'm sure other editors will pick up more errors. The summary style link is there since I intend to have that article up in the next few days. Thanks. --nixie 03:12, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • I like it a lot. But -
    • "Many" of the animals are found nowhere else? 83-93% is a "most".
    • Estimates of endemism of the inverts would be nice (if available)
      • Since most of the inverebrates are unknown there isn't a general estimate, the best I've found is 90% of mollusca and 90% of insecta, and unknown for all the other groups, I'll include the known ones in the text, and the fact that they're mostly unknown :)
    • The last line of the "Origins..." section - "The establishment of the fauna and speciation was effected by the flora, which in turn was shaped by the climate and the old and nutrient poor soil, by selection and by population genetics." - this seems like an overly general statement about evolution as a whole, and the "and by population genetics" seems like an afterthought takced on.
    • In the "Mammals" section, the statement "Australia has been inhabited by humans since the Pleistocene (20,000-50,000 years before present) during that period the Australian megafauna, which included giant marsupials, and an unknown number of mammals became extinct due to human activites and climate change." is a little long, and would probably be better split into two.
    • "The Thylacine, commonly known as the Tasmanian Tiger, was the last living specimen of the family Thylacinidae, however it is believed to be extinct after systematic annihilation by the European settlers of Australia." - I think that "systematic annihilation" is a tad strong for something that is only "believed to be extinct" - annihilation is total, and the extinction history is probably a little more complicated than that.
    • In the "Placental mammals" section, "Other domestic species have escaped and over time have produced wild populations.... Only three species of placental mammal were introduced to Australia by accident..." These statements appera to contradict each other, since "escape" is "accidental".
    • "Birds" - third paragraph, sentance starts with "23 species..." - should be "Twenty-three species..." since you don't start sentaces with numbers.
    • "Fish" - do Australian fish belong to freshwater families, or do they belong to marine clades? If available, this would be interesting.
  • Guettarda 15:06, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

What does this sentence mean: "After the Miocene, fauna of Asian origin could have become established in Australia."? Does it mean Asiatic fauna possibly became established in Australia or does it mean they had the opportunity to?--Cyberjunkie | Talk 12:54, 31 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Milpitas, California

[edit]

There was a former peer review at Wikipedia:Peer review/Milpitas, California/archive1, but unfortunately it was unsuccessful.

Please take a look at the article and comment on where it needs to be improved, and how we could make it into a featured article. The Milpitas article looks great but looks like it still needs work. Milpitas guy 19:02, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • There are several improvements that I could immediately see, though there could be more:
  1. Convert the various lists to prose if possible. Otherwise, move those lists to sub-articles.
  2. Move the current form of the history section into a sub-article and place a summary in its place.
  3. Focus only on institutions that are based in Milpitas, notably in the media section. For instance, you could simply say that the city is served by television stations in San Francisco and San Jose instead of placing a list of all stations viewable in Milpitas.
  4. Make sure that there are no repeating pieces of information (something that I saw with the "see also" section, where several of the links were repeated in other sections).
I'll probably look into the article in more detail later. Pentawing 00:05, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Metropolis

[edit]

I think this article has a lot of interesting information, but is really a mish-mash. Other than a lack of organisation, can anybody think of other ways to improve the article? --Alexs letterbox 10:10, 30 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Needs references, plus the images (certainly the first two) would look better with descriptive subtitles ie "Set in 2026, the iconic Gothic skyscrapers set the tone of the film" or something better :D. Finally, a critical acclaim section at the bottom, highlighting the films success / popularity (of lack of), should see it right! --PopUpPirate 11:43, July 30, 2005 (UTC)

It looks good, but needs some work. It needs more on the films background and inspirations. How did it grow out of Lang's previous work? How did it relate to other films of the era? Where was it filmed and who funded it? The "Influence" section also devolves into something of a list of references to the film. It needs to be tied together into a cohesive narrative. The lead also needs to be somewhat expanded. - SimonP 01:17, July 31, 2005 (UTC)

Henry Fonda

[edit]

I think it's grown from the ill-descript article it was to a potential featured article. Any suggestions for improvement? -- A Link to the Past 03:08, July 30, 2005 (UTC)

I read his New York Times obituary before reading this and after a hasty assessment I only found one error (or was he divorced 5 times?). Our biography compares well. Although we never do mention this incident which the Times refers to 2 times: "Mr. Fonda continued acting despite major illnesses. After a performance of Clarence Darrow in 1974 he collapsed from what doctors called total exhaustion, and a pacemaker was implanted in his chest because of a heart-rhythm disorder." lots of issues | leave me a message 09:27, 30 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Both the Post and Times obits never mentioned this event from the Oxford American National Biography: "On 14 April 1950, while Fonda was still playing Roberts, his wife, who had placed herself in a sanatorium, committed suicide after it became clear that Fonda was seeing another woman named Susan Blanchard. Less than a year later, Fonda and Blanchard were married, and Fonda adopted her daughter Amy." Should it be included? lots of issues | leave me a message 12:43, 31 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Economy of India

[edit]

We would like to know if the this article has covered all aspects of the Indian economy. Suggestions, critique and help will be most welcome. =Nichalp «Talk»= 17:12, August 7, 2005 (UTC)

On the whole the article looks great, it's well written and srtuctured. But, I don't like the numbered list in the begining of the history section. I think the see also interspersed throughout the sections should be added to the table of topics, or listed as {{mainarticle}} where appropriate, they inhibit the flow a bit. There is no good mention of Indias balance of payments situation, is it a net exporter or importer- this could go in the table and/or the text, also what is the national/foreign debt of India, for example is India still servicing loans from development organisations like the IMF. The notes should probably just be listed numerically, breaking them into sections makes them a bit harder to follow.--nixie 10:50, 10 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the comments. I'll sort out the see also and the references. I agree it looks a little untidy. We'll try and cover all your suggested topics. =Nichalp «Talk»= 11:01, August 10, 2005 (UTC)
We have a section on balance of payments, which covers both foreign aid and import/export question. Does that cover what you had in mind? We will fix the references at the end. pamri 06:14, August 11, 2005 (UTC)
The section you have added is exactly what I had in mind.--nixie 06:17, 11 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
We have used inotes and spruced up the see alsos. =Nichalp «Talk»= 20:07, August 12, 2005 (UTC)
It's looking great, definately the best article of this type in Wikipedia. One things that could still be added to the determinants (is this the best name for this heading?) section is a paragraph or two about human capital- which could be created by moving the demographics section up from where it is (I don't think the demographics section fits well where it is placed, demographics isn't a socio-economic issue) and additng a bit about the actual literacy rate and the average level of education. One last thing that could be worked on is the image captions, lots of articles are guilty of having great images that lack descriptive captions. For example what is actually measued by the Index of Corruption, what does the Human Development Index measure, etc; also what is actually being measured in the argicultural output composition graph, tonnage?, $ in the domesitc economy?, composition of exports? both the caption and the image page don't tell me what this graph is actually showing.--nixie 07:22, 13 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your comments. They have really improved the article. We have renamed the sections, rewrote captions and added more stuff. We have covered mostly the economic impact of demographics and the rest is covered in detail in the demographics article. I hope that satisfies you. pamri 06:21, August 15, 2005 (UTC)

I think we should put some of the images and tables on the left because there are way too many sitting on the right-hand side. — Stevey7788 (talk) 23:16, 10 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Is there any particular reason? Putting some on the left and some on the right may hinder the flow of the text. Presently, despite the large no. of images, you can ignore the images and just focus on the text. pamri 06:14, August 11, 2005 (UTC)

Respect (song)

[edit]

This article's been expanded from a stub to a fairly concise description of the song and its history. With further expansion, I think it might be a good candidate for FA (and provide an alternative to all those Beatles songs!). I greatly appreciate criticism, and especially any contributions that could help the article. Thanks. :) Volatile 16:09, 31 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

A good article, the only thing I'd say missing is its success internationally on the charts. Remember Aretha was a worldwide star, not just in the USA. Also, its certification from sales wouldnt hurt and possibly an external link to its lyrics. Ultimate Star Wars Freak 18:14, 31 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Might be worth noting that Aretha performs the song on screen in Blues Brothers 2000. Harro5 08:10, August 1, 2005 (UTC)

Michael Thevis

[edit]

Just looking for some helpful information or tips. Wanted to try and get this as a featured article.65.71.127.228 05:50, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It looked fine to me, except for the unresolved issue of his presumed demise. Perhaps a little too much sub-partitioning of the text by major sections. What a charming fellow... — RJH 14:49, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hyper generalized orthogonal Lie algebra

[edit]

This article is a mess, and causing general puzzlement over how to clean it up.

Is there anyone here with knowledge of Lie algebra who'd glance over it to see if there's any sense at all in it? Thanks in advance. Tearlach 19:18, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

United Kingdom general election, 2005

[edit]

A noteworthy event in the United Kingdom (of course). What do you think this article is missing? Talrias (t | e | c) 21:02, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  1. Sort out the position of the Lib Dems in the first paragraph of the "Overview" section. Officially, they did have ambitions to become the govt, not just make gains from Lab/Con (even though some Lib Dem politicians admitted they had little chance of becoming the govt).
  2. "Many seats were contested by other parties". This sentence and the rest of the paragraph are too vague. Explain the situation in Northern Ireland, and then the situation of the parties like the UKIP and Green, and then parties like Health Concern, which only have one candidate.

I've done these changes myself. Deus Ex 14:25, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  1. "During the period between the announcement of the election and the actual election itself, all of the parties embarked on intensive campaigns to win voters over". This paragraph requires expansion. It is too vague and imprecise at the moment-e.g. "all of the parties".
  2. Nothing yet on the issues of the campaign.
  3. "Formation of the new government" and "New party leaders" could be merged and expanded in a new section, perhaps called "Aftermath of the election". Deus Ex 23:47, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I've added the results of most of the minor parties, but there are still a few (which I have noted in a comment at the top of the results section) for which results need to be sourced. Warofdreams 11:49, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
To me it seems like there are too many statistics and not enough prose. As mentioned above the article very much needs a section on issues. It also needs a fairly substantial section outlining the course of the campaign, its major events and turning points. For instance the leaders debate is not even mentioned. Something about the various campaign strategies and techniques should also be added. - SimonP 14:21, July 26, 2005 (UTC)
Agree with SimonP :ChrisG 17:07, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I agree with your point, but there should be some logic in the statistics presented. For instance, at the moment it gives the results of nearly all (but not quite all) parties with over 1,000 votes - it should be all of them. I'm not suggesting adding any new statistical sections. Warofdreams 10:03, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • This has excellent, brief statements of fact. It covers the election fairly, with detail, and it does not stray from the election itself. However, I would like to see more descriptive language used (ie. prose per SimonP above). Descritive transitions, in particular, would be useful and help the flow. The first 'Seats in Scotland' paragraph did this well but lost me in the predicted and actual results. I, also, believe the article could use some context in the form of the political campaigns. It could use a section, or an entire article, on the campaign issues, themes, and events. The expenses of each party (when they become available) can shed light on who was yelling really loudly and who was just silently protesting. -maclean25 03:16, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • There needs to be a section on the impact of the election on the parties. The election has changed the electoral landscape in that the Liberal Democrats are within reach of an equal number of Labour as Conservative seats at the next election. Also implications on the party leaders and Brown/Blair manoeuverings. :ChrisG 17:07, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Criticisms of communism

[edit]

Remarkably well-written and NPoV article, especially considering the subject. It has been laden with tags by a single contentious editor, who also occasionally reverts. I looked at the article in an effort to mediate this dispute, and was impressed by the quality of the majority text. His points of difference should be resolved; they are listed at some length on the Talk:criticisms of communism, especially the one actual accuracy dispute (about the relative productivity of Hungary and France); and any other questions of accuracy and PoV raised. Septentrionalis 17:46, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Septentrionalis is not a neutral mediator in this discussion but is involved in other disputes with me, like in democratic peace theory. My version contains much referenced critique of communism that is ignored or misrepresented in the other version. I am however thankful for suggestions for improvement. Ultramarine 17:56, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
And there he is, being contentious again. Septentrionalis 12:53, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Passport

[edit]

Previous Peer Review can be found here

The last review was over a year ago and the article is still good but is looking very messy and sprawly. I'd be very grateful for some further ideas about what we should do with this one. --Spartaz 07:41, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Purge the gallery and put the images in appropriate places. Wiki-newbie 10:45, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Is Immigration arrangements for British passport holders from Hong Kong visiting the Republic of China (Taiwan) ever going to be worthy of an article? If not, delink it. Check the other red links as well, the next one I saw was flight risk which seems unlikely to ever be made as well. It's quite long and, as you say, 'sprawly'. Could the information about specific country's policies and any of the other 'list' type information be put in their own articles and summarised in the main article? The gallery could go as Wiki-newbie says, and some of the images located elsewhere on the page. There are very few cites for the length of article, in particular the history has only one. It seems very disjointed as well, I think it should be cut back quite severely and only general information included, with as little country-specific stuff as possible (as there are too many countries to mention them all on the page, and to focus on particular ones is POV). Trebor 18:50, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There are a lot of country specific articles. Perhaps some of the stuff can be hoved off there with links from the sections of the main article. Thanks for the advice so far. very useful. Spartaz 19:15, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds quite good. That reminds me of another thing I was going to ask - is that aim to create an article on each nationality's passport? At the moment, British passport and Hungarian passport have their own articles, French passport redirects to French nationality law and German passport doesn't exist at all. Perhaps some country's passports are worthy of their own article while others aren't, I don't know, but it shows a lack of consistency. The whole topic could really do with some standardisation. Trebor 20:13, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That's certainly a project we can look at longer term once we have sorted out the main article. Probelsm is that a lot of the individual articles that exist are pretty poor and unlikely to expanded much further. We can see. --Spartaz 07:07, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Red Links can be de-wikified  Doctor Bruno  00:26, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Red Links are history. I have removed the gallery of passport again. Not sure how long this will last. --Spartaz 07:26, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The articles is already going through a lot of changes. Where should I go next when they are complete? Should we be looking at FA or GA? thanks Spartaz 07:07, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. Lots of work to do. --Spartaz 18:39, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just My Imagination (Running Away With Me)

[edit]

