Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Peer review/Archive 2

< Wikipedia:Peer review
Latest comment: 14 years ago by Abebenjoe
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3

This page contains the Peer review requests that are older than one month, are not signed, or did not follow the "How to use this page" principles in some way. If one of your requests has been moved here by mistake, please accept our apologies and copy it back to the main Peer review page with your signature (~~~~).

Older requests have been archived to Wikipedia:Peer review/Archive 1

The most recent topics appear on top.

Geography of the United Kingdom

I have had such helpful comments for National parks of England and Wales: I'd also appreciate comments on or contributions to this article, which was the WP:UKCOTW a few weeks ago. Not quite so good as National parks of England and Wales, but not awful either, although there are some known gaps (see the talk page). It would be nice to get this featured like Geography of Ireland (not that this is a competition, of course :) -- ALoan (Talk) 11:59, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I've put some comments on the article talk page. Filiocht 12:11, Nov 4, 2004 (UTC)
Excellent, thanks. -- ALoan (Talk) 12:22, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Sections on mountains and islands are short. The part about pollution is a list from the CIA. [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality (hopefully!)]] 00:47, Nov 11, 2004 (UTC)
Thanks - other than lists of mountains, etc, what would you like to see in the sections on mountains, etc? Yes, the conservation section is very bad. Again, what else would you like to see? -- ALoan (Talk) 18:11, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Geologic time scale

previous PR

Gold, Carbon, Uranium

Could use a bit of cleanup; more textual description of what are currently lists; another reference perhaps? Further notes of use in chemical reactions, as substrates and reagents... all lovely articles. +sj+ 10:48, 3 Nov 2004 (UTC)

History of Western philosophy

Needs slightly better introduction, a conclusion, and a clever way to handle its long timeline (perhaps extensive, or multiple use of the new timeline feature?). +sj+ 10:37, 3 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Alchemy

A beautiful content-rich history. Could use some narrative and introductory work. +sj+ 10:34, 3 Nov 2004 (UTC)

It could use some more images too. Alchemy is the subject for beautiful imagery. For example, something like the symbols for the four elements would fit the first paragraph of the overview. Mark Dingemanse (talk) 13:24, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)
There's a couple of extra images to be going on with. -- Solipsist 11:06, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Scientific method

Could use a few fresh pairs of eyes. Has lots of great content, but a long lifetime of edit disputes. +sj+ 10:30, 3 Nov 2004 (UTC)

  • It looks good overall. Perhaps the beginning could be a little more introductory in tone for the novice reader? Also, I may have missed it, but I didn't see any discussion in the article concerning the difference in the approaches for hard sciences (physics) vs. soft sciences (psychology), as well as field-observation sciences (archaeology or astronomy) vs. laboratory sciences (chemistry or materials). -- RJH 23:22, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Cultural and historical background of Jesus

Having NPOV problems here. Could a non-Christian non-non-Christian please take a look at it? CheeseDreams 23:47, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)

  • Took a look, added comments, and wished for this to be written in Japanese, my native language, from the headache looking at unfamiliar phrases. I can't comment on f or j as reasons are not offered. BTW, I'm Shinto-Buddhism and is a non-Christian. Revth 01:47, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)
A recent development is that I have noticed Slrubenstein is trying to bring people (via their talk pages) whom he sees as supporters of his POV into the discussion (see his contributions list). I do not think this is a very NPOV thing to do. I would like a variety of people from different points of view/NPOV to please comment on the issues on the talk page (at the base), so that weight of numbers dilute his what-I-Would-See-As Gerrymandering?
By the way, I think being Shinto-Buddhist is a good thing for commenting on the article, as I think you will be indifferent to taking sides, therefore more Neutral. CheeseDreams 00:36, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)


What are you claiming is my point of view? Slrubenstein 18:00, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)

By the way, peer-review should not be based on whether someone is a Christian or not; it should be based on how much of the recent scholarship on the subject they know. Slrubenstein 18:00, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC) Wikipedia:Peer review/Wikipedia:Department of Fun

Max Weber

Note: First submitted to Wikipedia:Peer review/Max Weber/archive1.

