Wikipedia:Peer review/March 2007

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

---

Languedoc wine

This article is the Wine Project's current Wine Improvement Drive article. Our goal is to get this article eventually up to Good Article quality. After looking at this article for two weeks, my eyes are bit cross and some fresh input would be appreciated.! Thanks. Agne^Cheese/^Wine 18:43, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Isaac

I would like to raise the quality of this article up to the FA quality. I would appreciate any feedback, in particular those concerning the sections that need expansion and the missing information from the article. Thank you very much. --Aminz 10:31, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Review by Awadewit

This is a good start. I am no Biblical scholar, but I am familiar with the Hebrew Scriptures and the Christian Scriptures. Here are my suggestions:

• I noticed that most of your sources are other encyclopedias. Because encyclopedias summarize and omit information, these are not the best sources from which to construct an article. You want to read as much about the topic as possible and then decide yourself how to summarize the material. Simply imitating other encyclopedic entries is not, I believe, what wikipedia is trying to do. WP:ATT
• The "Etymology and meaning" section would be hard to understand for someone not already familiar with the Biblical story. Spell out what you mean in more detail.
• The "Hebrew Bible" section in which you retell the story surrounding Isaac could be revised. The writing is choppy and needs more detail.
• The writing throughout the article is choppy. Paragraphs do not cohere and there are few transitions between paragraphs.
• You need to carefully reread each section. You have some sentence fragments and incorrect pronoun referents. You might consider sending this to the League of Copyeditors.
• In the "Academic view" section, you need to identify the academics. Who are these scholars (essentially, why should we listen to them)? Also, that section needs to be expanded.
• The "Testament" section should also be expanded - more details!
• What about including a section on Isaac in art and culture? Paintings, plays, etc.? Awadewit 06:15, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks very much for the review and your good suggestions.

1. Regarding the sources, that's true. Most of them are encyclopedias, but I tried to read various Encyclopedias and Dictionaries of the Bible for a good coverage. Unfortunately, I am not familiar with the relevant literature.

Could you go to a library and read some books? Awadewit 07:52, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

2. I have revised the "Etymology and meaning" section. I hope it is more understandable now.

I would say, no.

• The Hebrew term Yiṣḥāq literally means "may God smile." - This is the first sentence. If the reader doesn't know Hebrew, it is not clear that the word you are referring to is the Hebrew word for "Isaac."
• The term conforms to a well-known Northwest Semitic type - type of what?
  • The source didn't give further details about the linguistic type the term conforms with. I'll try to find more details or otherwise would remove this sentence. --Aminz 08:15, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
• "The Ugaritic texts from thirteenth century BCE refer to the benovolent smile of the Canaanite god El." - where is this quotation from? you should have the inline citation right next to it - also, why are we suddenly talking about a smiling God?
• According to the canonical collections of sacred writings of Judaism (Bible), however, the laugher is ascribed to Isaac's mother(Sarah), who was amazed to learn by God that she would have a child despite her age. - ("laughter") - what laughter? unless the reader knows the story ahead of time, these sentences are going to be very confusing
• (Sarah was ninety years old, and Abraham (Isaac's father) was hundred years old[4])[3] Abraham had also covertly laughed upon hearing the promise from God. - poor use of parantheses - very confusing for a reader unfamiliar with the story
• The section needs to make explicit the connection between God's smile and the Biblical story (that's where you need a source - scholars will have theories on these things). Right now, the sentences are not really connected together and assume too much knowledge on the reader's part.Awadewit 07:52, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Thanks for making that clear. I have made some changes. I hope it is more understandable now. --Aminz 08:20, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

3. I am not a native speaker unfortunately. I asked help from the League of Copyeditors.

That's what they are for.Awadewit 07:52, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

5. I have found who these scholars are. Sorry, that it took a long time (I couldn't get anything by just googling for their name). --Aminz 20:04, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

6. I started the section. --Aminz 07:38, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

User:IvoShandor

At a glance:

• Inline citations aren't really needed in the intro unless you are making some extraordinary claims. As the intro should usually provide a good summary of the topic, most of the information and citations should appear somewhere else in the article.
• The section titles seemed a bit vague to me, I keep looking for a 'Life', or 'Early years' section and I got nothing.
• Could use some peer reviewed, scholarly sources, as well as the prominent views of theologians.
• The templates in the genealogy section are distracting, perhaps include them as footers.
• The external links in the body of the article are undesirable and unnecessary.
• Along the same lines, it is probably not necessary to list every reference to Isaac in holy literature.
• The last half of the article doesn't have very many Wikilinks, though it is hard to tell with all of the external linking in the text.

Hope that helps some. IvoShandor 10:03, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks very much.

1. I fixed these.

2. It is a good suggestion. Unfortunately I am not familiar with the works of Christian or Jewish theologians. Will add one once I found.

3. I moved the template down.

4. I removed some of the inline links and will remove several others.

5. I removed the list to every reference to Isaac in holy literature.

6. Done. --Aminz 07:44, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Harry Potter fandom

The main concerns at the article's failed FAC were that the article did not correctly describe the extent of the fandom, and that at times it confused the "fandom" with the "popularity" of HP. I feel that I've cleaned these parts up since then, and I hope that, after the results of this PR, I can resend the article to FAC. --Fbv65edel / ☑t / ☛c || 20:36, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

review

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

• Please expand the lead to conform with guidelines at Wikipedia:Lead. The article should have an appropriate number of paragraphs as is shown on WP:LEAD, and should adequately summarize the article.^[?]
  •  Done Though the lead is slightly shorter than three or four paragraphs, it still adequately and concisely summarizes the rest of the article. --Fbv65edel / ☑t / ☛c || 23:49, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
• There may be an applicable infobox for this article. For example, see Template:Infobox Biography, Template:Infobox School, or Template:Infobox City.^[?] (Note that there might not be an applicable infobox; remember that these suggestions are not generated manually)
  •  Done No applicable infobox.
• Generally, trivia sections are looked down upon; please either remove the trivia section or incorporate any important facts into the rest of the article.^[?]
  •  Done There is no trivia section.
• 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.”
    •  Done Removed redundancies.
• The script has spotted the following contractions: haven't, isn't, weren't, if these are outside of quotations, they should be expanded.
  •  Done Within quotations. --Fbv65edel / ☑t / ☛c || 23:49, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
• Please ensure that the article has gone through a thorough copyediting so that it exemplifies some of Wikipedia's best work. See also User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 1a.^[?]

You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, DTGardner 22:45, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Beijing

I would like to receive some feedback on the Beijing article, even though I have not contributed to it, but will be trying to spend roughly a week editing Beijing and Beijing-related pages, possibly leading to a featured article and hopefully a Beijing portal in time for the Olympics.

Especially I am interested in comments on the amount of interwiki links, article length, possible overlong sections that justify a own page and required rewrites and missing information. Poeloq 14:32, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

The most glaring problem is the complete lack of referencing. I see hardly a single inline citation. There are other issues, like the tendency for too many lists. But references are desperately needed here. Harryboyles 04:15, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

You're right, it really is quite unsourced. I have some books ordered from our library and will see that I can update and source the data/facts I have/find. Thanks! Poeloq 08:16, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Alizée

This article had a peer review earlier which has been archived.

The article has also had a self-review by the main contributors. Its a bit old but still is relevant to the current state of the article, in some parts. It can be accessed at Talk:Alizée/Review.

The article has changed a lot since its last peer review and is currently a Good Article. It has become quite comprehensive and is also in a pretty stable state. We would like if it becomes a featured article. To that end, any criticism (both positive and negative) and suggestions is more than welcome. --soum (0_o) 10:54, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

I m game Ekna 20:35, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Since this does not seem to be generating any activity, I think I will take this to FAC. --soum (0_o) 03:49, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

2012 Summer Olympics bids

I recently fixed this page up from the semi-mess that it was in to the state it is currently in. It received GA status not too long ago, and I'm looking to see what more I should do with it before possibly nominating it for FA. I think all the content is there (although I may be wrong) but I'm probably looking more for organization, etc. Please comment as much or as little as you want on anything you want. _└^Jared_┘^┌_talk^┐  18:37, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Comments by JHMM13

This article looks really nice and I congratulate you for your good job. Here are a few issues I can see right off the bat without reading it through:

1. Try to incorporate the title of the article somewhere into the first paragraph better than it currently is. Here is my suggestion, but you can do another one, obviously. Also, I don't think you need to mention that London is in the UK. If it's good enough for Wikipedia to directly link to London, UK when you type London into the search bar, it's good enough to be on a first-name basis with the city for the FA.

   Five cities made the shortlist with their bids to host the 2012 Summer Olympics (formally known as the Games of the XXX Olympiad), which were awarded to London on July 6, 2005.

2. The lead could probably be a little longer encompassing some more of the general information from the article. Mention something about the controversies that show up later in the article.
3. The entire evaluation of applicant cities section could use a few references, even if the stuff is referenced in the articles you point to. Even if you just throw in a ref to the committee website, that's good enough.
4. Reference the "Final selection process" paragraphs
5. "Potential applicant cities" needs to be referenced more.
6. If you can, try to find some non internet references. It's been practically a year now, right? I'm sure some other info is out there or even primary sources like bid pamphlets or other such things.

This is all I've got right now. If I have time, I'll come back and read it thoroughly to help you out. JHMM13 22:38, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Parutakupiu

Hi, Jared! Let's see what I can find that can be target of improvement. At first, I really like the article layout and visual content (very colourful and graphical).

• Lead:

1. As per JHHM13, try to adjust the first paragraph so that the article's title is displayed in a better way. Try moving the 3rd sentence, which begins with "The bids for the 2012 Olympics...", to the first sentence, turning it into "The bids for the 2012 Summer Olympics were...". Not only the tight and multiple-round voting but also the global importance of the five candidate cities (four capital cities!) accounted for this exciting election.
2. Take off the bold from "Games of the XXX Olympiad", since the article isn't exactly about the games itself (it would be correct if this was 2012 Summer Olympics).
3. IOC is not linked on the first instance.
4. "...which were awarded to London (United Kingdom), on 6 July 2005." → remove date because it's again mentioned below, together with the 117th Session.
5. Second paragraph → "...the top five progressed to the shortlist, becoming official candidate cities" (suggestion). Also, mention which were the other 4 cities that didn't make it.
6. How about mentioning that London won over Paris by only 4 votes? This strengthens the competitive feeling of this election.
7. "frontrunner" → front-runner.
8. In general, expand the lead, taking more information from the article (e.g. controversies).

• Evaluation of applicant cities

1. "...application for the 2012 Summer Olympic Games..." → 2012 Summer Olympic Games.
2. "The five highest-rated candidates..." → applicant cities (only candidates after shortlisted).
3. "...granted the right to use the Olympic flame and Olympic rings imagery in their campaign literature." → isn't it only the Olympic rings and the expression "Candidate City/Ville Candidate"?

• Evaluation of candidate cities

1. "...submitted their candidate file..." → candidature file.
2. Link "International Olympic Committee" only on the previous section, and unlink further instances. Same goes for the candidate cities.
3. "set-backs" → setbacks.
4. "IOC member" → IOC member.

• Final selection process

1. Try this for the first sentence → "On July 6, 2005, the IOC assembled at the Raffles City Convention Centre, in Singapore, on occasion of 117th IOC Session, where the 2012 Summer Olympics host city would be elected.".
2. Unlink "One Voice, One Rhythm, One World" if you think it won't be created soon. (I don't think it's notable enough for that).
3. Format hours as per WP:DATE and put references for this section.

This is enough, for now. I'll read the rest and return here with more comments. Parutakupiu ^{talk || contribs} 17:11, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Leo Ornstein

Article on a virtually forgotten, but once renowned (and notorious) musical figure—perhaps The Sex Pistols or Eminem of 1914—with an intriguing (and v-e-r-y long) post-celebrity life. Any comments/observations/suggestions would be helpful.—DCGeist 02:28, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

bcasterline

Looks like an exceptional article. Some comments:

• Under "Fame and futurism": is "concertizing" really a word? I would replace it with something more clear and less jarring.

• It is, but you're right—unnecessarily jargonistic. Edited.—DCGeist 06:10, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

• I think the use of quotations is generally effective, but you might consider replacing some with simpler paraphrasing. The last sentence of the first paragraph of "Later life", for example, is confusing.

• Right. Edited.—DCGeist 06:10, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

• Lots of colons and semicolons. I don't think anything's grammatically incorrect, but think about rewriting some passages to get rid of them. The last sentence of "Transition in the 1920s" is a good example of something that could be rewritten.

• Decolonized. I'll make sure no more sneak in.—DCGeist 07:33, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

• Not much is said about the Ornstein School of Music in Philadelphia -- you might think about adding more information if it's available.

• Brilliant call, mate. You inspired me to go outside the usual classical music sources, which say only little, and it turns out a couple of very important jazz players went there. Thank you so much.—DCGeist 06:10, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Great work overall. -- bcasterline • talk 05:21, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

• Response: Much gratitude for your specific and wonderfully productive comments.—DCGeist 07:33, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
  • No problem; pleasure to read. I hope you're thinking about FAC, by the way. Certainly seems like a worthy candidate to me. -- bcasterline • talk 18:49, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Eyes of the Insane

Given the fact I got Christ Illusion to FA, I now wish to get this article to at least GA, and maybe even FA if enough material is available. Thanks in advance for your comments, and any feedback is welcomed. LuciferMorgan 00:43, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

• I don't see the point of the "Song information" header when it only has Origins under it.
• Link Josh Abraham - Warcon Enterprises - Columbus, Ohio
• Araya read the article during the plane journey. to where? i guess to the recording studio
• Leaving his belongings at the hotel, he went to rehearsals, returned and then re-read the article - the end of the previous sentence ends with Josh Abraham, so perhaps "Araya went to rehearsals, returned and re-read the article"
• with Slayer competing against a field consisting of- a field? sounds like a football game, with Slayer competing against Lamb is my preference
• A picture of the front cover of Texas monthly [1] would be awesome
• Lombardo's drums open it slowly - This is Dave's first mention so link to Dave Lombardo
• When referring to a member link their first mention in the body and use their second name from then on, Kerry king twice - oh that's the only one.
• Once sentence paragraphs- King's political message could easily be merged with another paragraph, not sure about saw 3. Nice work :) M3tal H3ad 06:48, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments. I'll get onto them :) LuciferMorgan 09:31, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Yea i'll add one M3tal H3ad 09:33, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

IvoShandor

Just a few things at a glance:

• I was looking for info about the song's release, chart performance and sales and came up empty.
• The above would probably lead to some lead expansion.
• Also didn't see any information about the production (save the inspiration - interesting to be sure) and recording of the track.

That's all for now, hope that helps. IvoShandor 12:00, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

I cannot find any information as regards the single's chart performance, sales, production and recording of the track. Having said that, the review is helpful in that should I find this information, I'll endeavour to add it. Thanks for your comments. LuciferMorgan 22:14, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Ceoil

• Echoing Ivo above, maybe mention the chart performance, and also the cover art. Ceoil 21:25, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

If I find the chart performance I'll endeavour to add it. Thanks for mentioning the cover art - I'll make sure to look out for info as to the artist, their inspiration etc. which would prove rather interesting if the information was at hand. Thanks for your comments. LuciferMorgan 22:16, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

The Bourne Identity

I have recently completely re-written the article and am hoping to nominate it for a GA review and eventually get it to, cross fingers, FA status. I've attempted to find as much information on the film's production as possible and have modelled it on the smaller film articles such as Latter Days and Dog Day Afternoon. As this is my first attempt, I'm not entirely sure if it has the essentials or the potential but I'm hoping more experienced editors can have a look and see what needs doing. Thanks. Qjuad 15:56, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

As soon as you provide the source and fair use rationale for Image:BourneIdentityfilm.jpg, it can be considered for a Good Article class.--Crzycheetah 01:57, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

I have updated Image:BourneIdentityfilm.jpg with the appropriate license, a source and a fair use rationale.Qjuad 02:17, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Ben Franklin High School

I'm hoping to get some ideas on how to improve the article, how far it might be from GA status, and what Importance the school has within its projects. Thanks! --Jh12 23:16, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Looks good. The Student Body section could be expanded, because it currently only includes the nationality of the students. 1312020Wikicop 00:59, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

bcasterline

Some comments:

• The wording of the lead is awkward.
• "History" doesn't actually have much history aside from Hurricane Katrina and address changes. Could be expanded.
• "Academics" is mostly statistics. Could be expanded.
• Cut down on the bolded terms under "Enrollment" and "Extracurricular activities".
• "Extracurricular activities" has lots of stubby subsections. Expand them or remove the headlines.
• Consider removing the "Trivia" section per WP:TRIV.

In general, I think there's room for expansion. Looks like a good start though. Good luck. -- bcasterline • talk 01:19, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Domenico Selvo

Hey, everyone. At total random, I decided to take this article from what it had been[2] and turned it into what it is now. I've tried my best to get this article to FA status. I've found as many resources on this absurdly obscure topic as humanly possible and I've participated in FAC for the last month or so to really get an understanding of what it takes for articles to be promoted. I think now that it is close, but I've come as far as I can take it and now I need help polishing it up. I'll list specific issues I'd really be interested in seeing discussed here to get it started, but naturally you can add whatever suggestions you may have for the article.

1. Is the lead long enough/concise enough/coherent enough/representative of the article?
2. Do you see any problems with the notes section? I'm looking particularly at note 31 and how I should cite a source such as Basilicasanmarco.it when there is no apparent author of the page other than the institution.
3. Do you see any problems with the references section? Here I'm testing the waters for something that I have not yet seen show up in FAC. Essentially, what happens if your subject is so obscure that half of your sources don't have ISBNs? Is it OK to cite the LOC number? I've asked another user already and he essentially said that there shouldn't be a problem because the spirit of the citation is still perfectly intact.
4. How does the image layout strike you? I've heard people complain about non-alternating images, but it's difficult to do that in this article without setting off the text a lot. I had a particularly difficult time getting that Diehl quote in and showing an example of St Mark's Basilica mosaics all under the same section without creating awkward text overlays.
5. How do you feel about the See Also section? I've seen people complain about the inclusion of this kind of section, but I can't seem to fit it in anywhere in the article, yet I think it's a very important link to have on a Doge's page.
6. Does the succession box at the bottom throw you off? It's a direct rip off of the ItWiki's Doge succession box, but I'm open to suggestions. I will soon apply the box to all the existing Doge articles if some consensus is reached here. My personal opinion on the matter is that I love it. I think it's a very cool box that is not overbearing and looks very nice at the same time. To me it seems much better than just the boring rectangle succession box that you usually find.
7. How about the infobox at the top of the page? Is there enough information? Is there too much information? By the way, it is the "Monarchy Info Box" which is not a reflection on the government of the Republic of Venice, it's just the nicest one I could find that wasn't too flashy.
8. Are there any issues with the pictures and text anywhere that I'm not seeing? I'm using 1024x768 at the moment and I configured the page so it fits best under those circumstances. If there are any major problems (like the last picture dropping too low into the Notes section), please let me know and I'll see if I can come up with a solution.

Well that's all I can come up with right now. I'm really looking forward to reading your opinions and I will respond here as quickly as I possibly can and leave a notification on your talk page to let you know I've responded. Thanks again in advance and I hope you can help me make this article featured! JHMM13 07:21, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Peter Isotalo

Peter, thanks. You've been a huge help on this article. I'll try to address each of your points here.

I'll start by saying that this has been an impressive and meticulous expansion of an article of relative obscurity. I'll reply to the questions below and then move on to some (rather minor) gripe of my own.

1. Technically, there's room for more info, but I feel it's very representative of the article.

Thanks.

3. The "other user" was me, so I'll just add that I don't see how it would be a problem other than (maybe) someone complaining about the obscurity of the sources. But that should only be a problem if someone actually has reason to doubt the reliability of said source.

Was there a number 2 suggestion you had? Yeh, for now I think it's fine.

4. I think some of the complaints might have been due to some images being inserted right at the end of a section rather than in the beginning of the one after it. I tried suggesting a tweak for at the article, but it'll probably take a few tries to get it right.

My trouble with this is that I don't know what is the most common screen setting for Wikipedians.

5. Complaints about useful links? I can't see why. In fact, I would like a few more links, and I would recommend to ignore requests to remove any links that appear in the article from the See also-section. Unless they're very prominent and repeated several times, there's no harm in repeating them once more in a section which has the sole purpose of being an internal "further reading"-guide. It must be very common for someone to read maybe just the lead, browse through the rest of the article, and then check out related articles.

I'll try to put in a few links in the See Also section.

6. I think it looks great! I generally whine quite a bit about succession boxes, but this one seems like anything but crufty.

Thanks!

7. As far as infoboxes go, less is always more. Maybe a few more facts, but nothing extreme. The infobox cruftfests that we have in articles like Michael Jordan are just embarrassing.

Got it. I think I'll leave it as it is because I don't have much more information.

Now for some pointers of my own:

• Why are there so many citations in the lead? The lead is supposed to be a summary of the rest of the article, so it doesn't seem necessary to cite anything stated there.

I've taken most citations out of the lead except the note regarding his name.

• There are several repeats of the same sources throughout the article. Footnotes such as 6, 12, 16, 27 are used lots of time. Any particular reason for these? Just a suggestion that some of the most obvious ones could be merged.

Those two are my best sources that discuss his whole reign in as much detail as possible. The rest would often view it from one perspective or just one instance in his life (like the naval Battle at Durazzo and nothing else). I separate certain page ranges that I think are distinct so if people wanted to get to that information in those sources, they could get there without reading 15 pages first. I'm trying not to hide the information as much as possible.

Peter ^Isotalo 09:36, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks again! Does anyone else have any suggestions for this article?

M3tal H3ad

Thank you for responding M3tal H3ad :-D. I will address each of your useful suggestions one-by-one.

• From the middle of the tenth century until 991, I don't like the use of "the middle" is there an actual year period like 1950's?

I've changed the sentence to this: Beginning with the reign of Pietro II Candiano in 932 Venice saw a string of inept leaders such as Pietro III Candiano, Pietro IV Candiano, and Tribuno Memmo, whose reputed arrogance and ambition caused the deterioration of their relationship with the Holy Roman Empire in the west, the stagnancy of their relationship with the Byzantine Empire in the east, and discord at home in the Republic. What do you think about this sentence? I've also added a reference to earlier in Norwich where it makes the information regarding those Doges very clear. It's difficult to go into too much detail or it stops being a biography of Domenico Selvo and starts being a history of Venice. I'll be creating the Tribuno Memmo article later today most likely to eliminate the red link on the page.

• inept leaders - what leaders?

Please see above.

• link Doge - i was clueless to what it was

The reason I didn't link Doge was because I had already linked Doge of Venice in the first line. Though, since I just realized that there is an article on Doges in general, I'll be sure to link it.

• regaining some of the territory that had been lost - > regaining territory that had been lost. No need for "some of the" - redundant

Done

• the majority of the people of Venice were clearly not in favor of having a royal hereditary class, reference? sounds a bit POV and OR - same with "Being connected to the relatively popular Doge might have been one of the causes for his own apparent initial popularity."

These are both conjectures from information presented previously in the section. The law I referenced, which was put in by a popular movement of Venetians, disallowing the son of a Doge to become a Doge is the important bit here. I think it's less point of view and more common history of Venice info, but if you'd like, I could reference the Grubb article concerning "the Myth of Venice" and the common beliefs Venetians held regarding government and politics.

• Add WP:PDATA

Done. It's at the bottom of the article if you'd like to review it.

• The See Also section comes before notes

Done.

• 1071 - 1080: peace and prosperity - as far as I'm aware Peace should be capitalized because its the first letter in the title.

Done by Peter Isotalo. Thank you :-)

• Whenever you refer to him in the body use Selvo, don't mention his full name every time - we know its Domenico from the article title

I've removed all the ones that are in the prose, but I kept the one that is in the image caption. I hope this is not a problem. If it is, please let me know.

• Looks good to me though, although try have a reference at the end of each paragraph.

I've tried to reference everything that needs referencing in the places they need it. For the history of the battles, information that is typically not disputed (though I've noted which parts are disputed), I tended to put one all-encompassing end-of-paragraph reference for general information about what was going on (usually to Norwich or Hazlitt, my two big sources). I believe there's only one paragraph (outside the lead) with only one reference, and that one is at the end of the paragraph. I'll go through the last lines of the paragraphs that have no citations at the end to try to see where the issues arise:

However, one fact remained: based on their actions in the first half of the 11th century, the majority of the people of Venice were clearly not in favor of having a royal hereditary class. This reality, coupled with the fresh memories of power-hungry Doges, set the stage for Domenico Selvo. When I wrote this, I felt it was pretty boring and basic conjecture based on the bunch of evidence I gave beforehand. The claims made are no historical secret and any reliable history of Venice will address these points. I believe that if people read the whole section and check out the accompanying references, they will understand immediately. I didn't want to clutter up the page with multiple references to the same page or pages. I wonder what you think in light of this. Do you think it's ok in this instance to have no citation at the end of a paragraph?

Being connected to the relatively popular Doge might have been one of the causes for his own apparent initial popularity. This was a mistake of mine caused by an add-on edit. It is important to discuss why Selvo was popular, and therefore elected, but I think this kind of supposition does need at least a source to link the two claims, and that source is Hazlitt. I had it at the end of the previous sentence, but reviewing it now, I see that Hazlitt is where I got the info from in the first place, so I just moved the citation to the end of the paragraph instead.

Incidentally, the location also proved ideal for the election of a new Doge for the very same reasons. I felt this one was so straight-forward that providing an inline citation might do more to insult the reader's intelligence than provide them with information. :-D. Please let me know if you think it needs a citation and I'll move around the notes to encompass this information. So I don't tread on Peter's response, I just want to thank you again here for reviewing the article. It means very much to me. JHMM13 18:51, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

M3tal H3ad 09:20, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

The article uses a lot of sources. Have you read any of them? Have you seen sources that say otherwise? If you're to bring up charges of POV and/or OR please motivate your suspicions.

Peter ^Isotalo 10:53, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

But there's not an in-line source for these claims, which is required for FA when information is likely to be challenged. M3tal H3ad 13:18, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Most of the article doesn't (technically) have inlines. Why did you decide to question this and not everything else? Do you have any reason to doubt it other than simply never seeing the claim before? Please keep in mind that there are no specified requirements concerning the density of footnotes in FAs.

Peter ^Isotalo 14:28, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Askari Mark

Just a quick note until I have more time later. I've done a bit of wordsmithing but came across a couple items I couldn't fix myself. In the section "1081 - 1083: Victory" (para. 2, sent. 3) it is stated that Guiscard’s ships “retreated into ???”; the destination has apparently been accidentally edited out. As I recall, they retreated to the shore, not into someplace in particular. Second, what is (currently) footnote #29, regarding his burial at St. Mark’s, is blank. I suspect the reference name might be "dogeonline" instead of "dogionline". BTW, you all have done a GREAT job improving this stub!! Askari Mark (Talk) 18:31, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks a million times for the vote of confidence. I'm slightly embarrassed by the missing reference because I spent so much time keeping them in order. It is, however, my fault, because I initially had that ref "dogionline" in the lead, but I deleted it to trim out the notes up there, and I just ran the /ref follow up without initiating a note in the first place, which is why it was blank. The problem is now fixed and I've updated the retrieval dates for all (3) web refs. Regarding your first question, the hidden word was "harbor." Unfortunately, nobody won this round of Wheel of Fortune. :-D. I'm eagerly awaiting your other suggestions, and I want to thank you for all the copyedits you've made to this article. JHMM13 19:03, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Believe me, I understand, and after you've looked at the article umpteen-hundred times, you end up being surprised by the blatantly obvious errors you can't believe you didn't catch until they were pointed out to you. :P That's why it's good to have extra heads take a look at it.

Okay, here are my comments on your questions:

1) Yes, I think it’s fine in length and coverage. Some further tweaking might be done, but it's okay.

2) I’ve used “Anonymous” for the author; Wikipedia:Citing sources/example style is unhelpful on this point, but check out Template:Cite web for an alternative citation approach in which the author is “optional.”

I had a look at the templates and what I have now seems to give information in almost exactly the same way. I'll keep it as is for now.

3) It’s quite okay to have sources without the ISBN. The focus should be on documenting the sources, and providing the ISBN where it is available. According to [sources/example style#Books|Wikipedia:Citing sources/example style], the LOC is fine, but I usually see it identified as “LCCN” followed by their catalog number.

Changed to LCCN.

You will find that some editors like combining References and Footnotes into a single “References and notes” section, but others do not. I tend to go with Wikipedia:Citing sources#Notes, which recommends keeping them separate when there are a lot of footnotes — and this article has lots of footnotes.

I'm not getting a little confused by all the terminology. My notes section is full of citations and footnotes, right? For instance, #27 is a footnote, but #26 is a citation? And the references are the full citations below? Should I keep three sections?

Where there is a separate Reference section, it will have a list of the reference sources used given in alphabetical order by author name — yours is correct. As Wikipedia uses them, a citation (e.g., #2) gives the particular source for a particular statement, while a footnote (e.g., #1) provides explanatory text. A "References and notes" section combines the two — and then "footnote" becomes generic for either or both; in fact, one can have a "proper" citation followed by further explanatory or commentary text as part of the same "footnote" (although I think this is "pushing it" and I tend to deprecate it). (Take a look at what I have in the HAL Tejas article on how I have built a "References and notes" section.)

You could choose to separate "proper" citations and footnotes into different sections. It's acceptable style, but the problem that arises is how to distinguish between the two. Traditionally footnotes would be identified with with a number of asterisks ("*") and/or daggers ("†"), depending on how many will appear on a single page. Wikipedia, however, lacks distinct pages and such symbols are difficult to "automate" for long lists. Some have started using serial Greek alphabet characters for listing footnotes separately. There is a template for this somewhere.

However and nonetheless, there has recently been discussion supporting the maintenance of a separate "Bibliography" when there is a long list of citations and footnotes in a "References and notes" section. That way, other editors and readers can quickly identify the main sources used (and editions, where important) without digging all through a mass of citations. It's not a guideline at present, but there's obviously a problem being encountered with the standing MoS.

In summary, I think your current approach is acceptable, but I would rename the "Notes" section "References and notes" and the "References" section "Bibliography". Askari Mark (Talk) 17:55, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

4) It’s really a matter of “what looks good.” Too many too close together (vertically) takes away from the layout quality. The only images I’d suggest floating left would be the Guardi painting and the coin.

I actually have more trouble with the two quote “boxes”. You employ two different styles, for one thing. I think the Diehl quote should appear one paragraph earlier and I don’t find that having regular text floating to its right is at all appealing. One approach I’ve seen used elsewhere that might work here is to place it centered right under the section header and before the St. Mark’s image. The earlier quote might best be placed inline with the text, with the translation in parentheses. (I’ve noticed that “imaged” and “boxed” quotes get deprecated a lot in reviews.)

I've removed the first box and worked it into the prose while having the translation in parentheses. Do you want me to use the current box and center it under the section header or something else? I'm not too familiar with quote boxes.

I've not used them much myself. My temptation is to center it rather than float it one way or the other. Perhaps you could leave it so that the FA reviewers have something to criticize ... er, make helpful suggestions about. ;-) Askari Mark (Talk) 18:06, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

5) “See also” sections are fine, but should only be used to direct readers to further articles on related topics of interest which were not already linked to in the article.

I've removed the link to Doge of Venice, but I've kept the List of Doges of Venice link which I think is useful.

Yep, it is. That's just what belongs there. Askari Mark (Talk) 18:06, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

6) The succession box is fine, relevant, useful, and there’s no problem with using it.

Thanks!

7) Like Peter Isotalo, I am also a minimalist when it comes to infoboxes. You might mark his birth as “unknown” simply because the death date looks a little odd out there all by its lonesome.

Done and done.

My comments:

A) For the sake of his legacy, is there any more available information on his contributions to Venetian culture or civic affairs than St. Mark’s and riding off graciously into the sunset? Sometimes people complain that there is too much focus on the wars (although not infrequently that’s most of what history has left us with). You allude to the cross-cultural influences between Venice and the Byzantines; is there something a little more explicit that might be said (perhaps with a “See main article: xyz” subheader to link the reader to a fuller discussion)?

Unfortunately there is very little on Wikipedia that I can find regarding the cross-cultural relationship between Venice and the Byzantine empire. I wish there was, but the legacy section of a particular Doge doesn't seem the appropriate place to elaborate too heavily. Several of the sources, particularly Byzantium and Venice, give a very great analysis of this relationship and the significance of the Golden Bull. The very difficult thing about this subject is that not an enormous amount of material has been written on Domenico Selvo, and whatever was written is almost always written from the perspective of how Venice managed to scrape by during those years. St. Mark's in itself is a grand cultural testament to the relationship between Byzantium and Venice and the fact that it was mostly constructed under Selvo's supervision speaks volumes to me. I wish I could talk about the inner-workings of domestic Venice (legal system, fish trade, boat trade, etc.), but finding real, reliable sources for that kind of thing is like finding a needle in a needle factory. I suspect that the only people with any semblance of that kind knowledge have access to a plethora of primary sources that are most likely written in something resembling Latin. In other words, it's beyond my means...I've tried to find more, but I've found it practically impossible for me to do. I've added some more information about the distrust of his wife leading to his deposal that was in Staley, but more I'm having trouble doing. :-(..sorry.

Don't apologize — you can only work with what you have sources for (that you can read). I raised the issue because a FA reviewer is likely to do the same. Also, you don't have to look to Wikipedia articles — your own work might inspire others to write more on it. That's part of the value of identifying references: It helps some discover a useful source they didn't already know about it, and others to contribute from sources not available/accessible to editors who have "gone ahead." Askari Mark (Talk) 18:06, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

B) I recommend scanning the article for “peacock terms”. E.g., see footnote #28 “... but according to Hazlitt and Norwich, almost all accounts name Selvo as an heroic figure who nearly beat staggering odds.” If the source actually uses those words, then mark the phrase with quotation marks; if not, find a better word. (There actually isn’t much in the article’s text that clarifies what the odds were in either battle.)

I've changed the wording to this: "...according to Hazlitt and Norwich, almost all accounts name Selvo as an heroic figure who nearly overcame an unlikely counterattack." I think that fits the information a little more accurately. I've tried looking around and I can't find too many...that might be because I wrote it. :-/

I didn’t see anything else offhand that hadn’t been caught by one of the other reviewers. It really is a great job! Awesome, dude! Askari Mark (Talk) 01:01, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks a lot again! You've helped me out a lot on my (long) quest to get this promoted to FA status!

Thank you for your continued help in this FA drive! I've made the requested changes to the article and if you have any other concerns or suggestions, please please please let me know and I'll try to figure out where I went wrong. Thanks also for being bold and changing the article on your own...it's our article, after all! :-D JHMM13 18:33, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Mangojuice

Wow, that's really a great improvement. Let me answer JHMM13's questions, and then make a few separate comments.

Thanks a lot for really taking the time to thoroughly review this. I will attempt to address each point one-by-one.

1. Yes. There's a sentence with "power" twice that's a little clunky.

How does this sound: "He successfully avoided conflicts with the Byzantine Empire, the Holy Roman Empire, and the Roman Catholic Church at a time in European history when struggles for power threatened to upset the balance thereof."

2,3. Yes - I think the notes & references sections should be reorganized, because most of the notes are citations, but some of the notes are really footnotes and aren't citations, and those should be separate. I wouldn't worry about note 31, but I would hope that you could integrate those two sections. See History of the Philippines for an example of the type of references section I'm invisioning.

My main problem with organizing the notes and references section to the way it's done in History of the Philippines is that I think that the article is a lot less cluttered with separate notes and references sections. Perhaps a way we can work around this problem is to have three separate sections that go Notes, Citations, and References. It helps in the editing process to not have full citations refed from the body of the article, as pointed out by Peter Isotalo on the article's talk page. I'd love to hear your opinion on this.

4. The image layout seems okay, but I don't know about the image selection. Why two different maps? I like the second one, but the first one seems relatively unimportant. If you're going to have two maps, I would think that they should at least be at two different scales, or show some kind of change between the two of them; right now I just find it a little odd. As for the painting by Guardi, could you add a date to it? If the date is far from 1071-1084 (as I suspect), I'm not sure that image is so appropriate. Perhaps a modern-day photo of Lido or a close-up map of it? There's room for improvement.

I'm glad you brought this up. I'll try to explain my rationale for using these images. The two maps are there to illustrate the expansion of Robert Guiscard's forces in souther Italy and the subsequent loss of land by the Byzantine Empire. It is an important point in the article as it relates to the later conflicts at Durazzo and Corfu, but perhaps I can put that info in the caption? I have to admit that it's very difficult to find illustrations for an article about a person who doesn't have any known paintings (to the best of my knowledge) and who lived in a time that didn't have an overabundance of contemporary landscape paintings. This brings me to the painting by Guardi. According to the descriptions by Norwich, Tino, and Hazlitt, the lagoon was filled with ships of all sizes. Ascension Day was already being celebrated in this manner in Venice in 1071 and one of the focuses of this celebration was the church of San Nicolò. The church stood in 1071 as it did in 1766 when the painting was painted. This is a long gap, but the only real noticeable differences would be these: different surrounding houses, slightly different kinds of boats, but not in size. I think a modern day photo would provide less illustration of the subject than this pseudo-re-creation does, and on top of that, obtaining an adequate free image of San Nicolò that would usefully illustrate this article is beyond my capabilities. :-( I hope you can see why I chose this image. Please let me know what you think.

5. The See also section is fine, but if it bothers you, you could always add a link to the List of Doges of Venice article in the succession box template.

I'll leave the section as it is for now.

6. It's short and sweet, looks good. 7. The infobox is good; I think any further info in it would be distracting. 8. Looks good on my screen.

Thanks!

Separate comments:

1. First, I'm not sure I like the use of quote boxes. For one thing, there are two of them, in different formats. For another, the first quote is only being set apart becaue of the translation: that seems unnecessary, and the second quote could use more context in connecting with the article (was Diehl talking about the issuance of the Golden Bull? If so, that should be said in a caption, I think).

   I've seen articles on FAC recently get passed through with no objections to the quote boxes. Is there any community consensus regarding this? On the first box, I chose to set use that format because I thought it was the best template in Wikipedia that could show the primary source and the translation. It's an effect I want to have to try to get the reader into the mind of a Venetian of that time, but I wonder if it's an appropriate thing to do. I wonder if any other users have an opinion on this issue so we can build some consensus. On the second point you make, it originally made sense where it was in the first paragraph, but a reorganization made it make less sense. I wonder what kind of caption you have in mind, because I'd really like to see the quote box stay. I think it looks nice :-)

2. Also, in places, I'm concerned that this article is doing original research (but take it as a compliment: it looks very professional!) There are probably places here and there where it would be better to simply say where the sources conflict than to come to a conclusion yourself. Places where this might be at issue are the places where there are notes that aren't merely citations. A few specific places beyond that:

• The essentially democratic way in which he not only was elected but also removed from power was an important step in shaping future Venetian political philosophy. (lead),

  This is addressed in the legacy section...in other words, see below.

• However, one fact remained: based on their actions in the first half of the 11th century, the majority of the people of Venice were clearly not in favor of having a royal hereditary class. This reality, coupled with the fresh memories of power-hungry Doges, set the stage for Domenico Selvo. (Background section),

  As I wrote above (in response to another reviewer...I can't remember who right now), I felt that this was pretty basic conjecture or extrapolation. I don't feel I was making any claims with these two sentences that aren't covered adequately by not only the information that precedes it, but also by the claims of the authors of the secondary sources. Please let me know if you think they need citations and I'll reorganize the current citations to better encompass the claims.

• ...but it can be assumed that he was a Venetian noble because, with the rare exception of Domenico Flabanico, only members of this class were elected to the position of Doge at this point in the Republic's history. (Biography / Life before Dogeship)

  Those first three sentences are covered by note 9. I omitted the citation to prevent clutter. Do you think it is worthwhile to cite note 9 twice in a matter of two or three sentences or does it work as is?

• Due to the new trade privileges and the fact that virtually no damage was inflicted on the Venetians during this siege, Selvo remained very popular in Venice. (Biography / 1081-1083: Victory)

  The whole second part of this paragraph is covered by note 26 just like with the Hazlitt quote above. Same question applies here...double cite or leave as is?

• Guiscard, however, saw the departing Venetian convoy and realized that his last chance had come for victory. (Biography / 1084: Defeat & deposal) (this sentence could actually be removed: it just serves to up the narrative tension.)

  Sentence is gone.

• Acting on the sensible belief by the Doge that a third attack would be extraordinarily unlikely and the presence of a slightly depleted Venetian fleet meant greater odds for victory, Guiscard summoned every floating vessel he could find and led the Normans into a surprise attack. (right after previous one)

  This sentence is covered by the Hazlitt citation at the end of the paragraph. Same question applies here...double cite or leave as is?

• The whole last paragraph under "Legacy".

  Admittedly, this section stems from the academic claims that the turbulent relationship Venetians had with their Doges and the reformation of the democratic process had been shaped over the centuries through a series of deposals and popular elections. The only analysis I have provided here is that Domenico Selvo was one of those Doges and that the contrast between his popularity at the beginning and end of his reign illustrates this legacy quite well. I've added a reference to the "myth of venice" and how it describes the concept behind the popular belief of free will and the democratic process in the Republic of Venice.

Keep in mind, I'm not saying I doubt any of this. Just, whenever the article starts making analytical claims about events, I want to see an inline citation for the sentence. Okay, that's it. Good work. When you put this up for FAC, let me know; if you address all these points I'll definitely support. Mangojuice^talk 20:00, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

I hope I have adequately addressed your concerns. As the Italians would say, sei un drago! Thanks a lot, and I eagerly anticipate your response.JHMM13 21:29, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

I'd rather see double cites than wonder about the support for individual sentences. The one including "set the stage for Domenico Selvo" -- yeah, I do think that needs sourcing, it's making an analytical claim about what Venetians wanted in terms of their rulers. My point about quote boxes is more that they seem a little clunky the way they're used in this article, not that I object to them as a general thing. Mangojuice^talk 12:15, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I've cited the sentences as Norwich and Hazlitt both hold those claims (so I just refed Norwich). I've moved the images around and tried to make it work out to some extent. I have a lot of trouble trying to figure out what does and does not look good. To me it never looks good to have a left-side image directly under the section heading, but I guess a lot of people do because you tend to see it often in FAs. I moved the Lido painting to the left and switched the positions of the quote box and the St Mark's image but keeping the image on the right so it doesn't interfere with the See Also header at higher screen resolutions (I usually use 1024x768, but I've upped it for the moment to the next one so I can see what people tend to use more often). Let me know if you still see any problems. JHMM13 16:34, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

I think the painting is okay; it's certainly better with the date specified. I like the second map, it's the first one that seems a bit unnecessary (especially with the second one there) - what is the first one illustrating, exactly? More important, I think the article attributes too much importance to Selvo's forced abdication. Do any of the sources describe his abdication as "important" in the development of a democratic rule in Venice? Do any of the sources describe his election and abdication as his most important contribution to Venice? I think it's certainly reasonable to cite Selvo as an example of a peaceful transition of power and note that Venice was in the progress of developing from a monarchic system to a democratic one. But this really seems to be making claims beyond the analysis in the sources, which we shouldn't do. Mangojuice^talk 19:58, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

I'll try to explain why I think the image is worthy of being on there. It shows the Byzantine control over southern Italy and how close it was to the Holy Roman Empire at the time. Guiscard spent a long time kicking the Byzantines out of Italy and did so in part by allying himself with the Pope, the essential co-ruler of the Holy Roman Empire. It was very similar to the Vietnam War in which the two main powers weren't fighting, but there were tensions. Venice was stuck right in the middle of this mess and managed to befriend both sides by not fighting either. The second map shows the transition of power from Byzantine control over southern Italy to full Norman control under Guiscard. Would perhaps anyone else like to sound off on this issue? If we do get rid of it, are there any suggestions for a replacement? I've reworded the last paragraph a bit per your request. You were right, there are no mentions of it being a particularly important transition, but the Norwich reference covers the entire scope of the transitions of power in Venetian history. I hope you find this acceptable. Thanks a lot, JHMM13 20:34, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Personally, I think having both maps is fine. The problem seems to arise with the fact that they are very similar. When I first saw them, I thought it was a matter of duplication of the same image — until I looked closer. The main differences are in the political structure of the lower part of the "boot" of Italy and the fact that the second is focused a little further east and south of the first. Askari Mark (Talk) 23:14, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Hereford United F.C.

I've spent over a year improving and updating this article, and its associated articles, and I would like feedback from a different viewpoint. Bigmike 20:37, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Update: Many thanks for all your comments so far, I've managed to implement some of the suggested changes already. The other changes, particularly citations, will be forthcoming in the next couple of days when I can get my hands on the relevant books. Bigmike 13:45, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Comments from The Rambling Man

Hey, definitely a good article, I just wanted to add some feedback to encourage both Bigmike and other editors to do the same. I'll provide further comments as soon as I can. The Rambling Man 20:56, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Depending on where you want this article to go, my review comments will come from a potential featured article perspective. So, here we go (for starters!)...

1. Red links... usually a no-no, so either create the articles you've red-linked or remove the links.
2. Dashes or hyphens or whatever. Check out WP:DASH for advice on how to use things that used to be simple but that are now complicated!
3. Images - always a good idea. You said that the Hereford badge has changed a couple of times - add in the historical badges under fair use criteria and discuss them. Always a good and useful thing to do.
4. Citations, witness the up-to-date policy regarding attribution. Your history section hasn't a single citation which some people may find unacceptable.

More to come, but that's a start. Hope it helps and get in touch if want to discuss any of it futher... The Rambling Man 21:04, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

1. ...near-extinction... - a bit dramatic, cite it or reduce point-of-view.
2. Why is current capacity reduced in the infobox? Consider a citation.
3. ...legendary... is very POV, can you provide a citation for this?
4. ...equalling another record... - Ipswich v Man Utd perchance?! Whatever, it needs explanation...
5. The attendances listed out like that are a bit dry, consider either making it better prose, removing it or making a table out of it?
6. Consider a W/D/L/F/A managerial history if possible.
7. Add an overview of Hereford's records.
8. Avoid too many external links, spam warning!

Again, hope that helps, all the best. The Rambling Man 19:21, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Comments from Elisson

Not an exhaustive list of things to do but rather a few things I noticed right away:

1. Get rid of the current season section, we're not a news service. Otherwise the history section is better balanced than most other history sections you see these days, although there is some "recentism" (1924-1966 [42 years] two paragraphs, 1966-2006 [40 years], five and a half paragraphs).
2. Needs references and more citations if you want to bring it to GA or FA status. Examples of sentences needing citation:

   History section: "In 1966 Hereford signed John Charles, the legendary Wales, Leeds United and Juventus player, whose presence boosted attendances substantially."

   History section: "The 1996-97 season saw the club relegated from the Football League amid major financial troubles due to major mismanagement."

   Support section: "Hereford United was historically one of the best-supported clubs in non-league football, particularly during the 1960s."

3. A few nice images would really spice up the article.
4. Incorporate the trivia bits of info into the other sections.
5. There should be some kind of inclusion criteria for the notable players section.

Overall, this is a pretty good article, but it needs a little work to reach GA status, and some more work to be ready for FAC. – Elisson • T • C • 21:05, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Comments from Oldelpaso

The article definitely compares favourably with articles about other teams from the same level. It is structurally sound, but could do with more references.

• I disagree with The Rambling Man about redlinks, they are few in number so it isn't much of an issue.
  • Cool, but it does depend on where this article is going - most, if not all FA's have no red-links. However, a red-link isn't an intrinsic failing point. The Rambling Man 22:01, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
    • Don't be so sure about that. ;) Today's featured article has twelve redlinks, for example. Redlinks are generally not an issue on FAC unless they are integral for the article in question, unlike list articles where the list itself depends on having a lot of bluelinks. This one has a few in the notable players section, but that section itself is really not important for the article so I don't see a problem with the redlinks there. – Elisson • T • C • 22:26, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
• Avoid using language which implies an emotional attachment (not always easy to do when you're a fan, I know) e.g. Unfortunately Hereford lost in the playoffs on penalties to Aldershot Town - it wasn't unfortunate for Aldershot!
• Graham Turner's role of chairman-manager isn't unique - Ron Noades and Barry Fry have held the same position in recent years.
• As stated above, more citations would be of benefit. Ideally, every statement which could be questioned by a sceptical reader should have a citation. To take examples from near the start of the History section, the merger which led to the club's formation, the groundshare with Hereford City and the record win over QPR should all be supported by citations.
• While the pool of literature available about Hereford is likely to be limited in comparison with a higher division club, a search of Herefordshire libraries reveals three books sbout the club (using "Hereford United" as a search term here) If you live in the area it might be worth borrowing them to help with citations.
• Restate the capacity of Edgar Street in the Stadium section.
• Merge the items mentioned in the trivia section elsewhere in the article, except the Soccer AM one, which can be removed.

Hope this helps. Oldelpaso 21:36, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Comments from Qwghlm

I concur with most of the above comments, especially the ones saying more images are needed. This article is good, but need some tweaks and enhancements.

• Club referred to in the singular or plural - either is fine but make it consistent e.g. "The club has won relatively few honours [...] However they became synonymous..."
• The match with Wigan Athletic in 1953-54 is needlessly mentioned twice in successive paragraphs - remove one (I would suggest the first).
• I don't like the use of words such as "legendary" when describing players or managers, it smacks of hyperbole.
• "with literally every vantage point taken" - misuse of the word literally, unless their really were people in the sky watching the game, etc.
• "the distinction of being the first team to finish bottom of the Second Division after winning the Third Division title the previous season" — needs citation
• "equalised against the run of play" - unwikify and provide a very exceptional source (i.e. a neutral account) for that claim.
• Graham Turner's takeover of the club is better moved into the relevant part of the History section.
• "they used material from blackout curtains to make shorts when they ran out of white material" — interesting but needs a citation.
• Surely the crest section can be discussed in more than one sentence, unless the history is that boring! When was it first adopted, what changes have there been, etc., etc.
• Citations needed aplenty for the stadium section, particularly anything to do with financial issues.
• "to the apparent chagrin of visiting supporters" and "they regularly attracted the largest home attendances" need citations.
• Managerial history could be turned into a table with more precise dates, performance records, P/W/D/L statistics etc., if such records are available.
• Trim the external links - the MAD/Rivals/Vital Football sites are all pretty minor and provide little extra information. Qwghlm 10:04, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Ayumi Hamasaki

Brought up because tagged by Why sigh, cutie pie? in diff shown here.

Contains constantly reverted material conserning her birth name, some references need to be integrated and some references need to be added. Monni 19:08, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

• Needs references. Many, many references. The sales information appears to be random (probably picked from a magazine, but since nobody cares about citing the source, it looks like someone just adds some random thousands numbers and update the numbers). Main problem is that people don't care about the capitalization guidelines, and revert to the uppercase/lowercase trademark. If twenty or thirty references are added for paragraphs that are speculation (currently, Early life and Show business in Tokyo have no references at all. Too many decorative fair use images. A free image would be nice, but the owner of the one I found did not reply. One or two music samples would be nice, but that would create a edit war between fans to choose the "best" one, or to try to always upload the "newest" one (as you can see, editors try to keep the infobox image as up to date as possible, not trying to get a free one). -- ReyBrujo 04:08, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Bayajidda

Bayajidda (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) I worked on this article on and off for about two months, I've exhausted sources turned up by Google, and I dare say my local library doesn't have very good coverage of Africa - if Bayajidda is mentioned in any books there, I can guarantee it is for no more than two sentences. So, with regards to length, there isn't really anything I can expand, although anyone who can is encouraged to do so. I'm requesting a peer review so as to identify anything besides length that could get in the way of it becoming a good article. Picaroon 21:17, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Peripitus

A few comments on what is an interesting read...

• The lead of the article needs to summarise the entire article and so usually does not have references as they are in the body of the article
• Would be good to have a section discussing what the sources have said about Bayajidda compared to other hausa mythological characters.
• Trip across Africa section is just a single paragraph - should be either expanded or merged with a later section.
• the first sentence of the Analysis of the story's meaning has an issue. It both mentions Malcolm J. Lamb and has a WP:CITE reference to the work. You need to pick one or the other way or referencing this opinion and the counter in the next paragraph.
• didn't in the lead (and the Arrival in Daura and slaying of the serpent section) needs to be did not

- Peripitus (Talk) 11:49, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

• Alright, I've added a bit about the story itself to the lead and moved all the references to the body of the article.
• I'm not sure what to say about this proposed section, save that I've never really heard much about non-Islamic Hausa mythology besides Bayajidda. A lot of the Hausa people converted to Islam between 1100 and 14000, and much of the rest were forced to during the Fulani Jihad of the early 1800s. I've seen nothing comparing and contrasting the Bayajidda Legend with Islam, so to do so would be original research. In conclusion, all I can safely say is that Hausa society is nearly completely Islamic nowadays, and that the few remaining non-Muslim Hausa (there's a derogatory term for them, which I can't recall at the moment) aren't covered much. I'll do some more Googling, but don't get your hopes up.
• Merged that section and the below one.
• I've removed the mention of Lamb. However, per Wikipedia:Attribution#Using questionable or self-published sources, it is appropriate to name Lange in the text and cite his work at the same times because he is a respected professor on Africa topics, thereby making his self-published overview of the Conference of the Africa Studies Organization in Germany a relibale source.
• Contractions expanded. Are there any other barriers you see to this being a good article? Picaroon 21:32, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Aldux

Hi Picaroon! I'll just say what immediately appears before the eye. The quality of the article is, obviously, very high, and I well know the effort you've given to this specific article.

• The lead is too short, in my view. In WP:LEAD, it proposes for medium size articles leads 2-3 paragraphs-long, that summarize the content of the article.
• The first section, I agree with Periptus, is really too short. As the WP:SS says about sections, "each about several good-sized paragraphs long".
• You should try to remove the "see also" section by simply embedding the two links in the main text, if possible.
• I'd propose to rename "Further reading and external links" simply "external links", by removing the book. I generally feel it's not a good idea to insert a further reading, as it's hard for for it's extemely selectivity not to be problematic.
• If you want to find new sources for your article their may be a possibility on the web you have not yet explored. Have you ever tried with http://books.google.com? If you haven't, if you register (it's free) you will have access to a lot of books; some only offer "Snippet view" (just a few lines of text, too little to be really of any help) but other offer "limited preview", that is, full pages. I've given just a very rapid look, but I've noted the "Cambridge History of Africa", pp. 308-310, and (under Abuyazidu) "Almanac of African Peoples and Nations" pp. 351-352.--Aldux 00:06, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

• I've expanded the lead to two sentences. Seeing as the main attraction of the article is, in fact, the story, I'm trying to walk a fine line between not going into enough detail and giving out too much.
• I've merged the first two paragraphs into one.
• Bayajidda is more of a cultural figure than a historical hero; by this, I mean, he engaged in no wars and founded no countries. Instead, his tale, combined with later Islamic influences, set the foundations for modern Hausa culture. Because of this, I don't think there's a good place for a link to History of Nigeria. The Kano Chronicle link, meanwhile, is just there for anyone who wants more information on Hausa history; there isn't a good place to link to it, either, because it has very little to do with Bayajidda.
• Yeah, I had qualms about the naming of that section from the beginning, so I've removed the book and changed it to external links. Could you go into more depth about what you mean by extreme selectivity?
• I'll go see what Google books has to offer. Thanks for the link! Picaroon 00:45, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Oh, I just meant with extreme selectivity that mentioning one, or two, or three books is always a small fragment of relevant literature on the topic; for this one should generally avoid, IMO, "further reading" sections, as they are inherently random in character.--Aldux 00:58, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

I've done some searching about, and have found several tidbits of information that could be helpful; the suggestion here about him causing a switch from matriarchal to patriarchal society is good. But how do I cite this and other "snippets" I find via books.google? Do I cut&paste the Google url? Do I cite the book with no mention of Google? Picaroon 01:07, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Personally, I cite without mentioning Google, referring instead to book and page. Another peoce of possibly (you judge) useful info. In Almanac of African peoples and nations it is written: "According to July, this legend [i. e. Bayajidda] probably refers to a series of southward migrations of Saharan hunters and fisher folks that Hausaland had experinced in the past, leading to a merger with indigenous groups" (p. 351). It also says that the Kano Chronicle narrates that the Kingdom of Kano was founded in 999 by Bayajidda's grandson, Bagauda. (p. 352)--Aldux 16:50, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Bagauda? That's a new one. According to Lange and the others whose work I've used, Kano founded Kano! I'll use your method of citing Google and will try to expand on the legacy section with information I find via books.google later. Thanks for the recommendation. Picaroon 17:51, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Jeff Buckley

Anything to upgrade the Page from its apparent present B-Class, to an A-Class. Seems rather well researched with references for nearly everything. I suppose layout could be improved. Any suggestions would be warmly welcomed.G.AC 18:20, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

I would also appreciate greatly help in promoting the improvement of the page and, hopefully, eventually making this a featured article. G.AC 18:24, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

• Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, APR _t 00:13, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

AnonEMouse

Not a bad article at all, extremely thorough (if anything too thorough!) The phrasing is a bit clumsy in spots. There are also a lot of inline quotations here; while I don't have specific suggestions about that, note that I got a lot of heat for too many quotations from the subject at my FAC review, though I only had 6 or so total. Consider reducing.

• I'm not so sure the image is a publicity photo from a press kit, it seems to be sourced to a magazine's site. Can you contact jeffbuckley.com and ask if they will release a few images under Creative Commons or GFDL? See WP:COPYREQ.
• descent[2], - move ref after punctuation fixed. Dissolve 19:26, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
• About his father Buckley said, "I never knew him." "I met him once, when I was 8."[4] Tim Buckley died two months later of a drug overdose in 1975.[5] - clumsy, rephrase, possibly move down a paragraph after being raised by stepfather. Explain why father lived apart. Moved and elaboratedSillyfolkboy (talk) 18:21, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
• What is a "stepfather of only 2 years"? Phrase no longer presentSillyfolkboy (talk) 17:41, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
• Buckley said, and grew up singing - clumsy, rephrase Split into 2 sentences. Dissolve 22:51, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
• Buckley said, and received - clumsy, rephrase Split into 2 sentences. Dissolve 22:51, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
• He played the occasional funk and R&B studio session as well[24] - "as well" is extra agreed. removed. Dissolve 22:37, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
• He was introduced to Qawwali at this time, the devotional music of - remove "at this time" Removed this. Dissolve 19:45, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
• "I idolize Nusrat,"[29] Buckley would later say. - injection of the present tense mixed with past makes this clumsy. restated as fact. Dissolve 23:27, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
• The tape was hoped to - rephrase Reworded this. Dissolve 23:27, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
• a development deal with Gods and Monsters - in other words G&M was offered the deal, not Buckley? Then say so. Now stated as "a member of G&M"Sillyfolkboy (talk) 17:45, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
• Buckley was an impassioned fan of Pakistani Sufi musician Nusrat Fateh Ali Khan, and during his cafe days Buckley had often covered his songs. He interviewed Khan for Interview magazine and wrote liner notes for Khan's The Supreme Collection compilation. - why is this under Concert tours? I'd move it up with the earlier mention. Can you find (and reference) the interview? Now in early career section with link to Interview article Sillyfolkboy (talk) 17:37, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
• The autopsy confirmed that Buckley had taken no illegal drugs before his swim - why was there suspicion of this? Write something about him being or not being a drug user, in an earlier section. Most musicians are reported to be, but we can't just take it as assumed. Ruling out cause of death and clarifying situation previously added Sillyfolkboy (talk) 23:17, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
• What exactly was so remarkable about his songs? Why did he succeed? Interesting lyrics, large vocal range, did he play the guitar very well, what? What were their distinctive characteristics - how can you tell his works from those of the next fifteen musicians?

--AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 20:46, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Many good points here. Thanks. I'm guessing that using alot of quotations in considered un-encyclopaedic? is there a link to any guidelines, style guide or discussions on the use of quotations? that would help. Dissolve 19:26, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Here is my FAC review that I refer to Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Jenna Jameson, and continued in Talk:Jenna Jameson. The article had about 6 and got jumped on, it now has even fewer and is still getting heat: "This article implicitly endorses its subject's opinions as fact. This is not acceptable for an encyclopaedia article - it's magazine style writing...." and so forth. They didn't/don't cite specific policies either. I can't say I agree with all these criticisms, and the article did make it to FA despite them, but I thought you should at least be aware of the issues. Mine was also an inherently more controversial subject, so you may get less heat. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 16:11, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Clay Regazzoni

January's collaborative effort from WikiProject Formula One. Currently rated at 'B', and I suspect we could get it through a GA review, but would like to have a view from outside the project on how it reads to a non-expert and how it could be made more engaging for a non specialist audience. Thanks. 4u1e 23:24, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Oldelpaso

Generally good. I'd probably pass it if reviewing it for GA. A few comments:

• Having a subheading for each year makes the prose a little stop-start. Removing these and simply having the sections for each constructor would improve flow.

Done. 4u1e 18:05, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

• Regazzoni was killed when the Chrysler Voyager he was driving collided head-on into the rear of a lorry If was into the rear then the two vehicles were not head-on.

Done. Although I'd like a better reference - newspaper writers are too prone to use of clichés like 'head on'. 4u1e 18:05, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

• It is obvious that the 1980 accident ended his F1 career, but this should be stated explicitly instead of being inferred.

Done. 4u1e 18:05, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

• A couple of statements are a little too gushing e.g. his rehabilitation became an inspirational story. A couple of things need referencing: Regazzoni won back his racing license despite the prejudices of the authorities and Tecno offered Regazzoni the use of one of their F3 chassis for 1967, where his reliable, fast performances earnt him the offer of a works Tecno drive in Formula Two for the following year.
• What were the reasons for his changes of team?
• I don't know whether the material will be available, but the Personal life section could do with being fleshed out a little. For example, where did he live in adult life?

Hope this helps. Oldelpaso 13:49, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks - good comments. I'll have a stab at implementing them. Cheers. 4u1e 16:38, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Yannismarou

• "A single season with BRM then lead Regazzoni back to Ferrari for a further three years." Maybe past tense ("led") is better here?

Done. Thanks for the catch. 4u1e 22:18, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

• "Personal and early life". IMO this chapter is very stubby. Can't you enrich it with more infos about his early years and family?

Ideally yes, but I'm not sure I've got the material to do it. Noted and will keep an eye out. 4u1e 22:18, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

• Some sections such as "Sports car racing" have no citations, and others such as "1970-1972: Ferrari" or "After Formula One" are undercited. Try to have at least one citation for each paragraph.

Comment: With some of the F1 paras it's because there is no more information there than can be gleaned from the championship results. I don't believe in using inline refs for race results, because the articles would be full to overflowing with them, so that's the one thing I use a 'blanket' reference for (see 'Footnotes'). I think the real problem you've identified is that those sections could use beefing up in terms of content. I'll see what can be done. 4u1e 09:19, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

• "1978: Shadow" is also stubby. Maybe you could merge it with the following years, but again this may be just my personal preference!--Yannismarou 13:22, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

For some reason that season is always covered very briefly. If anything it would be merged with the preceding season (also with a small team, also not much to say). 4u1e 22:18, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Comment Can I just say thanks to Yannismarou and Oldelpaso for the useful comments. This has been (sadly) far more helpful than a standard Peer Review, I really appreciate the time you've taken to comment. 4u1e 22:18, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Transgender

Currently WP:LGBT's monthly collaboration. We have a dream that eventually every collaboration will result in an FA. Tips as to how to get there in this particular case would be appreciated. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 10:14, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

imho:

• Phrases like "these terms are explained below", "see 'Transsexual' below", etc. need to be by presenting the concepts better. I don't want to scroll down just to see what a word means.
• "Origins" can probably be expanded.
• This article would be confusing for anyone unfamiliar with the subject. It seems to throw too many unfamiliar terms at the reader all at once (for example: "Transgender identity includes many overlapping sub-categories. These include transsexual; cross-dresser; transvestite; consciously androgynous people; genderqueer; people who live cross-gender; drag kings; and drag queens. Usually not included, because in most cases it involves a paraphilia and is not a specific gender issue, are transvestic fetishists. These terms are explained below.").
• "Many people whom this article would define as transgender reject the term altogether"
• The article contradicts itself. At one point it claims "[transgender] would include anyone, male or female, who chooses to wear clothing normally worn by the opposite sex". A little later it claims transvestic fetishists are "Usually not included, because in most cases it involves a paraphilia and is not a specific gender issue".
• The article seems to get off topic when discussing transsexualism, cross dressing, drag, transvestic fetishism, without tying them back to transgender.
• The section "Transgender Individuals in non-Western cultures" shouldn't be a bulleted list. Actually, merging with another section or creating a new section "History of transgender" might make sense. I don't like the idea of treating the entire article with a Western bias and neglecting non-Western concepts until the very end.
• Weasel words are used in numerous places.
• I think clearly differentiating between sex and gender and transgender and transsexual early in the article would be helpful.
• Obviously need to cite sources.

-- Ash Lux ^{(talk | contribs)} 05:45, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

• In the Origins section, the sentence "This group is also sometimes known as transgenderists or "non-op transsexual people" — see the Transsexual section for more information" is confusing. What group are we talking about? -- Ash Lux ^{(talk | contribs)} 06:03, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi there. :-) My take on the article:

• Get refs for the citation needed tags (obviously).

• Origins section looks okay. Explains pretty good the difference with transsexual. Perhaps last paragraph ('More recently...') could be expanded/cleared up a bit?

• Transgender identity section is a bit tough to read. Too many technical (and not widely known) concepts presented at once seemingly arbitrarily. Someone not familiar with the topic might switch off at this point. Not sure if "gender dysphoria" and "gender identity disorder" should be included in this section -they are considered mental illnesses, not identities. Maybe they should be included into a new section. Don't like too much how they are presented either -'srictly speaking', 'Some have argued in favor of the idea of "gender giftedness."' (Who? Plus weasel word), 'there is strong debate as to whether they should actually be considered a mental illness at all' (give me a ref then). The 'Many mental health care proffesionals...' paragraph needs to either get refs (and strike out weasel word 'many') and name names or be deleted altogether (sorry, it personally irks me when someone accusses mental health proffesionals of ignorance without providing sources for those statements. I'm not saying it's not true, just that you gotta back up those claims or refrain from making them).

• The transsexual section is a bit long, isn't it? I mean, there's a link to the main article. And it hasn't got a single ref.

• I agree with Ashlux about the article seeming to go off-topic when discussing cross-dresser, drag, genderqueer...

• Contrast with sexual orientation section should be placed before in the article. Its first paragraph should clearly state why (Trans-)gender identity is a fundamentally different concept than that of sexual orientation. Refs needed again.

• Kudos for the Transgender Individuals in non-Western cultures section. Needs work (and refs), but it's a very good idea.

That's it for now. :-) Hope it helps. Raystorm 14:47, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Knock knock? Is this PR still active? Raystorm 14:30, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Good question :-) -- Ash Lux ^{(talk | contribs)} 19:38, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

"To Do" list

Point	Made by	Status
Not sure if "gender dysphoria" and "gender identity disorder" should be included in this section -they are considered mental illnesses, not identities. Maybe they should be included into a new section. Don't like too much how they are presented either -'srictly speaking', 'Some have argued in favor of the idea of "gender giftedness."' (Who? Plus weasel word), 'there is strong debate as to whether they should actually be considered a mental illness at all' (give me a ref then). The 'Many mental health care proffesionals...' paragraph needs to either get refs (and strike out weasel word 'many') and name names or be deleted altogether (sorry, it personally irks me when someone accusses mental health proffesionals of ignorance without providing sources for those statements. I'm not saying it's not true, just that you gotta back up those claims or refrain from making them).	Raystorm	Done Editwikipediausername 23:55, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
Obviously need to cite sources.	Ashlux	Doing... Editwikipediausername 02:27, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
Weasel words are used in numerous places.	Ashlux	Doing... Editwikipediausername 02:27, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
Phrases like "these terms are explained below", "see 'Transsexual' below", etc. need to be by presenting the concepts better. I don't want to scroll down just to see what a word means.	Ashlux	Doing... Editwikipediausername 02:27, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
Actually, merging with another section or creating a new section "History of transgender" might make sense. I don't like the idea of treating the entire article with a Western bias and neglecting non-Western concepts until the very end.	Ashlux	N I'm not sure this is doable. There is an enormous number of transgender expressions throughout the world and human history. The Two-Spirit article tried to list them all and came up with a list that was way longer than the original article: so much so, in fact, they had to transwiki it here. The proposed article "History of transgender" would be about as big as, um, this article. Editwikipediausername 02:27, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
This article would be confusing for anyone unfamiliar with the subject. It seems to throw too many unfamiliar terms at the reader all at once (for example: "Transgender identity includes many overlapping sub-categories. These include transsexual; cross-dresser; transvestite; consciously androgynous people; genderqueer; people who live cross-gender; drag kings; and drag queens. Usually not included, because in most cases it involves a paraphilia and is not a specific gender issue, are transvestic fetishists. These terms are explained below.").	Ashlux	N I'm not sure this can be fixed. I've dealt with this as best I can by moving bits to new sections and copyediting, but further reduction would be difficult without removing references to TS/CD/TV/AD/GQ/CG/DK/DQ/TVF/IS's altogether, which would gut the article. Editwikipediausername 02:27, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
Transgender identity section is a bit tough to read. Too many technical (and not widely known) concepts presented at once seemingly arbitrarily. Someone not familiar with the topic might switch off at this point.	Raystorm	see above
I agree with Ashlux about the article seeming to go off-topic when discussing cross-dresser, drag, genderqueer...	Raystorm	see above
"Many people whom this article would define as transgender reject the term altogether"	Ashlux	Done
The article contradicts itself. At one point it claims "[transgender] would include anyone, male or female, who chooses to wear clothing normally worn by the opposite sex". A little later it claims transvestic fetishists are "Usually not included, because in most cases it involves a paraphilia and is not a specific gender issue".	Ashlux	Done
The section "Transgender Individuals in non-Western cultures" shouldn't be a bulleted list.	Ashlux	Done
Kudos for the Transgender Individuals in non-Western cultures section. Needs work (and refs), but it's a very good idea.	Raystorm	Done
I think clearly differentiating between sex and gender and transgender and transsexual early in the article would be helpful.	Ashlux	Done...well, done-ish. The TG/TS differentiation is there, but towards the bottom as it turned out.
In the Origins section, the sentence "This group is also sometimes known as transgenderists or "non-op transsexual people" — see the Transsexual section for more information" is confusing. What group are we talking about?	Ashlux	Done
Get refs for the citation needed tags (obviously).	Raystorm	Done
The transsexual section is a bit long, isn't it? I mean, there's a link to the main article. And it hasn't got a single ref.	Raystorm	Done
Contrast with sexual orientation section should be placed before in the article. Its first paragraph should clearly state why (Trans-)gender identity is a fundamentally different concept than that of sexual orientation. Refs needed again.	Raystorm	Done...well, done-ish. The TG/SO differentiation is currently point 4 in a list of 11
"Origins" can probably be expanded.	Ashlux	Done

Editwikipediausername 02:27, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Gunston Hall

Hello! Gunston Hall is a piece of Georgian architecture and was owned by George Mason, a United States Founding Father. I welcome all suggestions for improvement, but I am unsure of the reliability of a few of the references, so it would be great to get another opinion on that. Thanks! ArmedBlowfish (talk|mail) 00:03, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

The article is generally structurally sound and gives a good overview of the subject. Some comments:

• Regarding references: there is something of an overeliance on the offical website, which will almost certainly express a sympathetic point of view. As you've stated the source explicitly in the most contentious cases this isn't so much of a problem, but more diversity in the references would be helpful. The one place where its use is a concern is for the statement no other rooms with chinoiserie woodwork are known to have existed in colonial America. I imagine you've found more or less all the online information about Gunston Hall, but if possible borrowing some of the print sources listed in the official site's bibliography from the library would be of use. I wouldn't use the FXVA reference as it is a tourist brochure, and the location of the mansion is sufficiently straghtforward not to require a reference anyway. The US Navy reference is a dead link at the moment.
• Things without references which could do with one:
  • The various carvings in the mansion were most likely the joint work of both William Buckland and William Bernard Sears
  • Of the bedchambers, the four corner rooms were considered the nicest. Also try to avoid using the word nicest.
• Provide metric conversions of distances in parentheses, and use words instead of figures for numbers of twenty or less.
• There are a few redundant uses of "also" and temporal terms such as "currently" which can be removed. A far better explanation of this than I can give is at User:Tony1/How_to_satisfy_Criterion_1a#Eliminating_redundancy.
• The passive voice (could be, would have) is used a couple of times when the active voice would be more appropriate. e.g. change The attic could be accessed through one of the inner bedrooms to The attic was accessible through one of the inner bedrooms

Hope this helps. Oldelpaso 11:56, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Thank you so much! Working on it.... Armed Blowfish (talk|mail) 15:54, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Again, thank you for the help! *Hopefully*, I have fixed all of the problems above, except for the lack of source variety / offline sources, which will take time. Would you be willing to take another look at it? — Armed Blowfish (talk|mail) 20:26, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Looking good. One thing I neglected to mention before is that the section about the visitors centre and shop is a little brochure-like. The information about admission prices should be removed. It should state what is there rather than suggesting what visitors can do. Oldelpaso 19:24, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

I fixed up the section. Thank you so much!  : ) Armed Blowfish (talk|mail) 21:43, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

I have one piece of software that estimates the grade level readability (unknown method) at 17.1, while another estimates the Flesch-Kincaide grade level readability at 10.9, with a Flesch reading ease of 45.5. I don't know if this is good or bad. — Armed Blowfish (talk|mail) 18:55, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

• I started to copy edit this, but the ref system used makes it hard to do so (that is my problem) but to me the text seems very verbose, with ambiguities and too many " most likely"s and "according to"s (8 in fact) - if something is known as fact say so, if it not known state it as an accreditation or assertion. I don't see how the house can be mostly the design of Buckland if the exterior walls were finished when he first arrived on the scene. "According to Luke Beckerdite" - who is Luke Beckerdite? The text need to be sharpened and refined. It is an interesting page on a fascinating subject but is does need to be pulled together and made less repetitious Giano 23:45, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments and edits! I have excised all uses of the phrase "according to" in favour of other forms of attribution. The most likelies and probablies often occur when the sources themselves are uncertain, because they are making guesses based on archaeological evidence. There is probably a better way to handle that, but I will have to look at it rather than just taking them out. Luke Beckerdite was an author of a chapter of an online book, which is cited. Anyway, I will do my best to more fully address your concerns when I have time. Again, thanks!  : ) Armed Blowfish (talk|mail) 00:28, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

If it is not known for sure then something is an accreditation or an assertion. If someone is an author than say so in the the text. eg The author Fred Smith has asserted that..., or claimed that... on the basis of etc etc etc. Don't just suddenly drop in unexplained a strange name, even if he is listed in the refs. It is a good page on the whole - I'm sure it will get there. Giano 07:14, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

See below. — Armed Blowfish (talk|mail) 15:30, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

This is a great beginning to this article, but there are some things that need work, in my humble opinion:

• Besides a few sentences and the section on construction, the article doesn't really outline the history of the house and the grounds. Take a look at Giano's marvelous article on West Wycombe Park. There is just as much information on the family who occupied the house as there is on the architecture. Additionally, you might consider merging the section on the other Mason plantations into this history. Along those same lines, I would redirect the other plantations to this article unless the articles can be expanded and the plantations are notable enough to warrent separate mention.

A great deal of time is spent on the interior, with little on the exterior. I would create a section on the exterior and combine the interior sections (including basement). In addition, the Gardens and Outbuildings sections could be combined as well.

• The lone sentence on the construction of the house should be placed in the first paragraph of the introduction.
• There are portraits of both Mason and Buckland in their respective articles, these might be included as well.

Your work so far is quite admirable, but this still needs work before this goes for FAC. I hope this is helpful! *Exeunt* Ganymead | Dialogue? 17:37, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your advice! I'll do my best to expand on the history, etc. I recently found a new source that should help with that.  : ) Armed Blowfish (talk|mail) 22:15, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Hopefully, there will be enough text to add pictures of Mason and Buckland once I expand the article to include informations in some three new sources I found, listed in Gunston Hall#Further_reading.  : ) Armed Blowfish (talk|mail) 15:27, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

User:IvoShandor

Just glanced at some of the above. I would note that a sentence using "was" is also passive voice.

The attic was accessible through one of the inner bedrooms

That's passive. The subject has to act on the verb for it not to be....

That sentence is hard to construct without passive. _______ accessed the attic through the inner bedrooms. That is how the sentence could be constructed non-passively. Not sure what the missing word would be though.

I hang around peer review a lot so I will try to complete a thorough review for you soon. IvoShandor 10:10, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! : ) Armed Blowfish (talk|mail) 10:21, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Comments by Mcginnly

What an interesting article, well written, nice images, well referenced - it's a good FA candidate I'd have thought. A few comments:-

1. Presumably this building is listed on the National Register of Historic Places - this should get a mention and the Category:National Register of Historic Places should be included, but please - no infobox!
2. Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (numbers), there should be a non-breaking space -   between a number and the unit of measurement. For example, instead of 8 km, use 8 km, which when you are editing the page, should look like: 8 km.^[?]
3. In the last paragraph Other Mason plantations - 'George Mason' recurs too much in the text - maybe replace with 'his' and 'he' where possible. (I know there's several G Masons but it gets a bit repetitive)
4. I wonder whether its worthwhile combining the rather short 'outbuildings' section with the 'garden section' into a 'Gardens and outbuildings' section?
5. Unlike other 18th century houses of Gunston Hall's stature, the layout of the second floor is unlike the layout of the floor below - 2 'unlike's and 2 'layout of's - maybe replace the second clause with 'the layout of the second floor is entirely dissimilar to the floor below'
6. It's difficult to imagine the 'rococo, chinoiserie, and Gothic' interiors - these certainly aren't evidenced by the rather sedate image of the corridor - are there no images of these rooms we might be able to include?
7. 'Although chinoiserie was popular in Britain, the Gunston Hall museum website says Gunston was the only house with this decoration in colonial America.[7]' - No need to include a mention of the website in the text and provide a citation - one or the other.
8. 'In November, when Buckland arrived, the exterior walls of Gunston Hall were probably complete' - if it's 'probably' we need to cite who asserts it was probably complete - or is this our own assertion?
9. There's a few mention of 'private, non-public rooms' - surely a private room is, by definition, non-public? redundancy. It's probably better to include a short paragraph explaining how the house would be used at the time, for entertaining etc. and how the house was split between those functions and those for the family's habitation.
10. I'm personally quite interested in Servant's quarters and the way they are integrated into the public/private plan of such houses - you mention the outbuildings providing accomodation for slaves - but where was the kitchen in relation to the dining room - how was the food transported there - where was the laundry?
11. Ideally a plan would be great. I'm happy to draw one up if you have any information I can go on? --Mcginnly | Natter 10:35, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! I am starting to make changes per you. : ) Armed Blowfish (talk|mail) 13:09, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I made some changes, but some of your suggestions will take more time. I should be able to add more pictures when I add more text. I have found three new potential sources since the peer review started, which are currently listed in Gunston Hall#Further_reading. HABS provides a lot of pictures, so finding a picture that shows architectural detail won't be hard. However, all the indoor photos are greyscale.