In-depth article on a notable song, which came at a major turning point in the careers of The Temptations (all of which is discussed in the article). What can be done to improve this article to possibly FA status? (I'm trying very, very hard to find appropriate images, but I'm having no luck. Can anyone help?) --FuriousFreddy 14:54, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I only know this song because it was covered by Donald Byrd during the 1970s, when he was working with the Mizell brothers and selling millions of records. The article has interesting stuff about the people involved in making the song, and its lyrics, but not very much about the musical construction of the song, so I'd like to see more about that.
Also, as the article is about the song, rather than the Temptations, I think there could be more said about notable cover versions. http://www.coversproject.com says there have also been covers by Prince, Booker T and the MGs and Bette Midler, could be interesting to talk about what they did to it. I can provide info (and audio sample perhaps) about the Donald Byrd version if required! Worldtraveller 21:29, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I wrote as much about the musical construction of the song as I could; I'm not too well versed on the technics of muscial notation and such. I'd love some assistance there; have you heard the full original Temptations version? I didn't realy know much about any covers other than the Rolling Stones one. --FuriousFreddy 03:55, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

London, Ontario

[edit]

Just resubmitting this peer review. Not much response last time and the article is now much more complete than it was at that time.--Will2k 20:48, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, AZ t 00:51, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hello Will2k... I'm not sure if your goal is featured article status, as it may have been at the last peer review, but I have some comments in that respect. FAs require plenty of inline citations these days. I also checked the existing inline citation for "London has a small crack cocaine problem and Crystal Meth use is also on the rise." The RCMP article doesn't technically say, I don't think, that drug use is on the rise. This could be read as trying to establish a certain point of view (I'm certainly not accusing you of that!). Article readability can be improved by converting all the bullet lists to prose (which is another FA requirement). If you have to remove some detail to accomplish that (e.g. not listing every radio and TV station), I think that's OK. When years are mentioned by themselves, WP:DATE says don't link them. –Outriggr § 06:58, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Geology of Venus

[edit]

This article just went through a Spanish Translation of the Week, and it shouldn't take much to raise it to FAC status. I've been working on it quite a bit, and I would like to see that; however, it still needs to be shortened a bit (it's 2KB too long), a better introductory summary, and inline citations. On the good side, the material is stable, comprehensive and accurate; no edit wars are going on; and the images don't have any copyvio problems. General comments will be appreciated too. -- Titoxd 21:58, 18 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

32KB of prose is the starting point where an article may be considered too long. This article does not have 32KB of prose, so is fine by that measure and the topic may in fact warrant coverage with a bit more prose without being too taxing on the reader. See Wikipedia:Summary Style and Wikipedia:Article size. I can't read it now, but I look forward to doing so a bit later and giving feedback (I am very excited that so much was written about the geology of our sister planet and would love to see this topic featured). --mav 17:06, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nice work. The "Publications" section references three spanish-language books. Can these be replaced by English language equivalents? Thanks. — RJH 18:16, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Those were the original references that the Spanish article drew on when we translated it, but we went looking for additional (and newer, since it seemed that those books were a bit out of date) sources, and they're the English links on the references section. --Titoxd 22:57, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry to say that I do not think this article is ready for FAC yet. Some issues:

  • Seems like the first two sections would be more comfortably placed in an article about the exploration of Venus since very little is stated there about the planet's geology (even that is more geography than about geology). Merging what is there with what is at the ==Observations and explorations of Venus== in the Venus article would form a nice basis for such an article. Then a more compact summary can be in the Venus article.
  • The third section deals with topography findings from the explorations. Topography is a sub field of geography, not geology.
  • Section 5 has its title linked. That is bad per the MoS but at least this is the first section that can be interpreted to be about geology.
  • A general lack of inline citations.
  • Wikipedia:Lead section needs refactoring. Too long as is and does not really summarize the whole article. This should be the *last* thing done though.
  • No mention of the formation of the planet (this is a biggie).
  • No mention of the leading theories that try to explain why the surface is so young and why the planet has a retrograde rotation (another biggie).
  • A section that compares the evolution of Earth to that of Venus would be very interesting. I am particularly interested in how the role of water and water vapor has impacted the respected planet's geology (hint; without water plate tectonics would not work on Earth).

In short, I do not think this article is tightly on topic if the topic is going to be about the geology of Venus. An easy fix to bring this article more on topic would be to rename it surface features of Venus. But answering the above questions would be even better. --mav 18:08, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the suggestions, they were exactly the kind of general directions I was looking for. While it certainly is more than what I was expecting, it makes a good project for this week. I'll look forward to editing this article (and expanding the sub-articles I'll have to split) and I appreciate any help doing that. --Titoxd 05:39, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Is the word "geology" used to describe other planets? I've seen the term "selenology" for the Moon, though I have no idea how prevalent that is. Is there another term? John Barleycorn 23:08, July 31, 2005 (UTC)

Almost all of the images are much too dark on my monitor.--Bcrowell 01:29, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

History of Arizona

[edit]

I intend to bring this article to at least a good of quality as History of South Carolina, which I also wrote, and intend to eventually make it a featured article. Currently the article is a monstrous 68KB, so later it will be broken into separate articles for separate time periods until it reaches an acceptable length again. It also needs sections on Arizona past 1856. The latest section that I added today needs to be wikified, which I'll do tomorrow, but before I split it up after that, I'd like to have all of it reviewed together as a whole. Thanks in advance. Toothpaste 02:13, 13 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Montréal-Mirabel International Airport

[edit]

This is an OK article, but I think it has potential, and I'd like to know what should be done to make it a great article. I would like to make it into a Featured Article. AlbertR 19:49, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I changed the 1975 airline list to a table because I think long lists like that are distracting and unattractive. Although I question the utility of the information. Personally, I would like to just delete the table but I'll need concensus before taking that step. -maclean25 04:24, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Even I'm not really sure what to do with that information. Good job on changing it to a table, though. AlbertR 05:42, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Chinese box (torture)

[edit]

This article definitley needs some help. Is there anyone who can add some better sources129.170.90.88 21:58, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Judas Chair

[edit]

This is the talk page to discuss ways to improve the factual accuracy of the article. Please contribute by finding factual sources to contribute to the article or to dispute the nature of the article. One use has problems with using internet references. Is anyone able to find textual references? Willing to? 129.170.90.88 21:50, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Pear of Anguish

[edit]

This is the talk page to discuss ways to improve the article. There has been a lot of arguing over the factual basis for the article and I am hoping that some helpful people are willing to find information on the subject. 129.170.90.88 21:45, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Gay Nigger Association of America

[edit]

Ok, a FAC was closed recently about this artcle, and it was starting to get very ugly. Because of that, it was hard to fix some objections. I want to know if what do I need to do in order to get this up to Featured Status. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 15:32, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

For those who cannot seem to find out what some objections here, here is the list. I added my comments in the brackets:

  • Stability/Edit Wars/VFD's
  • Motives need to be known
  • Length
  • Need to list some members (listed a few)
  • Dead links (have been removed)
  • Nomination is seen as trolling/nominator (that is beyond my control)
  • Original research

Zscout370 (Sound Off) 07:52, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Although I know that Wikipedia is not a place to mask offensive words with asterisks, some African Americans could be severely insulted by the mere presence of the phrase "Gay Nigger". The article is also the target of reckless vandalism and has seen many disputes. We need more research on what what the goal of the article is. — Stevey7788 (talk) 20:42, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It's part of the groups name, so we cannot use stars to mask the name. Most of the time, the group is refered to as the GNAA in the article. However, in the lead section, we mentioned about the terms being racial slur against African-Americans. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 20:50, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Plus, if this becomes Featured, I will make a request to not put this on the front page, since this will be a vandal magnet. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 20:51, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
It's also very hard to get it to FA status. The topic itself is controversial, even though the article has references and shows as the result of very hard work. The FAC page for GNAA is very big, confusing, and full of arguments. I don't think a second FAC will be very productive. — Stevey7788 (talk) 20:52, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
We began to get more support votes, and some of the people who objected before changed their minds after their objections have been resolved. Some objections were about the person who nominated the article, we had one symbolic object, and others who objected due to stability. I do not know what the rules are for an article to become "stable." That is also why I am here: still trying to see what I am missing before I send it to FAC again. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 21:00, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

If I read WP:WIAFA correctly, stability refers to "Should be mostly static, and not change rapidly from day to day." While things are getting added day to day to the article, the concept of the article remains the same: Intro, members, attacks and reaction to them. But, if those sections are being changed around on a constant basis, then I can see why the article is not considered stable. As for the edit waring, this is what the above site says "Be uncontroversial in its neutrality and factual accuracy, and not have ongoing edit wars (see Wikipedia:Resolving disputes)." I do not see vandalism as an obstacle to the edit waring, since every page gets vandalized in their life on the Wiki. Plus, the last problems took place a month ago, but the issue was resolved when the waring edits left the article. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 21:09, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

"The GNAA have succesfully trolled Mac OS X users several times." What consitutes a "successful" troll? Who establishes the criteria? How can this statement be factually accurate and verfiable? --Tabor 23:55, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I will go ahead and removed succesfully. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 23:56, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Second Congo War

[edit]

Regarding that the page in question is a failed featured article candidate, but has since received substantial additions and content suggestions in its discussion page, I suggest a peer review be done to correct the remaining issues. I did not write any of this article, but I was extremely impressed with its level of content. Cwolfsheep 04:28, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The article has improved heaps since the last time I looked at it. One thing that will need to be addressed for FAC is the lack of refernces, there are few inline or general refernces given, are the texts listed as further reading actually references? A consistent system of referencing should be used throughout try {{ref}} {{note}} or Wikipedia:Footnote3. You may get asked to add a war box, see it in use on Algerian Civil War. The article uses some good PD images, but the images that are fair use will need a raionale as to why they are fair used added to the image page, lots of FACs are being held up due to image issues at the moment. Is the Glossary of Armed Groups complete? Nambia doesn't have any groups listed.--nixie 03:16, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Skybridge (Vancouver)

[edit]

I would like this pear-reviewed. I think it's main problem is that it hasnt got ne photos, despite us having some good ones already here and there. Brööñëë 18:34, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The photos in question were removed from the article, based on consensus from Talk:Skybridge (Vancouver). Zscout370 (Sound Off) 20:34, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The article stands on its own without any image. An apropriate photograph showing most of the bridge in the foreground or mid-ground can be added later. The article is also part of an expanding series, Bridges of Greater Vancouver, as per the template at the bottom.
•Zhatt• 20:59, July 29, 2005 (UTC)
I found some photos at http://images.google.com/images?q=Vancouver+SkyTrain&svnum=10&hl=en&lr=&safe=off&start=0&sa=N and at http://images.google.com/images?q=Vancouver+bridge&svnum=10&hl=en&lr=&safe=off&start=80&sa=N. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 21:23, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Thoes are most likely all copyrighted, hence the little "© TransLink" on many. You might get away with a {{fairuse}} tag, but I'm not too sure how that works. Altho, this one is very cool.
•Zhatt• 21:52, July 29, 2005 (UTC)
The fairuse claim wouldn't hold up, better to take some yourself, if you're a local or ask a Canadian wikipedian. This isn't realy an issue for Peer Review.--nixie 03:29, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
No, it is not. I suggest removing it. Does anyone agree? •Zhatt• 17:07, August 5, 2005 (UTC)
Removed as request was make by a previously banned user. •Zhatt• 17:23, August 5, 2005 (UTC)

Who Framed Roger Rabbit

[edit]