All concerns from the last (summer) peer review have been adressed. Do you have any further comments or can this be moved to featured candidates now? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 10:36, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Much of what is there is very good. But also much of the article is just a list of his works. The standard comment made in the featured article discussion is that this should be moved out to a list that is linked in the article. Once those are out the article is a bit short. If he is one of the founders of sociology is there not more to write about him? Also, were the "resources" used the write the article? If so they are normally called references. The lead section is a little short. There are a number of one sentence paragraphs; those need to be either removed, merged, or expanded. There are also a lot of wikilinks to things that perhaps should not be articles. Anything that is purely a dictionary definition and not an encyclopedic concept should not get a wikilink. Examples include "descriptive". Similarly some concepts are just not notable enough to have their own articles, so they should not be linked as well. I'll leave it to you to decide some of those. Just the shear volume of red links leads me to believe that perhaps many of them do not in fact need to be their own article. See WP:VFD for some of the things that are commonly not considered worthy of articles. - Taxman 00:11, Nov 4, 2004 (UTC)
Tnx for your comments. I moved the list off and expaned the article (it is atm 31kb long even without the list). Resources renamed to references. I merged some short paragraphs but honestly don't know what more can be added to the lead. As for red links, I think that they should be made into an article, although I did remove few that would only point to Wiktionary stuff. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 00:43, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Hi, the biggest thing I see left is the one and two sentence paragraphs. Its a simple but obvious error in good prose style. Also the link in the intro to economy is incorrect. Do you want economics or political economy? As far as expanding the lead section, it should summarize the whole article and be 2-3 paragraphs long. See Wikipedia:Guide to writing better articles#Lead section. Good lead sections are hard to write, but they are key to a great article. Think of it as everything you would say about the man and his accomplishments if those 2-3 paragraphs were all someone would read. - Taxman 13:18, Nov 15, 2004 (UTC)

Luis Muñoz Marín

Please feel free to suggest any changes. This article should be a featured article at some point, since Muñoz Marín was an incredibly important person for democracy in America. User: Coburnpharr04

Battle of Inchon

This is my first major article and I want to know what people think. I'm open for any criticisms, but I think my major problem is wording and grammar in the latter part of the article. I've spent too much time writing this to see my errors. [[User:BrokenSegue|BrokenSegue]] 22:29, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)

  • Looks fine to me. I done some work on the ilinks. Perhaps you could clarify it in the text and batlebox that the battle was not limited to Inchon, but it went as far as Seul as well (if I understand the article correctly). Perhaps the article name should be changed to Operation Chromite? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 12:09, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • (1) Should use the templatized battlebox (see Wikipedia:WikiProject Battles). "battle before" and "battle after" are the wrong way round (2) Minor formatting stuff: image in battlebox should be as wide as the battlebox and needs a caption; don't use thumbnail style for the landing map as there's no caption. (3) There should be something about the strategic background, i.e. UN forces encircled at Pusan. (4) Why not land at Pusan and break out? (5) Some of the metric conversions are over-precise, e.g. 8 miles should convert to 13 km, not 12.8 km. (6) North Korean commander and strength is missing. (7) The casualty figures in the battlebox cover only the landings, but the article goes on to discuss the campaign that followed; maybe you need to move some material to a new article, perhaps battle of Seoul? (8) Give full names for people when first mentioned, e.g. General Forrest Sherman. (9) There are some bogus links, e.g. Admiral Doyle is linked as Doyle, which is wrong: find out his full name and link that. (10) Use intentation for quotations. (11) Needs references. Gdr 00:51, 2004 Nov 3 (UTC)
    • I think I answered some of your concerns but one I'm having trouble with is the battle of seoul. The information I have says that the "battle of seuol" took place later when the Chinese entered the war. I agree the casualty number is confusing but I did write the land battle in the aftermath heading to seperate it from the main battle. [[User:BrokenSegue|BrokenSegue]]

—wwoods 03:00, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Spanish Civil War

Looks quite developed. I think that the problem here is not the lack of content, but too much of it. Assuming 'detailed chronologies', 'people' and 'Political parties and organisations' are moved to subarticles, do you think this would make a good featured? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 21:03, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)

List of tongue-twisters#Hungarian

Is my Hungarian-English improved translation right/better? lysdexia 09:21, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Fuck#Etymology

Latinheads should see if there's any connection between the words I put in (focus, etc.) and Dutch and English fokken, fuck, etc. lysdexia 05:42, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)