HABS also provides architectural drawings, however they do not scale well to small sizes. They should be public domain, so perhaps you could make them readable at sizes suitable for inclusion in the article? That would be most appreciated. See first floor, second floor, basement, house and garden, and grounds. Of course, I doubt there is need for five plans, but perhaps you can decide which are most important. Note that you will probable have to download the TIFFs in order to be able to read the text.

Unfortunately, archaeologists can't seem to find the slave quarters. One of the new potential sources seems to provide a lot of information about the activities that occurred at Gunston Hall Plantation, although it is often unclear if it is talking about GHP specifically, or plantations of that time period in general. I won't be able to use it until I go to the library again. It provides information about the crops grown, goods produced, why the plantation is situated near the Potomac, etc. — Armed Blowfish (talk|mail) 15:53, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Probablies

The uncertain statements in the second paragraph of Gunston Hall#Construction, and how best to attribute them, seems to be a popular point of discussion. Perhaps repeating the reference at the end of every sentence will do? Armed Blowfish (talk|mail) 15:23, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Benjamin Franklin Tilley

Another rewrite in the vein of Edwin Taylor Pollock (recently promoted to FA!) and I'm looking for suggestions on how to improve this for GA and, possibly, FA. Tilley at least died while in the Navy so I don't expect any "after the Navy" comments. ;) Specifically, I have a very large section on what he did in Samoa because that is the major thing his career is remembered for. (And because it's very well documented. Serving on such and such ship which didn't do much in particular is difficult to track down in the history books.) I look forward to your comments.JRP 18:04, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Kirill Lokshin

This is an excellent article; it should be ready for FAC shortly. A few minor formatting points to fix, though:

• The templates at the bottom would look better after the references section rather than before it, I think; they interrupt the flow too much, otherwise.
• Are author names available for the various newspaper articles being cited?
• The mix of citation formats caused by the templates is somewhat messy; I would suggest moving to a common format by hand-formatting the citations. (But this may be a point of personal preference, so you shouldn't feel obligated to do this if you prefer the template-generated ones.)

Other than that, this looks very good; keep up the great work! Kirill Lokshin 00:19, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

• • Thanks for the great comments. I'll move the templates. As for the author names, I include them when I have them... but mostly I don't have any bylines. I'm sorry. (I have PDF scans of the articles so if there were there, I would see them. Ah well.) For the different citation styles, I agree with you that the mixture of newspaper/journal/book citations templates looks poor. BUT, I'm hoping that someday the template maintainers will fix that rather than hard-coding the citations now. Again, thanks for your comments. JRP 00:29, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Metabolism

Recently expanded into what I hope is a comprehensive and broad review of the chemical basis of life. Expert and non-expert comments and criticisms would be very welcome. TimVickers 03:52, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

NOTE - Now nominated as a FAC. Nomination page is Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Metabolism. Thanks for all the feedback! TimVickers 19:11, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Zephyris

Excellent depth and breadth of content! All content seems accurate and well referenced. Good NPOV (ie. not concentrated on human metabolism!) with good coverage of the very important, but overlooked, bacterial metabolism. There are a coupe of minor issues I have, which will be changed when I get the time :) :

The table in Metabolism#Key biochemicals - it makes no mention of polypeptides and presents disaccharides as a polymer.

Fixed.

Metabolism#Thermodynamics of living organisms is a bit ugly - with my physics background I hope to be able to clarify and clear this up.

Sure, I was trying to write it for an non-expert reader with a biological slant, perhaps it is too simplified?

The problems a combination of slightly too simplified and some unusual terminology, chaos in place of disorder for example. - Zephyris _Talk 15:29, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Metabolism#Regulation and control could use a basic example - insulin regulation of glycolysis/gluconeogenesis in liver/muscle cells?

Good point. I'll work on that this evening. TimVickers 16:24, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

New paragraph and diagram on insulin added. TimVickers 16:37, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Very nice :) - Zephyris _Talk 18:48, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

I might attack Image:Metabolic pathways small.png to make it link to the processes it presents...

All in all brilliant, thanks to the massive improvement by TimVickers. - Zephyris _Talk 16:11, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Fvasconcellos

Looks great—well-written, well-referenced and quite comprehensive. A few comments:

• Under "Key biochemicals":
  • "...polymers such as DNA proteins." DNA and proteins? Am I reading this wrong? :)

Typo!

• • In the "Coenzymes and cofactors" subsection, I feel a bit more space could be devoted to cofactors: explaining more explicitly what they are and perhaps giving a few examples?

These have been re-divided into "coenzymes" and "Minerals and cofactors"

• • Image:Hemoglobin.jpg would be better as a high-resolution PNG. I realize this image is used on several pages, so perhaps making a better version would be a good idea—it could then be used throughout WP;
  • "In "Minerals": "...nerve and muscle function as these cells..." This sounds a bit off to me.

Reworded.

• Under "Anabolism":
  • In the "Proteins" subsection: "Amino acids are made into proteins by being joined together in a chain by peptide bonds between their amino and carboxylate groups."—comprehensible, but a bit of a run-on sentence.

Simplified.

• Finally, under "History", should "ferments" really link to vitalism?

No, removed. Thanks for the comments. TimVickers 18:38, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

• As an aside, Image:A thaliana metabolic network.png—awesome.

I can't find anything seriously amiss with this article, but then again this is the non-expert review :) I personally think it's excellent, if a bit long (at 70 kB)—I'd look forward to comments from other reviewers. I presume you're aiming for FA? Fvasconcellos 17:21, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Eventually, but it will need polished first. TimVickers 00:59, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm planning to do a remake of the haemaglobin pictures, highlighting the haem groups and their binding to the protein backbone. - Zephyris _Talk 15:27, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the new picture! TimVickers 18:44, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

BirgitteSB

• Overall another quality article. My largest problem here is that the article does not always to follow it's own structure. While it is largely structured to deal with catabolism and anabolism separately, the text seems flow more topically with processes being discussed if they follow the more specific topic no matter which heading it happens to fall under. This makes me wonder if the article would be more natural if was structured differently. Maybe have two small section on the general concept of catabolism and anabolism and then proceed topically. Carbohydrates are built by anabolism how by who and used in catabolism how by who. Proteins are built by anabolism how by who and used in catabolism how by who. Lipids, minerals, etc. Otherwise keep the current structure but clean it up so you are strictly dealing with catabolism under the catabolism heading etc.
  • "Lipids" Many other lipids are made in cells, notably steroids such as cholesterol Is part of this paragraph missing? I don't see any earlier mention of lipids being made elsewhere. I now understand you were trying to say "Many other lipids (not mentioned previously) are made in cells (as well)". I suppose this could be worded more clearly.

Reworded for clarity.

• • "Coenzymes" These coenzymes are therefore continuously recycled. I find this sentence confusing in the current context. I went on reading about ATP with idea it was that is was not actually consumed but left over to be re-used. After re-reading and thinking about it I now understand what you are trying to say, but it could be clearer.

Reworded for clarity.

• • "Catabolism" I am confused as to what actually constitutes catabolism in phototrophs (At this point), especially since the opening sentence reads: Catabolism is the set of metabolic processes that release energy by breaking down and oxidising food molecules. This opening paragraph needs to be inclusive of all five subsections following not just the first (animal centric) three.

Reworded to be broader.

• • "Digestion" Animals secrete these enzymes into their guts, while in microbes, digestive enzymes are secreted into the cell's surroundings. I find this a slightly misleading as it is suggesting these to methods are in opposition, but technically they are very similar. The gut is simply a specialized part of of an organism's surroundings, it is not technically part of the organism.

Well, these are in opposition, as microbes don't have guts. It doesn't actually say anything about any mechanistic differences, only the obvious anatomical one.

I suppose I am reading this more like "Animal secrete these ezymes [internally] while in microbes, digestive enzymes are secreted [externally]" with many readers possibly misled on the fact that in this context internal to organisms = external to cells. But this is very slight so don't worry about it.--BirgitteSB 13:56, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

I thought of something here. What do you think of: "Microbes simply secrete digestive enzymes into the cell's surroundings, while animals only secrete these enzymes from specialized cells in their guts"--BirgitteSB 17:55, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! Reworded as per suggestion. TimVickers 17:07, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

• • "Carbon fixation" Now you have basically labelled photosynthesis (as a lay reader might understand it) as catabolism (In plants, photosystem II uses light energy to remove electrons from water, releasing oxygen as a waste product) and anabolism (Photosynthesis is the synthesis of glucose from sunlight, carbon dioxide (CO2) and water, with oxygen produced as a waste product) within four paragraphs. Somehow you must differentiate these processes to the lay reader.

This is a tricky one, any suggestions?

Rearrange the article to handle light energy topically? This is the real problem with the article: to seperate catabolism and anabolism you must assume the reader has some understanding of things like photosynthesis as a whole. Because when you try to explain photosynthesis you end folowing the energy from one process to another. So I really think the only solutions are to A) not explain photosynthesis as a whole B) Rearrange the article to follow various processes through their cycles (Photosynthesis as whole, Protiens manufactured and digested, Fat tissue stored and then used, etc.)--BirgitteSB 17:44, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

That class-by-class approach as it's own problems, since it will then be hard to make broad generalisations about the features shared between different parts of metabolism and instead turn the article into a laundry list of metabolic pathways. The two possible approaches each have their own advantages and disadvantages. I've tried adding a new lead to the sunlight capture section to differentiate the two processes for the lay reader. TimVickers 18:11, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

• • "Carbohydrates and glycans" Although the fat in adipose tissue is a major store of energy, the fatty acids in these stores cannot be converted to glucose through gluconeogenesis as vertebrates cannot convert acetyl-CoA into pyruvate. This qualification confuses me. Do only vertebrates have adipose tissue or can fatty acids actually be converted to glucose through gluconeogenesis in some metabolisms? Also is after long-term starvation, humans need to produce ketone bodies really limited to humans? On a separate note wouldn't conversion of fatty tissue to glucose really be catabolism anyways?

Reword, broaden, the classification could be argued either way, since the breakdown to acetyl-CoA is catabolic but gluconeogenisis is certainly anabolic.

• • "Xenobiotics and redox metabolism" Do xenobiotic-metabolizing enzymes act significantly differently outside of humans? If not it might be best to first explain the general three-step process and then mention which enzymes are particularly used by humans. More information on different methods of dealing with this issue would be nice.

Added material on microbial xenobiotic metabolism and biodegradation.

• • "Thermodynamics of living organisms" I wonder if this whole section is really most appropriate in this particular article. It certainly breaks the flow of the article for me.

I think I need it, since this is an area of research and relates to the discussion of energy flows in all the above sections. Originally, I had this at the beginning. Maybe it could be merged with another section?

• • "Evolution" When talking of the loss of metabolic pathways it might be good to reiterate the previously mentioned example of essential amino acids.
  • "History" This section needs the most work. It seems to lack focus overall . What is important to understand about the history of this topic?--BirgitteSB 19:42, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
    • I was just thinking a way to improve the history section might be to change to simply a Historiography section. Then you do not have to worry about how to relate events but only papers.--BirgitteSB 13:56, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

The problem I faced with this is that it is so broad! It will have to be a history of the first few hundred years of biochemistry in a few paragraphs. Daunting, to say the least! TimVickers 16:00, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Zephyris II

• Would it be worth having a section on the significant differences in metabolism between organisms? A table of comparison of different metabolic pathways/major metabolic products or modified versions of Image:Metabolic pathways small.png may be suitable.
  • Further to the above, indication of the different metabolic processes tissue to tissue would be usefull (though maby more appropriate in human metabolism or metabolome.
• Metabolism#Investigation and manipulation could use a clear definition of metabolome.- Zephyris _Talk 08:56, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

These are both excellent ideas, but would indeed fit best in a Human metabolism article. In this article I've tried to make a broad generalisation of metabolism in all organisms and point up the differences as I go along. To be comprehensive a table we would need bacteria, archaea, protists, animals and a plant.

added to Anabolism section. TimVickers 18:39, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Metabolic process	Bacteria	Archaea	Protists	Animals	Plants
Photoautotrophy	Common	Common	Common	Absent	Ubiquitous
Photoheterotrophy	Rare	Rare	Rare	Absent	Absent
Chemoautotrophy	Common	Common	Rare	Abscent	Abscent
Chemoheterotrophy	Common	Common	Common	Ubiquitous	Rare

Coolios (m:sp: abscent ---> absent) - Zephyris _Talk 18:49, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Simeon I of Bulgaria

I'd appreciate any sort of review, but a thorough review of the entire article will be just perfect. I'm totally determined to bring this to FA, so feel free to be as critical as possible :) I've submitted it at Wikipedia:WikiProject League of Copyeditors/proofreading because I'm not a native speaker, but still, don't hesitate to comment on the quality of the prose too. In short, if there's anything with the article that bothers you, let me know. Todor→Bozhinov 21:10, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

bcasterline

Interesting article. Some comments:

• Citations in the intro are unnecessary if that information is available later in the article (which most of it should be per WP:LEAD).
• I wonder if "Late rule" can be reorganized into different sections. Right now it's sort of an unconnected jumble of paragraphs.
• Some grammatical/wording issues I couldn't sort out:
  • "Simeon did not trust the Byzantine envoy, sending him to prison and ordering that the way of Byzantine navy in the Danube be fenced with ropes and chains..." =? "Simeon did not trust the envoy and, after sending him to prison, ordered the Byzantine navy's route into the Danube closed off with ropes and chains"
  • "together with the seditions in southern Italy..." =? "together with revolts in southern Italy"
  • "The Bulgarian regiments attacked and again defeated the Byzantines, destroying some of their last units and withdrawing to Bulgaria." Rework the "and withdrawing to Bulgaria" part.
  • I would replace the word "force" (as in "forcing Simeon to prepare for war") with a less emphatic alternative. It seems dubious to me in terms of POV/OR -- in that example, was he really forced to go to war?

Certainly can't complain about too few references: in fact, I wonder if it's really necessary to have so many inline citations. You might consider listing some of the most important texts just as references, leaving the citation of individual page numbers for the more controversial claims. But wait to see what the people at FAC have to say. -- bcasterline • talk 19:28, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the review! I'd personally like to keep the references in the lead, even summaries should have citations in my opinion, and there are some parts that just wouldn't fit well enough outside the intro to be referenced there.

Not sure if "Late rule" is a jumble, it's just that Simeon's actions of the time were somehow very complex and often difficult to understand and arrange chronologically. Still, I tried to sort things out a bit by separating the section into two.

As for "force", I noticed I've used the word far too often and substituted it at least five or six times, often with a milder synonym. I've also reworded the other parts you mentioned. My sources often explicitly say that he was forced to wage war, but I guess Greeks would have a different point of view on that matter ;)

I don't think having too many inline citations could ever be a problem. I've specifically cited the more "controversial" parts. Todor→Bozhinov 20:09, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Chana School

• Looking to bring this article up to GA status, to which it will be submitted after this review. Any comments and/or edits would be appreciated.A mcmurray (talk • contribs) 04:59, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

User:Ronbo76

I had hoped someone else would be the first to review. So far, nadie. A couple of quick recommendations:

• Is this a museum? It is a museum; If so, needs a cat. Done

• It's not a museum in the traditional sense, in that it doesn't have hours, it's not really "open" or "closed." It is kind of a place where they take field trips to and such. But yeah, Category:Museums in Illinois looks like the best bet.A mcmurray (talk • contribs)

Know the type. However, in the article and at one of the links it is called a museum. Some museums like this are used mostly by schools for field trips as you mention. Ronbo76 14:56, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

• Pictures look as if black and white. First good/great because it makes it look like a period piece. But, the color on the rest is subdued. Recommend reshooting to bring up color/contrast.

• Ah yes, the morning sun and a crappy camera.A mcmurray (talk • contribs)

• I replaced one image with a slightly better one I had on Commons.A mcmurray (talk • contribs)

• In first paragraph, the article states there are six registered sites with five listed. Might as well list them all. Done

• Just went ahead and removed the extraneous information, it was a remnant of when the article was a stub.A mcmurray (talk • contribs)

Good call. The cat at the bottom of the page links to registered sites in IL. Don't know if there is a separate break-out cat for this county, etc. Ronbo76 14:56, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

• There isn't, just the city cat and it is part of the county cat, but only Cook County has its own Historic Places cat in Illinois, the others just don't have enough places, not to say some don't have a lot.A mcmurray

• Red wikilink for bell house - go with Bell tower or cupola. Done
• The perpendicular addition is mentioned twice. Once in the initial paragraph and near the end. Could stand a copyedit to shorten it in the first paragraph (one line = it feautures a perpendicular addition unique to period). Done
• Would look at the Manual of Style to see how the dates are formatted for the references (should it be notes or references?); in most articles I see, the first time a date is seen, it is formatted for user preferences (to include references). Done

• This and the next concern are aspects of the MOS that only became familiar with after the article was complete, will alter accordingly.A mcmurray (talk • contribs)

• Dates. Lots of years mentioned but no hard and fast dates. Dates that read as of 2006 or the 1950s can be formatted. See the MOS again.

• I don't generally link straight years without dates, would you recommend I do in some instances?A mcmurray (talk • contribs)

Straight dates are not linked (you are correct). What I meant, was that if some hard dates like when the school opened on Month day, Year; that or other dates could be linked. Usually hard dates as when it was moved, restored, etc are available. The as of Year formatting is a recent change that had been previously used. It is used to link important generational dates (if I remember correctly). The 19th century dates that could/are referred to as such should be linked IMHO but with MOS consultation. Ronbo76 14:56, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

• If I had to rate this article, it would be Class A, Mid. Don't think that is GA. Not sure. Recommend a copyedit.

• Will receive several copy edits before submission.A mcmurray (talk • contribs)

• More research will be required but I should be able to come up with a couple of dates.A mcmurray

• May want to get other project tags like architecture tag (I know they do buildings and bridges). Do not know if the schools project would be interested. I have their tag on my userpage. There is probably a museum project and maybe even a parks project.

• Architecture freaks out if buildings don't have "worldwide" notability, but the others, go for it if you want, I will do it soon either way.A mcmurray (talk • contribs)

Would have thought the reference to Italian reference would bring some interest. Never hurts to visit their project talkpage and ask. Ronbo76 14:56, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

• Funny thing is, I am a member and have received edit summary "talking tos" about it in the past, but I will drop them note, I don't think they like me much because I tagged a bunch of articles that they didn't cover in their scope. And with all the DYKs I get you'd think they would want the exposure. ; )A mcmurray

• Give me either a street address or approximate coordinates, and I will put a geolinks color scale photo link on it.

• 201 N. River Rd., Oregon, Illinois.A mcmurray (talk • contribs)

From the description, I found the park but could not narrow down the building looking at it through Google maps. Would you have an idea N/S/E/W of that point and approximate distance it is? Ronbo76 14:56, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

• I don't have the exact coordinates, not sure where to find that info other than Google Earth. The park is just off the river, along the road, which you said you found. It is on the east side of the river, across from the main part of the city of Oregon, IL. The school building itself sits next to a large stand of white pines, so those might be obscuring your view because they are on both sides of the building.A mcmurray

Geolink added. Figuratively speaking, I am in the ballpark but need someone to ID where the building sits. BTW, friendly copyedits taking place. Ronbo76 20:04, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

• I am fading fast. Will look at article in morning. Ronbo76 07:06, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

• Any famous alumni? Any famous teachers?

• Good question, the history is a bit obscure. Will have to wait until my next trip to one of the small town libraries nearby.IvoShandor

• Is the architect known and does this person have a Wikilink?

• Architect doesn't appear to be known (per Google search), no wikilink existsIvoShandor

• Link transom, cornice, facade. Link the first occasion of gable (in same paragraph as gabled). DoneIvoShandor
• A dollar sign is linked in the article. Isn't there a better link for dollars USD that formats the number to user preferences? DoneIvoShandor
• Search for south face. Recommend southern facade. DoneIvoShandor
• Water stand is mentioned. What is that?

• Assuming like the modern plastic ones that hold the Culligan man's offerings. Not positive, no internal link available and there wasn't anything strikingly similar at Category:Water, hard to say.IvoShandor

Looking at it again, it is probably a water basin or sink. That was probably very modern back then. I wonder if that could/should be emphasized. Keep water stand and link it to sink. Ronbo76 13:21, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

If you're pretty sure that is what it is, I think that would be a good idea.IvoShandor 13:29, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

I am pretty sure that is what it is. Gotta remember, back in those days running water was a big thing. If they had an outhouse, no sink drains were probably initially available. If you remember old Westerns, a pitcher along with a metal/ceramic bowl was used to wash hands, face, etc. The water stand as written into the article (which I presume came almost directly from one of your sources or references), probably refers to a free standing sink ala podium that had a drain leading outside. We 21 first century take hot & cold water, electricity and phones for granted. Back in the day, that was the latest and greatest thing next to sliced bread. Ronbo76 13:36, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Indeed. Will link. DoneIvoShandor 13:45, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

BTW, if the water stand still exists, a picture would look nice in a gallery. I still recommend reshooting some of the pics to get better contrast. Ronbo76 13:54, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

• Any See also(s) available? Ronbo76 12:34, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

• Possibly the other sites on the Register in the city, maybe some other one room schoolhouse in Illinois, or History of Education. Will come up with something.IvoShandor 13:02, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

• Sources? Good referenced notes. But, in most GA, a separate source is available. Does not have to be online. Ronbo76 13:36, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Print sources aren't necessarily needed (take my recent GA Joseph F. Glidden House), and the last two (and one being the most heavily relied upon) started life as print only, they have simply been transferred online, which makes verification all the easier IMHO, same with those Glidden House refs. I would like to find more sources, but as I said, as a rather obscure item, the Ogle County small town libraries are my only bet really. I am not sure about the museums openness. Though it would be cool to find out. I will look into it.

• Recommend gallery. Also, if the museum does period days with children dressed in role costumes, pictures of that would be nice. Then again, if this is done, the museum might have info on notables. Several museums/historical sites in California have these type history days. If pictures of costumed students taken, recommend they be posted in black and white with a note about being a re-creation. Ronbo76 13:58, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

My plan was to link to a gallery on Commons. Watch, you'll see in a few minutes. : )IvoShandor 14:49, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Recommend another editor from Illinois Project review my comments on Talk:Chana School and re-rate this article. Ronbo76 12:51, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Arbitrary review break

Just thought I would note, I greatly appreciate all of your assistance on this Ronbo. IvoShandor 13:20, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

• As a last note. This article will be going to Good article candidates now, I am archiving this peer review. Before GAC though, I have submitted a request to the League of Copyeditors for a good copy edit or two. Should help. We shall see. IvoShandor 07:56, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Cholangiocarcinoma

I'm looking for feedback on the organization, prose clarity, usefulness, and completeness of this article. Any public-domain images that could be added would be highly appreciated. MastCell 21:51, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

• I have an impressive CT and ERCP image from today. Will add soon or e-mail to you -- 74.12.86.222 01:39, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

That would be great - thanks. MastCell 02:22, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

To do list

• Very interesting. Some comments:
  • Lead is very short and could be expanded.

Done. MastCell ^Talk 18:46, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

• • You could explain more what the significance is of the "obstructive picture" - I think this is related to a question I had further down. Since obstructive jaundice redirects to jaundice, I'd like to see more about what makes a doctor suspect an obstructive cause.

Added a (brief) description of how liver function tests may help differentiate an obstructive cause of jaundice (such as cholangiocarcinoma) from an inflammatory/infectious cause (e.g. hepatitis). Perhaps when I get around to it, more detailed info could be added to liver function test. MastCell ^Talk 17:03, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

• • THe mass of footnotes in the epidemiology section could be condensed. The ones that aren't cited elsewhere can just be fused into one note with multiple references.

Done. Excellent suggestion. MastCell ^Talk 17:09, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

• • The risk factors section is a list that happens not to have bullet points. This needs prosification.

Gave this a shot. MastCell ^Talk 23:41, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

• • There could be more explanation of why PSC is a risk factor, assuming that some mechanism is known. Since it's such a major risk factor, mentioning its prevalence and cause would also be useful.

Tried to address this - the mechanism is really not well-understood as best I know or can find. I debated how much info on PSC to include, since it's so tightly linked epidemiologically, but in the end I didn't want to duplicate a lot of info from the primary sclerosing cholangitis article. The disease is inflammatory and believed to possibly be autoimmune (given its association with the autoimmune disease ulcerative colitis, for example), but even that much is somewhat controversial and murky. MastCell ^Talk 17:33, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

• • Blood tests section - write out (and ideally explain) CEA, and clarify the question of whether it's the serum levels that aren't sensitive enough (not elevated that much above normal) or the tests that aren't sensitive enough to detect the elevation reliably. These refs can be condensed too.

Condensed refs and tried to clarify; there are some conflicting data, but in general blood tests (CEA and CA19-9) may be a useful clue in supporting a suspected diagnosis of cholangiocarcinoma, but they lack the sensitvity/specificity for general screening. MastCell ^Talk 17:52, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

• • Write out 'laparotomy' and use the current link text as an appositive explanation. I don't know if there's a 'standard', but I hate seeing jargony words obscured like that.

Done. MastCell ^Talk 18:00, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

• • What's the direct cause of death in patients that die of this?

In general, the cause of death in people with advanced cholangiocarcinoma is either liver failure from ongoing bile-duct obstruction, or infection of the bile ducts (cholangitis) which occurs because they're blocked and unable to drain properly. Cancer-associated wasting (cachexia) is also a contributor in a lot of cases, as the resulting malnutrition makes people more susceptible to infection. However, I have not been able to find a source to which I could attribute those fairly commonplace observations. MastCell ^Talk 18:14, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

• • It sounds like the Klatkin tumor could fit into the text, one-item see also look wimpy.

Done. MastCell ^Talk 17:16, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

• • Not sure you really need to link March 2007; that page has nothing relevant on it.

Done. MastCell ^Talk 17:19, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Opabinia regalis 01:44, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks - those are all good suggestions. I'll start work on them and strike them through as I think I've addressed them (feel free to comment further or unstrike them if you think the fixes are unsatisfactory). MastCell ^Talk 01:50, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Other comments

Two quick comments:

• Could stand a few WP:DASH fixes. Do we have a guideline on ranges of percentages? "30%-60%" looks right and weird at the same time—I'd like guidance :)
• Caroli's syndrome should be linked or explained.

In my humble opinion, this article is GA quality, as is. Do you intend to nominate it, or expand and go straight to FA in due time? Fvasconcellos 16:51, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

I'll fix the dashes. I was hoping Caroli's had its own page (perhaps it should, but it doesn't), and I don't know enough to write one up without putting in some serious research which I just haven't had time for. Maybe for now I'll insert a short appositive description. I would eventually like to get it into FA status; hopefully it's not too far away. Perhaps I'll go ahead and nominate it for GA, since it may take quite some time at my current rate to address all of the little things that need to be done to get the article into really sparkling shape. MastCell ^Talk 16:57, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Correction: there is an article, under Caroli disease. I've created the appropriate redirects. It's just a stub but at least fleshes out the disease a little. MastCell ^Talk 17:44, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I think I've hit most of the suggestions, and I think there are no major omissions. I'm going to go ahead and nominate it for FA status, and see what the reception is. MastCell ^Talk 19:03, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Angel of Death (song)

Second peer-review, going for FAC soon, would appreciate any feedback, thanks. M3tal H3ad 06:07, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

LuciferMorgan

• Comments;

• Here is a Monstrosity interview where the interviewee mentions the band covering 'Angel of Death', which should satisfy verifiability. It appeared on their 1999 album In Dark Purity - the media section of their official site verifies this. LuciferMorgan 08:43, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

• This Blabbermouth post verifies an Argentine Slayer tribute CD called "Al Sur Del Abismo (Tributo Argentino A Slayer)", where a band called Asinesia covered the song. LuciferMorgan 08:52, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks :) M3tal H3ad 10:51, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

The sample currently used doesn't qualify as fair use because it is 30 secs. Per Wikipedia:Music samples, since the song is 291 seconds, only 10% of a song can be used (30 secs is the maximum if it's a longer song), which would be 29 secs. LuciferMorgan 21:06, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

• From an IGN review of War at the Warfield;

"When he was tearing through "Postmortem" and "Angel of Death," I was waiting for him to go from his baritone growl to that air raid siren shriek, but it didn't happen." LuciferMorgan 19:07, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

List of Caribbean drums

Exhaustive or pretty close to it. This list clears up a lot of confusing terminology (slightly different words used on slightly different islands for slightly different drums), I think, and is easy to use. Suggestions very welcome, as I hope to bring this to WP:FLC soon. Tuf-Kat 02:30, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

• It would be great if the entries marked See Foo where wikilinked with a html anchor to go straight to that refered entry. I don't know the exact template for doing that on WP but there should be one. I also think it would nice if two more columns were added one for number of heads and one for head material. It took me clicking on a link to figure out what was meant by "Use". Maybe "Music" or "Genre" would be a better description?--BirgitteSB 20:41, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm not aware of a template that does that, but it would be nice. I'll take a look around and see if I can find it. I'm wary about adding more columns because I don't want to squeeze it too much - but these're almost all single-headed, I think - most of them don't mention it because that's the norm, but head material might be reasonable. I'll see if I can cook up something this weekend. I agree that the "use" heading is subideal, I've changed it to "tradition", but I'm not committed to that. Tuf-Kat 02:56, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Also it would be great to make the columns sortable like List of Pennsylvania state parks.--BirgitteSB 13:18, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

That's neat! Tuf-Kat 21:19, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

I've decided not to add any additional columns. Some drums don't necessarily have a traditional or especially common head material, and some can even be either double- or single-headed in different circumstances, depending on the maker. So, I think either of those columns would be of dubious value. Tuf-Kat 21:21, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Homer's Phobia

The goal is to turn this into a FA, in the same style as Pilot (House) and the current FAC Cape Feare. Any suggestions for improvments, spelling mistakes and grammatical errors are needed. Is the "Gay steel mill" image decorative fair use? Or is it fine? And any suggestions as to how to increase the lead's sixe? As said any input is greatly welcomed. Gran2 18:46, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

It's quite good, but it could use some work. I think words like offbeat in the "Synopsis" section are a liitle bit POV, and we could improve some parts of the "Synopsis" section in terms of formality in phrasing. As for the citations and factual accuracy, I think it has reached as far it can go, so it wouldn't take long to promote it to featured status.--Orthologist 19:36, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the clean up. As for "offbeat" I personally think that it is okay, but if it was replaced is there an eqivilant word that couldn't be considered the slightest POV? Gran2 21:21, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

You're welcome. In this case, it should be best to follow the standard presentation of fictional persons; we should write that he is portrayed as eccentric. This is not POV, as Homer wonders "how he can be a grown man and still like toys".--Orthologist 17:13, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

The word, used to describe John, appears to have been removed/changed anyway. Gran² 19:51, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

I haven't really read it, but my first glance suggests it's good. I'm unsure what the MOS says about DVD commentaries, but it seems a stretch to credit each speaker separately in the References. (Does that make sense?) It might be better to have footnotes refer to the minute and (approximate) second in the commentary, which would be a bit more informative. Also, people at FAC seem to like a citation even for plot sections. Lastly but most importantly, the Reception seems a little anemic, although I'm unsure specifically how to expand it. Was there any TV Guide coverage? How about articles in the Advocate or other major publications? Surely someone notable railed against the episode, and that should also be mentioned.--Monocrat 05:23, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

I can't do anything right now, but I will look into this later. So from what you are saying it needs a paragraph on "pre-show build up"? Also as for people running against it, I think it was only the censors who tried to pull the plug, which is mentioned extensively in the Prodcution section.Gran² 07:26, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Not necessarily "pre-show build up," but if you have such material (was there a media campaign or lots of news coverage?), add it to Reception or Production or wherever it fits best. As for railing against the episode, I mean more that preachers or conservative pundits who condemned the episode should also be covered.--Monocrat 15:52, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Okay I spent a while searching and all I found was that a guy used it as evidence in his lawsuit against a Russian TV network, stating that he wanted The Simpsons to be banned from airing as it promoted homosexuality. I've put it in the article (obviously in more detail) as it seemed pretty interesting. If anyone else can find any other info out, that would be good. Gran² 22:14, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

I have referenced the synopsis, removed the second image, add a cultural references section, and expanded the lead. Any other suggestions are most welcomed. Gran² 16:35, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

A Vindication of the Rights of Woman

Mary Wollstonecraft's A Vindication of the Rights of Woman is one of the first feminist texts in Britain. This page has reached GA status and I am aiming for FA. Awadewit 10:27, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

You could link to wiktionary some of the big/difficult/unusual words, like commensurate. I find the way the two portraits are set out on the page distracting - can you put them both on the right? -Malkinann 20:53, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

I have linked "commensurate." Might you list other words you found difficult? I did try not to include too many ten-cent words, as they say. The reason I framed that paragraph with the portraits is because that is the paragraph in which I refer to Talleyrand and de Gouge. Putting both portraits on the right places the portraits adjacent to text that does not refer to them. To me, it does not look distracting, but perhaps if you could describe what is distracting about the placement, I could rethink my image strategy in general. Thanks. Awadewit 21:50, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Ok.. allot, inflected, vindication. That's all I can see for myself... I find it distracting to change from reading across the whole 'page' to reading in a small space, framed by the two pictures. As it is, de Gouge is not mentioned until the very last part in that paragraph, and so her image could come last? I've also fact-tagged something in the article which I thought sounded a bit essayish.-Malkinann 22:25, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

I've linked "allot" but the definition for "inflect" is incomplete and Wollstonecraft's definition for "vindication" is more comprehensive than the dictionary definition. I don't want to mislead readers. I will think about removing the de Gouge picture entirely since she is less important in the paragraph and add in that citation. Thanks. Awadewit 23:00, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Comments by Opabinia

Hope you don't mind me poking my proboscis in on another of your articles ;)

• Given the detail in the article about the difficulties in applying the 'feminist' label, it's a little awkward to see in the first sentence. Same question with 'bolster the feminist claims' in the revision section.

I know, I debated long and hard about that. If the decision were up to me, I would not describe VRW that way, but it is often described that way in short summaries and the book is included in courses on feminism. To not mention the book in a feminist context right up front would be deceptive; VRW is now read as part of the feminist tradition, however problematically. One reason I included that long quotation from Barbara Taylor in the "Feminism" section was so that readers could get a sense of how vexed a question Wollstonecraft's relation to feminism really is. The fact that Taylor, the scholar who has written the most recent comprehensive book on Wollstonecraft's thought, decided in the end to include the word "feminist" in the title of her book convinced me in the end that I had to include the word in the lead and elsewhere.

• Just to be sure: the first work was A Vindication of the Rights of Men, plural?

Yes, and I could have gone into a whole analysis of the point of the difference: "men," meaning actual men and "woman" meaning an abstract category, etc., but I thought that was going a bit far for this entry.

 Done That's actually an interesting point; it might be worth a sentence, if it's not too distracting and fits into one sentence. Opabinia regalis 02:30, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

• You give a date for the Glorious Revolution but not for the civil war/execution, which would be useful.

 Done Will do.

• The matter of 'conferral' of rights - my naive view of the philosophy at the time is that among those who talked much about 'rights', they were seen as somehow inherent in the business of being a reasoning human being, and that it wasn't so much a matter of 'conferral' as of 'recognition'. That is, the rights existed whether governments officially recognized them or not. If that is a generally correct impression, then I think 'confer' needs to be replaced with a clearer word. (If not, then it's fine as-is, but if there's an article describing the evolution of rights in political philosophy, a wikilink would be good.)

Both views existed. One might think of the American Revolution as a war over this issue. Did the colonists have natural rights to which they were entitled whether or not the king wanted to grant them (they claimed these natural rights in the Declaration of Independence)? Those who supported monarchical rule would not, in general, argue that there were many, if any, natural rights. But this is a very complicated issue and one that I am not as well-versed in as I should be. Moreover, many groups were left out of this category of "the reasoning being" - children, slaves, women, often the poor - so, how natural could it be if the definition never included them? I will look at the sentence again, but these are very tricky issues (one reason this text is so very difficult to write on). Perhaps I will also include a "See also" section that links to some political philsophy and feminist articles at the end of the article.

Hmmm. I suppose it would help to know more about the argument advanced in Rights of Men, and what makes rights 'reasonable and just'. Maybe that really belongs in a Rights of Men article, but I guess what I'm wondering is whether there's a thread in Rights of Woman that boils down (er, pardon the mixed metaphor) to 'reasoning beings inherently have natural rights, and women are/can be reasoning beings'. At any rate, a see also section is a good idea. Opabinia regalis 02:30, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

 Done Ok, I'll add a paragraph on natural rights. Awadewit 04:06, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

• Were women believed to be incapable of rational thought, or just very poor/limited at it? Maybe I'm projecting modern ideas onto the article, but it seems illogical for anyone to have argued that women were literally incapable of reason in its broadest sense.

Illogical it may be, but there it is. Some people argued that women were not as rational as men but the most popular view was that women were emotional rather than rational. There were biological arguments made to support this view - women's brains and nerves were different - they couldn't possibly think rationally because their nerves were so sensitive and they would be overcome by the sensations and emotions flooding them at every turn.

• There's a lot of 'she writes', 'she maintains', she argues', etc., where the verb varies but the sentence structure doesn't, except that sometimes it ends with a quote and sometimes with a paraphrase. It's hard to explain, and sort of counterintuitive, but this adds up to a 'telling, not showing' feel, mostly in the 'rational education' section.

I will look into this problem but I tend to try to use quotations in particular to "show" rather than tell, to let the author speak for herself.

Hmm. I've looked at this, but I'm not really sure that I see the problem. I think that the sentence structure varies at least a bit because some sentences begin with a dependent clause, some start with the subject, etc. I have tried to add even more variation, but I'm not sure how successful I was. Perhaps you could assist or write a bit more about what you mean? I do believe that I am "showing" her opinions regarding rational female education here.

 Done Like I said, it's hard to describe, and may be just me :) I really think the origin is the 'she argues/contends/implies/maintains' introductions to the quotes, but that's hard to avoid. (I would suggest less use of 'argue', though; I just skimmed quickly through the 'rational education' section and saw five instances of 'argue' and three of 'argument' in four paragraphs.) Opabinia regalis 02:30, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

• 'to this end that she ought their liberation' - unusual diction, or typo for sought?

 Done Oops, I'll fix that. Thanks.

• '...should be modest (not just women)...' - the repeated parenthetical is awkward.

 Done I will work on that sentence.

• 'Be just then, O ye men of understanding!' - I could plausibly read this in isolation as more of a demand/battle cry/etc. than 'begging'.

 Done I will work on that section. Perhaps a different quotation.

• This article heavily relies on the sensibility article for an explanation of the unique meaning of the term at the time, but that article is not especially good.

 DoneI know, it is on my list of articles to work on. I will try to add some phrases in the article to explain sensibility. Unfortunately, it is a very hard term to define quickly.

I've added an introductory section on sensibility, but I'm still working on the wording.

•  Done I admit, I rarely think modern 'academic feminism' makes any sense at all. But the argument that Wollstonecraft 'fears the power' of female sexuality, or has 'violent antagonism' toward it is just weird. Can that argument be fleshed out a bit without giving it excessive emphasis? (Violent?)

It is a very prominent argument amongst a subset of Wollstonecraft scholars. It would be irresponsible not to mention it, but I do not want to overemphasize it, because it is not the focus of VRW scholarship. I can tell you that within the academy it is not weird, although it may appear so here. I will try to make it less strange to the general reader, but it is difficult. And yes, violent. I didn't want to quote the scene where Wollstonecraft warns women not to undress in front of other women which is interpreted as a violent fear of sexuality. I felt that such a passage would simply be misunderstood.

I think qp10qp described more clearly why that section sounds odd to me. Given what we're told about Wollstonecraft's position on sexuality, all this talk about power and violence sounds very disproportionate. ('Violence' sounds like an exaggeration in any case, but I've seen people write 'emotional violence' and apparently have a straight face while doing it. I imagine it's used in this context with some specialized meaning.) Opabinia regalis 02:30, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

I added more on this. I'm still working on the language. Awadewit 10:23, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

•  Done Did she make a specific argument for sending children of the poor to separate schools?

Yes.

'Can I ask you a question?' 'You just did.' ;) If it can be summarized briefly, I think that would be a good addition to the class section. Opabinia regalis 02:30, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Sure, I can do that. "Yes/no" questions are so unhelpful, aren't they? I wasn't trying to be rude. I actually thought you just wanted to know.

I do this stuff all the time without thinking about it. Especially with 'Can you do x?' Yes. Will you? Well, if that's what you meant, why didn't you say so in the first place? ;) Opabinia regalis 08:24, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

• 'In attempting to navigate the cultural expectations of female writers and the generic conventions of political and philosophical discourse...' - this sentence seems to take a position on the reasons behind her diction, and implies that the result was a deliberate choice. Was this genre- and style-blending really intentional?

One cannot get inside Wollstonecraft's head, of course, but it certainly looks that way. VRM does something similar. It is a mark of Wollstonecraft and many other late eighteenth-century women writers.

• 'Even more significantly, although female conservatives such as Hannah More excoriated Wollstonecraft herself, as Anne K. Mellor has shown,...' - this sentence is, though it might be disputed, rather awkward, in the sense that many clauses, each of which modifies in onion-like layers the one before, pile up on one another, separating subjects from their verbs. (Okay, that was fun to write ;)

 Done Will fix it.

• Even sparred with Barbauld? Why is that an 'even'? I suspect Barbauld needs an appositive description of some kind.

 Done Will do.

• 'Hostilely' ought to be a word, but is kind of on the boundary.

It is a word. It's even in the online Merriam-Webster.

 Done So is 'foolhardily' and even 'friendlily', but those are even more unpleasant. Not a big issue, but 'with hostility' would read better IMO. Opabinia regalis 02:30, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

• 'breaking free from traditional norms' has become something of a cliche. Can you be more specific in the last sentence?

 Done Well, I didn't want to go into a history of feminism on the page (not the right page), so I was trying to get broader. I'll see what I can do.

• Does the 'clear' I added before the references break anything? The image was shoving into the references for me.

Nothing weird happened here. What does that do?

{{clear}} forces all of the content in one section to be displayed before starting the next one. Images at the end near the references section often dribble down into the references and make the columns go weird. Opabinia regalis 02:30, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. Is there a glossary or list of wikicode somewhere on wikipedia?

I wish. If there is one, I've yet to find it; I first found out about this one, I think, from Wikipedia:How to fix bunched-up edit links. Opabinia regalis 08:24, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

• Call me a snob, but linking words like 'commensurate' and 'allot' is... ugh. Over my personal line drawn between 'making things accessible' and 'spoon-feeding'. Opabinia regalis 02:47, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

I was responding to the above review. On my Mary Wollstonecraft page, someone finally had to link "apposition" because random people kept changing it to "opposition" the day it was featured on the main page. It was inside a quotation, so even if they didn't know it was word, they should have been especially reticent about changing it. There is a note on the page that says something like "apposition is actually a word" or something like that which you can only see if you edit it. I really could not believe it. Feel free to remove the links. Please note that I did not link "vindication" as suggested above.

Thank you for all of your very helpful remarks. I always appreciate it when someone reads closely! Awadewit 04:48, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

I linked "apposition" cos I saw the constant reverts on it... :$ Please remember the age of people who may be reading the article - I first came across the Rights of Woman when I was 15. It's a bit sad when you have to wiktionary-link words that you think are well-known, (my own 'ugh' - the word "aground" being changed to "around" in Great Barrier Reef) but it really does help younger readers follow along. -Malkinann 06:36, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

And I appreciate your linking because I was growing so frustrated with the constant reverts I was having to go through over that. I understand what you are saying - I teach freshman composition at a large state university. I could create an entire website with hilarious/sad mistkes. I do appreciate you looking out for this. I saw some report on wikipedia's average reading level. Apparently it is way too high for the general public. As I am sure you are aware, the New York Times is supposed to be at an eighth-grade reading level and that is the highest of any major newspaper. Awadewit 07:29, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

The general public is full of idiots ;) I don't have a problem with linking, really, if it'll stop misguided changes (though 'allot' in the middle of a quote looks a little odd). I don't really like it either, but I've never run across a need for it before; I guess people are a bit more reticent about mucking around with the science articles. Opabinia regalis 02:30, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

I believe your assumption to be correct. The general public assumes they will not understand science. I, on the other hand, although not a scientist myself, do expect that I will be able to understand the bulk of a wikipedia general science page, so I complain quite frequently about undefined terms and jargon-heavy sections. :) Awadewit 04:06, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Good. We need more smart people doing that ;) Especially on some of the more general science articles, it seems like the only feedback they ever get is from kids trying to get someone else to do their homework. Opabinia regalis 08:24, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Comments by qp10qp

• I notice that one of my most disliked words is one of your favourites: “moreover”. I always find this intensifier obtrusive; sentences seem to improve when it is extracted. In my opinion it doesn’t actually mean anything—apart from, perhaps, “and”.

Roughly, it means "this sentence is more important than the last sentence" and I use it very carefully to delineate hierarchies of importance.

• “…to launch an attack against sexual double standards more broadly…”

 Done That “more broadly” feels too far projected from its verb. What about “a broad attack”?

Sure. My writing is always a little too verbose.

• “…for Burke, governments and societies consist of traditions that are the result of a social and political consensus—challenging those traditions would result in anarchy.”

 Done Is “consist” the right word? Also, I would tend to drop the dash and have a comma and “and”. It’s a matter of taste, though. I might even conflate the whole sentence, which contains repetitions.

I will work on rewording it, but the repetition is meant to emphasize the all-important idea of tradition in Burke.

• A blockquote for Talleyrand’s big quote? (Would have to move picture, though.) And maybe the "Let it not be concluded..." quote.

 Done I will play around with that.

• “That same year, French feminist Olympe de Gouge published her Rights of Woman…”

Which came first?

I'm not sure and I'm not sure we know. I can try to find out. Why does it matter (someone else asked this question as well)? I try to make it clear that MW is responding specifically to Talleyrand but that these issues are live ones at the time. It would be very hard to prove that MW read de Gouge one way or the other.

This is becoming even more difficult. Even if I manage to find out what month de Gouge published (which I haven't yet managed to do, every book I look at just says the year), I'm not sure that I can easily find out when her work reached England. I'm just not sure it's worth all of the trouble for this article.

• “Unlike most philosophical writers of the eighteenth century, Wollstonecraft did not employ a formal structure in A Vindication of the Rights of Woman.”

I felt a slight miscue here, as if the other philosophers were writing this book as well.

 Done I'll try and fix that.

I tried to fix this, but now the whole sentence sounds repetitive.

• “It also adopts a hybrid tone that combines the rational argument common to philosophy and the fervent rhetoric of sensibility.”

 Done The word “common” slightly disrupts the sense here, in my opinion, because it implies that the rational argument is common to the philosophy and the fervent rhetoric.

I'll work on that.

• “In the eighteenth century, it was often assumed…”

I never like sentences without an actor. And this sort of structure tends to call out for multiple referencing. Same with “Women, it was believed...” If Wollstonecraft says who assumed and believed these things, we should be told, I think, because the Talleyrand quote, however patronising, doesn’t make these points, as such. “Moreover, it was asserted…” is another example of this generalising structure.

But the point is Wollstonecraft was responding to a large cultural assumption. I have seen this criticism throughout wikipedia. Sometimes it is appropriate and sometimes it is not. This is one of the times it is not. To cite who Wollstonecraft is attacking at this point diminishes her arguments; it makes it seem like she is only attacking a few writers when she is really attacking a social perception. Not all passive constructions are evil! (By the way, you will notice that later in the "Rational Education " section I mention she criticizes the works of Fordyce, Gregory and Rousseau in particular)

• “Wollstonecraft attributes the problem of uneducated women to men and “a false system of education, gathered from the books written on this subject by men who, considering females rather as women than human creatures.” “

The quote here doesn’t have a main verb.

I'm not quite sure what the problem is. Do you men that the quote would sound better if I changed "considering" to "considered"?

• “She thus makes the argument…”

 Done I don’t find that this sentence follows (in a “thus” way) precisely from what went before.

I'll check it out.

• “Conduct-book writers such as James Fordyce and John Gregory as well as educational philosophers such as Jean-Jacques Rousseau, who argue that a woman does not need a rational education, are the objects of much vitriol in Rights of Woman.”

"Conduct-book writers" is the subject of the sentence, by the way. I can change this around, though.

 Done This sentence seems rather passive; I would reverse the order, with an actor at the beginning of the sentence. This whole paragraph strikes me as rather soggy because of the delaying of main verbs or subjects. So I would also bring the subject and main verb forward in:

• I don't want to make too many of the sentences the same.

 Done “Without this damaging ideology, which encourages young women to focus their attention on beauty and outward accomplishments, Wollstonecraft implies, they could achieve much more.”

Ok.

and in:

"Maintaining that wives could be the rational "companions" of their husbands and even pursue careers should they so choose, she contends "women might certainly study the art of healing, and by physicians as well as nurses. And midwifery, decency seems to allot to them . . . they might, also, study politics . . . Business of various kinds, they might likewise pursue."

Changing this one doesn't seem like a good idea because it moves from the general to the specific in a logical way.

• “She also maintains that schooling should be co-educational…”

 Done Proposes? (I know it’s difficult in an article like this to vary the necessary “maintains, contends, argues” vocabulary.)

Sure.

I put "proposes" earlier in the paragraph.

• “It is debatable to what extent the Vindication…”

Rather than depersonalise the subject of the sentence with an “it”, I would prefer to see an actor for the sentence: “Scholars/feminists/Smith and Jones have debated…” or whatever. Also I have seen FA reviewers (quite wrongly) mistake this phrase for an authorial hesitation.

I understand this criticism, but again, it seems silly to list all of the groups that have debated this issue. Such a list implies that no one else has debated it (such as students or the general public).

• “Her argument illustrated the sexual double standard of the late eighteenth century and demanded that men adhere to the same virtues demanded of women.”

 Done I’m not sure that an argument can illustrate—point out, perhaps, or expose. Maybe the “for instance” and “for example” in that paragraph is also a little repetitive.

Expose, sure. I'll work on the repetition.

• “While this may not seem [who to?] revolutionary, its implications are [now, or then?].”

 Done Dare I say it, essay style?

I will fix that.

• “Wollstonecraft famously and ambiguously states…”

I have to confess that reading the quote several times, I can make neither head nor tail of it. It does sound important, but I wonder if the reader needs a bit more explanation of it. I know that “virtue” had a special meaning in Racine and Corneille, and I suspect it does here too. “Her definition of virtue focuses on the individual’s happiness rather than, for example, the good of the entire society.“ I’m not sure that fits with her demand that men adhere to the same virtues demanded of women, which sounds as if it is for the good of the society.

I don't know if you've read VRW, but it is an extremely contradictory text. You can basically take any position on it and find something to support your opinion. I have tried to draw together the most accepted scholarly views here, but they are not going to be consistent because Wollstonecraft herself was not consistent (that is aside from the point that scholars never agree on anything - if they did, scholarship in the humanities would end). So, that you have found something internally inconsistent is not surprising.

I am reticent to explain the quotation for fear of an "original research" criticism. It is a difficult quotation, not an obvious one. That is why I included it.

• “As part of her argument that women should not be overly influenced by their feelings, Wollstonecraft emphasizes that they should not be bound by their bodies or their sexual feelings.[29] This particular argument has led many modern feminists to suggest that Wollstonecraft not only avoids embracing female sexuality, she fears its power. Cora Kaplan argues that…”

 Done I would have liked “not be bound by their bodies or their sexual feelings” to be elucidated more here, with perhaps some space given to what Wollstonecraft actually said. This is because, as it stands, I can’t quite see what justification the modern feminists and Kaplan have for the reaction quoted. I would have thought that the advice as summarised was mere common sense: have some emotional and sexual self-control. Clearly, there is more to it.

Ok, I will go down this road. The problem is, it tends to make very well-respected scholars look crazy or "weird" (as the above reviewer said) to the general reader. I was trying to accord their views some respect; their views make a lot more sense within a certain tradition of academic feminist theory which I cannot explain in detail here.

• “Others, though, have argued that this was a sacrifice…”

What does “this” refer to? This idea of Wollstonecraft’s (but an idea isn’t a sacrifice)? Or something in her life (no specific reference to her life in the paragraph)? An overlap between the two creeps into the paragraph with Kaplan’s quote, in my opinion. Does Wollstonecraft avoid embracing sexuality in her ideas or her life? (From your article about her life, I would doubt the latter. I find this confusing.)

Yes, the "this" does refer to an idea. She sacrificed female sexuality in her writings (at least until The Wrongs of Woman) in order to advance the cause of equality.

• “Johnson contends that Wollstonecraft is interested in reestablishing a republican ethos, one that contains strong, but distinct, masculine and feminine roles for its citizens.”

 Done What does this refer to? Why “reestablishing”? Is this a reference to classical republics? Are republics more likely to have clear masculine and feminine roles? Can an ethos “contain” roles? (provide? call for? create). If she wants clear masculine and feminine roles why does she want men to adhere to the same virtues as women? These two matters of republicanism and virtue/male-female roles are the ones that come over the most blurrily to me in the article's description of the book's themes.

In Britain, there had been a political tradition of republicanism (sometimes associated with the term commonwealthmen) in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries that slowly died away (although this narrative is disputed). Wollstonecraft is trying to re-establish this republicanism. Yes, an ethos and contain roles, in my opinion. There is a dichotomy in the VRW in how she describes men and women. As I try to say, she wants them to have the same fundamental rights (derived from having a soul) and live up to the same moral code, but that does not mean that she thinks men and women should fill the same positions within society. Repeatedly throughout the VRW, Wollstonecraft describes woman's primary role as mother and domestic care-giver. The problem is, different scholars emphasize different aspects of this (clearly, even I'm telling you how I read it, although I'm trying to be as objective as possible). Some emphasize the different roles and say MW is conservative, some emphasize the rights argument and say she is more "progressive," but most fall in between. It is simply not very easy to summarize or interpret her argument.

• “For Wollstonecraft, moreover, the individual is educated into republicanism and republican benevolence within the family; domestic relations and familial ties are crucial to her understanding of social cohesion and patriotism.”

 Done " "is" educated?” "Should" be educated? What is “republican benevolence”? From these hints, I’m really not sure what Wollstonecraft’s republicanism consisted of. The second half of the above sentence isn’t specifically republican, I’d say.

Yes, "educated." It's an older use of the word, but very Wollstonecraftian. Perhaps I'll expand this section a bit.

• “In many ways the Vindication of the Rights of Woman is inflected by a bourgeois view of the world. Wollstonecraft addresses her text to the middle-class, which she calls the "most natural state," and two of the virtues Wollstonecraft praises most often are modesty and industry. She is critical of the wealthy, attacking them with the same language that she uses to accuse women of worthlessness.”

 Done I’m presuming that modesty and industry are here taken to be middle-class virtues. But I think that should be made clear, or the second half of that middle sentence is a non sequitur. Then for me the structure here made it seem as if the wealthy (bad) were different people to the middle class (“the most natural state”).

Some here used to be different; someone has been doing some copyediting and removed my transitions, but yes, those were perceived to be middle-class virtues in the eighteenth-century and the wealthy are supposed to be different from the middle-class.

• “In attempting to navigate the cultural expectations of female writers and the generic conventions of political and philosophical discourse, Wollstonecraft, as she does throughout her works, constructs a unique blend…”

I expect this is to some extent Kelly’s, but for me it’s (sorry, ignore me, if you are bored with this) essay style. A point of view is ascribed to Wollstonecraft as if she was thinking like a modern feminist or political writer. In my opinion, the scholarly style of discourse should not be intruded into the third-person point of view of the biographical subject.

What you are touching on is the "intentional fallacy." You cannot know what Wollstonecraft was thinking, etc. Technically, all sentences in this article should then read "The VRW suggests..." rather than Wollstonecraft. Literary scholars know that no one is imputing anything directly to Wollstonecraft. If you have a beef with this sentence, you should have a beef with much more in the article. I did not sure "The VRW suggests..." construction throughout this article because it becomes far too cumbersome.

Can you construct a blend?

When one is speaking of genres, I believe you can, but do you have a better suggestion?

• “…she uses "I" and "you" as well as dashes and exclamation marks to create a distinctly feminine voice in the text. She even employs "autobiographical references."

 Done Why “even”? I’m sure the work has a distinctive feminine voice, but I daresay there were men who used these techniques as well (I’m not questioning the basic point—Kristeva’s idea that bodily drives are discharged in representation—just the stylistic examples offered here as evidence).

Dispute with Kelly, not me. Perhaps there were men who used this technique, but not the respected essayists or philosophers of the day. I think the point is that this "emotional" register would have been associated with women.

Fixed the "even."

• “…the short essay and the novel, genres often associated with women…”

Is that true, any more than with men? I’m wondering if the point being made here—that certain forms or styles of writing—are more feminine, is worth making in this context. It’s so easy to think of exceptions: Sterne with his own “highly personal” tone; Émilie du Châtelet with her scientific commentaries. If this is what scholars believe, then I think their names should be brought into the text, so that the reader doesn’t take these glosses for fact. Generally, I feel that the first paragraph of “Rhetoric and Style” doesn’t flow too well.

Yes, it is what scholars believe. Kelly specifically states this on the pages to which I refer. Would you like more citations. There are going to be exceptions. I think the idea is there is a "feminine" and a "masculine" style in addition to the thesis that women were tied to the novel. I'll work on the paragraph.

• “…she actually combines the plain, rational language of the political treatise with the poetic, passionate language of sensibility…”

I feel that is an excellent way of getting the general point over.

• “Wollstonecraft herself even comments on this effect.”

 Done I think a quote would go well here, so that the readers can judge for themselves what Wollstonecraft intended by her mixture of styles.

I think so to, but I've lost it. I didn't write it down in my notes and I'm trying to find it again. :) Is there an "insert quote here" tag?

• “Wollstonecraft never wrote the second part to the Rights of Woman…”

 Done I don’t think we’ve been told that the work was going to have two parts; this statement seems to assume that we know.

I'll work on introducing that idea earlier, but I don't think it's terribly important.

• “Both Edgeworth and Austen argue that women are crucial to the development of the nation…”

Do they “argue” this, or show it (I know they wrote letters, but novels don’t offer arguments, strictly speaking).

Um, novels most certainly do offer arguments, just not in that traditional philosophical way.

Adding examples of novels with arguments that should be obvious: 1984 and The Fountainhead and Brave New World.

• “Suddenly it seemed more possible to try living arrangements other than the traditional marriage.”

I find this sentence a little clumsy. Also redundant after the previous sentence, which I think would end the article better.

 Done I was trying to be more specific to address concerns brought up by the previous reviewer. I'll rework it again.

• I admire the article, and I think it could pass FA tomorrow (I would vote "support"), though we both know that FAC is not generally rigorous or populous enough, which is why I’ve been detailed here (please don’t hate me). Your articles are impressive. Do keep going, and feel free to ignore any of my comments.

qp10qp 19:05, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Thank you very much for constructive advice. I hardly "hate you." It is precisely this kind of review that I want. I won't be submitting this for FA for a few weeks. I want to work on it some more and I have some other editors that have promised to look at it. Thanks. Awadewit 05:02, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

By the way, I did respond to your helpful comments on essay-style on my talk page. Awadewit 05:23, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

• Just a small thing. Could you replace the smart quotes (“ and ”) with regular quotes (") for consistency? I'm sure a word processing program can do it automatically, but having the smart quotes makes it look distracting. ShadowHalo 12:36, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

They don't look any different on my computers; they only look different on the editing page. I am not going to chanage quotation marks so that the editing page looks pretty. Awadewit 12:46, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

1 − 2 + 3 − 4 + · · ·

I'd like comments on everything except the lead section, which I haven't really worked on yet. Assuming all goes well, I'd like to nominate for WP:FAC as soon as possible. Melchoir 01:51, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Oh, and if anyone understands Borel summation well enough, could you suggest what a convincing illustration would look like? Melchoir 02:40, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

The article seems okay to me and it has some enjoyable aspects. However it pre-supposes some mathematical knowledge on the part of the reader. I wonder whether technical articles of this nature need some sort of "prerequisite" template that lists the knowledge required to understand the content? For the Borel sum illustration, perhaps a plot of the function $e^{-2x}(1-x)$ would suffice (with the enclosed area shaded)? Otherwise I'm not sure. Some of the other illustrations are not showing up in my IE browser, for whatever reason. Thanks. — RJH (talk) 15:49, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

A prerequisite template might be a good idea, but I was hoping that its purpose could be served by careful writing and well-placed links. Is there a particular area of knowledge that you think gets assumed before it is introduced and linked to?

I tried playing with a plot like that for the Borel sum, but I couldn't figure out how to make the connection with the original series.

SVGs sometimes appear blank to me for a day or so after they're uploaded, but the current ones ought to be stable. Is there a pattern to the ones that don't show up? Melchoir 19:47, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

As someone with little background in math, I'll tell you some segments that were unclear to me:

• The quotation from Euler under "Divergence" is not obviously relevant. Is it supposed to be a segue into the next section?
• Under "Stability and linearity": "...the series 1 − 2 + 3 − 4 + · · · can be expressed as a transformation of itself". What does that mean?
• When you introduce n and m (Under "Cesàro/Hölder") you might want to define them for clarity ("where n is some integer"?).

Good luck. Don't see too many math FAs. -- bcasterline • talk 21:10, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! There are cultural reasons why one doesn't see too many math FAs; I'm hoping that a few examples will prime the pump for more.

• I'll think about better ways to use Euler's quotation.
• That sentence isn't supposed to have a mathematical meaning; it just sets up the next few equations.
• Yeah, I'll fix that.

Melchoir 22:10, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

…There, hope that helps. Melchoir 22:24, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

If the expression "transformation of itself" is not familiar to people without a background in math, you could try using terms that would be more familiar to more people. For example, use "difference" rather than "transformation". I tried to change your paragraph to make it more clear, and you can adopt as many or as few of the changes as you like. I'm pasting my version below. User:khollings 9 March 2007

The series 1 - 2 + 3 - 4 + . . . does not have a convergent sum, but the following argument shows that if it had a convergent sum, the sum should be 1/4.

The series s = (1 - 2 + 3 - 4 + ...) can be expressed as the difference of two series: 1) the series h = (1 - 1 + 1 - 1 + ...), and 2) the series s = (0 + 1 - 2 + 3 - 4):

s	= 1 − 2 + 3 − 4 + · · ·
	= (1 − 1 + 1 − 1 + · · · ) + (0 − 1 + 2 − 3 + · · · )
	= (1 − 1 + 1 − 1 + · · · ) - (0 + 1 - 2 + 3 - · · · )
	= h - s,

The series, h, can be written as:

h	= 1 − 1 + 1 − 1 + · · ·
	= 1 − (1 − 1 + 1 − · · · )
	= 1 - h.

Solving the equations $s=h-s$ and $h=1-h$ yields h = ¹⁄₂ and s = (¹⁄₂)h = ¹⁄₄.

Well… I know the section is titled Heuristics, but I'm not real comfortable with saying that "if it had a convergent sum, the sum should be 1/4". On the one hand, it's not mathematically meaningful, but it is the kind of sentiment with which people often speak of divergent series, and I could probably find a source for a similar statement. Would it enlighten or confuse the reader more? Anyone else?

Also, I've been intending s and h to stand for ordinary numbers. The notation is admittedly confusing, but there are problems with interpreting the equations among s and h as equations among series per se. Melchoir 23:03, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

I've tried this. How important do you think the extra step for (1 − 1 + 1 − 1 + · · · ) - (0 + 1 - 2 + 3 - · · · ) is? Melchoir 23:13, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm going to de-list this Peer Review now in favor of a FAC. If anyone has more to say, especially if I asked you a question above, please drop by Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/1 − 2 + 3 − 4 + · · · or Talk:1 − 2 + 3 − 4 + · · ·! Melchoir 10:38, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Nigel Kneale

I've been doing a lot of work on this article over the past couple of weeks, and would very much like to put it up as a FAC. Any feedback on how I could try and improve it to featured standard would be very gratefully received. Angmering 21:34, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Automated

• Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, APR _t 20:38, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

• In reply:

• I very much doubt there are any available free use images of Kneale. Certainly nobody can take one any more, anyway, given that he's dead, and even pictures of him as a young man would still be in copyright. So I don't see that there's any other option other than the fair use screengrab.
• I have added the persondata information, as requested.
• I couldn't find any examples of full dates which weren't properly linked?
• I don't think summary style would be appropriate here. The size of the readable prose is only 34kb, which I would have thought was perfectly acceptable, and it is very unlikely to ever get much bigger than that.
• The single weasel word example you mention is used in context of a cited example of an opinion held by the writer and critic Kim Newman.
• I have requested copyedits from several users, one of whom, User:Josiah Rowe, had already been through the article. I am hoping that others will have done so by the time the peer review period comes to an end.

• I hope that satisfies the automated concerns, anyway. Angmering 21:09, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Yannismarou

• "was best known" is twice used in the first two pars of the lead. Maybe you could vary a bit the prose there.
• "Kneale was born Thomas Nigel Kneale". Maybe a repetition. His birth name has already been mentioned and bolded in the lead.
• "His family came from the Isle of Man,[5] and returned to live there in 1928, when Kneale was six years old.[6]" An advice: Try not to overcite your sentences. Place inline citations at the end of the sentences, and cite in the middle of them only if it is absolutely necessary for emphasis. You can also combine together citations instead of having them in a row ([1][2]). See ways of nicely combing citations in Tourette syndrome, and Battle of Edson's Ridge. Here, for instance, you cite twice in the same sentence the same citation without an obvious reason: "Written in 1965 while Kneale was suffering from a mystery illness and forced to stay in bed for a long period,[17] the concept started life as a drama serial for the BBC, before the corporation had second thoughts about the nature of the storyline and the possibility of copycat suicides;[17]"
• "Doctor Who was heavily influenced by Kneale's Quatermass serials at several points throughout its history,[5][34][81][82][83]" What's that?! Ugly! Five in a row!
• Maybe "Influence" could have a better structuring. For instance, you start with a too short prose sentence and a long quote. Does this give to the reader a first general idea about Kneale's importance and influence? Then the paragraph starting "Kneale never saw himself as a ... " is not about Kneale's influence, but about what Kneale believed for himself. Does this fit to the section? Doesn't interrupt its flow?

In general, the article is comprehensive and well-written. My only worry is that the reader might get tired with all these works, films etc. (accompanied with dates, details etc.) exhaustively analysed in the article's sections. But I don't think this can be a strong argument against FA status.--Yannismarou 12:59, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Many thanks for your thoughts. Some replies:

• Are you sure? I can find only one instance: "he was best known for the creation of the character Professor Bernard Quatermass."
• I have taken out the first instance, and left the mention of his first name until what was the second, where it's properly cited.
• Good point about those citations. I have dealt with the examples you mentioned, and some others.
• I agree about the titling of the "Influence" section — I wasn't sure about the title of it, but couldn't think of quite what else to call it. It was originally called "Legacy", but I wasn't sure that was encyclopedic enough. I have switched the first two sections of it, so that it no longer begins with such a short prose section. I disagree the entire Doctor Who paragraph is out of place there though, as it does state that Kneale's work was a major influence on that show.

Thanks again for your thoughts. I hope I have managed to address some of your concerns. Angmering 14:27, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Cape Feare

I would like some comments on this episode article. The goal is to turn it into a FA and it is modelled after another FA Pilot (House). --Maitch 20:24, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

• Comment There seems to be a recurring grammatical error throught the article. Gerunds take a possesive subject, not an objective subject. For instance, "...which results in him overreacting to several innocuous situations." should read "...which results in his overreacting to several innocuous situations." Nothing resulted in Bart, something resulted in overreacting which happened to be performed by Bart. Double check for this error. Jay32183 04:56, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Thanks for the comment. I did my best, but I am not a very good copyeditor. Both User:CanadianCaesar and User:Scorpion0422 has done some copyediting, so I do hope that it is alright now. --Maitch 23:38, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
    • I did some additional copyedit work. Please be sure that the fair use rationales for the images are as specific as possible. It makes it easier for people not familiar with the subject to determine if the images do actually meet the fair use criteria. Jay32183 00:04, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
      • Thanks a lot. --Maitch 00:39, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
• Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, APR _t 22:38, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Organic chemistry

There are some outstanding issues on the todo list:

• Verify: Much greater use of inline citation is needed along with a wider source of references
• Expand: Add images to beautify article (see Inorganic chemistry for an excellent example)

Apart from that, what else needs to be done? --Rifleman 82 20:11, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

• I fear that we might go too far with pictures: it should demonstrate something essential, as conciseness is more important. The old Engish adage comes to mind: "Is your question really necessary?" I feel that a drawing to show single, double, and triple bond compounds and about alicyclics in the same block as the aromatics to show the comparison would help, but I am not sure about the swimming beauty

LouisBB 13:33, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

• Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, APR _t 21:47, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Awadewit

• I do not know what audience you were aiming for with this page, but I can tell you that for someone with only a passing familiarity of chemistry, I found this page a bit difficult to follow at times (particularly beginning with the "aliphatic" section). There were so many undefined terms that one would have to click on to understand the material. It is almost as if one has to have taken organic chemistry to understand the page. I will point to just one example - covalent bonding. While that is taught in many advanced high school chemistry classes, how many people remember exactly what it is? Since it is easy enough to describe in a sentence or two, why not do it? If you are aiming only for chemistry and biology majors, though, I am sure that it is more than acceptable.
• The history section should also probably have a consistent verb tense. It is a little jarring otherwise.
• Perhaps an illustration of a line function in the nomenclature section so that those unfamiliar with it will know what it is?

Awadewit 06:38, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

I fully agree with your remarks, and I shall make one or two suggestions

LouisBB 13:33, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

THANKS FOR COMPLIMENT +923013572221 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 182.182.35.142 (talk) 19:12, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Zaireeka

Wikipedia:Peer review/Zaireeka/archive1

Zaireeka is now a GA. What can be done to push it to FA status? What can be done to improve the article in general? - MajorB <talk> <contribs> - 00:37, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

JHMM13

I think the best advice I can give you without having read the article is to find an album article that became an FA recently and figure out what they did to get it in. At first glance, I'm not a gigantic fan of the section layouts. I don't know what other album articles do, but I think they might put the track listings somewhere else. Check up and do write what you find out here so I can see it and comment further. Thanks, JHMM13 03:08, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

It seems the other album FAs have the tracklisting near or at the end of the article. I could try and place it there, and have the actual article section start off with "About the Songs." - MajorB <talk> <contribs> - 00:08, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

I restructured the article. What do you think? - MajorB <talk> <contribs> - 10:37, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

North Omaha

• I would really like any and all kinds of feedback about this article. Content, clarity, tone, and POV are all important for me to learn about. Thanks. - Freechild 01:17, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

• Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, APR _t 23:44, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

• It's a little too listy. For example; take the section on African American Culture, there's a nice intro to the section but then it peters out into a bunch of lists with little in the way of context. The "Notable African American cultural activities" section says that there are "numerous important institutions" but only lists one, the YWCA. Most cities have a YWCA, and the YWCA is not known for being specifically African American. How is the YWCA a notable African American cultural phenominon specific to North Omaha? You should try to flesh it out some; not just in that section but throughout the article. Make sense? ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 15:36, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

• It needs pictures. Looks like most of the NPOV concerns have been addressed. I agree that the article is 'listy'; perhaps some of these lists could be converted to narrtive form. I'd certainly be willing to help with that. This is a very good article overall. ObtuseAngle 03:33, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

AnonEMouse

Rather long, redundant, and advertising-laden. Unlike ObtuseAngle, I still see POV. We can't state our opinions, only other people's.

• Bordered by... lower case North South West East.
• Wikilink: zip code, state senator (perhaps rephrase as Nebraska state senator)
• "two areas are commonly differentiated among community members because of this in spite of being addressed otherwise" - huh? Desperately needs rephrasing for simplicity.
• " illustrate include" - again, huh? Give a date, and a citation of the specific source. How does the Census Bureau define North Omaha? Say.
• "long legacy governmental" - of?
• "Despite the following statistics" - previous, earlier...
• Give at the date the plan was proposed or accepted, at least one, possibly both
• "North Omaha has a range of important institutions that are working for a prosperous, educated, healthy, and sustainable community for all Omahans." Ack! Cut the advertising, please. Sounds like a Miss America speech, needs only "world peace".
• "homes which are good for the consumer-friendly" - Ack! You can probably cut the whole description of PCH down to 1 sentence and not lose any information
• "Girl’s Inc" - are you sure it's not Girls, Inc.?
• In fact, I would remove most of these entries except the truly exceptional ones. So it's got a Boys & Girls club and a Foodway, and lots of community organizations, so do lots of other places. Leave the museum and newspaper, but don't make this a link farm for area businesses and organizations.
• If Mildred D. Brown is the first female to found a US newspaper, she deserves a Wikipedia article
• "Star a corner stone" - is?
• "the only African American newspaper" - in what sense the only AA? Do you mean AA-owned, AA-focused, what? Does it cover local, national, or world issues?
• [14] website. - Strike the word and period.
• "Omaha's only African American history collection" - in what sense? The entries two above and one below are clearly AA history collections. Does it focus on AA in Omaha, in NE, in the US?
• Evergreen - write about the connection
• Amored - Armored?
• What does "alternately violent" mean?
• "Many institutions within the boundaries of North Omaha reinforce these perceptions as they seek to disassociate with the area" - that's biased language, we can't write that unless we are citing someone saying almost exactly that.
• "perpetuating popular misconceptions... racist violence." Again, biased language.
• Sits, is, is - write when they were elected.
• Nelson, Hagel, Heinemen aren't really connected with NO, should we mention them in every Nebraska city article?
• far/near NO - what does that mean? How about a map?
• "The Most Prettiest Mile" - not grammatical. Cite.
• "at one time was regarded for" - rewrite
• mansions? How do mansions square with being a poor area?
• Put quotation marks around quotations. Consider using blockquote. WP:CITE
• timeline - need to cite every entry, as this could be a vandalism magnet.
• King, Kennedy visits - are they really that remarkable? Politicians visit lots of places
• Put refs after punctuation.
• Historical racisim - cite every paragraph at a minimum, as this is contentious. This part repeats much of the timeline, so is redundant. I prefer the text, but one should go.
• "As a result, to this day a majority of Omaha's African American population is still found in North Omaha." We can't draw that conclusion, highly POV.
• "Omaha Driving Park Association" - what kind of sport is that?
• Too many sections titled starting with Historical!
• # Mormon Pioneer Cemetery, # Mormon Pioneer Memorial Bridge - need sentences explaining importance
• As with businesses, don't make an exhaustive list of churches and schools.
• Trivia section is highly frowned upon in Wikipedia: Featured article reviews

--AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 19:18, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Definition of planet

archive archive 2

I was wondering if this was going to become an issue, and apparently, at long last, it has. The hydrostatic equilibrium section has been flagged as being a bit ORish, a fact which I always slightly suspected but which I allowed myself to ignore given that that this article has gone through two peer reviews and two successful featured article nominations with that section remaining pretty much intact. Of all the sections in this article, this is the one I have had the least hand in, and understand the least. I really don't know if it would be possible to properly cite it, or which sources to use. So. What should I do? Serendipodous 19:16, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't really have any good suggestions other than to think about a complete re-write from scratch. It appears to me that the IAU hasn't really decided on the criteria for selecting border-line cases yet. Here's some references that are marginally relevant:

• http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1993CeMDA..57..247L — a paper that only a mathematician could love. It has some interesting aspects about the shapes of planets over time.
• http://www.imcce.fr/~hestro/papers/hestroA04.pdf — discusses equilibrium shapes of binary asteroids. Could weak rubble piles meet the criteria for hydrostatic equilibrium?
• http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1984Ap&SS.103..379H — discusses hydrostatic equilibrium in the case of asteroids.

Sorry I couldn't be more helpful. — RJH (talk) 23:37, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Amy Lee

This is an article about the lead singer of the alternative rock band Evanescence. The Evanescence WikiProject hopes to nominate this article as a Good Article Candidate some time in the future.