Failed to become a featured article a while back, but is ready for a thurough peer review. --The_stuart 13:10, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Plot is well written, but I think a few of the facts in parenthesis can be left out, mainly the parts about Eddie at the circus and General Motors streetcar conspiracy, or if you have source, instead of a see also, you can rewrite it to say the General Motors streetcar conspiracy was inspiration. Acclaim needs to be moved under Critiism since in this usage of the word both positive and negative comments are included. The negative comments in Criticism need sources, preferably in Note form. I find it hard to believe anyone would criticze the film because it used too much animation! Unless they are lazy animators who don't want the bar rasied and more work. So need sources about who said those complaints, (if they are just nitpicking fans mention it in the article)
    • I've heard the criticism from professional animators that much of the film is overanimated, that the characters just don't stop moving and make all sorts of arbitrary and,apparently, distracting moements. We'd probably need to find a reference for that, though. --FuriousFreddy 14:48, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, this wouldn't have a place with in the article without some sort of credible refrence, otherwise it is POV plain and simple. --The_stuart 15:10, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Found them: [8] [9] [10]. --FuriousFreddy 19:26, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Thats not much of a source (alot of things are said on internet forums), but if the "complaint" is kept in, I guess it would have to do. I still think the complaint is completely ridiculous, I mean too much animation! Maybe all animations should be done on threes? I guess all those extras in films distract the audience from the main charachters too. MechBrowman 19:48, August 3, 2005 (UTC)
Hell, why don't they just start using Syncro-Vox to cut down on all this destracting animation!--The_stuart 13:31, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The complaint is that the animation is "floaty"; that is, the characters are always (as in "always") moving. In natural movement, people and things stop moving at some point, and hold a pose (moving only very slightly while holding that pose). In Disney's animated features, held cels are used, but traced back" for each frame so that the line shimmers and the character doesn't "freeze". But in Roger Rabbit, most of the principals are in a constant state of movement, particularly Roger: his ears spend the entire running time doing ballet patterns and otherwise "floating" in the air. The people on that forum (all animation professioals or students) feel like the superflous movement is distracting or bothersome. Mind you, though, I don't have a problem with it--I like the floaty ears!--FuriousFreddy 21:07, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
As far as the animation being always on ones (actually, the crowd animation in the final shot is done on twos--guess they ran out of money), some animated movements do indeed look better on twos; ones can tend to look too glossy at times.
Triva sections are always questionable. I recommend at the very least rewriting into something that is not lists, at the very most get rid of it and move the facts somewhere else and get rid of some of them. Guessing which real world road they are planning on making seems a little silly. The same goes for Errors. Significance should probably be renamed Influence. Finally, the article is missing information about the film's themes and production. When, where and how was the film made? A short paragraph about the adaptation from the book as mentioned by Norvy would work in Production, a list of differences should be avoided though.
  • I've copy edited the article a bit. Still, here are my comments:
  1. The "Cast, crew, and studio" section reads as a laundry list. So-and-so directed it. So-and-so wrote it. So-and-so composed the score. Give a credits list from IMDB, or make the section a bit less tiresome.
  2. I combined "Acclaim" and "Criticism" into one "Critical reaction" section.
  3. Though it is touched on in the article, some discussion of the Roger Rabbit marketing needs to be included. The animated short films were but one of many things; Disney tried to make Roger Rabbit into a character as beloved as Mickey and Donald.
  4. The comment about the film's finale being unimaginative is oddly placed and the parenthetical "Gray" looks to be a poorly implemented internal citation.
  5. The information in the "Trivla" section should be moved into the main article or scrapped. The bullets are interesting, but if something is too trivial to fit into a main section of an article, it doesn't need to be there. Some of the stuff about Jessica's crotch and Baby Herman's sexual gestures can be moved to "Critical reaction", for example, by discussing the reaction of watchdog groups of parental groups to the film.
  6. Speaking of Jessica's crotch, don't use weasel words. Is it her vagina that is visible? Is it her pubic hair? The term "private area (near her crotch)" tells next to nothing.
  7. This: "raising the question 'if it's on the VHS version too, why was only the laserdisc recalled, and if the new discs were reissued with the same flawed cel, why did they go through the trouble in the first place?'" -- is odd. It's just shy of POV, and it should probably be rephrased as a statement rather than a question.
  8. There is no need for a section on "Other films combining live action with animation". That should be its own article.
  9. Why does "Bozo the Clown" have a * by his name?
  10. I deleted the part about this film marking Bugs Bunny's and Daffy Duck's animation/live-action debuts. Daffy was in You Oughta Be in Pictures long before this, and Bugs appeared in My Dream Is Yours opposite Doris Day in 1949. BrianSmithson 16:24, 31 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • The "(Gray)" thing was indeed a reference, poorly doen as it was, from when I had a problem with a user adding an original research criticism to the article, and added actual references that contained criticism. Bozo has a (*) by his name because he is an anachorism; I actually added that note and starred the other anachoristic characters on the list. --FuriousFreddy 14:46, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • (*puts on "Mr. Know-it-All" cap*, sorry :)) Actually, bugs appeared in Two Guys from Texas the year before he appeared in My Dream is Yours. --FuriousFreddy 21:35, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, but if I remember correctly, in that movie, he appears during a completely animated segment. :) BrianSmithson 11:57, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I have a screen shot some where of the scene where Jessica reveals her womenly secret to the world, is it worth adding to this article?--The_stuart 15:10, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I know Wikipedia is not censored for minors, but that might be a bit too much. --FuriousFreddy 19:26, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
You can incorporate the snopes article as a reference, which has screen shots.[11]. IIRC, the laserdisc recall was due to the fact that one of the controversial frames was right at the beginning of a chapter, making it very easy to find, as opposed to the VHS, which didn't have a chapter index. -- Norvy (talk) 20:27, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Good article overall, but I agree, some discussion of the film versus the book (similarities, such as Baby Herman basically being taken whole cloth, but differences, such as a stronger emphasis in the book on toon/human segregation and Toon Town as a ghetto) would be useful. Also, I took the liberty of removing Bozo. I don't have the DVD handy to take screengrabs, but watch again. The clown is not Bozo, but *Koko* the clown. He can be glimpsed briefly outside Maroon Studios, in his usual black and white attire, but surfaces in the finale, now in color and with hair. He does look almost Bozo-esque there, but not entirely. I also added a couple of cameos (Mr. Toad and Marvin the Martian); I had a longer list somewhere, but can't locate it at present. Finally, I reworded a bit early on, about the film being the "last star turn" for voices from the Golden Age. The only performers for whom this was their final animation role were Mel Blanc, as mentioned, who died not long after, and Mae Questel (who would live for another decade, but without reprising Betty Boop). The other voice actors were either not from the Golden Age, or are still around, like June Foray. Also, it strikes me that perhaps there should probably be some mention of Stubby Kaye (Marvin Acme) in the article, as this was one of his last, notable film roles as well, but your call, or perhaps a refrence to the fact that Chuck Jones was credited as a consultant on the film (along with veteran Disney assistanty Walt Stanchfield, and Stan Green, former assistant to Milt Kahl who also worked with Ralph Bakshi). And one more anchronism, though not in character appearances per se: when Roger and Eddie are watching a Goofy short, the cartoon in question is Goofy Gymnastics from 1949. Just some thoughts. Aleal 06:57, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Technological singularity

[edit]

A very interesting theory in the future studies. Something that may change greatly our world. I think this article is quite comprehensive, well written and has pretty pictures (graphs). Do you think it is ready for FAC? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 11:06, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • In the "likelihood and possibility" criticism section, three writers with different arguments are loosely mentioned without actually presenting what their arguments might be. This paragraph serves no purpose as is. Generally, this subsection could use expansion. The article could also use some more careful organization; e.g. Singularity Technologies and Desirability and Safety appear to overlap somewhat. Christopher Parham (talk) 05:04, 2005 August 7 (UTC)

Robert Clark (actor)

[edit]

I watch Black Hole High and am a fan of this actor, and I thought he deserved a strong Wikipedia article. I have improved and expanded it as much as I could from the version that was present before (diff), and while I am fully aware that it is far too short to be a featured article at the moment, I was wondering whether anybody here had any ideas on how I could improve upon its current state. Thanks in advance. Extraordinary Machine 02:49, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You're going to need to get the copyright status of the images you're using in order. Right now, the two images you've got, Image:Robert Clark in Veronica Mars 26-04-05.jpg and Image:Robert Clark in The Zack Files.jpg are claimed under fair use. In order to use them, you'll need to follow the guidelines at Wikipedia:Image description page#Fair use rationale. A good example of use of fair-use images in an article is Sunset Boulevard (film) and the associated image description pages. You should probably also try to get at least one image under a free license. One option for this would be to contact Robert Clark's agent and ask for a publicity photo to be released under the a GFDL or Creative Commons CC-BY license. --Carnildo 06:04, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the tips! I've added fair use rationale descriptions to both images, partly based on what User:Rossrs did on the Sunset Boulevard images. I'm also about to send an email to Clark's official website, although I might not receive a reply; the website's information is out of date by years. There are other places I could search, though. Once again, thanks! Extraordinary Machine 13:23, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think it is a good article. I'd never heard of the gentleman, but I did see the Veronica Mars episode cited, so it turns out I am familiar with him. While I think it is good, you will have problems getting it through FAC on the grounds some people think it is too short. Never mind that a nineteen year old isn't going to have a huge article, people will say it is too short--trust me, I've heard this objection on my own articles, e.g. Julia Stiles and John Henninger Reagan. FAC commentators will also seize upon the photographs problem, which I don't see ought to be an impediment to getting FA status, but people will object. Now, as to the article itself . . . What happened to his father? Divorce? Something ought to be said because it looks odd mentioning only a mother. Second, I wonder if you could find some print articles about him? You might try accessing databases such as ProQuest or Ebsco through the public library. I'm hesistant about articles where all the sources are electronic. While I've used many links on articles such as Tom Brinkman and Paul Hackett, I also cited the print version so when the operators of those sites take down the electronic versions people will still be able to find the material. Third, I'd eliminate some of the red-links to movies and schools. Again, this will raise objections if you take it to FAC. Finally, most of the article is dedicated to his roles. Is there any more you could add about his personal life. Does he have any charities or causes? User:Niteowlneils helped get some of this color for my Julia Stiles article when it was up as a FAC. Again, I want to say I liked the article. PedanticallySpeaking 14:45, August 6, 2005 (UTC)
Thanks for the reply! I agree that the article is too short, it's just that there doesn't seem to be a peer review section on Wikipedia for articles that aren't on the road to becoming an FA. I've provided fair use rationale for the images as best I could, but I'm afraid I couldn't find much information about his family, personal life, activities outside of his career, etc...apart from a fansite which mentioned the names of Clark's father (or stepfather) and younger brother, but it seemed very dubious and did not cite its source(s). I don't live in North America, so I'm not sure if my public library has access to those databases you listed, but it wouldn't hurt to check. The red-links I can turn into articles without problem. As for the external links vs. print references, I'll try to contact the print publications to see which issue (and possibly page number) the specific articles appear on. I am extremely grateful for your comments! Extraordinary Machine 02:27, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Nasrani

[edit]

It has been claimed that the Portuguese persecuted the Nasrani. Yet no evidence of that claim was brought forward. How many Nasrani were killed or imprisoned by the Portuguese? Do we know the identity of anyone was killed or imprisoned by the Portuguese? Why were they killed or imprisoned by the Portuguese? Was this merely the result of military and imperial ambition, or was there more to it?

The only evidence presented is that a few books were banned; and the Synod of Diamper made some changes to the Divine Liturgy of Addai and Mari. It is clear that Aleixo de Menezes was motivated by misguided zeal. It is clear that a schism was the result. But that hardly seems to justify the term persecution.

--Sophroniscus 23:40, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

If that is the issue and you're not here for peer review, I suggest posting to Wikipedia:Pages_needing_attention. — RJH 15:03, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

(1) Thanks. I have done as requested.

(2) My real concern is that I detect bias in the article. It was more than 50 years from the Synod of Diamper to the Coonan Cross Oath. And it was some 36 years after the death of Aleixo de Menezes to the Coonan Cross Oath. That doesn't seem to imply to me that the Nasrani were being persecuted, at least in the normal sense of the term. Certainly it seems strange to blame the schism on either the Synod of Diamper or Aleixo de Menezes, though they had a part to play. But it seems likely to me that the Nasrani did these things to themselves. But who am I to say? I know nothing of Indian history. Perhaps it is my own bias that is at issue. I suppose I could raise an NPOV objection. But that seems a bit harsh, coming from one who admits his ignorance.

References of Nasrani persecution

[edit]

The Nasrani people along with the Malabari Jews were definitely persecuted by the portuguese. Here are some references of Nasrani persecution from the texts of H. H. Meyers, Benjamin George Wilkinson, Ph. D. and others. The links to these texts are also provided.

"The Portuguese not only persecuted and killed all the bishops as they came from Antioch but their metran .... ..... And those Syrians who opposed his designs were persecuted and put to death." ("The Syrian Christians of Malabar" p.23).

see here: http://www.present-truth.org/Bible-Battle/inquisitive-3.htm


"The Portuguese also inaugurated slave trade by seizing able-bodied men and women ..... .... slave market in Goa." ("The Syrian Christians of Kerala", 1963, p.31). by S.C. Pothan

See here: http://www.present-truth.org/Bible-Battle/inquisitive-4.htm#CHAPTER

"Besides hunting down heretics, Jews, new Christians, and all who were accused of Judaizing (that is, conforming to the ceremonies of the Mosaic law, ..... ...... the Goanese Inquisitors also replenished their dungeons with persons accused of magic and sorcery." from The Syrian Church in India, by Rae p. 200.

see here: http://www.giveshare.org/churchhistory/truthtriumphant/chapter20.html

Robin klein 15:14, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

History of the Jews in Poland

[edit]

I believe this article has finally reached the FAC standard. What do you think? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 12:21, 23 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Although I disagree on the idea of 'the Jews' being un-PC, maybe 'History of the Jewish people in Poland' covers the subject best. The (lengthy) article looks excellent, the pic 'Banners from March 1968.' seems to be not working (or loading). I suggest you put it up for a FAC. -- Cugel 07:55, July 26, 2005 (UTC)
    • I am afraid the PC and the nuances of Jews vs. the Jews are a bit beyond me. All the proposed names sound same to me - feel free to move the article if you think one is better (preferably mention the move on the article's talk page few days before to get more input though). The pic is working ok for me atm. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 11:31, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • The side-by-side placement of the {{Jew}} and {{History of Poland}} boxes, in combination with the TOC, create a wall between the lead and the rest of the article. It may be necessary to put one on top of the other. I also don't like the way "the Jews" sounds in the title, but I'm not sure which alternative is best. NatusRoma 01:00, July 29, 2005 (UTC)
  • As the creator of many of the "History of the Jews" articles, I unsurprisingly think there is no reason to view either "Jews" or "the Jews" as being preferrable (PBS, for example, uses "the Jews" in their "Civilization and the Jews", Thomas Cahill uses the same in his recent bestseller, The Gifts of the Jews, etc.). I would suggest we keep the title as is in any case, since all of the other country histories of the Jews keep the same format -- History of the Jews in Ireland, History of the Jews in the United States, History of the Jews in Germany, etc. --Goodoldpolonius2 19:57, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • a) getting to be too long (just acceptable now, but probably not with additions) b) lacks specifics on the legal situation of Jews in Poland prior to WWII. c) I don't think Main article: History of Poland (1918-1939) is really right for Interwar period 1918-1939, a separate article The Jews in Interwar Poland should be started, even if it is just a cut and paste of the current inter-war section c) references seem quite limited, d) the map is for non-commercial use, which isn't acceptable for wikipedia e) "About 3 million Jews" should probably be "About 3 million Polish Jews" for clarity since many non Polish Jews were brought to Poland to be killed. This number should have a clear source and methodology given to avoid future "revisionism". f) "A relatively large percentage of Polish Jews participated in" is imprecise and should definitely be clearly referenced. -- overall I think the quality of the article is good and this can easily become a featured article.
    • On (b)&(c) what do you find missing from this section? On (d), as far as I know, the debate is still inconclusive as to whether explicit fair use graphics are to be allowed, at least from the meta talk on the subject, and this is a really useful map. (e) and (f) were fixed, thanks for the catch. --Goodoldpolonius2 01:24, 12 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

List of people associated with the French Revolution

[edit]

I'm wondering what people think it would take to get this up to the level for WP:FLC. -- Jmabel | Talk 05:47, August 4, 2005 (UTC)