If you can't support the connection with references, take those words out. Gdr 01:06, 2004 Nov 3 (UTC)
Apart from their (very slight) similarity, what reason do you have for suspecting it? Not that it matters. This part of the article is so speculative as to be practically useless. As you note, the OED points out that not even "ficken" can be shown to be related!Dr Zen 05:33, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I'm a Latin speaker of a sort (3rd year student) and I can rather definitely attest, from my knowledge of the language and my general knowledge of linguistics, that the word has a singularly Old English etymology, originally from the Low German, as all Old English/Anglo-Saxon words are. I can't remember the Latin for fuck at present and do not anticipate being able to find it in the dictionary in the back of my textbook, but I do recall that it bears no resemblance to an Italic language of any kind. echomikeromeo 03:26, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)

BitTorrent#Torrent Sites

This section needs some peer review, see Talk:BitTorrent. -- Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason 06:37, 2004 Oct 31 (UTC)

Totally reorganised it - much better now. violet/riga (t) 17:38, 3 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Agra Fort

(aka Lal Qila or Red Fort) I spent some time untangling the various sources of information on this place. Unfortunately, I have no authorative way of checking my data. If you know Agra Fort, ever been there or want to help research it in some respectable book or journal or magazine (there are few authorative web sources on it, that I've found), this would greatly improve the article.

Also, I'd like to know a complete list of the buildings/places in the Agra Fort and maybe have a better, longer explanation of some or all of them. I might have duplication among names since there are always so many different names for these things. Agra Fort itself has about three to five names.

Vomiting

Two proposed sections are in the Talk:Vomiting#Two new sections

Needs medically qualified persons to review, correct, and place into article.

Thanks, Leonard G. 05:03, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)

The Ill Made Knight

Please review this and/or make corrections. I would like some feedback --Paul Pinson 02:59, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I have done a major reworking of the article. On the whole, it was very good, but had a lot of opinion sections that didn't seem appropriate to an encyclopedia article. I left most of those parts in the HTML comments, in case you feel that some part of them should be saved. I also moved the page to The Ill-Made Knight, which is the punctuation used on the page for The Once and Future King, added some information, and moved the picture over to the right-hand side, adding a caption. Mpolo 09:59, Nov 1, 2004 (UTC)
Missing the inspiration
The current article misses that a large part of what White was doing, that is adapting all the Lancelot material from Malory's Le Morte d'Arthur, often in an explicatory fashion with emphasis on psychology and often taking the same events and providing a different meaning to them. White read Le Morte d'Arthur and fell in love with Malory's work, became obsessed with it. The Ill-Made Knight is in part an explanation of what White got out of Malory, an attempt to explicate Malory's tales and an attempt to retell them to bring out the feelings they inspired in White.
In Malory Lancelot adopts the name Le chevalier Malfait as an incognito when he recovers his sanity in the Grail castle. He explains it thus:
said syr Launcelot my name is le Cheualer Malfet that is to say the knyght that hath trespaced
That is, it is a shortening of Le Chevalier qui a mal fait 'The Knight who has done ill'. Lancelot had trespassed against the queen by lying with Elaine the daughter of Pelles. White takes the French differently and more literally. White seems to have asked himself, what kind of person could describe himself as ill-made, a description which White may have thought applied very much to himself. The quotation given in this article is very much to that point. The psychology of Lancelot in White part comes from such concerns.
Various legends had cited various persons as the finders of the Holy Grail. White allows all three of the most commonly-cited discoveres to find the grail, Galahad, for his purity, Parceval, for his innocence, and Bors, for his doctrine.
Very wrong. There is no allowing here. White's treatment of the grail quest is entirely from Malory, including the parts played by Galahad, Perceval (note spelling) and Bors, all of whom take the grail to Sarras together. White makes almost no changes in the events he includes from the grail quest, other than to summarize them and to present them second-hand as commentary, as a way of explaining Malory's text, a way of focusing on details that many readers don't notice, countering common misunderstandings of the story, trying to explain show how this tale which in style and purport is so contrary to much modern expectation and convention is meant to be read and appreciated. This section is perhaps the best appreciation of the grail quest in Malory ever written.
Jallan 16:50, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)
This article, and The Sword in the Stone and The Book of Merlyn, should be merged into The Once and Future King. Discussion of sources and treatment can then cover all five books. Gdr 01:15, 2004 Nov 3 (UTC)

Comune (Italian political subdivision)

I don't have the expertise to expand this intelligently, but there's no question but it should be expanded, and it needs to be better organized. — Bill 15:50, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Coachella Valley

Ah, so close. Guess I nominated it a bit early. Looking at it through a more jaundiced eye, the article has a lot of info but is a bit disjointed. - Lucky 6.9 04:44, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Does the valley include the Salton sea? The picture makes it look like it does. Geography of the area certainly needs to be covered. The Salton sea has a lot of unique features, controversies and environmental issues that could be covered if it is included in the valley. Also many other facets of the area besides the history and celebrity status/trivia need to be covered. - Taxman 23:35, Oct 26, 2004 (UTC)

Gary Sheffield

Can somebody review this article, its kind of boring. Its mostly about his career highlights and things like that.