Main points

Is it easy to understand for non-fans? Does it have chances for being Good or Featured Article? If not, what does the article need to be GA or FA?  Armando.O  ^{(talk|contribs)} 02:32, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

It's more or less easy to understand.  :) It seems to be formatted per Template:Biography which is good. It does have a good chance of GA but the 'dress sense' portion is both underreferenced and doesn't really prove the notability of her dress sense. Does she influence the fashion of her fans? There are a few stylistic issues, like the positioning of the references (they should be after punctuation marks) - I'd suggest you read the WP:MOS for help. In some places the grammar is out too - Amy Lee at a concert on 2006 should be in 2006 for one that I saw - there may be more. Reading other GAs should help you in your quest. Good luck - Malkinann 23:53, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

• (Non-fan reporting for duty.) Yes, it's easy to understand. My main issue with the article is that it doesn't seem to make up its mind whether it's about Amy Lee (the person) or Evanescence (the band). For example: the (very short) "Fallen" section lists the sales figures for that album. This might be interesting for the band's article, but doesn't tell us anything useful about Amy Lee. The same goes for the latter half of the "Founding" section and the first part of "The Open Door". As there already is a good article about Evanescence, you should concentrate on things Amy Lee herself did, said, thought and accomplished, in my opinion. Cheers. --Plek 21:59, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

• Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, APR _t 23:04, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

LuciferMorgan

• Comment The lawsuit subsection needs more cites, especially as concerns the counterlawsuit which quotes from somewhere. LuciferMorgan 21:38, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

• Could you add how critics have reacted towards her guest performance with Korn on their Unplugged CD? LuciferMorgan 21:40, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

• Could you also add how critics have reacted towards her duet with Shaun Morgan? In this make sure to name the critics or magazines in questioning that you're quoting. LuciferMorgan 21:55, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

• "Image" section needs a vast cleanup and needs to cite all its claims. LuciferMorgan 21:58, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Saving Silverman

All elements of this article have been updated, expanded, cited, and improved, so the whole article is proposed for review. It may even qualify for Good Article status.--Lexein 14:55, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

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

• The lead of this article may be too long, or may contain too many paragraphs. Please follow guidelines at WP:LEAD; be aware that the lead should adequately summarize the article.^[?]
• Consider adding more links to the article; per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (links) and Wikipedia:Build the web, create links to relevant articles.^[?]
• This article has no images. Please see if there are any free use images that fall under the Wikipedia:Image use policy and fit under one of the Wikipedia:Image copyright tags that can be uploaded. To upload images on Wikipedia, go to Special:Upload; to upload non-fair use images on the Wikimedia Commons, go to commons:special:upload.^[?]
• See if possible if there is a free use image that can go on the top right corner of this article.^[?]
• Generally, trivia sections are looked down upon; please either remove the trivia section or incorporate any important facts into the rest of the article.^[?]
• Avoid using contractions like (outside of quotations): don't, don't, doesn't, can't.
• Please ensure that the article has gone through a thorough copyediting so that it exemplifies some of Wikipedia's best work. See also User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 1a.^[?]

You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, xxpor ^yo!|_{see what i've done} 16:08, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

• This article needs a lot of work. There needs to be a "Development" section describing how the movie was made. There also needs to be a "Reception" section detailing both critical reactions, from notable critics, as well as box office success, home video sales, and any awards or nominations. The "Quotes" section and the "Trivia" section need to go. The "Plot" section needs significant clean up. Needs proper paragraph structure and should not be overly detailed. There should also be a detailed cast section. It appears there is already a massive todo list on the talk page simply to get up to "start class". Good Article status and even B-class are way better than this. Jay32183 23:39, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

• Good luck, everyone. Looks like you've got your work cut out for you. Good luck finding any production information. Its reception was thoroughly summed up in the intro. The movie was negatively reviewed as lacking plot, so perhaps the extant plot section should simply be deleted. There are plenty of movie entries which do not satisfy the boilerplate massive todo list --Lexein 05:27, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
• Okay, now. If I take out the Quotes and Trivia sections, can I put in a lot of WEASEL WORDS, an ORIGINAL RESEARCH just like in the recent Featured Article Gremlins 2 - The New Batch? That would be keen. --Lexein 19:58, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Dreamgirls (film)

How do users make this article an FA? Are the trivia portions necessary? Real96 19:51, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Cbrown1023 talk

• The article seems great!
  • Lots of refs
  • Covers a lot
  • Fair use rationales for images
    • However, you may be using too many fair use images (Wikipedia:Fair use):
      • The amount of copyrighted work used should be as little as possible. Low-resolution images should be used instead of high-resolution images (especially images that are so high-resolution that they could be used for piracy). This includes the original in the Image: namespace. Do not use multiple images or media clips if one will serve the purpose adequately.
      • The material must contribute significantly to the article
    • Some of them can stay, but others have to go if you are looking for an WP:FA.

I am confused about the fair use policy regarding images. I will try to merge the facts from the trivia section into the main article. Real96 18:44, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

I incorporated the trivia facts into the article. The trivia fact about Eddie Murphy's films was incorporated into his article. I am confused about the copyrighted work, because the licensing was of the film's screenshot. Real96 19:05, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Wiki-newbie

Trivia needs to be merged with appropriate areas of the article to help with context. It can't just lie around as a dead stump of information. There isn't any way you could clean the plot? Wiki-newbie 17:06, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

The plot summary as it stands now glosses over a lot. It couldn't really get much tighter than that. --FuriousFreddy 23:00, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

The "Allusions to factual events" is listy and may be interpreted by some as being a trivia section. If you could convert it from being listy to an actual section, cohesive and tied throughout with an intro, middle and end, then this may help. LuciferMorgan 03:15, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Erikster

• There's a Ratings table hanging out in the Plot summary section. Is the table really notable enough for inclusion?
• "Casting notes" and "Production notes" seem like odd section headings, especially with the latter being under "Production history". Can either of these be renamed?
• Citation for the Los Angeles premiere (seconds sentence in Reception) would be nice.
• Maybe I'm being too picky, but I think there should be references for the Awards subsection. The last three paragraphs in that subsection don't appear fully cited.
• "Related promotions and products" seems oddly placed under Reception, though I don't know where else it could go. I'd suggest re-titling it as "Marketing", maybe.
• The Cast section is placed so deeply in the article. Why not place it, at the very least, before Reception?
• Not everything in "Allusions to factual events" is cited. I don't know if this used to be a trivia section, but I agree with the above sentiment that it seems too listy. Re-writing it in prose would be nice.
• Is it necessary to have such a long main Awards section? I would suggest removing minor awards ("Syracuse Post-Standard"?) and possibly merging the rest of them into the Awards subsection under Reception. Or just make a stand-alone Awards section written in prose. Just my opinion -- the list of awards just seems long to me.
• I strongly recommend applying the Cite news and Cite web templates to the references in this article. With the template, the fully-exposed links will be linked through the title.

• I would also recommend, after applying the templates, that you place {{reflist|2}} under Notes to create two columns for the references.

My apologies if I sound too critical; the article is really quite well-done. I remember visiting it a few months ago before the film came out, and I could tell someone was devoting a lot of time to it. Glad to see that it's remained intact ever since. Definitely is approaching FA status. I'll have to actually read the content (just kind of skimmed this time, pointed out structural things) and get back to you on the writing. From what I noticed, all the references and punctuation was in place, which makes me a very happy editor. Cheers, and good luck continuing to build it up. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 22:07, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Mr. Lady Records

I saved a stub from deletion last month, and I've - with some help - got it to GA status. Since then, I have expanded and referenced it further, even finding a book mention. I'd like to see if I can spruce it up a little more, and would like additional input. I'm not sure if there's enough information available on defunct feminist indie record labels to get it to FA, but that's the dream. Even if not, I would like it to be as good as it can be, so thoughts, suggestions and comment are welcome. Thanks. Proto ► 13:43, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

• Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, APR _t 22:39, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Michaelas10

Looks very good overall, and no, getting it an FA isn't a dream. It could use a lot of copyediting however. My suggestions:

• General:
  • Sole years (e.g. 1996) shouldn't be linked per WP:DATE, and full dates should be linked entirely (e.g. 10 January 2007).
  • Please use the citation templates on references per the manual of style.
  • Add the corresponding infobox of recording labels ({{infobox record label}}) at the top of the article.
  • Reviews should be split out of the lead and the "Background" section to a new "Reception" section.
  • Split information about the band becoming defunct from the "Background" section to a new section with additional information from here.
  • References 5 and 25 needs to go right after the text, without an external space. References 14, 15, 16, 17, 13 need to go after the punctuation mark.
  • ...now defunct > ...which became defunct in 2004.
  • Be more specific in the "Artists formerly on Mr. Lady" section references, rather than providing the band's website itself. Also, I suggest moving the section to Artists formerly on Mr. Lady and adding that as a "main" article for the "Artists and releases" section in order to avoid the article becoming too listy.
  • This website is down.
  • The two formed Mr. Lady to make women's music and videos accessible and affordable - Duplication of the previous sentence.
• Copyediting related:
  • In March, 2001 - Remove comma.
  • ...by women.". - Remove the second period.
  • ...a record company With - Remove capitalization.
  • ...records (along with - Remove bracket.
  • Kaia Wilson released a statment confirming this in June 1999, stating - Replace "stating" with a colon. "...statment" > "...statement".
  • Formally backing the festival's trans-exclusion policy led to protests and boycotts aimed towards Mr. Lady acts, and Wilson and The Butchies in particular, from groups such as Camp Trans, who disagreed with Mr. Lady's stance and felt that the group and the label exploited transgendered images - Split this to two sentences starting with "Wilson and The Butchies". "...who" > "...have". "...the label" > "...label".

I have further copyediting suggestions, but I strongly advice requesting a different editor with a strategic distance to pass through the article to check for mistakes (I'd be happy to do so if you would like me to). Thanks. Michaelas10 (Talk) 16:30, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

• The automated suggestions aren't much help (it wants to fix contractions from inside quotes, and that's about it). The copyedits are done, dates are fixed, Quails website removed, It would be great if you could pass over it, Michael, thanks - a couplde of the chnages you suggested I know I've missed. The citation templates are a nightmare to put in, so I have not used them (use is neither reccomended for or against on Wikipedia:Citation templates). Artists formerly on Mr. Lady would not be a suitable article for Wikipedia. I will expand this out later with a little text on each band, to make it a paragraph rather than a list. Proto ► 19:04, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
• I've given it a proofread. Michaelas10 (Talk) 18:29, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

SatyrTN

I've gotten pretty good at the {{cite}} templates. While they're neither recommended nor discouraged, they do ensure the cites are done in the proper way. I'm not saying the ones on here are improper, btw! :) But if you'd like, I can do that. -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 22:23, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

That would be great, thanks! I can do one or two, but it's trial and error - I can't seem to get my head around them :( Neil (not Proto ►) 16:32, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

I've gone through the refs and reformatted using the appropriate {{cite}} templates. -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 23:26, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

That's a really big help, thank you very much. Neil (not Proto ►) 12:41, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Toyota War

I originally thought of creating this article just to alleviate the length of Chadian-Libyan conflict; but then I started working at it, trying to make it a good article. This has made me think of the possibility of attempting to make it the first GA in Chad-related topics. All criticisms will be immensely appreciated; in particular, I'm concerned with the prose, as its not my first language, and if there are any repetitions in the exposition. Also, I'm not certain about the lead.--Aldux 21:34, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Kirill Lokshin

Not bad at all. Some things that need work, though:

• {{Infobox Military Conflict}} needs to be added.
  • I added this with basic information I could find in the article. Needs to be filled out. - Francis Tyers · 22:59, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
• Are there any images available here? At a minimum, some maps would be very useful.
• The lead should, indeed, be longer; two or three paragraphs would probably suffice to provide a stand-alone summary of the article.
• The prose isn't bad, per se, but some copyediting by native speakers would probably be helpful.

Kirill Lokshin 22:26, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

I brought the images issue up at Talk:Chadian-Libyan conflict. Commons has nothing of use save the garishly colored Aozou Strip image which I added to that article six days ago. Picaroon 22:51, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I'll make a lead that presents a summary of the main events.--Aldux 23:37, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

I've written down an expanded lead, and given some context.--Aldux 00:04, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Picaroon

• I was noticing the same things as Kirill, and have begun acting upon them. Seeing as there is a lack of other images, I've added the Chadian and Libyan flags.
• There are also some things which are probably just differences in sentence structure between Italian and English, mainly the placement of phrases - if you check my recent changes, you'll see I've rearranged some sentences.
• Seeing as I was the one who suggested you split it off in the first place, I guess I'm to blame for this: there are places where not enough context is provided, or too much familiarity is assumed. I've wikilinked several things already and mentioned who Gaddafi was to try to rectify this. Picaroon 22:47, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Hi Picaroon. I'm not very coonvinced about the flags; there not specific enough, a map, even general, would be probably better. And yes, I keep forgetting that Chad - ahem (euphemism coming) - is not one of the best known countries in the world. I'll try to add some context.--Aldux 23:36, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Francis Tyers

• I added the {{Infobox Military Conflict}} — needs to be filled out.
• Images would be a blessing. If not, maps would be great.
• Do we have the name of the war/conflict in the languages/POV of Chad and Libya?
• Stub Hassan Djamous, Jamahiriya Guard,
• Prose needs tightening in places. - Francis Tyers · 22:59, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

I've written a pitiful little stub on Djamous, but Google doesn't turn up enough for this Jamahiriya Guard. Picaroon 23:32, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, perhaps it has another name? - Francis Tyers · 23:43, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

In this edit, I changed its spelling from "Jamahiriyyah Guard" because that's a less widely used variant of Jamahiriya (Arabic for "mass-state," IIRC). I guess we should leave it to Aldux, seeing as he has access to the book which mentioned it. Picaroon 23:48, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

The Jamahiriya Guard is mentioned by Metz and Pollack as a sort of pretorian guard, recruited only amongst Gaddafi's tribal clan. I'll try to work on it, maybe it's called often in the west "Repubblican Guard" or "Presidential Guard" (it may have been disbanded; my info regards the 1980s).--Aldux 23:25, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

As for the infobox, I can add some other info not contained yet in the article, and will expand Djamous. As for the Libyan or Chadian name of the conflict, I strongly doubt an estabilished name, as Libya has just removed any memory of this war, while Chad is too small to have developed a specific pov on the question.--Aldux 23:31, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

I've written a small stub on the Jamahiriyyah Guard. It seems that Fran was correct in suspectng an alternative name was more commonly used, and the name tends to be Revolutionary Guard.--Aldux 18:56, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Cool, looks like a good stub. - Francis Tyers · 22:18, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Pictures / Photographs

Here are some links to photographs — any chance of having a fair use rationale for any of them? - Francis Tyers · 23:16, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

• Libyan Wars, 1980-1989, Part 3
• Libyan Wars, 1980-1989, Part 6
• Strategy Game
• Another one
• Chadian troops reconquer northern Chad (with watermarks — numbers from '2' to '27' at the end) Thumbs

Should be easy to get at least a couple, using {{historicalphoto}}; they're pretty much all non-reproducible. Kirill Lokshin 23:18, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Aye. I guess its just down to which ones to pick. I'll look around for more and post them here then we can make a choice of the most appropriate. You're right they're non-reproducible, it would be great to find some PD-US-gov, but I think it highly unlikely :( - Francis Tyers · 23:20, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

I'd focus on the photographs that actually show combat action; they're likely to be a bit more meaningful that the generic French-plane-flying ones. Kirill Lokshin 23:24, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Definitely. Preferably one from each side. - Francis Tyers · 23:28, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Something like this one would be good — no watermark and it shows the namesake of the war. - Francis Tyers · 23:30, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

I've never been any good with images - but if some can be used, maybe even the planes may be helpful for the connected Opération Epervier and Opération coup de poing. If some image could be found also for the Chadian-Libyan conflict article, it would be great, as it too will probably be passed through a peer review.--Aldux 23:20, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

(de-indent)

Ok, I added one to the infobox. As fair as fair use (*cough* *spit*) goes, I think we have a fair claim to this one. It would be nice to remove the black border, but I'm not sure if that counts as a derivative work. If anyone wants to find a photo for the Libyan side that would be good. - Francis Tyers · 09:55, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

BanyanTree

Specific points

• What is the CDR? Also, please add that article to the disambiguation page CDR.
• "France answered with a second airstrike" - what was the first airstrike? needs context
• "affected the perception of Libya as a significant regional military power" - perception of who? international or domestic observers?

General points

• There is a definite need for more background over why this war is happening and what happened in the previous phases. One tightly written paragraph may be enough.
• I've copyedited a bit and added the garish map mentioned by Picaroon above. There are a couple of editors who have created battle maps in the past whom may be willing to create custom maps if you approach them and point out sources.
• Were there any economic or humanitarian effects, e.g. refugees and IDPs?

Otherwise, I think it is quite good. I dislike massive articles greatly and this gives a reasonable amount of detail (though I would like more context and operational-level detail) in a reasonable length. - BanyanTree 01:04, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

I found what the CDR is via a google search for cdr chad libya - it's something called the Democratic Revolutionary Council. I'll add that to the dab page. Picaroon 21:54, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

I just wanted to thank everybody for the fantastic work done; I would never have expected the reviews to arrive so fast, and with so many edits to the article thanks! :-) It's a bit late here, so I'll only briefly awnser.

Regarding the specific points raised by BT,

• Picaroon is correct regarding the CDR; I'll create an article on the miltia commanded by Ahmat Acyl.
• Oops, the first one is the 1986 Opération coup de poing. As this article was originally just a section of a bigger article, what before was obvious is not anymore so.
• "affected the perception of Libya as a significant regional military power" - shall change to "affected the international perception of Libya as a significant regional military power"

As for the general points

• You're write, I'll try a paragraph lifted from the material in Chadian-Libyan conflict
• As for the maps, this French website has some that would be very interesting If I could obtain them [[3]]. On wikipedia there's this meeting between Habré and Miterrand during the Toyota War [4], and maybe this map of Chad could be useful [5], as many of the towns mentioned on the article are there (Aouzou, Faya-Largeau, Fada, the capital, the Libyan base of Maaten as-Sara)
• Regarding humanitarian effects, I know very little, mainly through a few hints given by Nolutshungu. Remember that the war to retake northern Chad took only 3 months, and that northern Chad is all desert (i.e., very few inhabitants).
  • Fair enough, though a sentence describing the environment and terrain (and lack of inhabitants) would be nice for the intro. - BanyanTree 00:48, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
• What do you mean by "more operational-level detail"?--Aldux 23:12, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

By operational level detail, I think he's referring to details of specific skirmishes/battles, ie formations, human losses, etc... I suspect that there won't be much information on these, because it seems unlikely to have written down in detail. Picaroon 23:44, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Actually I do have some of this sort of info, especially from Pollack, but I didn't want to go too much in detail because I was projecting to write Battle of Bir Kora, Battle of Ouadi Doum, Battle of Aouzou, Battle of Maaten as-Sarra and reference/expand Battle of Fada.--Aldux 23:50, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

A brief summary of the course of the war, with links to the battle would be great. - BanyanTree 00:48, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

When you say "a brief summary of the war", you mean a summary of the events already present in the article in the lead? As for the links to the battles, sure.--Aldux 22:40, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Automated

• Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, APR _t 23:04, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Buckshot06

No mention, even a short one, of the UN Aouzou Strip Observer Group - should be at least mentioned briefly. Buckshot06 09:12, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

The Hudsucker Proxy

This is something of an underrated film even among fans of the Coen brothers. I think that the article is already off to a good start but I would like to improve it even more. Any helpful suggestions would be greatly appreciated. Count Ringworm 19:33, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

• Comment, you have an easy first step of fair use rationale for images.

I'd move the budget into production--at least the numbers if you think most expensive Cohen film at the time is important then keep that. But, I'd definitely make the intro probably two more fleshed out paragraphs and no hanging sentences like the Wheel of Fortune one. Like how Casablanca (film) does it. gren グレン 11:21, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for these suggestions. I'll give it a go. Count Ringworm 19:30, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

• Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, APR _t 22:38, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

AnonEMouse

• Lead is way too short. See WP:LEAD. One good suggestion from there is to include at least part of a sentence about every important section of the article.
• Why so much on the music in the lead? Was it that important in the movie? I recommend moving the music down into a section of its own. Was there a soundtrack released?
• first section, wikilink New Years Eve, Hula hoop, frisbee.
• Norville is chased down the street by an angry mob to the Hudsucker building - what made the mob angry?
• Moses stops the clock and time freezes - huh? Need to explain Moses's mystical powers a bit more. If he has divine powers, why does he have to fight Aloysius - or is Aloysius also more than human? Heck, what are M and A's motivations?
• goes on to "rule with wisdom" - rule what, the company? why the quote marks?
• action."[1]One - need a space after the ref
• Production - wikilink skyscraper, since it's so important
• While trying to sell their feature film debut Blood Simple, - be more specific, give a date
• the scale after Citizen Kane (1941).- in what sense is the scale based on a famous movie?
• it was a box office flop, grossing less than $3,000,000 in the US. - this needs to be moved after the test shootings text, don't you think? In fact, I'd move it all the way to Reaction.
• More reaction - this only describes immediate reaction, what about reaction over the last 15 years? Any more recent films based on it, any more recent reviews, retrospectives, references?
• References - the Retrieved on dates are red links, try again, maybe need leading 0s? Also some refs have double double quotes, as in ""A Rock on the Beach,"
• External links - describe the links more. Coenesque - isn't there a more specific subpage for this film?

--AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 15:38, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Care Bears Movie II: A New Generation

Previous peer review

• A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style; it can be found on the automated peer review page for October 2008.

This peer review discussion has been closed.
How I haven't been to this page, once an FA target of mine, in quite some time. And with my new Bellflower obsession on the rise, I haven't even got the time any more. I'll try to see if I can improve it with whatever comments you can provide with below. This time, I'll make it a GA at most.

Thanks, Slgrandson (How's my egg-throwing coleslaw?) 23:54, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Finetooth comments: This article has a couple of big problems and some smaller ones. Here are some suggestions for improvement.

• I agree with whoever added the "too long" tag above the plot synopsis. I wonder also about the source of the synopsis. If this is your personal description of the plot, it might be regarded as personal research. It's doubtful that a professional reviewer would describe the plot in this much detail. Please see WP:NOR.

• You'll have a hard time justifying the use of three fair-use images in this article. I see that one is flagged for deletion, and I doubt that more than one will survive scrutiny. Mr suggestion would be to use only the one in the infobox.

• The linking of dates purely for the purpose of autoformatting is now deprecated. I ran a script to unlink the dates in this article. Please see WP:UNLINKDATES for the recent changes to the guidelines.

• I'd recommend deleting the word "unexpectedly" from the phrase, "before disappearing unexpectedly from the box-office charts". If you leave it in, it needs a source.

• In the "Release and reception" section, it's not clear what the phrase "wide break" means. Does that mean the movie's rise or its fall in the charts?

• The link to the Vincent Canby review is dead. You might substitute this one in the citation.

• The Maltin citation includes an access date but no url. Should it have an url? If you are citing a book in print, the print version would have no access date.

• Citations 7 and 8 lack urls.

If you have questions about any of these comments, please ask. I'll keep a watch on this peer review page. Finetooth (talk) 16:39, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Ami Mizuno

This is an article about a fictional character in the Sailor Moon series. The Sailor Moon Wikiproject hopes to nominate the article as a Good Article Candidate some time in the near future. Main points: is it easy to understand for non-fans? Does it steer clear of WP:OR? Does it stray into cruftiness? Does it follow Wikipedia:Manual of Style (writing about fiction) enough? Does the 'profile' section read well? (It's been recently rewritten). Thanks. -Malkinann 21:18, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

• Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, APR _t 23:04, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Looks like Malkinann did a pretty good with most of those already. :) The only things that remain to be done of those suggestions are the lead (I've been putting some thought into that) and one musical song whose description just needs verification. Actually, I can get rid of that uncertainty just by snipping half a sentence. Okay! --Masamage 01:16, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

• Second half of the article is far too listy. See Wikipedia:Embedded list.

The "Senshi powers" seems too crufty to me and "Music" seems out of place in a character article.

A poll of 586 votes doesn't seem credible enough to claim that she is "the most popular character in the series". I'm sure plenty of other polls of similar size have had any of the Sailors win.

The article quickly aquires an overly in-universe tone.

The "Profile" section contains too many overly trivial details. Do we really need to know that "Besides reading, Ami loves playing chess and swimming"? Tighten this up.--SeizureDog 19:58, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the perspective on the lists - I didn't realise how listy the article was until you pointed it out. We'll have a think about how to paragraph some of the lists. I'm unsure if we should remove the Senshi powers, as that would take away from the comprehensiveness of the article, but perhaps if we talked more generally about Ami's role in battle as the brains that'd be a solution? The poll seems to have had more than one thousand votes.. but we're looking for a better reference on that. I agree that it does seem in-universe in places... I'm not sure about your familiarity with Sailor Moon, but part of the appeal lies in the varied characters, ie. the dollbox statistics. If we tried to remove any of the statistics details, (swimming, blood type, school club) it'd come back so often it just wouldn't be funny. -Malkinann 11:42, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

It's true. People are constantly editing those parts. Even when the stats were in a list, folks came and added duplicates of the list. --Masamage 22:45, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Well do try to do something about it. Right now it feels like an article that goes on and on about what Peter Parker's favorite foods and hobbies are, only to end with "oh yeah, he also happens to be Spider-Man". Seriously, compare "Profile" to "Aspects and forms". If you can find that much to say about her normal self, it seems like there should be more information (aside from an attack list) for her most important role.--SeizureDog 17:31, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Wow, that does put it in perspective. I've put up a section stub. Does the profile read better now that Masamage has tried to make it out of universe? -Malkinann 21:36, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Amen to Malkinann. Later this afternoon I'll see what I can do about expanding the Senshi section, and possibly providing more context for the statistics. It's true that right now they're like, "Yay the cute shy one likes sandwiches yay!" --Masamage 22:32, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Regarding the Attacks section, I have just finished rewriting it as prose on a Project test page. Is it better? --Masamage 02:14, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes, much better. Now it focuses on which attacks are important and not every single tiny one that might be used.--SeizureDog 17:31, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Cool. I'm seeing what the Project people think about making it official. Thanks for the feedback! :) --Masamage 22:38, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

If we changed the 'Music' section header to say 'Image songs', would that make it less incongruous? Or should it perhaps be prose-ified too, and made to include her poems and things as well? --Masamage 05:08, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

My point is that it's not really relevent. Information on image songs would be best served at its own article. e.g. List of Haruhi Suzumiya albums and Haruhi Suzumiya character song albums.--SeizureDog 06:04, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Some of them are pretty relevant. They appear in anime episodes, or they make statements about the character that aren't made so clearly anywhere else. (In at least one case we're using an image poem as a reference.) Anyway, most of the characters had multiple "single" albums, and there are many dozen larger albums covering at least a hundred SM songs, probably more. I shudder to think of cataloguing them all there are entire, enormous websites devoted to that. My feeling is that if it comes to cruft, this is definitely the least crufty way to handle the music, and if there's a lack of context for why the heck a music section exists, there probably should be more prose. --Masamage 07:48, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

The fact that's she has image songs is important for the average reader to know. Specificly which songs however, is not. Homer Simpson has also sang a number of songs throughout his series, but that doesn't mean he needs a section listing them. Just take "A number of image songs featuring Ami's character have been released.", stick it in the lead (which I just realized really needs to be expanded), and remove the rest.--SeizureDog 09:17, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

I've done as you've suggested, saving the song list in the talk page - maybe if the songs are particularly relevant, they'll make their way back in as references? -Malkinann 10:06, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

I've also had a go at expanding the lead, as in WP:LEAD - I'm not sure how sparklingly it reads, though. -Malkinann 10:29, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

What next?

What should we do now? Have we achieved GA quality or no? How can we accomplish that if not? --Masamage 19:49, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

We've expanded the section on Ami's "Sailor Mercury" role + lead and significantly expanded the section on her "Dark Sailor Mercury" role. Maybe the FU rationale for DSM needs work? If the peer review doesn't seem like we'll get any more comments, we can always request that it gets archived - although it seems that a FAC is an automatic out of the peer review system.. ;) -Malkinann 05:07, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

I updated the FU rationale for DSM's image, which brings them all up-to-date except for the picture of Chisaki Hama in civilian clothes. I have no idea where that one comes from. Unless it's on the Oracle? I'll check that when I get home tonight. Anyway, I'm going to try and figure out if it's kosher to ask the main WP Anime talk page to come look over here. If it is, I'll try that and we can get some more insight before moving on. --Masamage 22:46, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't know - I'd thought eternal-moon.org, but it doesn't seem to be there. Maybe we should swap it to one of her with glasses (cos we talk about her glasses a lot)??? -Malkinann 23:52, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

I found it at the Oracle, but it seems to be just a modelling shot for Chisaka Hama, not a screenshot from the show. But here's a pretty good shot of Ami in glasses. --Masamage 21:25, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

California State Route 37

See Wikipedia:Peer review/California State Route 37/archive2 for previous Peer Review.

This is the second request for Peer Review. After the previous one said the article had no problems and was ready for FA, the FAC failed miserably. Now that most of the problems issued there have been resolved, I would like to know if there are any problems with the article that would prevent this from reaching FA status. --w^{L<speak·check>} 11:45, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Automated Peer Review

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

• Per Wikipedia:What is a featured article?, Images should have concise captions.^[?]
• Per Wikipedia:Context and Wikipedia:Build the web, years with full dates should be linked; for example, link January 15, 2006.^[?]
• Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (headings), headings generally do not start with articles ('the', 'a(n)'). For example, if there was a section called ==The Biography==, it should be changed to ==Biography==.^[?]
• Please ensure that the article has gone through a thorough copyediting so that it exemplifies some of Wikipedia's best work. See also User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 1a.^[?]

You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, Davnel03 14:52, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Oakland Raiders

This was recently passed as a Good Article, and I feel it merits consideration as a Featured Article. I would like to get some more eyes on it before submitting a nomination. --cholmes75 ^{(chit chat)} 19:14, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

I've only looked over it briefly, but I believe it will easily pass FA. --Ideogram 22:35, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Same as Ideogram. I don't have any improvements to suggest. YechielMan 07:32, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Real nice work, could use a couple more pics to describe the action, but Fair Use photos like that are very hard to find. Quadzilla99 04:21, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Yeah I searched all over the place, but couldn't find anything unfortunately. --cholmes75 ^{(chit chat)} 04:39, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

• Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, APR _t 20:42, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Evanescence

This is an article about alternative rock band Evanescence. The Evanescence WikiProject hopes to nominate this article as a Good Article Candidate some time in the future.

Main points

Is it easy to understand for non-fans? Is it possible for this article to be a GA or FA? If not, what does the article need to improve and get to GA or FA? Wich sections need more attetion?  Armando.O  ^{(talk|contribs)} 02:39, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

• Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, APR _t 23:04, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Ideogram

I found this article generally informative and well written. It could always be better, of course, and I have tagged a couple of awkward sentences near the beginning.

I think it has a good chance to pass GA, if you can fix those citation needed tags.

For FA, I personally think the prose is not good enough, but then my standards here are higher than most reviewers.

I'm not really sure you should stick all those subcategories under "History". It seems to me you really want to structure the article around the album releases, with a separate section for the Christian controversy. --Ideogram 09:05, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

About the Christian controversy: It's placed there because it's a recurring problem since the Evanecence early history until today.  Armando.O  ^{(talk|contribs)} 19:37, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

But it's placed last in the History section, implying that it happend at a particular point in history, namely last. --Ideogram 20:59, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Pictures

is there a better picture that we can use for the Evanescence article? one where you can clearly see them closer.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Zacanescence (talk • contribs) 04:49, February 18, 2007(UTC)

This is a review, not a page of requests. You should check that on the archives of the Evanescence last page (I think it's the last archive).  Armando.O  ^{(talk|contribs)} 00:51, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Youngstown, Ohio

I wanted to peer review this article again. Since February (the last peer review), many changes have been made and I am contemplating nominating this article for FA status again. Please provide your thoughts on the overall structure, what it is missing and what I can do to get to FA. Thanks, --Daysleeper47 22:02, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

4u1e's comments

• Embarrassingly trivial, but I'd recommend cutting "as noted above" from the first para of History. I know it's already covered in the lead, but that's in the nature of the beast, and the phrase doesn't really add any meaning.
• In the second para of 'History', I'm a little unclear on where the majority of the first settlers of the township came from. It says "While some of the area's early settlers were natives of Connecticut, Youngstown differed from most settlements of the Western Reserve, which drew a vast majority of their residents from New England. Youngstown attracted a significant number of Scots-Irish settlers from neighboring Pennsylvania as well". To me that says that the majority of the settlers were not from Connecticut or from New England and while there were 'significant numbers' of Scots-Irish, it seems these were not the majority either. What am I missing?
• In the third para of 'History', am I right in thinking that the county seat of Trumbull County moved from Warren to Canfield to Youngstown? If so, is it necessary to mention that it was at Warren first? This doesn't really have anything to do with Youngstown and could be confusing.
• I find the phrase "the discovery of coal in the community" confusing. I know what is meant by it ("the community discovered coal under their land"), but something about it reads wrong and sounds like they perhaps found it in the lumber room, or under the kitchen table. :) Perhaps "the discovery of coal by the community"?
• Being really picky, the final sentence of 'History' (i.e. just before 'Peopling of the valley') says that the railroad came to the city in 1856. A couple of paras earlier it says that the village of Youngstown didn't become a city until 1867 - could this be reworded so as not to cause confusion?
• I can't remember what the MoS says on the subject, but some style guides recommend that if there are sub-headings to a section all the text in the section should appear under a subheading. At present half the text of 'History' is under a sub-heading ('Peopling of the Valley'), while the other half comes directly under the main section heading. Suggest that the first bit could be called 'Origins' or 'Foundation'.
• No reference for the statement that "ethnic diversity came to be regarded as one of Youngstown's defining characteristics"
• Is the closure of Youngstown Sheet and Tube really a Swan song? I understand that term to mean some kind of final, magnificent performance before death. This seems just to have been the 'death', with no final performance. Suggest the term is removed.
• Perhaps link Downtown at its first occurrence, or even explain its meaning. That wouldn't be necessary for US readers of course, but those of us across the pond aren't that familiar with what it actually means.
• "has tended to overshadow that the city has a long entrepreneurial tradition" (At the start of 'Legacy of innovation') should be "has tended to overshadow the city's long entrepreneurial tradition".
• Should the various organisations described in 'Legacy of innovation' be described in chronological order?
• The second para of 'Legacy of innovation' seems to be more about 'Youngstown in popular culture'. I agree that the Springsteen song needs to be mentioned, but I'm not sure this is the place to do it.
• Suggest replace "The school district is currently engaged in..." with "As of 2007? the school district was engaged in....". Similar for "This roster is expected to change in the next few years..."
• Picky again, but under 'Theater', the word 'Interestingly' is not needed (comment also applies elsewhere) In the same paragraph, why say 'Meanwhile' when describing the Stambaugh auditorium? And again for the Oakland center for the Arts? In fact, I note quite a few appearances of meanwhile - probably a good idea to check whether meanwhile is really what is meant in each case.
• The para on the Grandes Venues project should be cut down significantly, now that the project has failed.
• The second para under 'Museums' contains an external jump link, which probably shouldn't be there.
• "The downtown area boasted no less than two department stores" (under 'Former attractions') sounds odd and somewhat peacock-y. There are only two numbers less than two you can have! Suggest "There were formerly two department stores in the downtown area".
• Movie theaters in the downtown area are mentioned at least twice: in 'Former attractions' and 'Theater' (I've a feeling it may be more than that, actually). It's not that notable, it need only be mentioned once. Similarly, the Chevrolet center appears twice - again, once only needed.
• Section title 'Challenging old verities': Suggest use 'truths' instead, clearer for many readers.
• Suggest that there is probably a more encyclopedic term than 'gangland slayings', although I'll admit I don't know what it is off the top of my head!
• Overall a clear and certainly comprehensive article. It does feel like the balance of the piece isn't quite there yet, though: I'd like to see more on the history and development of the city, and perhaps less on the current buildings and amenities, which may not all be notable. Anyway - hope that's helpful 4u1e 12:35, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

The only major ting I noticed is that the geography and media sections don't have references. I personally don't think they're necessary in the geography section, and not too necessary in media, but I'm sure the people at FAC would disagree, so I'll point it out. Wizardman 17:15, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Earl Mindell

I would like a peer review of the claims made in Earl_Mindell#Controversy. Thanks! SERSeanCrane 04:25, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Specifically, I'm only concerned with this material:

Mindell's theories on health and nutrition have been met with criticism in the scientific community. For example, Mindell claims that eating foods that are high in DNA and RNA will help reverse the aging process. In truth, these nucleic acids are digested and never reach human somatic cells in such a form that would directly benefit the consumer. Similarly, Mindelll has previously promoted oral supplements of an "anti-aging" enzyme, superoxide dismutase (SOD). There is currently no evidence for the supposed benefits of SOD, and it is known that the enzyme would not survive the digestive process if taken orally.

The associated reference is:

Schwarcz, Joe (2006-08-19). "Beware of Juices That Claim to Cure". The Montreal Gazette: J11.

SERSeanCrane 07:09, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Not my line, but I suggest the words "In truth, .." be replaced by something like "Scientific consensus suggests that ..". I think you also want sources for both Mindell's claim and the scientific consensus. --Bduke 05:16, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Much as I'm all for peer reviewing of scientific articles, I'm not sure we can peer review a dynamic source like WP. I'm not even sure how that would work. I've just had an article accepted that's been in peer review for three months (and those reviews were good ones!). Wikipedia is self-correcting and if there's a problem with the statement you have suggested for review, somebody who knows better will come along and edit it. Basically, Wikipedia, by being open access, will peer review itself. Secondly, Joe Schwarcz (McGill University) is a pretty respectable source, he's not some hack. Famousdog 14:19, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

This wasn't a knock on Schwarczy, I paraphrased the sections of his article that I used for the Earl Mindell entry and just wanted confirmation that it is "legit."

All the best, SERSeanCrane 22:15, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

• Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, APR _t 20:41, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Upper St. Clair High School

I have no idea what the requestor is looking for but I thought I would create this page for him. --Ideogram 02:13, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

What the Article Needs?

What would be need for this article to become GA or even FA?

• Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, APR _t 20:42, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Bates Method

The Bates Method page has been the site of some recent lively discussion, which has resulted in mediation. I would be grateful if anybody trained in opthalmology, visual science or, indeed, Bates practitioners themselves, would help to review this page. Thank you. Famousdog 14:33, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

• Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, APR _t 20:41, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Pennsylvania State University

I've been doing some work on this article lately but would like some broader feedback, particularly from editors not as closely tied to Penn State as myself who may be able to offer some more objective feedback. Any and all criticism is welcome! Thanks in advance. PSUMark2006 talk | contribs 17:45, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, I went to Penn State, but I'd one topic that I think should be addressed (perhaps near the Demographics and Trends sections) is the alleged racial discrimination that some students feel at Penn State. The "Village" incident in April-May of 2001 was a very big story at Penn State, which was a week long sit-in at the HUB due to death threats against black students. [6] Discrimination (racial or non-racial) is still a big issue to many students at Penn State today, as just yesterday week the Black Caucus participated in a sit-in regarding the former women's basketball player Jen Harris [7]. To keep that section balanced, perhaps a mention or two of what Penn State is doing to help minority students. Terryfilene22 20:36, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps a mention of Penn State having the highest tuition in the nation for a "public flagship university", according to USA Today? (even though PSU is technically state-related) [8] The article needs a more balanced view of the university in order not to violate WP:PRESTIGE. The two biggest issues I can think of when it comes to criticism of PSU are alleged discrimination issues and high tuition bills. Arthurberkhardt 03:29, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

• Two new sections added, discussing controversy and criticism regarding diversity and tuition at Penn State. Thanks for the feedback... keep it coming! PSUMark2006 talk | contribs 05:00, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

• Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, APR _t 20:42, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Oklahoma City bombing

This is my first peer review and I would like to know what needs to be fixed in the article to help it reach FA status. It is currently in GAC right now behind a large backlog. Over the last few weeks I have scoured the Internet and found large amounts of information in a related book. I'm open to any suggestions to improve the article in an attempt to get this to FA, hopefully in time of the anniversary of the bombing. Thank you in advance for your time and effort. --Nehrams2020 01:02, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Is it reasonable to include a section with the names of all of the victims (168 total) in a side bar similar to Columbine High School massacre? --Nehrams2020 00:46, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

• Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, APR _t 20:42, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

2nd attempt July 11, 2007

I didn't receive any feedback the last attempt except for the automated peer review suggestions. The article has become a Good Article, but I would like to know what it needs before it goes to FAC. --Nehrams2020 21:53, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

• Peer review by User:TimVickers

• "Just 90 minutes after the explosion" is too journalistic in style, just state the facts.

Changed to "shortly after the explosion".

• Needs to summarise the main points in the article, looking at the headings, it appears that the "response and relief" section isn't summarised here.
• The statement "Except where noted, all statements in this section are sourced from the book American Terrorist." would be best as a footnote or as part of the first reference in this section.

Converted to note.

• "After finishing the configuration" maybe "construction" would be a better word.

Changed

• Not clear from the text how the VIN number linked McVeigh to the bombing, since he used an alias and false ID to rent the truck.
• The sentence "The missing leg appears to have been a sort of "clerical" error, but nothing after 1996 could be found about it" is unclear and confusing.
• "(Michel & Herbeck 234)" should be moved to references if this is what it is. These also need to be moved from (Giordano 34), (Linenthal 140), (Linenthal 142-44) and (Michel & Herbeck 249) in later sections.
• Reference 38 would be best using the Template: Cite journal.
• The "see also" link seems unnecessary if there is no evidence to link this man to the crime. This link could also have libel issues, I'd strongly recommend removing it.

Removed the link and his name from the See Also section.

• In the "See also" section, there are serious legal problems with linking living people with this crime.

Removed the majority of the names.

• The image Image:OkcW.jpg may need a fair-use rationale.

The license appears to have changed from several months ago, but I'll add one.

McLean Group of Companies

I'm having difficulty writing this article with out making it sound like an advertisement. I don't really feel there is enough information to make this article a GA or a featured article, but at its current state it has room for improvement. I realize there are not many pictures and I'm working on finding some that I have the licensing to use with out copy-vio. Mkdw^talk 00:53, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

• Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, APR _t 20:42, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

History of Dedham, Massachusetts, 1793 - 1999

I have been working on this page for a while, and just put it up. Theres a lot in there, but I'd like any feedback anyone has to offer. Briancua

A few comments

• The lead is very short and just introduces the article rather than summarising it.
• For look I think that the {{DedhamHistory}} should be moved to the first line and the population table turned horizontal and moved to the end of the article just before the references.
• Some words need appriate wikilinking early in the article. Words that need linking are Turnpike, tip, Republican, Democratic, Knights of Columbus, High streets, Congressman, Protestant, Unitarian, straw bonnets, stagecoach, Heyday to wikt:heyday
• There seems to be innapropriate capitalisation in places eg:all Massachusetts towns were Constitutionally required (don't hold me to this as my puncuation etc.. is not the best)

All up though a very good article and enjoyable read - Peripitus (Talk) 05:55, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

• Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, APR _t 20:41, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

History of Dedham, Massachusetts, 1635 - 1792

I have been working on this page for a while, and just put it up. Theres a lot in there, but I'd like any feedback anyone has to offer.Briancua 01:30, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

• Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, APR _t 20:41, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Gwoyeu Romatzyh

This article has been heavily rewritten, expanded, and sourced by User:Ndsg. It has passed GA, and now we're planning on moving it up to FA. It has undergone a few changes, such as the movement of most of the spelling details to a new page, and the according section has been rewritten summary-style. We would appreciate any more advice from other editors about the article's quality, and how it can be improved. The ikiroid (talk·desk·Advise me) 18:55, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

• One quick comment on organization. I would put section Description behind section Compounds as words -- or maybe combine the two behind section History. Seems like Texts and Language learning should come later, especially since they introduce concepts (like T1, T3) which aren't explained except in Description. Overall the article looks pretty good, though. Technical details are treated pretty well, which is important. -- bcasterline • talk 19:46, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
  • I moved "Description" so that it is now the next section after "history." How's that? The ikiroid (talk·desk·Advise me) 21:22, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
    • Makes more logical sense to me. I still think Compounds as words could be combined with Description since it is a discription, but it's not a crucial point. -- bcasterline • talk 02:08, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
      • I see it as more of a principle than a trait, since word compounding could theoretically be removed and the text would remain readable. It's also a bit more abstract than spelling conventions, since it concerns the morphemic boundaries in words, which have been historically debated in Chinese. The ikiroid (talk·desk·Advise me) 03:30, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

2007 NASCAR Gatorade Duel Scandal

Just started it; would like someone who knows more about NASCAR to expand.--Donald Goldberg 02:57, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

• Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, APR _t 20:40, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Last Exit to Springfield

This article is currently close to becoming a GA, but I would like some constructive comments on how to get this article to FA status. Some specifics:

• Is there enough in the production section? I got as much useful notable information out of the DVD commentary as I could, and since this episode is from 1993, there isn't a lot on the internet.
• Is the review section too cluttered/messy?
• Is the the Cultural references section too cluttered/messy/needed?
• How is the general synopsis? Too short, long, too specific or not specific enough?
• Is there any way I can lengthen the lead?

Feedback on those or any other issues would be MUCH appreciated. -- Scorpion 01:59, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

A couple of quick things:

• If you're going for FA, you might get in trouble for having too many fair use images to illustrate the article. Each image should be used for "identification and critical commentary", Image:A Thousand Monkeys.png and Image:9f15.jpg are there just to illustrate the article.
• I wouldn't quote IMDB and TV.com ratings - they are highly subjective self-self-selecting surveys and don't really indicate much.
• Yes, I tink the "Reception" section might be a bit too crowded, try splitting it into paragraphs.
• The "Production", "Cultural References" and "Reception" sections don't really flow naturally - they are like collections of disjoint bullet points without actually using the *s. I'm not sure how this can be improved myself, perhaps try looking at similar sections of articles in the "Media" section of WP:FA to see what tends to be acceptable. (Though I did not find any individual episodes there, so there probably isn't as much information to put in these sections as in other FA articles.)

--Konstable 22:25, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

• Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, APR _t 20:40, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Holden VE Commodore

This article has already been reviewed once before (see Archive1), but I feel that since that time the article has gone under substantial changes. Currently the article is GA, and I would like to renominate it for FAC, so any advice or comments that you give would be much appreciated. OSX 06:57, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

• Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, APR _t 20:38, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

1974 aluminum cent

I've pretty much exhausted all "reasonable" online sources, added "The Book" on US Patterns into the article for the required print source to verify the online sources and much of the facts in the article, and did a minor cleanup of sorts. Given there is so little info about the coin, and short of undertaking FOIA requests to the US Mint and the United States Treasury and buying another book (which is OOP and aquiring one is a "major" financial undertaking), is there anything else I could do to make it better or am I pretty much "done?" -293.xx.xxx.xx 06:19, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

• Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, APR _t 20:40, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Bill Haywood

Several contributors have put a lot of work into this article, it's been passed as a Good Article, and now we're hoping for some feedback from a peer review in preparation for FAC. Any input will be greatly appreciated! --JerryOrr 02:41, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

• Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, APR _t 20:38, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
  • I've started to respond to some of the suggestions there (and mark the ones that are done)... should I copy it to this page? What do people prefer? --JerryOrr 21:41, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

2006 Formula One season

This article I believe is very, very good, but I wanted to get the opinions on the article by other users, hence the reason why I removed it from Feature Article Candidate. Main things I'd like to get comments on include:

• Opening section of article (Season Review)
  • Whether it goes in-depth into the subject matter or whether more detail is needed.
  • Missing information that could be inserted.
  • Detail that isn't really relevant to the subject matter.

• Tables
  • Is their any mistakes that need to be removed.

• Pictures
  • Are their some pictures that aren't exactly needed in the article.
  • Does it break up the text too often.

Also comment on the article in general and what is the main little piece of text that doesn't fit in with the text. Davnel03 21:47, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

OK, my initial thoughts for improvement:

• The opening section could do with a comment (with reference, of course) about how the season was viewed (e.g. exciting, controversial etc.)
• The article needs to be copy-edited, to check for spelling and grammatical errors (e.g. "Renault's Giancarlo Fisichella race in wet track during Chinese Grand Prix"), and links (e.g. "Grand Chelem" links to a list of F1 records, and not to the specific section.)
• Some parts of the text are marked as needing citations.
• The image of Schumacher should stay as it captures a pivotal moment of the season, but the other two could be replaced with better ones.
• The tables are fine, in my opinion.--Diniz 22:09, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

A very quick first thought, I'm a bit suspicious of the overlap between the 'Background' and the 'Team changes' and 'Driver changes' sections. The latter probably first appeared when the season was some way off, and were a useful way of noting upcoming changes, but should probably now be merged into either the background to the season or the season review as appropriate. 4u1e 13:52, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Somebody will probably produce a list of automated peer review comments for this article at some point - they can be a bit difficult to get your head round, but I have found them very useful in the past. Make use of them! 4u1e 13:54, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

For Featured Article status, the writing will need a lot of work. It's quite 'jumpy' - the logical flow of concepts and ideas needs more work. Try reading each sentence as if you knew nothing about the topic and considering whether it makes sense in its own right and whether it follows on logically from what goes before. Even better, get someone who knows nothing about F1 to read it and tell you whether they can follow it. This is a really difficult one to get right, and probably means getting lots of people to look at it.4u1e 14:00, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

• Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, APR _t 20:38, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Fordham University

Suggestions for improvements and a rating for this article are welcome.Shoreranger 04:47, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

• Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, APR _t 20:38, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Larissa Tudor

I'd like suggestions to improve this article. Someone has placed a note on the top saying it isn't written in an encyclopaedic tone. I disagree somewhat with the comment, but think it might be a bit too wordy.--Bookworm857158367 21:32, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

• Comment It's likely been tagged as it has no sections. It needs to be split into sections with a lead, middle etc. LuciferMorgan 22:36, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
• Comment The article suffers from a somewhat confusing lack of context as it assumes that the reader already knows who Grand Duchess Tatiana Nikolaevna of Russia was and what happened to her. I think these things should be briefly explained in a proper lead section. Also, there are some weasel phrases in the article, such as "is said by some people to have been..." and "Critics say that...", these statements seem to be referenced but they need specificity. --KFP (talk | contribs) 17:30, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

• Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, APR _t 20:38, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Victor de Sabata

I've been working on this article for a while, and would appreciate any comments. Thanks! Grover cleveland 16:43, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

• Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, APR _t 20:37, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Indonesian War of Independence

Although I'd love to hear comment from people who actually know about this topic, even just general comments from readers who are new to the topic would be helpful. I'd like to get it to GA and then FA. Although I have covered all the important areas, I have a number of good references that have not yet been used, and there is still some more info that could go in, but I feel that this is a good time to get a review. (please note I'm seeking to move this article to Indonesian National Revolution per the talk page - the current title is fundamentally flawed and too narrow - read the article and you will understand!). --Merbabu 12:01, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

• Comment - I don't know if it would fail FAC based on this, but I think the article could use some more pictures. One picture for an article that long is definitely not enough. --JerryOrr 12:49, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Jerry - you are correct, and i will look into it - but it's quite hard to get free pictures. The only other two pictures that are free on wikipedia are from that exact period sub-section - ie, Battle of Surabaya. But I have some maps that someone has offered to re-create and post. Perhaps that will help.--Merbabu 12:55, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

• Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, APR _t 20:37, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Kaiser Chiefs

My absolute favourite band in the world. With their second album coming out next week I think they deserve a better article than this. Buc 10:35, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, referencing is needed. Start by converting the four external jumps within the article and start mining the external links for various news articles. Wiki-newbie 12:11, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

As above, article definitely needs referenced. Could also do with more prose and longer paragraphs/sections. Archibald99  17:14, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

• Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, APR _t 20:37, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Polish cochineal

I created this article a few days ago. I requested feedback, but didn't receive any and I hope it means that this article is simply good. It has been rated as B-class by WikiProject Arthropods which is quite a success, consindering I'm not a biologist. I would appreciate any comments and suggestions. Not being a native English speaker, I will be particularly grateful for pointing out (or correcting) any linguistic or stylistic mistakes. Thanks, Kpalion 19:45, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

• Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, APR _t 23:06, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Hi Kpalion. I think the article is quite good, and would recommend a copy-edit. You can check in with Wikipedia:WikiProject League of Copyeditors, or I'd be willing to do it (or both). Could you find more sources, and/or expand the number of inline citations? With work in these areas, it would be a fine Featured article candidate. I may also be able to find some journal articles on the topic, but I'm not sure how obscure these bugs are. You can email me if you want to pursue such sources. –Outriggr § 01:44, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for prompt feedback, Outriggr. Most of the information in this article comes from two articles listed in the "Sources" section, so I decided to use inline citation only for fact taken from other sources. Please let me know if you have a better suggestion. The topic does seem pretty obscure, even Polish sources are scarce. I will be trying to get my hands on Jakubski's monograph, but I'm not sure if and when I will find it (besides, it was written before WW2). I will appreciate any additional sources, especially in English, you can find. What should I do to request the League's help in copy-editing? Kpalion 14:15, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

You can submit a request at Wikipedia:WikiProject League of Copyeditors/proofreading under the section "Requests for copy-editing assistance". I found some mentions of the P.C. in articles that I could email you. However, they are probably of limited use. If you wish, send me an email first so I can reply with attachments. This article is better than B class so I suggest you at least try for a "Good Article" stamp of approval. –Outriggr § 01:39, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks again for the materials you sent me, I used some of them to improve the article. The article has been copy-edited and is now listed as a good article. — Kpalion^(talk) 11:11, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Adam Gilchrist

Okay, so continuing the trend of pushing as many cricket articles to GA/FA, I'd appreciate comments on Gilly's article. The things I am aware of at the moment:

1. A number of citations are still required - help with these would be great.
2. There's insufficient information on his background e.g. family, upbringing, schooling etc.
3. I'm afraid of the article deteriorating into a stat-fest so need some quality writing.
4. The tail-end of the article needs to be better integrated.

Thanks in advance to all who contribute. The Rambling Man 13:58, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

LuciferMorgan

"Achievements" section could be converted from list into smooth, cohesive prose which ties together the subsection as a whole. Prose is always better than list. LuciferMorgan 03:24, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

• "Prosed", so to speak, with major scoring achievements left, as per Paul Collingwood. Thanks. The Rambling Man 14:56, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

---

HornetMike

Here's the things I picked up on:

• The lead probably needs expanding slightly, considering the length of his career. However, I can't really think where. Helpful, eh?
• The stuff on his son Archie's birth can be trimmed a bit. "Gilchrist is married to Mel and has two sons Harrison and Archie and a daughter Annie" would probably read better, with a smaller bit about Archie's "involvement" in the 2007 cup.
  • Done, reworded down a bit, and added comment to state Gilly would have been late, but Archie was early, so no worries... The Rambling Man 18:03, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
• The business stuff might be introduced with a line like "Gilchrist is involved in a number of businesses outside of cricket" just so the reading flows a bit more and the paragraphs don't seem so isolated.
  • I'll handle that now. --Dweller 10:54, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
• The domestic front needs bolstering a bit
  • Done, could do with copyediting but more information there, for all seasons up to and including this year. The Rambling Man 18:02, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
• Might be worth mentioning his first call-up was for a World Cup? Also that it followed his impressive second season for WA?
  • Thought his first call-up in ODI was vs S. Africa in Titan Cup, or am I missing something? His second season at WA has been described. The Rambling Man 19:23, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
• "He quickly established himself as the Australian ODI wicketkeeper, ousting Ian Healy in the process,[16] and becoming the 129th Australian ODI cap.[23]" that highlighted bit reads oddly, and would work better inserted onto the end of "Gilchrist was called up for the Australian One–day International (ODI) team in 1996, his debut coming against South Africa at Faridabad, October 25, 1996.[2][22]" Indeed, the non-highlighted bit would be better after the details of his debut, as the beginning part of this sentence "Gilchrist replaced Healy for the first two ODIs in..." (although if you did that you'd need to make the Texaco cup bit a different sentence)
  • Reworded... The Rambling Man 19:29, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
• Why was the stumping of Astle significant?
  • It was because it was Gilly's first ODI stumping, but I don't think it reads well so I'll rephrase. The Rambling Man 10:57, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
• First ODI fifty and/or hundred?
  • Yep, links first 50 and first 100, will incorporate into article. The Rambling Man 10:56, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
  • And first Test 100. The Rambling Man 17:59, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
• ODI career post 1999?!
• "He made his Test debut against..." wouldn't use the pronoun there, seeing as it's a new section
  • Fixed, thanks The Rambling Man 10:50, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
  • I fixed a similar one in his domestic section --Dweller 10:53, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
• Calling Langer his long-time friend sounds a bit editorialising. I mean, I bet they are but there's no way to cite that and it sounds a bit newspapery, if you get my meaning.
  • Removed "friend" reference, irrelevant really, team-mate yes, mate no. The Rambling Man 19:20, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

In general the article needs a few more highlights - hundreds, games he captained, vital innings, big wicket hauls, MOTM awards etc. Otherwise it's well on its way. Cheers, HornetMike 01:04, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Nichalp

1. Needs a copyedit just like the Collingwood article. Choppy prose, and at times a POV. He is an emotional player -- worst kind of POV.

   Agreed. Have removed the worst kind of POV, and will look for a suitable (hopefully neutral) copyeditor to scan over it. Work to do in the meantime however, I think. The Rambling Man 18:06, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

2. Table needed of runs scored against each country.

   Imminent... The Rambling Man 18:06, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

   Done. The Rambling Man 18:57, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

3. Keep a similar top level ToC structure as Collingwood.

   Cool, looks like we may have a reasonable template for modern cricketers if this is the case? I'll do my best to bend Gilly into Colly-style! The Rambling Man 18:06, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

=Nichalp «Talk»= 12:32, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Um, how it calling someone "emotional" POV? Either they are (often demonstrably, crying or smiling, for example) or they are not (I have yet to see a poker-faced cricket player). -- ALoan (Talk) 12:06, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Blnguyen

Needs more of a chronological evolution to show how things happened. I have added in a section about his rise in ODI, as it is not clear (previously) how he came to take Healy's place in ODIs, with the new TEst/ODI team separation (Otherwise, Healy would likely have stayed under the old conservative policy). Added to that I added a bit about how he was not successful at first, batting at No. 7, low average, and got a chance to open after the other guys could not open properly. I should do the bit about the Test rise as well, or Healy's slump. Aside from that, there is no chrnoological description in the article, especially about becoming VC in 2000, being skipped over for captain with Ponting jumping ahead of him, and just his career generally. This might be a huge article though, considering the huge amount of matches he has played (almost twice as many as Harbhajan, which will be 50k when finished ). Blnguyen (bananabucket) 05:43, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Excellent stuff, thanks. Some of this has already been addressed. Sorry it took so long to say thanks - I've been struggling with monobooks. (That's my excuse and I'm sticking to it. --Dweller 11:46, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Automated

• Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, APR _t 22:38, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Yomangani

I enjoyed it. As there was with Paul Collingwood, there is a tendency to assume familiarity with cricket: using shorthand when the full titles would be better (I think I've fixed most of these), and some terms that I'm sure are used regularly by commentators but would be better expressed differently for the non-cricketing reader (although I love "astonishing slogfest" it probably isn't the most encyclopedic of terms). Some problems with consistency in the terms: wicket-keeper, wicketkeeper; One day, one-day, One-day; number seven, No. 7 (I fixed this to No. 7); 2000/01 2000-1 2000-2001. I see Blnguyen has pointed out some areas where it is lacking which look like they would be good additions, but I'd be wary of listing every match: [blasphemy warning] unless something notable happens, how many runs he scored or wickets he took isn't that interesting. I've also left a couple comments in the article in comment tags where I couldn't work out what was meant or the relevance of the sentence (or in one case where there was speculation over Hoggard's sportsmanship). Yomangani^talk 11:40, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

An astonishing slogfest of excellent comments. Thanks. --Dweller 11:44, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Harbhajan Singh

The latest article improvement drive on {{CWC Advert}}, an effort by WP:CRIC to get FAs related to the 2007 Cricket World Cup. The process of formatting refs, is still in progress, and maybe bits about outside cricket activities need to be improved, but the chronology of Harbhajan is complete and the relevant information is there. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 08:00, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Dweller's comments

First, congratulations for such an outstanding piece of work. You've worked so hard on this - without help from the collaborative as yet. I wondered if you'd communicated with our resident chart-maker, who's struggled to come up with a methodology for showing bowling performances, because of the idiosyncracies of the stats. I wondered if the PwC rating might be a way forward on this. Also, some stats in table form would be good. Re the copy - it's really good. A copyedit from ALoan is always a good idea once you're happy with it. I wondered about the naming of some of the section headings, but that's not even a minor gripe. All in all, well done and I'll try to post here with more specific stuff. --Dweller 16:26, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

I have given it a once-over, but it probably needs another pass. My main comment is that it is a bit dry, concentrating on the cricketing minutiae (his precise figures for each match, series, etc). I know, this is how cricket goes, but it would be nice to be a bit more, um, descriptive. I would not be too paranoid about eliminating redlinks, by the way: they encourage people to write articles. I have put some redlinks back - better to have a redlink for a subject that needs an article than remove the link. -- ALoan (Talk) 17:50, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

I should also have mentioned that I have added a few comments in the text. -- ALoan (Talk) 09:38, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

The Rambling Man's comments

Concur with Dweller, and here are some specifics I would suggest:

1. Either deal with, or remove the red links to Sahara Cup & Punjab Cricket Association.

   Created the first and piped the second to Punjab cricket team. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 06:05, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

2. Article lead may need expanding into three or four paragraphs, per WP:LEAD.
3. I guess it's up to personal preference, but only one reference in the lead?

   Apparently from my first FA on Ian Thorpe, they aren't required if the summary info is expanded upon and sourced in the main body of the article. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 06:05, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

4. There has been tentative talk of basing modern cricket bio layouts on Paul Collingwood, I'm not convinced the current layout (i.e. headings) is perfect yet. I'd advise distinguishing clearly between his domestic and international careers.

   I didn't bother with this since he was only playing regularly for Punjab when he was out of the Indian team for an extended period pre-2001. Aside from that, he probably only plays the sporadic 2-3 games for Punjab each year and has only played one season for Surrey. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 06:05, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

5. "...Playing in six matches, he took 18 wickets at an average of 22.5, ranking outside the top 20 in both measures..." - top 20 what?

   Fixed. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 06:47, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

6. Seems clear that, for the non-cricket reader, ODI needs to be spelt out the first time it's used, e.g. in the lead in this case.

   Fixed. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 06:47, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

7. It's worth linking to bowling average in the body of the article since only average is used.

   Done, and for batting as well. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 06:39, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

8. Stat-fest. I'm having similar issues with Adam Gilchrist in that, given the number of significant matches he's played in, his bowling stats are mentioned through, and it just feels like a statistic overload. As yet, I don't know how to solve it, but thought it worth mentioning since, for FA, this needs to appeal to all-comers.

   Yeah...cricket isn't as romanticised in the modern era, so we can't create diversions by describing unusual stuff anecdotes, eg in Stan McCabe. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 06:39, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

9. "As in the first instance, he hit the winning runs, a straight-driven six." - not sure I like the start of the sentence, and probably worth citing such a event.

   ""I forgot to {{cn}} that one but it is sourced now. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 06:05, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

10. Batting scores - this is just a query - am I right in thinking we all refer to batting scores as runs/wickets except the antipodeans, and, if so, since this is not about an antipodean, batting scores should follow that principle? And are we happy with slash as delimiter rather than dash (or en- or em-dash, see WP:DASH although it's good for bedtime reading...!)

    Dunno. I'll test it out at FAC.

11. "being forced to follow on..[31][33]" - one too many full-stops.

    Fixed. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 06:39, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

12. Are there are worthwhile articles to link to in the "Indian cricket team in X in Y" style?

    I linked to them but didn't use {{main}}.Blnguyen (bananabucket) 07:23, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

13. Citations needed - say no more.

    Done. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 06:05, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

14. "Chappell era" section is very long, consider breaking into two (or more) sub-sections, just to make it more aesthetically appealing.

    Managed one for 2006 TEst decline. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 06:39, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

15. If possible, needs some more images/graphs (as per Dweller) to break up the article, lots of text to wade through and the odd picture wouldn't go amiss. I know it's difficult though, so this one isn't so significant, but we should aim to make this accessible to all.

    I'll put in that controversial ad (FU pic) if necessary. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 06:39, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Can you do that? It needs at least one more pic and that pic would be a interesting one.--Thugchildz 21:56, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Hope some of that makes sense and helps. Good work, all the best. The Rambling Man 18:15, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

• Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, APR _t 00:13, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Please delete a few of the 'subsequent's. Tintin 10:54, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Silver

This was nominated for FA in 2004. The main thing was its shortness. History was mentioned to be poor; that has since been fixed. The applications section should be turned into prose, rather than a list. I've tried to do that with palladium. Referencing can be improved. Otherwise, I think it's not a bad article. --Rifleman 82 20:30, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Three additional references have a good compilation of the history of silver: [9], [10] and [11].--Stone 11:29, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for that, Stone. Have some reservations about the first link because while the page itself is fine, the site promotes the use of colloidal silver, and that is not without controversy. I've cleaned up the list, turning it into prose. Perhaps someone can take a look and improve it where needed? Link #2 seems excellent. I'll look into that one in more detail again. --Rifleman 82 02:28, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

• It has some good content, but I think it needs a little more work. You might want to take a look at how the Hydrogen featured article is organized, starting with a history. The introduction seems too short; it doesn't really summarize the article. You might mention the actual percent reflectivity of untarnish silver in the optical spectrum, and also the use of transparent quartz overcoats on silver mirrors to prevent tarnishing. Overall I'd say it needs more citations. Thanks.—RJH (talk) 18:29, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

I've improved the introduction. Are there any areas which might be lacking (for the intro)? --Rifleman 82 04:03, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

• Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, APR _t 21:47, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Automatic peer review

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

• Please expand the lead to conform with guidelines at Wikipedia:Lead. The article should have an appropriate number of paragraphs as is shown on WP:LEAD, and should adequately summarize the article.^[?] done by Rifleman 82 MornMore (talk) 11:39, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
• Consider removing links that add little to the article or that have been repeated in close proximity to other links to the same article, as per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (links) and WP:CONTEXT.^[?] considered and done MornMore (talk) 11:39, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
• Per Wikipedia:Context and Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates), months and days of the week generally should not be linked. Years, decades, and centuries can be linked if they provide context for the article.^[?] from template --Rifleman 82 08:16, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
• See if possible if there is a free use image that can go on the top right corner of this article.^[?] -- not applicable Rifleman 82 07:56, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
• There may be an applicable infobox for this article. For example, see Template:Infobox Biography, Template:Infobox School, or Template:Infobox City.^[?] (Note that there might not be an applicable infobox; remember that these suggestions are not generated manually) -- not applicable Rifleman 82 07:56, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
• Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (numbers), there should be a non-breaking space -   between a number and the unit of measurement. For example, instead of 25 kg, use 25 kg, which when you are editing the page, should look like: 25&nbsp;kg.^[?] what fun, done MornMore (talk) 11:39, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
• Please reorder/rename the last few sections to follow guidelines at Wikipedia:Guide to layout.^[?] done --Rifleman 82 08:16, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
• There are a few occurrences of weasel words in this article- please observe WP:AWT. Certain phrases should specify exactly who supports, considers, believes, etc., such a view.
  • allege
  • might be weasel words, and should be provided with proper citations (if they already do, or are not weasel terms, please strike this comment).^[?] checked - not applicable --Rifleman 82 07:56, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
• Watch for redundancies that make the article too wordy instead of being crisp and concise. (You may wish to try Tony1's redundancy exercises.)checked and reduced new clutter/redundancies MornMore (talk) 11:39, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
  • While additive terms like “also”, “in addition”, “additionally”, “moreover”, and “furthermore” may sometimes be useful, overusing them when they aren't necessary can instead detract from the brilliancy of the article. This article has 19 additive terms, a bit too much. reduced --Rifleman 82 07:56, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
  • 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.” done --Rifleman 82 07:56, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

*As done in WP:FOOTNOTE, footnotes usually are located right after a punctuation mark (as recommended by the CMS, but not mandatory), such that there is no space in between. For example, the sun is larger than the moon [2]. is usually written as the sun is larger than the moon.[2]^[?] done --Rifleman 82 07:56, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

• Please ensure that the article has gone through a thorough copyediting so that it exemplifies some of Wikipedia's best work. See also User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 1a.^[?]

You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, APR _t 21:33, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

The silvering has to rewritten, the description of aluminium sputtering is longer than the famous Liebig silvering which is still used for high qualizy mirrors. I added the references to the original publication in the silvering article.--Stone 16:55, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Noted. I'll take a look at that later, thank you. --Rifleman 82 04:03, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Much better than when I nominated it, but then FA criteria were much, much weaker back then. Still a lot of work to do. This one is on my list but I'm currently working on getting Uranium ready for FAC. Please look at that article to get an idea of how a metal element article should be organized and cited. --mav 03:27, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Completed the outstanding open automated items except the thorough copyedit - do not feel qualified. Re-checked other items due to new entries. What's the next step?MornMore (talk) 11:46, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Agrippina (opera)

A good article, this is not far off FA level, I think, and I'd like some general feedback on how to improve the article in all aspects. Moreschi ^{Request a recording?} 16:04, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

• Reads well. It covers history, style, and includes a good synopsis. Was the original performer for the part of Juno unknown--is that why the dash is there? Nothing jumps out to me needing improvement. Nice job. Antandrus (talk) 19:55, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

• • Yep, unknown. It's a delightful but easy aria, probably just some girl in the chorus who got to dress up for the day. Cheers, Moreschi ^{Request a recording?} 19:57, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

• Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, APR _t 21:48, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

• I've added some more links and linked the full date of first performance: still neeeds a copy-edit to get rid of redundancies, but that can wait for a bit. If I've never seen an opera infobox there probably isn't one. Anything else, anyone? Moreschi ^{Request a recording?} 13:27, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

• Should you mention what kind of orchestra it is scored for? Also, check out the Don Giovanni article. Note the way arias are mentioned in the Synopsis; and/or note the "List of famous arias" and "Media" near the bottom. Also, the Mozart, Puccini and Verdi operas all have a box listing the composer's operas, so that all of his opera articles are easily cross-linked. Not a bad idea and nifty looking. How about a photo from an album cover? -- Ssilvers 19:37, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
  • I'll see if I can find the orchestration requirements. I've included some of the more important/interesting arias into the synopsis. Handel opera-box? Not a bad idea, I'll see what I can do. Cheers, Moreschi ^{Request a recording?} 20:02, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

OK:

• Do you need all of those references in the lead? Aren't they replicated somewhere down below? There really shouldn't be anything in the lead that you haven't covered later on in the article.
• Is there an opera infobox you can add to the top?
  • I don't think so, and I loathe infoboxes anyway.
• The image of the title page of original printed edition and the image of Handel are probably better off swapped.
  • Done.
• All footnotes need to come after a punctuation mark (full stop, comma etc.). The people at FAC can get very anal about this, so you'll need to move many of them.
  • Done. Moreschi ^{Request a recording?} 19:41, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
• When I have my bookmarks open, the roles section gets utterly screwed up. You may be better off converting it into a more conventional type of table.
• You're very reliant on one reference work - have you tried finding other sources? Also, the reference to Britannica seems a bit strange - should encyclopedias be cited as a source?
  • Added and cited some more stuff from Sawyer. Winton Dean is the daddy for Handelians, though. He's very good.
  • Not ideal, but permitted per WP:RS. Britannica qualifies as high quality.
• You have no external links or see also. Both would probably be good (links to similar operas? Articles on it's time period? Musical recording available online?).
  • "See also" section done. Not sure if there are any really useful external links out there.
• Your images are all on the right hand side. Ideally, they need to alternate.
  • Done. Moreschi ^{Request a recording?} 18:53, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

That's all I can think of at the moment. I'll take another look once you're done with that lot. Great article. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 23:31, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Thank you both for the wonderful feedback. I'll get back to this later, but this is exactly the sort of stuff I was looking for. Cheers, Moreschi ^{Request a recording?} 17:43, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Updated comments (good work so far!): Info about orchestration; photo from the cover of an available recording; "most famous" arias; Background info about the original production: How did Handel get together with Grimani? How did they select the subject of the opera? How did they come to assemble such a stellar cast? And more info about the subsequent productions: Any more info about why it was not performed for over 200 years? Who revived it? Is it given frequently nowadays? Is it now one of his most famous? -- Ssilvers 20:43, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Dreamgirls (film)

I am trying to make this article look well before FA nomination. What tips or advice should I have to mold this article into FA? This article has been peer reviewed before by the films committee. Real96 02:29, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Also, the article is a GA. Real96 02:32, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

There's quite a lot of pictures. I suggest removing the posters of Foxx and Beyonce as well as Glover. Those don't seem to illustrate any particular point. Wiki-newbie 10:34, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

• Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, APR _t 20:41, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

I'd suggest you ask the League of Copyeditors for assistance. There's a lot of trivial things in the main flow of things - like Will Smith's 'exclusive contract' with Paramount? How is this relevant to the film? -Malkinann 10:50, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Erikster

COPIED FROM HERE

• There's a Ratings table hanging out in the Plot summary section. Is the table really notable enough for inclusion?
• "Casting notes" and "Production notes" seem like odd section headings, especially with the latter being under "Production history". Can either of these be renamed?
• Citation for the Los Angeles premiere (seconds sentence in Reception) would be nice.
• Maybe I'm being too picky, but I think there should be references for the Awards subsection. The last three paragraphs in that subsection don't appear fully cited.
• "Related promotions and products" seems oddly placed under Reception, though I don't know where else it could go. I'd suggest re-titling it as "Marketing", maybe.
• The Cast section is placed so deeply in the article. Why not place it, at the very least, before Reception?
• Not everything in "Allusions to factual events" is cited. I don't know if this used to be a trivia section, but I agree with the above sentiment that it seems too listy. Re-writing it in prose would be nice.
• Is it necessary to have such a long main Awards section? I would suggest removing minor awards ("Syracuse Post-Standard"?) and possibly merging the rest of them into the Awards subsection under Reception. Or just make a stand-alone Awards section written in prose. Just my opinion -- the list of awards just seems long to me.
• I strongly recommend applying the Cite news and Cite web templates to the references in this article. With the template, the fully-exposed links will be linked through the title.

• I would also recommend, after applying the templates, that you place {{reflist|2}} under Notes to create two columns for the references.

My apologies if I sound too critical; the article is really quite well-done. I remember visiting it a few months ago before the film came out, and I could tell someone was devoting a lot of time to it. Glad to see that it's remained intact ever since. Definitely is approaching FA status. I'll have to actually read the content (just kind of skimmed this time, pointed out structural things) and get back to you on the writing. From what I noticed, all the references and punctuation was in place, which makes me a very happy editor. Cheers, and good luck continuing to build it up. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 22:07, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

I think we use the cite news template. In addition, I tried separating the links into two categories, but the links overlapped. Real96 06:13, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Raëlian Church

/Archive 1

• It's time for another peer review of this article.☺▬█ ♪♪♫ I M Kmarinas86 U O 2¢ 15:29, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Loudspeaker

I was thinking of nominating this article as a GA, but since it is larger than 25k I'm putting it through peer review first. I'm a little concerned with citation, since there is no notes section. Perhaps it needs to be broken down into some smaller articles too. I'm specifically looking for opinion and help to get this article a GA (or better) status. --Davidkazuhiro 10:21, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

• Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, APR _t 20:37, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Pretty nifty widget you've written there. Very useful. Thanks! --Davidkazuhiro 01:24, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm going to suggest on the discussion page to break it up into Loudspeaker (driver) and Loudspeaker (system).Jbusenitz 23:38, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Edward VIII abdication crisis

There has been some discussion on the article's talk page about peer review and some changes have been suggested, and some of those implemented, however the editors of the page (which include myself) now appear happy with the current composition as the page is stable. The opinion of objective outsiders is requested in order to strengthen the page. DrKiernan 13:45, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

• Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, APR _t 20:36, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

• • Article amended accordingly. DrKiernan 08:43, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

AnonEMouse

Quite good, actually, but I'd broaden the focus slightly to give a bit more detail on the couple, and cite some of the obvious-seeming conclusions and similes.

• the establishment - lower case
  • Are you sure? The Oxford English Dictionary appears to prefer "the Establishment". DrKiernan 11:36, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
    • All right, at least lower case The.
      • Yes, done. DrKiernan 15:42, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
• Despite the opposition - add comma
  • Done. DrKiernan 13:28, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
• Historical precedents - add at least one citation to each paragraph, not about the facts, but that these were considered relevant precedents
  • Hmmn, I still have to search for one for the Hanoverians. There's a mildly amusing line in Ziegler where Walter Monckton hides a biography of Mrs. Fitzherbert (George IV's mistress/"wife") that he found in Mrs. Simpson's room. But I'm not sure that's relevant. DrKiernan 13:28, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
    • Hmm. Would this do? [12]
      • That's a little too salacious for me! DrKiernan 15:42, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
• Argument opposing - again, cite each paragraph. These are possibly the definition of contentious facts that need citation.
  • Each paragraph now has at least one citation. DrKiernan 13:28, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
• "when the duke later married" - give date. Important to see relationship to abdication date, speech date, etc. Probably also worth a few to words to say where they lived and how.
  • Right. Included. DrKiernan 13:28, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
• Picture of Churchill seems unnecessary unless you explain how he was more important than he seems in the article - in what capacity was he acting when he polished the speech? Surely not as PM, which is what he was most famous for, and not as Naval leader, his other area of fame.
  • He was invited to lunch the previous day and the King asked him to read through it. DrKiernan 13:28, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
    • Then the picture of Churchill seems unnecessary and more distracting than illuminating. It's a one-sentence off-hand mention of the man, there a dozen people mentioned multiple times in the article that don't get pictures. It's worth its ten words in the sentence, but hardly the "thousand" of the picture.
      • OK, removed. DrKiernan 15:42, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
• "to serve during the war/Hitler" - these 2 paras are important, but don't seem to belong in a subsection on his speech. Move, or make a new subsection for them.
  • Created a new section. DrKiernan 13:28, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
• # 4 Options considered, # 5 Legal manoeuvres, # 6 Abdication, # 7 One speech, two versions - that's a lot of sections. Can they be made subsections of one or two larger sections, perhaps?
  • Removed one section heading. DrKiernan 13:28, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
    • Yes, I think the new organization is better, thanks.
• Modern parallel - again, cite a source saying this is a parallel. Yes, it's obvious, but it can't be hard to find sources saying it explicitly.
  • Reference added. Thanks for comments! DrKiernan 13:28, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

--AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 19:46, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

• "neither George ... remarried after divorce" - if the second George didn't succeed in the divorce, shouldn't this be rewritten?
  • Yes, indeed it should, and has been. DrKiernan 15:42, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

--AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 15:22, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

LuciferMorgan

Change the "Popular culture" section into prose, instead of it being listy. LuciferMorgan 03:22, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

"Rumours circulated that there would be a "patriotic" citizen's intervention (a legal device to block the divorce), which worried Goddard, fearing such an intervention would be successful."