  • I think its a very subjective list. Such lists may not get featured. =Nichalp «Talk»= 11:39, August 4, 2005 (UTC)
    • How is it subjective? -- Jmabel | Talk 06:05, August 5, 2005 (UTC)
    • Does "may not" here mean "might not" or "are not allowed to be"? -- Jmabel | Talk 06:05, August 5, 2005 (UTC)
      • This is a partial list of people involved in the French Revolution. It includes both supporters and opponents of the revolution. It attempts to give identifying facts and ultimate fates'. For one the list is "partial" ie not complete. Secondly, there may be hundreds of people associated with the FR no matter how small. The list should be complete and finite. There's no cut-off mentioned regarding the who's-who that can be included here. =Nichalp «Talk»= 07:19, August 5, 2005 (UTC)
        • Most lists are inherently partial, unless it's something like the list of provinces in a country. Anything that involves notability as a criterion is going to be that way. I just don't know what to say to this. Are you saying that this is somehow more subjective than the featured list List of cultural references in The Cantos? Or are you saying that list should not be featured? -- Jmabel | Talk 16:38, August 7, 2005 (UTC)
  • To me there's a difference between this and the List of cultural references in The Cantos. That one, while perhaps not 100% comprehensive (maybe the guy writing the list missed one or two somewhere), is well-defined – every time someone or some place is mentioned, he/she/it gets a reference. "List of people associated with the French Revolution" is really tough, because the title doesn't define it well at all. It's such a huge topic that it likely could never be filled. If it were limited to "List of military generals of the French Revolution" or something more definable like that, it would be more possible to complete it. But in this case, there's no way to know what "associated" means. Does it include foreigners who supported one side or the other but never went to France? Does it include everybody who fought? Everyone who gave money? How will you ever be reasonably sure that you've got everyone or nearly everyone? I wouldn't say that this list is inherently non-featureable, but I'd still say that it's virtually impossible that it would ever meet my criterion for "comprehensive", unless the scope were better defined in the title or the lead. --Spangineer (háblame) 18:48, August 7, 2005 (UTC)
    • OK, sounds like getting this featured is hopeless because the topic is amorphous. It's still very useful as a quick reference for those trying to understand our 200+ articles related to the Revolution, so I don't really see organizing it differently. I guess I'll just give up on the possibility of getting it featured. -- Jmabel | Talk 03:41, August 8, 2005 (UTC)

Permatemp

[edit]

I wrote this a while back, I'd like to get the communities opinion. SchmuckyTheCat 20:13, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I like it. A few hints at how to improve this:
  • What was the outcome of the Vizcaino v. Microsoft case? You write that Microsoft changed its policies, but was there a ruling, did they settle, or what happened?
  • The article is heavily U.S.-centric. What is the situation in Europe?
  • There are only three external links. Can you add references?
  • Are there any statistics? How many permatemps were there in the U.S. over the last, say, 15 years? In Europe? In percent of the total job market? What are the trends?
  • Is this a relatively new phenomenon occuring primarily (or only?) in IT-related businesses, or also in other economic sectors?
Lupo 10:34, August 8, 2005 (UTC)

Black Friday (Maldives)

[edit]

I would like this artilce to be peer reviewed, basically for grammar, spelling and flow. --Oblivious 03:11, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Okei so far I got a copyedit from Wayward, but no feedback from anyone. Still waiting :) --Oblivious 15:56, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
There are a few POV issues that need to be addressed:
  • "Several key reformists were allegedly blacklisted and subsequently put under surveillance."
  • "Gayoom's critics are often said to be arrested and tortured in jail, an allegation he continuously denies."
  • "Women were also beaten with truncheons and they sustained severe injuries."
—Wayward 02:42, August 8, 2005 (UTC)
Must these lines be removed or re-written in diffrent way? suggestions? --Oblivious 10:12, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ku Klux Klan

[edit]

This is an article on a topic that attracts a lot of readers and editors with strong feelings. I think it's getting to be FA quality, and would appreciate any feedback.--Bcrowell 23:23, 10 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • In order to make featured status, the copyright status of the images needs to be cleared up. In particular:
    • The source and copyright status of Image:Kkklan.jpg needs to be determined.
    • The copyright status of Image:Kkk1928.jpg needs to be established. Simply being from the National Archives isn't proof of being in the public domain.
    • The copyright status of Image:Hblack.jpg needs to be determined. If it can't, then the image should be replaced. The guy was a Supreme Court justice, so there should be no shortage of public-domain images in the National Archives.
    • Any images that are used under "fair use" need to follow the rules at Wikipedia:Fair use.
    --Carnildo 04:03, 11 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, thanks for pointing that out! I found a PD image to replace Image:Kkklan.jpg, and I've e-mailed the webmaster of archives.state.al.us to see if he can give any info on the copyroght status of the Hugo Black image.--Bcrowell 05:40, 11 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
It turns out that Image:Kkk1928.jpg is also PD, and I've documented that on its description page.--Bcrowell 02:10, 12 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The webmaster of archives.state.al.us e-mailed me back, and I've added the text of what she said to Image:Hblack.jpg. Basically it looks like one of those images that almost certainly is PD, but will be almost impossible to prove is PD. I didn't have any luck finding any PD images at the National Archives, except for a group picture with the Kennedys, which is way too low in resolution. Any help anyone could provide in finding a PD image of Black would be much appreciated.--Bcrowell 01:00, 13 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Polish-Muscovy War (1605-1618)

[edit]

A forgotten Eastern European war. One in which Moscow was captured and the fate of the entire region was decided. Comments much welcomed, I would like to submit it to FAC soon. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 10:14, 31 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • It looks very good to me, although the mass of names and places can get a little overwhelming the first time through. It could use a "before" map near the top to show the situation at the start. There are a few minor syntax errors and some spelling errors (e.g. cronwed , officialy, tolernace). So the page could also do with running through a spelling checker. In "Lead up to the war" there is a missing closed parenthesis in the last paragraph. — RJH 15:12, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Could benefit from some English language copyediting. --Lysy (talk) 12:33, 6 November 2005 (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) Wikipedia:Peer review/Sissy baby[reply]

Battle of the Scheldt

[edit]

I find it is a good article about an important yet not very well known battle of WWII, but most of the article was made by one person, Oldsoul, with minor changes by me and a couple other people, so I think it really needs more people to look over it, especially people who did not make it. I know references are missing, but I cannot get the formatting right to do them, I have tried, but kept failing.say1988 17:39, August 3, 2005 (UTC)

I came across this article when I was working on Military history of Canada and I was much impressed. There are still some barriers to it being featured, however. As mentioned it needs a references section. For aid you might look to other pages and copy the format they have used. One well referenced page I have been working on recently is Makuria. Also important is that the photos need more description. They seem to come from the National Archives, which is very good at properly documenting images. Ideally for each of them we should have the accession number, and reproduction number so they can easily be looked up. A link to the Archive's image description page, rather than just the image, is also important. The Archives are always explicit about copyright status, and we should be just as direct. For some well document images from the Canadian Archives see Image:Trudeau at the 1968 Liberal convention.jpg and Image:Vimy tank.jpg. A third, relatively minor, issue is that there are too many short paragraphs that should be merged together. - SimonP 04:08, August 4, 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for starting this page. It took me three or four days to pull together the bulk of this article. I've just posted a response to the talk page which addresses my current concerns. Chief of which is that many of the paragraphs now read too long in my opinion, and many details and descriptions may serve the overall article well to be shortened somewhat. In any case, the more minds the better on this one, I know we are all in it for the right reasons. Here's to FA status... Oldsoul 10:22, August 9, 2005 (UTC)

Asthma

[edit]

This article just underwent some major rewrites as part of the new Medicine Collaboration of the Week. Ultimately, I think our collaboration would like to help articles reached featured status. I have no experience with this process, and would appreciate any advice the reviewers could offer for what steps we can take to further improve this article. — Knowledge Seeker দ 04:54, August 11, 2005 (UTC)

  • I'm no medical buff but this looks really good. A few things that might be issues are the fair use image that probably should be replaced (fair use is usually a no-no for featured articles, and this one is especially questionable) and the very large graph (some people only use 800x600 screen resolution), so a 600px wide image might be a problem. Also, the sections "Prognosis" and "Epidemiology" are very short, and should probably be expanded or integrated somewhere else. More inline citations would be very welcome as well. --Spangineer (háblame) 13:36, August 11, 2005 (UTC)
  • Spangineer - I appreciate the comments. I've changed the images as per your suggestions. Also, I agree that the Prognosis and Epidemiology sections are short. I think the prognosis section, by its nature, doesn't need to be much longer, but Epidemiology could be much more detailed. Also, I would like to see a brief "history of asthma" and "list of notable asthma sufferers" added to the article before we go for FAC. (P.S. I did a lot of work on this article, so I'm not a very good unbiased reviewer) Mr.Bip 20:25, 11 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd suggest merging the prognosis section with the diagnosis section at the top -- the two are similar, and that's good introductory information. Personally, I'd rather see notable asthma sufferers included into the "history of asthma" section, not as a list, but by referring to only the most important ones who had an impact on how Asthma is viewed in society, etc. Otherwise, it could turn into a mad house of who is a "notable" asthma sufferer. Most of the time, such lists grow too quickly and end up getting removed from their article and end up being largely useless. --Spangineer (háblame) 15:13, August 12, 2005 (UTC)
  • Spangineer—I really appreciate the feedback. I will definitely try to get some more inline references in there. I'll work, too, on expanding the prognosis and epidemiology sections if I can. I would rather not put the prognosis information with the diagnosis information as I feel they are dissimilar: one deals with the methods to decide a given person has the condition, the other with the likely long-term effects of having the condition. However, I agree with placing a short mention of prognosis in the intro. I'll try to get to these tomorrow or the next day, perhaps. — Knowledge Seeker দ 08:15, August 13, 2005 (UTC)
  • Very good information. The mechanism and pathogenesis sections look great, though I can't personally vouch for that material. I'll try to help with this article as time allows, but first I'll offer suggestions. 1) prevalence is mentioned a couple times. 1 in 4 is given in the intro (needs a citation) but only more general discussion is given in the Epidemiology section. More is needed there. What about deaths from asthma? It does happen, a bit about how many in a year in developed/non devel. countries would be helpful. I disagree with merging diagnosis and prognosis, but prognosis should be expanded. What is there is such a summary that misses things like what about the people that don't respond to treatment or don't grow out of it. What about athletes with asthma? 2) The beginning of the pathology section is hard to understand. The paragraph starting with "Clues to the understanding of..." needs to be rewritten. How about these are the known risk factors, then discuss how they affect/manifest, and what that tells us about understanding asthma. 3) The pathology section also misses the lung reforming (basically scarring I think) that goes on in asthmatics as they try to breath through constricted airways. 4) The treatment section should probably be reorganized a bit. The advanced section should probably be renamed since some of those treatements are not very advanced. Maybe just call them acute care or last resort treatments or something to that effect. The paragraph in the preventative section talks mostly about corticosteroids, but that is only one of the methods, so if correct, the section should be more explicit and say the first line of treatments is a corticosteroid and then other compatible treatments may be layered. I know corticosteroids and leukotriene inhibitors can be combined, but I'm not sure about some of the others. 5) It needs some more general references, and I'll try to see what I have in the medical textbooks I have available. - Taxman Talk 13:38, August 15, 2005 (UTC)
Thanks, Taxman. I've begun work on your recommendations. I'm working on the pathology section now. — Knowledge Seeker দ 07:07, August 18, 2005 (UTC)

Teller-Ulam design

[edit]

I wrote this up over the course of a few days last week, it was a DYK feature and got some other attention that way, which seems to have culled out most of the typos, etc. What do you think? Is there anything which could be tightened up, anything which is unclear, anything missing that you can think of? The goal was to write an article which 1. explained the supposed principle, 2. explained its history in the US and elsewhere, 3. explained how we know what we know about it. Thanks. --Fastfission 11:40, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I've read and reread this article several times now, and - apart from the ten or so red links - I can't see nothign that can be fixed up before you go to FAC. I mean, the only thing missing is a numbered list of parts and instructions on how to build one in the backyard ;). Impressive piece of work. WegianWarrior 09:06, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. All of the red links are things which should, but don't yet, have their own articles. I'll try and create some stubs for them, though, for now. --Fastfission 11:18, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Good article. A couple of points/questions:
  • The article states "Because of the "staged" design, it is thought that a tertiary section, again of fusion fuel, could be added as well, based on the same principle of the secondary." Are there any known examples of a tertiary design having been tested? If not it might be worth mentioning that in the article.
  • Are all Hydrogen bombs thought to be based on the Teller-Ullam design?
  • I can add some more about the British design. For instance after the successful Grapple tests the US agreed to share it's nuclear secrets with Britain. As a consequence the British based their further H-bombs on an American design (this was kept secret at the time). I should add this information to the Operation Grapple page too. (This information came from the programme used as the reference on that page). CheekyMonkey 22:39, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Good questions! My response as best I can:
  • At least one U.S. design is thought to have had a tertiary stage, and the Tsar Bomba is thought to have a number of secondaries and/or tertiaries. I've added this info to the article. The advantage to noting about tertiaries is that you can use this design to indefinitely scale up the yield of a bomb (hypothetically even to the level of a Doomsday machine, though I thought mentioning that might be a little hyperbolic).
  • Such is what is thought, but of course it is hard to know these things for sure. I've added a small line on this. I'm very cautious, personally, on concluding about how much is known, since how much is unknown is itself an unknown quantity (until the idea of the implosion bomb was revealed in 1951, everyone in the public domain thought they knew what the single model of atomic bomb design was, as a small example).
  • That would be great. My only real knowledge of the UK program, besides that they were allowed to use some fallout design and had difficulties producing it at first, was that their knowledge of the Teller-Ulam design served as the "secret password" to their being able to share nuclear info with the U.S., which is somewhat interesting in terms of the role secrecy plays.
--Fastfission 15:37, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I concur with your thoughts on the first two points. Regarding the UK I have added a link to the 1958 US-UK Mutual Defence Agreement and will add some more information over the next couple of days. I must note that the Channel 4 program about this subject (Summary here) never actually stated that the British had come up with a Teller-Ullam design. However, the successful British H-Bomb - Round C was described as "a two-stage thermonuclear bomb with a much more powerful atomic trigger [than the previous British attempts]". Radiation levels being calculated from the trigger were also mentioned. That coupled with the fact that the Americans were impressed enough to share their own designs I think makes it as sure as you can get with this topic that the British were in fact using a Teller-Ullam design. CheekyMonkey 17:24, 30 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]


Aaaaarrrrggghhhhhh, not the foam plasma pressure fallacy again! Doesn't anyone read the FAQ anymore? Nuclear Weapon FAQ Sect 4.4.4.2.2, Radiation Channel. The implosion pressure does not come from the filler foam. It's possible to build and fire a Teller-Ulam device with a completely empty radiation channel in the radiation case. The foam is there to retard initial liner and pusher ablation long enough for the energy distribution to even out smoothly. The pressures generated are trivial compared to those required to implode the secondary. What generates the implosion pressure is the ablation (effectively as if it were an in-turned rocket motor) of the fusion pusher layer of the tamper/pusher assembly. A large portion of the tamper/pusher ablates away in this process, leaving a thinner tamper layer up against the now-compressed fuel layer.