There's a lot of good info there. Have you thought about breaking it up in sections by season, maybe? Also, you probably don't have to use "Gary Sheffield" and "Gary" as much--you can use the pronoun almost all the time. That will make it read a bit more smoothly. Looks good. P. RIIS 16:58, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Harun al-Rashid

Harun, a a common protagonist of Arabian Nights stories. I found this article and improved it a bit by adding pictures and references. If anyone else can improve it more, does it have a potential for being a featured article? OneGuy 15:04, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Yes, it seems to have good material, though I have no knowledge with which to verify it. But it needs a lead section. Also I can't remember the last time an article that was not long enough for a number of subsections successfully became a featured article. Though there is no reason it wouldn't if the writing is very good and the coverage is complete. - Taxman 00:55, Oct 31, 2004 (UTC)

List of features on the Moon

I just finished up the "List of features on the Moon" page and it is primarily a list of geologic features on the Moon that have been given designations by the IAU. My primarily request is for somebody to do a quick check to make sure the coordinates of the various objects are correct. (There's a link at the bottom of that page that has the coordinates available.) Kind of a tedious task, I know, so I greatly appreciate somebody taking the time. Also if you see anything else that needs fixing such as the Eponyms for the objects, &c. Thank you. ... — RJH 22:31, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)

  • Note that I didn't consider most of these features link-worthy, so I didn't put the brackets around the names. Most of the features associated with a crater are being described on the crater page, &c. The links could always be added in later as needed. — RJH 22:38, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Albedo and Catenas checked - one correction made. I may not have time to do the rest so anyone else please feel free to dive in. --195.11.216.59 17:28, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Dorsa and Dorsum done - four corrections made. --195.11.216.59 08:51, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Promontorium done - no corrections. --195.11.216.59 17:41, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Kardashev scale

I discovered this article and decided over the last few days to do a lot of work on it. Given that, I will list here what I think can be done, and other issues I noted:

  1. Since I just reworked large portions of the article, I hope someone can help me throughly NPOV this, because of course, remenants of my POV may be stuck in sections that I wrote.
  2. With all the external references, I think this could be highly internalized, with large extentions of sections into subarguments and analysises. I disliked either referencing to sources that are not that accurate in POV, or better express information that I think is relevant, but must be phrased such that no copywrite issues are involved. I have already gone through the article and made sure that no single point comes from any one source, and that there is a lot of information behind any statement.
  3. The scale was made with SETI as in mind, if anyone can provide a section about SETI's applications of the scale and any information upon its other uses, or even popular references to the scale, that would be great. It seems to be prominent in science fiction community discussions, but I only have cursory involvement with that, so I only provided as much as I knew from discussions from other people, along with the literature that I have encountered. This also leads back to a POV issue, because of my limit on sources that I have access to.
  4. If someone could either get an image/graph of global power production growth, that would be great because I had a tough time finding one, given by the fact that there is none on the page.
  5. Extended section on current values, with fractional scale values pertaining to particular dates (ie. development of steam engine, light bulb, World War I, World War II, 1970's energy crisises, and numbers for the last three years (2002, 2003, 2004). Maybe a discussion of near term (20-100 years) predictions, along from predictions of time until crossing the Type I, and Type II barriers.
  6. I put in information about civilization cycles, but can someone help me find a source that talks about this that doesn't proclaim the 'end of the world is 'nigh' or explain how 'alien gods will decend upon the Earth, angered by the human race, to destroy us all on December 21, 2012.' Well, maybe I am paraphrasing a little, but you get the point.
  7. If anyone enjoys to mercilessly criticize and correct grammar and spelling, be my guest, whatever makes the article better.