Cite please? Any information as to where they emanated from, and where they circulated? LuciferMorgan 03:26, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

"Whilst she authorised her solicitor to say that she was "willing to ... do anything to prevent the King from abdicating," the common perception was that the King had made up his mind to go, even if he could not marry Mrs. Simpson, a belief borne out by his ultimate actions."

Can you cite this common perception? Thanks. LuciferMorgan 03:26, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

• • I've rewritten the above sections. DrKiernan 14:25, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Cite every reason listed at the "Modern parallel" section. LuciferMorgan 03:26, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

• • I have added a citation for each reason. Thanks for your comments! DrKiernan 14:53, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Rise and Fall: Civilizations at War

Hello PR reviewers, and thank you for taking the time to review this article. I rewrote it based on Empires: Dawn of the Modern World, a FA written by Clyde Miller and Deckiller. I've asked them to help me out on this one too, since they are more experienced. I'm trying to get it to GA, then FA if possible, but I'd like some suggestions on how to improve it. I'd appreciate any comments or tips. Thanks again! · AndonicO ^Talk 22:49, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

• Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, APR _t 20:40, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Thank you, I'll look into that. · AndonicO ^Talk 21:12, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
• I've left some suggestions on the talk page after my GA review. Nifboy 14:55, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

old peer review

Cúcuta

I want to make Cúcuta a featured article, could you please send me suggestions to improve it?

--Ricardocolombia 21:36, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

• Improve the prose, especially in the History section:

• All the places where have been preserved. -this doesn't make any sense
• Juana Rangel de Cuellar donated 782 hectares to the founding of the site, at the centre of which was a church around which a village grew, at a considerable rate due to being well-sited for commerce. - run-on sentence
• The combatants were 400 men under the control... - The combatants included 400 men under the control ...
• This branch wasn't built due econocimic problems. - spelling/grammar
• I have found at least 2 more examples of problem prose, and I just finished History. I would suggest asking the League of Copyeditors to copyedit it for you. Mr.Z-mantalk 21:46, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

• Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, APR _t 21:47, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

In the history section, this needs clarifying: "Although the victory was not strategically important, it boosted the morale of Bolivar's forces to free to Venezuela." Did you mean "to free Venezuela"? -Malkinann 06:10, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Leicester City F.C.

First peer review available at Wikipedia:Peer review/Leicester City F.C./archive1

Right I'm resubmitting this for a second review. I've done some work recently collecting references and starting a rivalries section. Also I shortern down the managers list and started a new article with the full list. The takeover section is a mess at the moment but as it is due to go through today (12/02/07) or tomorrow I will clean then, whilst it's all still up in the air I can't see much point. Jimmmmmmmmm 13:53, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

• Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, APR _t 21:51, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Not a bad article. What it does need is more references.

• Comments like: "is regarded as one of Leicester's worst managers", "many supporters refer to the ground as Filbert Way", "This change was unpopular" and "a strong feeling that the naming rights had been underpriced", to name a few, are uncited.
• A few emotive and pov terms like "would break the clubs heart", "more playoff heartbreak" and "easily the best manager of recent years" don't really need to be there.
• The links to external websites in the colours section should be converted into inline citations.
• The records and statistics section needs citations.
• Why are the listed managers significant? Some criteria should be established for this, such as all managers who won a trophy, or took charge of 200+ games, for instance.
• The last decade of Leicester's history gets almost as much coverage as the previous 100 years. Perhaps more could be trimmed?
• Can some of Leicester's older crests be uploaded and added to the page?

Hope that helps. SteveO 00:52, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

As well as SteveO's comments, I'd like to highlight a few things:

• I don't think you need to say what the club hasn't won in the lead. The lead also needs expanding a bit
• "Under the new name the club enjoyed moderate success in the 1920s." Perhaps needs rephrasing. If they reached their highest ever placing then I'd say that was more than moderate, although losing that word might make the sentence a bit POV.
• "City reached the FA Cup final for the first time in their history in 1949,[1]captained by Norman Plummer, losing 3-1 to Wolves." I suggest changing that to "City reached the FA Cup final for the first time in their history in 1949.[1] Captained by Norman Plummer, they lost 3-1 to Wolves."
• "emerged into the first team" is a bit clunky. Can't think of a viable alternative right now.
• "After the Premiership was founded in 1992 Leicester tried desperately to gain promotion to it." Doesn't everyone? I'd suggest merging that into the next sentence. "Were close to joining the newly formed Premiership when they reached the play-offs" or something better worded than that!
• "First Division clubs for TV rights), the large wage bill, lower than expected fees for players transferred to other clubs and the £37 million cost of the new stadium. =[4]" Rogue =!
• What colours did Leicester wear before 1910/between 1910-1940?
• "have been used every season since the mid 1940s" Well, they haven't, seeing as the next sentence details a 1-season colour change.
• "In 2004, the current kit also features white pinstripes, which have previously featured in kits from the 1980s." Lose the odd "in 2004".
• "this led manager Martin O'Neill to say he used to "lead new signings out backwards" so they only saw the Carling Stand.[7]" Why the Carling stand? Surely the whole ground was undeveloped?
• You need a full list of managers in a sub article.
• A few pictures would be handy.

Hope that helps, HornetMike 11:27, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

What SteveO or HornetMike said. Some additional thoughts of my own:

• Intro could be little longer.
• Recent history could be a little shorter.
• What exactly caused Leicester Fosse to fold? "Financial difficulties" is a little vague.
• Singular/plural should be used consistently.
• Some sentences are little short, making the prose quite abrupt.
• Years should be unwikified, and seasons used rather than years.
• Citations needed for unpopularity of the new white kit, the fact the naming rights are underpriced, fans disregarding the Walkers Stadium official name.
• "a new jazzed up version" is unencyclopaedic and vague
• Wikipedia itself cannot be used as a reference, as the M69 derby reference does - and to be honest it's such an innocuous claim I don't think it needs referencing anyway.

This diff on the first two paras of the History section shows some of the changes in style I recommend - cutting out unnecessary repetition of certain terms, and tidying the prose (e.g. two sentences in a row starting with "Under") a little. Qwghlm 00:30, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

I've been ill since I submitted this so I'll go through whats been said in the next week or so. Did notice one thing, someone said about an sub artcle of managers, I already did that, strange it wasn't spotted.Jimmmmmmmmm 13:46, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

U.S. Città di Palermo

This is a second submission of this article for Peer Review. I did my best to follow all earlier suggestions and obtained this article to be accepted as Good Article. Now it's time for a step forward, i.e. reaching a Featured Article status for this article. Please look at it and let me know your opinions and suggestions to improve it.

• Archive: Wikipedia:Peer review/U.S. Città di Palermo/archive1

Thanks in advance, --Angelo 17:42, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Comments from The Rambling Man

Okay, off to a good start but FA you want, FA comments forthcoming!

• Reduce width of infobox by breaking the original name.

Done. --Angelo 21:25, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

• Link Palermo in the lead.

Done. --Angelo 21:25, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

• Ensure references comply with WP:CITE, in short, don't have spaces between the [ref] and the text, and try to put the [ref] after punctuation (e.g. move ref [6] to the other side of the comma)

Done. --Angelo 21:25, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

• Three images in first History section feels cluttered.

Done. --Angelo 21:38, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

• ...just after World War I; Palermo competed in..., not a semi-colon, perhaps a comma?

Done. --Angelo 21:25, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

• League graph is great but not where it is, probably belongs in records/stats section.

Done. --Angelo 21:25, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

• WP:DASH for seasons, so not 1934-35, instead use en-dash, so 1934–35.

Done. --Angelo 21:38, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Not quite, I can see a few more (e.g. in the "See also" under "Back in Serie A", and "1953-54" in "Post-war Palermo" section

You're right. Now it's done. --Angelo 18:50, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

• ...decent side... is a bit over familiar. Perhaps something like ...made Palermo a well-established side... or something...

Done. --Angelo 21:25, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

• About five whole sections in History without a single citation - this is a problem.
• The image of the 1969–70 team, what's the significance?

Removed. --Angelo 21:38, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

• Wikilink years to the relevant Italian football seasons.

What do you mean with "relevant"? --Angelo 21:38, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

By this I mean when you refer to, say, "2002–03", you can wikilink that as 2002–03

I am doing this for all seasons for which a Wikipedia article exists (I even created by myself a couple of them). --Angelo 18:50, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

• History section needs to be sub-paged - see Arsenal F.C. for guidance - then in the main article perhaps six or seven large paragraphs can be used.
• Squad needs update - it says "as of January 31, 2007", we're now June.

It's the same than January, actually. --Angelo 21:25, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

• Youth squad isn't particularly relevant.

Yeah, but this is subtly subjective, say this to the ones who created articles such as F.C. Internazionale Milano Primavera. --Angelo 21:25, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps, but can you find examples of featured articles where this information is in the main team page? I'd suggest that you make it a subpage.

Okay, I removed it. Done. --Angelo 18:50, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

• What makes the selection of "notable players" notable?

In fact I opened a discussion in the WikiProject Football to discuss this issue for all teams. --Angelo 21:26, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Sounds like a good idea, it's always brought up at WP:FAC and, again, checking out featured articles such as Arsenal F.C. you'll find, again, that a both a subpage was created with a specified set of criteria applied for players inclusion.

A subpage already existed. In fact now the paragraph contains only a link to that one. --Angelo 18:50, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

• Stadium section has too many short paragraphs.

Done. --Angelo 21:38, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

• Honours could be tablified and records should be made into prose.

Done. --Angelo 21:38, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Hope this helps, let me know if there's anything I can help you with. The Rambling Man 19:10, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

• • Thanks for your suggestions. As you can see, the issues I already fixed have been marked with a tick. Some of your suggestions instead deserve to be discussed to find a common solution, and others will be fixed as soon as possible. --Angelo 21:25, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

I made a number of massive edits in order to comply with your suggestions, including creating a history article. Let me know how the article looks now. --Angelo 04:47, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Structurally everything seems sound, and it looks like the Rambling Man has picked up most things. Before going to FAC it could do with a light copyedit from a native English speaker. I'll run through it when I get the chance, and bring up any further issues as I do so. Oldelpaso 22:15, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Can you wait for a couple of weeks? Just because I am supposed next week to go in Florence at the National Library to have a look at a few very reliable sources for the club foundation. --Angelo 22:25, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Sure. Drop a note on my talk page when you're ready. Oldelpaso 22:34, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Heraldry

• Archived First Peer Review
• Unsuccessful FAC

This article was peer reviewed late last year and one of the big problems noted was the lack of inline citations. This has been taken care of, but there is still uncertainty on the part of some people as to how to get this to an FA class article. I think that another peer review at this point would be beneficial. Any ideas?--Eva ^bd 19:37, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

• Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, APR _t 20:37, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

• The article seems to concentrate on the rules of heraldry, with very little on how heraldry was actually used. The German and French articles focus more on the latter; perhaps we could get some ideas from there. I would possibly be inclined to move the whole Rules of heraldry section (which is a very nice example of summary style, by the way) into the coat of arms article, and replace it with an even shorter summary. The origins and history section needs expanding. A section on the role of the herald (with a {{Main}} link to herald or officer of arms) would also be good, especially given that the first sentence says that heraldry encompasses all the duties of an officer of arms. Some discussion of who used/uses arms (nobility, commoners,...) and how they are acquired would also be useful. It would be nice to have some more about the national variations, especially since most English-language books deal only with the heraldry of the British Isles, but this would probably require more of the articles in the {{Heraldry by country}} series to be written. Dr pda 00:33, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Kulintang

I overhauled this article a few days ago and I just wanna know what more should I do to attain it GA or even better FA status. PhilipDM 21:08, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Ronald Reagan

archived PR

Zohra Daoud

Hi, this is my first biographical article, and just the 2nd proper article over all. I have ideas for several other new articles in my mind, but I wanted to get this one checked before I proceeded with the others. I've tried to keep in mind all the criteria of good article in mind when creating this, but since I'm new, I'm sure they'll be things I can improve on, so I'll appreciate a review. Thanks in advance.Zainub 13:24, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

• Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, APR _t 21:46, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
• Some brief comments: An image and more citations would be good. Is there a birth date available? Is she an adherent of the religion of Islam? If so which branch? The sentence that reads, "Dawoud is one of only two women ever to be crowned Miss Afghanistan in December 1972" makes it sound as if two women were crowned on December 1972. Please disambiguate. Thanks. — RJH (talk) 19:17, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Ruhrfisch

Good start. I fixed some of the automated suggestions, above. Try to be more specific - the names of her father and mother and son are not given, (nor is it made clear if her name changed on marriage or her maiden name if different - is this the custom in Afghanistan?). Her college education is not mentioned until she is scrubbing floors. Also missing are her date of birth (as noted above), her birth-order in her family (is she the oldest cild, youngest, second, etc.), and the dates (not just years) of her pageant win, marriage, flights to Germany and the USA, etc.

I would also copyedit it carefully as there are many unclear or awkward sentences (the League of Copyeditors can help). I would also use the correct title of wikilinks that are redirects (i.e. TV -> television). Some examples of unclear sentences: "Her father was a Columbia University graduate doctor, and Afghanistan's surgeon general and her mother also belonged to a well-known family." How about "Her father, Joe Yousuf, was Afghanistan's surgeon general and a Columbia University trained physician, from a family known for... Her mother, Mary Jones Yousuf,... then say why her mother's family was well known and give reference(s). Second example: "But as the pageant gained popularity, she decided to enter and eventually landed the title because of her intelligent responses during the question and answer session." If this was the first pageant, how did it gain popularity? Eventually makes it sound like the pageant was a multiday or weeklong event. This also needs a reference - all the refs are in one section and one external link needs to be converted to an inline ref. I hope this helps, keep up the good work! Ruhrfisch 15:58, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Anupam

Great initiative Zainub! In my opinion, you did a good job of writing the article. However, more references and some grammar copyedits might help. For example, "Her father was a Columbia University graduate doctor, and Afghanistan's surgeon general and her mother also belonged to a well-known family." appears to be a run-on sentence. Also, readers might find an image to be a great addition to the article. Keep up the good work. Thanks, Anupam^Talk 20:27, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Hammurabi

All types of comments welcome. Beginning this on the process of getting it to FA, and in any case it's a core biography so it's pretty important to get it right. Mocko13 03:26, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

• Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, APR _t 20:40, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Awadewit

I think this is a good introduction to Hammurabi and I'm glad someone has taken it up since Hammurabi is such an important figure. I have a few suggestions. Unfortunately, I can't really speak to the accuracy or comprehensiveness of the article as I know very little about Hammurabi.

• In the lead, I'm not sure that saying Babylonia attained a "hegemony" over Mesopotamia is NPOV. "Hegemony" usually has a negative connotation. Also, the phrase "his successors were unable to hold on to the lands he subdued" seems slightly NPOV as well - it is the word "subdued." (The word "hegemony" appears again later in the article.)
• I am curious as to why it is necessary to mention in the lead that Hammurabi appears on buildings in the United States. Surely he appears on buildings in other parts of the world - why are we singling out the United States?
• You write that "Mesopotamia was a cultural melting pot" - this sounds a little colloquial. Might you simply list which cultures made up Mesopotamia? That would also be more informative.
• "Hammurabi used the time to undertake a series of public works, both for defensive and religious purposes." - is any more information available on this? It is rather vague as it stands.
• "Angered by Larsa's failure to come to his aid, Hammurabi turned immediately after the fall of Elam and conquered Larsa and the entirety of the southern Mesopotamian plain by 1763 BC." - awkwardly worded sentence - it just seems to keep going
• For someone unfamiliar with this history, it is hard to follow all of takeovers. Would a map be possible, showing Hammurabi's conquests or at least where all of this is taking place?
• Please briefly define "stela" for the uninitiated.
• "This stela was later removed as plunder to the Elamite capital Susa, where it was rediscovered in 1901 and now stands in the Louvre Museum." - awkwardly phrased sentence; What about something like this: "This stela was plundered by the Elamites and removed to their capital Susa; it was rediscovered there in 1901 [by ?] and is now in the Louvre." Just a suggestion.
• Perhaps you could add a bit more on the code since that is the reason he is considered worthy of a core biography?
• Surely there must be more depictions of Hammurabi as a lawgiver than just the US ones you list in the "Legacy and depictions" section?
• In the "Notes," I don't believe it is necessary to include the word "Page." Usually, one just includes the author and the page number. Also, perhaps the notes could be in a smaller size font so that they do not take up so much of the page?
• In the "References" section I noticed that you did not include the publication location. I know that this is optional. I always like to include as much information for the reader as possible and libraries ask for it if you are requesting a book through interlibrary loan.

Awadewit 08:00, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Angel of Death (song)

Second peer-review, going for FAC soon, would appreciate any feedback, thanks. M3tal H3ad 06:07, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

LuciferMorgan

• Comments;

• Here is a Monstrosity interview where the interviewee mentions the band covering 'Angel of Death', which should satisfy verifiability. It appeared on their 1999 album In Dark Purity - the media section of their official site verifies this. LuciferMorgan 08:43, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

• This Blabbermouth post verifies an Argentine Slayer tribute CD called "Al Sur Del Abismo (Tributo Argentino A Slayer)", where a band called Asinesia covered the song. LuciferMorgan 08:52, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks :) M3tal H3ad 10:51, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

The sample currently used doesn't qualify as fair use because it is 30 secs. Per Wikipedia:Music samples, since the song is 291 seconds, only 10% of a song can be used (30 secs is the maximum if it's a longer song), which would be 29 secs. LuciferMorgan 21:06, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

• From an IGN review of War at the Warfield;

"When he was tearing through "Postmortem" and "Angel of Death," I was waiting for him to go from his baritone growl to that air raid siren shriek, but it didn't happen." LuciferMorgan 19:07, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

John Daker

I'm not looking so much for a peer review, as so much as a shave and a hair cut. Is everything listed in here encyclopedic in nature? Any legit reason people would complain if this was centred out as in the press? -- Zanimum 18:22, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

• Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, APR _t 22:39, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Britney Spears

Wikipedia:Peer review/Britney Spears/archive1 - May 2006

Search Britney on Yahoo and this article will be listed number 6, number 3 on Google. Does it matter? Well considering she's the most searched subject on Yahoo.com [13] it matters since I believe her article it's probably one of the most visited on the site. It's a shame it still can't get to FA status. It was reviewed back in May but it's hard for me to relate that information to the newer article so I'm requesting a new review. Lots of things have been changed and added, and lots of things are going on with the subject. If anyone could please help out and give some ideas and tips on further improvement I'd greatly appreciate it since I would really like to dedicate alot of time in hopes of bringing it to FA. Myrockstar 00:46, 8 February 2007 (UTC) Britney is 99 years old

• The overall impression I get is an overwhelming amount of detail, but I suppose that is inevitable. Personally I'd have preferred an abridged article that focused on key events. (Have you considered summary style?) Then again others will no doubt find the minutia fascinating. There's a couple of paragraphs in the first quarter of the article that are excessive in length. You may want to slice those up once or twice for easier reading. Otherwise the article seems decent to me. Thanks. — RJH (talk) 23:53, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. I'll try my best to trim those paragraphs. Myrockstar 06:41, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

LuciferMorgan

As I find issues to address in the article, I'll post them here. Hope my comments can be of help. LuciferMorgan 05:29, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

:"This whole new behavior of her resulted in the closure of one of Britney's major fan sites, presumably depicting their disappointement with her unreasonable and controversial behavior in public."

This sentence is problematic, as it is uncited. While uncited it can be deemed speculation. The sentence should either be ditched, or reworked with appropriate citation. LuciferMorgan 05:18, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

:"Their whirlwind romance sparked criticism due to the fact that Federline had very recently been in a relationship with actress Shar Jackson, who was still pregnant with their second child."

This sentence is likely correct, but doesn't elaborate on its claims. Evidence (appropriately cited) of such criticism should be provided as proof - otherwise someone could accuse it of being speculation. Perhaps newspapers criticised it, or other "inside sources", or others in Hollywood? LuciferMorgan 05:22, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Well couldn't find anything on writing, so for now I added the fact that she was pregnant while Kevin was with Britney. Myrockstar 23:33, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

:"In September of the same year, she performed at the MTV Video Music Awards, and in addition to criticism for being scantily clad, she angered animal rights organization PETA for the use of animals, including an albino python, in her performance."

Suffers from the same problem. Evidence of the criticism for being scantily clad should be forthcoming for the same reasons. Also, the PETA part should be cited, perhaps from a statement they issued. What did PETA do? Did they lobby her performances? Or anything else as such? More digging is needed. LuciferMorgan 05:25, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

:"The remix album spawned the international and U.S. Hot Dance Airplay hit single, "And Then We Kiss."

Hit single? Is this a fact, or reasoned by an editor? To tackle this, you'd have to rework the sentence. What chart positions did it have in the various US charts, and the other notable international charts? Such info would provide evidence backing up the statement. LuciferMorgan 05:29, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

:Referencing style needs consistency. All citations need the dates they were last accessed. Consider using one of the cite templates usually used on Wikipedia.

How can I find out the dates all those references missing dates were accessed? Or does it even matter, could I just write in I accessed them all today? Myrockstar 00:00, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Access the web reference - if it still works, write it in as being last accessed that day. LuciferMorgan 01:29, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Phew, okay I believe I am done with that, I hope it's correct. Luckily all the links still work. Thank you very much for that input. Any other suggestions? Myrockstar 00:49, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

"In the three-minute video, previously released as a bonus on the Britney and Kevin: Chaotic DVD, Spears seems very disoriented and confused and claims that she is "missing out on life" and that she is generally behind everyone else. Federline tells her it is because of all the partying, to which she strongly disagrees. Spears then begins to try and legitimately convince him that the concept of time travel as portrayed in the Back to the Future series is real."

The above is all a viewer's interpretation, and can be deemed original research by some. I'd suggest finding citations. Be aware of using adjectives also, which can be deemed POV. LuciferMorgan 00:12, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

::"At the Grammy Awards, held in February 2000, Spears received two nominations, including one for Best New Artist. Which she lost out to Christina Aguilera."

The second sentence isn't even fully formulated. LuciferMorgan 00:13, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

::"After the show ended, Spears went back home in Kentwood, Louisiana and enter to school at the time, She has a problem in her normal life."

Hmm? I find the end of the sentence extremely confusing. Can you rework that bit within the article please? LuciferMorgan 00:15, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

::"The photo shoot triggered widespread speculation (denied by her representatives) that the still-seventeen-year-old had had breast implants."

Speculation? From whom? Evidence her reps denied she had implants? All this needs cites. LuciferMorgan 00:18, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

"During a performance at the 2000 MTV Video Music Awards, she ripped off a black suit to reveal a provocative nude-colored and crystal-adorned outfit that generated controversy due to her young age."

Cite is needed to prove the above was due to her young age - it could've been just due to the way she was dressed. LuciferMorgan 00:21, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Can't find anything on that. Myrockstar 06:01, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

::"Immediately after her marriage to Federline, she had told People, "I want to be a young mom. Next year, at 23, I'm so there."

All direct quotes need a cite. LuciferMorgan 00:22, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

::"The next month, Spears' four-year relationship with Justin Timberlake ended. The break-up was publicized, with rumors circulating that Spears had been unfaithful."

Rumours? From the papers? Inside sources? Lifestyle mags? The fact it was rumoured needs a cite. Wikipedia's policy is "controversial material of any kind that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libelous." It's probably true it was rumoured, but best to cover the bases. LuciferMorgan 09:31, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

It seems his song and video for Cry Me a River fueled all those rumors. I re-worded accordingly. Myrockstar 08:26, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

::".., and the lead single "I'm a Slave 4 U" was the album's only hit in the U.S."

I'm curious as to how the article arrives to this conclusion. Could it be reworded? Perhaps it was the album's only Billboard top 10, or top 20, top 30 single? LuciferMorgan 09:38, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

it charted at 27 with no other single from the album surpassing it, I just deleted that, it's unnecessary info. People can check out her discography for detailed info. Myrockstar 08:26, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

• Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, APR _t 21:47, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

AnonEMouse

Uses lots of unexplained technical music industry terms

• Cite eighth best-selling.
• English and England link to same place, only need one.
• "a few years later" - give a specific date, such as when she signed with Jive.
• Don't need to link American again, same section.
• debut album - stick in "also titled"
• add "the" before "USA" - Where? Myrockstar 14:16, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
• Link or explain what 14x Platinum means
• [10]. - remove period after cite
• "At the 2000 Grammy Awards Spears received two nominations, including one for Best New Artist which she lost out to Christina Aguilera. The other was for Best Female Pop Vocal Performance for "...Baby One More Time" but she lost that to Sarah McLachlan." - clumsy, rewrite
• "radio station adds" - is this a typo? If not, link or explain what an "add" is.
• "number one single in other countries." - specify countries and cite
• "adult-40 brand of country-crossover infusion" - Aaaargh! I think I understood the word "of" in that phrase, but I'm not even sure if that means what I think it means. :-(
• "Spears kicked off her first world tour, the Oops!... I Did It Again World Tour, in the summer of 2000, and co-wrote the book Britney Spears's Heart-to-Heart with her mother, Lynne which was a bestseller." - rewrite, unless these two things are strongly linked. Needs a comma after Lynne anyway.
  • Hey, don't get rid of the book entirely, if it was a bestseller, that's important. In fact, it's probably important anyway, it's not like everyone writes published books. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 16:31, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
• Grammy Awards, several places - link to individual article for each year, we have them all
• Spears's - no need 's - debateable Myrockstar 02:45, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Heh. No, I don't mean that eternal argument; I was brought up on Strunk and White too. Let me be more specific. Here: "between Spears's and Pepsi." it is not debateable. :-) --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 03:02, 4 March 2007 (UTC) Ahh, thanks for being more specific Myrockstar 14:07, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
• MTV Video Music Awards - link
• SoundScan - link and/or explain
• co-wroting - spell
• "She lost X award to person Y", many places - is it really important whom she lost to? Unless there was a specific connection between the two, linking to the article on the award ceremony should cover it. Otherwise it seems more like name-dropping than useful info.
• "had her first starring role in the film, Crossroads." - rewrite, or just leave out entirely here, you seem to have a whole section on acting career below. "The next month" implies that the breakup had something to do with the film - if it did, say so, if not, leave out the implication.
• "she had cheated on him through his song" - huh? How's that? Needs rewriting.
• "That same year Forbes named her the most powerful celebrity in the world.[18]" - aieee! First, no 1-sentence paragraphs, please. Second, what does "powerful" mean in that context? "popular" or even "richest" I could understand, but the article doesn't write about how she used "power" as such - did she get movies written, other celebrities hired and fired, laws passed, wars started, presidents toppled, what?* "Spears returned to the spotlight" - did she ever leave? Specify.
• What did she do with Missy Elliott?
• "In the Zone is generally considered Spears's most overtly sexual album to date" - and that's it? How? Why? You can't drop a bombshell like that then go on blithely. Also 1 citation doesn't cut it for "generally considered"
• " The following thirty-seven stops on the tour were canceled" - huh? What tour? Did this sentence get left over from some other paragraph?
• "Later, an annulment was promptly arranged (at the behest of manager Larry Rudolph and her family)" - sorry, was over 18 or even 21, her family can't make legal decisions for her. Rephrase.
  • After rewrite, long and redundant. "Britney started the year by marrying her childhood friend Jason Allen Alexander on January 3, 2004 in Las Vegas, Nevada.[37] Later, an annulment was promptly arranged and was granted on January 5, ending their fifty-five hour marriage." How about: "Spears married childhood friend Jason Allen Alexander on January 3, 2004 in Las Vegas, Nevada.[37] The marriage lasted fifty-five hours, ending with an annulment granted on January 5." Shorter, conveys the same information, though still dramatic, refers to her by last name, which implies less intimacy. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 16:31, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
• "who was still pregnant" - either strike or explain "still".
• "(legally October 6, 2004)" - needs explanation. Was the first not legal? Why?
• featured three new songs, including "My Prerogative" and "Do Somethin'" - why list 2 of the 3?
• "Chaotic was panned by most critics" - whole paragraph uncited, but this phrase especially needs citation
• "spent forty-eight hours under a doctor's surveillance" - "Two days later, Spears and her son were released from the hospital." - irrelevant trivia. Going to a doctor is no big deal, similarly exactly how long she spent to deliver isn't important unless it's truly unusual or had a non-standard effect on her life.
• announced her second pregnancy - 1-sentence paragraph.
• "Spears posed nude for the August 2006 cover" - specify. Presumably non-explicit photo? Was she visibly pregnant?
• "saying, "I can't wait to do that again." Spears also plans to get back in shape after the birth of her second child, saying, "After this baby, I'm going to get really intense with it." - again not too important, stop after "not ready to retire from performing", that covers it.
• rep - spell out word
  • Done Myrockstar 23:19, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
• shaved [37] - move citation to end of sentence
  • Done Myrockstar 23:19, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
• Personal setbacks - compress the section unless you can explain what is going on more, otherwise the day-by-day stayed/left/stayed/left is trivia
• $12million USD - WP:$
  • Done Myrockstar 23:19, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
• Cite Razzie award reception, Wikipedia is not sufficient.
  • Done Myrockstar 23:19, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
• "cameo appearances on" - in
  • Done Myrockstar 23:19, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
• "Club Scene" - link, explain, or leave out. Is it that important?
• "twice as host and musical guest" - you mean as both, then later a third time merely as guest? Specify, and/or move third sentence to second position.
• "In 2002, she was ranked as the most powerful celebrity in the world by Forbes." - repetition, see note above. This may be better here than there.
  • Done Myrockstar 23:19, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
• "was ranked number 20 out of the 200" - needs citation and date isn't this an annual thing? Say for what year.
• "topped FHM" - needs citation
• Italicize Forbes
• "she also has became" - Rephrase and capitalize first word of sentence
• "The following singles" - why italics? - That seems to be the standard Myrockstar 14:07, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
• Music Samples - I question the fair use here. We're not really commenting on the specific music in each case, we're just writing about the singer.
• "She has also had seven DVDs including her 2005 reality series Britney and Kevin: Chaotic, a doll, a video game," - the doll is a DVD? If not remove "including"
• Cite $ figures.

--AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 17:50, 2 March 2007 (UTC) Side comment - I won't make a federal case out of it, but you shouldn't be striking my comments, just responding below. Often people write "done" or something. At least that's how it's done at WP:FAC, see what it says there about "If you feel that the matter has been addressed, say so rather than striking out the reviewer's text." --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 16:31, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Will do, thanks for the tip.Myrockstar 02:33, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Trembling before G-d

Originally starting improving this to win my head to head at the LGBT WikiProject's Jumpaclass, but now I figure it might be cool to make it FA. What do I need to do? Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 07:59, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

• Comment The 'Awards' section could be turned into prose, instead of its current table format. LuciferMorgan 01:31, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

• Comment If possible, I'd like a little more info on the subjects of the film itself, and some background on different views vs. gay men and gay women. One thing that struck me when I saw it was that none of the women showed their faces or let themselves be identified. I think that should be mentioned somewhere in the article. Kolindigo 19:09, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Firstly Dev, you've done a good job on this article. Congrats and keep it up! :-)

• The lead-in could use some work in:
  • It should summarize the entire article. If the rest of the article was removed, it should be able to stand on its own as an article.
  • It needs its sources cited like the rest of the article.
  • [the film] did reasonably at the box office, using dollar amounts would be better here. Let the reader decide how good or bad it did. It did reasonably at the box office compared to what? Did it do reasonably well for a gay movie? For a Jewish movie?
  • The film follows several gay and lesbian Orthodox Jews as they went about their lives and interviewed both rabbis and psychotherapists about Orthodox attitudes towards homosexuality. Because of these attitudes, while DuBowski met hundreds of homosexual Jews over six years, only a handful agreed to be filmed. What was their attitudes? Where they embarrassed about their beliefs? Is that what DuBowski theorized the reason they did not want to be interviewed?
• A section on homosexuality and Orthodox Judaism would be helpful for the reader to understand the movie's subject matter.
• I would like to see more criticism and praise for the movie.
• Has the movie actually made an impact on the Jewish and gay communities?
• There is also a mini-documentary about reactions to the film around the world and what happened to the people who were featured in the documentary. Maybe we could talk briefly about this documentary as well? -- Ash Lux ^{(talk | contribs)} 16:57, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Two more things:

• Turn "Awards" section into a list instead of a table (I like how Brokeback_Mountain#Awards does it).
• The awards need to be cited. -- Ash Lux ^{(talk | contribs)} 17:59, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

The awards section in brokeback mountain looks horribly untidy. I prefer the other one. Anyway, I checked out the stuff you mentioned in the lead, and haven't done anything where the information you asked for may be found in the body of the article, but added everything else. A section on background has been added for homosexuality and Judaism. I will add more criticism as I find it as you have suggested, but hasn't the impact on the jewish and gay communities been described in the Reception section? Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 22:48, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Dev, you've done a great job with this article -- I'm going to have to add it to my Netflix queue now :) The background section was a very good touch, nice job. You're right on the awards section. The awards section just looked funny because my screen because my screen is quite large and it took up 30% or so of the width. From Wikipedia:Lead section: "the lead should be capable of standing alone as a concise overview of the article" and "[the lead] should be carefully sourced as appropriate". I understand this to mean we should add sources in the lead-in regardless if it is sourced in the other sections. It makes sense to me anyhow, the reader's shouldn't have to skim the article to find the appropriate citation. I would still like to know what "the film did reasonably well at the box office" means. Are we talking millions here? Putting something like "the film did reasonably well at the box office grossing n dollars" would do just fine. The article needs someone to go through who is pretty good at fixing up grammar, etc. I'm not very good at it, but I'll go over it tomorrow with that in mind. Again, nice work! -- Ash Lux ^{(talk | contribs)} 05:47, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

I've added citations to the lead, and the amount grossed. And if you want to see Trembling, you definitely want to see Latter Days. :) Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 18:48, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

I gave the lead a bit of a rewrite, attempting to summarize the article a little better and more fully. No doubt I've made some mistakes, so feel free to fix things up or tell me. -- Ash Lux ^{(talk | contribs)} 23:13, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Cool. So, any extra points, or shall I move on to FA? Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 23:15, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

I guess you liked it, you didn't change much *cheers* :-) The style section bothers me, it is a bit short. Would it make sense to make it a subsection to Production or Synopsis sections? Or just expand it? In any case, I think we could give WP:GA another shot first. I believe the concerns from the first GA have been resolved. -- Ash Lux ^{(talk | contribs)} 01:29, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

I've already asked WJB to look at it again. Tbh, I usually bypass GA. If you've put in enough work to make it GA, you may as well put in that little bit more to make it FA. The style section was put in because the previous GA nom complained that it didn;t fit anywhere else. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 08:23, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Well done, Dev! Just a few quibbles before this goes to FAC:

• There are a handful of one sentence paragraphs. This will come up in FAC, so either merge the sentences with a surrounding paragraph or expand them.
• The See Also section is pointless as everything ,except for Keep Not Silent, is already linked within the article. I think Keep Not can be worked in somewhere in the article.
• Check to make sure that links are only linked once within the article. Stephen Greenberg is linked thrice. Also, check each link and make sure they link to the proper article and not disambig pages.
• Stephen Greenberg is described as "the first openly gay Orthodox rabbi" twice.
• There is a lack of images...other than the DVD cover, there isn't anything else. The image of DuBowski has a fair-use rationale for use in this article, yet it is not there. It should be included. Perhaps find a screenshot from one of the interviews in profile as well? Maybe an image of Greenberg?
• I like the table for the awards!

This is a fine article and you'll do well on FAC, methinks! Cheers! *Exeunt* Ganymead | Dialogue? 16:27, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

I had images of both but neither WJB nor Angr would let me use them, apparently it's not fair use to just show living people. The links and gay rabbiness have been dealt with. The see also section is always something I personally like to see, even when the links are above, so I want to leave that there. And if you think it's okay to have a fair shot at FA, I'll go do it then. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 16:39, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

George VI of the United Kingdom

"Good article". LONG. The partner to the below (Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon). DrKiernan 08:26, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

LuciferMorgan

"However, it has been alleged that she had intended to marry Edward, an engagement between them was even gossiped about in the papers, but historians assume that this is simply a case of misreporting."

Who has it been alleged by? Which historians assume? LuciferMorgan 22:35, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

• Thanks for reading another one of my long articles! I've removed the above, the same sentence occured in Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon, where I've now provided a reference to the newspaper which broke the story. The assumption of misreporting comes from Sarah Bradford's biography (reference given). DrKiernan 08:10, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

The "Proposal" section needs cleaning up and turning into prose. Any critical reviews of the drama programs in question are welcomed, particularly if they comment on the portrayal of the man in question. I don't mind reading the articles, I'm just no good at giving feedback unless they're music related. Most editors complain about 1. a. which asks for "compelling, brilliant prose", but I'm ill equipped to comment on that criterion. ^{[And I'm ill-equipped to write it! DrKiernan 11:19, 20 February 2007 (UTC)]} If you want 1. a. checked, politely ask Deckiller if he can give a peer review of the article as he may be able to help. LuciferMorgan 01:15, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

• Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, APR _t 20:41, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Thanks. I have updated the image tag, added persondata and linked the dates. DrKiernan 11:19, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

"Initially the King was seen as supportive of the Prime Minister, Neville Chamberlain's appeasement stance towards Adolf Hitler. "

Seen? By whom? Politicians of the day? Newspapers of the day? Modern biographers? LuciferMorgan 02:18, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

• Thanks. I've cleaned that up by changing the words so that they better match what H. C. G. Matthew has written in the reference given at the end of the paragraph. DrKiernan 08:02, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

"The official Royal Tour historian, Gustave Lanctot, stated: "When Their Majesties walked into their Canadian residence, the Statute of Westminster had assumed full reality: the King of Canada had come home." All quotes need citations. LuciferMorgan 08:24, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

• Amended. DrKiernan 16:49, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

"Empire to Commonwealth" subsection could do with citations. LuciferMorgan 08:25, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

• Amended. DrKiernan 16:49, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Awadewit

You've been busy! It's a lot of work to put together this many articles! ^{Yes, I'm not going to nominate this many articles at once again. It's far too much work! DrKiernan 11:21, 23 February 2007 (UTC)} Here are my suggestions.

• George VI (Albert Frederick Arthur George Windsor) (14 December 1895 - 6 February 1952) was the King of Great Britain, Ireland, each of the British Dominions, and Emperor of India, from 11 December 1936. - from December 1936 to ?
  • I deliberately left that hanging because it is different for Ireland and India. Actually, I was never very satisfied with the way it was phrased. I have tried a new wording. DrKiernan 08:05, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
• Again, I would suggest that you expand the lead to cover his entire life.
  • Done. DrKiernan 08:05, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
• There are some odd italics at the beginning of the "Birth and family section."
  • Removed. DrKiernan 08:05, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
• The day was the anniversary of the death of his great grandfather, Prince Albert, the Prince Consort. - by the time we've gotten to this sentence, we've forgotten that we are talking about the day he was born - rework or remind us
  • Right. Done. DrKiernan 08:05, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
• Do we really need to know who all of his godparents were?
  • I didn’t put these in, they were there when I first came to the page. I guess they show the connections of the family. I have moved them to a footnote. DrKiernan 08:05, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
• Despite coming bottom of the class in the final examination, Albert progressed to the Royal Naval College, Dartmouth in 1911. - awkwardly phrased first clause (unless this is an idiom of British English that I am unfamiliar with)
  • Ah, my alien idioms again! I have rephrased. DrKiernan 08:05, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
• In 1920 he met Lady Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon, the youngest daughter of Claude Bowes-Lyon, 14th Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorne and set his sights on marrying her. - "set his sights" sounds colloquial
  • Changed to "became determined to marry her" is that OK? DrKiernan 08:05, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
• I think that is possible to build the births of their two children into the article rather than listing them as bullet points. Also, the birth of these children should also probably be mentioned more prominently in your Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon article.
  • I have put the bullets into prose. DrKiernan 08:05, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
• Rising Indian nationalism made the welcome which the royal couple would have received likely to be muted at best, and a prolonged absence from Britain would have been undesirable in the tense period before World War II, without the strategic advantages of the North American tour which in the event was undertaken in 1939. - awkward last phrase
  • Yes, rephrased. DrKiernan 08:05, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
• However, when the King and Queen greeted Chamberlain on his return from negotiating the Munich Agreement in 1938, they invited him to appear on the balcony of Buckingham Palace with them, which was an exceptional association of the monarchy with a politician. - "exceptional" is odd diction; also, explain further why this incident was so unusual and what it meant
  • OK, paragraph amended. DrKiernan 08:05, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
• Is the section on the Statute of Westminster really that significant? If it is, it needs to be explained more fully.
  • I can’t take that out. User:G2bambino would go berzerk if I did. It does set up the later section regarding the transition from the Empire to the Commonwealth. DrKiernan 08:05, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
• The entire trip was a measure intended to placate the strong isolationist tendencies among the North American public vis-à-vis the developing tensions in Europe. - is "placate" the right word?
  • Soften? DrKiernan 08:05, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
• Although the aim of the tour was nevertheless mainly political, to shore up Atlantic support for Britain in any upcoming war, the King and Queen were enthusiastically received by the Canadian public and the fear that George would be unfavourably compared to his predecessor, Edward VIII, was dispelled. - awkwardly phrased
  • I have split it into two sentences. DrKiernan 08:05, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
• The trip demonstrated that as early as 1939 it was deemed appropriate for the novel doctrine of the discrete crowns of the Commonwealth Realms to be ostentatiously asserted. - what does this mean?
  • I have removed it because it has no reference. DrKiernan 08:05, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
• The "Portrayal" and "Styles" section seem unnecessary to me (again); much of the address information is in the infobox as well.
  • I have removed the Portrayal section. I shall post your concerns about Styles to Wikipedia:WikiProject British Royalty/Style guide DrKiernan 08:05, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
• The "Honours" section seems ridiculously long to me, but perhaps this is standard in royal biographies?
  • Yes, I agree it is ridiculously long. It takes ages to download on a slow connection, we almost gave up on my mother's dial-up. I can't see anything this long on any other royal page. The Honours of Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon are a separate article. So, I will try moving this section to a sub-page. DrKiernan 08:05, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
• There are still some uncited statements that begin "Some say..."
  • I’ve found two, which I’ve replaced with the source name. Are there any others? DrKiernan 08:05, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
• My, by now, standard last note: your notes are not formatted the same way. :) Awadewit 10:23, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Would you mind expanding on this point a little? I've used citation templates except when referring to a specific page in one of the references, where I've just used Authorname, p.No. Thanks, again. DrKiernan 11:21, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
    • Some of the notes have just the author and the page number and some of the notes (12, 13, 15, 28, 29, 31) have the entire citation. Why? Usually, as you know, one gives the entire citation first and then refers only to the author's name afterwards. Sometimes on wikipedia people eliminate the first complete citation, though - it's a wikipedia thing. Therefore, I could not tell if you were following the standard scholarly practice of fully citing the first appearance of a source or not - it was confusing. Is that clear? I feel like that was a convoluted explanation. Awadewit 11:37, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
      • Yes, that is absolutely clear. Notes 12,13,etc. are only cited once, and are slightly off topic, so I haven't put them into the references and give all details. As the others are in the references section, I chose not to duplicate the details in the notes section and just use Author, page (i.e.wikipedia style). In fact, the article was originally structured with full citations first and then just author afterwards but I then changed it for the sole reason of shortening the page slightly by removing duplicate material. Now, that isn't a very good reason so I'm quite happy to move it back to scholarly form now that I understand your comment. DrKiernan 12:32, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Yannismarou

Another nice article of yours. Some minor remarks:

• From the lead: "Albert served in the navy during World War I, and after the war took on the usual round of public engagements." "As the heir presumptive Albert ascended the throne as George VI, the third monarch of the House of Windsor." So here he is "Albert", but then you say: "George VI was born at York Cottage", and "George VI's birthday (14 December 1895) was the anniversary of the death of his great...". I don't like this alternation of names. IMO it is inconsistent. I see this alternation continues in the next sections as well. Anyway, this may be my personal preference.
• "He was baptised at St Mary Magdalene's Church near Sandringham three months later.[3]" I don't think this has to be a seperate paragraph. After all, it is stubby like that.
• "However, Edward VIII chose to abdicate his crown to marry a divorcée; it was by reason of this unforeseeable abdication, unique in British history, that George VI came to the throne." is this necessary here? You said the same thing in the lead, and you will further analyse it in the next sections. It looks to me like a repetition.
• "Neville Chamberlain lost the support of the British House of Commons and was replaced as Prime Minister by Winston Churchill." This phrase looks to me seamlessly connected with the rest of the paragraph.
• "In 1950 India became a republic, within the Commonwealth, and George VI ceased to be King. India recognised George's new title as Head of the Commonwealth." Did he remain King of Pakistan?
• Is the "See also" section necessary with just one link? Personally, I would get somehow rid of it (e.g. by incorporating its only link in the main text, if you regard it as necessary).--Yannismarou 16:33, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Great, thanks for your comments. I've rewritten taking them into account. DrKiernan 10:29, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Artificial urinary bladder

Hi, I am User:4dhayman and I started this article under the name "artificial bladder". I know this article is very far from FA status, but I'd like some input on how I may develop this article further. I am relatively new as a user, but please don't respond to my request with derision.

Thank you very much,

4dhayman 22:12, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

How long were the teams working on the bladder technique before they announced its success? Who was involved? Does the procedure section refer to the dog team or the later teams? What kind of risks are there involved? Do the new bladders have the same function as a natural bladder? (ie. no readsorption side effects) Hope this helps, it's a nice little article. If you significantly expand it within five days, you could put it up for WP:DYK and it could go on the front page! -Malkinann 06:23, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

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

• Per Wikipedia:Context and Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates), months and days of the week generally should not be linked. Years, decades, and centuries can be linked if they provide context for the article.^[?]
• There may be an applicable infobox for this article. For example, see Template:Infobox Biography, Template:Infobox School, or Template:Infobox City.^[?] (Note that there might not be an applicable infobox; remember that these suggestions are not generated manually)
• Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (numbers), when doing conversions, please use standard abbreviations: for example, miles -> mi, kilometers squared -> km², and pounds -> lb.^[?]
• This article is a bit too short, and therefore may not be as comprehensive as WP:WIAFA critera 1(b) is looking for. Please see if anything can be expanded upon.^[?]
• This article needs footnotes, preferably in the cite.php format recommended by WP:WIAFA. Simply, enclose inline citations, with WP:CITE or WP:CITE/ES information, with <ref>THE FOOTNOTE</ref>. At the bottom of the article, in a section named “References” or “Footnotes”, add <div class="references-small"><references/></div>.^[?]
• The article will need references. See WP:CITE and WP:V for more information.^[?]
• Please ensure that the article has gone through a thorough copyediting so that it exemplifies some of Wikipedia's best work. See also User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 1a.^[?]

You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, Malkinann 06:26, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Thank you Malkinann, I will try my best 4dhayman 14:53, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

You're welcome!  :) Good luck. Is there any scientific literature about the subject? -Malkinann 22:33, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Pennsylvania United States Senate election, 2006

It seemed like this Senate election page was fixed up by a lot of people and I thought that it might make a good example for current and future Senate pages. I just cleaned up the references, and I'm sure that more can be done, so I figured I should open the page up for review. Bridger 00:38, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

• Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, APR _t 21:47, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Response: I believe that all the automated suggestions have been met except for the last one, but I have tagged the article as in need of copyediting to make sure that the last suggestion will be taken care of as well. I'm still working on trying to reformat the polling data into one table. Thanks for the comments. Bridger 16:56, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
    • Looks good so far, well referenced. If you want this to be a Good or Featured article, I would spell out some abbreviations (PA-18 for example, use the full title of the wikilinked article). I would also convert all embedded links to external sites into inline citation references (the poll results especially). Finally, there are three sections that are almost all tables or lists and need some explanatory text to make things flow better and be less choppy. The sections are Election results (perhaps explain the swing and +/- as not everyone knows what these are), Candidates (perhaps make the chronology clearer - not clear in this section who was in the primary and who in the general election) and Opinion polling (explain who each pollster / institute is, talk about trends, perhaps move some other text here). I hope this is helpful, keep up the good work! Ruhrfisch 22:17, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

• Just at a glance: about 70% of the article is tables. I don't know if that is encyclopedic but I would guess not. Mostly lists and tables should probably be converted to prose. I think they would be especially harsh on that over at GAC or FAC. I can do a more thorough edit on this if you would like though, let me know.A mcmurray (talk • contribs) 05:26, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Clinical psychology

This article might be ready for applying for Featured Article status. Please look it over and see if there are any obvious areas for improvement that might have missed our eyes. Thank you!! Psykhosis 22:04, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

• I couldn't find any - support. thuglas^T|C 22:29, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for commenting. Psykhosis 14:35, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm an Australian clinical psychologist and seasoned relationship therapist. I will add a few improvements to this article as I go through it. From my point of view it is not quite ready for FA status - read on, sorry about the length.

My first edits will be: 1. References to the history, practice and licensure in Australia for paragraph 3 and elsewhere 2. Adding evidence based practices and principles, which are a sine qua non of Clinical Psychology, differentiating it from other specialities and egregiously, not referred to in this article 3. Adding counselling with psychotherapy on paragraph 4 and elsewhere.

The dilemma I have raised at point 18 in Talk:Psychotherapy that of distinguishing between therapy, conselling, coaching and mentoring is also an issue in the practice of Clinical Psychology - since we tend to use all those modalities to get the result our clients want. The closing stages of almost any "therapy", except perhaps in a research program using an airtight treatment protocol banning non-treatment related excursions, is more like coaching and mentoring than treatment. The initial stages of assessing a client for treatment will not only include clinical psychology protocols but also an inquiry more like a philosophical enquiry. These issues of defining exactly what is Clinical Psychology are beginning to be addressed for example in the Tree of Knowledge System published in two special issues of the Journal of Clinical Psychology in December 2004 and January 2005, but not referred to in this article.

To quote from this wikipewdia article:

The problem of psychology is its conceptual incoherence, which is clearly identifiable by the following: (1) There is no agreed upon definition. (2) There is no agreed upon subject matter. (3) There is a proliferation of overlapping and redundant concepts. (4) There are a large number of paradigms with fundamentally different epistemological assumptions. (5) Specialization continues to be increasingly emphasized at the expense of generalization and thus the problem of fragmentation only grows.

In Clinical Psychology we tend to think about our practice and the evidence of its effect with the tools of sociology of medicine, sociology of knowledge and semiotics. This a vital concern as practitioners research, operate and receive refferals from within a health care system and a knowledge system which seeks to validate (and invalidate) our practices.

We also tend to think about our research and practice within the framework of social psychology particularly as it applies to interpersonal relationship, as that is the usual instrument of influence. We have to keep an eye on the common law of negligence and more. Clear distinctions have to be drawn within a treatment and between treatment modalities regarding these issues. I will strengthen the article where I come upon these issues or lack of.

The profound historical debt Psychology and Clinical Psychology owe to the East has not been acknowledged whereas that to Europe has. The intersection of European clinical practice with Islamic practice which predates it, is not without significance, for example Rhazes. Perhaps more trivially, we use the Hindu Arabic numbering system in our treatment protocols and in our research statistics: 0 to 9 rather than the Roman lettering I to X and little consider our debt to the East in this everyday small necessity.

Likewise the process of mind training taught in Zen and by Siddartha is informing mindfullness based trauma and other treatments of mental disorders today. The private lives of some of the founders of Clincial Psychology and of some of its contemporary leaders will likely show one of their sources of insipration are in the East. For example, the founder of the PTSD treatment protocol called EMDR is a seasoned Budhhist meditator. R D Laing (a psychiatrist) was transformed in his world view and practice by part of a year he spent in India (not refered to in the wikipedia article on Laing). Likewise with more than a few of the "Major Influences" on the Clinical Psychology page.

One of my pet beefs is the lack of acknowledgement of Arthur Schopenhauer in the practice of empirical based psychology and sociology - as if we remain amnesic of how Western thought changed when Freud found an interpersonal technique, which directly applied Schopenhauer's empiricism and the knowledge he (Schepenhauer) gleaned from the Vedas of the East (also not acknowledge in the page on Freud ). I think it would be disingenuous if Clinical Psychology was represented as a discipline born in the 19th/20th Century in the West, when its roots are deep in the history, philosophy and culture of East and West over the last millenia or so. As a profession competing for the last 125 years for its place in the medical sun, it may be best served claiming scientific modernity.

However, as a scientific discipline interested in such subjects as the Tree Of Knowledge System, I think Clinical Psychology has a duty to show how it reflects on its own status and power, if only because these two are of research interest in the placebo response.

A profession is better defined by the power and prestige it has in society than by the knowledge base over which it claims control. Professions attempt to stake out territory exlusively their own, thus delimiting the use of professional terms. In Australia, for example, it is illegal to use the term psychology unless one is qualified to do so, whilst the term psychotherapy and counsellor are not yet controlled by the legislature. Partly as a result psychology now enjoys government health insurance (Medicare) support equal to or better than that of the referring medical practitioner.

I understand these are issues in the sociology of professions and they rightly belong in a related article, which could then be referred to in the Clinical Psychology one. But the lack of any reference to this field in the Clinical Psychology article might make it read like another self serving promotion of a professional body. For a brief look into this subject see Sociology of professions Conference 2007.

I shall slowly work my way though Clinical Psychology, adding these concerns where they do not arise. I expect some controversy in doing so. Similarly I am working my way through the Interpersonal relationship page, where clinical and social psychology and sociology inputs are also required by peers.--Ziji 02:54, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

You clearly have put a lot of thought into all of this. Some initial thoughts:

• Bringing in unconventional definitions of psychology or clinical psychology might only serve to confuse a reader, not inform one. Discussions about the philosophical underpinnings of psychology might be better served in either the psychology article or even its own. I agree that if that topic is created and more or less agreed upon by others, then it might be useful to bring a mention into this article.
• I think having a section on Eastern thoughts and practices on clin-psy would be great. However, I don't think it is strictly necessary for an GA or FA article status. It could be added any time (preferably by an expert in that area).
• The article already has a section making distinctions between clin-psy and other related fields. I think at most the article could use one paragraph mentioning other unaddressed professions, but I don't think that is necessary (and I just added a link to Mental health professional).
• As I say to everyone, new and even contradictory information is welcome as long as it is from a good source and cited. Also, if you add material (e.g. about Australia), all I ask is that you try to be concise...the article is already getting long.

Thanks for your comments! Psykhosis 14:35, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments also. Have completed edit and additions to Introduction. I hope, brief and concise.--Ziji 20:24, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

I am a psychology student going into an unrelated area of the field of psychology, but my basic acquaintance with the field revealed a few issues:

The criticisms section does not treat opposing ideas (even those within the psychology community) very fully. A short paragraph on each of the existing bullet points would improve the article immensely. Also, the very valid issues about clinical psychology being reductionistic can be cited through the works of Gantt, Slife, and others. I would dig up these articles myself and cite them if I weren't working on other Wikipedia projects.

As mentioned above, an Eastern perspective is desperately needed for this article to reach FA or GA status.

The impact of insurance companies and their policies on reimbursing for treatment on the field needs to be included in the recent history section. The changes that it has wrought upon the field in the past two or three decades cannot be overstated.

The article could make it to GA status with few changes, but it would take major work to reach FA status.--Cassmus 05:09, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments. Psykhosis 05:15, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi there. :-) My take on the article:

• Way too U.S-centric. A bold suggestion -take off the entire training section. Same for licensure section.

• Major influences list should be at the end of the article.

• Too much info on psychotherapy. Having a History section and a History of psychotherapy section will confuse non-experts. Merge both sections. And this is a personal request, but I believe Behaviourism deserves a bit more than a small paragraph in the History section. Also, you have to mention experimental psychology and its links with clinical psychology. So far there's no mention of (chronologically) Pavlovian influence, Watson (and Ranier), Mary Cover Jones, failure of Yale Group (Hull), South Africa group (just one mention of Wolpe), England group (only Eysenck mentioned), U.S group (only Skinner mentioned), ties with behaviourist therapy.... Come on, it's the history of clinical psychology we're talking about. It's severely lacking in this respect.

• Structure the sections. Psychotherapy (which is way too long and has a link to its main article) should appear before psychiatry, counselling and school psychology. The three big perspectives should be mentioned before in the article, perhaps after history. Criticisms should come before other major therapies.

• List of journals should be included in a subarticle.

• Good to see it is well referenced! May need a few more refs, but looks good so far.

Well, that's my take on the article. :-) Hope that helps somewhat. Thanks for the good work with it. Raystorm 16:48, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

I thought that the article looked pretty good. I made internal links to some of the journals listed. (BTW, shouldn't the journals in the list be italicized?) I thought that Ziji's concerns above seemed quite relevant. Perhaps this article could stand to have a more "global" perspective. Perhaps Ziji's concerns could also be addressed with an article like, "Philosophical roots of psychology" or something to that effect. Just some initial thoughts... EPM 13:10, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon

"Good article". Now requesting peer feedback. Please note that the article is LONG. DrKiernan 08:21, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

• Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, APR _t 20:41, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

• Really, not enough prose to call long. I would say the article, down to the ==Death== section is overall well-written and comprehensive. However, and as noted, the rest of the article needs a major clean-up. The 'quips' section is funny trivia, but not appropriate for an encyclopedia (except maybe sprinkled here and there or rolled-into a general 'public image and perception' section where the anecdotes are used as examples of such and such image of the Queen mum - read on). Also, kill the list in the ==Criticism== section, rename it to something more NPOV like ==Public perception and image== and add both the good and bad. Do that, and I think you have a good chance at FAC. --mav 03:16, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
  • That's great, thanks. I've re-written the final sections. But they still need a little work (for example, I've noticed there's a comment which needs a citation). DrKiernan 09:22, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
    • Reference added (and text amended accordingly). DrKiernan 18:56, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

LuciferMorgan

• "Criticisms" and "Reported quips" need changing from their listiness into smooth, cohesive prose which tie the respective sections as their wholes. They need intros and then their main parts all tied together. LuciferMorgan 01:19, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

• "It was said that her popularity was on account of her coming from a more common background than that of past Queens."

Said? By who? Name this individual or these people. LuciferMorgan 02:26, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

• • Unfortunately, I can't find that statement in my copy of Fraser (the book has gone through many editions and revisions, so I can't tell which one the editor who added that comment was using). Consequently, as we don't know who said what when, I've removed the sentence. DrKiernan 10:26, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

• "..and the royal couple's reception by the Canadian and U.S. public was extremely enthusiastic, dissipating in large measure any residual feeling that George and Elizabeth were in any way a lesser substitute for the charismatic Edward."

Can you cite the fact that the Canadian and U.S. public were extremely enthusiastic please? Unless cited, someone can deem it original interpretation. LuciferMorgan 02:30, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

• Citation added. DrKiernan 18:56, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

• "The widowed queen also oversaw the restoration of the remote Castle of Mey on the Caithness coast of Scotland, which later became her favourite home."

Can you cite the fact it was her favourite home please? LuciferMorgan 02:32, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

• No, I can't! So I've changed that. DrKiernan 18:56, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

• "Before the marriage of Diana Spencer to Prince Charles, and after Diana's death, the Queen Mother, known for her charm and theatrical flair, was by far the most popular member of the British Royal Family."

On what are these opinions based? Polls? Can you cite these opinions please? namely as concerns her popularity and that she was known for her charm and theatrical flair. LuciferMorgan 02:35, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

• • Opinion polls are cited in Ezard's obituary, but not "theatrical flair", which I've changed to "public charm". DrKiernan 18:56, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

• "Behind the soft charm lay a canny intelligence and iron will, as demonstrated by the shrewd support she gave George VI, her thwarting of the ambitions of the Duke and Duchess of Windsor (albeit considerably less forthrightly than that of Queen Mary), and by her sheer endurance. In her later years, she became known for her longevity. Her birthdays became times of celebration and, as a popular figure, she helped to stabilise the popularity of the monarchy as a whole."

Every sentence in that paragraph needs an individual citation for all of its numerous claims. LuciferMorgan 02:36, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

• • Added (apart from the middle bit which I've removed). DrKiernan 18:56, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

• "The Queen Mother's honours were read out at her funeral, held in the United Kingdom, as follows: "Thus it hath pleased Almighty God to take out of this transitory life unto His Divine Mercy the late Most High, Most Mighty and Most Excellent Princess Elizabeth, Queen Dowager and Queen Mother, Lady of the Most Noble Order of the Garter, Lady of the Most Ancient and Most Noble Order of the Thistle, Lady of the Imperial Order of the Crown of India, Grand Master and Dame Grand Cross of the Royal Victorian Order upon whom had been conferred the Royal Victorian Chain, Dame Grand Cross of the Most Excellent Order of the British Empire, Dame Grand Cross of the Most Venerable Order of the Hospital of St John of Jerusalem, Relict of His Majesty King George the Sixth and Mother of Her Most Excellent Majesty Elizabeth The Second by the Grace of God of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and of her other Realms and Territories Queen, Head of the Commonwealth, Defender of the Faith, Sovereign of the Most Noble Order of the Garter, whom may God preserve and bless with long life, health and honour and all worldly happiness."

Can you cite, at the end of the paragraph, the source which reprinted this reading please? Thanks. LuciferMorgan 02:44, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

• • Done. DrKiernan 18:56, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

• Can you citate the "Centenarian" subsection please, especially as concerns the Royal family expressing concern at her fall and the Queen Mother insisting on standing up? Thanks. LuciferMorgan 02:50, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
  • I've re-written that section. DrKiernan 20:21, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

"Although legally Edward could have married Mrs Simpson and remained king, his ministers advised him that the people would never accept her as queen and indeed that if he rejected their advice that he forbear to marry Mrs Simpson they would be obliged to resign: this would have led to a general election and irreparably ruined his status as a constitutional Monarch, obliged to accept ministerial advice."

Which ministers? Where does the general election conclusion etc. at the end come from? - to arrive at a conclusion is a summary of the effects, and therefore someone / some people must have arrived at this. Can you citate this please? Thanks. LuciferMorgan 08:18, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

• • All except one member of the British cabinet (Duff Cooper) were opposed to the marriage, as were at least the majority of the Dominion Prime Ministers. If I put in the ministers' names, it would have to either be a long-list, including the Dominions, or only Baldwin, which would lead to accusations of UK-centrism. I would rather not go to into too much detail in this article, as Elizabeth played no part in the abdication (she was conveniently suffering from 'flu throughout the entire crisis). The information is only included in order to provide context. I have altered the wording slightly (as a general election would have been unlikely since the Conservative, Labour and Liberal parties were all opposed to the marriage), and provided a reference. DrKiernan 15:31, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Awadewit

Another nice article on the British royal family. I'm glad that someone is taking the time to fill these out. Here are my suggestions.

• Could you expand the lead a bit? The lead, as I understand it, is supposed to be a summary of the article. WP:LEAD
  • Yes, expanded. DrKiernan 15:39, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
• The location of her birth remains uncertain, but reputedly she was born in her parents' London home at Belgrave Mansions, Grosvenor Gardens, or in a horse-drawn ambulance on the way to hospital. - This needs to be an "either...or" sentence.
  • Yes, amended. DrKiernan 15:39, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
• On her fourteenth birthday, Britain declared war on Germany (See: World War I). - perhaps the link to World War I could be piped to "declared war"?
  • Yes, amended. DrKiernan 15:39, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
• Do we really know nothing about her childhood at all?
  • I’ve expanded that section. DrKiernan 15:39, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
• Do we know why Elizabeth changed her mind and married Prince Albert?
  • No. I believe everything written on that subject so far is supposition, although there are various theories. Apparently, she was always very cagey about it, and refused to acknowledge ever saying no in the first place. I don’t know of any reliable sources for why she changed her mind. I think Sarah Bradford said it might have been because she waited for him to ask her personally (previously he’d only asked through intermediaries), Hugo Vickers admits point blank that we can only guess. DrKiernan 15:39, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
• Although legally Edward could have married Mrs. Simpson and remained king, his ministers advised him that the people would never accept her as queen and indeed that they would be obliged to resign if he insisted; this would have dragged the King into a general election thus ruining irreparably his status as a politically neutral constitutional Monarch. - This sentence or one like it belongs in your Edward VIII article. It makes the reasons for abdication clearer.
  • Yes, you’re right. It was missing from the lead section of Edward VIII, where I’ve put it in. DrKiernan 15:39, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
• When the ex-king and his wife were created Duke and Duchess of Windsor, Elizabeth supported George VI's decision to withhold from Simpson the style of Royal Highness.[13] She was later quoted as referring to the Duchess as "that woman". - it is a little unclear who you are referring to in these sentences - the pronoun referents are unclear
  • Right. I’ve amended that paragraph. DrKiernan 15:39, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
• The Canadian portion of the tour was extremely extensive, from coast to coast and back — they also briefly detoured into the United States, visiting the Roosevelts in the White House and at their Hudson River Valley estate — and the royal couple's reception by the Canadian and U.S. public was extremely enthusiastic, dissipating in large measure any residual feeling that George and Elizabeth were in any way a lesser substitute for the charismatic Edward. - the "extremely's" are unnecessary
  • I’ve rewritten that section in order to shorten the sentence. DrKiernan 15:39, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
• During World War II, the King and Queen became symbols of the nation's resistance. Shortly after the declaration of war, The Queen's Book of the Red Cross was conceived: the book was ready for printing in two months. - explain book for the uninitiated
  • Expanded slightly. DrKiernan 15:39, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
• There are some missing citations in this article. The "Centenarian" and "Death" sections in particular are light. Moreover, the article starts to sound POV without them. Other reviewers have mentioned this as well, I think.
  • I think there's just one paragraph now that needs citations - on the funeral. DrKiernan 15:39, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
• Again, and this is small, your notes do not have a consistent format.
  • Amending. DrKiernan 15:39, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Awadewit 09:50, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

• • Thanks for your comments! DrKiernan 15:39, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Yannismarou

• "The location of her birth remains uncertain ..." Why? Just a question of mine; you don't have to include the answer in the article!
  • For most of her life it was assumed that she was born in the family home at St Walden Bury, because that's where the birth was registered. However, in 1980 Clarence House admitted that she was actually born in London, "in the back of a taxi for all I know", Elizabeth is supposed to have said. Her staff amended that to a horse-drawn ambulance. Her biographers have since shown that in August 1900 Lady Strathmore was at their London residence, not the Bury. Hence, the three touted locations. DrKiernan
• "He initially proposed to Elizabeth in 1921, but she initialy turned ..." Repetitive prose.
  • Amended. DrKiernan 08:34, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
• "this would have irreparably ruined Edward's status as a constitutional Monarch, obliged to accept ministerial advice.[16] He chose to abdicate.[17] Edward chose to abdicate ... " Again repetitive, and a bit choppy.
  • Amended. DrKiernan 08:34, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
• I know that the "Queen mother" is a symbol and a beloved personality in UK, but with expressions like "Behind the soft charm lay a canny intelligence and iron will, as demonstrated by the shrewd support she gave George VI, and by her sheer endurance" you may have problems with the no POV policy of Wikipedia. In general, do not overuse adjectives characterising subjectively a person ("charismatic" for Edward, "charmy", "shrewd", "canny" for the Queen mother). It is another thing, of course, if you quote somebody else telling these things.
  • All biographers (even the ones who hate her) agree that she was charming and popular; and all biographers (even the ones who adore her) agree that behind the image she was tough as old boots. The sentences you quote are supported by the references. If these comments were omitted, the article would no longer be fully inclusive of relevant material. DrKiernan 08:34, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
• "Kelley and others also allege that during World War II Elizabeth did not abide by the rationing regulations to which the rest of the population was subject[52][54] however, this point is contradicted by the official records;[55][56]". Is the punctuation OK here? And something else: If you want to avoid to have citations in a row, there are ways to combine them in one citation. You can check Tourette syndrome or Battle of Edson's Ridge.
  • Amended punctuation. Thanks for the tip, and your comments. DrKiernan 08:34, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
• Again, I think the trend is to alphabetize the categories at the end of the article, but I won't insist!

Very nice, in general. Looking forward to seeing it in WP:FAC.--Yannismarou 20:05, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Cold Feet

I've expanded this page from a stub, basing the section headings on the ones at The Wire and Buffy the Vampire Slayer. Much of the background information comes from the official series companion and behind-the-scenes specials from TV and I'd just like some feedback on anything else that needs to added (or taken away) so it can be nominated for GA. WindsorFan 13:35, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

• Howdy. Okay, I haven't had a proper look yet (I'll try and do so later) first things I can see that would need fixing are: some of the images lack a fair use rationale. Also the fair use rationale *must* be specific for that article (this is a thing the fair use police have been using to try and delete images), for example "== Fair use rationale for [[Cold Feet]] ==". Secondly, although I know these flags seem to be popping up all over TV articles is it really needed, personally I've not seen a great deal of value/usefulness in them. Lastly: The external link needs a bullet point and the NBC category should be removed (consensus at WikiProject TV is only the original channel (ITV in this case) or co-producers should have a category. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 13:59, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

FU rationales now on all images, external link fixed and category removed. I've left the flags in as that is something which needs to be decided upon at WP:TV. Besides, once there is enough information about international broadcast, that section will be converted to prose and the only flag will be in the infobox.

I think you've done pretty well so far, sixty references :o. FUR needed on Image:Coldfeet.jpg, but you've done the other images. Can you convert overall spelling to British spelling, i.e. womanizer etc. The auto peer review tool says to put references after punctuations and to make sure dates etc adhere to the WP:MOS. I review GA's infrequently, and would be very inclined to pass it as it is. RHB ^{Talk - Edits} 13:57, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Spelling converted from Oxford English to SBE.

• Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, APR _t 21:51, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Footnotes checked (all appear after punctuation), dates checked and wikilinked, lead as short as it can be.—Preceding unsigned comment added by WindsorFan (talk • contribs) 17:47, February 24, 2007(UTC)

Dave Lombardo

Previous review

This article is on a metal drummer, would appreciate any feedback to get it read for FA. M3tal H3ad 13:54, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Manual of Style (headings)#Linking recommends against linking words in headings. DrKiernan 14:15, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

J Milburn

• Second paragraph of 'Early years'- is that meant to say 'disc jokey'? Presumably it is meant to say 'disc jockey'?

Typo has been corrected. LuciferMorgan 21:56, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

• The list of Hendrix songs played should have speech marks- MoS says it should be formatted- "Song", Album and Artist.

The list of three Hendrix songs now have speech marks. LuciferMorgan 21:59, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

• I know it's a direct quote, but we'll see who makes it to the top, lets place a bet is missing an apostrophe in 'let's'. Is this deliberate?
• Do we know his child's name?
• First line of second paragraph of 'Grip Inc.', album name Nemesis is not in italics.

The album name is now in italics. LuciferMorgan 22:02, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

• Second line, Solidify is also not in italics.

The album name is now in italics. LuciferMorgan 22:02, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

That's all for now, I will take another look later. J Milburn 19:43, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I know both his kids names but don't know which one was first. I'll look into it. M3tal H3ad 13:14, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Ok, some more points- J Milburn 16:35, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

• Ref 24 is a little lacking in detail. Is that a book? Or just something he said at the festival? Can we even reference that?

It's something he said at the modern drummer festival. The video is on Youtube and since it would breach copyright i don't know how to add more detail.

Breach of what copyright? If the video was taken by the uploader, then we can cite it as a source (as long as we are certain it is genuine, I think it is reasonable to believe it is) if it was ripped from a documentary, live stream or DVD or something, we can cite that. Alternatively, have you taken a look on the Internet archives for the relevant concert? J Milburn 12:47, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

It got deleted of Youtube, but i found the source - http://www.drummerworld.com/Videos/DaveLombardo.html a documentary, thanks for the help. M3tal H3ad 13:44, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

• The article seems to slip between calling the drum set TAMA and Tama- I'm no drummer, so I am not sure how correct that is.
• The last paragraph of 'Return to Slayer', the second set of quotation marks are not closed.
• The line "Apocalyptica Lombardo enjoyed playing a duo – and asked if Lombardo would like to record a song for their next album." doesn't seem to make much sense, and that paragraph repeats 'Lombardo' a lot, too.

Thanks again for the comments. M3tal H3ad 07:53, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

CloudNine

• The first paragraph is, in my opinion, slightly confusing and doesn't flow well. It should state why Lombardo is notable; I recommend moving the contents of the second para up to the first, and perhaps removing the show-and-tell sentence. Your call though.
• I thought Origin was meant for bands only? Noting his origin and birthplace is a little ambiguious. Also, the flags aren't really required.
• General question: is his birth name just Dave?
• "moved to California"; should this be Downey, California?
• Grade school is a little inspecific (I note that the grade in which he brought in his drums in mentioned above though). You may want to replace it with an age or something; grades are usually country-specific.
• "100,000 years" -> "100,000 Years". "Talk of the town" is quite colliqual as well. "Word of Lombardo's ability spread" sounds a little more formal.
• "This inspired his musical interest in drums, which resulted in him joining the school band playing the marching drum, although he thought the marching drum was "not for him"." Seems like a run-on sentence to me. "Musical" in this context seems redundant.
• ... by listening to the record repeatedly and word of Lombardo's ability spread for being able to perform the drum solo. Due to his new found popularity, he was asked if he could play the song "Moby Dick" by Led Zeppelin." To me, this sounds awkward. Could be better phrased as "... by listening to the record repeatedly. Word soon spread of Lombardo's ability to perform the song's drum solo, and he was asked to perform Led Zeppelin's "Moby Dick". (Also, who asked him? School friend perhaps?)
• "Due to him arriving home at 4:00AM, his parents threatened to put him in a military school." This is unclear; was it every night, or just the once? CloudNine 13:56, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

I'll add more comments soon. CloudNine 18:20, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments. I just noticed the origin in the infobox as you mentioned it - so i removed it. M3tal H3ad 10:46, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

VisitorTalk

The research and references are fine, but the writing style needs significant editing to bring it up to encyclopedic standard.

The article often bumps together parts A and C without mention of part B of the story.

"With the drumkit, Lombardo purchased his first record..." implies that he got a really bad deal trading in the kit at a pawn shop for one LP! This sentence should be rewritten. Did his father include the record along with the kit?

Moby Dick reference jumps from "was not familiar with the material" to "after doing so" (playing the song with mastery, I assume you meant). Need a transitional sentence.

"...parents threatened to put him in a military school." Did they withdraw the threat? Did he have to give up late night events until leaving home?

"As Slayer's line-up was complete..." Did the band already have everyone but a drummer? The article jumps from King's own guitar collection, presumably at his home, to a full band taking the show on the road.

Hoglan appears and promptly disappears from the article. Is he really relevant?

Lombardo's wife appears without a mention of when they were married.

"Grip" section jumps from appropriate past tense into present tense discussion of events in the past.

He had to miss the 2005 Fantomas tour. Did he ever tour with them?

Should change to "Ten years after departing from Slayer..." and include the name of the manager.

The Christy quote should either cite the exact words for "blown away," or the summary should be rewritten to a less cliche term. Finnish should be capitalized.

VisitorTalk http://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Biography/Peer_review/Dave_Lombardo&action=edit&section=4 Editing Wikipedia:WikiProject Biography/Peer review/Dave Lombardo (section) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia15:31, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments. I agree with you on the poorly written part in some places and alot of sentences start with Lombardo did...He then.. I'll see how i can fix this up and the other things that still remain. Appreciate the comments. M3tal H3ad 11:04, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

You're very responsive to constructive criticism, and I see a lot of improvements in the article. Good job! One more minor point: when describing a purchase made in Los Angeles, you don't need to include "USD" - just "$1,100" is enough. Are you working on other articles? VisitorTalk 16:39, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

The whole Lombardo *insert verb here* has been a problem from the start and I'm slowly cutting them down. I recently re-wrote two articles, Silent Civilian and The Blackening (still needs a recording section and do-away with the "history") M3tal H3ad 07:53, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm working on the "Recording" section - I'll try speeding things up a little. LuciferMorgan 11:03, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

WesleyDodds

I've done a copyedit of the entire article. However, the prose still needs attention and is the weakest component of the article as it stand. I recommend having another editor read and copyedit the page. The article in general seems ok, but I'm not too sure about the exensive use of reviews. Certainly there neds to be critical recognition of Lombardo's work, but since he's only a component of a complete group, single out sentences in reviews that mention him often seems like stretching the point. I'll try and offer more comments soon. WesleyDodds 08:02, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't agree with the point as regards the review, since it gives readers a perspective of Lombardo's work as a whole. I do agree the prose needs work though, but I can't think of anyone else who will copyedit the article further. LuciferMorgan 09:18, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Here's a thought: could the reviews be better utilized in the "musical characteristics" section? As part of the biography they seem somewhat out-of-place. WesleyDodds 09:23, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, I'm not sure. In the biography section, it's meant to show the critical reception he has had over the years. LuciferMorgan 11:56, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

• Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 02:36, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Snooker

Aiming to submit to FAC and looking for advice and comments on what needs to be changed, improved or altered to be sucsessful. Significant work has been done already, but I feel I am reading the same lines too many times now and so some outside eyes would be helpful, Thanks. SFC9394 20:25, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

• Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, APR _t 22:22, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

John Birch (Luthier)

I would like to see this article get as many contrubutions from John Birch guitar fans/experts as possible. Unfortunately, I do not have a library of John Birch pictures (that I have legal right to use, anyway). Any one who has those would be encouraged to contribute. I need far more info on John Birch's personal life, which I have already contacted several sources about. Things such as his date of birth, early jobs, the reason he got into luthery, and of course pictures of him are not known to me.

Anyone who owns one of these guitars and/or has worked on them can help with the wiring details as well as methods of construction, as my knowledge of Birch's methods are limited. Also, there is not much info about the new John Birch company, though I have tried to get in contact with its founder, John Carling. I have also contacted John Diggins and Greg Dorsett, and am waiting for a reply. Any info on fellow founder Arthur Baker would be appreciated.

Basically, I want as much info on John Birch and his company as is possible for a single Wikipedia entry.