I know Moorland's article said that the foam plasma pressure was significant, but Morland wasn't a bomb physicist, and we know a lot more now than we did then. These inaccurate descriptions have got to stop, they're grossly misleading everyone.

I can rewrite the article's implosion description sometime this week, but for now, it flunks peer review on that basis. Sorry. It's not your fault for believing the Morland article, but Morland got that detail (and several others) wrong... Gotta get it right here. Georgewilliamherbert 09:08, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

No, reread the article. It states very clearly that the foam was one idea of it, and that others have different ideas. Sublette and Morland and Rhodes and all of the other people here argue till the sun comes out, and neither of them really have any real idea. So don't change it to one or the other -- the goal is to present all of the ideas taken seriously by these fellows (and the wider world) because none of us have security clearances and there's no way to know which is completely correct. That's half the point of the article if you read it over again -- to tell what is thought to be known, and to emphasize how that knowledge was constructed. Sublette is no more a bomb designer than Morland or Hansen was (Morland and Sublette still disagree about this, by the way, and both claim different types of evidence either way. But I can't include that information because it is original research, I'm afraid). In fact, none of the people who speculate about these things are bomb designers -- we don't "know" more than we did then in any concrete sense. --Fastfission 12:45, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Which is to say more specifically, I'm happy with adding more on the non-foam explanation than is currently there, and a note that there is some disagreement among people who dream about such things. But I'm not interested in privileging one explanation over another -- I don't see any good reason to believe that any of them is firmly rooted is accurate knowledge. Nobody speculating about such things has any practical idea how X-rays, fission weapons, and fusion fuel operate in such conditions, so I think it's a little early to say one is "right" and another is a "fallacy". --Fastfission 12:57, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, but if you don't have enough physics background to look at the proposed mechanisms involved (foam plasma pressure, versus the ablation effect Sublette describes) and see whether they actually work, then you shouldn't be stating that there's some debate about which idea is accurate or not.
There are a number of people with that background, including myself, who have looked at the problem and concluded that Carey's analysis and mechanisms are accurate. This includes actual real world peer review by professional physicists involved in collapsed matter physics, inertial confinement fusion, radiation transport, and related fields.
It also includes comments we've received from people "inside" weapons design programs in the US and elsewhere, and non-weapons-designers in government nuclear policy programs. We have been told that the Nuclear Weapon FAQ information is nearly completely accurate and has accurate physics.
There's also stuff which we know is accurate from conversations with engineers and policy people in various countries which is not in the Nuclear Weapons FAQ. Including some physics and a lot of design details of nonspherical primaries, which Carey and I both independently derived in largely accurate forms before we got inside comments which confirmed it. Carey was asked to keep the concept out of the FAQ in the late 90s. The concept has since separately leaked, following the China/W-88/Wen Ho Lee debacle, but none of the published reports have anything like the level of detail we know from analysis and side channel confirmation.
You asserted earlier that “none of us have security clearances and there's no way to know which is completely correct”. The first is partially correct; nobody who has contributed to the Nuclear Weapons FAQ directly has the Q bomb design clearance in the US or foreign equivalent. Lots of hints and side channel confirmations have been indirect information from people with security clearances. The second is not correct; the nuclear weapons establishments aren't completely opaque, and they have told us stuff, and what they've told us is that we have the analysis right.
A combination of open, specialist professional physicist review of the basic physics and the admittedly limited information which has come out of the black side of things is a significant way to know which is completely correct.
The Nth_Country_Experiment had significantly less resources than Chuck Hansen was able to put together; which was less than Carey Sublette was able to pull together.
You say that “none of the people who speculate about these things are bomb designers”. Well, I disagree. We've been told by professional bomb designers that we know enough to be bomb designers. We haven't done complete detailed designs, as the US classification laws for born secret bomb designs appear to make doing so illegal. But you can safely assume we've done a lot of component or partial system designs over the years. Georgewilliamherbert 22:06, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
--As also noted on the Talk: page for the article, I intend to fix the foam plasma section Wednesday night Aug 10. Georgewilliamherbert 03:02, 10 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Nth Country Experiment was about a fission weapon, not a fusion one. And we're also not completely sure what they ended up concluding since the only thing released about it is was a summary which was heavily redacted. Which you'd know if you'd read the actual report!
...Which I did when it was first published in declassified but redacted form. What on earth made you think I hadn't read it?
Here's one question for you: Who can you cite about the "fallacy"? Carey Sublette's page, sure. But who else? What published sources, for one thing?
...The whole body of inertial confinement fusion literature, for one? They work the same way, just with a lot higher energy density. But everyone in IC fusion knows that the technology is similar and in fact, some of the IC fusion details from government labs are classified, even though they're not military programs.
Even among the better online sources there is ambiguity. From the generally good page at GlobalSecurity.org: "Whether the hot plastic does the pushing or transmits its heat to a designated ablator which does the pushing a matter of continuing public speculation."
So your argument basically comes down to, "Carey Sublette and I agree on this." Which sounds a lot like Original research, since aside from one source, you are citing yourself and your own "calculations".
...And condensed matter physics professors, Intertial Confinement Fusion researchers, and a cast of thousands more...
The goal of our article should be to report on the general status of the knowledge, which in the larger literature is uncertain. So both explanations should be discussed, and we shouldn't try to push one over the other in any major way, in my opinion, because there is no authority which has validated either one.
Now, look, this is just not right. You're taking a narrow view and assuming that "the popular literature" is "the literature". That's just wrong. There are direct linkages in IC fusion, and published papers and books and such in open literature on behaviour of matter once it reaches the fermi gas state, how energy is absorbed by high and low Z materials, etc. Both those subject field experts and the bomb people have admitted that those fields are directly applicable to bomb design.
You're essentially saying here that we can't use professional, academic, peer reviewed information, because the popularized public literature says something different. And that's just wacky.
None of the physics in the NW FAQ is original research. It all came out of other unclassified sources. Putting it all together, tying the bits from IC Fusion and condensed matter physics and radiation transport all together, was original by Carey, but the sources and references and methods are all there. People in all those fields have peer reviewed the NW FAQ and found it accurate. Simplistic, in some areas, but there are pointers to the actual research in those fields for you to go follow up if you want or need the full details.
For any reasonable definition of "published" other than "on paper", the NW FAQ has been published, for a decade now. For any reasonable definition of "peer reviewed", it has been peer reviewed, and passed that review. And the references in the related fields are all out there for you to follow up with, if you still don't believe it.
You acknowledge that you aren't an expert. In asking for peer review, you asked for expert input. It appears that you weren't actually expecting to get it and aren't exactly sure what to make of it now that you have it. You seem to have bought into the "it's such a hard and such secret topic" fallacy, which was disproved by the first nuclear bomb designed by someone with no classified knowledge and outside the weapons community. There have now been several well publicized designs, including by high school and college students. It's just not that hard. Carey tied all the declassified bits together along with the related basic physics and closely related applied physics field specialty research, in a rigorous manner. It's just not that hard anymore.
Georgewilliamherbert 04:53, 10 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
And to be honest -- I trust things which are based in declassified docs a lot more than I do any non-weapon designer's back-of-the-envelope calculations. Sure, you know your physics, but do you actually know how the conditions of a thermonuclear explosion would play out in reality? How would you know what you don't know, what effects you aren't taking into account if you aren't doing work in that field and haven't been privy to their experiments?
Ah, but of course. Carey was asked to keep it out of the FAQ -- everyone who has worked on "bomb speculation" has their story about the men in the gray flannel suits who show up to tell them to keep quiet. Assuming this is true, it is clear (at least from the Morland case) that just having such men around does not guarantee one has gotten everything correct, just that they consider it provocative!
Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a place to pretend we know secrets. The goal of this article for me was to portray what is thought to be known, the supposed history of it, and how all of this came to thought to be known. Every aspect of it is dashed with bits of uncertainty and is an effort for the reader to see how such public knowledge of "secret" things is constructed, from bits and pieces and leaks and so forth. To replace it with an article which claims one is true -- because you yourself (and one other person) came to a single conclusion on it -- would be misleading, inaccurate, and an intellectual shame. Feel free to make your edits, but I will be vigilant about enforcing NPOV. As I said -- I'm happy with including a (non-technical) discussion of the ablation theory, more so than is already there, but I'm not willing to present one set of ideas as "known" when they are only represented in print by a single author, and "in print" means on the web. (BTW, if I recall, Chuck Hansen included the foam too in both of his works. My general assessment of his style was to be more confident in declassified docs than in the calculations of individuals, and the declassified docs support the foam, at least in the Morland trial). (Again, I honestly don't care either way which is "right" -- I just think you are missing an interesting and subtle point) --Fastfission 03:51, 10 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I never said there isn't foam there. What I said was, it's not the pusher force. Which is both supported by the fact that some fusion bombs didn't use a radiation channel liner (clearly, if it can work without the foam, it's not a necessary component...) and basic physics. We know (because it's in the DOE declassified information about fusion bombs) that various foams, foamed with methane and pentane and other stuff, are components of bomb assemblies, and from other sources we know that at least on place they're used is in the radiation channel.
We know the dimentions of the Ivy Mike internal components. If you deposit the whole primary energy into the radiation channel filler, there isn't enough force available to compress the tamper and deuterium into pressures and temperatures where it'll fuse. On the other hand, if you dump that much energy in, it will transfer energy into the tamper and case, as is well documented in open literature from IC fusion and the like. And once you start to heat the tamper/pusher, then it will start to ablate, as dense hot high-Z materials in high fermi gas and plasma conditions will ablate away and have a rocket effect, as is also well documented in the literature from IC fusion and other fields.
One way doesn't physically work, according to any component of the body of physics knowledge, and the other component will have the effect that the NW FAQ says it will if you put it next to the other one, according to the body of physics knowledge, regardless of where the energy gets initially deposited.
And from basic physics, and the open specialty literature including IC fusion, we know that low Z materials absorb X-rays less efficiently than high Z materials (you shield X-ray machines with lead, right?). So a very easy conclusion is that most of the primary's energy is going into the high Z radiation case wall and secondary tamper/pusher anyways, regardless of there being foam there or not.
This chain of logic has been written up, formally presented in the NW FAQ, and peer reviewed by professional physicists in the unclassified specialty fields in detail, and lightly and off the record by bomb designers. It passed.
If you can educate yourself enough on the physics to review it, the related fields, and then come back and find some weakness in it, please feel free to do so. But everyone who already had that knowledge who's looked at it has agreed with it. So... survey says? Georgewilliamherbert 04:53, 10 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I think... backing up a few steps, and laterally some, I think a categorization issue is what's going on here.
Rhodes, Morland, et al are secondary sources, and popularizations. Fastfission, you're approaching them properly as popularized science writing and not primary source science.
The NW FAQ is a piece of science and engineering primary material, which is what I think you're missing in all of this. It draws from other primary material, and while somewhat popularized rather than firmly academically rigorous at every step, it has become additional peer reviewed primary material. But you're still treating it like it was secondary material.
I've been trying to articulate aspects of this, but I think it's clearer if I back away from all the details and present the issue at this level. I hope it helps. Georgewilliamherbert 05:24, 10 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Crete

[edit]

Is it getting too long? Should it be broken into chunks? What related articles would you suggest? Any suggestions would be appreciated. --Jpbrenna 22:28, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it's getting long at all, and the battle descriptions from day two onward could readily be expanded. Eventually I think it would be nice to have a more detailed order of battle page, similar to what's available on the "List of orders of battle" page. Probably down to the brigade/regiment/battalion level would be sufficient. Thanks. — RJH 15:16, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Crete order of battle What do you think so far? --Jpbrenna 18:28, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Yes that looks most excellent, although I think listing the commanders below division level is probably overkill. Why the Italian flag? Were there Italian forces in the Crete landings? Just wondering. :) — RJH 14:50, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
It is not too long. Neeed references and 2nd level sectioning. More pics would be nice, a map would be essential. Quotation is nice, but I think it will have to be moved to Wikiquote - or at least below lead, as in Warsaw Uprising for example. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 11:10, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent read. However, there are no external links. — Stevey7788 (talk) 23:19, 10 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Muhammad ibn Abd al Wahhab

[edit]

This article was clearly not from a neutral point-of-view. It's poignantly obvious, because every time Muhammed, the Prophet, God's messenger was mentioned, the editors wrote "peace be upon him," which is a Muslim custom. Furthermore, it's poignantly obvious it's not from a neutral point-of-view from how the founder of Wahabbism\Salafi is described:

  • In horribly poor English with errors too numerous to list (For example, "He gained the popularity," "having choiced," "bacame," "Investigation were made," "got himself benefited there," etc.).
  • As having "profound scholarship and righteousness"
  • "intelligent enough to memorize the Qur'an by heart at the very tender age of ten"
  • "a man of courage and enthusiasm"
  • His critics have been "ignorant and selfish scholars"
  • As a result of his teachings, "Peace and tranquility prevailed everywhere"

This article is of such low-quality that it should be removed. But I doubt I would be able to, and even if I could, Wahhab is famous enough that he deserves an article. However, I am not educated on the subject, so anyone that is, or can research it, please do. 69.138.24.96 19:31, 10 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This is probably better handled according to the clean up process. Mozzerati 19:58, August 10, 2005 (UTC)

Agreed. I tagged it npov - someone else put a requrest for cleanup there. Scott Ritchie 20:30, 10 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Arsenal F.C.