Thanks for anyone's help in advance. [[User:Ctrl_build|Ctrl_build\talk]] 20:01, Oct 22, 2004 (UTC) (Sorry Solitude, I thought the style of the signature was cool, hope you consider imitation the highest form of flattery)

  • I have prepped my talk page for all discussions and commentary, talk, and I would prefer that editing discussions occur there or the article's talk page, while suggestion discussions occur here. I will be away/busy until probably next Tuesday, but I will try to respond to any questions before then. --[[User:Ctrl build|Ctrl_buildtalk

]] 05:55, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)

--[[User:Ctrl build|Ctrl_buildtalk

]] 22:23, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Basque

There seems to be a lot of back and forth about lingusitic and especially genetic evidence. I have no expertise in this. I've made a few remarks at Talk:Basque#dubious_edits. I'd really appreciate it if someone who is knowledgable about the evidence on the history of the Basques and does not have an axe to grind would step in. -- Jmabel | Talk 18:49, Oct 22, 2004 (UTC)

Jill Ker Conway

Written from scratch by me, I know it could be expanded with information on her other books. But currently it could at least use some copy-editing for spelling and grammar, considering English is not my first language. Ofcourse suggestions or improvements of any kind are welcome. Thanks, [[User:Solitude|Solitude\talk]] 13:44, Oct 22, 2004 (UTC)


Hi Solitude, I am new to Wikipedia so excuse me if I don't know all the etiquettes. I enjoyed your information on Jill Ker Conway. One question I have is about your comment that she is an American author. I wonder if this is true - does she consider herself to be an American author? I have always thought of her as an Australian author. Actually, when I first heard of her I thought she was Canadian! M.

Myers Briggs Type Indicator

Please provide suggestions on what sections of the article should be reworded, and where the scientific explanation of the dynamics is out of the scope of the casual reader. I would like to find the sweet spot between accuracy, readability, and this being the best place to find out what the MBTI is really about on the Internet. I have three ideas for new sections, although I am not sure if I should include all or none, so that advice would be useful as well. They include a section solely on the psychometrics involved, a section on the history of the indicator, and a section on temperament, which is not an aspect of the MBTI itself but is popularly believed to be on the Internet and elsewhere. Would briefly explaining what temperament is and how it relates (or doesn't relate) to the MBTI help in clearing this up? Thanks for your suggestions on this and anything else. -- Alterego at 1:18 AM on 10/22/2004

  • The poll of Wikipedians I think is too self-referential; there should be a less navel-gazing way of highlighting the predominance of INTJ geeks on the net.

INTJ 09:08, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)

    • I will replace the poll with a link to the polling at the bottom of the article. Thank you. As an aside, there is a corner of the net for every type, although a few will be statistically non-existant. Off the record, the large supply of INTJ and INTPs are due to the nature of the website we are on :) Also, my preference, ISTP, are known as the "walking encyclopedias" :) - Alterego at 4:27 PM on 10/24/2004
  • I'd like to add that there probably is a better to way to represent the population breakdown in an image than with rendered text. Say, with pretty, multi-colored bars ;) I also agree that the Wikipedians poll is too self-referential. -- Fredrik | talk 09:32, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)
    • The image I have placed is actually a screenshot of rendered html/css. I could not find a way to present it nicely on the right side of the page. I am not sure how I could go about implementing your idea. Do you have a way to do this? Thank you! (i should note that i just added a section on temperament) - Alterego at 4:27 PM on 10/24/2004

Atlas Cheetah

I rewrote the whole article due to the previous version being unsalvageable because its source material, Greg Goebel's Vectorsite, was totally inaccurate. I'm considering submitting it as a FAC, so any constructive criticism and advice is welcome. Impi 23:08, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)

  • A minor point, but the first photo overlaps with the text of the lead for me (Firefox 1.0 browser, monobook skin). Markalexander100 05:00, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)
    • Thanks, I think I've fixed it now, take a look. Impi 13:15, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Salvador Dalí

I'm thinking of submitting this as a Featured candidate. Observations, suggestions, and comments welcome. -- Infrogmation 18:57, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)

(1) The second picture of him is claimed to be public domain but I see no evidence for that. (2) The painting is copyrighted, and I don't think this can be justified as fair use. (3) Needs to name some printed references. (4) There are a number of value judgments, inevitable in a biography of an artist, but you could make them NPOV by explaining who exactly makes those judgements. For example, instead of Dalí was an artist of great talent and imagination, you could write something like Many critics, even those who thought his work morally repugnant, considered him an artist of great talent. George Orwell wrote, "Dali is a draughtsman of very exceptional gifts. He is also, to judge by the minuteness and the sureness of his drawings, a very hard worker. He is an exhibitionist and a careerist, but he is not a fraud. He has fifty times more talent than most of the people who would denounce his morals and jeer at his paintings." (From "Benefit of Clergy: Some notes on Salvador Dalí") (5) The biography is a bit scrappy, with a bunch of short paragraphs. Can you make it flow better, perhaps by grouping subjects such as his relationship with Gala? Gdr 22:37, 2004 Oct 22 (UTC)

there is a company, I believe it is in Redondo Beach, that has the copyright to most of the Dali artifacts. One might seek permission there. I'll try to find the name.Pedant 01:44, 2004 Oct 26 (UTC)