Mooney Mooney Bridge

I have recently completed this page to my own standards, but I wanted to know what others think of it. I have no plans for it to be FA or GA but any improvement would be fantastic. I am a bit unsure of the design section if anyone has any ideas for that section. Todd661 03:05, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

• I think it still needs more content. Check out San Francisco-Oakland Bay Bridge for ideas.--BirgitteSB 04:13, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

• • I know it needs more content - especially things like traffic figures. But this is all there is available on the internet...although I haven't exhausted books yet. I start uni again next week so I will be able to look then. Todd661 07:28, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
• As a service to international Wikipedia readers, you might want to insert the word "Australia" somewhere (I'd suggest once in the infobox and once in the article). Other tips:
  • Avoid WP:WEASEL words: "has been said" — said by whom?
  • "have prompted debate" — debate amongst whom?
  • Use Wikipedia:Citation templates to uniformly format all citations.
  • Some financial data would be nice. How much did it cost to design, build and maintain? Who is financing it?
  • The article really needs a section about the basic use of the bridge, between "Design" and "Incidents". How much traffic does it carry? What kind of traffic? What did it do to the local economy? How is it maintained? Right now, the article seems to suggest that the bridge was built to cause incidents only...
• Good luck! --Plek 14:27, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

• Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, APR _t 20:42, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your suggestions. Now to put them into practice. Todd661 03:33, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Mendip Hills

This article has been rated GA for a long time & has had more information added since. I would welcome any comments which could help improve it in the hope of reaching FA status, and feel that the text, images and general structure would benefit from further editing.— Rod ^talk 10:18, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

I would certainly support the article's rating being upgraded. It has been improved significantly over the last few months. --Cheesy Mike 09:57, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

• Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, APR _t 20:38, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Response Thank you for the automated review. Apart from putting " " between numbers & units + removing a "The" from a section head (which I have since done) I believe all the suggestions are already met. Specifically:

• I believe the lead does comply with the recommendations at WP:LEAD
• Months and days of the week are not linked and centuries are
• The image top right (of Cheddar Gorge) is PD
• Instead of an infobox the article has a Geobox for protected areas which provides more information than the similar infobox but in a machine readable form (This is new & the automated process may not yet "recognise" this)
• I can't find any "redundancies" or vague terms
• Footnotes are located immediately after punctuation marks
• I have copyedited to the best of my ability.

Any further comments would be welcome & I'll do my best to take them on board.— Rod ^talk 22:22, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback. I've added the geobox to my list of infoboxes (which now includes a grand total of three keywords..); I made it a point on my to-do list to increase my list of infoboxes but I keep forgetting to look through WP:IB. The image was missed due to (more detail) as I had the code search for image:, which I'm changing right now. The footnote spacing thing must've been an error, as when I checked it now it no longer appears. The lead was miscounted for because one of the paragraphs started with 200 (its not bad style or anything, I just set it up to search for uppercase letters). When I have time (probably this weekend), I'll give the article a more thorough (manual) look. Thanks, AZ _t 00:23, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

• In the first paragraph, "roughly analogous" is a bit unclear in terms of word choice
• The second paragraph (hover over underlined stuff w/ cursor):

200 km² of the Mendips are an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty, a designation which gives the area the same level of protection as a national park. The Mendip Hills AONB Service and visitor centre is at the Charterhouse Centre near Blagdon. The Mendips are home to a wide range of outdoor sports and leisure activities.

• The third paragraph:

The hills are largely carboniferous limestone which is actively quarried at several sites. This particular geology also makes it a national centre for caving and cave diving. In addition to climbing and abseiling, the area is a centre for Hillwalking and those interested in natural history.

• Several explanation for the name Typo
• The dot locator for the map is appearing outside of the map on my screen.
• The prose in the top half of the article is a lot stronger than that of the bottom half, so try to focus more attention on the last few sections:

The particular geology, with large areas of limestone worn away by water makes it a national centre for caving, although some of the caves have been known about since the establishment of the Mendip lead mining industry in Roman times, many have only been discovered or explored in the 20th century.[22] The caves which are easily accessible to the public are at Cheddar Gorge and Caves and Wookey Hole, but the vast majority of the caves require specialist equipment and knowledge. The active Mendip Caving Group organises trips and continues to discover new caverns.

• More errors fall in the next paragraphs, like " The first successful cave dive in Britain, was achieved" (comma unnecessary).
• Typo in footnote #14.
• Some more general notes, some of the 1-senetence paragraphs should be merged or expanded, since such short paragraphs are generally looked down upon.
• Image:Mendipsociety.jpg requires fair use souce information and rationale. AZ _t 23:18, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Response Andy thank you for all these comments which I've edited along with some of the more general suggestions you've made about short sentances & comma misuse. I've removed the logo of the Mendip Society to avoid potential fair use issues. Any further comments would be useful as I'd like to put this up as a FA candidate soon.— Rod ^talk 12:06, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Comment Had a quick look at the article and spotted a few things. Hopefully I will have time for a closer look in the next couple of days.

• Karst is linked to in the introduction however does not seem to be mentioned in the Geology section. If its important enough for the lead it should be elaborated on later, in my opinion.
• A part of the area, totalling approximately 200 km² are an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB) - From the Lead: This doesn't read very well.
• At the end of the second Lead paragraph sports and leisure are mentioned. The third paragraph goes back to geology (which is first introduced in the first paragraph) and then back to sports and leisure activities. Is there a more logical way of organising this information?
• The Ecology section has 4 paragraphs without any references, it would be great to see atleast one per paragraph (even if it is the same one!).
• Echoing AndyZ's comments the Mendips in the arts section has 4 rather short paragraphs which should be merged/expanded.

Hope this helps with the article. - Suicidalhamster 02:24, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Response - thanks yes they are helpful coments & I've made changes to try to address them.— Rod ^talk 11:01, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Sudden Oak Death

I'd like to make sure the information I have included in both current and accurate. Also that referencing has been used appropriatly, and I think some sections could use some references. If there is anything else you think should be included, let me know as well. (a Mentally Efficient Loonies And Nice Insane Elephants creation 21:16, 11 February 2007 (UTC))

This article seems to be fairly comprehensive, but right off the bat I would suggest that the article be reorganized based on the suggested sections at the Medicine Manual of Style with a few modifications. I find that this is the flow of information that enables me to best understand a disease, and that these section delineations would probably greatly improve the readability of this article. I would propose the content be organized into the following section types (they don't necessarily need to be named as below):

• Classification - What kind of disease (i.e oomycete) and which plants are affected by the disease (the "hosts").
• Signs and symptoms or Characteristics- What does this disease do to the plant (the "symptoms").
• Causes - It is really important in this article to separate the "cause" from the "disease" (i.e. poliovirus causes polio; Phytophthora ramorum causes Sudden Oak Death) this distinction needs to be made more clearly.
• Pathophysiology or Mechanism - How does the organism cause the disease? Does it destroy some integral tree part or does it inhibit some integral tree function? How does the agent get into the plant's cells? ect.. Much more information should be added about this.
• Prognosis (social impact may also be discussed) -What happens to the tree, what about other trees.
• Diagnosis, Treatment, Management, Prevention - essentially the "Control mechanisms" section.
• Epidemiology- "It was first discovered in California in 1995 when large numbers of Tan oaks (Lithocarpus densiflorus) died mysteriously,..." should lead this section off, the "Presence" section, "Transmission" section and the "two mating types" section should also go here.
• History- the "Possible origins" section could go here.
• See also
• Notes and references- All external links should be removed from the body of the article, make them into "notes" like: <ref>See here for sanitation suggestions: http://nature.berkeley.edu/comtf/html/sanitation___reducing_spread.html </ref>
• External links- this should be the very last section.

A few other suggestions:

• Avoid using the word "it", substitute "the disease", "sudden oak death" or "P. ramorum", etc..
• The references should include a PMID number (where available) and formatting should be updated using {{cite}} templates. I will volunteer to do this, if you like.

I hope that this helps, let me know if you have any questions.--DO11.10 23:11, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

1991 Hamlet chicken processing plant fire

I was recomended by the GA reviewer of this article that I should take this article here, then nominate for FA. Consequently, I am looking for suggestions about what work needs done to attain FA standard. Blood Red Sandman Open Up Your Heart - Receive My EviLove 19:05, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Will.i.am

This was a pretty fascinating topic about a tragic but important event; kudos to the authors! Here's a few comments that you can take or leave:

1. The images look pretty washed out. Perhaps someone could increase their contrast a bit to make them clearer (more contrast)?
2. The building in the first sentence of the background section sounds ambiguous. Perhaps change to "The Imperial Foods plant building..."
3. Previously an ice cream factory, although it had been used for various food processing aplications,[1] the building was 30,000 square-feet in size, and was actually a series of adjoining structures. This is four ideas in one sentence and seems cluttered in its current arrangement. How about something like, "The building had been used for various food processing applications and was originally an ice cream factory. At the time of the fire it had grown to include a series of adjoining structures totaling 30,000 square-feet."
4. Sentences like: The factory was constructed with bricks and metalwork, and was a single story high. does not need a comma. In this case the rule is that if the second phrase is a totally stand-alone sentence (an independent clause) you need it. For example the following two sentences are correct, you can pick: (A) The factory was constructed with bricks and metalwork and was a single story high. (B) The factory was constructed with bricks and metalwork, and it was a single story high. There are other instances of this in the article, but I won't beleaguer the point.
5. The factory had had three previous non-fatal fires, - just one "had" is fine here.
6. The plant tended to have a workload of one hundred chickens a minute, and this high rate of speed kept temperatures low... I, and probably other people who are unfamiliar with chicken plants, don't really understand this. I.e. how does the high chicken rate keep temperatures low? You talk about refrigerated air later on....
7. before Imperial took over as well, although these, too, were non-fatal. A few times throughout the background previous fires are mentioned. Perhaps these could all be consolidated into one paragraph with an appropriate heading?
8. There were no sprinklers in the building - this could be mentioned earlier when you talk about the building. Same thing about the lack of fire alarms and asbestos.
9. The Fire: A general comment about this section. Is there any chronology to how the fire progressed and how people got out? Right now this section feels disordered and I (as the reader) feel like I'm being teleported randomly around the plant and through time. For example, we go from the number of deaths, to a brief comment (seemingly many years later) to the survivors aftermath (addiction, alcoholism), but then we're back in the plant escaping through the front door. If you could figure out some order to this information it would a VERY powerful section (as opposed to just a powerful one).
10. The fire remains the worst disaster - I might give this sentence its own paragraph for emphasis. Or at least make it the topic sentence of its paragraph.
11. Click image to enlarge. in the figure caption is unnecessary.
12. Evacuation plan doesn't have to be wikilinked. It's red anyway and a common term.
13. they were in fact killed by smoke filtration around the door - I think filtration should be 'infiltration".
14. There are a few minor types including: storey, technicaly, Federal (no caps), Recomendations, aproximatly
15. NC - this acronym should be spelled out.

Good luck with this article, great job so far!--Will.i.am 00:49, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I have decided to act upon all your suggestions (except boosting image clarity, since I'm unfamiliar with that kind of thing). I have done or will do (in particular I am still to do the fire section rewrite) everything pretty much as you suggested, except the merge of previous fires - rather than give them their own heading, I kept them under background and instead grouped them together at the bit about the company's safety record. Thanks again, very helpful suggestions, Blood Red Sandman Open Up Your Heart - Receive My EviLove 18:58, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

All done Blood Red Sandman Open Up Your Heart - Receive My EviLove 16:03, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Statelessness

Request made

Nom fixed, a more descriptive request would be helpful. APR _t 22:43, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

• Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, APR _t 22:42, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Wine

I'm hoping to get Wine to GA/FA status, which I feel is important for the WP:WINE and Wikipedia. I'd really appreciate any feedback as to what the article is missing, what should be improved, and and any other comments. ◄§ĉҺɑʀκs► 09:29, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Nice article, some suggestions:

• Summary of sections needed. Some sections are simply too long
• ToC is too heavy, reduce the number of sections
• =By wine style= is too detailed. List only the popular ones here.
• More inline references
• How is wine produced? An important section is missing. It should be right on top.
• More pics needed.

That's it for now. =Nichalp «Talk»= 08:44, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

• Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, APR _t 22:41, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Tesco

Tesco is the biggest retailer in the UK and the 3rd largest in the world - It's come under a lot of controversy recently, and the article could be in better shape - I'd much appreciate some input on what could be done to help improve it. Many thanks Benbread 23:51, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

• Comment
  • Many uncited statements.
  • Controversy section just a big list. In my opinion there should be an article on criticisms on Tesco and I suggest redirecting Tescopoly there. Further the new article should be in prose, not just bullet points.
  • Clubcard grossly under-described. The consensus is that Clubcard was one of, if not the most important factors in the company's recent success.
  • "Facts and figures" is a strange section. Is the rest of the article not facts and figures?
  • Intro should follow WP:LEAD.
  • Loads of single sentence paragraphs. This really hurts the flow of the article.
  • If this was ever to go for FA it would need major overhaul. Specifically the fact that it's only about ⅓ prose (⅓ tables etc and ⅓ lists). For example the acquisition timeline could be converted to prose and each one explained in context. Mark83 08:53, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

• Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, APR _t 22:41, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Æthelwald Moll of Northumbria

Going through the featured article checklist, I believe that this article meets most of the requirements. But what do peer reviewers think? Can anything this short be featured quality? If not, why not? Anyway, let's go through the checklist.

1. Well written? Probably not great, but I hope I can fix improve it in time.
2. Comprehensive? Exhaustive on the subject, to the best of my knowledge.
3. Factually accurate? So far as I can tell.
4. Neutral? I expect so.
5. Stable? No ongoing edit wars.
6. MoS-compliant? It was split into short sections and a lead created to meet MoS-requirements. It can easily be unsectioned again if that's preferable.
7. Images? No, it doesn't have any images, but that's not something that's easy to remedy. I could create a map of places in the text if some sort of illustration is a must-have.
8. Appropriate length? It's fairly exhaustive, based on the references I have and the pointers to source material at the Prosopography of Anglo-Saxon England, so it's hard to see how it can be anything other than the appropriate length.

Any and all comments gratefully received. Angus McLellan (Talk) 23:22, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

• I think presence of images is required for GA status, so perhaps you ought to try finding one. Is there nothing from the period (ruins/metalwork?) that can be used as illustrations? A map would be great if you can draw one, maybe a family tree? DrKiernan 16:00, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

No, an image isn't required, but one should be added "where possible". I've added a contemporary coin; none from the subject's reign are known, but (original research warning) they would almost certainly have been identical on the obverse side shown. Northumbrian coins, unlike Mercian ones, don't show images of rulers. A family tree are not possible: as the article says, his ancestry is unknown. Map? Too much effort really. I don't care for image stuff, and nobody else seems to be interested. Angus McLellan (Talk) 18:57, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Checking further (and searching for "Moll" rather than variants of "Æthelwald"), this coin is indeed the same style as those known from this reign. I'll update the caption accordingly. Angus McLellan (Talk) 19:08, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Review the biographical articles at WP:FA under history. This article is IMO much too brief to pass WP:FAC - length is not a strict criteria but there must be more historiography available at least if not direct references to his life. Give us more context if necessary. Kaisershatner 15:38, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

IMO likewise, although there's nothing on WP:WIAFA to that effect. Angus McLellan (Talk) 15:45, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

• Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, APR _t 22:41, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Igor González de Galdeano

I've taken this article as far as I know and have referenced it as best I can: I'm looking to be able to take it to GA standard. Mk3severo 02:49, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

• Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, APR _t 22:39, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Wilhelm scream

I'm not looking so much for a peer review, as so much as a shave and a hair cut. Is everything listed in here encyclopedic in nature? Any legit reason people would complain if this was centred out as in the press? -- Zanimum 18:22, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

LuciferMorgan

Where are the inline citations? Cite the claims in the article. LuciferMorgan 03:19, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

• Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, APR _t 22:39, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Helicopter parent

I'm not looking so much for a peer review, as so much as a shave and a hair cut. Is everything listed in here encyclopedic in nature? Any legit reason people would complain if this was centred out as in the press? -- Zanimum 18:22, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

I think it needs to be made clear in the article when the origin of the term "Helicopter parent" is being discussed, and the origins of the actual phenomenon itself. Also, I don't understand the reason for the subheading explanations? Is this referring to explaining the rise of the phenomenon itself? The article needs a lot more inline citations. Otherwise it could easily be accused of POV problems, or original research. The term, and the phenomenon, are only discussed in an American context. Is this because it's American only, or is the article not comprehensive? - Shudda ^talk 00:52, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Good points. I'll start research the term's usage and origins. -- Zanimum 15:02, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

• Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, APR _t 22:39, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Irfan Pathan

Yes, the 2007 Cricket World Cup is coming up, Pathan will be playing, and this article is currently GA and throughly covers his career I think. It's a pity that there are no free pics of him so that it could be put on the main page during the World Cup if it passed FA, but I may as well solicit feedback anyway since WikiProject Cricket is on a big FA drive. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 05:21, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

• "After opening both the batting and bowling in late 2005 and early 2006, Pathan was dropped from the team in both Test and ODI forms of the game." - this doesn't mention that he's back in the team
• "Pathan made his first-class debut in the 2000-01 season, after fellow left-arm paceman Zaheer Khan was selected for the national team, helping Baroda to win the Ranji Trophy." - confusing. maybe something like:

"Pathan made his first-class debut for Baroda in the 2000-01 season, after fellow left-arm paceman Zaheer Khan left to join the national team, and helped them to win the Ranji Trophy."

• "Pathan further honed his bowling at the MRF Pace Foundation in Chennai, after being selected by Indian selector Kiran More." - selected? for what? AFAIK, you don't need to be selected for the academy, especially not by the Indian national team selector.
• "...where he was the leading wicket-taker with 18, more than twice that of the second leading wicket-taker." - "second leading wicket-taker" sounds wrong.
• "...Pathan was the leading wicket-taker with 16 wickets at 31." - at 31...? economy rate?
  • "He also took eight wickets at 17.8 in three ODIs..."
  • "...leading wicket-taker with 14 wickets at 16.28..."
  • "...five wickets at an average of 9."
  • "...18 wickets at 11.88..."
  • "...taking only six wickets at 68.33..."
  • "...ten wickets at 16.1..."'
  • "...21 wickets at 11.29..."
  • "...ten wickets at 25.6..."
  • "...seven wickets at 26..."
  • "...nine wickets at 18.88..."
  • "...eight wickets at 39.37 and scoring 121 runs at 24.2..."
  • "...eleven wickets at 15.63 including 4/51 at Goa and 123 runs at 41..."
  • "...24 runs at 6 and 6 wickets at 29.83..."
  • "...taking wickets at an average of 41.33."
  • "..scored 560 runs at 35..."
• "Pathan continued his batting improvement with a defiant 31 and 55, his first half-century after the specialist batsmen had failed in the First Test against Australia in October 2004 in Bangalore, but his career was put on hold after he suffered a side strain in the following Test in Chennai, causing him to miss the Tests in Nagpur and Mumbai." - not smooth, consider breaking into 2 sentences
• "Former India paceman Javagal Srinath..." - I'm not to sure about this one. should it be "Indian"?
• "These concerns were further magnified in late 2006, when Pathan was demoted from the position of an opening bowler in ODIs during the 2006 ICC Champions Trophy, and was dropped from some matches altogether and again was limited to sporadic ODI appearances on the November ODI tour to South Africa." - 2 ands, break into 2 sentences or more.
• "He subsequently fell out of the Top 10 of the ICC bowling rankings and the Top 5 of the All rounder rankings after having spent the previous year in the list." - at what positions? Please mention in the previous section (I assume "the previous year" would mean 2005; state explicitly anyways)
• "Despite top scoring in both innings of a first-class warm-up match in Potchefstroom whilst many specialist batsmen failed to cope with the bouncy conditions, selectors overlooked Pathan for the First Test in Johannesburg." - when? November 2006? There is a serious overall lack of dating of events in the article. Where the months have been given the year has not. Yes, most readers can make out by reading 4-5 lines above (in most cases), but this article is not ready to be FA till this concern has been cleared up, and the events' timeline easy to comprehend.
  • Please note that I have not given all of the instances where such a problem occurs. You will have to go through the article with a fine-tooth comb and clear it up of this problem.
• "After a poor bowling display in the subsequent tour match in which he conceded 74 runs in 11 overs..." - what tour? another problem is lack of detail.
  • Please note that I have not given all of the instances where such a problem occurs. You will have to go through the article with a fine-tooth comb and clear it up of this problem.

--May the Force be with you! Shreshth91 05:55, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

• See my comments to Dinesh Karthik. Applies to this too. =Nichalp «Talk»= 07:53, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

• Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, APR _t 22:39, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Dinesh Karthik

Yes, the 2007 Cricket World Cup is coming up, Karthik will be playing, and this article is currently GA and throughly covers his relatively short career to date I think. It's a pity that there are no free pics of him so that it could be put on the main page during the World Cup if it passed FA, but I may as well solicit feedback anyway since WikiProject Cricket is on a big FA drive. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 05:22, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

• "He started his career as a batsman, but switched to wicket-keeping in order to improve his future prospects." - cite?

--May the Force be with you! Shreshth91 12:36, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

• Needs a copyedit
• Graphs and tables needed (Collingwood)
• What about current first class career
• Personal life - school, education etc?
• Convert hyphens to dashes (&ndash;)
• Endorsements, brand ambassador, charity work?

=Nichalp «Talk»= 07:52, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

• Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, APR _t 22:39, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Upper Canada College

In the hopes of refining the above article to meet FA status (at the prompting of some other users), it would be useful to have some outside editors review the piece and voice their opinions - allowing for a viewpoint beyond the three or four regular contributors to the article. --G2bambino 20:48, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Don't FA's require the sources to be done using the "cite" templates? CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 22:43, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

• Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, APR _t 22:39, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Deus Ex

I and a number of others have been working on this article for the past few months in the hope of eventually getting it up to FA status. It failed a GA nomination last September, but has been vastly improved since then in my opinion. Before I put it up for GA again, however, I would like some outside opinion on its quality. I'm already assuming it still needs more references, but I would like some views on the article's length, quality of prose, cohesiveness, and other elements. Sections that probably warrant special attention include the "Gameplay" and "Plot" segments. -- Grandpafootsoldier 19:57, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

• Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, APR _t 22:39, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Parkour

Hi, I would like to have a peer review to improve this article. Carlosguitar 12:52, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

• Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, APR _t 22:38, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Silent Hill (film)

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

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

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

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

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

• Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, APR _t 22:38, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Queen (band)

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

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

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

• Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, APR _t 22:39, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Inclusive classroom

Hi, I would like to have a peer review to improve this article. (RainingmySoul 19:47, 23 February 2007 (UTC))

• Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, APR _t 22:38, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Emerson Preparatory School

Just trying to get some feed back tighten the article up specifcly the begining any advice is greatly appreciated Yum299 17:27, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

• Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, APR _t 22:38, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Doctor (Doctor Who)

I'm planning to make this a FAC. But since it's not had one yet I thought I better give it a PR first. Buc 14:38, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Citations. Move away from writing which episode says what. WikiNew 14:54, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

• When presenting information that came from a particular episode it should be cited using {{cite episode}}. Jay32183 19:27, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

• Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, APR _t 22:38, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

God's Son

The God's Son article has a solid amount of information, and is well organized, but I'm sure it can be made better. I want it to be an FA. Noahdabomb3 20:25, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

• Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, APR _t 22:38, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

The Thin Red Line (1998 film)

Any helpful comments and/or suggestions would be greatly appreciated as I woud like to improve this article to a GA level. J.D. 20:49, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Review by bcasterline

Great movie. A few suggestions for the article:

• The lead should summarize more of the article per WP:LEAD. The cast might deserve it's own section; in any case, the list in the intro probably doesn't belong.
• Shorten "Synopsis" if possible, leaving out the smaller details. Also, I would avoid expressions like "massive invasion", "instantly slaughtered", etc. -- I don't think they really belong in an encyclopedia.
• Add references for the "Style and themes" per WP:V/WP:OR.
• Expand/cleanup "Adaptations". At the moment it reads like a list, which is kind of sloppy.
• Expand "Criticisms" and "Responses" -- lots of information on critical acclaim/public response is usually valuable.
• Remove the last "popular culture" section. The advice to avoid trivia sections in articles almost always applies.

Good luck. -- bcasterline • talk

• Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, APR _t 22:38, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

West Indian cricket team

Okay, so since the cricket world cup is being hosted in the West Indies, I think the hosts should have a push to get it up to the next level/FA.--Thugchildz 00:25, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

• Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, APR _t 22:38, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Sir Creek

Any expansion on any topic needed for FA? =Nichalp «Talk»= 17:47, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Review by bcasterline

Looks fairly comprehensive. A few things (forgive me if I'm nitpicking):

• Lead could be improved, I think. The last two mini-paragraphs are not summary of the following article, and the various historical incidents mentioned later in the article are not included.
• Some of the wording could be improved: the use of "supposedly" in "...which the Sir Creek is supposedly not" connotes (to me) that the author thinks it probably is; and "Another point that irks Pakistan is..." is a litle awkward.
• You might consider separating "Dispute" into "Basis for the Dispute", which would detail the reasons for the dispute, and "History", which would include events like the Atlantique Incident and the Indo-Pakistani War of 1965. A single section might be best -- but something to think about.
• Since the subject of the article is Sir Creek, not Sir Creek dispute, you might want to include more information on the creek itself -- geography and so on. There are a couple of sentences in the lead about the creek, but the rest of the article is about the dispute.

Good work. -- bcasterline • talk 01:34, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestions, I'll try and incorporate the same. Only problem is the geography... references are really hard to find. I'll probably have to clone it from the Rann of Kutch =Nichalp «Talk»= 13:15, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

• Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, APR _t 22:38, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Dartmouth College

It's been a year and a half since this article has had a peer review, yet because it is one of the "Ivies" and attracts numerous page vies, it should be a top priority for Education-related articles. Over the past month or so, it has been updated considerably since recieving it's GA rating. I have nearly doubled the number of citations (esp. in the Intro, History, and Technology sections). I believe it is comprehensive, neutral, and especially stable. Broader topics are assigned links to their own articles (with their own sources documented in said articles). Please comment on areas that can be improved in order to advance this article's status. Thanks! - DMCer 19:34, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

• Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, APR _t 21:51, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Awadewit

I agree with you that this page should be a good one and there is much on this page that is excellent. I found the writing to be superb and the images to be well-chosen and well-placed. That said, I do have a few suggestions.

• If you eventually want this article to achieve FA status, it will probably have to have more sources (and probably fewer web-based sources, if possible). There are lots of unsourced facts. I'll just give two examples:

As many as three-quarters of Dartmouth undergraduates participate in some form of athletics, and one-quarter of Dartmouth students play a varsity sport at some point during their undergraduate years. The percentage of varsity athletes and varsity sports are thus disproportionately greater than at many much larger colleges in the country.

The John Sloan Dickey Center for International Understanding was established in 1982 to honor Dartmouth's twelfth president (1945-70), John Sloan Dickey.

• I would move both the lists of alumni and presidents to the end of the article as lists tend to interrupt the flow of an article.

• As the article is already rather long, is it possible to delete some unnecessary information, such as all of the minutiae about the mascot debate? I noticed that the article says more about Dartmouth's athletics than its academics. That is rather odd, in my opinion. Dartmouth is known more for its academics than its athletics.

• This article includes lots of good information about the founding of Dartmouth and Dartmouth now, but I was kind of wondering about Dartmouth in between. What happened to 1820-1970, say?

Thanks for being specific. Very good notes, I'll get on these.DMCer 08:48, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

AnonEMouse

Excellent article, a bit long, but better too long than too short. General criticism, there are many sections without a single citation.

• "total enrollment of 5,744" - should say as of when.
• "Adjacent is the Spaulding Pool." choppy, merge with next sentence
• NCAA is an external link, instead link to Wikipedia article.
• "Chase Peace Prize" - if so prestigious, shouldn't we have an article on it? At least a red link.
• "Hinman boxes" - explain or at lieast cite why they're so called
• "Dartmouth's Honor Principle" - explain that it's an actual document, anxd the quote comes from it
• wikilink valedictorian, salutotarian - not common terms outside academia
• Presidents list - explain somewhere that the number after the comma is the year they graduated the school
• How did Ernest Nichols get the presidency, not being either a Dart grad, nor a Rev, seemingly breaking both traditions?
• "historical and nostalgic reasons" - cite, it's cited in header, but not in body.
• "some have questioned" - WP:WEASEL - name at least one of the some
• Traditions - needs at least one citation for the section
• Greek life - similarly needs at least one citation, especially if there was a "campus-wide debate"

--AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 15:25, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Dragons of Winter Night

Dragons of Autumn Twilight was recently bumped to GA, and now I want to do the same with the whole trilogy. Suggestions on improvement of the entire article with the intent of a GA in mind are wanted. Also note that these articles have next to no professional reviews (as stated by the author) and those that exist are very hard to find. DoomsDay349 00:47, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

I feel I owe you something for the effort you've put into the GA reviewing so far, so here goes. The auto review javascript program says:

• Please expand the lead to conform with guidelines at Wikipedia:Lead. The article should have an appropriate number of paragraphs as is shown on WP:LEAD, and should adequately summarize the article.^[?]
• Watch for redundancies that make the article too wordy instead of being crisp and concise. (You may wish to try Tony1's redundancy exercises.)
  • Vague terms of size often are unnecessary and redundant - “some”, “a variety/number/majority of”, “several”, “a few”, “many”, “any”, and “all”. For example, “All pigs are pink, so we thought of a number of ways to turn them green.”
• Please ensure that the article has gone through a thorough copyediting so that it exemplifies some of Wikipedia's best work. See also User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 1a.^[?]

You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas.

Some ideas from me would be to thin down the characters section, the book images need fair use rationales, the references would benefit from {{cite web}} or other specific templates - add details to them too, like sourcing and last retrieved date - ref 2 especially. Can you convert the Inspirations section into a paragraph and lengthen the sentences - they seem a bit short. Prose is a bit choppy sometimes - can you make the plot a bit clearer too? Looking good though :) RHB ^{Talk - Edits} 01:46, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for such a great review. I'll go through it and see what I can do. DoomsDay349 01:58, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

This copyediting of which you speak, I have heard the term but am not quite sure what it means. What is it, and how might I get it done? DoomsDay349 02:40, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

In trade for your humorous comment about Gurbanguly Berdimuhammedow on the Main Page's talk page, DoomsDay, I'll add a few thoughts here as well. (I'm relatively new to WP, but hopefully they help!)

• Introduction - Although much of the DL world is traveled in Chronicles and Legends, the two sets do not cover the whole of DragonLance. Also, the article title should only be bolded on its very first mention.
• Plot - "Comes into play" sounds akward, as I associate it more with a sports team making a substition or a new plot point being introducted for the first time into a story. Perhaps another phrase should be used, such as "The focus shifts / changes / moves to ...". Also, a quotation mark is missing after Illusions and the wikilink for Dragonlance should hide "(weapon)" using a pipe symbol.
• Inspiration - If you could find more information for this section, it would feel more like an "Inspiration" section than a "Trivia" section. The information you have so far though is very interesting.

Again, hope it helps! - fmmarianicolon | Talk 02:56, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

I've already gotten to a few of these points. I'll fix around those that I haven't. (It's good to know I'm establishing connections XD) DoomsDay349 03:11, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

• Comment - Like I said at Good Article Review, the article needs a "Critical reception" section. How was it recieved by the book critics? What did they say? LuciferMorgan 18:36, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
  • The problem is, these books weren't very big in their time. Not many reviews. I can direct you to an author's post on the forums that says as much. DoomsDay349 23:36, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
    • Maybe there are some retrospective reviews now that they're big now? LuciferMorgan 08:46, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Three Stooges

I would like to know what the community feels this article is lacking, what needs to be improved, and any and all other comments. I would like to work on this article to help elevate it to FA status, but need an idea of the improvments i should work on. - DTGardner 03:25, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

• Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, APR _t 22:39, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

• • Thanks AndyZ for this bot, with all the backlog I wasn't sure anyone would get to this article, i'll take a good look at the suggestions and apply them to the page, once again thanks! - DTGardner 14:07, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Bon Scott

The article has undergone a big cleanup in the past few weeks. I was wondering if anyone has any suggestions which might take this article to GA or FA. Thanks very much for your time. ĤĶ51→^Łalk 14:47, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

• Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, APR _t 22:38, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Overall I cannot find any issues with this article that would prevent me from rating it as a GA. Don't have any experience with FAs but there are some minor issues to address.

• Stenning, Paul; Rob Johnstone (November 2005). AC/DC - Two Sides to Every Glory. Chrome Dreams, 32-34. ISBN 1-8424-0308-7 should be listed as Stenning P., Johnstone R. (2005) with the full citation in the References section per the format used for Walker C. (1994)
• remove the brackets from the front of the Walker C.... citations.
• Not too keen on the format for the album/single lists - perhaps the format from Maria_Carey#Discography ?
• A few too many sentences starting On/In <date> X happened which gets a bit hard to read after the first few

  Try AC/DC released a box set named Bonfire as a tribute to Scott on 18 November 1997 instead of On 18 November 1997, a box set named Bonfire was released by AC/DC as a tribute to Scott for example

- Peripitus (Talk) 02:10, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments, I'll get to work on everything. ĤĶ51→^Łalk 17:53, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

I've worked on what you've said and I think the artice's looking much better now, but have you any more thoughts on it? ĤĶ51→^Łalk 21:02, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

List of palms of the Caribbean

I would like feedback on this list. I am aware that it has too many redlinks (I need to fix that, but it takes time to write articles to fill redlinks), and that there are duplicate links to countries. I realise that the descriptive text after each genus is inconsistent - and feedback on which is better and which is horrible would be appreciated. I would appreciate any feedback, no matter how harsh (if something is crap, I'm not offended if you call it crap, but please, tell me how to fix the crap). Thanks. Guettarda 06:35, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

• It's rather dry. Do you think this information more suited to wikispecies? Perhaps you should consider writing an article: Palms of the Caribbean rather than constructing a list? DrKiernan 08:53, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Regarding Wikispecies - no, this isn't the kind of information they include. This is consistent with other Wikipedia species lists by region, though I'm disappointed that it's dry - I am trying to make something more interesting (and informative) than the average species list (though I realise it isn't there yet). Thanks. Guettarda 15:45, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
  • After trying some what KC suggested I begin to see where you were coming from on the article issue. Guettarda 04:47, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
• Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, APR _t 20:42, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Thanks - I tried that already. Guettarda 21:14, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
• I like the intro - as far as the earlier comment that the list seems a little dry, perhaps adding a brief blurb under each genera level might alleviate the overall list-i-ness of it? But that would be circumventing this being a List of, so perhaps that's a bad idea. I would much appreciate other feedback on this idea - am I barking up the wrong tree? (Please send complaints about my bad puns to my complaints department, which I intend to activate approximately in the year 2525.) KillerChihuahua^?!? 15:54, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Thanks - I'll give it a try, see how that works. Do you think this should be in addition to the final comments about "other species", or it should replace it? Guettarda 16:09, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
    • I was thinking incorporate and replace. KillerChihuahua^?!? 01:01, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
      • Cool. I will give it a shot. Guettarda 04:47, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

• Featured list material. (Says someone who wouldn't know a featured list if it bit me.) You know about the duplicate links to countries already. I wouldn't sweat the red links, most are blue, showing the ones that are red deserve articles, and a few red links are invitations to write such an article. Good photos - a few more, up to one per paragraph, wouldn't hurt, but aren't mandatory. How about a few words in the header about how the palms spread around the area, and/or evolved? Were they carried by sparrows (gripping coconuts by the husk, naturally)? What fraction are cultivated, harvested, completely ignored by man? (There's probably a technical word for that.) Almost everything is cited to a single source, the Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew. I guess that isn't terrible, since I doubt this is too controversial an issue, but if you do have a few other sources that you can spread the weight around, that might be preferable. Again, these are all nitpicks: drop a note on my talk page when most of these are fixed, and this is nominated for featured list, and I'll support. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 15:43, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Flag of Portugal

I recently contributed to this article with a major expansion on its encyclopedical and visual contents. Some images, like this and this, I have even created myself from pre-existing ones on Commons. I would appreciate comments and suggestions on how to further improve the whole article and make it a reliable candidate for featured status. Parutakupiu ^{talk || contribs} 17:24, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

• Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, APR _t 00:13, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
• Maybe get rid of some of the red links in the article, especially at the lead section, and this article looks good. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 01:08, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

• OK, I can unlink the last two names, except Abel Botelho, because I can create a stub for it, since there is an article about him on the Portuguese Wikipedia. Parutakupiu ^{talk || contribs} 04:03, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

• Nice article. Comprehensive, yet a good length. Nice to have images of all the different versions of the flag (though I must admit I didn't go through and check the licensing). I see from your user page that English is not your first language; I've gone through and tided up the English, though I don't claim it is now perfect :) There are still some things which need rephrasing - epopee and comotioned are not in common English usage; the translation of the remarks by the commission about the symbolism of the colours also reads somewhat oddly to the English ear. There were a few [external links] in the text which I converted to footnotes. I removed the comment about the current flag not being heraldically correct; the rule of tincture only applies when you have a charge of one colour on top of another colour; divisions of the field are considered to be beside each other. In general dates which only consist of a year should not be linked, so I have removed most such links. There are a number of statements and/or paragraphs which don't have any cited sources, this should be addressed. --Dr pda 01:40, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

• First of all, thank you. I tried to mention all possible and important aspects of the subject without extending the article beyond the necessary (it's 42kb, as of now), as required to become a perfect article. The majority of the photos and flag images already existed and are under a usable licenses (PD or that CC-thing; no fair-use), I only created two more from one of them (the construction sheet and military flag). Indeed, English is my 2nd language and I think I'm a good writer of it but, as I'm not native speaker, there are always many grammar and syntax errors that English-speaking reviewers pick up faster. The uncommon words have been changed and I tried my best to make the commission remarks sound better, while maintaining the original translation. As for the rule of tincture - you're so right! I didn't pick that info at all, thanks for correcting. About the unsourced statements/paragraphs, I've tried to figure them out; could you point any specific? Parutakupiu ^{talk || contribs} 05:12, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Any other comments? Parutakupiu ^{talk || contribs} 17:39, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

• Regarding unsourced statements/paragraphs, the following seem to need a reference:
  • Paragraph beginning Adding to the sphere's significance
    • Removed pillories reference.
  • Paragraph beginning Resting on top of the armillary sphere, particularly the claim to be one of the oldest national symbols
    • Copy-edited and added source.
  • First paragraph under 1095-1248, particularly Henry of Burgundy receiving the County of Portugal. (Also, two paragraphs later it is not clear whether Sancho is inheriting a shield or a banner)
    • I'm not a heraldry expert so I might use unknowingly several terms which may have distinct heraldic meaning.
  • Source needed for Afonso II and Sancho II's use of the same banner as Sancho I
    • Added ref tag for "flag history" page where it lists the monarchs which used it.
  • 1248-1495 - first paragraph should have source for majority of reconstructions display 16 castles
    • Removed; it was a unsourced personal statement.
  • (1495 - 1667, 3rd paragraph ends with an external link, which should be made into a footnote)
    • Footnoted.
  • 1667 - 1830, end of first paragraph, should have a source for same flag being used for whole absolutist period
    • Moved previous ref tag to end of paragraph: it says there the flag was used by those monarchs.
  • 1830 - 1910 first and paragraphs are unsourced
    • Added source. Parutakupiu ^{talk || contribs} 20:01, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

• Other comments
  • Why was the first decree establishing the flag not legal, and what exactly is the diploma being talked about here?
    • Your misunderstanding is caused by my inaccurate translation. I already copy-edited that paragraph so that it really transmits what the source states.
  • Why is the Flag Day on 1 December not celebrated, and why are there Flag Days on Jan 31 and Oct 5?
    • Well, it just isn't, at least with that name - the most similar day is Portugal Day, on June 10. However, December 1 is still national holiday but celebrates only the Restoration of the Independence. Should I remove that "(currently not celebrated)" then? January 31 and October 5 are not Flag Days...
  • I still don't understand the Portuguese sparkled the redeeming lightning of dawn --Dr pda 00:58, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
    • That is an expression very hard to translate into common English; it's written to sound very lyrical. It's a direct citation so I don't know if I should change the translation just to sound better in English. Parutakupiu ^{talk || contribs} 20:01, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Tennessee Volunteers football

Any helpful comments or suggestions would be greatly appreciated to improve this article to a GA level. Davis Lee 20:10, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

• Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, APR _t 22:38, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Review by Djrobgordon

• The Overview section is redundant. That's what the lead is for.
• The lead is too short for an article this long. According to WP:LEAD, it should be between two and three paragraphs, and I think that's about right. A few things you could put in the intro: how long the program has existed, number of national and conference championships, maybe a few NFL players from the program, a period of exceptional achievement, if there is one.
• Consider reordering the sections. Right now the focus of the first section is the mascot. It seems to me History should come before Traditions.
• Cut down on the headers. The article has some sections, such as Rocky Top, that are barely even paragraphs. Superfluous headers clog up the Table of Contents and needlessly fragment the article.
• Most of the charts and lists near the end are useful, but I'd delete past and present players. I have two reasons for this. First, editors tend to indiscriminately add their favorites to these lists so that they quickly run out of control. Second, it's redundant, considering Category:Tennessee Volunteers football players already exists.--Djrobgordon 09:02, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

These are mostly general issues. If you'd like, I could do a more thorough read and point out some spots where the writing is weak, sources are needed, or more information would be useful. Sometimes people enter Peer reviews and never follow through, so I don't like to put in the time unless I know someone's on the other end. This should keep you busy for a little bit, though. --Djrobgordon 09:02, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Slipknot (band)

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

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

J Milburn

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

• "The band underwent many line up changes before releasing their highly successful début album Slipknot in 1999, during the recording process of which; guitarist Jim Root replaced Josh Brainard, which was the final line up change of the band." That sentence is rather clumsy- perhaps it would be better to say something like "The band underwent many line up changes before releasing their highly successful début album Slipknot in 1999, before reaching the final lineup of _______________ during the album's recording."
• "Since which the band have released a further 2 albums and are expected to release a 4th album in 2008." Perhaps name the albums, so as not to lean towards recent events? Also, perhaps "since which time" instead of "since which"?
• More information about the pre-formation Slipknot would be good if it is available- it's currently just a list of names. What did they do? Could it be bulked out enough for its own subsection? At the moment, the freestanding paragraph looks a little out of place, especially as single sentence paragraphs are frowned upon.
• Grammatically, the sentence is a little odd (I'm not going to say it is wrong, as I probably don't understand semi-colons as well as I should) I would phrase it as "Early formations of a band were beginning to form as early as 1992 with the core band members, Shawn Crahan, Anders Colsefini and Paul Gray, enlisting the help of guitarists Donnie Steele and Quan "Meld" Nong." Also, repeating the word 'form' twice jarrs a tad.
• "The band continued to develop their vision of what the band would be," Perhaps "The members continued to develop their vision of what the band would be,"?
• "band Sipknot after" Why is that italicised?
• "after their song"- after which song? Maybe "after their song of the same name"
• "(which subsequently evolved in to (sic) which appears on their début album)" Song name in speech marks.
• "until they thought the band was ready" Repetition ruins this line. Perhaps 'until their music was fully developed.'
• "By this time the band had a lot"- By what time?
• "to make a recording," I'd delink that, looks like over-linking to me.
• "local studio, SR Audio with Sean McMahon." You need to close the parenthesis with a comma after 'Audio'
• "April 4th Slipknot"- I'd add the year, and then link both the date and the year.
• "to realise again" I'm British too, but this is an American topic, so the spelling should be American- 'realize'.
• "released Mate.Feed.Kill.Repeat. on Halloween." More details about the release- date and year (on top of the fact you say it is Halloween) and label.
• Is that considered the band's debut album, or an EP? Perhaps you could make that clear?
• Why are all the references clumped at the end of the paragraph? Doing that kind of defeats the point of footnotes.
• I've just noticed the complex heading hierarchy you are using. I would personally remove the sub-sub-sub headings- ('first recordings and live performances', 'more changes and growing popularity', etc) compare to other featured articles on similar topics (Slayer, Nightwish, Tool (band)...) and you'll see that most articles don't do that.
• Actually, now that I have said that, I see that it would probably be best to rename the first history subsection to 'Early years (pre-1998)' so you can bulk that first lonely line into a paragraph and put that as the first paragraph in the section.

To give an idea about what those two above changes look like, I have implemented them in my sandbox if you want to take a look.

• "being heard by the right people" That isn't NPOV. Say who these people are, not that they are 'the [adjective] people'.
• "By the summer of 1997 Slipknot went back to the studio, they were constantly honing their craft and writing new material and they were writing music which required more vocal melody." Again, seems a little POV, plus, seasons vary by nationality. Try- "By mid-1997, Slipknot had returned to the studio having developed new material requiring more vocal melody." As that is still rather subjective, a reference is definitely needed.
• "band Stone Sour, this" Link? Also, a full stop would be better than a comma.
• "The gap on percussion was the filled by Greg "Cuddles" Welts who was to become the first and only member to be fired from the band, again there was a spot free on percussion it was filled by Chris Fehn." Another clumsy sentence- try "The gap on percussion was th filled by Greg "Cuddles" Welts, who subsequently became the first and only member to be fired from the band. He was replaced Chris Fehn." More details on the firing would be nice, too.
• What does "attained numbers" mean? That's not a phrase I am familiar with.
• Again, it would be better to put the citations after the facts, rather than at the end of the paragraphs.

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

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

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

• "In July 2001, Q magazine named Slipknot as one of the "50 Heaviest Albums of All Time"." I would call the magazine Q instead of Q magazine, as that is the accepted title. Also, the magazine name should be in italics.
• This may be a little rich coming from me (I overuse them) but you continually use commas in a way which I do not think is correct. For instance, this line really hits me- "The band had created a huge fan base and the expectations for their follow up album were great, Slipknot went back in to the studio in early 2001 to work on a new album." Why is that comma there? It seems to be two separate sentences- it should be treated as such, or perhaps just stick an 'and' in there. In any case, the sentence is a little vague.
• "In the same year Slipknot released their second visual output with the released of their DVD Disasterpieces." Reference?
• "2002 also saw the first serious musical projects outside of Slipknot." Make it clear that this means side projects of the members. As it reads now, you mean any serious musical project at all, whether related to Slipknot or not.
• "their band Stone Sour" Link?
• I'd lose the accents on 'début'. They don't seem to be needed in English- [14].
• "Root, Taylor, and Gray also contributed to the album. In 2006, Root and Taylor once again returned with Stone Sour releasing their second album Come What(ever) May. Jordison drummed for several bands while on tour including; Ministry (2006-2007) and Korn (2007). He also produced 3 Inches of Blood's third album Fire Up the Blades which was released in early 2007. Later in the year Crahan revealed a new side project in the form of Dirty Little Rabbits." That whole section is horribly unreferenced.
• "Slipknot are known for their often chaotic and energetic live shows" Reference?
• ""[are] not generally quotable on a family website"," According to whom?
• "The band is known for its attention-grabbing image." Reference?
• "The members wear matching uniform jumpsuits and homemade masks." Ditto.
• "The masks have been subject of much criticism, generally thought of as a gimmick to try sell their product." Reference? If you are hoping to get this to featured article, everything is going to need to be well referenced.
• "several band members" Repetition of this phrase needs to be dealt with.
• Section title- "Band Members"- decap 'Members'.
• References in regards to dates and numbers would be good.

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

OK I have looked over review and here's what I've done/think.

• Done
• Done
• Sourced
• Done
• Done
• Done
• Sourced
• Sourced
• Done
• Done
• Done
• A lot of criticism comes from supposedly "true" metal fans. I can't be sure of what is considered a reliable source for this, I have added one from Urban Dictionary
• Done
• Done
• Could you be more specific?

I have actually order two new books [15] and [16] on top of the one I already have [17]. Once I get both of these two books I intend to resource as much as possible. I was thinking of using a system similar to the one used on the U2#References article were they list the books and foot note each statement with a page number. Do you think this is a good system or do you know of a better one. Thansk again for your help. Rezter (talk) 20:10, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Today I received my two new books and I have resourced the majority of the "pre-1998" section and a few misc sources throughout the article. The only thing I haven't addressed on your list is "References in regards to dates and numbers would be good." which I don't completely understand so could you be more specific please? Rezter (talk) 20:37, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Urban dictionary is not a good source, at all- I'd remove that. I like that system of citing books in footnotes. Sorry about the number and dates thing- I was working down the article, and so it was obvious to me (at the time) that I was referring to the discography section. Sorry about that, I was probably rushing to finish. In any case, I was referring to the release dates and the sales figures in the discography section. I'll have a quick glance over the article now. J Milburn (talk) 22:04, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

• The very first paragraph in the article is a single line- why not just make that part of the next paragraph?
• Sorry- I have just realised that the number of albums sold (or, at least, the certifications) are cited.
• I wouldn't bold the awards they have won- I would just tack "(winner)" on the end.
• Yeah, just to repeat now I have seen it in the context of the article, the new reference system looks great.
• Great to see the number of footnotes in use, as well as the fact that they cite the specific fact rather than the paragraph- the article is now looking great, but I haven't reread the prose yet.
• Sorry, I've just realised I misinterpreted my own comment too- no wonder you did! By 'dates and numbers', I meant the dates which the members were part of the band, and the numbers which the members have on their jumpsuits.

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

Peer review by LaraLove

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

Some additions I feel should be made include:

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

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

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

Thank you very much for your help with this article.

• I could try find sources which state the artist's musical influences if you think that it will make the article better. Do you maybe have an example of an article that has this so I could have more of an idea of format and structure.
• I have added why Welts was fired.
• I'm having trouble finding out the exact date that they signed to Roadrunner records.
• I have removed the "mixed reviews" section as most reviews are positive.
• The only incident I have heard of is this: [18] personally I don't think it's worth mentioning as that is the only story I have heard of.

Thanks once again for all your help and any more suggestions are always welcome. Rezter (talk) 22:53, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

• A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style. If you would find such a review helpful, please click here. Thanks, APR _t 01:20, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Radiohead

I plan to resubmit the article for FA soon, so I'd be grateful for any improvements anyone could suggest.Atlantik (talk) 20:59, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

There are several problems with non-free media in the article. I'll start tagging them with notices for work to be done. In brief, the fair use rationales don't explain why the audio samples are necessary and irreplaceable in this article per WP:NFCC#10c. A lot of non-free media also needs to be reduced in size. The free media could also be moved to commons. I know this is all very pedantic, but for FA we really need to organise our media properly. I'll try to review the text properly soon. Papa November (talk) 22:56, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

• Comment. Does Followmearound.com have permission to reprint myLaunchs articles? (ref 1) If not, the link should be removed (and be replaced with a magazine ref). I'm concerned at some of the quality of the sources as well. Who are myLaunch; are they a reliable source? CloudNine (talk) 12:50, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Comments More will be added as I think of them.

• Remove all links to unlicensed reproductions of magazine articles on fan websites. That's infringing on copyright. Credit the sources just as if you were citing directly from the magazine.
• This article is currently 70kb, making it the second-longest article under the scope of WikiProject Alternative Music. Try and make the prose of the article more concise. One suggestion is to remove the 'Solo work' section, as its tangential to the band itself. CloudNine (talk) 18:00, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
• You don't need the chart positions in the Discography section (especially when chart positions in only two countries are listed). That's what the main Radiohead discography article is for. All you need to list are the studio albums and release dates. WesleyDodds (talk) 12:53, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

• Just trimmed the discography section myself. CloudNine (talk) 12:57, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Comment. Here are some statistics to do with the page size, as the total can sometimes be misleading. Size (using User:Dr pda/prosesize.js) of this revision:

• File size: 193 kB
• Prose size (HTML): 58 kB
• References (HTML): 67 kB
• Wiki text: 68.4 KiB (10100 words)
• Prose size (text only): 33 kB (5568 words)
• References (text only): 9 kB

May be helpful. CloudNine (talk) 13:01, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments. Atlantik (talk) 23:41, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

• A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style. If you would find such a review helpful, please click here. Thanks, APR _t 02:46, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Comment There's some excellent work in this article. Here's some points that will beat it into shape for an FA nomination:

• The opening paragraphs should follow the guidelines at WP:LEAD (3 paragraphs, concise, accessible, vital information only).
• The "In Rainbows" discbox section could be either completely removed or put into the album's article if it isn't already there. Similarly, it's probably best to keep release details out of the lead because knowing they plan to release a discbox doesn't really give somebody who doesn't know the band at all a vital piece of information on them.
• The article is looooooong. Go through the entire article and try to reword any parts that are expressed in too many words. Try to make things leaner and more concise.
• Put the discography into a table format like other featured articles (The Smashing Pumpkins, Elliott Smith, John Frusciante)

• Actually, the current trend (with many alternative music articles at least) is to keep the Discography section as simple as possible, and then save the detail for the main discography article. (see Pearl Jam, Frank Black etc.) Adding a tabled discography to the article would not reduce its length. CloudNine (talk) 21:57, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

That's a point well-made, so I'll strike my suggestion. ;) - Phorque 15:05, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Phorque (talk) 14:38, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Postelsia

I started an article a while back, Postelsia, and I'd like some tips on how I could improve it. This is the first article I've started all by myself, and it's kind of hard to judge your own work. I would really like to improve it enough to be a good article, and maybe even that most coveted of prizes, featured article status. Any tips? Comments? Things I did absolutely wrong? Werothegreat 12:10, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

• Well, the first "thing you did absolutely wrong" was adding this to the North Omaha review, instead of to the main Peer Review page. :-) Try going to Wikipedia:Peer review and following the instructions at the top of the page. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 15:01, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
• But OK. While it's here, I'll write here. When you do it right, you can move my comments to the right place. Don't forget to do the other stuff in the instructions, like marking on its talk page that it's on peer review, etc.
  • First issue I see is a lack of inline citations. Not that this seems to be a particularly controversial issue, of course, so you don't need to cite every sentence, but writing where you got what fact would be useful.
  • Nice photos, well done.
  • How big are they? Either give citable measurements, or display a photo including a person or their hand or something.
  • "Postelsia was first described by Franz Joseph Ruprecht near Bodega Bay in California" - who was FJR? A botanist, a random passerby, a '49er looking for gold? When was it first described? Where - in a diary, in a scientific journal, in a newspaper article, on a website?
  • "and has been used by several textbooks as an example of multicellular protists, as well as an example of the class Phaeophyceae." - what textbooks? Give at least some examples, or a citation saying that, or strike the sentence.
  • link or explain first mention of important and/or uncommon terms: intertidal zone, thallus, photosynthesis, , gametophytes, holdfast ... there are others, but I got tired of listing them. Some are linked in their second mention and not in their first. Was Habitat originally a lower section, then moved up? California is also linked in second mention, but not in first.
  • "an algae" but "The Brown Alga" - which is the correct singular?
  • WP:$
  • The animation is cute, but distracting, and limited - typically you either display the whole cycle statically, or animate the whole cycle, this one seems to display most, and animate part.
  • Edible - cite or give an example of recipes using it
  • " illegal to harvest Postelsia for recreational use" - cite the law. "actually", "however" - is there a dispute about companies being able to harvest, but not individuals? If so, refer to or cite the actual debate. If not, we shouldn't express astonishment.
  • Where do harvesters get it? Do they maintain farms of their own, just trawl public coastlines, what?

--AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 15:20, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

• • • Thank you very much. Currently implenting your suggestions into the article. And next time I went put a request into another article. Werothegreat 21:00, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

I would like to have the article reviewed a second time, as it has just recently been granted good article status, and I would like to know what improvements could be made so that it might warrant featured article status. Werothegreat 01:37, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Encyclopædia Britannica

Previous peer review: Wikipedia:Peer review/Encyclopædia Britannica/archive1

The family of Britannica articles has expanded significantly since its last peer review, as may be seen from the new category Category:Encyclopædia Britannica. New pages have been created on the History of the Encyclopædia Britannica, Propædia, Macropædia, Micropædia, Staff of the Encyclopædia Britannica, Bicentennial of the Encyclopædia Britannica, Dobson's Encyclopædia and numerous biographical articles. It would be helpful to get advice on how to improve this article before submitting it to FAC; thanks! Willow 21:36, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

• Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, APR _t 00:13, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Review by bcasterline

• "History of Editions" reads somewhat like a list and could probably flow better -- but that's a fairly vague criticism.
• You might want to rework the treatment of systemic bias; the language as it's written now is wishy-washy. Instead of using terms like "seems" and "presumably", I would mention the critic by name -- "Kister identifies a systemic bias..." or something. (Unless it's original research, in which case it should be removed.)
• "Staff" contains another "presumably".
• Whether Britannica does or does not contain an entry on Wikipedia seems irrelevant, especially under the "Competition" section.

In general, looks pretty comprehensive. Good luck with FAC. -- bcasterline • talk 04:22, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Adore (album)

This album was last reviewed in 2005, and since then has become a Good Article. Aside from general improvements, I want to make sure that the references are reliable and that the article flows well. --Brandt Luke Zorn 05:44, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

• Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, APR _t 00:13, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Steve Hassan

I am requesting peer review because a debate has erupted over certain comments in the criticism section of this article. In order to eliminate bias, I would like it peer reviewed (John196920022001 22:26, 28 February 2007 (UTC))

• Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, APR _t 00:13, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Crusaders

Hi, I'm submitting this article for peer review now as I think it's nearly ready for FAC nomination. This article is on the rugby union team that competes in the Super 14. I'd really like any comments that could help fix any issues that may arise during an FAC nomination. Please be specific, I'm especially interested in comments regarding criteria 1a, prose especially. - Shudda ^talk 03:18, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

• Hey, hey, in respect to criteria 1a "the pose is compelling, even brilliant" I think this passes it well, the informal tone I noticed during the GA review seems to have been disolved aswell. My one thought is in relation to the section on the team colors and uniform, it seems pretty short, see if you can incorporate it into another section if at all possible †he Bread ³⁰⁰⁰ 06:04, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
• I don't see the point of the second and third paragraphs in the lead-in. They are too long to be a summary of the club's history. They should be condensed into one short paragraph. The prose in the club history section needs some work.GordyB 18:01, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Well ,as per WP:LEAD, "The lead should be capable of standing alone as a concise overview of the article,". So I've included information on history, records, and notable players, because these things are all covered in detail in the article. Also "The relative weight given to points in the lead should reflect the relative weight given to each in the remainder of the article." Looking at it though, I think there may be too much detail, but something on history, records, and notable players should definitely be there. Also, could I have some more detail on what prose, specifically, needs work. It's not as helpful just to say it needs it. Thanks. - Shudda ^talk 22:02, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

For one thing too many sentences begin either 'The Crusaders' or 'The Blues'. Some of the sentences need to be re-written so that they have a different start.GordyB 14:26, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

• Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, APR _t 15:48, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Chickerball

I want to get this article up to GA standard, but don't know what info to include. RockerballAustralia 06:12, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

• "However, use of a peer review for articles assessed below the Films WikiProject's B-Class may not be a good use of reviewers' time." Sorry, but, you might want to get a group of people together to write an article so style experts (and people who nose around like myself) can try to critique it. It's hard to review nothing. You should look at the film featured articles in WP:FA#Media and that might give you an idea of what a film needs to become featured. gren グレン 11:23, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
• Also, the article is based on a film that won't be released until 2008. It is highly unlikely that a film will be rated as a GA until the film is released as details can considerably change, the film may be cancelled, actor/director could change, etc. It is best to wait after the film is released so that all appropriate information can be added of its reception, box office, etc. to help improve the article. Consider looking to another article right now that has already been released that you can work on bringing to GA and wait until this one is released before trying to bring it to GA. --Nehrams2020 22:09, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Butthole Surfers

After comparing my revamp of this article to other "A" or "FA" music biography articles (including the "FA"-rated AC/DC article), I feel the Butthole Surfers bio is deserving of an "A" rating, if not "FA" status. If it isn't, I'd like any advice as to what needs to be done to get it there.

I am the primary author of this page, though I had some assistance from another user, Gruntmaster flush. Thanks for your time. Thehaikumaster 19:24, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

MLilburne

I haven't had a chance to read the whole article yet, but for what it's worth, here are a few comments on FA style:

• The lead is very long for what would be (without the lists of bad members and discography) a fairly short FA. You might want to aim for three paragraphs instead of five.

• The trivia section is likely to be problematic. You should either remove it or integrate the facts into the main body of the article.

• It would be helpful to have a references section that lists all the sources that are cited in the footnotes. It makes it easier to look up a source when you come to the tenth example of (say) "Azzerad" in the footnotes and can't necessarily track down the first citation.

Best of luck with the article. MLilburne 11:31, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks; have trimmed the intro per your suggestion, and will work on cleaning up the "References" section later today. As for Trivia, will work the key facts into the article and delete the rest. Thehaikumaster 12:47, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Just to clarify, I mean a references section that is separate from the citations section. There's nothing wrong with abbreviating your citations as long as there's an easy place to look for the whole source. As an example, I hope you'll forgive me for pointing you to one of my own FAs... say, Chris Kraft. MLilburne 13:05, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks very much for clarifying (I was indeed thinking you meant expanding the reference notes). I'll check out your article, and should have separate sections by tonight at the latest (as well as doing away with "Trivia". As to the intro, it has been trimmed considerably. Thehaikumaster 14:45, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Per MLilburne's suggestions, have: turned old "References" into "Notes" section, and added new "References" section; removed "Trivia," adding the two most interesting points into the main body; and shortened the intro considerably. Any additional suggestions/ratings/recommendations/etc. are appreciated. And thanks again, MLilburne, the suggestions were definite improvements. Thehaikumaster 23:50, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Glad to be of help; it's definitely shaping up! MLilburne 23:57, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Yannismarou

Very nice. Some minor remarks:

• Some reviewers do not like the red links in the lead, but this is not something very important. In general, the article has many red links; maybe you could vreate some stubs.
• Try not to cite in the middle of the sentences. Do it only if it is absolutely necessary for emphasis reasons.
• Second paragraph in "Legend grows (1984-1987)" has no citations.
• Try to avoid to have completely uncited paragraphs.
• You may face a problem with many of your images: the album covers are fair use images for the articles about the albums themselves; I am not sure the use of these images is fair in this particular article. I have some doubts, but I am not specialist in this domain. You could ask Robth.
• "Perhaps fittingly, it is one of the band's most schizophrenic releases, with half the material being as extreme as their previous work and other songs sounding far more conventional." IMO this assertion needs citing.
• "Pinkus, reportedly unhappy with the band's direction, left in 1994". Who reports that?--Yannismarou 12:21, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Awesome, thanks for the input. Some responses:

• Understood, and in all honesty the insane amount of red links in the article weren't my idea, but another user's; will weed out all but the most noteworthy ones, and work up some stubs for them. [This is done. Thehaikumaster 01:48, 21 February 2007 (UTC)]
• Will weed them down. [This is done. Thehaikumaster 01:48, 21 February 2007 (UTC)]
• Actually, the 2nd paragraph's citation can be found after the first sentence of the third paragraph. Is there a certain protocol for such situations? I'll see if I can figure that one out. [This is done. Thehaikumaster 01:48, 21 February 2007 (UTC)]
• Thanks, I'll see if Robth has any advice. The Surfers are extremely difficult to find free pictures of, so I may have to see if I can dig up some old promotional photos from previous record labels; not sure what the legality of that is either, but I'll look into it. As it turns out, this does appear to be allowed, as seen in other FA music bios. A picture of the three remaining "original" members has also been added, and deemed by a Wiki administrator as within the boundaries of fair use. The Haiku Master 23:50, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
• For the last two, it looks like a source was left out or unintentionally deleted. Should have them added back in before too much longer. [This is done, and as it turned out the info about Pinkus' unhappiness wasn't in the listed source, so I removed that. Thehaikumaster 01:48, 21 February 2007 (UTC)]

Thanks again for the help! Thehaikumaster 21:36, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Hrant Dink

Although I started this article, it used to be a simple bio of 2-3 paragraphs. After his assassination, a huge number of editors, Turkish and Armenian, collaborated on the article. Therefore, I am not submitting this as the author of the article, I am one of the contributors.

The article looks fairly good. I would like to have feedback on steps necessary to take it further, to make it GA and FA. Best regards, --Free smyrnan 08:50, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Article passed GA. --Free smyrnan 05:40, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Yannismarou

Congratulations for GA status. These are my suggestions for FA status:

• "(Armenian: Հրանդ Տինք, IPA: [həɹɑnt diːnk][1])". Why do you find it necessary to cite here? And when I trygo to the NY article you cite and link, I go to a NY membership page, asking me username. Done
• "1915-17 massacres of Armenians". Hmmmm ... The article's title is Armenian genocide. I understand your sensitivity on this issue, but you may also face criticism for the particular terminology you chose here instead of "genocide".  Done

changed sentence. It now mentions Armenian genocide and is linked as such.

• "Regarding these statements Dink was prosecuted three times for insulting Turkishness[2][4][5]". Two remarks:

• Try not to cite in the middle of a sentence. Do it only if it is absolutely necessary for emphasis reasons.  Done
• Try to combine your citations, so as not to have them in a row (two in a row, three in a row etc.). You can use as models Tourette syndrome, El Greco or Battle of Edson's Ridge.

• "Hrant Dink was assassinated in Istanbul on January 19, 2007, allegedly by Ogün Samast, an ultra-nationalist Turk. While Samast has since been taken into custody, pictures of Dink's alleged killer holding up a Turkish flag." Maybe a bit repetitive. You could just say "pictures of Samast".
• "He was born". Personally I don't like to start a new section with "He ..."; "Dink was ..." looks better to me. Done
• Reading "Early life" I see some choppy prose: "He was born in Malatya on 15 September 1954 to Serkis Dink (known as Haşim Kalfa), a tailor from Gürün, and Gülvart Dink, from Kangal. He had two brothers. His early childhood was spent in the care of his grandfather, whose picture Hrant kept close to his heart. His parents split because of his father's gambling problem, and this led Dink and his brothers to move to Istanbul at the age of seven, where he would spend the rest of his life." "In 1972, Dink changed his legal name to Fırat Dink to disassociate his Maoist political activities from the Armenian community.[11] He later graduated from the Zoology department of Istanbul University. He then studied for a second Bachelor's Degree at the Philosophy Department at the same university, which he did not complete." You see: Very short sentences, seamlessly connected, and with no variety in your forms of expression. Personally, I would recommend a copy-editing by a native English speaker, and a careful reading from your part of User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 1a. Done - will ask for copyedit when all else is finished.
• An example of repetitive prose: "Church's ownership of the site of camp, demanding that the land be returned to its previous owner. Following a four-year legal process the court ruled that the land should be returned to its previous owner"  Done
• "The decision was in line with the 1974 decision of The Court of Appeals which declared that all real estate acquired by minorities after 1936 should be either returned back to their previous owners or in case of their bereavment, should be handed over to the National Real-estate Foundation." I would cite here.  Done
• "During this period, Hrant Dink was taken into custody three times because of his political views.[citation needed] Between 1980 and 1990, Dink operated a bookstore along with his brothers and stayed away from political activism.[citation needed]." You can't go to WP:FAC without having fixed the tags.  Done
• "Editorial policy" is stubby, and the quotes there are longer than the prose.
• "In his public speeches, which were often intensely emotional, he never refrained from using the word genocide when talking about the Armenian Genocide". Oups! Now you speak for a genocide. In the lead, we were told about massacres. Maybe you should be more consistent. And "used the word "genocide" for the "Armenian genocide"" is not the best prose.
• I'm not sure that the use of Dink's photo from Screamers is fair use for this article. It is for "Screamers", but I have some reservations for Dink's article.
• "He was acquitted the first time, convicted and received a postponed 6 months jail sentence the second time, which he had appealed at the European Court of Human Rights and at the time of his death, the prosecutor's office was getting ready to press charges for a third alleged offense". "Having exhausted internal appeal mechanisms, Dink appealed to the European Court of Human Rights for an overturn of the ruling on January 15th. The appeal is on grounds that Article 301 is against freedom of expression and Dink has been discriminated against because of his Armenian ethnicity." "In September 2006, another case was opened against Dink on charges of 'denigrating Turkishness' under Article 301 of the Turkish Penal Code" Why are telling us the same things twice in the same section?
• "after he reportedly referred to the 1915 massacre of Armenians in the Ottoman Empire as a "genocide"" Again this mixture of terms about the Armenian genocide ... And a line below: "Dink had a long history of personal threats by Turkish nationalists for his statements on Armenian identity and the Armenian Genocide." And you don't have to wikilink again something you already linked in the lead.
• "Dink complained of the Turkish state propaganda ..." Does the Turkish state accepts that it committed propaganda against him. Maybe this could be criticized as POV (I don't believe I said that!).
• "According to eye witnesses, Dink was shot by a man of 25–30 years of age, who fired three shots at Dink's head from the back at point blank range before fleeing the scene on foot." This claim definitely needs citing, because it contradicts the police.
• "All leave for police in Istanbul had been cancelled." I did not understand that, but maybe this is because a native English speaker.
• "Yasin Hayal confessed to telling Samast to kill Dink and supplying the murder weapon[60], while Erhan Tuncel has been charged as a main instigator of the killing, and allegedly directed both Samast and Hayal. The BBP has denied any involvement in the assassination.[57][58][61][62]." Per MoS, inline citations go after the punmark without a gap; not before.
• IMO the wole "Reactions" should be turned into proper prose. As I see it now, it is too listy. And FAC reviewers do not like listy sections.
• "Awards" could also be turned into proper prose, but this is not a very important issue.
• In "See also" you repeated links already linked within the main article. This is wrong. I'd suggest that you get rid of this section, incorporating the links (that are not already linked in the main article and are sufficiently important) within the main prose.
• In notes 74 and 82 there are missing data. Cite properly using Template:cite web or Template:cite news. Done
• Alphabetize categories at the end of the article.--Yannismarou 09:42, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

 Done

Many thanks for the excellent feedback. I have added links to these on the to-do list for the article and we will address them. --Free smyrnan 13:55, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Yannismarou that it's currently too listy. LuciferMorgan 08:21, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Hazel Miner

I'd like to improve upon this article and hopefully bring it up to Good Article or Featured Article status at some point. I've added references and links to other Web sites and fleshed out the story since I initially wrote the article. Photos of her are hard to find, but I'm hoping to get one from one of the historical societies. --Bookworm857158367 03:43, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Awadewit

I thought that this was a good piece on Hazel. I don't know if FAs can be so short, but I wouldn't see why not. My major suggestion would be to vary your sentence structure in order to make the blizzard narrative more interesting. You have a lot of SVO (SUBJECT-VERB-OBJECT) constructions. I agree that a picture would be a nice addition. If you can't find a picture of Hazel herself, perhaps a picture from one of the ballads? Or even a picture of a blizzard? I was also wondering if this story was connected with Laura Ingalls Wilder's _The Long Winter_ in any way. I have a vague recollection of a similar tale within that book. Awadewit 10:36, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for looking at it. I've added some images, citations and quite a bit to the text. What do you think? I read the Wilder book years ago, but it would have been about 40 years before this blizzard and in South Dakota, not North Dakota. --Bookworm857158367 04:02, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

I definitely think it's better. There are still some awkwardly worded sentences in the blizzard narrative, particularly those that employ the "and then" construction, but I would definitely say it's an improvement. By the way, the Wilder books were written in the 1930s and 1940s and were far from chronologically or geographically accurate, so I think that connection might still be possible. Wilder and her daughter used incidents from their own lives and from the lives of others to create the narratives. Awadewit 06:17, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Yannismarou

• "Hazel spread two blankets, told Emmet and Myrdith to lie down, and then spread a third blanket atop them. She told the younger children to keep moving to stay warm." Maybe the prose is a bit repetitive here.
• "They sang all four verses of "America the Beautiful," a song they had sung during opening exercises at the country school that morning. They prayed the Lord's Prayer. Hazel ..." The bolded sentence looks to me a bit choppy as it is there.
• "Other blizzard deaths". I don't know if this section is relevant to the article. This is Miner's biography; not an article about the blizzard.
• One citation ("Gullickson, Lucille, "Hazel Miner, Angel of the Prairies," Center (N.D.) Republican, May 30, 2002") is repeated without reason. Check Multiple insertion of the same reference.--Yannismarou 12:34, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

I rewrote the portions of the article you mentioned, removed the "other blizzard deaths" section and gave those victims their own articles, and fixed the citations. An improvement? --Bookworm857158367 22:06, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Edwin Taylor Pollock

I'm really looking for feedback on this article, before finishing it up and submitting it for WP:GA. The subject is an interesting figure, but it's difficult to have a narrative for his life because he did many things which weren't related to each other much. (This is perhaps typical of military biographies.) I am looking for comments on whether I should remove information on his early life or what other areas are missing or need expanded. Of course, any other comments on my grammar or structure (or anything else) are also appreciated.(I am still working on the final section, about his time in the USNO, but that will be done shortly.) JRP 21:09, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Automated

Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, APR _t 23:04, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

I've fixed the issues that it raises, except the questionable use of the word "alledged". Because I am rephrasing a well-cited allegation of the Mau movement against the Naval government, I believe this should be okay. JRP 04:24, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Kirill Lokshin

Quite nice; some general suggestions, in no particular order:

• The lead should eventually be lengthened a bit, to at least two full paragraphs; as it stands, it doesn't provide a very useful summary.
• The prose structure is quite choppy; there are many one-sentence paragraphs that should be pulled into the surrounding blocks of text. I'd also consider merging everything up to the Virgin Islands material into a single section on his early life and career.
• The double footnote numbers are somewhat annoying. Given that you're not really reusing citations very often, I would suggest tolerating a few repeated ones and going for a single combined note at each place in the text (as here, for example) instead.
• The succesion box should be at the very bottom, just above the navigational templates.

Other than that, this looks good. Kirill Lokshin 04:34, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

• I've improved the lead a bit, I think. Can you help me to understand better how I should make this?
• I've moved around things as you suggest. I'll try and rework some more of the writing to make it less choppy, also.
• I've eliminated double footnotes, as you suggest.
• Succession box is moved.

How does this look to you now? JRP 02:12, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Much better; I think you've dealt with all of the issues now. Kirill Lokshin 02:33, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Yannismarou

Nicely done. Some suggestions for further improvement:

• You start straight away with "Early career". You have almost nothing for his early life, and family background. I would like to know something more about the "man"; not just about the "officer". This is what (or something like that!) Cla68 has called the "human element"!
• "On his return home, the Spanish-American War was heating up and he was transferred back to the USS New York, to see service in Cuba and Puerto Rico, eventually taking part in the Battle of Santiago de Cuba.[6] In January 1900, he was promoted to lieutenant and assigned to the USS Alliance.[7] Over the following year, he was transferred to the USS Dolphin and the USS Buffalo.[8] On board the Buffalo, he returned to the Asiatic Squadron near China and was finally transferred to the USS Brooklyn, the squadron's flagship.[9]" A bit repetitve maybe.
• I see you have the tendency to use a lot in your writing the passive voice. Especially in the first paragraph of "U.S. Virgin Islands" I think you overdo it a bit.
• "This movement, which entailed a nearly three-month work stoppage in the first year, was started over grievances over the quality of the roads in the territory." Maybe you could rephrase.
• "and that the United States Navy prohibited the assembly of Samoan chiefs, who the movement considered the real government of the territory." With which verb is this "that" connected? "Started over"? Can we say "this movement started over ... that ..."? I'm not a native English speaker, so my question is sincere!
• "The movement quickly grew to include several prominent officers of Governor Warren Jay Terhune's staff and culminated in the proclamation by Samuel S. Ripley, an American Samoan born of an American father and a Samoan mother and a large property-holder in the territory, that he was the leader of the legitimate successor government to the pre-1899 Samoa." Maybe "who was" is better than "that he was"? Or maybe split the sentence?--Yannismarou 21:51, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
  • I'm starting to work on this, I might not get enough edit-time until Wednesday though. Thanks! JRP 03:49, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
  • I've made some more changes. I have difficulty with the passive voice and would appreciate any help you can direct me to on the subject. I believe I have reworded things, especially in the American Samoa section, to be more clear. Does it look better to you?
  • As for his personal life, I've had some difficulty finding information. The best info for Pollock comes from the histories of the USVI and AS... and sadly his "personal life" remained behind in Washington. I'll look around for more.
  • I'm considering submitting this to WP:FAC, can you recommend any changes I should look to apply for that? JRP 00:00, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
    • The article couls stand in FAC, even as it is now. A more comprehensive approach of his life (e.g. personal life I said) would just be more careful.--Yannismarou 11:55, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Petercorless

• Caught an "a a" instance and fixed it.
• Put the ships he commanded in the infobox:
  • USS Virginia
  • USS Kearsarge
  • USS Salem
  • USS Alabama
  • USS Hancock
  • USS George Washington
  • USS Oklahoma
• Not sure if we should list "American Samoa" or "United States Naval Observatory" under "commands." --Petercorless 04:15, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Thank you! Did you pull the commands list from the article or do you have a fantastic list someplace? I don't know how to list American Samoa or the USNO either in this infobox. JRP 04:19, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

I just pulled the list from the article. I wasn't sure from your phrasing whether he was given command of the USS Massachusetts when he was promoted to commander, or whether he served under a captain (which seems likely for a BB) so I did not cite that ship in the list of his commands. Consider adding a reciprocal link to this article to the related ship articles that exist. Many of the ships are lacking lists of commanding officers, so you might need to add it as an inline reference. As for listing the Governor and USNO posts, ask on the main Military History project "talk" page to get feedback as to how or whether to list them beside his shipboard commands. --Petercorless 04:27, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, if they're actual military commands (rather than essentially civilian posts that happen to be filled by an officer), then there's no reason why they can't go in the "Commands" field; otherwise, I'd say the "Other jobs" field is probably the most suitable place. Kirill Lokshin 04:30, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

FYI, the news report I cited about the Massachusetts was ambiguous, if I recall correctly. I had the same scratching of the head that you did and then I wrote it the way I did. Not perfect. I was hoping that if you did have a list, it might help me be sure about that one and completeness in general. I don't claim that the list is complete because the civilian press, especially at the entrance to WWI, didn't have as good of reporting. For example, I couldn't find the date he was promoted to captain because I couldn't find the announcement, but at some point he just starts getting referred to as captain. Imperfect, but I believe I have done the best job I can with the resources I have. :/ JRP 04:42, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

According to this article, he was still only a Commander when he took the USS Hancock to the Virgin Islands. Hope that helps a bit. --Petercorless 05:02, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Also, in post military service, apparently he went on to become "an instructor at Cranbrook Institute in Bloomfield Hills, Mich". Thought that might be a nice end note, if you can find something other than an ABE books search reference. --Petercorless 05:07, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes. The stuff around his three main accomplishments are fairly unambiguous: USVI, USS George Washington, and American Samoa. He's in the history books, as it were, and there's plenty of data about those things. The rest is primarily from newspapers. I don't believe there are gaps, but it means that I don't have things like promotion dates and the like and "early years" history is somewhat difficult to come by. My comment was that the military provided less data about ship assignments and stuff to the press during the war, so the data I have for that comes from the reports after the war of what he did. And BTW, I've purchased that book about the USNO to flesh out that section. I'll keep researching. JRP 05:22, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Awesome! --Petercorless 06:03, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

As requested by two reviewers, I've researched a bit of material for after his retirement. I wasn't able to find anything on what he did before he went into the Navy, unfortunately. Perhaps nothing was notable. How does this look now? JRP 02:47, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, he went into the Navy straight out of the Academy, so there wouldn't really be anything to note unless he did something significant while in school (which is very rare). I think it's fine now. Kirill Lokshin 02:56, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Joseph Francis Shea

Another in my series of NASA engineers and managers. This article is up for GA status at the moment, but given the backlog over there it may take some time to be dealt with; I hope that it's not a problem to have it going through both processes at once. I'm hoping to nominate it as a FAC in the not-too-distant future, so any comments or suggestions for improvement would be very welcome. MLilburne 10:32, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

It's GA now. MLilburne 15:36, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Yannismarou

You put the notice about the GA promotion, in order to reprimand me for delaying to review the article, hmmm?! (joke) But it seems I knew what I was (not) doing; the article is very nice as usual. Congratulations for GA promotion, and some minor remarks, which I hope could help:

• "Shea found the time to teach at the university and to hold down a job at Bell Labs.[1][2]" You could avoid to have citations in a row like here, by combining them in one citation. There are articles you could check for this (Tourette syndrome, Battle of Edson's Ridge).