[edit]

One of the most famous football (soccer) clubs in the UK, and WP doesn't have too many FACs (in fact, only one by my count) that relate to the sport. The article is fairly comprehensive, but then I've written a fair bit of it myself so I'm probably biased. All contributions welcome on its content, especially for how well it caters for the layman. IFK Göteborg is the only FAC related to a football club and may be useful in comparison. Qwghlm 17:37, July 28, 2005 (UTC)

Looks good, although I rephrased "second most" as I didn't think it was good English. Some of the sentences are a little long-winded, and could do with being split up. A photo of the squad would be a great addition if the copyright status is ok. I think Fred Beardsley and Morris Bates should be de-wikified unless you think there's a chance of them having articles written about them. Also, the following statements could do with sources, preferably in footnotes:
  • at the expense of local rivals Tottenham Hotspur, by reportedly dubious means
  • it was revealed he had taken bribes for signing players
  • many Arsenal fans feel, however, that the blue shirts are bad luck
CTOAGN 21:08, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I doubt a free/public domain photo of the squad exists. Have dewikified Beardsley and Bates as they were not players at Arsenal for a particularly long time and so probably dont deserve their own articles.
As for the statements - the first two have more detail about them in History of Arsenal F.C.. They are described in detail in Rebels for the Cause, a book which I have now added to the references; good webpages on them can be found at [12] and [13] respectively. Shall I provide footnotes for both of these?
As for the blue kit thing, it's more folklore than anything with sources (although it's mentioned on the odd website [14]), but some think it's more than coincidence that Arsenal have never won the league with a blue away kit; I've added this in brackets after the statement.
Qwghlm 09:24, July 29, 2005 (UTC)
Yeah, I think footnotes for the first two would help, otherwise the sentences would look libellous to someone who wasn't familiar with the subject. I think what you've done for the kit thing is fine. I still don't like the use of "second most" and "third most" - can you rephrase them? CTOAGN 21:23, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Have added footnotes, and attempted a rewording of the second/third most thing - I don't like repeating the word 'only' but it doesn't look right otherwise. Qwghlm 22:28, August 7, 2005 (UTC)
I won't give any feedback on spelling and grammar, as that is not my cup of tea, but I do have a few suggestions:
  • I know there has been a discussion going on over the badge in article vs. badge in infobox. I would prefer to have the current badge present in the infobox. As User:Ed g2s seem to have strong opinions about this (btw, it was me who added the image-parameter in the infobox...), and as he would not want a vote as there were to few active users in the discussion, why not take the vote to Wikipedia:WikiProject Football and decide it once and for all? If not the badge, a picture strongly related to Arsenal would be nice.
  • Consider moving the Top scorers and Players with the most appearances sections to a separate page named Statistics of Arsenal F.C. or similar, placing the top positions in a separate 2nd level header named Records, where the current Records subsection of Achievements also could be moved.
  • Adding a note on the current squad section when it was last updated.
No other suggestions for now. Will take a closer look tomorrow. :) -- Elisson • Talk 21:22, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ack, the badge thing. I'll consider it.
  • Statistics of Arsenal F.C. sounds a little awkward, although Arsenal F.C. statistics looks a bit better to me. What do others think? Has there been a precedent set?
  • Have updated squadlist with date last updated.
Qwghlm 09:24, July 29, 2005 (UTC)
Have created a spin-off page Arsenal F.C. statistics for the statistics, and have moved the lists and tables there; a short summary is now in the main article. Qwghlm 14:05, July 30, 2005 (UTC)

I believe all the issues raised above have been satisfactorily resolved. If there are any more points of discussion then please air them. I think the article is now getting up to FAC standard (though it could do with a picture of Highbury as well). Qwghlm 13:06, August 11, 2005 (UTC)

  • I've put the one vaguely decent picture of Highbury I've got to illustrate, although it could be a lot better. Qwghlm 14:15, August 11, 2005 (UTC)
The final footnote seems to be an orphan. Maybe it should be deleted? CTOAGN 13:49, 11 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I've folded it into the main article - it's worthy of full inclusion. Qwghlm 14:15, August 11, 2005 (UTC)

Mario

[edit]

Archive: Wikipedia:Peer review/Mario/archive1

The article seems to be nearing featured status. There should probably be a few more references; my question is, what else is left to cite? Also, is there anything other improvements to be made to this article to reach featured status? —The Great Llama talk 00:23, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Please see more automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, —The Great Llama talk 01:32, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The characteristics section seems overly long and there are several unfree images that don't seem to be adding to the article. For instance, we don't need to know what a fire flower looks like, especially since the text is describing Mario's powers and abilities. Jay32183 02:52, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think the characteristics section can be trimmed a bit by removing the discussion on his age. There isn't an official age listed in any source, the entire section is based on speculation. Unsourced speculation is considered a bad thing in Wikipedia articles. Jay32183 20:50, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Would it be at all possible to combine the paragraph about Mario being a doctor in "Occupations and hoobies" with the "Doctor Mario" section? It seems to me that the prose would flow better if the those connected ideas were consolidated.Jay32183 03:54, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Eric Heffer

[edit]

This was a recent failed FAC nomination largely through not receiving sufficient support votes. There were no actionable objections but obviously everything is capable of some improvement. If anyone knows the location of a suitable GFDL good quality colour image then that would be a help. David | Talk 13:48, 1 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see anything intrinsically wrong with this article, other than perhaps dwelling on minutiae a little too much. I just don't find him to be a very interesting character. He seems like a fairly generic politician, albeit with far left leanings. But in generally it looks like a pretty good reference. Thanks. :) — RJH 15:13, 1 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think that it's main problem is aproachability, a photo of Heffer + wife to illustrate their disparate appearance? A map of the UK showing the location of his constituency? A map of his constituency? Picture of a 'Federation of Marxist Groups' pamphlet? Generally the style seems to much chopped up and a bit difficult to read; perhaps to dry. Perhaps a graph of his electoral vote. Mozzerati 21:56, August 11, 2005 (UTC)

Corky Romano

[edit]

I don't expect this to become a featured article or anything, but I just want some feedback on how to make it better. I just finished the entire article myself, and I just want some outside opinions on it. Any help is appreciated. Clinevol98 06:59, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • For starters you might add in the "Infobox_Movie" template, such as is used on many of the movie pages. (For example, Star Wars Episode IV: A New Hope.) I like to include some basic film information prior to the spoiler warning, such as the run time, whether it was in color, the sound technology, what type of MPAA rating it received and why, &c. Also there is an "imdb title" template that can be used for linking in the IMDB page. Thanks. :) — RJH 21:29, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I've extensively edited the text for style, but it's still rather clumsy, and too detailed for such a minor movie, in my opinion. I think the plot summary would benefit from reduction to a much smaller synopsis. TheMadBaron 00:36, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Election results for mayor of New York

[edit]

This article is still a stub (actually limited to only the 2001 election) because it lacks any information about the detailled results of the former elections. If somebody (a New yorker, for exemple), as any information who could help to improve this article, he is welcome.--Revas 21:50, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Try Wikipedia:Requests for expansion. This is for near FA status articles. Thanks. — RJH 15:05, 11 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Ok. I didn't know. Maybe I should learn to read. Thank you ! --Revas 17:52, 11 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Joseph Smith, Jr.

[edit]

I'm nominating this article to get some opinions from outside the WP:LDS project regarding how much farther it has to go until it reaches featured article status. I do not assert that it is there, it needs more work, but a laundry list from this place will be helpful, I believe. Cookiecaper 14:23, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  1. Watch the use of tense, particularly if you are using the past. "Critics regarded him...", for example, needs some qualifier - were those the critics of his time, or critics shortly after? Do critics still regard him this way?
  2. Also, state the obvious: clarify that the latter day saint movement was a religious movement, for instance.
  3. There is too much detail in the article lead - we don't need to know why he was killed in the second sentence, since his death is not a particularly central theme to the article.
Scott Ritchie 07:02, 10 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The way the text is structured is quite disjointed, there are too many short paragraphs or stray sentences - they should be merged into continuous paragraphs. All the image copyrights will need to be checked and anything claimed as fair use will need a rationale for fair use written on the image description page, anything used with permission will also need to be changed to fair use or removed. As someone not especially familliar with the LDS, I think the section on his prophecies should be expanded to a paragraph that summarises his key prophecies. One last thing, a consistent footnoting system should be used for inline refernces, see Wikipedia:Footnote3.--nixie 10:20, 10 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

We also need to check the accuracy of this article. I have a feeling that anti-LDS sneaky vandals may have put some errors in here. — Stevey7788 (talk) 23:22, 10 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I think that it was the pro-Mormon sneaky vandals who put in the errors.  :). Let's avoid that phrase; I've had too much of it on the polygamy article. I'll mention a few obvious problems on the talk page, and fix them if possible. Nereocystis 17:01, 11 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to state that the thoughts or opinions of you all are important, but should not be discussed publicly in a popular resource. It is immature, and unless you have firsthand evidence of any of the things you've said- then please refrain from sharing them.

Supercell

[edit]

This is a small step in my goal of improving the quality of the Meteorology category. This request for peer review is made in the hope of it someday becoming a Feature article.--demonburrito 04:35, 11 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Demonburrito - There are a lot of things I like about this article - the images are helpful (except for the third image inthe article - it is pretty low quality), and there's a lot of information. The problem is that as a layman to meteorology, I have a very hard time following the article. You've lost me by the third paragraph:

Supercells are usually found isolated from other thunderstorms in the warm air in front of a squall line, although they can sometimes be embedded in a squall line. They can last hours—they are quasi-steady-state storms. They usually to track to the right of the mean wind—they are said to be right movers.

You should give at least some explanation about what a squall line is, since it seems to be an important concept. Curious readers can follow the link. Likewise, I don't know what "quasi-steady-state storm," or "mean wind" mean, nor do I understand the significance of a storm tracking to "the right of the mean wind." Why is that important? The rest of the article throws curveballs at the reader similar to this paragraph. I'm sure it makes perfect sense to you, but it requires a great deal of the reader to decipher this if they know little about meteorology.
I would try to explain every term you put into the article, and draw readers in with a narrative (like describing the process of a supercell developing, or the damage caused by a famous supercell storm), then launch into the technical stuff. I'm glad that someone is doing meteorology on WP - basically every non-mathematical science needs a lot of help at the moment, and there are a lot of misconceptions out there about the weather. Mr.Bip 05:39, 11 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you so much for your effort. All three of those examples are actually part of the legacy of the article... I guess I left them hanging around as some kind of respect. But as it's been a few days with no objection, I suppose I can get rid of the vestiges of the original. I will keep in mind your advice about making the evolution of a supercell into a lay-readable narrative. It seems like a good idea.--demonburrito 05:45, 11 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Fighting Fantasy

[edit]

I've expanded this article extensively - previously it was little more than a stub. I've made it about as good as I can without outside input, yet I would like to be able to make it better. Hence, I would like it to be peer reviewed. I'm looking for advice on style, formatting, content, everything. Let me have it! Euchrid 09:44, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • various random comments
  • please expand the intro to a full paragraph
  • try approaching the publishers for explicit permission to use their cover art; alternatively consider if high resolution fair use images is appropriate. (email sent, awaiting response)
  • please consider adding inline references, for example in the style of Footnote3. It's good to be able to find out where information came from and how to get more. (all information not available in the books themselves is taken from the two websites mentioned in the 'references' section.)
  • some of the language like this should make it clear just how important this series is. should probably be droped as not house style (let the facts talk for themselves) (done).
  • you might want to get rid of some of the red links, probably not all of the books should have individual articles. (done)
  • looks good.. nice to see bits of old history Mozzerati 21:33, August 8, 2005 (UTC)
  • Looks great, would be handy to have a scan of a partly completed score card out of a book, skill stamina luck items etc. Overall excellent tho. --PopUpPirate 17:16, August 11, 2005 (UTC) (There's a difficulty with copyright when it comes to interior art - covers are fair use, interior art isn't. There'd be a few examples of interior art already if that were at all possible)

Harpsichord

[edit]

A quite comprehensive and extremely well-illustrated article. Besides copyediting, an expanded lead, a layout revision, some general scrutiny of the factual content (of which I am not terrible knowledgeable) and a proper reference section, I feel there isn't much from keeping this from being a very suitable FAC. Other suggestions for expanding or revising the article are more than welcome. / Peter Isotalo 14:41, 10 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The illustrations are not that good-looking. Maybe I would redraw them later. Overall, it's great! :-D -- Jerry Crimson Mann 14:47, 10 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Resize some of the images and make them a little bit smaller. The text is great, however. — Stevey7788 (talk) 23:17, 10 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
It's certainly a pretty good article as it stands, but I think there's a lot missing before FAC. Time presses just now so really I won't be able to contribute much, but here are some ideas off the top of my head - bit of a brain dump I'm afraid. Introductory paragraph needs expansion; ultimately this should be a potted version of the article once it's stable. I think the main article starts too technical and detailed; history first, then music (perhaps even music first - after all that's what it's for!) - and the music section should be more detailed, perhaps in sections, to allow the removal of the rather perfunctory "see also" list of baroque harpsichord composers; although not reams because it's an article about the harpsichord, not harpsichord music. - And isn't Byrd a renaissance composer? Mention of different temperaments for different music (equal temperament was not in use in the harpsichord's heyday). An explanation would be nice of how the different registrations give different sound qualities (string plucked at different distance from nut, also a damped stop on some harpsichords) and how they can be combined (for example my 2-manual harpsichord has three sets of strings: front and back 8', each operated by one of the keyboards, and one 4'; a keyboard coupling mechanism to allow combination of all three stops or the 4' with either 8'; the 4' and back 8' can be disengaged). Mention transposing harpsichords - nowadays used to allow performance at modern pitch A=440 and baroque pitch A=415 on one instrument with no retune required (except to reset the temperament). Describe how a harpsichord is tuned. Impression is given in the "how it works" diagram that there is more than one jack per string. Perhaps a bit of information about stringing of the harpsichord would be nice: different thicknesses of string and different string materials. How about a section on harpsichord builders ancient and modern? Mention that Landowska's Pleyel instrument (and many others of the time) had a (non-authentic) pedal mechanism to allow crescendo/diminuendo effects. I suggest a good introductory reference for anyone looking to expand this article would be the book by Ann Bond, ISBN 1574670638, although there are plenty of good books out there. Sorry I won't have time to be of more practical help. --RobertG ♬ talk 12:26, 12 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Cathedral of the Assumption (Louisville)

[edit]

I think this article is exellent and IMO should be nominated for FA status. I would like to listen to other peoples' opinions before doing that though.--Exir KamalabadiCriticism is welcomed! 09:15, August 11, 2005 (UTC)

  • References. You'll need to add them before listing this as a FAC. Otherwise, a very good read. WegianWarrior 10:03, 11 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Excellent article due in large part to the detail. I've seen similiar articles to this that were on the verge of non-notable, and this one might be on the border too if it was a stub, but all the detail and pictures shift this article from that grey area into the verge of featured.That's how this place seems to work, but that's just my opinion as an advanced beginner(slightly over 900 edits). Karmafist 01:55, 12 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Nashua, New Hampshire

[edit]

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

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

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

  • References is one thing (not only because it is a requirement for FA, but also to allow others to verify the article's content). The lists in the education section should be turned into prose. A minor thing I have a problem with is the table of state representatives. I think it is better just to mention how many districts there are since representatives change with each election. Climate and a map of Nashua in New Hampshire can also help. Pentawing 04:48, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
After glancing at the article here's what I see that is needed:
  • The intro should be at least 2-3 good-sized paragraphs in length.
  • The history section needs expansion. A city with as much history as Nashua has should have a longer section. There should be mention of Native Americans in the area as well.
  • The geography section also needs expansion. Discuss the lay of the land, is it hilly? Flat? Some of this information can be taken from the geography section of the article on the state of New Hampshire.
  • There should be a section on cultural activites in the city. Include music, theatre, literature, any details of that nature.
  • Of the seven images, only two are recent images. There should be many more recent photos. By no means get rid of the older photos, they are great, just show the city as it is now. In addition, vary the size of the photos so they all aren't so small.