Computer Security

Is it just me or is this article a rant by somebody proclaiming capabilities as a silver bullet for security? --Robert Merkel 10:35, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)

  • I'm not sure I read it that way, although there are some assertions with which I don't fully agree and a few that are unnecessary. Most of the article appears to reflect reasonably current thinking about securing computers. There is, however, considerable room for improvement and expansion. Did you have something specific in mind within the article? --RJH 22:45, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)
    • Yes, I did. Read computer insecurity, and the POV is extremely thick. Capabilities, or any other specific technical measure, are only one part of keeping computers secure, any more than a specific type of lock is the answer to keeping physical facilities secure. How do capabilities make one lick of difference against social engineering? How would capabilities prevent the surrepstitious installation of a hardware keylogger, or wireless packet sniffing, or a tempest attack, or somebody walking into the computer room and stealing the entire set up backup tapes? --Robert Merkel 05:36, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Regional accents of English speakers

Discuss on: talk:Regional accents of English speakers#St. Louis and vicinity

Description: I added to Regional accents of English speakers#St. Louis and vicinity and think some may apply to other regions; if others could check it out and offer suggestions, that would be great! Thanks.

Posted by: Pædia 15:57, 2004 Oct 19 (UTC)

Schizophrenia

If anyone has ideas on improving this article, it would be a great help. Vacuum 18:16, Oct 17, 2004 (UTC)

The article could use a healthy dose of heirarchical organization. There's a ton of good information, but the size and relatively flat heirarchy have caused it to become somewhat disorganized, which makes it difficult to navigate. Notice that there are fifteen main sections, each fairly large, but no subsections. The section on diagnosis, for example, effectively has three subsections: "modern diagnosis" "historical categorization" and "symptoms", though they aren't labelled as such. Formalizing those and/or a couple other subsections may help put a few of the paragraphs in an order that flows better.


I think if it were subsectioned (maybe separately on paper first or in a sandbox), some further organizational options would become clear. Some bits may show a clear need for reorganization, e.g. if there are small mentions of "history of diagnosis" and "history of treatment" they could be moved to the main "history" section or even broken off into a separate page. Or maybe the social aspects (incidence, symptoms, etc.) vs. clinical aspects (diagnosis and treatment) vs. scientific aspects (causes and research) provide another route for reorganization or splitting into multiple pages. IdahoEv 05:40, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)


I think this is an excellent article and contains a large amount of accurate information that is well-referenced, however I have a gripe about the excessive mentioning of the anti-psychiatry movement. One or two sentences would be enough since this is not mainstream and is a fringe idea. There is not much debate among almost all physicians (except a few) that Schizophrenia is a biologically-based disorder. 13 May 2005

Talk:Audio_level_compression

Apparently no one who wrote this article is watching it. I put some comments (and images!) in the talk page a while ago and would like them clarified and added to the article if they are correct. - Omegatron 03:46, Oct 17, 2004 (UTC)

Isle of Wight School System

Short, but hopefuly quite complete. Any suggestions welcome. NeilTarrant 13:36, 16 Oct 2004 (UTC)

As a graduate of said system, it seems fully in order to me. I would have thought that any more detail would probably be too much, so the article gets my support as it stands. Naturenet 18:50, 16 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Triathlon