Fixed.

• "His contribution to the Titan I project was significant; as George Mueller writes, "he contributed a considerable amount of engineering innovation and project management skill and was directly responsible for the successful development of this pioneering guidance system."" Maybe you could avoid the slight repetition in the prose here.

Oh dear, I can't believe I didn't notice that! Fixed.

• "In 1961 Shea was hired by Space Technology Laboratories, a division of TRW Inc., where he continued to work on ballistic missile systems." One of the one-sentence, stubby sentences I do not like! But, again, it is not something grave.

I don't like it either, but unfortunately the bare fact is all the information that I have available. I'll continue to think about my options.

• Not much info about his personal life. Wasn't he married?

Yes, he was, but again, all I have is the bare fact. I don't, for example, know when he was married, so that makes it hard to work it into the body of the article. I have mentioned his family in the context of who survived him after his death.

• "In film and fiction" is stubby, but I'm not sure what should be done with it.

I'm not sure either. I've searched for reviews mentioning Shea's role, but have found nothing, so just stated that it existed. I own both the book and the miniseries, and could put more details in from them, but am hesitant for fear of an OR tone. I have also considered just removing the section entirely, since there are not many options for improvement. Which of the three options do you think is best?

--Yannismarou 20:14, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

I remain in awe that you manage to peer review all the article listed here! Your help, whether late or not (also a joke!), is greatly appreciated. I've left my responses above. Thanks again. MLilburne 10:39, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Plek's comments

Another excellent article in the making! It still needs some work, though, but it's shaping up nicely indeed. Here are my comments (in pseudo-random order).

• I am making my way through Chariots for Apollo at the moment, having started with Chapter 5 (1963 and beyond). Obviously, I am taking note of Shea's role in particular. What strikes me is that, time and again, Shea is credited with successfully resolving differences between feuding partners and bringing them together: the NASA centers amongst themselves, the centers versus NASA HQ, NASA versus the many contractors, etc. While his engineering background is a significant influence, it seems to me that Shea's greatest asset during this period is his ability to cajole, convince and unite the many different and differing groups involved in Apollo.
• Having said all that, I find the insight above somewhat missing from the article. In particular, the "Program manager" section seems to focus more on the pain in the ass he (undoubtedly) was, but leaves his accomplishments rather underdeveloped. Look at the opening sentences of the four main paragraphs: "Shea's relationship with the engineers at North American was a difficult one.", "Shea was a controversial figure...", "The friction between Shea and Marshall..." and "While many engineers considered Shea to be abrasive". Not really flattering, is it? Granted, it does end with "he was taking an effort that had been foundering and driving it forward", but you might want to balance things a bit, and explore the management side of his role somewhat further.
  • Note: after reading the article again, it did seem more balanced than I thought it was first time around. I'm retaining the comment, though, to illustrate what my first impressions were after just reading the "Program manager" section. It might be useful somehow.

Other comments:

• rather, he hoped to become a track star — It might be due to cultural differences, but it wasn't immediately clear to me what a "track star" is. I'm assuming something like "professional athlete" is intended here.

Fixed.

• In 1946, he was commissioned as an ensign in the Navy, and received a Bachelor of Science degree in Mathematics in the same year. — Isn't "in the same year" redundant?

Fixed.

• In the part beginning with Shea's speciality was systems engineering ... , there's some repetition: "contribution/contributions/contributed".

Fixed.

• In December 1961, NASA invited Shea to interview... — How did NASA find Shea and why did they invite him for an interview?

Added information.

• When Shea first began to consider the issue in 1962, most NASA engineers—including Wernher von Braun— — At that time, von Braun was Director of Marshall Center, right? I'm not sure if designating him as one of the "NASA engineers", as the sentence seems to do, is therefore entirely accurate or appropriate.

Fixed.

• Holmes put the letter on my desk and said, "Figure it out." — Great quote!

Thanks! I always enjoy using oral histories.

• Only now I discover that you already described Shea's role in uniting the NASA centers. Hmmm... this alters my initial comment about the "Program manager" slightly, but I think the argument is still valid. Somewhat. ish. Just see what you make of it.

It is still a valid point, I think, and I'll discuss it once I've worked my way through the smaller issues.

• Despite the best efforts of Shea and of North American — Smells a teeny weeny POV-ish to me.

Removed this phrase altogether... on reflection it doesn't seem necessary.

• During pad testing, the spacecraft suffered a number of technical problems, including a glitchy communications system. — Reads a bit strange: I don't think a glitchy comms system is a technical problem; it's causing it. It's the glitches in communication that is the technical problem. Maybe I'm just nitpicking here (or just plain wrong).

Either way sounds fine to me, but I will change the phrasing.

• Backup commander Wally Schirra — Not explained what Shirra was a backup commander of, exactly.

Fixed.

• I know the article isn't about them, but considering how the Apollo 1 fire affected Shea, shouldn't the astronauts be identified by name?

Yes, good point, I've done this.

• By contrast, North American executives blamed NASA management for its decision to pressurize the command module with pure oxygen, in which almost any material—including Velcro, with which the cabin was filled—would instantly burst into flames. — Well, we'd still need a spark for that to happen, right? Currently the sentence implies spontaneous combustion.

Indeed it does! Fixed.

• ...Joseph Shea remained haunted by the feeling that he, personally, was responsible for the deaths of three astronauts. For years after the fire, he displayed the portrait given to him by the Apollo 1 crew in the front hallway of his own home. — I think the article currently gives insufficient evidence of Shea remaining haunted by feelings of guilt. Only the portrait is given as evidence of that (at least, in this section). Isn't it possible that he just liked the picture?

You're right, it does need more evidence. (The guilt that he felt is not really in question, and I think I sort of took it for granted.) I'll think about what to add.

• On 7 April it was announced... — By whom? To whom?

Not specified in the sources I have. It may have been a press release but I wouldn't want to speculate.

• (He was not called to testify before the congressional inquiry.) — I find the parenthetical thought slightly out of place here. Is there a way to elegantly integrate it into the prose somewhere (and to lose the brackets)?

Fixed, I think.

• Is it known what those "health reasons" were, exactly, and what he died of? After setting up signs of dementia praecox earlier in the article, I think the conclusion should be more specific. The article now sort-of implies that he became demented, but isn't really explicit about it.

Unfortunately I don't have any further details about his health problems or his death. It's my personal opinion that the symptoms reported in 1967 and 1993 sound rather similar, but to say anything along those lines would almost certainly be OR, and I'm certainly not speculating on what they were symptoms of. I quoted Kraft because it was a very vivid description of Shea's behavior, not because I was endorsing his amateur diagnosis of dementia praecox (in other words, schizophrenia).

Shea was certainly healthy enough to give two very coherent, if not particularly informative, oral histories in 1998. But he did say, in the context of the ISS inquiry, "That's when I got sick." So this is all I know. If you have any more suggestions as to how I could best deal with the limited amount of information available to me, I would be most grateful.

And that's all I can think of for now! Thank you for listening, and good luck! Feel free to call again if you need any help. --Plek 22:35, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your very detailed comments. It is very helpful to have feedback from someone with the backround knowledge to call me on issues of balance and bias as well as of presentation. Unfortunately I have some academic commitments today, so won't be able to respond to your more substantive points immediately, but rest assured that I'll be working my way through the list when and as I'm able. I'm thinking that maybe I ought to re-read "Chariots for Apollo" too! Thanks again. MLilburne 10:43, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

I've worked my way through the small points now. (There's one point above on which I'd welcome further feedback.) It's my opinion, after considering your comments, that the article may be a little unbalanced and that I need to spend a bit more time discussing Shea's successes as a manager, and how he got his reputation as a brilliant engineer and manager. It may take another couple of days before I get it all pulled together... MLilburne 18:43, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Mary Higgins Clark

I've rewritten the Mary Higgins Clark article to include substantial biographical information. I don't feel knowledgeable enough yet to set a quality scale for this (or any other) article. I would like to know where others feel this ranks on quality scale, and what might need to be improved to move it up the ladder.

Thanks! Karanacs 22:34, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

MLilburne

In my opinion the article is B-class at the moment. With some hard work on the prose style and with the improvements listed below, I think it would have a good chance of achieving GA status.

• Including a fair use picture of Clark to illustrate the article would make it look a lot better.

• At the moment the article doesn't have anything on critical reactions to her books. I'm sure that there must be reviews out there that you could quote from. The lead discusses the themes in her writing, but the body of the article doesn't really back that up. In order to achieve breadth of coverage, therefore, I think you really need a new section.

• It's understandable that you're having difficulty finding sources, but at the moment the article really relies too much on her memoir as a source. This may well be a problem at the GA level; it will certainly be a problem if you try to improve it any more.

• It's difficult to specify exactly, but the major problem with the article is the prose style. The sentence structure is a bit simplistic, and the prose fails to flow from one sentence to another. There are places in the article, such as the last paragraph in "Writing career," where I wonder what relationship the sentences have to one another and why they've been put in the order that they have. The "Widowhood" section has three paragraphs in a row starting with "In [year]", and this should really be fixed.

• There are quite a few facts in the article that seemed like trivia to me, and I question whether they really belong in an encyclopedia article. For example, the fact that Clark's mother-in-law encouraged her to buy high-quality furniture. What does this really tell us about the woman?

Good luck with the article. Let me know if you have any questions about my comments. MLilburne 11:20, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Yannismarou

The article needs work. Some general remarks:

• The lead is short, and does not constitute a proper summary of the article. Check WP:LEAD.
• "The story of Mary Higgins Clark begins at Ellis Island in 1905, when a twenty-one year old Irishman". This is no encyclopedic prose. This is the literary prose a biographer of hers would use in a book about her.
• "Widowhood" is a sub-section of "Early years"? Something is wrong with the structure there. In general, there are too much details about her early life in comparaison with the rest of the article. Keep a better balance, and if you want to keep all this material follow WP:SS, and create a sub-article (Early life of Mary Higgins Clark).
• "Personal Life" is a stubby section. It is also problematic: Why is her first marriage, and the life with her children described in "Early years" and "Widowhood", and her second marriage here? Again, something is going wrong with the structure.
• Some reviewers prefer "Awards" or "Titles" to be prose and not lists. And I am also afraid that "Recognition" and "Awards" are overlapping.
• I agree with MLiburne that the dominance of one source in "References" could be problematic. And, by the way where is the ISBN of "Clark, Mary Higgins (2002). Kitchen Privileges: A Memoir. Simon and Schuster".--Yannismarou 19:48, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
• Minor: Alphabetize the categories at the end of the article.

Strawberry Panic!

As the major contributor to this article, I want it to be the best it can be. It recently passed Good Article status, and I want to see if the article can be improved to Featured Article status, or at least A class before it can become an FA. Any comments on how to improve the article any more are welcome. --十八 06:52, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

What other articles do you have that are about SP!? It's a bit hard to navigate between all of them atm, I think. WP:ANIME can give an A-class assessment for SP!. -Malkinann 20:47, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

There is a Category: Strawberry Panic! which can facilitate the navigation, but other than that, there are these articles: List of Strawberry Panic! characters, List of Strawberry Panic! episodes, List of Strawberry Panic! albums, and Strawberry Panic! (short stories). I considered making a template, but there doesn't seem to be enough pages for that purpose.--十八 21:07, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

IMO, there are plenty of articles to make a template, but I do not think it is necessary. Each of those articles are referenced within Strawberry Panic! using the main article template. -- Ash Lux ^{(talk | contribs)} 04:25, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

I have moved some of the lead into a history section. I think that the lead had already summarised the different media that SP has well enough and repeating it in detail required a new section. Parts of the writing reads more like a narrative or is review-like, such as Perhaps the main plot decive in the series revolves around the Etoile election. Why not just come out and say The main plot device is the Etoile election. Suggestive writing isn't encyclopedic. Other examples are The students may go and Their tasks generally consist of. Sentences that suggest that something may happen should be reworded to something more definite.

Some sentences like who attend this school should really be who attend the school or who attend St. Spica as I don't believe that relative clauses should be able to backwardly refer to the title of a section. St. Spica had not been mentioned in the text prior to referring to this. I don't know how strict FA writing should be, but any relative clauses in separate sentences is poor structure in my view. A sentence by itself should make sense and a sentence like Depending on the media type, the way in how this is featured varies.... does not. A reader has to read it in context for it to make sense. This is only my view and I'm by no means an expert so I have left the sentences alone. --Squilibob 03:59, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

I would suggest that you expand the lead to comply with WP:LEAD. Articles of this size should at least have a 3 paragraph lead. Tarret 14:18, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

The lead incorperated the History section just yesterday, and right now the lead cannot be expanded without inclusion of the information in history; seeing how we can't have it both ways (3/4 paragraph lead with history section), I'm going to movie History into the lead again.--十八 00:05, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Pennsylvania Route 145

After its first FAC failed, I would like broader input about how this article can be improved. Major parts include sourcing, grammar, and the overall readers' experience. (→O - RLY?) 02:28, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

The article seems full of facts about the current route, but I don't see a comment about what is significant about this road unless one happened to be planning a drive to or from Allentown. VisitorTalk 06:14, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

For me, the article was difficult to follow. As somebody who has never been to Pennsylvania, the article was "fact overload". If I were planning a trip through Allentown and wanted to know if PA145 were right for me, it would be more helpful to know that PA145 is routed along MacArthur Road, a major thoroughfare. Listing every street or feature crossed makes it tough, as I have no map nor know what these things are. If I did need to know this I'd go to maps.google.com anyways. Similarly I'd cut down on, the highway is 2 lanes undivided here, 6 lane undivided there. With that said the article has a lot of potential. I definitely know more about the Lehigh valley than I did before. I'd say less facts, more detail on the more important facts. I suspect I will receive the same feedback on my request above, as I tend to do the same =-) Davemeistermoab 04:01, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Automated peer review

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

• Per Wikipedia:Context and Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates), months and days of the week generally should not be linked. Years, decades, and centuries can be linked if they provide context for the article.^[?]
• If there is not a free use image in the top right corner of the article, please try to find and include one.^[?]
• Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (numbers), there should be a non-breaking space -   between a number and the unit of measurement. For example, instead of 3dm, use 3 dm, which when you are editing the page, should look like: 3 dm.^[?]
• Please ensure that the article has gone through a thorough copyediting so that it exemplifies some of Wikipedia's best work. See also User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 1a.^[?]

You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 01:00, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Saikano

General peer review request on behalf of User:Saikano for the article Saikano. He'll be by to explain what he needs input on. --GunnarRene 17:24, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

A general review request.--GunnarRene 14:25, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Please see automated review here. --GunnarRene 17:31, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

saikano...saikano is..hoow can i put it...?...specal type of anime. the emotional aspect of this is depressing.this anime is depressing. i cryed all through this anime. there was things unforseen in it.

i just love this anime. it a sci-fi soap opara like anime. its been months and i am still depressed. it holds on to you and wont let go. it is currently ranked the best anime ever for good reason.I loved it!--Lolicon(Anti Child Porn)Saikano 18:32, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

OK, can you go through the automated review and address those points first? --GunnarRene 18:46, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

The lead section tells absolutely nothing about the plot - even one or two sentences would be good. The 'critical reviews' section needs to be in prose, rather than a table. The comma is rather over used. As a whole, the article desperately needs citations, especially the "speculation about possible foes." The production section should be more than a list of names. (Who funded it, if there were any controversies in production, etc.) Sometimes, the tone is a little unencyclopaedic. -Malkinann 06:20, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

saikano starts out in winter as shuji talks about his girlfriend in the past tense. He finds her bag picks up the Animal Club jurnal and read's it. then he has a flashback. now i am 95% positive this took place in episode 12 because he walk did the same thing. Then the story begains...its the summer time with shuji & chise walking up hell hill.--Lolicon3043910 17:35, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

It's lovely that you enjoy this anime, but Wikipedia is not a forum. Can you address the points that I've brought up? If you're having trouble converting your 'reviews' table to prose, Serial Experiments Lain and Excel Saga both have good 'Reception' sections that you can read and try and mimic the style of. -Malkinann 23:43, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

AnonEMouse

• Otaru-shi: link Otaru, Hokkaidō
• "has a bitter tongue" - uncommon metaphor in English, rephrase
• Image:Saiweapon.JPG says it is public domain. Highly unlikely, considering it seems to be a screenshot.
• The plot section only describes the set-up, not the actual plot. I can't tell for sure (another issue), but I wouldn't be surprised if all this - the love declaration, the war, and the conversion of Chise into a weapon - happened in the first episode. What happens in the rest of the series?
• We are shown battles ... We do not find out ...- Don't use the first person plural like this. See Wikipedia:Manual of Style (writing about fiction).
• The War section is full of unsourced speculation. See Wikipedia:Attribution
• The Characters section seems to need another spoiler warning
• The Manga section only talks about the plot, rather than publication details. It also says it follows the anime plot - but you haven't given us much of the anime plot.
• The Soundtrack section is just a bunch of words to me. Are they song titles? How about a translation?
• Put some text in the reviews section, rather than the final grade. What did the reviewers actually like and dislike?
• Trivia sections are usually looked down upon in featured article candidacies; try to work those items into the main text instead

--AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 15:13, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Serious Sam II

At the beginning of the year I asked for a peer review on this (archive) and I believe that most of the issues have been addressed. I haven't had much time since then to work on this but figured that others would help address issues over the last year. I feel the article is ready for another peer review and then hopefully for the featured article nomination process. ----Rodzilla (talk) 09:45, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

• A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style. If you would find such a review helpful, please click here. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 02:42, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
• Certainly looks much better than when I passed it as GA; I'd say it has a shot for FA. Some things:

Source statements like "Serious Sam II's gameplay consists almost entirely of the player attempting to defeat hundreds of enemies at a time, and thus is relatively simple", "A prominent feature in the previous Serious Sam games was cooperative gameplay, in which multiple players could play the single-player campaign together. Serious Sam II focused on this game mode even more than its predecessors"

Reword some awkward sentences, for example "Player-controlled vehicles and turrets were introduced to the series in Serious Sam II, and examples include rocket launcher, machine gun, and laser turrets as well as hover bikes and hover saucers", instead, "SSII (or the game to avoid redundancy if needed) introduced player-controlled vehicles and turrets, allowing Sam to utilize rocket launchers as well as hover bikes"; "This is a significant change from the previous games in the series in which the story existed merely to transport the player from place to place in order to kill as many enemies as possible in the process, with the plot consisting merely of messages that the player could disregard without consequence."

Layout- I swapped around the sections (put development before reception) to conform with vg conventions. Also, consider adding a reviews table like {{VG Reviews}} to the Reception section; this allows you to spend more time in the body talking about complaints and praise rather than raw scores from individual sections (see Halo 3 for examples; usually only aggergate scores are mentioned in the main body.)

--David Fuchs ^(talk) 19:46, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Sullivan Bluth Studios

This is an article about a famous studio headed by one of the world's most famous animators, Don Bluth. This might be WP's second good article on a cartoon company (after Nelvana). How close has it come to achieving this? --Slgrandson (page - messages - contribs) 00:08, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

• fix the redlinks in the intro
• name the films that achieved poor results and that were in production during the budgetary crisis

Interesting article so far! Kaisershatner 15:26, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

• Hello, this is Matticus78, and I wrote most of the article as it stands at present. I came across it at the end of November last year while on new page patrol, and it wasn't in the best of condition[19] (short, unreferenced and not very accurate). Animation history is an interest of mine, so I made it a project to rewrite the page (merging some content from the already existing article Sullivan Bluth Productions[20]). Frankly, I was surprised that Wikipedia didn't already have a good article on the studio, considering its importance. Anyway, I did a lot of research to get the article up to scratch, and basically rewrote the whole thing piece by piece over the course of a couple of months. I'd love to see this article given that bit of spit-and-polish that it needs to get it up to GA or even FA standards. The weak points I can currently see is the redlink for Morris Sullivan and (somewhat less important) Aurora Productions, both important entities in the studio's history, but I haven't been able to come up with much useful information on him. Also, the lack of pictures representing the studio's later productions is a bit of a problem, but it's hard to find any Sullivan Bluth films on the shelves any more, much less their not-so-successful ones. Anyway, I'll do my bit to pitch in during this peer review and help address concerns and suggested improvements. ~Matticus ^T_C 23:37, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

• Okay, I created a stub article for Aurora Productions to deal with that redlink. Still can't find any good, solid information on Morris Sullivan outside his involvement with Bluth, and his being a mergers and acquisition broker (albeit semi-retired by the time he met Bluth). ~Matticus ^T_C 00:40, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

• Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, APR _t 23:05, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Robert Gray (sea-captain)

Looking for an intital rating, ideas to make better/improve to push towards at least GA. Aboutmovies 22:17, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Automated

• Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, APR _t 22:38, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Kaisershatner

Intro and TOC are a mess...but help is on the way! Kaisershatner 15:01, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Yannismarou

• Per WP:MoS single years like "in 1790" should not be linked. Only full dates: "in January 1 1790 ..."
• "He died at sea in 1806, near Charleston, South Carolina,[1] possibly due to yellow fever.[2]" IMO it is not nice to have a stubby paragraph like this in the lead.
• "Early life" is stubby. Merge or expand.
• "He is known, however, to have served in the Triangular trade of South Carolina, aboard the Pacific." Known by whom? Citation needed.
• "On September 30, 1787", "On September 17, 1788". Per above, the dates here should be linked.
• "Additional ships to explore the coast under the command of Captain George Vancouver.[citation needed] ...". These s should be fixed.
• "And in 1788 Gray had attempted to enter a large river..." Why do you start the sentence here with "and"?
• "Circumnavigation" is stubby and uncited.
• "Gray then finished filling his cargo hold with pelts and set sail for China. In Canton, Gray again traded his cargo for tea. He then returned to Boston.[1] Gray returned to Boston in 1793, after again circumnavigating the globe." Repetitive and choppy prose.
• "Legacy" is uncited.
• In some of your printed sources used as "Notes", you have no pages.
• The websites you have in "References" are not used as inline citations if I'm not wrong. If I'm right, then they are "External links" not "References".
• Categories at the end of the article should be alphabetized.--Yannismarou 16:52, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Mimi Smith

I would like a peer review to see if this article can be put forward for FA. andreasegde 16:13, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Seegoon

This looks to be a very sound article, and anything I highlight is likely to be more of a niggle than a full-on complaint.

• Is there not an appropriate picture of her available?
• "Parents George & Annie (née Millward) Stanley" - change the ampersand (&) to an "and". This also needs doing in the caption of the picture in the section "Yoko". Changed.
• I find the first paragraph in "The Stanley Family" a little broken-up and confusing. Done
• I think "Career" could be better written - the tone isn't quite hitting the nail on the head.
• "—and running "as fast as my legs could carry me"." - for one, I'm not sure the punctuation is perfect here. Secondly, it might make more sense if you changed the quote to "as fast as [her] legs could carry [her].", but that's purely a matter of personal preference. Done
• "...in the smallest bedroom above the front door.[13][12]" - I'd change it so the references were in numerical order. Same goes for "...which was around the corner from Mendips.[26][15]".Done
• "Mimi (in typical fashion) said..." - I'm not sure if the tone's quite right here. It doesn't bother me too much, but folks at FAC might pick up on it. Done
• I advise assimilating the song sample into the bulk of the text somewhere. It looks anachronistic and out of place at the end. Done

The main things to consider are these: give it a quick copy-edit. It's in good shape but could probably do with a shakedown; try printing it out and reading it through with red pen in hand. Some of the sentences don't flow onto each other quite right, and this might help rectify that. The other thing I think might need some help is the chronological flow. Simply illustrating when things happened might be the easiest way to do this - for instance, putting years in brackets after paragraph headers. For instance, "John (1940-1956)" or whatever. Again, this is a matter of personal preference and not a must. I hope some of these pointers have helped; good luck! Seegoon 20:56, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

• Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, APR _t 20:38, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Yannismarou

Nice effort. This is my review:

• I don't like the lead. You article is a biography of Mimi Smith; not of her husband or Lennon. In the lead you speak more about them than for Mimi Smith. And why is her husband's name bolded? Done
• Seegon is right about the photo. The infobox would be nicer, if you could add one.
• Again in the lead, you do not mentio dates of birth and death. Done
• Sometimes the prose gets choppy. See, for instance, the first (and the last one as well) paragraph in "The Stanley Family".
• The two last stubby paragraphs of "Marriage and 'Mendips'" look to me seamlessly connected with the rest of it.
• "George owned half of the Smiths' family farm house, called 'The Cottage', which was around the corner from Mendips.[26][15]" Wouldn't be better like that: "George owned half of the Smiths' family farm house, called 'The Cottage', which was around the corner from Mendips.[15][26]" Done. There are also other similar cases throughout the article.
• IMO "Song Sample" section is irrelevant to the biography. I agree with Seegoon: incorporate the sample itself somewhere in the rest of the article. Done
• Alphabetize categories at the end of the article. Done--Yannismarou 12:36, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Kingboyk

Congrats on the GA and I agree that aiming for FA on this article is eminently sensible. It's a relatively short article and is a nice one to tackle before trying again with the longer articles like Paul McCartney.

• I too think it needs a copyedit from a really top notch editor. I'm not one of those but I'll certainly have a look and tweak what I can.
• The lead is particularly weak. It doesn't appear to be very well structured at all. Try and group related information into paragraphs, keep the message on target, and summarise the article. Again, I'll have a play with this but I can't promise I'll improve it much :) --kingboyk 13:07, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

ThE bEaTLeS aka andreasegde

I thank all three of you lovely people for spending time going through Mimi's underwear :)) As you all wrote, it needs a good look-through for dodgy passages/sentences, and a good scrub with a soft brush. I thank you again. (Mimi Smith an FA? That would certainly put the icing on a very big cake... :) ThE bEaTLeS aka andreasegde 16:16, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Master and Commander

This is an article I wrote early on in my life here on Wikipedia and is a fairly full as novel articles go here so I thought I would put it forward as the first "Novels WikiProject" Peer review. Have a look at it guys and see what you think. Also you can start to enter your favourite articles for further peer reviews. :: Kevinalewis : ^{(Talk Page)}/_(Desk) 12:15, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Yllosubmarine

I'm not sure if I'm doing this correctly, but seeing as how this is a new project, and I'm quite giddy with the idea of it, I thought I'd have a go. Aside from the stub sections, which definitely need more meat on them, I'm confused by the "Film, TV or theatrical adaptations" section. It's rather ambiguous, and it would be nice to have something along the lines of what Master and Commander: The Far Side of the World has; a slightly indepth explanation of the differences between Master and Far Side, and how both fit into the other books. Also, this may seem slightly picky, but I've noticed that Lord Keith is a character in the book, but I don't see a note as to the fact that the guy actually existed. I like little tidbits like that in articles, and as I haven't read the books, I'm wondering if there are other characters based off of fact? Perhaps that can fit into "Allusions/references to actual history, geography and current science." I'm also curious about the red-linked HMS Sophie and the significance between that. Hope this helps! María: (habla ~ cosas) 18:41, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

My 2 cents

First of all, for a novel article this is quite good, certainly considering it was one of your first attempts. It could use some work though. Here are my thoughts:

• Fair use images should have a rationale why fair use is allowed on the pages they are used. I have added a rationale, take a look at it. (Unfortunately, it seems that fair use pictures will not be allowed anymore).
• The plot summary is fine as it is, unless this is not the end of the novel. Larger plot summaries tend to discourage reading the article. I recommend removing the stub notice.
• The characters section should be reworked as prose; it should not be a list. See WP:EMBED for more details on this MoS guideline. It should state what role the character plays, what development he goes through, etc.
• Same goes for ships. Their role and fate should be explained.
• The list of reviews should go. Every respectable newspaper has a book review section; this book is probably reviewed thousands of times all over the world. And just a quote for literary significance is not enough. This should also be rewritten as prose, possibly incorporating the quote into the text.
• I think release details should be an article itself; this section can then be transformed into a (short) paragraph about the number of releases, the number of languages it is translated into and so on.
• The references could be used for adding in-line references.

Just my 2 cents. As I haven't read the novel nor seen the film, I cannot help more than this. Errabee 11:12, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Article lead

At first glance, the lead needs expansion per WP:LEAD. CloudNine 18:07, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Er.

Hello, people. I too am relatively new to Wikipedia. However, I have read Master and Commander.

For one, the plot summary is incomplete. No offense, but you've left out more than half the novel. Even a basic mini-synopsis is better than something that implies that the book simply ends with Aubrey's visit with Lord Keith. Dread Pirate Felix 23:34, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Red rain in Kerala

For old peer review, see Wikipedia:Peer review/Red rain in Kerala/archive1

I'm hoping to get this up to FA status for April 1 (April fools main page) so I would welcome some input as how best to achieve this RyanPostlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 20:26, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

I would suggest that you write up some fair use rationales for the images first. bibliomaniac15 04:45, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Review by =Nichalp «Talk»=

• Needs an SVG map
• Images should be thumbed
• Table should be right aligned. A pi chart of the data can be shown
• Copyedit required. low content of phosphorus is puzzling , is by no means rare
• Astrophysics and Space Science should be in italics
• 4.1 and 6.1 sections are bad style. Merge with parent or promote to a higher level.
• References should be preferably formatted using the citation templates available.
• Dr. - remove
• Populating red links should give the article a more professional touch
• Remove low value linking (eg wells, rainwater, milligrams etc)
• Gallery should go, merge images with text
• What was the reaction of the local people? I'm sure such an unusual phenomena should cause some sort of consternation among the local populace, even giving rise to superstitions.
• The following domains can also be combed for more information: gov.in, nic.in, ernet.in, gov ; and so too google news.

=Nichalp «Talk»= 06:22, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Borat! Cultural Learnings of America for Make Benefit Glorious Nation of Kazakhstan

Article has received Good Article status, but I am interested in possibly getting this to A-class or Featured status. I know there's a fact tag, I added it in a rewrite to add some information without being accused of anti-Semitism. --Lenin and McCarthy | (Complain here) 12:54, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Why don't you put it on film peer review, where you'll get more informed critiques? Daniel Case 17:44, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

I thought I had. --Lenin and McCarthy | (Complain here) 18:15, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, missed that. Daniel Case 18:26, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Daniel Case

Some comments based on a quick perusal. And a disclosure that, long ago, I added the material about "Everbody's Talkin'" and "Born To Be Wild" as allusions to Midnight Cowboy and Easy Rider, so I have some small claim to authorship. But it is so little that I can review this impartially.

• First, get rid of all the international release dates save those for English-speaking countries. It makes the infobox go on way too long. This is the English Wikipedia and that's the primary audience. Release dates for non-English speaking nations can be mentioned in the article if need be. Take a look at what I did in another article under review, The Devil Wears Prada.

• Maybe you could subdivide that section on participants' responses a little? It's a bit long even if it is thematically unified.

More later. Daniel Case 19:50, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

OK. I'm sitting down going through a hard copy with a red pen to catch all the usual copy errors and I'll do a copy edit later. I would add:

• Move the {{endspoiler}} tag to the end of the production section. You have spoilers there, too.

• "By reviewers" and "At the box office" should be renamed "Critical" and "Commercial" as the equivalent subsections in other film articles are.

• "...the 41st best opening week earnings in the UK at that time." Is that really notable? Only if it were in the top ten, IMO.

• The German comedy award is perhaps not relevant on the English Wikipedia.

• You don't need to mention, much less link, Midnight Cowboy and "Everybody's Talkin'" twice in the same sentence.

OK, I've gone through, did my copyedit and even made some of these changes. I have left some things to you to defend (the German comedy award, the 41st best opening week in Britain). But two more suggestions:

• I think you could replace the table on the week-by-week gross (not really encylopedic info) with {{Infobox movie certificates}} (the film ratings in each country where that info is available).

• You could probably do more with the criticism of the movie as anti-American. A lot of conservative commentators sounded off on this one; David Brooks[21] and John Tierney[22] put it on the New York Times op-ed page, and Christopher Hitchens has this interesting take at Slate if you can't or don't want to get behind the Times registration firewall.

Daniel Case 16:40, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Monte Ne

This article needs some copy editing and then it should be ready for GA. --The_stuart 15:56, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

• Quite a high-quality article generally. I'd say the quality of written English was fine, so don't worry too much about copy-editing (although there are a couple of typos and broken wikilinks). The only problem with the article is that there are too few sources; quite a few quotes and statements of fact are given in the article without sources. However, as this isn't a controversial topic, that shouldn't be a problem. Walton ^{Vivat Regina!} 17:59, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Needs more references and wikilinks throughout. M3tal H3ad 00:47, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

2006 Chicago Bears season

This page is written mostly by Bears fans for Bears fans, so even though it might have some POV problems, I think it's a very good and informative article chronicling a teams' season. If you review this page, maybe give some ideas about how the article can be made more neutral, and better overall. RMelon 21:01, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

• The article could use some more references. Currently, the 2007 Chicago Bears season has just as many references as the 2006 season, even though the 07 season has yet to start. Also, I think the game summaries should be cut down, along with the article's overall size ;-) --  ShadowJester07  ►Talk  21:20, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Some comments:

• It shows that the article is written "by Bears fans for Bears fans". For those who (like me) are unfamiliar with American football jargon parts of the article are rather impenetrable. The tone also often reads like a magazine rather than an encyclopedia. Examples: the Bears' defensive line pulverized Matt Hasselbeck, recording five sacks; Robbie Gould remained perfect on the year; burned the Cardinals for an 83-yard touchdown.
• Statistics are overused. This relates to the first point, hardcore fans might be interested in detailed stats, the general reader is not. The weather is irrelevant unless it had a significant impact on a game. The TV commentator is not important (and a source of systematic bias).
• The TOC is huge. One subheading per game is more than enough.
• The lead section should be two or three paragraphs for an article of this size. See WP:LEAD.
• References should be presented as footnotes rather than as bare links in the text, preferably using a template such as {{cite web}}.
• Epilogue section: avoid making crystal-ballish comments about what may happen in the future.
• I am unsure of the validity of a fair use claim for the uniform pictures. Creating a free-use diagram showing adequate information about colours should be trivial, perhaps with a template based on a modified version of Template:Football kit or somesuch.

Hope this helps. Oldelpaso 13:25, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Here are a few additional suggestions:

• Make sure your sources support your claims. For instance, in the first paragraph of the "Offseason" section, the source doesn't confirm that "The Chicago Bears’ 2006 NFL Draft picks drew much criticism from various Bears’ fans and local sports critics." Almost every national and local football columnists writes a draft review, so it shouldn't be difficult to find a couple sources to quote, which will allow you to cut the weasel words.
• I've never heard "training camp" referred to as "summer camp." Consider changing that header.
• Ditto the above comments about the magazine-like tone. Phrases like "brewing quarterback controversy" are colloquial, and probably not clear to novices.
• Consider moving the roster, as well as some of the other charts, to the bottom of the article. Charts should be supplementing the prose, not the other way around.
• This is purely a personal preference, but the scoring summaries seem like overkill. After looking at a few other season articles, they seem to be optional. They're not egregious, but I don't see the article getting featured with them.
• The game summaries are almost completely unsourced. I can accept a box score without a source, sine they're easily verifiable, but not the paragraphs. Since sites like ESPN.com, Yahoo! Sports, Sportsline, etc., have archived game summaries, they shouldn't be difficult to reference.
• If a football term, such as "intentional grounding," can't be linked to a definition, provide a brief explanation.
• The "Epilogue" section is unnecessary. It presents no new information. Unlike an essay, it's not necessary for an encyclopedia article to have a "conclusion."

Hope I was of assistance.--Djrobgordon 05:01, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Arnold Friberg

I'm basically looking for any suggestions on how the article could improve. Arnold Friberg is a well-known American artist. Thanks! ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 00:08, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Reviewed by Awadewit

This is a nice start. Here are my suggestions:

• Could you expand the biography section? For example, did anything else happen in Friberg's life besides the events connected to his artistic career? Could you try to round out the picture of the man a little?
• I would place the "Legacy" section after the biography section and describe his influence on other artists in prose and use the pictures as illustrations for your text.
• Might you include a section on Friberg's aesthetic? This might also include reviews of his work.
• The partial list of works should really include the dates of all of the works.
• Is it possible to find a fair or free-use image of Friberg and the Valley Forge painting to illustrate the page? They would enhance it greatly. Even images from the calendars or the Ten Commandments would be good.
• If you ever decide to submit this article for GA or FA, it will have to more citations. See WP:CITE.
• I would also restructure the lead to resemble a summary of the article so that a reader gets the gist of the article from the lead. WP:LEAD Awadewit 11:16, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments. I've found it difficult to find biographical information beyond what I have so far in the articles already cited. I'm sure there's other information out there, but I haven't been able to find it so far. I haven't found many reviews, either. I don't even know what magazines to look in for that sort of thing, and I haven't found much online. I'd love to include dates for the works, but I haven't found anywhere that lists that information. As Friberg is still alive, I don't think a free copy of his Valley Forge painting would be available, and unless significant discussion of that particular work was taking place in the article, I don't think it would qualify as fair use (especially given how picky they've recently become here about that). Someone may be able to obtain a free image of Friberg, however.

What else in this article requires more citations? I've never seen a specific number of citations as a requirement for GA or FA, just that the article have good and solid citations. If you could explain what you mean here a little more, that would be useful.

I'm sorry, what I meant to say was a wider variety of sources. Most of your information comes from a single source. Have you tried a database like EBSCO (if you have access to it)?

I'm also unsure what you mean by restructuring the lead as it already gives a general overview of the content of the article. I suppose I (or someone else) could expand it more, but I don't want to make the intro too long. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 01:48, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

I would just make sure that it is a summary and includes only the essentials of Friberg's life rather than details such as his Mormonism. That fact does not appear central to his biography. Awadewit 05:45, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Reviewed by Flex

1. The first thing that pops out at me is the lack of pronouns. The last three sentences of the intro and all the sentences in the second paragraph, for instance, all start with "Friberg." Surely a "he" is appropriate at places.
2. The article could also use some images (e.g., a picture of the artist himself, and perhaps images that he has painted if they can be obtained under WP-compatible licenses).
3. IMHO, the partial list of works is too long; I'd suggest putting a complete list in a separate article and listing only the most important ones in this article.
4. The section on "Influence on other artists" seems like original research and, frankly, rather dubious speculation. This section should be expanded along with appropriate citations, or it should be deleted.

--Flex (talk|contribs) 19:25, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments. I haven't had any luck finding any free images of the artist, and since he's still alive, there will not be any free examples of his artwork. They've gotten really strict lately about what qualifies as fair use, and any example artwork would likely be seen as simply decoration. I'll take the other comments under consideration and apply them as necessary. Thanks again for taking th time to review the article. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 22:06, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Turkish Van

Simply said, what could be improved on this article? Thanks. Lorty 01:27, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Inline citations could be added to improve verifiability. LuciferMorgan 03:28, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Tungsten

A B-class and High importance article, Tungsten could probably get to featured article with a few improvements. Help me in determining what those are. Best Regards. Borjon22 17:26, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

User:A mcmurray

At a glance I noticed the following:

• References: not nearly enough inline citations for even a B class article in my opinion, nor sources. In addition any inline citation that consist of external links should be converted to the proper form either using {{citeweb}} or just freehanding it. Almost every single section lacked inline citations. While not required they greatly reduce the ambiguity of the source material.
• Photo: the photo is tagged on Commons because of its use of a coin, it should have a replacement created. In addition perhaps it could be a photo of the actual metal sans glass vial.
• Lists: the Applications section is nothing more than a long list, it should be converted to prose.
• Copy-edit: Like almost every article it needs a thorough copy edit or two. Try to have more than one set of eyes look at it. I will try to give it a good one when I get a shot.
• Expansion: Many of the sections need expansion and lack key information, see below. This article will eventually lend itself nicely to summary style.

More in depth:

• Intro: should conform to WP:LEAD. Needs to be edited for clarity as well. This sentence, A very hard, heavy, steel-gray to white transition metal, tungsten is found in several ores including wolframite and scheelite and is remarkable for its robust physical properties, especially the fact that it has the highest melting point of all the non-alloyed metals and the second highest of all the elements after carbon, was a little bit long winded.
• 'Notable characteristics': section needs to be edited for overall clarity. This is an example of a confusing sentence" This element has the highest melting point (3422 °C) (6192 °F), lowest vapor pressure and the highest tensile strength at temperatures above 1650 °C (3000 °F) of all metals. It is unclear if all three qualities are being described as occuring at temps above 1650. This sentence: Steel alloyed with small quantities of tungsten greatly increases its toughness, could probably use a rewrite.
• 'Applications': as was already said the list should be converted to prose to conform to WP:EMBED. I added the cleanup section tag for now.
• 'History': first graf (one sentence) has problems. Tungsten (Swedish tung sten meaning "heavy stone"), even though the current name for the element in Swedish is wolfram (sometimes spelled in Swedish as volfram), from the denomination volf rahm by Wallerius in 1747, translated from the description by Agricola in 1546 as Lupi spuma, meaning "wolf's froth" after the way tin is eaten up like a wolf after sheep in the process of its extraction[1]. That sentence is a mouthful and is badly written, needs a rewrite. This section is also somewhat short considering the importance of tungsten in WWII and its use as light bulb filament. Try to include some history of its migration from new metal to light bulb filament. How did that all come about? Surely there is some info that can be incorporated into this article.
• 'Biological role': at first I thought this section seemed out of place, but I don't think it is, maybe. This section could use some expansion as well. It also leads to questions about the toxicity of tungsten, which is information that should be included.
• Other sections: At a glance they looked good save the fact that they mostly lacked inline citations. I will try to give a more thorough report when I do a copy edit.

Hopefully I wasn't overly harsh as anything I noted is intended to help not harm nor insult. : ) Good luck with the article. A mcmurray (talk • contribs) 07:25, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Bnei Menashe

I have just finished formatting the link sources (a thankless but necessary task) and now would like to nominate the article for Good Article evaluation. I am not personally knowledgeable on the subject of the article, but information-related suggestions are welcome along with formatting suggestions. What I'm asking is, do you think this is worthy of Good Article status, and if not, what needs to be improved to reach this state? Thanks in advance! --Yono 23:43, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi Yono Thank you very much for performing the neccessary task of formatting the links, something that alas I am not skilled at. I contributed much of the info on this page, and I'm glad you think it's worth considering submitting for Good Article status. I notice the page is increasingly cited as a primary source for info on BM (which I must say I find surprising/flattering:) and any suggestions on improvements to the page would be immensely helpful. Hellsbellsinheaven 01:07, 5 March 2007 (UTC)Hellbellsinheaven

Stylistically the article is a mess and needs to be thoroughly overhauled and wikified, both for aesthetic reasons and to make it more useful. Subject-wise I think it is a subject worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia and attention to it would be justified IMHO. --A R King (talk) 11:03, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

Death and state funeral of Ronald Reagan

I contributed a lot of edits to this page, and it would really be appreciated if someone could look it over, and tell me what they think. Thanks a lot! -- Happyme22 03:09, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

LuciferMorgan

• Review {{citeweb}}. LuciferMorgan 03:19, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

University High School (Los Angeles, California)

This article had a prior peer review done by Wikipedia:WikiProject Schools. At the time, the article appeared as though it was going to be put up as a GAC but the reviewer from WikiProject Schools but nothing ever happened.

Since that time, two sections have been added and images have finally been added to the article, so it seems like a good time for a review. I am also requesting re-assessments from the various wikiprojects that this article belongs to. Miss Mondegreen | Talk   23:35, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Questions for article contributors

Comments from WikiProject Schools

• This article has come a long way since I reviewed it last. The Alumni list could stand to be trimmed and several of the sections could be expanded, but I would say GA is now warranted. Adam McCormick 05:09, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

• What would you suggest? At the moment we are using WP:Notable for inclusion standards, and in cases where I've had questions I've gone to the wikiprojects in question. For example, I'm currently asking WikiProject Baseball to weigh in about a number of alumni. The list isn't even close to being complete, and even making the notability standards more stringent won't help much, it's an old Los Angeles school and you can see that when you look at the alumni--a number of them were notable before attending the school (entertainment careers). Would a different way of organizing this help possibly? Miss Mondegreen | Talk   07:36, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
• Also, I have my own to-do list, but any sections in particular that you think are important to expansion? Miss Mondegreen | Talk   07:39, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

• The most important sections, in my opinion, are the History and Curriculum sections. The best thing to do if you can't trim the alimni would be to split them into subheadings and then collapse them with {{hidden}} Adam McCormick 16:31, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

• I've already commented on the talk page. The existing content is very good and well referenced. However, I don't think this article is ready for GA status just yet. It is currently missing sections on the school's curriculum and on extra-curricular activities. The history section should be expanded. The page also needs some basic statistics about the number of children at the school, the ages of the children, etc. A more comprehensive infobox might help. Some phrases need explaining more fully to make them intelligible to non-American readers.Dahliarose 10:01, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

• I've expanded the infobox--tell me what you think.
• The phrases are not American as such, if you are referring to CAP (capacity adjustement program) etc.--they are specified education terms that are used in some parts of some of America's public school systems. Most of the terms used as such hopefully make sens in context and I believe that they are all wikilinked. Unfortunately for the CAP term, there's no article as of yet, but there's a limit to the background that can be given about a school system in a school article.
• I also replied to some of your comments on the talk page, so replying here or there is good with me. Miss Mondegreen | Talk   10:23, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Comments from WikiProject California

Comments from WikiProject Southern California

Other

Comment from Twenty Years

The article seems to be quite good, but a few problems:

• Does the school not have a logo? if yes, it needs to go into the infobox.
• Location - Shorten it, just say the suburb, state and country at most.
• Information - (im aussie) i resume that is a US telephone number? - un encyclopedic - delete it
• I prefer the student number to be rounded to the nearest 100 with a tilde before it.
• I dont like the dead wikilinks that are spread around the article - i think it looks a tad messy.
• the lead doesnt summarise the article too well - possible re-write
• Per WP:SCH, i think that the Native American heritage should be put into a section entitled "Campus" and include all future developments etc, current projects (building)
• History section is far too breif. Double it.
• Copyright issues with the History section image
• Ficus tree preservation should be chopped up and thrown into the campus section (mentioned above)
• Neighbourhoods served section - delete it, its useless and unencyclopedic - possibly if you make a students section per WP:SCH, you may throw a little of the information in there.
• The article has alot of good references, but in parts it is over-referenced - there are four references to the ficus tree (p1 - bottom), this looks messy. Possibly use the best reference of the lot - and get rid of the other three, unless there are some controversial things there, one reference will be fine.
• Filming on campus - the lists should be broken down - it looks crappy - possibly could do with a picture of the filming crews.
• Lead - i think the first sentence would be better like this: University high school, informally known as Uni is a .... etc - this has worked well with a number of articles i have worked on that are GA.
• Some things that need to be put into the article - scholarships on offer, academic programs, sporting programs (associations the school is involved in), special programs run at the school (eg. excellent community service program).
• Other that that (stated above) the article seems a border-line Start-B Class article. If you have any questions/queries about what ive said - just visit my user talk page. Good luck with the article Twenty Years 16:10, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

• School logo is the mascot logo, and that picture is already in the article in the mascots section. I was going to run by the school today or tomorrow to take a picture of the front of the school to use in the infobox. Would that be ok?
• I was following wikiproject schools when I included the full address and the phone number for the school.
• Filming on campus list--broken down how? Do you have any suggestions? There is a picture of the film crews, but it would be yet another fair use image. I can attempt to get permission to come onto campus during school hours to get a photograph of the film crews, but the administration will probably not approve that.
• In re the ficus tree references, the reason there is one line that ends with multiple references, is that each reference discusses one of the facts that is stated in that sentence and only one.
• The neighborhoods served part is not unencyclopedic, but it's lacking the information that frames it properly. The school was built immediately after the annexation of Sawtelle, and what neighboorhoods it has served has been an issue of some controversy ever since, as is the case with a lot of Los Angeles schools. Unfortunately, I don't know the whole story, nor do I have sources for the parts I do--but it involves population shifting and bussing programs and it is important. And it is covered in the media. Miss Mondegreen | Talk   00:22, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
• Too many redlinks? Really? Well I think some of them are important, but if anyone spots anything they think is really unnecessary, feel free. I'm heading out the door to try and get a photo of the school for the infobox, and then I'll try and get some editing and writing in. Miss Mondegreen | Talk   00:47, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Reply

• That would be fine - because to use the mascot logo twice would be poor form, and i think that its fine to have a picture of the front of the school in there. Plano Senior High School (FA) has that.
• Location/Phone - fair enough - seems somewhat unencyclopedic to me, but meh.
• List of films etc. I meant for it to be broken down so it isnt a list. Eg. instead of "The school has had these films shot on campus: then a bullet-point list". It might be better to use something like: "The school has had various films shot on campus over the years, more prominent examples include; Johnny Film, Mary Film and Berts Brother". (just filter out the poor grammar etc).
• With the trees bit (my view): only the bit about the 1200 signatures, and possibly the community involvement. This will limit the references to two. Because to have so many reference marks looks messy. (This was said to me when i went a tad overboard and referenced everything multiple times on Aquinas College, Perth - some bits upto 6 times).
• I just noticed, you are correct. I thought it was a private school. Hence etc. D/W.
• The red links are links to articles that wikipedia doesnt have. So unless those articles are made, id avoid having them there. I personally think its messy, but thats prob just me.
• Good luck with the photo :) Any other probs, msg me. Twenty Years 05:24, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
• In regard to the lead: "if you had 30 seconds to summarise the article, what would you say?" wors well. Scotch College, Perth and Aquinas College, Perth (both GA) have good examples of leads. Twenty Years 05:38, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

• Hmmm, filming. Unfortunately, as you can probably tell, I only have the data of what was filmed there from the last couple years, and it's probably incomplete--the school newspaper didn't report every time classes were disturbed. I have a feeling that listing more prominent examples might be a bad idea--because that will barely limit the list and people will argue about prominence. What I'll try to do instead is get a complete list of everything that has filmed at the school, so instead I can write a paragraph (filming started yada, yada, yada, and include basic facts like how many films and tv shows, and then include a few things that are of more prominence in relation to the school--like 7th heaven.)
• with the trees bit, one reference is for the signatures, one for two of the communites, the other for the city of santa monica, and the last one isn't strictly necessary, but it's the latimes article on the affair, and of course, one of the products of the community involvement. Perhaps that could go in a different section--additional reading?
• I don't understand: "I just noticed, you are correct. I thought it was a private school. Hence etc. D/W."--can you translate?
• I removed some red links, but while they may be an eyesore, wikipedia is living and breathing and redlinks help it grow--it would be great if everything we needed or wanted linked was blue, if that much content had been created--but until that time, we red link and say "write this article"
• Do you have any ideas for what to do about the enormous alum list? Miss Mondegreen | Talk   13:37, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

• The alumni can easily be collapsed with categorical subheadings and {tl|hidden}} tags. That way they can still be looked at on the page but there aren't pages and pages of links at the bottom. Adam McCormick 20:24, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

• All i think with the films is to just de-list them - so there arent bullet points. So it says: "filmed at the school were X, Y Z & J"
• Id just go with the one for the 1200 signatures, and maybe the communities.
• I thought it was a private school - and the communities served was crappy - but its about a public school so it is noteworthy.
• Yep, the red links are prob fine for now, maybe you might be interested in creating them as stubs (i did that for a school i was working on - it was a good experience.
• Id just leave the alumni list. Its not that big, and if you looked harder, there would be many more. Best wishes. Twenty Years 01:47, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Orlando Pace

Would like to get input how to make this article better. I know there are some things that need to be done, but would like input from others. --Pinkkeith 17:41, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Review by Flex

I made a few minor changes, but the article needs an image that is compatible with the WP image licenses (shouldn't be too hard to find) and should also make use of {{citeweb}} for its sources.

Beyond that, the article is too enthusiastic and unencyclopedic at points. Statements like his height and weight make him "well-suited for the tackle position" and "perhaps his greatest asset is his athleticism - Pace's quickness of reflexes and speed are unmatched among NFL offensive linemen" and "Memorably, in a 2002 game against the Washington Redskins, on an interception return, Pace managed to run down cornerback Champ Bailey..." and "In addition, he laid out Ray Lewis and Peter Boulware on a massive block that sprung Marshall Faulk for a touchdown in 2003" are editorializing at best and POV at worst. --Flex (talk|contribs) 19:46, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Western Chalukyas

This article has been through couple of rounds of copy edit and it is well cited according to wikipedia requirements. This article describes an empire that played an important role in the development of literature, architecture and culture in South India in the 10-12th century time period. I am looking forward to positive inputs, comments and feed back regarding format and organization of the topic. Further copy edits are welcome.Dineshkannambadi 04:29, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Anaximander

Since I helped a lot in writing the French article (a featured article), I thought I'd give a hand with its English counterpart. I think my English is fine, however I need someone to check the body of the article for syntax, grammar, style conventions, or any typo that might have remained. (Didyaknow, after 2 zillions hours spent on a page, it totally disappears???) Don't mind the Known works and References section, I will deal with them shortly. Robin des Bois ♘ ➳ ✉ 10:21, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Awadewit

This is quite a good article, but I would say that, overall, the article is very abstract and needs to define its terms more often and explain Anaximander's ideas, when possible, using modern terminology.

• If you want this to reach FA, I would expand the lead to 2-3 fuller paragraphs. It should reflect the shape of the entire article WP:LEAD. Also, I would delete the moon reference - is that really one of the most significant facts about Anaximander?

Done. Robin des Bois ♘ ➳ ✉ 06:10, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

• Please identify all sources that you name in the main body of the text for the general reader. Alas, not everyone knows who Themistius is, for example.

Done. Robin des Bois ♘ ➳ ✉ 06:10, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

• Themistius mentions that Anaximander was the "first of the known Greeks to publish a written document on nature" and by this very fact, his texts would be amongst the earliest written in prose. - you mean, first amongst the Greeks?

In the Western world. Fixed. Robin des Bois ♘ ➳ ✉ 06:10, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

• The "Biography" section seems a little choppy. I know that there is very little information on Anaximander, but is it possible to make it flow a litle better?

Done. Robin des Bois ♘ ➳ ✉ 06:10, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

• Again, if you are aiming for FA, I think that you need more references, particularly secondary references.

An exhaustive list is given in the external links. But I have not read them. Robin des Bois ♘ ➳ ✉ 06:10, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

• For Anaximander, the principle of things is nothing determined, no more than it is one of the elements, as Thales suggests. - this sentence is unclear

Clarified. Robin des Bois ♘ ➳ ✉ 06:10, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

• I don't see the need for making the quote bold and big in "The apeiron" section.

Done.

• The first paragraph of the "Cosmology" section is unclear. For example, what does It confirms an early effort in the demythification of the genealogical process mean?

Clarified. Robin des Bois ♘ ➳ ✉ 06:10, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

• He was also the first to present a system where the celestial bodies turned at different distances. - unclear - do you mean the first system that postulated both rotating bodies and bodies at different distances?

The pictures talk for themselves. Robin des Bois ♘ ➳ ✉ 06:10, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

• The mere idea of representing the Earth simply for the sake of knowledge justifies the process. - what process?

Rephrased.Robin des Bois ♘ ➳ ✉ 06:10, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

• Bertrand Russell in The History of Western Philosophy interprets the above quote as an assertion of the necessity of an appropriate balance between earth, fire, and water elements, all of which may be independently seeking to aggrandize their proportions relative to the others. - this is confusing - what quote?
• Martin Heidegger was known to have lectured extensively on Anaximander (along with Parmenides and Heraclitus) and wrote a section in Off the Beaten Track called "Anaximander's Saying" in which he examines the ontological difference and the oblivion of Being or Dasein in the pre-Platonics. - could you say more about this?
• I did some copyediting as I was reading the text but I would suggest that you have the League of Copyeditors take a quick look at this article as well. Even better, someone who knows something about Greek philosophy. I was reluctant to change some things because of my lack of knowledge of Greek philosophy. Awadewit 06:35, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

• Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, APR _t 22:38, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. Fantastic automation, by the way! All points were taken into account. Robin des Bois ♘ ➳ ✉ 06:10, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Nancy Reagan

Hi everyone. It would be much appreciated if you could please read over the Nancy Reagan article, and give me some feedback. I want to nominate it for the featured articles list, so I would like both positive and negative feeback please. It would help me out trmendously. Thanks! -- Happyme22 03:00, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

• There is an unauthorized biography also availabel and several citations in med journals about her cancer treatment. All this makes the citations look a little bit weak.--Stone

LuciferMorgan

• Review {{citeweb}}. LuciferMorgan 03:19, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Awadewit

• I'm just going to make one quick comment. Almost all of your citations come from Nancy Reagan's autobiography. Autobiographies do not offer a NPOV. They often offer good anecdotes with which to flavor an article, but the primary information about Nancy Regean should be taken from more reliable sources. Awadewit 06:50, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Flag of Yukon

I would like to request a peer review for any improvements for this article on the Flag of Yukon, Canada. I have written at least 90% of this article and now it is most likely the most comprehensive Canadian provincial/territorial flag article on the English Wikipedia. Although the article is short, it covers all of the information on the Flag of Yukon and is fully referenced. First off, if the article merits a B-rating please award it. Let me know any feedback you have and be specific, I'll take any constructive criticism. Hopefully I can get this up to GA status. Bobo is soft 06:18, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

User:A mcmurray

At a glance:

• Lists: Too many lists, convert to prose.
• Thoroughness: Seems awfully short to be thinking about B let alone GA. See comments below.
• Image: While miniature Yukon flags for others may be funny there must be a better pic out there of a Yukon flag. Maybe one with the flag on a pole waving in the wind or something.

More in depth:

• Intro: First sentence: The flag of Yukon, Canada, (formerly the Yukon Territory), one of Canada's three territories, is a green, white, and blue tricolour with the Coat of Arms of Yukon at the center above a wreath of fireweed, the territorial flower. Pay particular attention to the italicized section, it is very confusing. I wasn't exactly sure what it was trying to say, or else I would have left an alternative suggestion. Sorry about that.
• History:

Watch for redundancies, I saw the fact that Lambert won the competition in two consecutive sentences.

This sentence: There were a total of 137 submissions with the winning design coming from Lynn Lambert originally from Destruction Bay, Yukon, and a graduate from Yukon College. A bit wordy, needs to be rewritten. Perhaps by choosing one detail or the other about Lambert, I don't think it is necessary to state both where he is from and where he went to college. Try The winning design, chosen from 137 submissions, was entered by Yukon College graduate Lynn Lambert. Or something of that ilk.

Thoroughness: So why didn't the Yukon have a flag before 1968? What were the circumstances that led to the people/government of Yukon to desire a flag in the first place?

• Design: as said, lose the lists, they are unencyclopedic, in general, see WP:EMBED Also, the section with the list of colors, I am not sure that is even necessary as most readers have no idea of the significance of that list, if it has any at all. Cite the terminology statement. Seems to be a bit short overall. It doesn't include who designed it, just as an example.

All in all I am not sure how much can be said about flags, I guess it depends on the circumstances of their adoption and how long they have been around, although I suspect there is some information surrounding this flag that has been left out. Flag articles don't have to be short, while true that a lot of the articles on the Canadian flag footer template are stubby, there are longer territorial/state flag articles out there, just at a glance I saw Flag of Hawaii and Flag of Quebec. Not to criticize just throwing that out there. Anyway, I hope I wasn't overly harsh, anything I have said is meant to genuinely help not insult nor harm. Good luck with the article.A mcmurray (talk • contribs) 05:20, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Leonardo da Vinci

• Previous Peer review

I am requesting a peer review because I am planning to work on the article and I want to know what the Wikipedia community wants improved in it. I hope that it eventually will become a featured article.--Natl1 (Talk Page) (Contribs) 22:24, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Review by Awadewit

This is a very good start to a hard article. Here are my suggestions.

• Infobox: Is it correct to list his nationality as "Italian" since there was no Italy at that time? Would it be more correct to say he was Florentine?
• The list after polymath seems a little long. For example, I doubt "scientist" can legitimately be included and "architect" seems redundant since "engineer" is included.
• the man with the most diversely prodigious talent ever to have lived - perhaps "one of the people" - also "diversely prodigious" is awkward
• There are a lot of awkwardly worded sentences in this article. Most are run-ons or have awkwardly placed clauses. Here are some examples:

Two of his works, the Mona Lisa and The Last Supper occupying unique positions as the most famous, the most illustrated and most imitated portrait and religious painting of all time, only approached in fame by Michelangelo's Creation of Adam.- almost a run-on

As a fourteen-year-old apprentice Leonardo would have been trained in all the countless skills that were employed in a traditional workshop in which the artists were regarded primarily as craftsmen and only a master such as Verrocchio had social standing.

Leonardo’s early works begin with the Baptism of Christ in conjunction with Verrocchio.

The thing that makes this painting unusual is that there are two obliquely-set figures, superimposed, because Mary, is seated on the knee of her mother, St Anne, and leaning forward to support the Christ Child as he plays (rather roughly) with a lamb, the sign of his own impending sacrifice. - (don't start with "The thing")

The journals are written mostly in mirror-image cursive, the reason probably his left-handedness which makes it difficult to push a quill pen from left to right across a page.

• What did the hawk omen mean to Leonardo?
• Vasari tells the story of how a local peasant requested that Ser Piero ask his talented son to paint a picture on a round plaque. - tell the reader who Vasari is - this is the first we hear of him
• "Florence — Leonardo's artistic and social background" seems a little listy even though it is in prose. Try to tie the paragraphs together more and make a case to the reader for why you are including them.
• These painting are famous for a variety of qualities which were to be interminably discussed and speculated about by connoisseurs and critics, imitated by students, and gazed at day after day by the public in thousands. - this sounds unencyclopedic
• Leonardo's approach to science was an observational one: he tried to understand a phenomenon by describing and depicting it in utmost detail, and did not emphasize experiments or theoretical explanation. - sounds like he wasn't a scientist - Scientific Revolution wasn't really until the seventeenth century
• The list of quotes in the "Legend" section should either be worked into a narrative about Leonardo's legacy or deleted.
• I think that there needs to be more of an artistic legacy section - who did he influence and how?
• I haven't seen "section references" before, but I've only been seriously reviewing for about three months. I would assume that it is better to cite each piece of information specifically and I can guess that at FAC they might have a problem with these section references (they seem firm about inline citations over there), but perhaps I am wrong about that. Several sections have no references at all. That will eventually be a problem when you go for FA.
• I noticed some British spellings and some American spellings. The editors should pick one style.
• I noticed some first-person "we" constructions. These are apparently frowned upon at wikipedia.
• Sometimes painting titles are not italicized.
• When you decide to go for FA, you will want to prune the "external links" and the "see also." Awadewit 07:46, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Mr. Lady Records

I saved a stub from deletion last month, and I've - with some help - got it to GA status. Since then, I have expanded and referenced it further, even finding a book mention. I'd like to see if I can spruce it up a little more, and would like additional input. I'm not sure if there's enough information available on defunct feminist indie record labels to get it to FA, but that's the dream. Even if not, I would like it to be as good as it can be, so thoughts, suggestions and comment are welcome. Thanks. Proto ► 13:43, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

• Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, APR _t 22:39, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Michaelas10

Looks very good overall, and no, getting it an FA isn't a dream. It could use a lot of copyediting however. My suggestions:

• General:
  • Sole years (e.g. 1996) shouldn't be linked per WP:DATE, and full dates should be linked entirely (e.g. 10 January 2007).
  • Please use the citation templates on references per the manual of style.
  • Add the corresponding infobox of recording labels ({{infobox record label}}) at the top of the article.
  • Reviews should be split out of the lead and the "Background" section to a new "Reception" section.
  • Split information about the band becoming defunct from the "Background" section to a new section with additional information from here.
  • References 5 and 25 needs to go right after the text, without an external space. References 14, 15, 16, 17, 13 need to go after the punctuation mark.
  • ...now defunct > ...which became defunct in 2004.
  • Be more specific in the "Artists formerly on Mr. Lady" section references, rather than providing the band's website itself. Also, I suggest moving the section to Artists formerly on Mr. Lady and adding that as a "main" article for the "Artists and releases" section in order to avoid the article becoming too listy.
  • This website is down.
  • The two formed Mr. Lady to make women's music and videos accessible and affordable - Duplication of the previous sentence.
• Copyediting related:
  • In March, 2001 - Remove comma.
  • ...by women.". - Remove the second period.
  • ...a record company With - Remove capitalization.
  • ...records (along with - Remove bracket.
  • Kaia Wilson released a statment confirming this in June 1999, stating - Replace "stating" with a colon. "...statment" > "...statement".
  • Formally backing the festival's trans-exclusion policy led to protests and boycotts aimed towards Mr. Lady acts, and Wilson and The Butchies in particular, from groups such as Camp Trans, who disagreed with Mr. Lady's stance and felt that the group and the label exploited transgendered images - Split this to two sentences starting with "Wilson and The Butchies". "...who" > "...have". "...the label" > "...label".

I have further copyediting suggestions, but I strongly advice requesting a different editor with a strategic distance to pass through the article to check for mistakes (I'd be happy to do so if you would like me to). Thanks. Michaelas10 (Talk) 16:30, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

• The automated suggestions aren't much help (it wants to fix contractions from inside quotes, and that's about it). The copyedits are done, dates are fixed, Quails website removed, It would be great if you could pass over it, Michael, thanks - a couplde of the chnages you suggested I know I've missed. The citation templates are a nightmare to put in, so I have not used them (use is neither reccomended for or against on Wikipedia:Citation templates). Artists formerly on Mr. Lady would not be a suitable article for Wikipedia. I will expand this out later with a little text on each band, to make it a paragraph rather than a list. Proto ► 19:04, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
• I've given it a proofread. Michaelas10 (Talk) 18:29, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

SatyrTN

I've gotten pretty good at the {{cite}} templates. While they're neither recommended nor discouraged, they do ensure the cites are done in the proper way. I'm not saying the ones on here are improper, btw! :) But if you'd like, I can do that. -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 22:23, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

That would be great, thanks! I can do one or two, but it's trial and error - I can't seem to get my head around them :( Neil (not Proto ►) 16:32, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

I've gone through the refs and reformatted using the appropriate {{cite}} templates. -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 23:26, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

That's a really big help, thank you very much. Neil (not Proto ►) 12:41, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Australia-Indonesia Prisoner Exchange Agreement

Article needs a picture of the Indonesian Minister for Law and Human Rights to replace the box with President SBY DavidYork71 11:55, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

• Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, APR _t 22:39, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Auroranorth

• General comments:

1. Contains good information

• Suggestions for improvements

1. Well referenced, however please include the following after every one: (accessed 2007-02-03), or whatever the date is.
2. The external links section has built up in multitude, however an asterisk (*, press Ctrl+8) should be placed before each one.
3. Desperately needs expansion!
4. The Indonesian and Australian coats of arms do not need to be there. Instead, try a picture of the people involved, such as the Attorney General of Australia, Phillip Ruddock.
5. Please put your information into headings.

Auroranorth 10:14, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

AnonEMouse

• The article starts by saying there is no such agreement - given that, how about renaming without that last word?
• The references need more than just accessdates, they need publications, publication dates, authors... see {{cite web}} or {{cite news}}
• The article concentrates on Au prisoners in In - how about the other way around? Aren't there any Indonesian nationals held in Australia?
• Similarly, the article concentrates on Australian laws, reports and feelings; what does the Indonesian law, press and public say?
• How does this compare to exchange agreements (or lack thereof) between Au and other countries? Between In and other countries?

--AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 15:23, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Earth

This article has undergone many changes since it was a failed FAC in July of last year. There's a few missing citations (more citations are definitely needed) and a bit of clean-up needed here and there, but it's starting to shape up into a decent summary-style article. Could you suggest what additional changes are needed to bring this essential article up to Featured Article quality? Thank you! — RJH (talk) 23:02, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

What is Poetic Inspiration there for? It belongs in Wikiquote. WikiNew 17:59, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't know. It was just added by a new contributor. I've removed it. — RJH (talk) 18:41, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Review by Awadewit

I come to this page as an avid reader of popular science books, not as a scientist. I am one of "those humanities people." I found this article informative and instructive. I had no trouble following it at all (not always true for the science articles here). Here are my suggestions:

• There are far too many passive constructions in this article, particularly in the lead.
• The "resulting in" structure appears too often. By placing the main topic of the sentence at the end of the sentence, it de-emphasizes the topic. Use this structure sparingly. Problematic ex:

The incorporation of smaller cells within larger ones resulted in the development of complex cells called eukaryotes. Cells within colonies became increasingly specialized, resulting in true multicellular organisms.

Fixed.

• Maybe you could add a series of pictures of the drifting continents to the "History" section?
  • I thought about something along those lines, but I didn't find the images all that appealing. I'll look some more.
• On my browser, there is a large white space between "History" and "Shape"? Can that be reduced? (Also between "Tectonic plates" and the text of the section.)
  • That appears to be caused by a collision between the very long infobox and the image in the Shape section when the browser is wide. I added in a break at the end of the history section, although this just moves the gap up to the end of the prior section. Problem is, when the image is shifted to the left it collides with the infobox on a narrow browser.
    • Oh. I know absolutely nothing about how to fix those problems. I can only say that, aesthetically, it looks unfinished. Awadewit 21:37, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
      • Agreed. Thank you.
• In the "Chemical composition" section, you reference Clarke. Might you add a phrase indicating what kind of expert he is so that reader knows why he or she should rely on his evidence?
• Although I remember my periodic table from high school, some people may not. Is it worth writing out the compounds in the "Chemical composition" section?
  • Yes.
• As you point out, for FA, the article will probably need more citations, particularly for statements such as some scientists believe that biospheres might be rare and The exploitation of non-renewable resources near the surface by human civilization has become a subject of significant controversy in modern environmentalism movements. There are also whole sections that lack any citations at all (there seems to be a rule of thumb of at least one citation per paragraph).
• Long-term climate alteration from enhancement of the greenhouse effect caused by the earth itself and human industrial carbon dioxide emissions is an increasing concern, the focus of intense study and debate. - this seems like a weak statement to me; why not quote from that International report that came out a few weeks ago?
  • Done.
• The "Orbit and rotation" and "Moon" sections seem like they should be placed further up the page. It is more related to the planet-wide discussion and not the humanity discussion they follow. That way, the "Human viewpoint" section can follow the other sections on humanity.
  • Done.
• The "Lexicography" section seems unnecessary to me.
  • Migrated to a separate Lexicography of Earth page and linked in the "See also" section. As a bonus it reduces the page size. But I'm expecting that at some point it will get transwikied. — RJH (talk)
• Can you suggest any further reading for the curious? Awadewit 19:05, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your feedback Awadewit, I'll do my best to address your concerns. — RJH (talk) 19:39, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

South Park

I have contributed to this article majorly, as have other contributors, and I think it is high time it attained featured status. It is well written, and I believe most issues have been resolved. There are some minor disputes, but, through peer review, it is sure to achieve perfection and be selected.--Orthologist 15:22, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

• I believe it requires a lot more references, and those which already exist require proper citation templates. The "Recurring themes" is made nearly entirely out of original research. Michaelas10 (Talk) 15:55, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
• I'm not familiar with the citation templates, but I've found some reliable sites that include half of the information in the "Recurring Themes" section. I've placed them at the end of the External Links section.--Orthologist 18:39, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Read this Buc 22:34, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

• I'm afraid to say that you're far away from FA status. There are too few citations, too much about characters, even for such a long-running show, and nothing (apparent) about critical reception. Might I suggest you take a gander at Excel Saga for an example of FA TV articles? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Monocrat (talk • contribs) 05:28, March 7, 2007 (UTC)

Percy Henn

Percy Henn was my first article that I've really worked on immensley. I self-rated it as Start-class, however I want some ideas on how to get this grade higher. There is no other information available on the Internet and I'm not sure where to go next. Auroranorth (WikiDesk) 09:31, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

User:A mcmurray

At a glance:

• Prose: For the most part compelling, a few things here and there (See below).
• Dates: Full dates should be linked like so: [[6 March]] [[2007]]. Years can be linked if they provide context to the article, just FYI.

More in depth:

• Early Career:

• Needs expansion, for instance, what was the dispute all about? That sounded interesting.
• Hurstpierpoint, this term is probably unfamiliar to a lot of readers, provide context.

• Looking abroad:

• Probably don't link January in the phrase 'January 1900,' although the linked 1900 is probably okay.
• Two sentences: On 3 April 1902, Henn married Jean Elliott in Geraldton, and had four children together. and Becoming rector again in Northam for three years (1902-1905), he finished his missionary term by returning to England. Both should probably be rewritten for clarity and less wordiness.

Rewrites of statements do not make sense, not geographically or logically. Auroranorth (WikiDesk) 11:08, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Write them better then, you have to realize that most readers aren't from Western Australia. the first rewrite makes perfect sense, especially with the extra word I included. The original sentence from which the second rewrite is derived is just too confusing as is to rewrite, hence the mistake. A mcmurray (talk • contribs) 11:15, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Of course. Auroranorth (WikiDesk) 11:23, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

I would note that the other sentence, as is or was, above, makes it look like he got married and had four children all in the same day, which is actually what is illogical. ; )A mcmurray (talk • contribs) 11:19, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Try:

• On 3 April 1902, in Geraldton, Henn married Jean Elliott and they eventually had four children together.
• He finished his missionary term by returning to England as rector in Northam from 1902-1905.

Or something like that, also link the place names if they haven't been linked in the article already.

• Organising Secretary doesn't need to be capitalized. Per WP:MOS.

• Return to Western Australia:

• I don't think "preparatory school" should be capitalized in the subhead.

Guildford Grammar Preparatory School is an official proper noun. Auroranorth (WikiDesk) 11:10, 7 March 2007 (UTC)\

Yes but only when used in its entirety, the use of preparatory school in the sub head isn't as a proper noun.A mcmurray (talk • contribs) 11:23, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

• The first paragraph in the section lacks inline citations.

Correct. I'll fix this. Auroranorth (WikiDesk) 11:18, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Fixed. Auroranorth (WikiDesk) 11:18, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

• A few sentences should be rewritten for clarity, especially the one about him overseeing the Church of England's first attempt at secondary ed since 1873.

I don't see anything wrong with this. Auroranorth (WikiDesk) 11:18, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

It just doesn't sound good how it's constructed IMO.A mcmurray (talk • contribs) 11:23, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

• Be careful using words like 'however,' here, and throughout the article. It tends to imply POV (not always but often).

OK, I'll look out for this in the future. Auroranorth (WikiDesk) 11:18, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

• Last two sections:

• Both need refs (inline).

Done. Auroranorth (WikiDesk) 11:18, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

• Lose the bullet in the legacy section, just leave it straight pose instead of as a list.

Easy enough. Auroranorth (WikiDesk) 11:18, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

• Drop the word 'now' in the legacy section.

Good WP:MOS spot. Auroranorth (WikiDesk) 11:18, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Good luck with the article and I hope this helps. : ) A mcmurray (talk • contribs) 16:04, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

SMBarnZy

Some suggestions...