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

Terri Schiavo

[edit]
Previous peer review request: Wikipedia:Peer review/Terri Schiavo/archive1 (March 2005)
Previous peer review request: Wikipedia:Peer review/Terri Schiavo/archive2 (May 2005)

Well, we've had two peer reviews, a couple of major blowouts, mediation, some RFC's, and a massive rewrite. Personally, I think this version is pretty good, but I've been working on it for some time now. Please note that the article is still listed as in mediation, as a controversial topic, and that this has been a problematic article. Comments and suggestions are appreciated. FuelWagon 23:33, 11 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that this version is pretty good. The main problem is that it does not follow standard Wikipedia style. Why is the TOC right aligned and placed after the second paragraph? Why is the series box placed where the TOC should be, rather than in the upper right as is standard. The lead, if it is the top paragraph, is much too short. If it is the first two paragraphs then it is much too long. - SimonP 15:33, August 12, 2005 (UTC)
I used to contribute to the article, but not for a good 2 months or so now (I gave up as it was too much bother), and it looks utterly different now, so I think I can get away with commenting. It's still twice as long as it should be - I remember a few sections were split off as it had grown to 70k, and it's now 80k + ! It needs a serious, determined effort to prune it massively. It should not be a cover-all-bases, report every fact, in-depth masterpiece. It should be an encyclopedia article. Report the main (the MAIN) facts, leave out all the opinion stuff about which doctor said this and which said that (just say the PVS decision was disputed), halve (preferably three quarter) the length of that huge intro.
If people want to know every facet of the story, they can follow the external links at the bottom and find this information elsewhere. It reads like an article that has been written by comittee (which it has), with every possible point of view on every possible point covered. And editors (who have, admittedly, worked on it ceaselessly) are far too protective of the article. Here is all the article needs to say:
"Terri Schiavo (blah blah 19?? - foo foo 2005) was an American woman who was in a persistent vegetative state. (no discussion of PVS should be in this article whatsoever - just link to the PVS article) Although this diagnosis was disputed by a minority of doctors who diagnosed her (refs), it was upheld a number of times by the courts (refs). Her husband, Michael Schiavo, took the decision to have her feeding tube withdrawn, a decision which was hotly contested and challenged by her parents (refs). The case garnered widespread national and international media attention, splitting the American public. A number of attempts weremade by various individuals, churchleaders and politicians (refs) to overturn the decision to withdraw the feeding tube, but at each stage courts upheld the original decision (refs). Eventually, Terri Schiavo passed away x days after the removal of her feeding tube on foo foo, 2005."
There, that's basically it. There's no justification for that sogging up 80k. The story is really quite straightforward, but it's been overanalysed and overwritten for an encyclopaedia article. Proto t c 23:31, 12 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I kinda agree with Proto, though I would put it in milder wording. 80k is completely over the top for even the broadest of subjects and is hardly reasonable for this rather narrow subject. More consideration needs to be taken to the average reader than to please every minor detail of every imaginable POV of our own editors. If this is to stand a chance as a FAC, it needs to be hacked and slashed quite mercilessly.
Peter Isotalo 00:05, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I kinda agree in the opposite direction; meaning I appreciate and concur with the issues raised; but I'm thinking bigger picture beyond (what I think should be a fluid) FA criteria. Wikipedia is a unique source and by my standards this article is a FA of the highest caliber; which simply entails people interested in the subject can come here and find important information collected and collated on the subject.
The subject is straightforward, but the story and its implications aren't; and the size and detail of this article is a barometer (reflection) of it being overanalyzed and overwritten in pop-culture. Maybe over time as this story fades into the past it would be appropriate to shrink the article; but if that were to occur (and nothing says to me it has to), I'd prefer it to be an organic process in step with its notability... rather than a scorched earth policy in pursuit of rules in a place where there are no rules.
Simply put Wikipedia puts other sources to shame. - RoyBoy 800 04:08, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the feedback so far. I would just say in response to the idea of cutting the article: sure. except as soon as you cut out one accusation of witchcraft, someone will cry bias. Motions and affidavits of the most absurd accusations and assertions were filed and the court found most of them to be utterly without basis. But if you cut one affidavit, someone will howl that we left out so-and-so's accusations that Michael practiced statanic rituals on Terri, drank her blood, and danced on her grave, and therefore say the article is biased. They'll put the accusation back in, and it will get reverted, an edit war will flare up, and the only stable solution we've managed to reach is to describe so-and-so's accusations and then give a full account of how the court viewed them, what the guardian ad litems said contrary to them, and so on. The end result, of course, being an 80k article. If there's a way to shorten the article, that won't get reverted by those who wish to list every accusation of witchcraft against Michael, the only idea I canthink of is to break the 80k article into some sub articles. I'm not sure how, but I think if you just delete something, you'll see someone eventually put it back in, only they'll put in one POV versus all the different POV's. suggestions for how to cut it into subarticles would be appreciated. FuelWagon 06:29, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have a problem with a comprehensive article, but this entry desperately needs a concise and useful lead similar to the draft proto has sketched above. Having said that, and assuming it happens, is this representative of "Wikipedia's best work"? I'd say no: on the contrary, it's a good example of the things that the Wiki approach has typically not been able to do well. As FuelWagon intimates above, when things get contentious, sound editorial judgement (in the true sense of the word) becomes difficult or impossible, resulting in unending churn, or, in this case, an admittedly bloated, almost formless article. (This both despite and due to the obvious levels of time and passion various editors have invested). We have tons of seemingly-random trivia high in the article (e.g. which saint she was named for), while many of the really notable aspects of this subject (media reaction, use of the case for political purposes, and public response) -- the very things that should make up the bulk of the article -- are mentioned in passing or relegated to sub-articles. Jgm 13:22, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This is way too long and way beyond the scope of Wikipedia. I think just the first 2 paragrphs, plus a little summing up statement of its significance should suffice. There is no need to list EVERY doctor, EVERY diagnosis, EVERY school she attended, etc. While this topic is obviously important to those close to the person, it gets a disproportionate amount of attention relative to other articles, and there is really very little in it that would interest a general public. What is needed here is some perspective. For example, the article on George Washington is less than half the size of this article. Is there really twice as much to say about Terri Schiavo than about George Washington that would actually interest a general public? This is not the forum to dispute issues, rather it is the place to put things into their proper perspective and to show how they fit with other aspects of knowledge. What is the historical significance of this case? Why should we remember it in 20 years? What does it tell us about the United States in 2005? Nrets 17:38, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • For a bio, it's too big. But for the crisis in America, it's fine. I mean, she's the Florida State Vegitable, right? ;)

Reults from automated tool:

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

  • Per WP:MOS, avoid using words/phrases that indicate time periods relative to the current day. For example, recently might be terms that should be replaced with specific dates/times.
  • 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:CONTEXT and WP:BTW, years with full dates should be linked; for example, link January 15, 2006, but do not link January 2006.
  • Per WP:MOS#Headings, headings generally do not start with the word "The". For example, ==The Biography== would be changed to ==Biography==.
  • Please alphabetize the interlanguage links.
  • Per WP:WIAFA, this article's table of contents (ToC) maybe too long- consider shrinking it down by merging short sections or using a proper system of daughter pages as per WP:SS.
  • This article may need to undergo summary style, where a series of appropriate subpages are used. For example, if the article is United States, than an appropriate subpage would be History of the United States, such that a summary of the subpage exists on the mother article, while the subpage goes into more detail.
  • There are a few occurrences of weasel words in this article- please observe WP:AWT. Certain phrases should specify exactly who supports, considers, believes, etc., such a view. For example,
    • allege
    • apparently
    • might be weasel words, and should be provided with proper citations (if they already do, or are not weasel terms, please strike this comment).
  • 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.”
    • Temporal terms like “over the years”, “currently”, “now”, and “from time to time” often are too vague to be useful, but occasionally may be helpful. “I am now using a semi-bot to generate your peer review.”
  • 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 08:28, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Christina Aguilera

[edit]

This is the second time this article has been submitted to Peer Review. The first peer review request is located at Wikipedia:Peer review/Christina Aguilera/archive1. Since the previous request, the article has improved signifigantly, and I'm planning on seeing whether or not this is prime time forWP:FAC. --LBMixPro(Speak on it!)

Trivia sections make many editors cringe when seen in articles up for FAC. Please try to incorporate the points into the article, or consider deleting them. It would be easy to add in the fact about her schooling to Early History, and the same goes for her first gig, whereas the fact about "Beautiful" could easily be deleted. Harro5 09:49, July 28, 2005 (UTC)
I've gone ahead and taken your advice with the Trivia points. The section is now gone. But I realized parts of the article need more attention than others, especially the Early Years section, where it talks about Aguilera musically, not not about her personal life (her abuse isn't mentioned until the passage about "I'm OK"), so that the schooling fact can actually fit in.--LBMixPro(Speak on it!) 08:41, August 11, 2005 (UTC)
  • The main image seems to be marked to be deleted, in which case it should be changed. This could do with references e.g. using Wikipedia:Footnote3 or invisible notes Mozzerati 21:28, August 11, 2005 (UTC)
Marked to be deleted? What do you mean? --LBMixPro(Speak on it!) 03:55, August 12, 2005 (UTC)
This image has no source information. This means that it has an unknown copyright status. Unless the copyright status is provided and a source is given, the image will be deleted. from the image page Mozzerati 18:45, August 22, 2005 (UTC)
Oh, that's what you mean. Well, I wasn't the one who added the photo. But I know that is from a press kit. I would like to add a {{promophoto}} template, but I'm not sure where to find a precice source, other than Christina's official website, or even if it can be used here. If not, then I'm cool with the DVD cover, which is further down the page, to be the main pic. --LBMixPro(Speak on it!) 19:04, 22 August, 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Peer review/ABDL

Leigh Richmond Roose

[edit]

First attempt to write an article at this level. Would appreciate feedback. 83.245.16.227 14:08, 12 August 2005 (UTC) Mike Dash, 12 Aug 2005[reply]

Peer Review request was originally placed in Talk:Leigh Richmond Roose by mistake - copied here by Qwghlm 11:27, August 13, 2005 (UTC)

Further descriptive information on the article - Leigh Roose was a Welsh football (soccer) goalkeeper who played at the turn of the 20th century, who was well known for his eccentricity. Qwghlm 11:45, August 13, 2005 (UTC)

Katamari Damacy

[edit]

I am nomintaing this article for peer review because I am a big fan of Katamari, and would like to see it become a featured article. I think it is really close, especially after adding the sections on setting and characters. I have commissioned a friend of mine to draw some pictures of characters from the game in order to avoid ugly copyright issues. Any suggestions and/or improvements are welcome. RyanGerbil10 17:28, 12 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

If you knew me, you would know I am vehemently against lists, let alone lists more suitable for an FAQ. I suggest removing that huge list of characters and condensing it into a paragraph or two on Cousins. -- A Link to the Past 17:32, August 12, 2005 (UTC)
The intro lead section seems a bit short and...boring. I suggest you merge the name section into it. The story section starts rather abruptly - If you could explain what kind of theme the entire game has before introducing the plot points it might make more sense. Als, the gameplay section should probably come before the story and characters section, as it is very difficult to understand what you're explaining otherwise. Scott Ritchie 20:26, 12 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I think I have made some changes that address your concerns, but if you have any more, I would be glad to edit the article further. RyanGerbil10 05:13, 13 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Krag-Petersson

[edit]

I'm resubmitting this article for peer review with an eye to get it up to FA-quailty (and perhaps even FA-status *smiles*). It has previously gone thru a peer review in December 2004 and it was a (failed) FAC in June 2005. I have extensivly rewritten, expanded and referenced the article over the last few days - so in essence it's a completly updated article compared to the one I submited for FAC earlier. I would like to hear any comments y'all might have on this article about one odf the first repeating rifles adopted by an armed force anywhere in the world. I do believe it's close to FA-standards, but inputs are needed for the last polish. Also, if someone with a better grasp of written English could look over it, it is appriciated. WegianWarrior 08:41, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • It looks good to me. About the only thing that would be interesting to add would be a small comparison table with comparable rifles of the period. (The ones you have listed in the "see also" section, for example.) The table could show the rifle weight, typical rates of fire, muzzle velocities, and effective ranges. Hmm, what else? I saw mention of a bayonet for this rifle on one of the web pages. Is there any information on that? — RJH 17:56, 20 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd prefer it if the lead size is doubled. Its too short. =Nichalp «Talk»= 07:50, August 23, 2005 (UTC)
    • Lead expanded, anythign else you see that could be improved? WegianWarrior 08:32, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • ya, have a few minor suggestions. 1) Split the lead into two to make it easier to read. 2) Your notes after #11 don't work. Since all the footnotes come from the same source, I strongly suggest you use the {{inote}} instead. eg {{inote|Ibid., page 26, left|Ibid-1}}. There are four unique references mentioned in the =Notes= which should be included under the =reference= . Only the enfilading topic qualifies as a true footnote. =Notes= should come before references. =Nichalp «Talk»= 09:56, August 23, 2005 (UTC)
        • Lead split into two paragraphs, fixed broken notes, shifted references to be after notes. Sticking to the {{ref|<note>}} and {{note|<note>}}, at least for the time being, since I prefer that style personally. Besides, it's been recommended to me on earlier artilces I've nominated for FA. WegianWarrior 18:38, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
          • Can't think of anything else to comment on, though I would still recommend inotes. :) =Nichalp «Talk»= 05:14, August 24, 2005 (UTC)