My first attempt at a significant contribution was a major rewrite and expansion of the page on this sport. I'd like a sanity check to make sure I'm on the right track and doing things to community standards before digging in further. Concerned about overlap with the Ironman Triathlon page, which preexisted Triathlon and was much larger, though it's a specific subset of the sport. I also added the subcategory "Endurance sports" to contain this sort of event, along with marathon, nordic skiing, etc. Many thanks. IdahoEv 05:51, 16 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Yes, definitely on the right track. See Wikipedia:What_is_a_featured_article for some more of the criteria for our best articles. A print reference used in the writing of the article would be great, in either case you need to note if any of the external links were used as references specifically. Also a GFDL or creative commons licensed picture would be great. It is a de facto requirement for featured articles. Also, try to eliminate one or two sentence paragraphs. They are bad form. Good work - Taxman 19:05, Oct 19, 2004 (UTC)
Okay, thanks much for the thoughts. I am trying to put together a composite photo using my own pictures from races, so that I can confidently GFDL it without worry. (If anyone who reads this has nice shots they'd be willing to contribute, please contact me). I'll go back and note which web references were used where in the article; so far everything has been from online or from memory. I do know of a couple of good books on triathlon, though, maybe I'll check them out from the library, use them to flesh out the article, and cite them. IdahoEv 21:22, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Could you say something about the conflicting physical demands of the sport? (Good long-distance runners are thin and light; good cyclists have big legs; good swimmers have big shoulders and small legs.) You might mention how triathlon introduced tribars to cycling. Gdr 22:45, 2004 Oct 22 (UTC)
Good suggestions; I'll look into implementing both. IdahoEv 07:46, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Abington School District v. Schempp

Basically a steaming pile of POV. Honestly, not even Christian views of women has this much anti-Christian bias! Can people please look at the talk page and either comment or start editing? - Ta bu shi da yu 01:58, 16 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Someone dumped a law review journal article here. It is clearly written by a single author and the unity of narrative style is a refreshing difference from our usual disjointed, up-and-down reading level articles. It has enough editorializing ("historical" etc) that it didn't come strictly from case summaries. The reading level is post-college and far beyond the usual article here and would be heavy going for many of our less literate readers and editors. I can't see an anti-Christian emotional energy here, just a completely different perspective (that of a lawyer or law student). Just the legal facts, ma'am. What parts do you find NPOV? Hopefully no copyright issues-- maybe it hasn't been published. alteripse 14:00, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)

McMansion

This article is obviously NPOV (NPOV or POV?!), but it's architecture, and it's suppose to be humour. Is it valid to go thourgh and npov or should we just leave it as it is?

I think it's very valid to go through and NPOV this article (some words and phrases are very loaded, and there are some value judgements in there); the McMansion is a widespread kind of house, and term is spreading too, I think. I'll have a crack at this article if I get time. Katherine Shaw 14:42, Oct 15, 2004 (UTC)
Since you listed this here, anon user 66.234.211.233 has gone though and POV'ed the hell out of it. This article needs a lot of work. Taco Deposit | Talk-o Deposit 14:55, Oct 15, 2004 (UTC)
There seems to be some good work done here. One element not well discussed is the autocentrism of the McMansion - auto access from the lot front, often 50% or more of lot frontage; garage often >50% of structure frontage; garage footprint area nearly equal to firt floor footprint area; etc. May want to include trussed roofing in materials. "Brick tape" is a common term for non-structural brick siding applied for appearances.
I wanted to compliment the authors on some good, complex sentence usage. There are a few word choices/usages you may want to look at: doublewide as opposed to double wide, sidelights as opposed to side lights, two-story as opposed to two story. I'm assuming studwall is the specific term. Here's a sentence which might be recast:
This style of house will usually have two stories; again, this is an economic consideration as it allows for taller living spaces in a portion of the building and the costs of roof and foundation are shared by two floors elsewhere in the building.
consider:
Economic and aesthetic considerations usually lead to two story designs; the additional story lends itself to taller ceilings, and a smaller roof and foundation for the area reduces the cost per square foot.
I could get stickier, but this article is pretty good. Do a spell check though... - Amgine 19:00, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Eh, this article's neutrality is questionable. 22:09 Dec 15th 2007 (EST) —Preceding unsigned comment added by HalleyMP (talk • contribs)

Science of Value

I took a look at this page after a request that someone do so. It was unacceptable, since it was promoting something which is complete rubbish. It's about like having an article claiming pi is equal to 3 up. However, as one might expect, user: Simplebrain reverted it. I think the page will probably need to be protected from user: Simplebrain. User:Gene Ward Smith 20:46, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC) I agree the article is awful, is not NPOV, and that user: Simplebrain may need to be barred from editing that article unless he can collaborate better. But peer review is not the place for that type of listing, sorry. The discussion on the Village pump was the better place to leave it. The discussion can go on there to decide the fate of the article and get admin attention for whatever remedies are needed. Just wanted to let you know why I removed the listing on PR. - Taxman 13:24, Nov 23, 2004 (UTC)