• The lead shouldn't be referenced, unless you make some extra-ordinary claims. Reference that information in the article, it just looks neater.
• The article refers to Henn as: "headmaster" (lead) and "school master" (infobox) - i would make them both the same, either headmaster of school master - not both.
• Early years section needs a few full stops, it is quite long for a single sentence.
• Years wikilinks - in alot of the sections, the years are wikilinked, i dont think that this needs to happen - the lead is an exception.
• Things should only be wikilinked once, so when you mention Guildford Grammar School in the article (for example 5 times) it should be wikilinked the first time it is mentioned in the article, and at no other point.
• Legacy section should be merged into "a prepartory school for guildford"
• All sections need to be lengthened if this article is going to get to A-Class anytime soon. SMBarnZy 11:01, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Banditti of the Prairie

This article was just created. Any help would be appreciated as I am hoping to submit it for GA rather quickly. There is some minor expansion work to be done, I currently have the information and will be acquiring more so I will add it as I get it.A mcmurray (talk • contribs) 15:41, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

bcasterline

A couple things:

• "Banditti influence" is extremely vague. Examples (or just a clearer definition) of the kind of influence they wielded and how exactly they overstepped their bounds would be helpful. Done

I agree that it is vague and am thinkin of a new title. I think the article shows how they overstepped their bounds, clearly, they were lynched.A mcmurray (talk • contribs) 01:46, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

• The number of inline citations for the first source is overkill. It some cases there's the same citation after multiple sentences in sequence. { Done

Good luck. -- bcasterline • talk 22:28, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

How is there overkill? Did I cite things that didn't need to be cited or do you just say that because there are so many? Thanks for reading and going through the article.A mcmurray (talk • contribs) 01:45, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

• Changed wording, per above comments by User:Bcasterline.  Done

If there is over citation I would like to know where because I think that I do tend to overcite and err on the side of caution, I don't want claims that should have citations to go without. Any help here would be appreciated, because I am way too cite happy in general. What should I do? Just cite grafs if they are attributed to the same source? Should that somehow be noted in the references section?A mcmurray (talk • contribs) 06:47, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Wilt Chamberlain

This is the article of the statistically most dominant NBA player of all time (nope, it is not Michael Jordan...) is prepared for a soon FAC. I would like to request peer review first. Points to ponder:

• Is the prose ok? The article was 97 kb, then trimmed to 74, and now 64kb. I hope the flow is not too choppy.
• Is it broad enough without sacrificing depth? The main problem during the trim was to decide whether of the thousands of (verifiable!!) Wilt anecdotes should stay.
• Is it readable enough for non-experts, without being too shallow? Wilt is all-time record holder of 46 (!!!) NBA stats, so his numbers have to be mentioned often.
• It is holistic enough, i.e. does the reader get to know enough about Wilt as a person?
• The article currently has 15 (!) fair use pics, but IMHO, every pic serves a cause, e.g. showing him in track and field, showing him in his different teams, showing he was subject of sports books, showing his rivalries vs Bill Russell and Kareem Abdul-Jabbar or his autobios. Is this ok, or too much?
• Other remarks?

As a reference, Bill Russell is the current sole WP:NBA FA. Thanks for reading, —Onomatopoeia 14:44, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

under the legacy section, although personally i do *not* see it a problem, is it better to incorporate the list into the main body? i'm only saying this because the Bill Russell article has no list, and i suspect some joker down the road would make the same point. Chensiyuan 08:54, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Ultimate Fighting Championship

I think this article is getting close to good article or feature article status. Within the WP:MMA project, it seems to be the best article out of the entire project, and I think getting some feedback can help us in the project concentrate on finding out what exactly it takes to elevate articles to a GA or FA status. hateless 01:17, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Nice article, still room for improvement though:

"human cockfighting" in the lead does not reappear in the main body. EVERYTHING you say in the lead needs to be repeated below, or cut it out entirely.

• Could use some more pics, e.g. of historical matches (1992?) or of the video games
• Too many redlinks, please de-wikilink them or create new articles
• "86,592 television subscribers" in 1992 needs sourcing
• "Many martial artists believed that technique could overcome these size disadvantages..." (1992 section) => source plz
• "Controversy and reform" is undersourced
• "Evolution of the UFC rules" is unsourced

That were my 2 cents. If you could give Wikipedia:Peer_review/Wilt_Chamberlain a look, I would be happy. —Onomatopoeia 08:43, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Aberdeen

As of 14th May 2007, all suggestions to this date have been implemented and this peer review is now closed. Bobbacon 12:22, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

This article is about Scotland's third largest city. There has been a lot of editing lately on this article and would like to help make it a featured article. As this is the first article I have worked on to this level and I would like a peer review so that I can get a better idea of the strengths and weaknesses. Bobbacon 12:39, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

It needs a good copyedit to start with and if going for FA more referencing would be good. I haven't read the whole article yet but these are some points from the 1st few sections:

• Swap the order of the 2 sentences in the opening paragraph?
• The sentence 'There has been settlement...' is odd, the 2nd half doesn't follow well from the 1st. Is this continuous settlement? Could we have a paragraph or even 2 in the summary entirely on the history of Aberdeen? Maybe saying how relatively important a city it was before oil was found.
• Are the Britain in Bloom awards really worthy of a mention in the lead section?
• Is Aberdeen really sturdy? Or does it just look sturdy?
• 'various different people' - do you mean this? or 'peoples'? in the 1st case this is obvious so can be cut, in the 2nd why not say which peoples?
• Can we have more about 'Bon Accord'? Why do you need a secret phrase to lay seige to a castle?
• 'had all been removed by 1770.' sounds better to me
• 'comprising of'?
• 'and by 1805 George Street, King Street and Union Street opening.'? do you mean opened? why are these streets noteworthy?
• 'a fine granite arch' NPOV? or is this granite that isn't coarse?
• 'second largest granite building in the world.' citation? what is the largest? in fact there aren't any citations in this or the religion section.
• 'Crossing the cities other river'?
• The Norwegian wikipedia link implies it is a featured article but this doesn't seem obvious from the article itself. JMiall 23:11, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

thanks for taking a look at this article. I have added a copyedit tag to the page (my English isn't the best :P ) I haven't had time to make any changes yet but after the weekend I will put the suggestions for the first few paragraphs into place. I have also shared these suggestions with other people working on the article so they will prove invaluable. Bobbacon 15:33, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

• Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, APR _t 22:39, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

• There's quite a lot of one sentence paragraphs in some of the lower sections of the article ie Transport, Politics and Sport. Would it be possible to maybe expand some of these, or knit these one sentence paragraphs together? To give one example: "There are five major roads in and out of the city the A90, A96, A93, A92 and the A947." maybe you could say what directions they head in, which places they connect to Aberdeen to etc, just to give that little bit more information. Globaltraveller 19:41, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments, your suggestions have been implemented with one-sentence paragraphs moved to put them in single paragraphs knitted together and extra information added to each of the three sections mentioned. Further information for transport with directions have also been added. Do you have any other suggestions I can implement? Bobbacon 12:32, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

I have carried on and read the rest of the article. Personally I think that this is a really good article (and much improved from 3 weeks ago) but it still needs work before it is ready for FA on the copyediting/brilliant prose side

Some more specific points (apologies if you have already changed any of these - I was reading yesterday's version):

• Use of terms like recent, recently, lately, today - if possible can these be written to use terms like 'in the early 21st century', 'as of 2007' or even missed out altogether. How does the reader know when that bit of text was written?
• 'but the city ranks only a poor fourth in Scotland for shopping' - citation? why poor fourth?
• majour?
• Is the first paragraph in the education section important? If Aberdeen has 2 universities then you would expect more students in the area than nationally. Also can the word 'Educationally' be dropped?
• 'In 2001 it UK census records'?
• Don't start a new paragraph with 'it'
• 'which have 49% of residences'? do you mean 'which comprise'?
• Can the Performing arts section be rewritten so there isn't so much information in brackets and the Lemon Tree link be put at the 1st mention of this venue.
• 'For those looking for a less flower orientated experience then Hazlehead Park is the place to go' - this is straight out of a guidebook. Rewrite. Some references in this paragraph wouldn't go amiss either.
• Why does the Doric Festival get a direct link in the text? Can this not go in external links?
• Short paragraphs in the media section.
• 'and has enjoyed success on all levels from North District to international' - what is North District? JMiall 22:44, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your suggestions, I have been taking a bit of wikibreak right now which is why I have taken time to get back to you. I will be integrating your suggestions soon- I have found that after working on an article for some time I start to read what I think is there as opposed to what is there and I stop noticing the small problems; so I am taking an Aberdeen break so I can look at it with fresh eyes again! Bobbacon 15:07, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

As of 14th May 2007, all suggestions to this date have been implemented and this peer review is now closed. Bobbacon 12:22, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Aberdeen Peer Review 2

Closed (with no interest) on 06/08/2007 Bobbacon

Since the first peer review on 21/02/2007, a lot has been changed particulalry the formatting, style and prose has been vastly improved. As with any article the eventual aim is FA status, I think the current B status could be improved. Thanks, Bobbacon 09:08, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Linux

(Previous Peer review attempt)

I came across this excellent article about Linux operating systems, and I was surprised to see that it is not a featured article. After some investigation, I find that it was a candidate twice before. The last time was over a year ago. I think that a few experts in this field could bring this article up to featured status. [Disclaimer: I have not made any significant changes to the article.] Axl 11:47, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

• I did a fair amount of translating from the French Linux page since about Feb. 8th. That work is still not complete, but basically I've made it up to the gaming section. After that, copyediting needs to be done, and references need to be cleaned up as well. I would like to move the interface and applications sections above philosophy, and then distributions above philosophy. I would like to know if anybody has any ideas for additional topics that need to be covered; the remaining sections on the French page are servers, security, and different embedded/supercomputer/cluster systems. I think a good plan is to get everything that the Linux article possibly needs to say in there, and then organize a little and probably split out some daughter pages (currently the page is pushing 70kb), and then write a proper lead section. There is a to do list on the article page, if you have ideas feel free to add them to that list. I think trying to rush for featured status is not the best idea, but that is definitely the goal I'm working towards. In the past few months this article has been very controversial with lots of arguments on the talk page. Chris Pickett 16:18, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
• I agree with Chris that more work is needed. Mike92591 20:09, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

• Okay, thanks for your comments, guys. Axl 12:52, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

• Citations aren't consistent. Chunks of the article remain completely uncited as well. -- Ash Lux ^{(talk | contribs)} 20:08, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

• Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, APR _t 22:39, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

AnonEMouse

It's thorough, but not good enough for FA. Much of the article is written from a pro-Linux POV. It minimizes or outright avoids criticisms, such as of the Linux copyright, from philosophical (viral licenses, instability, many forks causing incompatibility and non-standardization, perceived security issues from openness) to outright legal attacks from SCO, of usability, costs, support issues, such as from Microsoft-associated studies, the high learning curve, and the "friendly rivalries" from the various flavors of BSD Unix, which are still criticisms, whether aiming for more stability, or more security, or whatever. If you want this to be an FA, you need to be more thorough, and more balanced.

• Cite the citation neededs, there are a lot.
• n 1997 the case was settled.[38] - settled how, please?
• Copyright section needs something on the SCO controversy. That was a big deal not long ago, and had to do with copyright, it's mentioned a bit above, but shallowly.
• year 2000 U.S. dollars - link per WP:$
• Mumble something about Torvalds being in the US now. What fraction of Linux work comes from US/Finland/other sources? What fraction of Linux use is in the US/Europe/where?
• The whole Philosophy section, several subsections, has almost no inline citations. For example, first paragraph, it should be trivial to cite the C&B, and the GPL.
• adhere to POSIX, SUS, ISO, and ANSI standards where possible - not strictly true - it's always "possible", that's the point of having such standards. I understand that some places they haven't gotten to it yet, others they specifically didn't, because they thought they could do better
• numerous independent studies and articles which indicate that a modern Linux desktop using either GNOME or KDE is on par with Microsoft Windows - blatant POV. There are also plenty of studies that indicate that it isn't, mention them as well.
• Although lack of application support is often cited as a reason to use Windows over Linux, compatibility layers ... little additional effort - more blatant POV, while we do need to say about the existence of compatibility layers, this phrasing sounds like we are making excuses.
• Mention that it is the main rival to Windows, and Microsoft's actions against it: comparison studies above, the Halloween documents, Microsoft/SCO relationship, Microsoft support for Apple...

--AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 15:58, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Belarus

previous PR

List of Pennsylvania state parks

This is a complete list of all current 120 state parks in Pennsylvania, and has shorter lists of all known major name changes for these parks, as well as all known former parks. While the list is complete, not all details have been filled in yet, however it is nearly complete and the thought was enough information was present to allow peer review. We would especially like input on the references (should the one list of current parks be used instead of the 120 separate refs for each park's official web site)? We also would appreciate input on the pictures. Since the table is 95% of the possible width, there is not room for pictures in it. We have instead used galleries to show thumbnail images of 16 parks in four groups of four throughout the list, with one panorama. We hope to nominate this as a Featured List. Thanks in advance for all input, Dincher, Ruhrfisch and VerruckteDan 18:01, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

• Very complete good job. --evrik ^(talk) 20:13, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Thanks very much - do you have any thoughts on one ref vs 120 for the current parks or the list using galleries of images? Ruhrfisch 20:43, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
• Comment: I would love to see {{State parks of Pennsylvania map}} incorporated into the {{Protected Areas of Pennsylvania}} template, similar to {{National parks of the United States}}. Nationalparks 21:33, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
  • That's a good idea. I wish I knew how to do it. Do you? How about you Ruhrfisch? This would be a lot of work. There are many protected areas in PA that are not state parks and therefore not on the locator map. Dincher 01:45, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
    • I think I can do it, but I am also concerned that there are many other protected areas (state forests, scenic rivers, national parks and a national forest) which would make the map even more crowded, and in the cases of the state and national forests and rivers are not easily represented by one dot. I am not sure if I could do it just for the state parks section of the template? May I suggest that further discussion of this idea be moved to Template talk:Protected Areas of Pennsylvania as it is not really concerned with the peer review of the List of Pennsylvania State Parks? Thanks, Ruhrfisch 05:38, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

      I moved the discussion there, but {{Protected Areas of Pennsylvania}} template is not a nav box (it is a very fancy wikitable) so my kluge idea of pasting from {{National parks of the United States}} and tweaking won't work. Maybe VerruckteDan can do this - he made the Pennsylvania Protected Areas template. Ruhrfisch 05:49, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

• Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, APR _t 00:13, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Thanks very much for the suggestions. Here is our response: 1) a third paragraph has been added to the lead section; 2) the wikilinked map of all state park locations in Pennsylvania is the free image in the top right corner; 3) see rest of peer review for gallery usage thoughts; 4) no infobox known 5) suggested use of summary style is probably caused by article length, but list can't be split or broken off and much of the length is due to 120 refs for the current state parks. Thanks, Ruhrfisch 21:18, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

• Overall looks remarkably comprehensive and well-constructed. The placement of pictures looks good -- I don't see any reason to change it. Regarding the refs: To me it seems more sensible to use the list since including each individual link takes up a lot of space. But that's just a personal preference. -- bcasterline • talk 07:07, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Thanks very much - cutting out the individual references would also cut down the size somewhat, but I think we may wait and see what they say at WP:FLC. The reason we are concerned about galleries is that they are frowned on (though not absolutely forbidden) in featured content (see Wikipedia:Galleries). We tried making a table of 4 images side by side but it didn't look as nice as the gallery. Thanks again, Ruhrfisch 14:33, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

User:IvoShandor

At a glance:

• First off I must say, this is quite the impressive list. To weigh in on the references I would say there is no need to have 120 of the same agency. Is there a page that contains a directory of links to all PA state parks? That would be a good, single reference. You could even write a little explanation in the footnote. I don't think it is necessary or desirable to have a list of references as long as this article's is, it essentially becomes a link directory which Wikipedia is explicitly not.
  • Thanks so much for your helpful comments and edits. I will reply point by point if that is OK. The very first reference in the article is an alphabetic list of all 120 state parks from their official website and would be a fine substitute for the 120 separate reference links. Ruhrfisch 15:49, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
• The map kind of looks like it has the measles. Just a thought.
  • The map is wikilinked - each dot is clickable and takes you to the article for the park it represents. Should this be made explicit in the caption? The map is based on the similar one (with fewer dots) for List of areas in the National Park System of the United States. Ruhrfisch 15:49, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

• Yeah. That's cool, I had no idea. That makes the map a great thing.IvoShandor 15:55, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

• It would be cool if there were some way to incorporate useful images into the table, just my opinion, I suppose some folks don't like that. Is there a page on Commons related to PA state parks? Could make use of {{commons}}, could create one if you wanted. I know there are a bunch of images of Kinzua Creek and the Allegheny Forest region here, don't know if they apply to any of the parks but there are probably lots of images over there, what I am saying is a link to commons would be neat : )
  • We thought about incorporating the images into the table, but there were two major issues that led us to decide against doing so. First the table is already pretty full with all the information and there is not really room for images too. Second most of the park articles do not currently have images (only 27 of 120 parks have images taken in the park - more have general images), so that would leave a lot of blank areas in the table and a few pictures. Almost all of the pictures used in the state park articles are at User:Dincher/Groundhog (a few have been added to articles since, but are not there I can update it if you want). There are only ten parks with pictures I know of that are not on this list already, eight of which are on Groundhog. We tried to pick images that were typical and looked good in thumbnail and no more than 2 images from a given park. Ruhrfisch 15:49, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

• I figured there was probably a good reason.IvoShandor 15:55, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

• One more comment: Might want to think about thumbnailing the images into galleries using <gallery>, nifty rows of four and space for captions too. I just think it looks more orderly.IvoShandor 14:52, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
  • The images in the list already use gallery tags (4 galleries, with only 4 images in a row for each gallery). The reason we are concerned about galleries is that they are frowned on (though not absolutely forbidden) in featured content (see Wikipedia:Galleries and the semi automated peer review comments above). Ruhrfisch 15:49, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

• Ah. Sounds good, sorry about that one, didn't really look.IvoShandor 15:55, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

More in depth (prose) (some changes too, which you may take or leave):

• Intro:

• I changed the first line to read: in the U.S. state of Pennsylvania.
• Inserted sentence break.
• Minor copy editing (did some myself).

• Overview'

• Minor copy editing (did some myself).
• This sentence: ... and the uniquely named Kings Gap Environmental Education and Training Center)...

• Not sure this makes much sense here, perhaps to Pennsylvanians but I don't really see anything unique about the name

• NPOV

• I am probably the most nitpicky person in the world on this stuff but . . . Seven parks are undeveloped with no facilities, although the last four of these are in the process of being developed

• The word 'although' makes it sound like the article is implying that "developed" somehow means better.

• This sentence: Five state parks are basically small picnic areas

• Seemed pretty subjective, should provide evidence.

• Heh. "Pennsylvania state parks offer millions of visitors each year: over 7,000 family campsites, 286 cabins, nearly 30,000 picnic tables, 56 major recreational lakes, 10 marinas, 61 beaches for swimming, 17 swimming pools, over 1,000 miles of trails and much, much more"

• That really shouldn't be in the article as a direct quote, paraphrase.

Hope that helps. Like I said, you can take or leave my changes, which I mostly noted above. The other stuff I shall leave for you to toy with, or not. Good luck with the list, it's very comprehensive and useful.IvoShandor 14:39, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

• Thanks again and for your speedy replies above already. I will reply to the all the prose suggestions here. I like almost all your copyedits and fixed the one error (added are, needed after sentence break: "The remaining nine are operated in cooperation with other public and private organizations.").

  The seven undeveloped parks was an attempt to contrast the two kinds of undeveloped parks - three with no plans for future work, four being made into developed parks (like the other 113). How about "Although seven parks are undeveloped with no facilities, the last four of these are in the process of being developed." or "Seven parks are currently undeveloped with no facilities: the last four of these are in the process of being developed."?

  The five picnic area parks are in the Overview section, so the size of each is given in the list (these are five of the seven smallest parks - other two are Hyner View and McCalls Dam, also 10 acres or less) and each is noted as a day use picnic area in its remark in the list (the evidence is also in the wikilinked articles and 120 references ;-) ).

  Could you be more explicit about why the quote is bad? How about using part of it (just the data, not so rah-rah)? Maybe this is better: According to the DCNR, Pennsylvania's 120 state parks have "over 7,000 family campsites, 286 cabins, nearly 30,000 picnic tables, 56 major recreational lakes, 10 marinas, 61 beaches for swimming, 17 swimming pools, [and] over 1,000 miles [(1,600 km)] of trails".[5]? Thanks again for all your helpful comments! Ruhrfisch 16:19, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

• P.S. If we get rid of the 120 parks refs, what about the ones that are cited twice (for history like name changes usually)? Ruhrfisch 16:24, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

It was the "much much more" part, it made it seem like a travel brochure. As for the other ones sorry I missed that, I get pretty excited when I am editing sometimes, its quite the hobby. Glad to have helped. : )

IvoShandor 16:25, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

You could take or leave the cites there, I mean if someone wanted to they could easily poke around the PA website and find what they needed to confirm it. Remember if its verifiable it's good and I would say that probably satisfies the criteria, IMO. Have to say I would just lose the word although altogether, heh, because now it makes it seem like "undeveloped" is better. : )IvoShandor 16:29, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

• • Thanks yet again, I fixed the quote, labeled the map, cut out "although" (for undeveloped) and "basically" (for picnic areas), and added "major" to the Army Corps dams parks as Frances Slocum's small dam was built by the Corps, but does not seem to be operated by them now. Ruhrfisch 16:48, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Sounds great. I love being able to find a peer review request that I am truly interested in. I make regular trips to PA and have visited a couple of state parks out there. Good luck with the list, I think it has the potential to be a featured list.IvoShandor 16:51, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

---

Thanks for all input here at Peer Review. List of Pennsylvania state parks is now a featured list candidate here: Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Pennsylvania state parks. All input is greatly appreciated, Dincher, VerruckteDan, and Ruhrfisch 01:06, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Aeschylus

Just had major overhaul. Needs overall comments towards FA criteria. - Mocko13 18:13, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

• I did not forget you Mocko13! I'll review the article during the weekend.--Yannismarou 20:06, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

• Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, APR _t 00:13, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Review by Awadewit

This is a very good article; it was a pleasure to read. Here are my suggestions as you work towards FA.

• There are quite a few sentences that de-emphasize their subject matter through awkward phrasing, wordiness or clause placement. Here are some examples:

His contributions to the art of drama include expanding the number of characters in plays from one to two, which allowed conflict and interaction between characters rather than limiting plays to dialogue between one character and the chorus. - Could you foreground his contribution in the sentence? For example, "He expanded the number of characters to allow for conflict between them; previously, characters interacted only with the chorus." (something like that)

Aeschylus' life and career took place in the context of the Persian invasion of Greece, which influenced the subject matter of many of his works. - "in the context of" sounds awkward to me. Which part of the sentence is most important? I have a feeling you want to emphasize that his works are about the Persian invasion, but this is only a secondary emphasis; try reworking for emphasis.

There followed a second competition of five comedic playwrights like Aristophanes, and the winners of both competitions were chosen by a panel of judges. - awkward - what do you want to emphasize?

The theme of the gods interfering in human affairs, and placing them in difficult situations, continues in Seven Against Thebes (Hepta epi Thebas), which was performed in 467 BC. - awkward opening phrase, particularly because the previous paragraph emphasizes that The Persians is about human events

Its tragic story of a war between Thebes and Argos also marks the first known appearance in Aeschylus' work of a theme which would continue through his plays, that of the polis (the city or citizenship) as the highest development of human civilization. - awkward and wordy - what do you want to emphasize?

• one of these plays, Prometheus Bound, is sometimes thought not to be the work of Aeschylus - While attribution issues are important, I do not think this one belongs in the lead.
• The young Aeschylus began writing a tragedy as soon as he woke, and his first performance took place in 499 BC, when he was only 26 years old. - "as soon as he woke" is awkward
• After fifteen years, his skill was great enough to win a prize for his plays at Athens' annual City Dionysia, a festival dedicated to Dionysus. - awkward
• There is a sudden switch from playwriting to fighting in the middle of the "Life" section. Could you transition between the two, perhaps by giving us a bit of historical background? Did Aeschylus have to give up playwrighting to defend his country or something like that?
• This pivotal defeat of the Persian King Darius' invading horde by the outnumbered soldiers of the Greek Delian League ended the first Persian invasion of Greece proper and was celebrated across the city-states of Greece. - what is an "invading horde" exactly? Perhaps that phrase should go.
• However, the glory was tempered for Aeschylus personally when his brother was killed in the battle. - awkward - how about "However, the victory was bittersweet for Aeschylus because his brother was killed in the battle" (or something like that).
• The crushing Athenian victory over the Persian fleet at Salamis was to become the subject of The Persians, his oldest surviving play, which was performed in 472 BC and won first prize. - won first prize at the Dionysia?
• Aeschylus traveled to Sicily once or twice in the 470s BC, having been invited by Hieron of Syracuse, a major Greek city on the eastern side of the island. - it almost sounds like Hieron is a major Greek city
• Sometimes you write Eumenides and sometimes The Eumenides.
• I think you could say a little more about the themes of Agammemnon. At least a sentence or two. In fact, I think that the plays get short shrift in general. Maybe a little subsection on each play (there are only seven) with quotations? In particular, could you say more about Prometheus Unbound?
• Pick an italicization scheme - are tetralogies italicized or not? You are inconsistent. Also, all play titles should be italicized.
• Aeschylus added a second actor, such that the actors themselves could have conflicts and engage in dialogue, while the chorus took less immediate a role. - awkward
• Your notes are not all formatted the same way. Also, I do not think it is necessary to write "page". It is more customary to simply include the author's name and the page number.
• In your references, please include commas after the editors' names and before "ed" and since you have decided to include the place of publication, you should probably include it for all of the references for the sake of consistency.
• I would think about removing these "External Links": IMDB list of films based on Aeschylus (you don't talk about pop cultural representations anywhere else); Schlegel, August Wilhelm, Lectures on Dramatic Art and Literature, 1809 (just link from note), Selected Monologues by Aeschylus on Monologue Search (particularly this one, since you have to join to view) Awadewit 02:09, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Yannismarou

Nicely done. These are my suggestions for FAC:

• "As soon as he woke from the dream, the young Aeschylus began writing a tragedy, and his first performance took place in 499 BC, when he was only 26 years old.[4][3]" I think it is nicer if the notes are in the right order ([3][4]). Now, you can also avoid having citations in a row by combining them. See various ways of combining citations in Tourette syndrome, Battle of Edson's Ridge etc.
• "The trilogy consists of Agamemnon, The Liberation Bearers (Choephoroi), and The Eumenides." Be careful with the wikilinks. In this sentence, for instance, instead of linking to the article (the section of another article to be accurate) about the play "Agamemnon", you linked to the mythological king. I fixed these links, but, in general, be careful with all these often confusing wikilinks.
• I would like a more detailed analysis of his artistic traits and his literary importance. Why is he regerded as the greater ancient playright? What are the characteristics that make his art sublime? How did he influence Roman theatre, and did he even influence Shakespeare and other dramatists of this era? Has his work influenced the Western culture and theatre from Renaissance and afterwards? I think that questions like these ones could find some answers in the article.
• You cite no primary sources. This may be a personal preference, but I think that secondary sources should supplement and co-exist with primary ones. But in Hippocrates, I had a similar argument presented, and the editor explained to me with solid arguments his choice to focus on just secondary sources. But, at least, we should know how do we know all this stuff about his life: who wrote down, and who transmitted this biographical information to the next generations, and to modern historical times? How do we know that he lived and did all these things while living?
• Another question you would like maybe to answer in the article: who saved his works? Thanks to whom we have the chance to read his plays, and to know that Aeschylus is the person who wrote them? How did these masterpieces pass from one generation to the next one?--Yannismarou 18:25, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

To back up what Yannismarou has said, the article needs a critical analysis of Aechylus' work as a whole. Indeed the section on Influence over Greek culture should be expanded to cover his influence on drama and the theatre as a whole. Certainly a section on Aeschylus' reputation through the ages would be most helpful (something like Shakespeare's reputation). Otherwise, this is a marvelous start to a very important article! I'm a theatre person and I would be most willing to help if you need it. I do have access to a fairly good academic library so I have access to some sources you may not have. Let me know if I can help. *Exeunt* Ganymead | Dialogue? 17:56, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

The Devil Wears Prada

This is my first venture here with an article I created ten months ago and have done about 99% of the work on since. I have thoroughly researched it, cited everything I possibly could, saw the movie when it came out and then rented the DVD, and this is the result: the most comprehensive source of information on this film anywhere on the Internet.

This is the first step toward taking it to what I hope will be eventual featured status. I have carefully watched other peer reviews here, FAC noms for film both successful and unsuccessful, and GA noms, to see what expectations we have for film articles. I believe this article meets them.

The only issue I would see people having: It's long. At 86K, it is the longest article on Wikipedia about a single film, in fact.

But that is not due to unintended cruftiness (I promised on the talk page to-do to avoid a trivia/miscellanea section and I did). There is just an unusual amount of information out there (again, I think I set a record for most footnotes in a film article (which, I understand, don't count for an article's length, so that might help). Consider that the DVD's commentary track features the writer, producer, director, editor, cinematographer and costume designer all talking about the things you'd want for a Wikipedia film article: their creative decisions and why they made them. Then the deleted scenes have the director and editor talking about why they deleted them. Then there's all sorts of interviews and press coverage, quite a bit of it online, some of which I discovered in the course of doing the research. And, again, a great deal of it relevant and useful.

I have let this mostly sit for a month after I finished most major work on it (and until after the Oscars) while I took a break and worked on other stuff. I am proudest of my work on this of anything I have done on Wikipedia so far. Let me know what you think. Daniel Case 03:56, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Crzycheetah

Comment Wow, I am really stunned at the length of the article. After skimming through the article, I have found several minor things I didn't like.

• Image:Anhathaway.jpg should be moved to the right side so that the first four bullets of the Characters section could be seen.
  • I put it there (or, well, someone else did) because I tend to believe very strictly in alternating images from side to side for readability's sake, as it mirrors the sweep of our eyes across the page.

    But at the time it was placed, it was a lot closer to the infobox. That doesn't apply now.

• Image:Stanley Tucci in DWP.jpg should be moved down to the Cast section.
  • Will do. It was placed there before things got so long.
• {{wikiquote}} should be moved down to the External links section.
  • I had that there because it's next to the writing section and to give the readers' eyes a break from what was a long block of text. I'll move it, but I may have to get another image, which will have to be fair use.
• Commercial, Critical, and Local marketing subsections of International section should be merged under International section. In other words, get rid of those subsections by putting the info under International section.
  • Good idea.
• 2006 in film link should be removed from See also section, since it's already linked in the lead.
  • Someone else put it there. I thought it had something to do with project guidelines; didn't make sense to me and I'll take it out.
• Citation #42 should be fixed.
  • Yes, someone else moved a reference to the intro without bothering to fix the followups. I hate when that happens. At some point we'll have to make it a blockable offense :-).
• Image:The Devil Wears Prada DVD cover.jpg should be under DVD section.
  • I have it where it is so it displays the way it does. I can move it, and will, but if it becomes necessary to move it back to the left again I'll put it back above so it doesn't cut the hed off from the text. I hate when that happens; it looks ugly.
• Question: what does ibid mean in your references?
  • Same thing as in everyone else's references.

That's all from me for now. I am sure others will give you more help in improving this article. Crzycheetah 23:39, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Thank you very much. These were helpful suggestions. Very good to have another pair of eyes on it. Daniel Case 04:45, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Wiki-New

Let me just congratulate on the effort, and for not letting a film you like that could be forgotten in a decade's time not happen. So, effectively you need to make more use of summarising.

• Plot: Are you sure you can't squash down things, or connect elements together better so as to feel less than a retread?
  • Believe it or not, someone else felt it wasn't detailed enough and added more. Are you looking at today's version? This was the way it was before today ... I had worked on getting it down to less than a thousand words before submitting it here. Think we should go back to the shorter version? I do.

Indeed, cut it down. WikiNew 13:23, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

• Differences from book: Does anyone care if Andrea isn't blonde? I suggest keeping the most important information, such as Lily's character. What do you think are the most startling changes? Looking at the writing section, you could merge some information together as to why there were done, so as to not be so listy.
  • The hair info could certainly go ... a few weeks ago I decided that some anon's addition of the twins' hair being red in the movie and blonde in the book was waaaaay too trivial to be in the article, particularly since their role is even smaller in the movie. I just followed the examples I saw in other recognized film articles, where that level of detail was given.

    Certainly the changes to the ending, Lily and the other main characters are significant are important and should stay.

Well good luck with that. Structurally it'd be best to walk through the plot and describe the differences. WikiNew 13:23, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Would it? If I'm reading a section headed "Synopsis", I want to read a précis of the plot, not a précis constantly interrupted by explanations as to how the book was different. That would work when there's minimal differences between the two; not here.

Besides, many other recognized articles about films based on books have this separate section describing the differences (see V for Vendetta and The Lord of the Rings. Although, now that I think of it, I could probably prosify it, which could shorten things up.

• The Production could lose a lot of sectioning. Axe storyboards information: trivial at best, the only notable thing it's used for is mostly big budget and Spielberg's films.
  • Fine. Frankel says it on the commentary like it was a pretty significant decision (maybe it is in TV, which is where he's done most of his work).
  • A caveat on losing the sectioning: If during a later review a consensus emerges to restore such sectioning (I did it in response to common complaints on FAC ... I created {{subsections}} for a reason), I will do it. Daniel Case 06:09, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
• All quotes need to be boiled down to a few sentences.
  • You mean quotes from the movie? It doesn't really have that. You mean other people's quotes? I do think (perhaps it's my journalism background) that having someone's actual quote as a way of explaining something is better than some interpretation you might write.

    Or do you mean the long quotes?

Long quotes regarding the making of the film, such as the one at the end of the costuming. WikiNew 13:23, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Can do on that one.

• Locations is a list. Try writing it in as a timeline of when things happened. Look at my work on Jurassic Park (film).
  • I looked at that, and there is no source that describes what they were doing on what date that I could use that way, the way you used that "making of" book. The locations, as cited, all come from the DVD commentary, where they're sort of just tossed off. Under those circumstances, I can't see how you could do them as anything but a list. Daniel Case 00:39, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
• Surprisingly well needs to be deleted from Reception opening paragraph.
  • I do think someone said that its box-office performance was surprising (an early summer chick flick was not supposed to gross almost as well as, say, Superman Returns did. And it had legs, particularly overseas. Perhaps I should cite that?

Indeed.

It's in one of the DVD reviews. I'll put it in.

• Nab critisism with Anna Wintour for overall look at the film as a satire.
  • Nab? Did you mean to use another word?

Yes, do merge to an overall section on the fashion industry's reaction. WikiNew 13:23, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

• Remove see also and references in other media, it's original research.
  • We have that for quite a few other film articles. What if it were cited (Most of it was added by other editors, anyway)? I can't see how someone explicitly referencing the film in an episode of Ugly Betty is original research.

It could be trivial and considered original research: WP:A says this isn't about what you notice. WikiNew 13:23, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

I looked over the style guidelines and, indeed, there are neither section. But let me just warn you that that sort of thing will likely be restored at some point, given the similarities between DWP and UB and the fact that they both succeeded.

Funny Face was a film mentioned in some of the reviews ... I suppose I can integrate it into the article. Ditto with the Glad ad, although I'd like to have a source for it, like whatwasthat.com (but it is the same music). Daniel Case 03:41, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

• Images: how often does the satanic shoe need to pop up?
  • Probably less, but since the article got as long as it did, I felt they were necessary to break up the text and make it easier on readers' eyes. Daniel Case 00:14, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Overall, very good work. Just needs to definitely be more readable before a GA. WikiNew 17:40, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

I have proposed to split off the production section (which accounts for more than a quarter of the article's total length) as a separate article on the talk page as a way of bringing the article into manageable length. If any reviewers have any thoughts on the idea (which might be a first as far as I can tell), bring them up there. Daniel Case 04:26, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Konstable

Just a brief comment (might add more later):

• You need to check your image details, a lot of the fair use ones are missing fair use rationales
• I think you are probably using too many images. They are mostly fair use so you should be limiting their use to only instances where they add to the content of the article significantly. For instance, the shoe image is repeated 4 times, different situations, but quite repetitive and probably not really necessary.

--Konstable 11:14, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

I know I put {{fair use rationale}} on all the screenshots or publicity stills (actually, they're all stills ... I really think those should have a separate licensing template to reflect that they are created and distributed by the film distributor, as opposed to user-created screenshots). While my original justification was that it demonstrated the iconic power of the image, I was aware that some people might see it as overkill and accordingly I'm ready to remove two of them ... probably the soundtrack and the teaser poster (the former is already in that article; the latter has just been kept since it was first used before the film's release).

It will also help to split off the production history section ... I think I'll keep Frankel and Streep there, and maybe Streep and Field since they're easier to justify as not having been part of the movie. Daniel Case 13:18, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Reagan assassination attempt

Requesting feedback about the coding of the footnotes, the newspaper articles used as citations, overall flow of the article (should be primarily chronological, with some exceptions). --Wasted Sapience 06:45, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Will.i.am

The lead into the "Background" is great. I meant to skim it briefly, but as soon as I read that Hinckley tried to assassinate a president because of Jodie Foster I was totally hooked. Here's a few comments:

1. You might rename "Background" to "Motivation", which is more informative.

 Done

1. I don't think you need the extra bold headings under "Ambush outside hotel", they broke up some flow for me and are unnecessary.
2. How did Hinckley get in this crowd outside the hotel? Did he require special access or was it open? (Just curiosity.)

I believe it was an open area. --Wasted Sapience 21:36, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

1. It was loaded with six Devastator bullets, designed to explode on impact, though all failed to do so: - you don't need the first comma, and the colon at the end should be a period (nothing in the sentence leads us into the list that follows).
2. The "Bullet"[ed?] list. - lists (I feel), almost always detract from the flow. All these sentences could be arranged in a paragraph to the same effect.

 Done

1. Some sentences are rather short and choppy, for example: Hinckley was quickly subdued by the Secret Service. The entire incident was captured on video by several television reporters. Upon capture, Hinckley famously asked his arresting officers whether that night's Academy Awards ceremony would be postponed due to the shooting. It was indeed postponed to the next evening. - How about "The entire incident was captured on video by several television reporters, including the apprehension of Hinckley by the Secret Service. Upon capture, Hinckley famously asked his arresting officers whether that night's Academy Awards ceremony would be postponed due to the shooting, and indeed it was — it aired the next evening." Or similar.

 Done

1. He subsequently recovered quickly - no "subsequently" necessary.

 Done

1. The second two paragraphs of "I'm in control here" were difficult for me to interpret. The second paragraph seems to imply that power would go to the vice president. The third seems to imply that the transfer is not automatic. (1) I'm not sure the rules of presidential succession are relevant to this article (you already have a link to it), and (2) it confused me more than informed me. I guess I would remove the third paragraph and let people explore the details on their own.
2. as of January 2007. can be wikilinked just to the word 2007 (which is what it redirects to).
3. Footnotes 27,28, and 33 should be moved to follow their sentences' punctuation.

 Done All footnotes should now follow punctuation. --Wasted Sapience 02:01, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

1. as a result, the U.S. Congress, and a number of states, rewrote the law regarding the insanity defense. - the last two commas are unnecessary.
2. As a personal preference, I might take the sentences about the police officers recovering, as well as Brady's injury and move them into aftermath. They really don't have too much to do with "the shooting" (after they were shot that is).

 Done

1. See also section: Why is Tip O'Neill listed? I looked through that page and reread the article trying to figure out why and still don't have an answer. Also, how about adding some other notable assassination attempts to this list?

 Done I don't think other notable assassination attempts apply as each attempt is an isolated case. --Wasted Sapience 21:46, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Your preference. But I normally don't think of the See also section for things that apply to the article (those will be linked at some point in the article itself). I think of it more as a "other customers who bought this might also be interested in..." section. For example, List of United States Presidential assassination attempts would cover a lot of bases.--Will.i.am 09:17, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Great article so far. Good luck!--Will.i.am 05:23, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

User:A mcmurray

At a glance I noticed the following:

• Thoroughness: I believe Reagan was much more gravely injured than was implied at the time of the attempt. More research may be required to give an accurate description of the events as they happened not as they were described at the time.
• Lead: should be expanded to conform to WP:LEAD
• Lists: convert the lists of bullets and conspiracy theories to prose. See WP:EMBED.

 Done The bulleted list about the bullets is now prose. --Wasted Sapience 00:09, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

• References: the footnotes section is probably unnecessary unless you plan to add a separate list of references. Some statement will also require citation. I will mark them with {{fact}} as notice them. Also need to be cleaned up. See {{citeweb}} for starters, the template may help, but you must include the date of retrieval for certain, at the very least
• External links: should most probably not be included in the body of the text, even as references. If they are citations, format them as such, if not lose them or move them to the external links section.

I can't believe you actually asked for that. If information came from those sites, why shouldn't they be references? --Wasted Sapience 00:05, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

• Section headlines: Remove article such as, 'the,' 'a,' or 'an' from the section headlines.

More in depth:

• 'Background': I added a couple of {{fact}} tags to this section. This second half of the following statement really looks like OR unless it is documented, verified and cited: 'He wrote numerous letters and notes to her in the fall of 1980.[citation needed] Convinced that a grand, sweeping gesture would be needed to gain her attention, Hinckley began to stalk then-President Jimmy Carter — his decision to target Presidents also likely inspired by Taxi Driver.'
• 'Ambush outside hotel': I didn't like the headline title, but brushing that aside. Lose the exact address of the Hilton Hotel, it's unencyclopedic.
  • 'The shooting': As noted before, lose the list and the article 'the' in the headline. Stub the red link. First reference to the ATF should probably read: United States (or U.S.) Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms and thereafter be abbreviated BATF.
  • 'Reagan taken to George Washington Hospital': Perhaps this section heading is a bit wordy. Then: 'He subsequently recovered quickly, despite being 70 years old, and was able to continue his presidential duties.' This statement is what I was referring to above in the thoroughness bit. Otherwise this is just POV cruft. Othewise that section looked pretty good, certainly pretty well written and well-referenced.
• '"I'm in control here"': These two paragraphs lacked references. They need to be attributed because they are making conclusions, otherwise it looks like original research.

Haig was accused of mishandling the situation and of misinterpreting the presidential line of succession (according to the Presidential Succession Act of 1947), since the Secretary of State is not in control when a President is incapacitated; this duty devolves to the Vice President of the United States (at that time, this was George H.W. Bush). However, Haig and his supporters maintain that the comment he made during the press conference, which in reality was "I'm in control here, now." merely ascertained his control over the situation until the Vice President could be contacted aboard Air Force 2.

As demonstrated by this assassination attempt, there was a popular misconception that the powers of the President automatically devolve to the Vice President in cases of a Presidential disability. However, according to the 25th amendment to the Constitution of the United States, this can only occur by written declaration by the President or by a majority of the principal officers of the Executive department (the Cabinet) with the Vice President in consent and said declaration delivered to the Senate President pro tempore and the Speaker of the House.'

• 'Aftermath': could probably use some expansion but overall pretty good. I did add several fact tags.
• 'Conspriacy theory': as said convert to prose and cite where needed. Good work not giving the conspiracy nuts much discussion.

Hopefully this wasn't too harsh. Anything I noted is meant to help and not harm nor insult. Good luck with the article. A mcmurray (talk • contribs) 08:07, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

References feedback

• See this comprehensive list of citation templates, it will help immensely with the citations.
• Also, try giving your references a name, especially those used more than once.

Like so: <ref name=bob>[http:/bob.com Bob's Home Page], "About Bob," [[4 January]] [[[2004]]. Retrieved [[18 March]] [[2045]].</ref>.

This way when you use a reference for a second time you simply have to type <ref name=bob/> to get the footnote for the full citation. It will be listed as individual letters next to the reference number, serving to combine your references and shorten your list.

• Additionally if ref lists get too long there is always {{reflist}} {{reflist|2}} or {{reflist|3}}, which are handy for creating columned reference lists.

Hope those tips help, I wish someone would have told them to me when I got here. ; ) A mcmurray (talk • contribs) 08:24, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

I've tried your referencing style with disastorous results. I'm not sure if anything you showed me could work because I have several newspaper articles by the same authors, and several sub-pages for Denise Noe. --Wasted Sapience 21:35, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Not sure what point you are trying to make, there are newspaper templates at the link above, any of the fields can be left blank.A mcmurray (talk • contribs) 22:44, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

I combined the refs in the hospital section as an example, I don't think it will be disastrous, it's much better.A mcmurray (talk • contribs) 22:50, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Did the same for one of the newspaper refs. I didn't use any of the templates though, I like to freehand it myself. The format for the newspaper one is pretty much correct, you want to link any full dates so user prefs work.A mcmurray (talk • contribs) 22:56, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Of course, if you only use a ref once it will have no affect on the list but they all need cleaned up, there isn't really enough info in the citations, especially for the websites, such as publications, dates, retrieval dates, all of that would be needed if this article were to ever have a chance at GA or FA.A mcmurray (talk • contribs) 23:05, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Hey, thanks man, the references area looks better now. --Wasted Sapience 00:12, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Tis no problem at all. Glad to help.A mcmurray (talk • contribs) 10:39, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Transformers (fiction)

I've fiddled with this article so much, and even moved it from "Transformers universes", referencing the comics/cartoons to give an overall understanding of this fictional multiverse, whilst simultaneously acting as an entry for a fictional species of alien robots. I think it should come under closer scrutiny from fans and non-fans alike here, as with the upcoming film I'd like this to be FA.

My questions are how to deal with more obscure comics, like from conventions, clubs, toy boxes or Japan, as well as enough language to make non-fans understand there is no canon. There are also questions over structure, such as a rough chronological approach like I'm doing now or analyzing each continuity tree. WikiNew 18:20, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Wow. Excellent out-of-universe style! --Masamage 03:14, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Liverpool F.C.

Hi all. I, and a few other regular contributors would like to see this article make Featured Article standard. It has been listed and recently delisted as a Good Article in the past, but rather than simply get that reinstated I think we should push on for FA.

I believe that there is enough good information here (perhaps too much?), so it's hopefully just a matter of tidying everything up. aLii 17:13, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

More references. Buc 22:15, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Any chance of quantifying that somewhat? 2 more? 200 more? In any particular areas of the article? Cheers, aLii 11:31, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Not a question of how many or where. You will not find "must have so many references" in the FA criteria. Anything that can not be easily verified, needs a reference. Buc 16:19, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

OK, well I'll look into adding some more references. From the point of view of a Liverpool fan it's much harder to tell what cannot be easily verified though. I'm sure that some things that I find obvious you'd want a reference for, cheers for looking though :) aLii 12:33, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Right I've gone through the article adding tags to where I think they should be, and I'll start finding some sources. I was wondering whether you could have a look over the article to see whether you agree with said tags. cheers, aLii 13:52, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

At a quick glance...

• “Liverpool Football Club are an English football club based in Liverpool, Merseyside, and one of the most famous football clubs in the world. They play at historic Anfield but will soon start work on a new 61,000-seater stadium approximately 200 metres away in Stanley Park, following the takeover of the club by American businessmen Tom Hicks and George Gillett.” Well, keep “Liverpool Football Club are an English football club based in Liverpool, Merseyside” at the top, drop the Anfield bit further down the lead but lose the “historic” and takeover bit. If the next paragraph came after the first sentence the reader would understand that it’s a big club. Also stick some stuff in the lead about when the club was founded, and possibly about rivalries and the fact the club are nicknamed the reds/wear read – the lead is meant to summarise the article.
• “Contrary to some popular opinion, Liverpool F.C. has strong roots in Protestantism rather than Catholicism. Several of the clubs early directors were connected to the Orange Order, including founder John Houlding and John McKenna. Liverpool F.C. also had strong connections to the Working Men's Conservative Association (WMCA), the political expression of the Liverpool Protestant Association.” That comes completely out if the blue. Why is it placed there, what popular opinion?
• I’m not sure you need any of the prose in notable players, just move it down underneath the squad and stick the links in there.

More later when I have more time... HornetMike 22:54, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Mike.. Ick... I hadn't noticed that religious bit had wormed its way into the article. I haven't been paying it anything like enough attention recently. I'll have a go at rewriting the lead too. aLii 12:33, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

• Thanks for the feedback on the article. I'll put my hand up to having made the prose notable former players section back last summer. If in the end the consensus is for it to go, then such is life, although I would defend it on the grounds that a) I prefer reading prose to lists, and think list after list makes an article clunky (highly subjective, I know) and b) it replaced a lengthy list of names which kept growing and growing with some bizzarre choices added (Antonio Nunez, anyone?), and which was very difficult to manage, to the point that the notable players section was just removed outright. I felt that it was really valuable to have a section on notable players, but that we needed something more structured that people couldn't just add to on a whim. This prose section has been stable since it was created in a way I think a list would not be. Robotforaday 19:43, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

The main issues look to be ones of referencing (as mentioned above) and copyediting. Considering the abundance of books about the club, it is suprising to see no books used as references. When I get time I'll give the article a light copyedit, and flag up any issues that arise as a result. Oldelpaso 22:28, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

It is a valid point, but football books aren't really my thing unfortunately. I've been kinda hoping that someone else could add that detail, but it's never happened. As it stands I'm going to try to find some time to add in some internet references. aLii 00:50, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Annoyingly my two main LFC history books are at my parents' house. I can go and get them in a couple of weeks, but in the meantime, there are some decent sources on the web, notably the brilliant LFCHistory.net. ArtVandelay13 19:19, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Book sources are always better than web. Buc 19:52, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

There seems to be a lot of POV stuff such as "he transformed Liverpool into one of the top club sides in Europe" "the partnership did not work out" and "thanks to goalkeeper Jerzy Dudek". Also I'm not sure about "Fagan's reign ended with tragedy the following season". I know it's obviously referring to the Heysel Stadium disaster and this is explained in the next paragraph. But it does seem very encyclopidic to refer to something before explaining what it is. Buc 19:49, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Having briefly run through it, copyediting the article so that the prose is FA standard will take quite a bit of work - overuse of certain words such as "however", a few run on sentences, the POV phrases Buc mentions above. It'll have to be taken sentence by sentence, and would be best done once the citations are out of the way as they could change the nature of quite a few sentences. A few other things I noticed:

• Why was the ecru infamous?
• Songs should only be mentioned if they have been established for a prolonged period (i.e. no We've won it five times)
• The notable players section has quite a few weasel words, particularly in the opening sentence.
• Given that the new stadium doesn't exist yet, it should only have a sentence or two rather than a section almost as long as Anfield's. Oldelpaso 21:53, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Have now cut the new stadium section down to just a couple of sentences rather than giving it its own section, as suggestion. Will work on the weasel words. As for the ecru... Robotforaday 22:45, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Pythia

Pythia has been placed on the list for Peer reviewed status, as I think it is of FA status now. Would like others to make a comment on how it could be possibly improved. John D. Croft 15:49, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Review by Awadewit

This is a very informative article and I greatly enjoyed reading it. Here are my suggestions as you move toward FA.

• I would suggest that you have the League of Copyeditors WP:LoCE go over this page or a trusted wikipedian copyeditor. There are many awkward, vague and grammatically-incorrent sentences. In general, the prose could be tightened up.
• Try to eliminate one-sentence paragraphs by either expanding the paragraph or integrating the sentence into another paragraph.
• To achieve FA status, you will more than likely need more sources. They seem to have a rule of thumb of at least one source per paragraph, but it is always better to over-source to protect yourself during the FAC process. You have an excellent list of references on the page, so I assume that adding the inline citations will only be a matter of time.
• Descending into her chamber, she mounted her tripod seat, holding laurel leaves and a cauldron of the Kassotis water into which she gazed. Nearby was the omphalos, the navel of Earth, flanked by the two golden eagles of Zeus, and the cleft from which emerged the sacred pneuma. - why is this a bulleted point?
• Although you direct the reader to the list of "Famous Oracular Statements", you might also include one or two examples in the article itself in case he or she doesn't bother to click.
• In the lead you mention that The oracle is one of the best-documented religious institutions of the classical Greek world. Writers who mention the oracle include Herodotus, Euripides, Sophocles, Plato, Aristotle, Pindar, Xenophon, Diodorus, Strabo, Pausanias, Plutarch, Livy, Justin, Ovid, Lucan, and Julian but you have very few quotations from these writers. Might you include a few more to add flavor to the article and to give the reader a sense of the ancient view of the Pythia?
• Is the Pythia important after the decline of Greek civilization? Does she have any social or cultural resonance that you could discuss? If not, you might discuss the demise of the worship of Apollo and the destruction of temple or something that would round out the narrative.
• Again, for FA status, small details like the following will have to be attended to: 1) The article must consistently be in either American or British English (I saw both); 2) The article must have a consistent citation style (I saw parenthetical and inline); 3) An effort must be made to rid the article of red-links (either by creating pages or de-linking); and 4) The bibliographic references must all be cited in the same style. Awadewit 03:57, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Armstrong numbers

skv_avenger 15:49, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

User:IvoShandor

• Needs badly cleaned up. (added tag)
• Needs wikilinks.
• Needs copyedit.
• Needs cats.
• References need to be formatted properly.
• Needs expansion, doesn't really provide context.
• Overall this article is a stub.
• I am assuming good faith as I know nothing about math.
• Changed article to redirect to Narcissistic number. Make sure you search before you create a new article.IvoShandor 16:04, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

IvoShandor 16:00, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

National Black Chamber of Commerce

I'm a new editior and have evolved a couple of other articles. This is the first one that I have made signficant changes to and for. Any constructive comments and criticisms are welcome. Thanks.LtlKty^{talk | contribs} 04:08, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

• Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, APR _t 00:13, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks!--LtlKty^{talk | contribs} 04:20, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

AnonEMouse

The article seems a bit bland, doesn't give interesting details on the organization.

• See Wikipedia:Manual of Style about using quotation marks rather than italics for quotes.
• If it's the US National ... how does it have chapters in Brazil, etc?
• "The official address can be found in the Articles of Incorporation on their website." Either give it or not, don't refer to something that can be spelled out in the same length.
• What's it actually do? Give some examples with citations. Surely some of its actual work has been described in sources.
• Who founded it? Why?
• Any controversies?
• What are its relations with other black organizations, other CoC's, etc?
• What are some notable businesses it helped, and how?
• Does it get involved in politics? How?
• The Sponsorship section doesn't seem worth its space. Can it be compressed? Don't compress until fleshing out the above, though. Also it's a bit vague: "may continue" "was scheduled to".
• Citation 4 seems to start with a period: '. "Exxon Mobil Corporation...'

--AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 16:15, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Thank you - I'll follow up on these--LtlKty^{talk | contribs} 17:11, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Myocardial infarction

I nominated this article for featured article status and peer review because of the exemplary contributions of the community medical editors and contributers in making this a premier medical source. The amount of information and organization is top notch. This is an excellent opportunity to show off our skilled health science pages. Before this article is ready for FA status I believe it might need some more skilled editing and refining. I will continue to work on this page myself but please make any contributions you can! I think the treatment and first aid sections need work. While this article has many good sources, sometimes they are not cited in the text as footnotes. Thank you! Scope2776 04:19, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Particularly useful peer review input would be the idea of non-medical specialists on the prose, specific sections that are too full with medicle mambo-jambo...--Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 15:39, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, some section have areas that are a bit loaded for the reader:

• Risk factors
• Histopathology

Overall pretty good; the style, formating and references are fine. Voice-of-All 18:30, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Instructions here at WP:PR say that articles which have been submitted to FAC should be removed from here: can you please archive this peer review? Thanks, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:49, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Pennsylvania Route 65

I've worked hard on this article so it could reach Good article status and I feel there's something missing. If someone would like to see the article, so can look for mistakes or tone please tell me. Thank You. -- JohnnyAlbert10 ^{Time to talk · My Help} 16:34, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

bcasterline

A couple things:

• In the intro: "...it is at-grade". What does that mean? Technical terms such as "concurrency" are also not clearly defined.
• "Route description" seems unnecessary, especially given the lists that follow. But maybe that's standard for highway articles.

I made some copyedits, but it might need some more. Otherwise looks good. -- bcasterline • talk 23:35, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

at-grade means not limited-access or road that's not a freeway but i can't find a synonym for at-grade. A concurrency is two or more roads that are joined together from certain point to another. All of this follows projects headlines especially the route description. -- JohnnyAlbert10 ^{Time to talk · My Help} 20:02, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Linking works just as well defining. I see concurrency had already been linked -- didn't notice that. -- bcasterline • talk 01:38, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

It's cool, anything else it needs to become a Good Article??? -- JohnnyAlbert10 ^{Time to talk · My Help} 1:06, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Daniel Case

Consider breaking up those overly long grafs in the route description sections ... it'll be easier on readers' eyes. Look at the sort of route descriptions I write for WP:NYSR: NY 52, NY 55, U.S. Route 9 in New York for example. Daniel Case 17:50, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Alright, i guess i'll break them up from place to place. Anything else? -- JohnnyAlbert10 ^{Time to talk · My Help} 13:35, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

My Concern

My concern is the route description. I don't think is written as well as it should be and the history should be checked followed by the references. My concern is that the references won't be reliable enough. Everything else looks great. -- JohnnyAlbert10 ^{Time to talk · My Help} 22:22, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

NE2

You're going to need some reliable sources rather than the personal websites. --NE2 23:15, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Round barn

This article could be more in depth in its coverage but I do think it covers a fairly obscure subject pretty comprehensively. Likely needs a copy edit or two, which I inevitably give articles as part of the peer review process. I love lots of feed back and don't hesitate to be bold. Also, if someone could assess the article on the talk page banner, that would be great. Thanks in advance.IvoShandor 15:44, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

User:Peteforsyth

Hi Ivo, I'm no expert on round barns, but I have something to point out. It seems to me that the page generally addresses a different architectural tradition than the one the Pete French Round Barn comes out of. The page features two photos of the Pete French barn (one by me ;), but the accompanying text describes different design and uses.

My understanding is that Pete French's barn was designed for horses, not cattle. There is one stable in the middle, and outside it is a circular track (covered by the roof, and partially enclosed by the outside wall) used to exercise horses in winter months.

I believe I read about this mostly on a plaque outside the barn, but may have also gotten some of the info from a Steens Mountain coffee table book. I'll try to look up a citation for this info.

All in all, a good article, but I think it would be good to address this point! -Pete 17:45, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

• You bring up a great point. I think this could be resolved by a little more research on my part. It is clear that the French Round Barn is different, though I suspect that some of the same structural work went into it. Which is where the research comes into play, if I can find out more about the building design of the French Round Barn and other round barns then the interior picture could help illustrate that. In addition, I suspect that the French Round Barn wasn't completely unique, in that there were probably other barn designs for round barns besides those prominent in the Midwest. More research will be required. Thanks for your input and additions to the article thus far. I think this may make a great GA when this is all said and done. IvoShandor 06:17, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

The Hudsucker Proxy

This is something of an underrated film even among fans of the Coen brothers. I think that the article is already off to a good start but I would like to improve it even more. Any helpful suggestions would be greatly appreciated. Count Ringworm 19:33, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

• Comment, you have an easy first step of fair use rationale for images.

I'd move the budget into production--at least the numbers if you think most expensive Cohen film at the time is important then keep that. But, I'd definitely make the intro probably two more fleshed out paragraphs and no hanging sentences like the Wheel of Fortune one. Like how Casablanca (film) does it. gren グレン 11:21, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for these suggestions. I'll give it a go. Count Ringworm 19:30, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

• Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, APR _t 22:38, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

AnonEMouse

• Lead is way too short. See WP:LEAD. One good suggestion from there is to include at least part of a sentence about every important section of the article.
• Why so much on the music in the lead? Was it that important in the movie? I recommend moving the music down into a section of its own. Was there a soundtrack released?
• first section, wikilink New Years Eve, Hula hoop, frisbee.
• Norville is chased down the street by an angry mob to the Hudsucker building - what made the mob angry?
• Moses stops the clock and time freezes - huh? Need to explain Moses's mystical powers a bit more. If he has divine powers, why does he have to fight Aloysius - or is Aloysius also more than human? Heck, what are M and A's motivations?
• goes on to "rule with wisdom" - rule what, the company? why the quote marks?
• action."[1]One - need a space after the ref
• Production - wikilink skyscraper, since it's so important
• While trying to sell their feature film debut Blood Simple, - be more specific, give a date
• the scale after Citizen Kane (1941).- in what sense is the scale based on a famous movie?
• it was a box office flop, grossing less than $3,000,000 in the US. - this needs to be moved after the test shootings text, don't you think? In fact, I'd move it all the way to Reaction.
• More reaction - this only describes immediate reaction, what about reaction over the last 15 years? Any more recent films based on it, any more recent reviews, retrospectives, references?
• References - the Retrieved on dates are red links, try again, maybe need leading 0s? Also some refs have double double quotes, as in ""A Rock on the Beach,"
• External links - describe the links more. Coenesque - isn't there a more specific subpage for this film?

--AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 15:38, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

JFK (film)

I think this article is well on its way to achieving a GA status and would like some help and/or comments speed up the process on this important film. Many thanks! Count Ringworm 15:13, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Comment Academy Awards section could be turned into prose. Also, get rid of the Trivia section. --Crzycheetah 01:15, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

I would like to see the intro expanded per WP:LEAD, candidate paragraphs would be about the box office and about the critical/historical controversy and reception, both of which are reasons this film is notable. Kaisershatner 14:41, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestions. I've made some improvements to the article based on your comments. Count Ringworm 20:51, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

It would be great if you could add a better distribution of sources, it looks like you use the same few for the inline citations. You should use some online resources, I'm sure you can find some more information there to include within the article. --Nehrams2020 07:32, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Obviously the reaction section is going to have to be worked on, I would eliminate all validity discussions related to the film's theories and redirect them to the relevant articles here on Wikipedia. Otherwise you're never going to get it to GA status. I'd just keep it to the critical reactions and not get too deeply into whether the theories are correct or incorrect, that's probably the only you'll be able to keep that section managebale. Quadzilla99 00:59, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Ipswich Town F.C.

I'd like the article to be reviewed from the perspective of the article being elevated to featured article - it's loosely based on the Arsenal F.C. article which is a current FA. All comments of any type are encouraged and more than welcome! The Rambling Man 18:12, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Comments by Elisson

• The article suffers from recentism. I understand that the history before turning professional might not be that interresting, but one single paragraph to cover 80 years of history (1878–1961), then three paragraphs for the next 30 years (1961–1994), and finally three long paragraphs for the next 10 years (1995–today) is not well balanced. Other than that, nothing major. Maybe incorporate the ownership section somewhere else (no separate section needed for that short text) and expand the intro somewhat (not necessary, but I would prefer it). – Elisson • T • C • 22:39, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

  Yes, I agree. We'll try to remedy this and I'll let you know when, in our opinion, we've fixed it! Cheers. The Rambling Man 08:05, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

  Agreed here too. The section is also too long, so I'll focus my hacking on reducing the most recent history. --Dweller 09:58, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

  • I've had a good hack at it. Along the way, I've got rid of some POV and tightened up some English. Any better? --Dweller 17:09, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Comments by Qwghlm

• Make sure you use the singular or plural consistently throughout the article.

  Hopefully covered, if not can you specify individual erroneous entries please? The Rambling Man 21:25, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

• "the top flight" should not be in quotemarks.

  Quotemarks destroyed The Rambling Man 21:02, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

• Some slightly clichéd phrases in the History section - "the writing was on the wall", "against all odds", "the end of season lottery" - which should be excised.

  "writing ... wall" and "...lottery..." dismissed, couldn't find the "...against all odds..." quotation, hopefully problem solved. The Rambling Man 21:08, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

• "The club was amongst the first exponents of goal nets, in 1890" - needs citation.

  Cited by club website The Rambling Man 21:13, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

• When was the original crest adopted? Was there anything used before that?

  Good question. I'll work on that one, I think we did have another crest before the 60s so more to come on that one. The Rambling Man 21:20, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

  • To do. --Dweller 18:07, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

    Done. The Rambling Man 18:25, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

• In the stadium section very short (one/two sentence) paragraphs should be merged into larger ones, as appropriate.

  Reflowed accordingly The Rambling Man 21:13, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

• "Although there is a certain amount of controversy surrounding this,..." is a bad way to start that sentence. Suggested alternative: "The origins of the nickname are not certain, but..."

  Done. The Rambling Man 21:15, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

• Addendum the external links could do with organising under subheadings; also the forums links should go under WP:EL and in the interests of NPOV the anti-Sheepshanks link should go as well.

  Okay, hopefully reorganised accordingly, but happy to take more precise advice on specifics. The Rambling Man 21:19, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Apart from that, the article is very good in my view; as well as the above it may need the odd minor copyedit or two before reaching FA status but that's all. Qwghlm 20:39, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Comments by Oldelpaso

• Its worth mentioning that Ipswich's feat of winning the league title in their first ever top-flight season is unique (aside from Preston in the first ever season of course)

  Indeed, and this may be lazy but can you help out with a decent citation that backs that up? Pretty please?! The Rambling Man 23:08, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

  • To do. --Dweller 18:07, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

    Well, this said it was "...a unique achievement at the time..." so perhaps someone has done it since? I'm leaving it out for now until we get a citation that backs Oldelpaso up. The Rambling Man 18:45, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Hmm. Finding something that states it explicitly is proving difficult, this RSSSF page comes closest. The phrasing used by the BBC article is inaccurate. Five newly-promoted teams have won the championship (Liverpool, Everton, Spurs, Ipswich and Forest) but only Ipswich were top-flight debutants. This can be determined by inspection, but as it stands we have no source saying it directly. Oldelpaso 20:05, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

• In discussing the "Tractor Boys" nickname, the phrase "it appeared that he was unaware of why the most vociferous of Town fans were referring to themselves as such" seems POVish.

  POV obliterated. The Rambling Man 23:07, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

• A little more about the club's attendances in a historical context would be useful.

  Yep, I don't have much time right now, but for anyone interested, check this out The Rambling Man 23:03, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

  • To do. --Dweller 18:07, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

    Graph added with average and peak attendances for every season from 1936 onwards The Rambling Man 20:19, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

• Things which could do with references:
  • "Most observers expected Ipswich to suffer relegation from the Premiership in their first season back at this level".

    Rephrased to avoid OR and thus no need for citation The Rambling Man 23:00, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

  • The dates in the second paragraph of the Stadia section.

    Done... The Rambling Man 22:51, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

• I think the referenced capacity is a rounded figure - [23] gives 30,311. Oldelpaso 21:29, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

  Bingo, I thought that too. Ahem. Stopping the rounding. Now. The Rambling Man 22:44, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Comments by HornetMike

Excellent work with expanding it so quickly chaps. Just a few comments:

• Lead could do with a bit of an expansion. Not sure where, though. Helpful as ever...
  • To do. --Dweller 18:07, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
    • On review of WP:LEAD, two chunky parags seem fine for an article of this size. Also, the Arsenal F.C. FA has a lead of similar proportions. I think I'm happy with this as is. --Dweller 18:45, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
• "They joined the Southern Amateur League in 1907 and with results improving year-on-year, despite the suspension of the league due to the First World War, became champions in the 1921–22 season.[3]" That's a long clause in the middle of the sentence, makes the flow difficult. I'm not sure it's even needed, really. Although, if you did remove it you'd need to change year-on year to something like steadily.

  Sorted The Rambling Man 09:28, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

• "A year later the club turned professional and success was swift in coming; the club won the Southern League in its first season and finished third in the next." Hmm? The previous sentence said they joined the Eastern Counties League, when did they join the Southern League?

  Agreed and done... The Rambling Man 09:23, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

• "won promotion to the top level of English football, Division One in 1960–61.[4]" Comma after Division One, possibly?

  Comma'd The Rambling Man 09:26, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

• "The English champions qualified for the European Cup (now Champions League)" Don't think you need the Champions League explanation

  I'd guess that you mean the explanation isn't necessary? Removed The Rambling Man 09:26, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

• "The club remained in the Second Division for four years until Bill McGarry finally guided Ipswich to promotion in the 1967–68 season" Finally? They were only down for 4 years!

  -finally The Rambling Man 09:28, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

• "with a team packed with international players" Bit colloquial

  -colloquilism The Rambling Man 09:30, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

• "Texaco Cup and FA Youth Cup (also won in 1975)." That looks like forcing a bit too much information in there, FA Youth Cup's not that important you don't really need to mention something that didn't contribute to anything.

  Done. The Rambling Man 09:34, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

• "From 1986 to 1990, Ipswich Town were managed by John Duncan who was replaced by former West Ham boss John Lyall.[17]" Add a subsequently before replaced to make the sentence better

  Done. The Rambling Man 09:37, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

• When was the original crest designed? Upon the club's foundation?
  • To do. --Dweller 18:07, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
    • I see TRMan has dealt with this. --Dweller 18:46, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
• I'd swear Tractor Boys was older than that! I'm prepared to defer to the links, though.

  I'll stick with our current references. The Rambling Man 17:53, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

• "Locally, much is made of the informal title "Pride of Anglia"." That probably needs a bit of explanation - i.e. Clubs in the East Anglia region vie to become "Pride of Anglia" (except better worded, probably!)
  • To do. --Dweller 18:07, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

    I think the explanation in the following sentence is sufficient. Plus the wiki-link out to the article about the phrase as well. The Rambling Man 19:25, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

• A few seasons unlinked

  Hopefully all X-X+1 now linked. The Rambling Man 17:53, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Otherwise, great work! HornetMike 18:55, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Comments by SteveO

Only a few nit-picking comments, since there really isn't much wrong with the article

• Once George Burley is introduced in the history section, he can be referred to simply as Burley in the sentences which follow.
  • Good spot. Done. --Dweller 09:34, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
• Is there a reason why Ipswich started wearing blue? According to this, they started off wearing striped shirts and black shorts, which may be worth a mention.
  • To do. --Dweller 18:07, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

    I can't find a good reason for blue, presumably it was just a popular colour - plenty of clubs in blue or red etc that almost certainly have no reason other than it was a popular choice. I'm not really going into too much about the early days of the shirts because citations using decent sources are extremely hard to come by (and I don't think that one is a particularly reliable source, it has dead links on it for a start) The Rambling Man 19:33, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

• In the honours section, the statement: "Ipswich have won a number of honours" seems irrelevant, since the trophy list proves that anyway.
  • Yup. I hate tautology. Ditching it now. --Dweller 09:46, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
• Winning the FA Youth Cup doesn't need to be mentioned in the history section, as it's not a first-team honour.
  • I agree that it's not a major honour, but disagree that it shouldn't be mentioned, as the nuance is that FA Youth Cup winners are likely to benefit from a strong team with a spine of home-grown playrs in the following years. It's a tough competition to win and the winners are in good stead. I welcome a come-back or further consensus from others. --Dweller 09:45, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
    • Further comment on this, etc, at the article talk. --Dweller 09:56, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
• "the heaviest defeat in a Premiership match" should be tightened a bit to show that this is a league record.
  • To do. --Dweller 18:07, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

    Slight rewording, and with citation it's clear. The Rambling Man 19:31, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

SteveO 21:51, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Ending Peer Review soon

I've identified eightfourone outstanding comments above to action/respond to. I'd welcome more, before we move on from Peer Review. --18:11, 22 March 2007 (UTC)(updated Dweller 18:48, 22 March 2007 (UTC))

We're done, the FA nom is up and running, but by all means, open invitation to continue peer reviewing, either here or at the FAC page. The Rambling Man 20:26, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Comments by Bigmike

This is my first PR response, just a few possible suggestions...Bigmike 19:43, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

• "to form the Eastern Counties Football League" - I would reword that to "to become founder members of the Eastern Counties Football League", just to make it explicit, currently it seems to suggest that Ipswich created the league themselves...
  • Nice idea. --Dweller 20:08, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

    Dweller's done it. The Rambling Man 20:25, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

• The Ownership section should be incorporated into the History section.
  • Yeah, I guess so, a two-line single para sub section isn't great. The Rambling Man 20:14, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

    Done The Rambling Man 20:25, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

• Notable players - perhaps add a couple of the greatest Ipswich players here, as well as the link to the separate article?
  • This can't really be done, without encountering problems about subjectivity. One man's "great" is another man's donkey. Remember Tony Adams? --Dweller 20:08, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
    • Or England international Carlton Palmer? In seriousness, we're following the Arsenal F.C. FA as a guide, and we're doing what they're doing. The Rambling Man 20:14, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
• Could the managers section be contracted to include only the most successful/notable managers, with the surplus info put into the records article?
  • See previous reply. --Dweller 20:08, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
• There are no books cited in the references section, surely there must be some books out there?
  • Might be nice to cite some. Anyone got one? --Dweller 20:08, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Indeed, but typically I'd reference things that were cited in the article. I can do a search on books and add some but for the time being, we don't need them... The Rambling Man 20:14, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Closing Peer Review

All comments and criticisms have been responded to. Please continue at [[ Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Ipswich Town F.C.]] Thank you for your contributions. --Dweller 10:19, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Project Apollo

Seeing as this is a historically significant article, I would like to try and get it up to FA or at least GA status. I nominated this for PR in May 2006 (Wikipedia:Peer review/Project Apollo/archive1), and FAC shortly after that (Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Project Apollo, but the FAC nomination failed. I would like to try this process again, but I would like some advice on further improving it first. --GW_Simulations_{User Page | Talk} 23:06, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, I've been working on it too, but only got a couple of sections into it before real life commitments intervened. At the moment I would say it needs a fair amount of work before it can achieve GA status... it's really going to need a complete overhaul before being nominated as a FAC. I'll offer some more detailed thoughts later, but for the moment, just think citations, citations, citations. MLilburne 23:17, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I think there are a few websites which could be useful for this, so I'll look into how these could possibly be used. --GW_Simulations_{User Page | Talk} 13:48, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Just be careful not to rely too heavily on websites. There is a whole series of NASA publications and history works available, and almost all of them are available online. MLilburne 15:30, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Okay, thanks. --GW_Simulations_{User Page | Talk} 22:30, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Opération Manta

Always as part of my work on the Chadian-Libyan conflict, I've written down an article on this French military intervention in Chad, hoping to make it a GA article, like I've done with Toyota War. The most obvious defect is the lack of images, but, alas, there isn't much I can do to solve this now. Another problem may be the grammar, not being a native speaker. As for the lead, I hope it's not too long; also should I add inline citations to the lead? I haven't till now because it just presented and summarized content well referenced in the following sections.--Aldux 21:16, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

bcasterline

A few comments:

• "Background" leaves some context out. What do you mean "the fall of the Chadian capital"? What happened?
• The first paragraph of "Stalemate" doesn't make any sense.
• Some of the information in "French withdrawal" might belong in "Aftermath" instead.

The article looks pretty comprehensive. Could use some more copyediting for grammar/wording though. -- bcasterline • talk 22:47, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

I've expanded a bit the background, and rewritten the "Stalemate" paragraph. As for the grammar/wording, you and Picaroon have hopefully bettered it; I'm unfortunately unable to do much better.--Aldux 18:03, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Kirill Lokshin

Quite nice, overall. A few points to consider, though:

• The "Background" section is pretty stubby; it may be worthwhile to consider some sort of rearrangement of the first sections.
• Marking up the map a bit to show troop movements, etc., would probably be helpful.

The lead doesn't need to be directly cited if it's just a summary of the article.

Beyond that, as bcasterline said, stylistic copyediting would be appropriate, at this point. Kirill Lokshin 03:17, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Unfotunately, I have simply no idea how to mark an image. Picaroon and Bcasterline have worked on the grammar and wording. I've added something to the background, but I'll try to add more. As for the "rearrangement of the first sections", could you give me some hint? In what sense do you feel the present disposition should be rearranged? Thanks, --Aldux 18:24, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

PocklingtonDan

• "by a joint force Libyan soldiers " -> "by a joint force of Libyan soldiers "
• "on July 31 brought to the assembling in Chad " -> "on July 31 led to the assembling in Chad "
• "drew "a line in the sand." " - if this is a quote it needs a cite, if it isn't, I would remove the quote marks
• "with the Libyans and the GUNT controlling the north and Habré central and southern Chad" - this doesn't read write - they controlled the north and the south? What did the French control then?
• "French President Mitterrand" - any reason he doesn't get a first name?
• "a mutual withdrawal of their countries troops " -> "a mutual withdrawal of their countries' troops "
• Since this is an English-language encyclopedia, should this whole article not be byu the English name Operation Stingray?? This seems to be the practice taken in all other battle and war articles I have seen.
• "recognizing Goukouni as the legitimate ruler of Chad, and provided arming and training for his forces" - mix of tenses
• "gave way in June 1983 to a massive joint GUNT-Libyan attack against Faya-Largeau" - don't think you mean gave way, I think rather agreed or acceeded to demands for. I think you also need to state who was calling for this.
• "annoverating 3,000 men" - I don't understand. comprising of? consisting of? numbering?
• "Thus assisted by weapons from France, US and Zaire" This contradicts the earlier statement that France and US contributed arms, and Zaire men.
• "and taking advantage of the GUNT's Habré took personal command " - thisnk there is a word nmissing after GUNT's - doesn't make any sense
• "bringing to his shattering defeat " -> "bringing him to a shattering defeat"
• "Even if France threatened on August 25 that it would not tolerate Gaddafi's occupation of Faya-Largeau[11], even if at the end the French proved themself unwilling to openly confront Libya and retake northern Chad for Habré, thus giving the impression to concede Gaddafi the overlordship over the Borkou-Ennedi-Tibesti Prefecture" - these "even ifs" make no sense
• "not only in the short period" -> "not only in the short term"
• "due to Libya's incapacity to balance " -> "due to Libya's inability to balance "
• "by stiking the GUNT at Faya-Largeau" -> striking
• "risking to cause an escalation of the conflict." -> "risking an escalation of the conflict."
• "two Juaguar fighter-bombers to invest the attackers " - invest means to siege, this is not a word normally applied to aircraft. perhaps harrass?
• "rise the Red Line from the 15th to the 16th parallel" rise-> extend/retract
• mutaual -> mutual
• "were getting tired up with an intervention " -> "were becoming bogged down in an intervention "
• Other than these grammatical problems I think the article is good - it gives a good overview of a conflict I knew nothing about. - PocklingtonDan (talk) 13:12, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your fantastic and scrupolous work controlling my gramar, Dan! You've really done a precious help thanks. I've integrated your corrections now. Grazie again!--Aldux 23:05, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

No problem, I will do another run through it now and see if I can see anything else - PocklingtonDan (talk) 20:51, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

The article is in great shape but still looks like it needs the attentions of an English-speaking copyeditor I think, just to polish the language a little. I don't have time to devote to this I'm afraid, but best of luck - PocklingtonDan (talk) 21:01, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Catalan

Good article - I certainly learned something from it. A few points, however:

• POV:
  • The United States announced that 25 million US dollars in critically needed equipment would be provided. - It's not really inferring a point of view, but it might be a point of contention to nit-pickers at some later point. I would take out the word critically, as the point still gets across without it.
• Images: Have you tried contacting websites on the topic for the use of their images? You can be surprised how nice they can be - Morozov sure was for the Ch'onma-ho article.
• Grammar: Quite a few problems here - the article will need a thorough copyedit. If I have time I may go through it at a later time.