Funkstörung

[edit]

This one has mostly been written by me. Some sections seem slightly fan-ish, so it'd be great to get some outside views on it. I think it's fairly complete, but if you can think of anything missing I'd be glad to add it. I might take it to FAC if there are no major points raised, but it's probably much too short right now to stand a chance. So, what do you think? -- grm_wnr Esc 00:07, 1 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Good work, but way too short. Try looking at some featured articles on similar topics[15] for ideas on what could be added. More specifically, the intro paragraph needs to be more explicit as to what Funkstörung is and why its important.-- Rmrfstar
I heartily agree on the "what Funkstörung is" part. I found this article while browsing randomly (I'd never heard of Funkstörung before), and after having read the article, I still don't know what Funkstörung is. You call them "producers". In my experience, this refers to executive types who supervise the business of music production, distribution, sales, and promotion, as opposed to the artists/musicians who actually create the music. But then you call them a "band" later. In their discography, you don't list other musicians, implying that they are the musicians, but then earlier, you say, "their portfolio including top-level artists such as ...", as if they only supervise others who actually make the music. Sorry to sound so negative, but I really can't figure out what role they play in music. — Nowhither 04:59, 13 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
A more nitpicking point: You list two alternate spellings for "Funkstörung", imdicating that "Funkstorung" is common and "Funkstoerung" is rare. However, "oe" is the standard way to represent the German "ö" in plain-old-ASCII, while just "o" is typically what is used by people who don't understand German spelling & accents. So I find your comment on the alternative spellings rather odd. — Nowhither 05:02, 13 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Well, producer is a standard term for an electronic music artist (as opposed to a DJ), because they often do not work with other musicians at all. I've added a (short, hopefully soon to be expanded) section on that to record producer (I linked to it without checking it out properly, sorry about that). It may be confusing, but that's the way it is. A band is any musical group, which may be a group of "producers". As for the portfolio, it is a portfolio of their work as remixers, which is an activity that turns producers (in the electronic music meaning) to producers (in the non-electronic meaning). As for the spelling, although "oe" is the usual variant for spelling "ö" in standard ASCII, they choose to use the simple "o" variant in all context where "ö" is not an option, for aesthetic reasons I guess. See their website, for example. But your comments are noted (and welcomed) and I will try to find a way to adress them. -- grm_wnr Esc 21:23, 13 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. Quick google test:
And yes, they are really called Funkstörung, no need to move the article... -- grm_wnr Esc 21:33, 13 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding "producer": Interesting; I'd never run across that usage before. Rewriting as "IDM musicians (producers)", along with the comment in the record producer article settles things nicely, though. Regarding ö/oe/o: So much for linguistic purity. Alas! But if The People Have Spoken, then I guess we have to live with it. — Nowhither 01:10, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ronald E. Neumann

[edit]

I've researched and written this article and I think it might be a good example of a current biography of a noteworthy person, but I am looking for peer review to help make it the best it can be. I am particularly pleased because recently the Ambassador visited the page and gave it good marks for accuracy. Is it possible for something like this to become a FA? What improvements would you suggest I make here? This page was previously listed on DYK. -- JRP 03:25, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The article would need to be bulked out quite a bit to become a FAC, see Helen Gandy for a recent example of a reliatively minor polictial figure that reached featured status. For instance what did he do before he became a diplomat, there could also be more detail on his diplomatic postings and on the scandal that occured while he was in Bahrain in addition to his other posts. --nixie 12:57, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

2003 North America blackout

[edit]

The article appears to be detailed enough for Wikipedia:Featured_articles; this peer review would be to prepare the article for nomination. Cwolfsheep 14:00, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This is one of many examples of a great collaborative effort to cover a current event. I would say its main problem is that it is somewhat too long and detailed. Some judicious cutting would improve the article. There are too many subsections, some of them with very little content (such as the one on Massachusetts). Other than that the lead needs to be somewhat longer and there needs to be a references section before it could become a FA. - SimonP 20:42, August 14, 2005 (UTC)
I second the comment about it needed a referance section. --ZeWrestler Talk 14:53, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Cornea transplant

[edit]

I'm the primary author on the Cornea transplant article (taking from a redirect to an article), and I think in the future it might make an interesting featured article. However, I also feel it needs a "broader context". I work as a secretary for a corneal ophthalmologist, so I think I can give a good layman's perspective on the issue. So fire away and let's see what can be done. --Barista | a/k/a マイケル | T/C 08:22, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The article doesn't really mention when a cornea transplant is needed. How common is the procedure, is it usually successful?--nixie 13:19, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Good questions. According to the EBAA website, over 45,000 transplants were performed in 1999, with a 90% success rate. I'll see if I can find some more updated info to include in the article. As far as when a transplant is needed, I could probably add some more info on visual rehabilitation and the different eye conditions. I'll see what I can do. --Barista | a/k/a マイケル | T/C 17:19, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Microsoft

[edit]

Previous peer review. Well, the article has been expanded drastically and many parts have been rewritten. I believe the concerns from the previous peer review about the criticisms section have been addressed, and I even added in the velvet sweatshop mention for good measure (even though its not in the common criticisms article!). I'm sending it FAC after this - so if you have a comment do not hesitate to chime in! Its time for Microsoft to become a featured article! Ryan Norton T | @ | C 22:29, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This is a good article, and its neutrality defies the "encyclopedia that Slashdot built" moniker. There is still some room for improvement. The article is somewhat too focused on Microsoft products, and does not have enough on Microsoft as a business. In what countries does it operate? There is a photo of a German campus, but no indication of where its 57,000 employees are based. There also is nothing about the recent dividend payment, which was extremely notable in the business community. Other than a bit about its IPO, Microsoft's stock price is not mentioned. What is its corporate structure?
Formatting wise the article is quite good. Trivia sections are generally to be avoided, and it would be best if the facts listed there were merged elsewhere in the article. It would also be good if the history sections could have more descriptive section titles. The article could also use better images. Image:On Microsoft Campus.jpg, for one, seems to mainly be a photo of a park bench. - SimonP 17:16, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Needs improvement. Here are some examples of why the text needs to be sifted through thoroughly and thoughtfully:

  • 'Microsoft has gone through several stages throughout their history. During 1975 they were just an idea' ... This might be closer to the mark: 'Microsoft has evolved through several stages since its establishment in ... (why singular and plural mixed?).
  • Opening sentence: cite worldwide annual sales of .... as well, when saying it's the largest software company.
  • 'headquartered' is clumsy, and 'widely-used' is incorrect.
  • 'ubiquitous' internal codes?
  • Uneven level of detail in the lead, which should be a smooth overview that prepares us for the greater level of detail below.
  • 'people have criticized', 'some describe'—be more specific, or say 'it has been widely described'
  • link all full dates for the autoformat function, but please consider delinking low-value years and decades (only some are linked now anyway). See Wikipedia:Make_only_links_relevant_to_the_context.

It will get there, but needs LOTS of work still. Tony 13:49, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Object subject matter is still too evil to be made an FA. Borisblue 01:32, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

On a serious note, i'm surprised you didn't send it for vote the last time. I disagree with Tony, I think it definitely will pass if voted on now.

Thanks for your comments guys! I've already talked to Simon. Tony - a couple people I know have went over this and submitted fixes since then, and they also seem to disagree with the "LOTS of work still" comment, although I do admit your help is quite good on this (and I might agree with you about the lead too). I still need to add some of Simon's stuff from above, so I'll let everyone know when I'm done with that (and some other things like the lead etc.):). Thanks for the encouragement Borisblue! Ryan Norton T | @ | C 05:45, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

OK GUYS - I added a bunch of stuff - including stock info, corporate structure info, user culture info, and a section heading to corporate affairs. I also reworked the business culture part, moved out some stuff from the trivia section and merged it with the article, and took care of a few of tony's suggestions. I'm still unsure about the intro though - most people I've talked to say it's fine, but Tony seems to disagree. Perhaps you could highlight which parts are covered too much and too little? Anyway, so how does the article look overall guys? I think its VERY close to FA status :). Ryan Norton T | @ | C 21:44, 9 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, can't look until end of week. Tony 01:42, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hey - don't worry about it - this thing has nearly twenty days left on it :) Ryan Norton T | @ | C 02:04, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Just to let everyone know that I rewrote the intro quite a bit, somewhat to address Tony's concerns but also for my own flow pickiness. Ryan Norton T | @ | C 06:07, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

OK - originally I was going to wait until this thing ended but I had time to do a word-by-word copyedit, and at this point there's literally nothing else I can think of. So thanks to everyone for their comments :). Ryan Norton T | @ | C 12:53, 14 October 2005 (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]

Sun Yat-sen

[edit]

The editors of this page are seeking more input and efforts into this article before it's submitted to FAC. Deryck C. 07:35, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Some of the section headings need to be translated into better English (e.g. Way to Northern Expedition and Death); they should also use lower case initial letters after the first word. The hotel explanation for his Japanese name is intriguing, but isn't a connection with his birthplace more likely? Mark1 07:53, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Mark, you may have inverted the logical pattern. Sun's birthplace's current name Zhongshan was named AFTER Sun, therefore it's impossible to say that his Japanese name came from his birthplace. Deryck C. 11:58, 20 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Some sections are just to tiny to be sections. Expand or merge the tiny one sentence sections like 'Sun as saint in Vietnam' or 'Other aliases'. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 17:35, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wow, great job with the article, Deryck. I'm sorry I couldn't have contributed more than just the earlier part of the article. My concern, other than the very short sections brought up above is the "names" section. i'm afraid it may hurt our chances of getting the FA- it's ridiculously long. Most chinese biographies don't have such a long names section- compare Mao Zedong for example. Borisblue 02:54, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hezbollah

[edit]

Despite containing controversial issues, this article was applaused for achieving neutrality, unbias and NPOV. It deserves more attention and even the FA status. CG 14:59, August 13, 2005 (UTC)

The line that reads "There may also have been (attempted) terrorist attacks against Hezbollah" is a loaded one, at least IMO. It is speculative in nature and implies multiple attacks, but cites only one. Otherwise the article looks decent. Are there any actual numerical figures on the finances of this group? Thanks. :) — RJH 17:15, 13 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
In order to make FA status, the copyright status of the images needs to be straightened out. In particular, since Image:Hizb1.jpg is used under fair use, a rationale for the use on Hezbollah needs to be added to the image description page. Wikipedia:Image description page#Fair use rationale has details on what needs to be added.
Also, I'm concerned about the {{PD}} tag on Image:BND Hezbollah.jpg. What is the reasoning for it being public domain? As a screenshot of a news program, I'd expect it to be copyrighted. --Carnildo 05:19, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The article is lacking in a few ways. It's mostly focused on listing Hizbullah's military operations, but gives no analysis as to how Hizbullah was so much more successful than other resistance organisations. Nor for that matter does it mention Hizbullah's attacks on political opponents in Lebanon.
It also should give more weight to Hizbullah's ideological tendencies, social activities and its participation in Lebanese politics, which in the article as it stands are completely overshadowed by the military issues.
Finally, there is a bizarre and unsourced claim that the UN helped Hizbullah abduct Israeli soldiers.Palmiro 14:04, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The Godfather

[edit]

I've finished forking this article from the novel's article and done a lot of cleanup. I'd appreciate a fresh pair of eyes to see what else needs doing. Rob Church Talk | Desk 15:40, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I just read it and it looks good. I especially like how you handled The Godfather Part III. --sohmc 17:22, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
In truth, I took most of the existing content from a very confused The Godfather and moved it to this new article, then went through it and cleaned it up. Most of the text is not mine, although I have significantly corrected the wording in some places. Rob Church Talk | Desk 03:29, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Temple of Hercules Victor

[edit]

Hi folks. Got inspired after a recent trip to Rome, and decided to create articles for some of the more noteworthy and favorite Roman spots. Added the Temple of Hercules Victor article via a link on the Forum Boarium article. Nice, short and sweet. Thoughts and input? -- RyanFreisling @ 01:45, 31 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Just by doing a quick check in google I was able to find a fair amount of material that isn't covered by this article.[16][17][18][19] &c. For example, it was " decorated with frescoes by the poet Pacuvius". See also Forum Boarium. I.e. I think there's room for expansion with regard to early history; archaeological discovery, a description of the interior and the surroundings, information on restoration, &c. Thanks. :) — RJH 16:47, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
"Peripteros" does not mean an "enclosed chamber": it means "surrounded by colonnade(s)". Chronographos 00:53, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Final Fantasy VI

[edit]

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

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

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

  • "Customization in Final Fantasy VI lies in the choice of equipment the player chooses to outfit his characters with, including the usage of relics—accessories which augment stats or lend special abilities to the wearer." - awkward, long, and unncessary wording
  • Redundant usage of "additionally", "in addition", and "also"
  • "This quarrel released magical energy into the world, transforming any human touched by it into a magical creature known as an "Esper," each under the control of the goddesses." "It" refers to the quarrel or the magical energy? Also may be seen as awkward to some
  • Contractions, such as "they've"
  • A few other issues

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

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

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

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

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

I just want to make sure that we all agree that it's ready before submitting it. Do you think we should put this on top and get outside help for it? Or can we make it a mirrror of Final Fantasy VIII and Final Fantasy X without removing the section on localization (Ted Woolsey's FFVI translation is probably the most notable of the seres, as it's the only one that is talked about regularly). Crazyswordsman 03:22, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's as good as it's going to get until there's been more constructive criticism offered. And, yeah, I'd keep the localization thing. It's notable, and not exactly something either FFVIII, FFX or FFX-2 had reason to include. Ryu Kaze 12:35, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Bot issues now addressed. Slight note, though: not counting references, the character count is significantly under 30,000 characters, so additional lead paragraphs aren't needed. Ryu Kaze 17:50, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Peer_review/August_2005&oldid=192785510"