JonCatalan 00:54, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

I've removed "critically needed". As for the websites, I'd first have to try webite on the topics, which is quite hard - Chad isn't the best known country in the world, to use an euphemism, and it's no surprise I had to use alost exclusively books and not the web for writing this article. As for the grammar, Bcasterline, Dan and Picaroon were of considerable help, but I would IMMENSELY appreciate any help with copyediting you would give :-)))))--Aldux 23:19, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Indian cricket team

Plan to make this a FAC. Best to give it a PR first. Buc 19:07, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

• Use commonwealth English spellings. Send for copyedit review
• Governing body needs to come much before =fans=
• red links should be ideally populated
• venue table should be centered
• What about the number of people who have played for India, sponsors?

=Nichalp «Talk»= 19:00, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Futurama

This article was last peer reviewed in March of 2006 (here) but has been massively rewritten since that time and was promoted to GA in December. Ideally it will eventually be a featured article but not sure what still needs to be done. Advice on what needs to be added, removed or fixed is greatly appreciated. Stardust8212 05:00, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

I would suggest adding a criticisms and reception section to make the article more NPOV as an give it a more out-of-universe perspective. Currently everything in the article seems to be directly related to the show and there need to be more content that is indirectly related. Tarret 14:22, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, I will start looking for some info on that. Stardust8212 15:10, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

WindsorFan

There's still a lot of stuff on the to-do list on the talk page that hasn't been done, a production section, for one thing. Reports and features from the beginning of the show's run are archived here and I'm sure there is something on the DVDs(?) More information is available here .The "Setting" section is heavily based on primary sources and needs to be backed up by secondary sources (and preferably merged with the "Humor" section [the only well-referenced thing in the article] to form a "Themes" section). Very importantly (considering this is about a TV series), there isn't a "Plot" section (a lot of information can be taken from the character biographies). Also consider turning the "Awards" section into prose and check absolutely every claim for POV ["the writers are not above committing continuity errors if they serve to further the gags." Really? How do you know that's the reason? "FOX decided to let Futurama go out of production" seems very accusational] WindsorFan 18:24, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Trapped in the Closet (South Park)

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

• For my part I will attempt to work on prose and copyediting, but of course other help would be appreciated as well. I created a "to do" list, which we can use to focus our efforts towards bringing the article towards FA status. Is "A" status technically above "GA"?? I had thought that since GA required review, and A did not, that A was lower? At any rate, I think the article is already "A", and can be brought up to "FA" by implementing the "to do" list... Smee 18:05, 10 March 2007 (UTC).
• The article uses a non-std. size of 200px, most television episodes use 250px. I personally find anything less at times too small. The infobox also violates MoS:L (South Park is linked in the lead-in and the infobox, they're almost practically right next to each other). The article also uses four fair use images. The Reviews section contains user reviews from IMDb and TV.com, these should probably be avoided, not only because they can change at any time, but because they're also not really very "notable reviews". You should seek out critic reviews (Try this search). The episode article is also in possession of a redundant "nav. box" (these are slowly being phased out), that should probably be removed. The plot section is well written, however (as I've requested prior (the request seems to have vanished, mind..)), note II will require a citation, "Tom Cruise locking himself in a closet is a reference to rumours of Cruise's sexuality", what rumours? How is it a reference? Television series titles also require italics (as per MoS:T). Finally the fair use rationales appear to be slightly weak in my opinion, episode captures should also state how they are fair use, e.g. "The image illustrates the scene in which x does y, this is notable because z[..]". Matthew 18:21, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

• The picture is 200 × 155, and increasing it any further might result in visible pixels. MoS:L isn't a policy, thus it can't be "violated". It also doesn't mention template linking, and there appears to be an acceptance templates are an external part of the article. I did not manage to find any non-user reviews which provide ratings, but I will look if there is anything useful to add from those who don't. There isn't a limit on the amount of images in one article claimed under fair use. Navigation box removed. Definitions don't require a reference, and the following sentence links to a section which provides references for each controversy regrading Tom's sexuality. All the series titles in the article are italic. The rationales don't necessarily need to explain the image's content, but rather an explanation on why is it important (e.g. "illustrates an important point of the plot which is being discussed inside the article and helps identify the characters"). Michaelas10 (Talk) 19:01, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

• Your answers do not address any of my (valid) concerns, addendum: "illustrates an important point of the plot which is being discussed inside the article and helps identify the characters" is a very weak fair use rationale and likely non-valid. Matthew 19:10, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

• I believe I've addressed all your valid concerns, and specified those which cannot or shouldn't be fixed. The provided rationale is quite a strong example; if you have anything to strengthen it somehow, it'll be very appreciated. Michaelas10 (Talk) 19:19, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Images

• I changed the images from 200px to 250px (excluding the infobox picture). Please let me know how it looks on your respective browsers - mine looks great actually... Smee 21:45, 10 March 2007 (UTC).

• The reviewer meant specifically the infobox image. Michaelas10 (Talk) 22:00, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

• Thumbnail images should not include a pixel width, it conflicts with user preferences. Jay32183 18:20, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

• Done. Michaelas10^{Respect my authoritah} 18:23, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Mackinac Island

I would like to improve this to good, maybe featured status in the future. Besides citations, I need to know what needs the most improvement. Mr.Z-mantalk¢ 02:31, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

• Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, APR _t 22:38, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

bcasterline

This is an old nomination, but some comments anyway:

• "Description" would benefit from some more inline citations.
• The trivium about William Beaumont under "Early commerce" is not obviously relevant. I would either add more information about the incident or remove it.
• The information under "Miscellaneous topics" should be incorporated into other things (which I think I can be) or removed. WP:TRIV is good advice.

Overall, looks comprehensive. -- bcasterline • talk 23:42, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, I'm in the process of rewritng/sourcing and I have not quite gotten to the Description section, but I will take your advide on the Beaumont trivia and eliminate or reduce it. Mr.Z-mantalk¢Review! 23:49, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

• Adding a bit more about all the different historic places on the island wouldn't be amiss. You've got Fort Mackinac and the Grand Hotel, but there are some others too. I rated it a "B", though, for the WP:NRHP, 'cause it's at least that good right now, IMHO. :) --Ebyabe 19:56, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

AnonEMouse

Good work. Get these issues, especially the citations, fixed, and I'd mark it as WP:GA.

• The city of Mackinac Island occupies the entire island as well as all of Round Island...Round Island is currently uninhabited - If not directly contradictory, it's close. Something uninhabited isn't usually thought of as being occupied. How about "includes" rather than "occupies"?
• Use of citations are weird. Some of the later paragraphs have no fewer than 4, while the earlier paragraphs don't have any. Spread them around a bit, please. In the later paragraphs, how about moving some of the citations to the specific sentence, rather than just after the paragraph as a whole? Otherwise it's not clear what is actually backed by citations, and what isn't.
• Cite that Round Island is owned by the forest svce; cite fort george/fort holmes; cite the numbers; cite that no camping is allowed ...
• geoglogic?
• disambiguate the link to Somewhere in Time (film).
• Federalist, Colonial, Greek revival. - needs "and"
• Scouts perform such duties as... long awkward sentence, break up.
• Scouts must march from location to location... ditto.
• This is as opposed the the French army's choice - what?

--AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 19:41, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I've fixed the grammatical, spelling, and DAB things. I moved as many refs as I could to make them more specific as to what they cite but most are used for either the whole paragraph they follow or multiple sentences scattered in the paragraph. The most offending section was culture, but those are now all distributed. I'm still working on "Description". I'm probably going to end up removing much of it as Wikipedia is NOT a travel guide and there is already an article about Mackinac Island, the town.Mr.Z-mantalk¢Review! 21:05, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

• • Don't kill yourself, or remove too much, you need to say why it is unique and interesting. The section is only 17 sentences, maybe 10% of the article. I like it. :-)
  • "Every summer, the Boy Scouts and Girl Scouts of Michigan live and work on the island in alternating weeks." - all the G&BS of MI? Is it a requirement for all MI scout troops? If not all, rephrase, and state how many (both raw numbers, and percentage or fraction). Do G&BS from any other states participate? If not, are they not allowed to, or just not interested?
  • Can probably remove the parens from around (when in groups), I got nasty comments about using any parens in my FAC
  • uniforms are held to a much higher standard - what does that mean?
  • operting

--AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 16:08, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

I've already fixed up the Description section before your comment, I only removed what was just random facts to make it seem more coherent. The main source for the scouting section seemed to say that there is no set number of troops or scouts and that not all scouts from a troop attend. It said there is a minimium of 50 though. I clarified "higher standard" to "full dress uniform is required when on duty or walking in public." Only in 1 year were other states invited (1940), so I don't think it is too relevant. I also added some of the selection criteria. I've also nominated it for GAC. Mr.Z-mantalk¢Review! 22:15, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Vatican City

I would like to get this article to FA or GA status. The article had another peer review in January, but it did not get that much feedback. I have made the few changes outlined in that review and am wondering if you could assit me by providing comments on the article. Thanks, Cbrown1023 talk 02:07, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Simply more references-the article is very undercited for such a topic. -Fsotrain⁰⁹ 21:02, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Most of my activity on the article has been in adding citations, I was the one who added the {{fact}} tag to the only remaining statement that needs citing. I find it disheartening that you say "More citations!" but don't even state where or if they are needed. Cbrown1023 talk 23:31, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Alright. Here are specific statements that really should be cited:

• According to the Lateran Treaty, certain properties of the Holy See that are located in Italian territory, most notably Castel Gandolfo and the Patriarchal Basilicas, enjoy extraterritorial status similar to that of foreign embassies. Probably both a citation to the Treaty and a legal analysis making the comparative judgement are necessary.
• The Holy See has the oldest active continuous diplomatic representation or service in the world, dating back to at least AD 325 with its legation to the Council of Nicea. Any superlative statement such as this needs citation.
• A noble class still exists today that continues to form part of the papal court drawn from the ranks of Roman and European nobility. Citations are helpful for supporting statements of partial contemporary continuity like this.
• Therefore, within this context, the State of the Vatican City is a true, although elected, monarchy in every sense of the word. It's a statement of logical conclusion following supporting statements of fact, but building logical arguments gets into original research. Citation would avoid that.
• Budget: Revenues (2003) 252 million USD; expenditures (2003) 264 million USD.
• The Vatican has no official language. Because of conventional wisdom to the contrary stemming from the discussion that suceedes this, the sentence should be cited. Ditto for German is the official language of the Swiss Guard.
• Vatican City State is a recognized national territory under international law.
• Despite its minuscule size, as the veritable headquarters of the Catholic Church, the Vatican's influence on world affairs is disproportionately immense by virtue of its moral and spiritual authority. Original research concern here, despite the tautology.
• ...the state has the highest per capita crime rate of any nation on earth, more than twenty times higher than that of Italy.' Difficult to determine if the citations further down in the paragraph cover this statement as well. -Fsotrain⁰⁹ 05:14, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

• Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, APR _t 22:38, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

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

• Please expand the lead to conform with guidelines at Wikipedia:Lead. The article should have an appropriate number of paragraphs as is shown on WP:LEAD, and should adequately summarize the article.^[?]
• Per Wikipedia:Context and Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates), months and days of the week generally should not be linked. Years, decades, and centuries can be linked if they provide context for the article.^[?]
• See if possible if there is a free use image that can go on the top right corner of this article.^[?]
• Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (numbers), there should be a non-breaking space -   between a number and the unit of measurement. For example, instead of 4 ft, use 4 ft, which when you are editing the page, should look like: 4 ft.^[?]
• Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (numbers), please spell out source units of measurements in text; for example, the Moon is 380,000 kilometres (240,000 mi) from Earth.^[?] Specifically, an example is 4 ft.
• Per Wikipedia:Context and Wikipedia:Build the web, years with full dates should be linked; for example, link January 15, 2006.^[?]
• Please reorder/rename the last few sections to follow guidelines at Wikipedia:Guide to layout.^[?]
• Please make the spelling of English words consistent with either American or British spelling, depending upon the subject of the article. Examples include: neighbour (B) (American: neighbor), meter (A) (British: metre), metre (B) (American: meter), defense (A) (British: defence), offense (A) (British: offence), organize (A) (British: organise), recognize (A) (British: recognise), ization (A) (British: isation).
• Watch for redundancies that make the article too wordy instead of being crisp and concise. (You may wish to try Tony1's redundancy exercises.)
  • Vague terms of size often are unnecessary and redundant - “some”, “a variety/number/majority of”, “several”, “a few”, “many”, “any”, and “all”. For example, “All pigs are pink, so we thought of a number of ways to turn them green.”
• Please ensure that the article has gone through a thorough copyediting so that it exemplifies some of Wikipedia's best work. See also User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 1a.^[?]

You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, APR _t 22:16, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Review by Awadewit

This article looks pretty good. Here are my suggestions:

• On my browser, the text of the article didn't start until the bottom of the infobox which made me think when I initially got the page that there was no article - there was just this infobox and a huge white space at the top.
• The lead is a bit dry and should be expanded to at least try and summarize the article. WP:LEAD
• The name "Vatican" is ancient and predates Christianity, coming from the Latin Mons Vaticanus, Vatican Hill. The territory of Vatican City is part of the Mons Vaticanus, and of the adjacent former Vatican Fields - so, is the name Roman? be as explicit as possible
• Being separated from the city, on the west bank of the Tiber river, the area was an outcrop of the city that was protected by being included within the walls of Leo IV, and later expanded by the current fortification walls of Paul III/Pius IV/Urban VIII. - the "beings" are awakward - reword
• The article is vastly undercited. If you want to go for FA, you will need many more citations. They seem to have a rule of thumb over there of at least one citation per paragraph. It is better to overcite than undercite - then you don't get into any tiffs with the reviewers. Besides, it makes wikipedia look better to the outside world and readers are given more sources to go to when they want more information.
• Even before the arrival of Christianity, it is supposed that this originally uninhabited part of Rome (the ager vaticanus) had long been considered sacred, or at least not available for habitation. The area was also the site of worship to the Phrygian goddess Cybele and her consort Attis during Roman times. - move "during Roman times" to the beginning so that the reader knows when you are talking about
• define "circus" - modern readers will think "Barnum and Bailey"
• Shouldn't the territory illustration be next to the "Territory" section?
• After a nominal resistance by the papal forces. - sentence fragment
• There is a picture in the "History" section that is not appearing - only code. Same in the "Administration" section.
• Tell the reader who Marconi is - not everyone knows, sadly.
• For FA, you will need to prune the external links.
• What about a section on Vatican City's architecture? Perhaps something on that could be included in the culture section? I would also like to see an expansion of that section.

Nice work. Awadewit 09:54, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Andrew Van de Kamp

Ok, I've been working on this for a while, and now I want to take it to FAC some time soon. I've tried to keep the biography as short as possible, though it proved trying. The characterization and reception sections are the result of my trawling through every single Google search result on Andrew, all 37 pages of it. I would welcome any tips to get it to FA. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 01:44, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't know if I'm "qualified" to review this, but most of this article deals with Andrew's character rather than Andrew himself. What kind of person is he like? What are his other accomplishments beyond Desperate Housewives ? How about his early life? Things like that. - Pandacomics 08:25, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Uh, Andrew isn't a real person. He doesn't exist outside of desperate housewives... Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 08:30, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

I can't suggest anything as it seems ready for FA already. Of course any more info is always welcome. LuciferMorgan 00:48, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

The main picture has been tagged for deletion in a week due to copyright crap. Apart from that, seems like an excellent article, no suggestions here. God he's so hot. :-) Mentality 14:16, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Some Thoughts Concerning Education

I am working on getting this article about John Locke's work on education up to FA quality. I would appreciate feedback on which sections need expansion, what is missing from the article and general stylistic suggestions. Thank you. Awadewit 20:23, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

• Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, APR _t 22:38, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
• Some thoughts concerning Some Thoughts Concerning Education:
  • The lead is extremely short compared to the article.
    • I agree - I will expand it.
  • The first paragraph of historical context section is a little oddly placed; it seems more logical to place the discussion of critical reception after the historical background.
    • I have moved it and will now revise the text so that it fits in better.
  • "...nurture their child’s physical “habits” before pursuing its academic education" - I know people like to have long pointless disputes about pronouns, but referring to a child as 'it' is pretty awkward.
    • It's fairly common in the academic literature, but I'll try to switch everything to the plural so that I'm not stuck with he/she.
  • Western child-rearing manuals are obsessed with food and sleep? Obsessed?
    • They are obsessed. They really are - it's amazing.
  • Where Essay Concerning Human Understanding is wikilinked, the full title should be written out.
    • Done.
  • The virtue section says that Locke considered children reasoning beings, but in the last sentence 'children are irrational when young'. That's obviously not a contradiction, but it is an invitation to more information here; did Locke discuss any specific aspects of children's reasoning faculties that were deficient?
    • Tried to clarify.
  • There are several occurrences - I first noticed it in the curriculum section - of 'we would call', 'we see', etc., which is generally deprecated.
    • I will fix those.
  • "While Locke began writing Some Thoughts on Education as a guide for educating an aristocrat's son,..." - the impression I got at the beginning is that the letters weren't initially intended as the working draft of a book, but this phrasing implies that he was writing a book from the beginning.
    • I will fix that.
  • The class section is very short; is there more to be said on the topic? Did Locke express any opinion about how the lower classes ought to be educated?
    • I can add in some quotes from "Essay on the Poor Law."
  • Since you were so careful to add the appropriate sics for all the archaic spellings, is 'educatin' in Coste's quote a typo or in the original? Same with 'he busy sunbeams' later.
    • Fixed.
  • "the fact that it was never published allowed readers to draw their own conclusions regarding the “different treatments” required for girls and boys, if any" - 'it' = the view Locke expressed in his letter to Mrs. Clarke? Since current readers will have access to this kind of information, maybe this should be 'contemporary readers' or similar.
    • Will do.
  • The last sentence is awkwardly written; it's one of those, with, too, many, commas.
    • Will, remove, commas.
  • The reception section could be fleshed out, and could reach further forward in time. Given the claims in the lead - most important work on education in Britain for a century - there must be more to include about this. I don't know if there's much to say about modern influence, but surely John Dewey had something to say about the Lockean model, for example?
    • I don't know about Dewey, but I can say more about the eighteenth century.
      • Update: a quick look while I was in the bookstore says Dewey does discuss Locke's influence in Democracy and Education, though not too much in relation to his own views as far as I can tell. I'd elaborate further, but I can't find my own copy of the book :( It'd be nice to see some later influences, though, since I think it will be interesting for most readers to see the modern echoes of such a classic work. Opabinia regalis 01:32, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
        • That's very helpful. The only concern that I have about including that information is that the article would skip from Maria Edgeworth (1798) to John Dewey (c.1900) with nary a word about the nineteenth century's reaction to Locke. Since Locke's primary educational influence was on the eighteenth century, I stopped with Edgeworth. I would hate to include Dewey without at least mentioning what happened in between, but I am ill-equipped to do so and I am not sure that Locke really did affect nineteenth-century education in a significant way. As I understand it, the nineteenth-century dramatically switched its focus to scientifically-based theories of education (Bell and Lancastarian systems of education come to mind). I also don't want to be accused of making overly dramatic claims for Locke's influence. I already think that some people reading the page might argue this point (for example, those who study Locke's philosophy or political works) and claiming that Locke's influence stretched from 1700 to 1900 without any solid timeline would only serve to provoke them, I believe. If someone with more knowledge than myself could prove such a timeline, though, I would obviously welcome their contributions. Awadewit 15:09, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
          • I agree; I just had to check once I'd thought of it. I have a tiny speck of knowledge about Western educational trends in the 20th century but not even that much any earlier, so I'll just leave my suggestion here in case someone else stumbles across it ;) Opabinia regalis 02:23, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Overall, it's a very well-written article on an interesting subject; nice work ;) Opabinia regalis 03:31, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

That's very helpful - thank you. Awadewit 17:47, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

AnonEMouse

Impressive. Can't think of much to say, really; this might be able to pass FA now. But as long as you are asking:

• secualarist?

This is a word.

• • "This" is. "Secualarist" isn't. [24] [25] You probably mean "secularist". --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 03:28, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
    • Oh, I missed that extra "a." Sorry about that.
• "Western child-rearing manuals are still dominated by the topics of food and sleep." - sorry, writing "they really are" isn't enough. You need a citation, a reliable source saying that.

I know, I was joking. I'll find something.

• Pamela isn't the link you want - probably Pamela, or Virtue Rewarded

Thanks. I'll fix that.

• Reception - surely it couldn't have been all positive. For example, he directly attacked Oxford and Cambridge, surely they must have said something, or had defenders.

He was attacking them implicitly (more so in the Essay). This is a book about raising a child and really, there were very few negative reactions. I can add in some criticisms, but as far as I know, the scholarship says that the criticisms were few and far between. (My dissertation is partly on how scholarship has ignored the criticisms of Locke in the late eighteenth century. If you know of any criticism, please let me know because there is just very little.)

• Historical context and publication - why was Locke more successful than John Evelyn, John Aubrey, John Eachard, and John Milton ?

I will try to find a published explanation of why.

• Heck, why were they all called John, what is this, a conspiracy?!?  :-)

I know! What is that?

• "the humanist educational values of the Renaissance" - this bit combined with the next sentences seems to say that those values consisted of venerating Aristotle. Surely that's not true, the Renaissance was about going beyond Aristotle, hence Galileo, etc.

Well, a large part of the Renaissance was about resurrecting the Greek and Roman past (see Renaissance and Humanism). From around 1400-1650, the "ancients," as they said, held sway. That is why there was a neo-classical revolution in art. It was not until the seventeenth century that a critical mass of people began to question the authority of the ancients (in England, Francis Bacon was particularly instrumental in this process). Throughout the eighteenth century there was what was called the debate of the "ancients vs. the moderns," which was about the authority of the classics. The major question was, could modern man ever hope to reach the artistic and philosophical level of the ancients? It was not until the end of the eighteenth century that this question was answered with an emphatic "yes." This is why it was during the eighteeenth century that Shakespeare became a British national icon. The "modern" camp adopted him as an example of genius who was not ancient.

Our Renaissance article does say "Aristotle", it also says "advancements of science"; "everything ends with Aristotle" doesn't sound like it leaves much room for advancement. Can you just strike the wod --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 03:28, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

What do you want me to strike? Let's not get ahead of ourselves with "scientific advancements." The Renaissance allowed Europe to rediscover classical sources which allowed them to starting thinking about all sorts of new topics and to break away from Christian traditions. In response, natural philosophers of the seventeenth century looked at the humanists of the Renaissance and said "they rely too much on the ancients, we can do our own experimentation like the ancients did." And thus the scientific revolution was born. This is an extremely simplified view, but the Renaissance was not primarily about great advancements in science (Galileo is the exception). Think of all the giants in the seventeenth century: Newton, Boyle, Kepler, Huygens, Hooke, etc. See Scientific Revolution. Awadewit 04:07, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

• Legacy - how did this impact later authors and works in the field? This seems to have been a milestone book in the field, with most other works citing it - what was or were the next milestone(s), and how did it differ from or expand upon Locke's views? --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 21:55, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

I would think that that information would belong on a history of the philosophy of education page such as this one Philosophy of education. I have traced Locke's influence as far as it goes. After the turn of the century, other philosophies take over and I think that this page should be restricted to Locke's Some Thoughts. Awadewit 22:48, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Midge Hadley

I would like to know what other information I should add or how I can improve the prose. Thank you for any suggestions or comments. Tikallover 03:56, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Review by Awadewit

I think that you have most of the basics here. Here are my suggestions.

• Why do you describe Midge as a "fictional character" and not just as a doll?
• Created to oppose controversies aimed at Barbie, Midge was the first same-size female friend of Barbie ever sold, standing at 11 1/2 inches tall. - you should briefly mention these controversies upfront; no need to give her dimensions (save that for later in the article)
• The dolls sold usually have red hair (although once in a while brunette) with freckles, and her eye color is usually blue or green. - repetition of usually - you might want to leave the brunette information for later in the article
• In the fictional Barbie storyline, Midge is married to her former boyfriend Allan Sherwood and has two children who are named Ryan and Nikki. - where does this storyline come from - is it on the boxes the dolls come in? videos? books? - it is also awkward to say that she is married to her "former boyfried"
• You need to expand the lead so that it summarizes the article. See WP:LEAD.
• You need to tighten up the discussion of hair and whatnot in the "Vintage Years" section. If Midge was introduced as a girl-next-door figure to counter Barbie's sexiness, you must discuss her breasts and waist, Barbie's most famous features. Did she have the same disproportionate features?
• The first paragraph in the "Return" section is confusing. Some of the sentences sound like Midge actually exists and some of the sentences sound like she is a doll. This happens again at the end of the "Happy Family Line" section.
• Is "non-pregnant" a word?
• If you want this to reach good article or featured article status, you are going to have to expand these sections and reference them. See WP:CITE. Inline citations would be a good idea. I noticed that you have several website references at the bottom of the page. You can use those, but scholarly sources are generally preferred. There is a wealth of information on Barbie in general, so you shouldn't have any problems finding information.
• Are there any more fair-use images available to illustrate the various Midges?
• You should also probably add the Barbie infobox. You can grab it from the Barbie page.
• Information that you might want to include: sales figures, background on Barbie, a little more on collecting (there are sometimes collector's versions made specifically for collectors - are there any Midges?), Midge's popularity vs. Barbie, something on her name (why Midge). This is what I thought of right now. Awadewit 09:14, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Thank you! I'll try to fix those problems. Tikallover 21:11, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was completed. -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 17:27, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Lily Parr

I've added a considerable number of edits, read the books and got photos from one of the authors. Lat month there was nothing on this lady, now it's time for a review.....I think...

Fluffball70 00:34, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

First thing I noticed is the citation in the article needs some work. Consider using <ref> tags and a <references/> tag (see Wikipedia:Footnotes and WP:CITE) for more information). I strongly recommend making use of citation templates to help ensure the proper formatting is followed (see Category:Citation_templates). If you need any help, please drop me a note on my talk page. If you need an example to work from, University of Oklahoma does a good job in how its sources are cited. -- Ash Lux ^{(talk | contribs)} 07:37, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

After a quick read over (it's nearly 2AM here, so hopefully this is right and makes sense):

• Not every appearance of St Helens, Merseyside needs to be wiki-linked.
• The acronym "FA" is used in the section "Career" without first informing the reader what FA means.
• Phrases like "one of the greatest British Female Football legends" are not a neutral point of view.
• Would "The Dick, Kerr's Ladies Team" and "Life after Dick, Kerr & Co." be better suited as a subsection of "Career"?
• Is there any more information outside of her career you could add?
• What is her connection to LGBT?
• Mention the date of her death in the lead-in. -- Ash Lux ^{(talk | contribs)} 08:02, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

There's no section on her personal life. Is there any info out there on that? Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 20:39, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Good. Is there anything on her early life? Where she was born, who her parents were, education upbringing etc.? As a slight personal interest, what was her religion? Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 18:33, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

I hope I've fixed all of the above! Fluffball70 00:49, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Washington Blade

So I've dumped a ton of effort into this to raise it from Stub to B, then per Dev920's comments on the talk page, I expanded it more to make it better situated for nomination for GA (and eventually FA). Now it's time for someone else's eyeballs to look at it. I think my citations might be off in a couple of places so any help to fix those would be great! Thanks!! jtowns 10:08, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

---

From the talk page Hmm. This article does not appear to be the article I thought I looked at. :) But, if you're still interested in GA -

• The lead needs to sum up the entire article. Ideally, it needs to be able to stand alone.
• The references are not formatted properly, see WP:CITE for more.
• How is the paper laid out? Formatted?
• Tell me more about Bladewire. Who came up with it? What's its circulation?
• Some questions: Has there been any controversies surrounding it? Has it ever won awards? What's the readership demographics? What's the editorial line? Any good scoops? Any competition?

That's all I can think of at the moment. I'll review later. This is important what you're doing, btw, no LGBT newspaper has made it beyond a stub yet. If you can get this up to FA, we'll have a precedant to work from. Good luck! Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 20:58, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

This article is starting to shape up nicely, though I'm worried about the proliferation of short sections. Anyway, here's an FA newspaper that I found that you may find helpful: The Philadelphia Inquirer. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 18:51, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I think the lead needs work but you can go for GA after that, I think. Even if there's other stuff they want they'll put it on hold for you to fix. I'd just like to say, well done, this article has been so improved. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 22:50, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

---

I agree with Dev, I'm concerned with the number of short sections. Here's some other things I've noticed:

• Things look well-cited, which I like to see (I haven't verified any of them, but I don't see large chunks of text that are not cited).
• "1969 to June 1974: The Gay Blade's Early Years" and "1950s to 1969: The Origins" could be combined.
• Actually, all the history subsections seems somewhat arbitrary broken up.. The names don't seem terribly interesting, and don't really give me an idea what the section is really about. The names don't seem to be very encyclopedic.
• The AIDS crisis was a big part of LGBT history. Is there any more information to how the paper responded to the crisis?
• The reporting on AIDS is called "ground-breaking" in the article. This doesn't seem to be neutral point of view. Instead, give some examples on how it was ground-breaking and quote others who said it was ground-breaking.
• Section titles do not follow the Manual of Style.
• The history sections frequently reads as if each sentence is a bulleted list without the bullets.
• It makes sense to move the BladeWire section as a subsection of "About".
• The section name "About" should be something more informative.
• Are Metro Weekly and The Advocate really competitors? Or are they just LGBT publications like the Washington Blade? Are they notable enough as competitors to be listed here? (Would we consider Gayly Oklahoman a competitor?) I think this section could be expanded or perhaps removed altogether.
• The article should be named Washington Blade not The Washington Blade. (see WP:Manual of Style).
• "Criticism & Controversy" section could work as its own section instead of being a subsection of History.
• The "Archives" and "Awards" don't really belong as subsections of History.
• One source with one person blogging and calling Washington Blade a "newspaper of record" does not mean we can say "The newspaper is sometimes referred to as America's gay newspaper of record". -- Ash Lux ^{(talk | contribs)} 23:16, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Ashlux -- So I have eliminated many of the short sections, tightened up the history subsections, rearranged things as a suggested above. As for the 'About' section -- I'm not sure what better to call it. I used "General overview" which is used on The Washington Post. I also added more to the criticism and controversy section to make it able to stand on its own, and I have added another source for the newspaper of record comment. As for the AIDS crisis reporting, I removed the NPOV violated text, but I have been unable to locate additional sources to say it was ground-breaking coverage. On the point about competition, MetroWeekly is a direct competitor in the LGBT publication market in Washington DC. They compete directly for ad dollars and readers. And the only other GLBT newspaper i nthe US that has similar resources and reporting quality is the Bay Area Reporter out of SF. So they don't directly compete, but the Reporter and the Blade are competitors. I look forward to more feedback as it comes and more suggestions as you have them. Thanks! jtowns 06:16, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

One more thing -- I'm having a hard time coming up with sources for awards the paper has won. Any suggestions? I called the paper today and they just told me that they have won numerous awards but didn't have a list of them to give me for more info... jtowns 06:18, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Ok based upon this feedback and stuff on the talk page, I made changes and am now submitting this article for GA nomination. Therefore I am de-listing this as peer review. jtowns 02:16, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Bunker gear

I am curious if this article is ready to be upped to GA status. There is a significant number of good images and a nice amount of content on each piece of equipment. Thanks: ^SyBer_WoLff 15:57, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Peripitus

A nice article on the components of modern bunker gear, but the article is not near GA status yet.

• Article needs more references - preferably to more than one written work
• History section needs to be much longer and talk about the evolution of the gear in much more detail.
• The lead needs to summarise the article per WP:LEAD - at present it is a simple definition of the heading.
• The article is very US-centric. seekout more information on other countries practices and consider renaming the article to a more generic term.
• change contractions like "dont't" to the words "do not"
• try removing the frequent occurances of the qualifyer "some" as it usually does not add to meaning.
• caption for the picture Several pairs of surplus firefighter boots. .... drop the "Several"
• Terms like "NFPA 1975" need to be wikilinked or explained.
• needs copyediting for conciseness... "required to be outfitted with safety toes" could be "required to have safety toes"

- Peripitus (Talk) 23:10, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Empire Earth: The Art of Conquest

I've been working on this for a while, and have been walking a little blind since no GA expansion pack articles exist. I'm looking for any improvements before I go to GAC. Thoughts?--Clyde (talk) 04:23, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

• I would like to first say that this article really impressed me. I've noticed that many articles concerning expansion packs of computer games only have a few paragraphs to them. I like how you extensively described certain aspects. Even though I didn't have time to read the whole article, I do have some suggestions. First, perhaps you may want to add a separate section of article devoted to explaining new aspects that were added to the game that weren't seen in Empire Earth. Therefore, a viewer won't have to read the whole article and and pick bits and pieces out to find out what was newly added to the game. Hope this helped!Socom49 16:43, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Well the gameplay section is really just a prosified and referenced list of all the new features added to the game. Do you think I should rename the "Gameplay" section to something like "Features" or "New Gameplay"?--Clyde (talk) 17:04, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Characters of Final Fantasy VIII

Hopefully a precedent among character articles. Was just approved of GA status, and we're thinking about a FA push (or at least A-class). Axem said he'll break the ice by finishing a copyedit of the old information (most of it was around before this project began). I'll give him a hand, and then hopefully we can get another copy-editor. — Deckiller 23:46, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Comment I'm not a videogame player, so I'm not familiar with the practices used in those articles, but wouldn't it be better to have screenshots of the characters instead of cover art? I would think that would be a more accurate representation of their appearance, since presumably they don't look like that in the actual game. Additionally I would think there should be some screenshots in this article. Quadzilla99 02:50, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Good, even screenshots for all the characters are difficult to come by. There are some FMV animation depictions, but it will lead to inconsistent depiction. There are a few screenshots available for minor characters. — Deckiller 03:38, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Can't people create them themselves? Like I said this is just a minor concern from an outsider to these kind of articles so don't get too concerned about it if it's not possible. I would just think that if they could be obtained somehow screenshots would be more accurate. Of course there may be some reason to use the cover art I'm not aware of. Quadzilla99 04:06, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

I believe the decision to use the cover art was becaus it all came from one source, it was all the same size, and it was pretty close to the FMV depictions. I might be able to take a couple early game screenshots, since I have a PS1 emulator that allows me to play my playstation CDs on the computer. Also, in looking at the minor characters section, do you think a couple screenshots should be added there? — Deckiller 04:08, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

• I added a couple FMV and screenshot images, all sourced and FURed. However, I don't want to add more, because the fair use complainers might have a field day at FAC. — Deckiller 04:29, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

You're right about the number of images, I was more talking of replacing all the images with screenshots. However, I hadn't realized how old this game was. The graphics in the screenshots might be unattractive and not really give a good representation of how their faces are meant to look. I don't know if that should be a concern though. Really when you get down to it the whole thing is probably fine. One or two other minor things. In the description of Seifer Almasy (among others), there's a spoiler or two. Not sure how you want to approach that. The game is so old I doubt many people are going to be playing it for the first time. I guess the question is: How many potential first time players there are for this game? You would know that better than me. Also while the prose is generally exceptional (really nice work there), maybe the General Carraway section could use a little tweaking. The second to last sentence seems awkward. Quadzilla99 05:28, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, and I agree about the screenshots (it will be hard to depict the characters with screenshots). Our WikiProject doesn't use spoiler warnings (one of the few that doesn't). As for the prose, neither Axem nor myself have worked on the minor characters section yet. All I've done is trim those sections without worrying about the prose yet. He's doing the first round of copy-editing for this one, and he's about halfway through. I'm at roughly the same spot with a second pass. Hopefully we can get the prose up to standard before FAC. Thanks for the comments. Off topic, I've noticed that I've been writing talkpage comments in shorter sentences recently. I guess that's a learning experience right there. — Deckiller 05:31, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

One more minor comment. Might be helpful to add the release date of the game or the videogame system in the lead. It's already covered in the game's article but it might be helpful to people like me. I assumed it was a 2005 or 2006 game. Quadzilla99 05:53, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Fixed. — Deckiller 06:46, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

• Comments Wow. Just wow. This is probably the best looking characters page I've come across on Wikipedia. Everything is handled really well and conveys the information excellently. Nomination for Featured Article status would appear to be a formality at this point. Cheers, Lankybugger 20:41, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Thank you very much. — Deckiller 20:54, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
• Comment I'm going to have to agree with Lankybugger, this is a very well written character article. It was an interesting read and kept to the point. I've noticed a few pictures have been added, they add to the overall effectiveness of the article IMO. Darthgriz⁹⁸ 23:51, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
• Comment I'm late in coming, but I wanted to add my observations. This page looks fantastic. It is very well sourced, and has a very clear organization. I have been doing some work on the horridly unencyclopedic, unorganized Characters of Final Fantasy IX that is similar in intent to this, and I think this article would be a good template to use for my work there. In fact, this would be a good template for all "Characters of so-and-so-game" articles. As well I agree with Lankybugger, Nom for FA would be mostly a formality at this point. --—ΔαίδαλοςΣΣ 20:50, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Blue Velvet

I would like to get this article in shape to reach GA status and would like any constructive criticism, comments, suggestions, etc. to improve it. Thanks! Count Ringworm 20:19, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Again, take it to film peer review. Daniel Case 17:52, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

A few thoughts:

• Last sentence, first paragraph of the lead section seems awkward. Could this be broken into two sentences?
• There are several tags in the article that need to be addressed. The synopsis in particular seems far too detailed. The "Direction" section is completely lacking in citations.
• Numerous dashes need to be replaced with em-dashes.
• How well was the film received overseas?

Thanks. — RJH (talk) 20:50, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Calgary

Already a Good Article about a large Canadian city, request feedback for improvement toward Featured Article. --Qyd 18:24, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

From Thomas Dzubin

The History section needs expansion, although perhaps nothing really happened in the city before the 1973 Oil Embargo :-) Even a single sentence for each decade between 1900 and 1970 would be an improvement. I also think that the 1988 Olympics should be highlighted somehow instead of being buried inside the Sports and recreation section. Other than that, it is quite a good article. I wish the Saskatoon article was in similar shape. Thomas Dzubin _Talk 20:09, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Emphased the olympics in the sports sections (they are also mentionead in the lead and history section). Will probably have to dig out something for 1900-1050 history.--Qyd 20:41, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

From Arch26

I also think that the economy and politics sections leave something to be desired. All that's really in economy is basically a list of large companies. It doesn't talk much about the city's various industries and their development. The gov't and politics section is a lot better than before, but there is not enough about local politics. Personally, I don't think there needs to be much added to history or the two sections that I mentioned, but they definitely need to be summarized better. I think that the bulk of the information for these sections should go into sub-articles. --Arch26 06:24, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Added some numbers and statistics for economy. What other aspects can be mentioned? maybe taxation? tourism? For local politics, some words on property taxes? city departments? should the List of mayors of Calgary, Alberta be mentioned there? --Qyd 15:37, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

From Rob

• A few single-sentence paragraphs, could be removed or merged, starting with "A resident of Calgary is known as a Calgarian."
• Also the sections "Local media", "Other names", and "Sister cities" are to short to be sections. "Other names", and "Sister cities" seem to trivial to be sections.
• Some transitory stuff could be removed, like "One growing alternative movement was recently active during the 2000 World Petroleum Congress demonstrations ...". As the years march on, such specific events and dates, look out of place, and irrelevant.
• The "Government and politics" section has, at this moment, has only one citation. The rest is uncited. The opinions, are largely unattributed. The whole article needs more citations, and where appropriate, attribution in the body of the article (e.g. who stated what opinion).
• The "Government and politics" focusses too much on global, federal, and provincial politics, and barely mentions municipal politics. --Rob 03:30, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Added some refs for provincial politics. I guess you're right about other names and sister cities. Should those be deleted, or merged somewhere else? sister cities merged maybe into local politics? --Qyd 15:37, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Johann Pachelbel

This is a top quality classical music biography, and was sadly recently rated B by a non-musician (as far as I can tell). My relative inexperience on Wikipedia has discouraged me from changing this rating, but I think that other biography reviewers will see what I mean. A musicologist should preferably make the decision! Matt.kaner 11:34, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

I've taken a glace at the article and the main issue to strike me is the lack of citations. For this article to move up to GA class it would have to be fully cited. Additionally, the article lacks a comprehensive critical analysis of Pachelbel's work. There is some information on his reputation by other composers in the section "Posthumous influence and the rise of popularity of the Canon in D", but how do musicologists regard him? Otherwise, the article is well written and nicely organized. Is there not an image of Pachelbel? That should be included as well. *Exeunt* Ganymead | Dialogue? 16:49, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Review by Awadewit

I thought this was an excellent article. I have played classical piano for over 20 years now, so I come to the article with some musical knowledge. Here are my suggestions:

• A lot of the prepositions and prepositional phrases in the article are not quite right. There are also missing articles and a few awkwardly placed clauses. You might think about having the League of Copyeditors look at this or having a trusted wikipedia editor review it for you. These problems seemed isolated to the Biography section.
• The article cites a lot of people in the biography section as if the reader knows who they are; they should be identified with a phrase so that we understand why we care about Pachelbel's relationship to them. I noticed this problem in particular in the 1673-1690 section.
• The Works section, while an excellent analysis of Pachelbel's music, may be a little too technical at times for the general reader. The editors might consider defining some of the terms to make it more accessible.
• I assume the reason this article was given as "B" rating is because of its lack of citations. See WP:CITE. If you want to submit it for GA or FA, you will need to add quite a few citations. Most of the musical analysis has no citation at all.
• Some small writing issues that FA reviewers tend to latch onto and that you will want to fix before submitting it to FAC: 1) first-person (I saw some "we" constructions); 2) redundancies ("early youth"); and 3) red-links (create the page or de-link).

Overall, a very good page. Awadewit 05:22, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Comments by MarkBuckles

Wow, what a nice article!! Just needs more inline citations, especially when the reader might have a question about the source of a somewhat subjective statement. Here are two examples from the lede:

• "However, he did not have much influence on the most important composers of the late Baroque such as Johann Sebastian Bach." Later on this is qualified with the statement "He did influence Johann Sebastian Bach (indirectly: the young Johann Sebastian was tutored by Johann Christoph Bach, who studied with Pachelbel)". This is a bit confusing.
• "[Canon in D] is somewhat unrepresentative of the rest of his oeuvre." How so? Who says?

Best wishes, MarkBuckles (talk) 04:12, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Springfield, Illinois

This article has been the subject of a pretty intense collaboration by WikiProject Illinois, which is now starting to wind down. Looking for a broader perspective on how the article can be improved on its way to GAC and maybe, one day, FAC. There are myriad notes on the article's talk page (recommend reading or skimming it), which may be of use to any potential reviewers and/or editors. There will still be ongoing work for the beginning of this review, so if you see areas without adequate sourcing, it is likely being worked on. Thanks in advance, this article has made quite the turnaround from the unreferenced cruft that we encountered before the collaboration. (See diff). IvoShandor 05:35, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

User:Ganymead

Good morning! The article has a really good start and the information is good.

• My first suggestion would be to reorganize what is currently there. Having a section called "Overview" is a bit pointless, I think, as the entire article is an overview. The article really should be organized along the line of FA Detroit, Michigan. I think it would be fairly simple to just move the sections around and change some of the headings.  Done IvoShandor 07:11, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

• I like this suggestion a lot, and will get moving on this asap. IvoShandor 00:29, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

• Secondly, the history section is good, but it only hit on the highlights of the city's history. If I didn't already know something about Springfield, I might imagine that the city is nothing but Lincoln and race riots. While these are important events, how has the city developed?  Not done IvoShandor 23:52, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

• We are currently working on revamping the history section. The plan is: a) replace sources with more academic and peer reviewed sources. b) write main article History of Springfield, Illinois, which will be a thorough article incorporating, especially, the points you mention above. We will then likely compose a summary of that article for the main Springfield article. That is the plan, at least tentatively. IvoShandor 00:29, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

• Geography really needs some expansion, the climate section is good, but certainly the city's geography doesn't just consist of Springfield Lake.  DoneIvoShandor 23:52, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
• The Lake section could probably loose its heading and be added to geography as a whole. Done IvoShandor 07:11, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

• This part is still a work in progress and has been noted on the to-do list : ). IvoShandor 00:29, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

• Going by the layout of Detroit, the following sections are needed:
  • Cityscape (architecture, neighborhoods, etc.),  Done IvoShandor 07:11, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

• Another great suggestion and one that I will thoroughly enjoy working on, those subjects are right up my alley.IvoShandor 00:29, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

• • Culture (the sections on popular culture, cuisine and media would be included under this main heading) Done IvoShandor 07:11, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

• Will incorporate.IvoShandor 00:29, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

• • • Performing arts Done IvoShandor 07:11, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

• Hadn't really thought about this and the three following as separate sections but it does make some sense. IvoShandor 00:29, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

• • • Tourism (would include the section on Historic sites) Done
    • Sports Done IvoShandor 07:11, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Economy Done IvoShandor 07:11, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

• D'oh! IvoShandor 00:29, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

• • Infrastruture (this would include Healthcare and Transportation sections) Done IvoShandor 07:11, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

• Another suggestion that I can't believe I didn't think of. I have seen this section in numerous quality city articles. IvoShandor 00:29, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

• The article could use quite a few more images. DoneIvoShandor 23:52, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

• We have a few, they are just waiting on the talk page until the structure is figured out. Some will be useful, some won't. But, never fear, we have a photographer on assignment. ; ) IvoShandor 00:29, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Good work so far! I hope this is helpful. Cheers! *Exeunt* Ganymead | Dialogue? 15:38, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Comment, before reading review

Thank you very much for your input. I appreciate that this article is kind of lengthy so thanks for reading it. I have made a few notes above, addressing your points, because action will be forthcoming on some of them I just wanted to make sure you knew they weren't being ignored.

Comment, after reading review

Very useful review, thanks a ton. The Detroit FAC model is going to help immensely. Once again, very much appreciated. IvoShandor 00:29, 10 March 2007 (UTC) IvoShandor 00:29, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

If I can be of any other assistance, let me know. *Exeunt* Ganymead | Dialogue? 02:39, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

User:ReyBrujo

Good work there! Here are some comments:

• Try to glue short sentences together. In example, It was officially founded on April 10, 1821 as a temporary county seat. On March 18, 1825, the status of Springfield as county seat was made permanent. could become a single sentence like Officially founded as a temporary county seat on April 10, 1821, it had its seat made permanent on March 18, 1825. The main body has also some very small sentences, like He would later become President of the United States. and The first official casualty of the Civil War hailed from Springfield. Another example, It was built and filled in 1935. And an extreme example, Springfield experiences typical middle latitude weather. Hot summers and cold winters are the norm. Illinois also experiences large numbers of tornados. Having too many short sentences make the reading "halty", so try to glue as many of the short ones as possible.

• The prose will soon be reworked, the history section is a work in progress. Currently, we are trying to compose the main article History of Springfield, Illinois, which, when complete, will be used to construct a much better summary.IvoShandor 05:57, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
• Thanks for the review. I am guilty of writing the sentences you noticed in the introduction. Your correction reads better than what I wrote. I will have to be more careful about this in the future, but I expect that I may find changing my habits difficult. I've always been somewhat terse in my writing (and speaking) style; even in the writing of this comment I found sentences that could be merged. I am glad that I read this review now though, so that I can be aware of this issue as I am writing for History of Springfield, Illinois. Of course, one should be careful not to make sentences so long that it makes meaning more difficult to comprehend. Plain English supports using short sentences and the Simple English Wikipedia also advocates shorter sentences. I definitely see the merits of Plain English, but I do not write with it specifically in mind. David H. Flint 07:17, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

• Another in the lead: Its population was 111,454 as of the 2000 census, and, as of 2005 census estimates, the city population had grown to 115,668. could be changed into Its population increased from 111,454 in 2000 to 115,668 as of the 2005 census. Or remove the historical part; remember that the lead should give a short insight of what is inside the article, so specific comparisons like "in 2000, but in 2005" should not be there.

• Since the 2005 estimate is just that, an estimate, the last specific numbers are from 2000. The U.S. Census only occurs every 10 years, the next one in 2010.IvoShandor 05:57, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

• Some references have a space after the punctuation mark (like the last one in the second paragraph). Those should be easy to catch and fix.

• Roger that. IvoShandor 05:57, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

• I have problems with some sentences. In example, isn't A race riot occurred in August 1908 when George Richardson, an African American man was accused of raping a white woman. missing a comma after "an African American"? Dismiss this if it is not necessary, I am not native speaker.

• The whole thing probably needs a copy edit. Will get to work, noting your suggestion. IvoShandor 05:57, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

• I notice there is a dot after a reference, at Springfield is located at 39°46′60″N, 89°39′1″W (39.783250, -89.650373)^[GR1]. See if you can fix that. Also, is that {{GR}} absolutely necessary? I have a REAL objection (although it is the first time I found it) because it jumps to a Wikipedia page from the main namespace (which is discouraged per Wikipedia:Avoid self references).

• This seems to be the primary way to reference this information on Wikipedia, as far as I can tell. You can see an example of this on the Demographics section of the Detroit Michigan article, a current FA. IvoShandor 05:57, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

• Note that, per our measurement guideline, you should use digits and unit symbols for values in parentheses, thus 547.44 feet (166.9 meters) becomes 547.44 feet (166.9 m)
• Also, when using a dash that will be interpreted as a range (like in 1953-1955), use a ndash or – per WP:DASH.

• Thanks for the link here, I knew about this but couldn't remember where to find the info. IvoShandor 05:57, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

• Some sentences like Although not born in Springfield, Abraham Lincoln is the city's most famous resident. He lived here for 17 years. may be misunderstood. From a foreign point of view, when I read "He lived here" makes me think the article was written in Springfield.

• Will definitely work on the prose. IvoShandor 05:57, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

The article is very well sourced, and pretty interesting to read. However, the amount of small sentences at some sections make it appear a telegraph transmission instead of an article ;-) which is (personally) the biggest problem with the article. Try reading the article out loud making every stop last three or four seconds, and you will realize some sentences are very related, yet separated by unnecessary punctuation. Nevertheless, very good job! -- ReyBrujo 03:39, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your very useful review. I have responded to most comments above, just so you know they are not being ignored. Things are still being hashed out, but your review will help in the long run by keeping us focused on problem areas. Thanks again and if you have anything else to add please do. The article will be changing and evolving so if you notice anything as it goes along please note it here. : ) IvoShandor 05:57, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Kashima Shinden Jikishinkage-ryū

The article has been rated a B-class and is quite representative of a series of articles on Japanese Koryu. Comments on this article will problably be reflected in several others and all are appreciated. Format, style, etc.Peter Rehse 07:59, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

• Comment I submitted the article by request (one of its editors was having some trouble figuring out how) so I will add my suggestions below.Peter Rehse 03:13, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

• The article covers quite an important style of old school Japanese martial art both in respect to historical imprint and groups engaged in its modern practice. As such, although the introductory section, History and Characteristics cover much I see some room for expansion.
  • Citations - there are absolutely no citations which is down right silly since there is quite a bit of information out there. This is the major point keeping the article from GA status and is most easily addressed.
  • Listy - this can't be helped in some cases but then with a bit of imagination who knows. The Characteristics section should be completely written in prose and so should Present day practice. The latter is just a listing of cities - seems to take up a lot of room for very little information.
  • Pictures - what can I say I like pictures. Get more and don't put the same one up twice as you have.Peter Rehse 03:13, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

• Comment I believe there is alot of good information in this article but it needs to be more focused for the general public. The "Hōjō" section under "kata" is especially messy in that regard. Other than that this article doesn't site references and I would like it to be incorporated as soon as possible. The "Present day practice"-section needs to be trimmed considerably. I would personally preferr to keep that section to a minimum. Fred26 11:45, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

• Comment Some cleanup should be done with regard to the founding of the school and how it relates to previous styles, both chronologically, and technique-wise. It is a bit confusing right now. Also, if the founder died in 1524, how can the school be founded in 1570? If this is actually possible, it should be explained to the reader. Bradford44 20:04, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

• Comment The name of the school appears to be written inconsistently. Should it be Jikishinkage-ryu, Jiki Shinkage-ryu, or Jikishin Kage-ryu? Bradford44 15:51, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

(Sorry for late reply.) Well, its confusing...Koryu.com entry uses this version, but another article describing the same art uses Jikishin Kage instead. Going by what is more often found on google I'd say we can use "Jikishinkage-ryu". Fred26 17:19, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

• Request review Lately many improvements have been applied to this article. I would like to request a review regarding the noted issues of 'refimprove', 'laundrylists' and 'technical'. Of course still some details are under discussion, e.g. certain historical details (+/- 1 year), but the article in general has improved a lot since the last review. Please also advise what needs to be done to promote article rating to GA. SvGeloven (talk) 14:21, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Morning Musume

I hope for comments of all kinds. Should I use the Album covers rather than the Single covers? Do I ever break NPOV? Is it too redundant, or does it cover enough information? Anything you think could help is completely welcomed. Thanks in advance. abarry^✓ 19:08, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

• Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, APR _t 22:38, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

All these criteria have recently been fulfilled. See this page abarry^✓ 09:09, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

I will try to complete a review for you this week. IvoShandor 15:20, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks in advance! abarry^✓ 00:21, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Review by Brian

I think there is a lot of good information in the article, but the structure is not optimal. Essentially, the article tells the history of the group three, even four or more times. We start with the general history, then we have the history of the membership, then the history of the leaders, then the history of their albums . . . . Ideally, at least the first three of these should be combined into just one history section. For example, you can simply add a sentence to the appropriate paragraph noting when a new leader was chosen or an old member was replaced by a new one. At the very least, "Members" and "Leaders" shoul be merged into a single section.

And for an article on a musical group, there are various other topics that need to be covered. For example, where is the discussion of Morning Musume's influence on other performers? On J-pop in general? Where is the discussion of critical reaction to the group? Where is the discussion about their songs, the themes in them, etc.? Their style? Perhaps the "Milestones" section could be converted into prose and combined into a "Sales and critical reaction" section discussing general successes and criticisms of the band.

I also think that you will run into trouble with the fair use police if you put this up at WP:FAC. For a currently performing band, you should be able to find some freely licensed images, perhaps at flickr.com, or by putting up requests on fan message boards. The fair use images you retain need to be of subjects specifically and critically discussed in the body of the article. You might also consider adding a few (short, low-quality) audio samples.

Good luck! — Brian (talk) 01:01, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

I'll merge the leaders and members section and add it to a new article if anything. I think it's important to have a list for things like this because trying to search through the information in paragraphs of text is a little difficult.

I don't know their influence on other performers and I don't even know if it exists. I think perhaps it has an influence on jpop in general but more on the idol world of jpop than anything. The discussion about the songs can often be found on the singles pages, as not to clutter up the page needlessly with info about every little song. Since the group is so changing and versatile it's difficult to discuss one specific "theme" or even a few found throughout their songs.

It's extremely difficult to get fair use images of jpop stars. If Ayumi Hamasaki doesn't even have one, I highly doubt we can get them for Morning Musume. I thought it was okay to use the single covers/album covers though? Or are you talking about only the first image?

Please reply, abarry^✓ 17:59, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

You seem to be dismissing almost all of my suggestions. That is your decision, but I just wanted to tell you the sort of objections you will face if you decide to pass this article as a Good Article or Featured Article. A lot of the information you claim doesn't exist most likely does exist, you just have to do more research. It seems you can read Japanese, so that's a huge advantage for you in finding better sources for the article (one idea is to try traditional paper sources from academia). As for the fair use issue, according to WP:FU, "No free equivalent is available or could be created that would adequately give the same information. . . . if the subject of the photograph still exists, a freely-licensed photograph could be taken." It goes on to say that fair use images "must not serve a purely decorative purpose." These reasons are why you will run into issues at GA or FA. Good luck, — Brian (talk) 22:46, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm not dismissing them-- In fact, I've made a thread over at JPH!P about the information and the image, and only got this response:

'As for the fair-use image, I'm afraid that, even being a fan-taken one, it won't be useful for the wikipedia.

Japan's personal image rights are quite more strict than in other countries, meaning that you can't publish a picture of someone without express consent, regardless of where did you take the picture from. The only thing you can do to help it is asking the people involved or the company that manages their image rights to give consent for the publication of the images.'

Just made it 10 times harder. abarry^✓ 22:53, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

I am not a lawyer, but Wikipedia's servers are located in Florida, in the United States, where Japan's laws do not apply. I think you'll be okay if you can find a freely licensed fan-taken image, and the fair-use cops are going to require this at FAC. — Brian (talk) 01:46, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Pinkham Notch

This article underwent a review six months ago, and afterward narrowly missed FA status. Any suggestions on how to improve it? Multiple changes were made, including those suggested in the previous review. Thanks. -- Sturgeonman 19:10, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

It looks pretty good. Here's a few comments:

• I'd prefer that "el." be expanded in the first sentence.
• Should the first use of "Ranges" be lower-case? Should the first occurance of Presidential, Wildcat, and Carter-Moriah be wikilinked, rather than being linked further down in the text?
• It's a nit, but "...and sudden increases in elevation..." almost sounds like the range is dynamically changing its altitude.
• "increasingly northern occurrence" is not quite clear. Does it mean an increasingly northerly latitude?
• "...vegetation near the summit usually found..." is missing some punctuation.
• Jeremy Belknap and Biomes should be wikilinked.
• "This forest type is primarily deciduous and consists primarily..." has too many "primarily"'s in one sentence.
• ...moose.[13]There is also..." is missing a space after the citation, and the "is" should be "are". Likewise "...up.[16]Warblers..." is also missing a space.
• This sentence has some confusing punctuation: "Due to colder temperatures, increased moisture, and acidic, less fertile soils, conifers, or "softwoods" become the dominant species." You might want to use semi-colons, or else re-write it slightly.
• "The notch was first visited in 1784, when an expedition led by Jeremy Belknap..." First visited by westerners perhaps? Or the first recorded visit? Perhaps indigenous humans had visited it long before?
• In the references section, the first citation is missing text. There might be a format problem.

Thanks. — RJH (talk) 20:30, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

I fixed all the problems except the range wiki-linking issue. I think it helps the reader to visualize the geography of the region while they read the section. If someone doesn't recognize where something described is, they can just click the link. Thanks for the suggestions. -- Sturgeonman 20:49, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Please archive the peer review and switch the talk page template to oldpeerreview; per WP:PR instructions, articles should not be listed at both FAC and PR. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:52, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Show No Mercy

On a CD, fairly short - bringing up to GA standards. M3tal H3ad 09:19, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

• Comment Is it possible to integrate the credits section info into the rest of the article, thus eradicating that section? LuciferMorgan 22:50, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Done. M3tal H3ad 03:23, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

I added the info but forgot to remove the section :S , thanks btw M3tal H3ad 10:03, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Erm you actually did remove it - someone else reinserted it. LuciferMorgan 10:13, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

O, i knew that :) M3tal H3ad 10:26, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Tom Araya interview where he describes the production on Slayer's first two full lengths as "so under par". LuciferMorgan 01:08, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Done, thanks M3tal H3ad 08:54, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Are there any decent reviews that can expand the "Reception" section a bit? LuciferMorgan 06:13, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Can't find a review just on the CD, some interviews may give a brief mention of it. M3tal H3ad 06:53, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

There's always the AMG review. LuciferMorgan 10:13, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Added a paragraph about about the poor production quality from the AMG review and a quote from Tom. M3tal H3ad 10:26, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Gleb Botkin

I would like to bring this article up to a Good Article. I think he's interesting enough to warrant it. Please offer suggestions to improve upon it.--Bookworm857158367 15:15, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

AnonEMouse

• A lot is sourced to an Alexanderpalace.org forum thread. That's probably not a reliable source per Wikipedia:Attribution - if it is a rare exception, you need to explain it thoroughly.
• a cross inside of a circle - picture looks like cross under a circle, actually
• KGB visit - 2 paragraphs for 3 sentences, at least make them 1 para
• Any more recent photos than that one of the family?
• If he worked as a novelist and illustrator, list the novels he wrote (all), and some of those he illustrated.
• his wife's affair - did his wife in fact have affairs? Clarify, and cite. They're not living, but apparently their children are. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 20:08, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Valerio Ricetti

This article has the makings of a featured article and that would be a good goal for it. Please review the article to help it advance to the next level. -- Jreferee 23:00, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Yannismarou

It needs work. This is my review:

• The lead is not properly written. It is short and IMO does not consistute a proper summary of the page.
• Most sections atre uncited or undercited. See for instance "Early life in Australia".
• "Unfortunately he left the brothel somewhat absentmindedly leaving his wallet and its contents behind." Avoid adverbs like "unfortunately" that could be regarded as POV.
• Many one-sentence paragraphs that make the prose listy. Merge or expand.
• For quotes we use qms (""); not italics as you often do in "World War II internment".
• For web sources, you can use Template:cite web or Template:cite news.--Yannismarou 19:03, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Peripitus

In addition to the above comments:

• There are 3 sources that should be incorporated into the inline references rather than being noted as sources alone.
• Should read and add material from From Broken Hill to Scenic Hill - the true story and part of Griffith's history, the Scenic Hill hermit Valerio Ricetti, 1898-1952 - Ceccato, Peter (2001). This seems available a Griffith library and possibly others
• unlink partial dates like 1952
• add non-breaking spaces per the style manual so 16 [[hectares]] -> 16&nbsp ;[[hectares]]

- Peripitus (Talk) 00:30, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Oxidative phosphorylation

I’ve radically updated this formerly poorly laid out and incomplete article. Will somebody who knows about this subject please have a look over the updated version and add to and or correct it as need be. Simpsons contributor 23:28, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

• Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, APR _t 00:13, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Citations of review articles and for every section should be given.--Stone 18:18, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

mathtml and normal writing for chemical equations is mixed and should be turned back to normal, because math is not necessary.--Stone 18:24, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

I've jumped into the fray to help edit the article. You can see my discussion on the talk page, which contains some forward-looking statements. I think Stone's suggestion of review articles is excellent / requisite. --Antelan ^talk 21:57, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

AnonEMouse

Copyedit only, I'm afraid, as I'm not a biochemist

• ATP synthase and G proteins - seems to be a blank subsection?
• NADH and FADH2, each contain - dump the comma
• Why is NADH linked there and FADH2 not?
• cells nucleus and the mitochondrion - cell's, no the
• Oxygen is converted to Water in this step. - lower case water

--AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 15:59, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Sutton Hoo

Request review before submitting to FAC. -- Stbalbach 18:11, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

• Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, APR _t 00:13, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Ruhrfisch

Some initial brief comments first, more later. The article seems very detailed and the overall flow is good. Obviously a lot of work has gone into this. Pictures are nice and well placed. The headings need to have the title "Sutton Hoo" removed per the WP:MOS. So the first heading "Sutton Hoo" could be "Site", the second "Discovery of Sutton Hoo: a modern legend" could be "Discovery: a modern legend" or even just "Discovery", etc. Some of the sections are very long and detailed and you may need to put them into their own separate article and leave a shorter summary in this main article (use summary style).

The article contains statements without references that need citation. Some of them use weasel words (italicized in quotes that follow) and seem to be WP:NPOV without references (and perhaps might be challenged even with citations, i.e. they may need other POV statements to balance them). For example, in "Discovery" one reads "Sutton Hoo is felt by many to be a magical place, and the legend surrounding its discovery and excavation adds to its allure and mysterious atmosphere." (be specific, say who feels this way, not just "many") or "By popular account she had a vivid dream of the funeral procession and treasures." (cite which popular account).

More later, hope this helps, Ruhrfisch 22:16, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

The organization / chronology is very odd and needs a better thread / connection - first there is a description of the location, then the story of the discovery in the 1930s (called a modern legend throughout, which seems very NPOV), then a section on the surroundings which runs from the Romans to 1974 and has lots of unreferenced claims. Then we move to the contents of the cemetery, which are related in the following mound number order: 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 18, 17, 2, 1. Next we have a huge section on Mound 1 (the ship burial) which could be its own subarticle. The following sections are on a new grave field excavated in 2000, then a discussion of Bede (ca. 600 AD), then Beowulf, then Art History and finally exhibitions. This has a lot of work before it is ready for FA. Also be consistent on style througout - one example: is it "Mr. Smith" or "Smith"? Hope this helps, Ruhrfisch 18:37, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Scythians

This article should be written all over again, since it contains many mistakes and does not conform to NPOV or any academic standard. However, some people engage in a pitched battle to avoid any change. The Talk:Scythians page enumerates an extensive list of serious proposals by several users. Rokus01 15:09, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

• Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, APR _t 00:13, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

• Is this a request for review or dispute resolution? The latter really belongs on Wikipedia: Request for comment? --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 16:17, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

This request involves a review of the overall quality considering focus (Greater Iranian stance), reliability of sources (Herodotus!), NPOV and OR. Rokus01 16:34, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Review by Eubulides

I'm not at all familiar with the controversy, so I'll try to give an outsider's view.

First, the article is a bit long (50 kB), and could be split. I suggest migrating "Historiography" and "Post-classical Scythians" into a new page. With luck, the new page could be about stories about the Scythians, with the existing page sticking to harder facts about the actual people. The title of the new page is up to you, but perhaps "Scythian mythos"? Another possibility is to split off Scythian archaeology. but see below.

There does seem to be a lot of duplication and uncited work here. It's almost as if competing editors got their own sections, with little attempt to build an overall whole. I'm no expert in the field, so I don't know which of the uncited stuff is right, but it detracts greatly from the page's quality.

There's no link to Scythian monks; is this intentional?

The page isn't consistent about terminology; it sometimes calls the people "Scythians" and sometimes "Scyths". It'd be better to be consistent. If you settle on "Scyths" you should change the title of the page, but I suggest "Scythians" since that name is more popular among non-experts.

The Scythian warrior drawing is great. Most of the other images are nice too. The exceptions are the Tillia tepe photos and the throne arm; these didn't do a lot for me.

It was off-putting for me to have one section called "History and archaeology" and another called "Archaeology". I'd prefer a single story, preferably chronological; not two stories, one from a historian's point of view and another from an archaeologist's. And starting off "Origins and pre-history" with coverage of the language is pretty weird: it should start with origins, not with language.

You might take a look at Sassanid Empire for an article with a good section layout for this sort of article. (That article is too long too, but its organization is good.)

I noted too many "According to Professor so-and-so"s. The main text should stick to facts; put professors in the footnotes.

Anyhow, the bottom line is that the article needs pretty much a complete rewrite; currently it's not coherent. Eubulides 21:26, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

After writing the above review I wandered through the talk page. Wow. You guys don't need reviewers—you need a U.N. peacekeeping force! Anyway, good luck trying to find some diplomats to help you through the controversy, as the page really does need a lot of work. Eubulides 21:34, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Raëlism

Assessment p.l.z. Kmarinas86 09:22, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

The date or general time of founding should be in the intro, probably in the first sentence. The mention of "Eve" should include something about skepticism; as I understand it the Raelian announcement hasn't been substantiated by proof of any kind. Kaisershatner 14:57, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

• Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, APR _t 00:13, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

AnonEMouse

Needs lots of work

• Raëlians are mentioned in the first paragraph but only explained in the second. Their beliefs are split between the two.,

Fixed

• Link Brigitte Boisselier in first mention

Done - links to Clonaid

• The first, elohim painting, image doesn't cite a source, and is likely not WP:FAIR use (the article doesn't talk about the image). I haven't checked the others, but suspect this of them as well

Now cited

This image is of a drawing, painting, print, or other two-dimensional work of art, and the copyright for it is most likely owned by either the artist who produced the image, the person who commissioned the work, or the heirs thereof. It is believed that the use of low-resolution images of works of art

• for critical commentary on
  • the work in question,
  • the artistic genre or technique of the work of art or
  • the school to which the artist belongs
• on the English-language Wikipedia, hosted on servers in the United States by the non-profit Wikimedia Foundation,

qualifies as fair use under United States copyright law. Any other uses of this image, on Wikipedia or elsewhere, might be copyright infringement. See Wikipedia:Fair use for more information.

To the uploader: please add a detailed fair use rationale for each use, as described on Wikipedia:Image description page, as well as the source of the work and copyright information.

• • • So which is the fair use justification, critical commentary on the work, the genre, or the school? I don't think any of the three are appropriate for this article, which is about the religious/philosophical/social movement, it's not an artistic movement. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 14:38, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

The work. It is obviously a work, even if not affliated with a specific school or genre of art. As for critical commentary, the image speaks for itself. Saying it out loud would make unencyclopedic "critical commentary" and would be interpreted as vandalism.Kmarinas86 03:18, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

• I don't buy it. By that logic, you could put any image anywhere and claim the image is critical commentary on itself. Unless you have at least a few sentences about this particular painting, you don't have critical commentary on the work. I'll make you an alternate suggestion - is there a main house of worship of Raelism you could photograph? Is there an iconic symbol associated with it? Is there an iconic artwork displayed in most ceremonies? Any of that could be appropriate to put a few sentences about, and an image. But not as is. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 13:02, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

• achiveing - misspelled

Fixed

• mastery several sciences - of?

Fixed

• "In each of the six personal meetings was " - clumsy, rephrase

Fixed

• "among which are" - including?

Fixed

• Why is the Northern Buddhist calendar mentioned? Why not any of a thousand other less common calendars?

Deleted - it's on Raël

• "love involves mating with different varieties and possibilities" - huh? What does that mean?

changed to "love involves experiencing different varieties and possibilities"

• • Still not clear, stop dancing around the subject. In black on white, does or does not the religion support and/or encourage marriage, monogamy, bisexuality, homosexuality, polygamy, and/or group sex? Don't dance around the issue, the questions have been explicitly asked, and need to be answered. They've also been accused of outright endorsement of pedophilia - that also needs to be discussed. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 14:43, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

See your quotes of Susan J. Palmer below. I've responded to those.Kmarinas86 03:18, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

• Quotes need full WP:CITEs

"Criticisms and Allegations concerning Raelian views on cloning" Fixed

• Check grammar of quotes: "must be treated as sceptical" is that really the correct phrasing?

Yes - http://www.google.com/search?q=baby+girl+has+been+born+must+be+treated+as+sceptical+without+proper+confirmation

• "Religions which Raelians interpret as being catalyzed by intervention of extraterrestrial elohim" - huh?

Section material moved to another section. Section title deleted.

• Criticism section? For a highly controversial religion, the criticism section should be fairly large.

Not done. Scholarly criticism is limited. Tabloid criticism focuses almost entirely on Clonaid which has ample criticism. Not many english-language have criticized the love, elohim, and scientific creation compenents. The vast majority of media attention and so-called criticism of "Raelians" (as if that referred to the Religion) is on criticism of statements of Rael, Brigitte Boisselier, and "Clonaid". Other alleged criticisms of "Raëlism" includes mentions of Raël hair style and so-called "star trek" clothing - hardly worth mentioning (and an unencylopedic criticism). Actions recieved more criticism than beliefs. In the media, Raelian beliefs are usually just described (as claims). Most do not say that it is impossible either.

• • With all due respect ... there's a lot of criticism. Just a few minutes searching on Google: "Cult leader Rael denied residence in Switzerland" - Agence France-Presse. " Rael preaches a doctrine of "complete sexual liberty" and believes parents should show their children how to obtain sexual pleasure, "which by its nature can lead to sexual deviance with under-age children," the authorities said in a statement." - that's pretty severe stuff, and it's criticism of "doctrine", which is appropriate for the article. The "Real Deal" article by Palmer which you cite in the article is full of controversial and critical stuff:

"Before 1991, the media tended to treat the Raelians as harmless nuts. Rael became adept at deflecting the insults and insinuations of TV hosts. Appearing on "Geraldo" in late 1991, he seemed oblivious to host Geraldo Rivera’s habitually aggressive and derisive manner. Then a French journalist signed up for the week-long nudist Sensual Meditation Camp, and covertly taped couples making love in the tents. This was played over the radio, and subsequent news stories presented the Raelian Movement as an unbridled sex orgy where brainwashing was perpetrated and perversions were encouraged.

This part I italicized for you is quoted in the Raëlian Church article.Kmarinas86 17:10, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

This paragraph belongs in the Raëlian Church article.Kmarinas86 17:18, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Done! Kmarinas86 18:18, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Now Rael became a classic "big bad cult leader," portrayed in news stories as a sexual libertine enjoying a luxurious life at his followers’ expense. Raelians were stigmatized by the French media as fascists, satanists, pedophiles, and even as anti-Semites (although Rael clearly states that Jews are more intelligent with superior DNA because they are a cross-breed of Elohim and mortal women). In the daily faxes that ADFI, France’s powerful anti-cult organization, sends out to every major newspaper in France, the Raelians are a primary target.

This paragraph belongs in the Raëlism article.Kmarinas86 17:18, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Done! Kmarinas86 18:18, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Rael retaliated in 1992 by establishing FIREPHIM, an organization dedicated to fighting "religious racism." Journalists who indulged in ad hominem attacks on Rael suddenly had hundreds of Raelians demonstrating outside their offices. Like Scientology, the Raelian Movement International (as it is known in Europe) launched a string of libel and defamation suits against journalists, newspapers, and publishers—and occasionally won.

This paragraph belongs in the Raëlian Church article.Kmarinas86 17:18, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Done! Kmarinas86 18:18, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

A Swiss newspaper that called Raelians "rat heads" was sued for defamation. Another suit was brought against journalist Stephane Baillargeon for writing in the Montreal daily Le Devoir that the Raelians defended pedophiles and that certain ex-Raeliens claimed the "gourou" liked very young girls. (After some negotiation, Le Devoir published a letter from Rael condemning the charge as "ignominious defamation" and asserting that the Raelian Movement had "always condemned pedophilia and promoted respect for laws that justly forbid the practices that are always the fault of unbalanced individuals.") In 1996 Rael won a judgment of $6,300 against two French journalists who claimed he preached racism.

This part I italicized for you is quoted in the History of Raëlism article.Kmarinas86 17:10, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

The rest of this paragraph belongs in the Raël article.Kmarinas86 17:18, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Done! Kmarinas86 18:18, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

The biggest media brouhaha arose in 1992 when Rael appeared on the French TV talk show "Ciel mon Mardi," hosted by the popular journalist Christophe Dechavanne. Towards the end of the show (where Rael’s liberal views on sex were critiqued by a priest, a social worker, and a psychologist), an ex-Raelian suddenly appeared and unleashed a diatribe claiming that Rael was holding his wife and children prisoner, had engineered the breakup of his family, and personally presided over child sacrifice and pederastic orgies at the Sensual Meditation camp.

This part I italicized for you is quoted in the Raël article.Kmarinas86 17:10, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

This apostate, Jean Parraga, was elegantly dressed and played the role of the concerned father and heartbroken husband. What was not mentioned was his criminal record as a drug dealer and car thief, and his attempt to shoot Rael to death in August 1992."

This part I italicized for you is quoted in the Raël article.Kmarinas86 17:10, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Now if you don't mind, I will quote everything else in this which hasn't been quoted yet, just to satisfy you. Right now, copyright issues about doing so mean nothing to me... Kmarinas86 17:10, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Done! Kmarinas86 18:18, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

That's a lot of seriously controversial heavily media covered stuff you're leaving out. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 14:38, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

• Spelling - if the name officially uses the diacritics, why is "Raelian views on cloning", and other uses within the article?

Good point. Fixed.

--AnonEMouse (squeak) 19:52, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Final Fantasy XII

The WikiProject has been working on another article. Basically, we've been chipping away at it for quite some time, and I'm bringing it here to get some fresh eyes. In my opinion, all that's left is a solid copy-edit, and perhaps a slight expansion in the development and reception sections. Fire away :) — Deckiller 04:40, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

• No comments? So if we go to FAC, we won't be swamped with "refer to peer review", correct? Or, if we are, I can consider that a silent support? :-) — Deckiller 05:11, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

• The merchandise section has a lot of unnecessary information... "model: SCPH-75000 FF", "a standard DualShock controller", "standard 8MB card, priced ¥3,660", "came in 120mL bottles with a retail price of ¥19". I could go on, but you get the idea. --Teggles 09:53, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

• • Yeah, it's very poor, and still reads like an infomercial. I noted on the talkpage that it seems to be the last section left that needs major work. — Deckiller 14:52, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

• • I am a reviewer, so I should say that this article mostly looks fine, but some parts, IMHO, are may be nitpicking. Other than that, this article looks similar to other articles, e.g Final Fantasy VII, Final Fantasy VIII, Final Fantasy X, Final Fantasy X-2 Chrono Cross and Chrono Trigger. Sjones23 16:40, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

• • The merchandise section is much improved. Although a bit long for a video game article, it should be just fine. However, you may want to add the spoiler warning tags around the "Story" section. As it stands, it doesn't have any, and details the events of the entire game. It should either be marked as a spoiler or limited to a plot summary. All in all, the format matches up pretty well with the other Final Fantasy articles. — Shouri Shokkou 23:27, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Mission blue butterfly

• There are a number of suggestions on the article talk page I have yet to incorporate. I will have time to now and was hoping to get some other suggestions, aside from those already given. Looking to bring this article up to GA status, it surely needs a copy edit. Critique welcomed, critique and editing very welcomed. A mcmurray (talk • contribs) 06:52, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

The article seems pretty decent. Here's a few comments that I hope are of some use:

• The lead section seems to brief to me. It isn't [Wikipedia:Lead section|capable of standing alone as a concise overview of the article]], &c. A longer lead would also help with the images colliding with the infobox.
• Is there a larger image for the infobox? The current image looks slightly degraded due to expansion.
• In the description, the image of the female should be co-located with the paragraph describing the female.
• The "Habitats" section is very brief. Is there any reason it couldn't be merged with the "Range" section? I.e. "Habitats and range"
• A color-coded map of the range would be a good addition.
• The images in the "Host plants" section are creating an irregular format for the surrounding text in my browser. Is there any reason why the images couldn't be moved to the appropriate descriptive section of the text?
• Any reason that Taxonomy and Evolution can't be combined, as on the Albatross page?
• The first units on the page are in metric; the remainder are old English. Personally I favor using all metric on scientific articles with old English in parentheses. But it would be good, at least, to use consistent units.
• It could use one or two more images of the Butterfly. There are currently more plant pictures on the page.

Thank you! — RJH (talk) 22:28, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Oh excellent, thank you. I will address each comment with a few specific comments after I get a chance to incorporate them. IvoShandor 05:01, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

You're welcome. Good luck with your article. — RJH (talk) 13:54, 21 March 2007 (UTC)