Occupation of Palestine

This article is the subject of many arguments and very agressive editing, it is being used for a political purposes. It realy need to be looked over by non of the current protagonists, and should be republished anyware without the discussion page, until it has been de politicised.--Jirate 14:54, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)

  • User:Jirate is ignoring a very serious discussion about this article and its contents at Talk:Occupation of Palestine by many responsible users, and is is only misleading readers by placing it here for Peer review. IZAK 06:26, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • IZAK is trying to excuse a conversation he took part in, in his own talk page.--Jirate 09:49, 2004 Oct 15 (UTC)
  • There appear to be the following points of contention in this article (I am writing as a disinterested party who knows little about this article):
    • "Many Arabs and their allies object violently to the Israeli presence in the West Bank and Gaza Strip, which they characterize as an illegal occupation." - this sentence is objected to by HistoryBuffEr. He says ""Arabs and their allies" comprise most of the world" (I believe this to be a doubtful statement and a sweeping assertion) and "The word "presence" is used only by a few Zionist extremists." The sentence, however, definitely needs rewriting. "Many Arabs and their allies" needs to say specifically who they are (it could mean anyone). The comment on "presence" appears to me to be invalid, however. The Israelis' (from the little I know of this topic) definitely have some presence in the region. However, in the spirit of compromise, it would be best to change this word.
    • "Israelis may also perceive this phrase as a hostile statement meant to paint them in a negative light and delegitimize them." - sentence is objected to by HistoryBuffEr because he says the word "presence" is a euphemism that delegitimizes Palestinian Arabs. I disagree, however another word should likely be found.
    • Subarticles. Objected to by HistoryBuffEr because he says they cause problems with the readibility of the article.
    • The section "Intifada, Separation Barrier, Road Map". HistoryBuffErr states that it has been written from an Israeli extremist POV. No specifics of where the POV have been stated. I would tend to agree, however, because the section does talk about many of the things the Palestinians are doing to the Israelis, however the reasons they are doing these things are not stated. It does appear to be POV.
    • The section "Current status". HistoryBuffEr wants this to be renamed "Current occupation" because all previous historical events were called occupations. Jayjg opposes this because he says that none of them should be called occupations as its part of a propaganda war being waged on various pages.
    • There is a statement about maps used in Palestinian schools "depict Palestine as the non-Jordanian portion of the region. Israel does not appear on these maps." HistoryBuffEr has noted that a Map of Israel Ministry of Foreign Affairs [1] labels the West Bank as Judea and Samaria, and therefore Israeli maps should be also noted in this article. Ed Poor, however, notes that it is a terrain map, not a political map, and therefore not a good example of how Israel "[claims] all of Palestinian territory for Israel" (apparently included in the article). Later, HistoryBuffErr stated that it was just the first he stumbled upon to provide a hyperlink for an example. He says, however, that the map still supports his statement because:
      1. Word "Israel" is specified in the link text ("Map of Israel");
      2. Judea and Samaria are political, not geographical terms.
      3. Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs is not a geographical society, any map they post is inherently political
    • There is a request for expansion of the article by HistoryBuffErr. He states that "The entire section is devoid of any factual information about the occupation itself: the killings, the destruction, the oppression, the occupation colonies, etc."
Anyway, that's just the earlier disagreements by HistoryBuffErr that have not been resolved as yet. I don't mean to single out HBE, incidently. He's merely one of the most vocal participants of the article. I note, however, that a lot of points that have been raised in discussion argue for including facts that should be in Arab-Israeli conflict.
Lastly, at the risk of making this look like a personal attack, I'd like to comment on the person who brought this to Peer Review. Jirate has stated the following:
  • "Most people do recognize the complexity of the world, it's the supporters of Israel who do not."
  • "Some Israeli act like Nazi so the get called Nazi, its as simple that. The National Religious Parties manifesto views the west bank as Israels "liebensraum"."
  • "There was nothing personal, it's you that keeps dishonestly characterising things as personal, as you have lost the argument."
He has also tried to introduce material from http://www.deathmasters.com, which others like Viriditas and Jayjg have objected to, stating that the site is not authoritative and has serious questions over its credibility. Evidently Jirate believes that the site is NPOV. See Occupation of Palestine#" (Israel) in contravention of the Partition plan, began killing and ethnically cleansing Palestinian Arab population. Palestine's five neighbour states then.."
I would suggest that, though there is nothing wrong with listing this on Peer Review, the discussions being hashed out the talk page are going slowly but surely, largely thanks to Ed Poor. - Ta bu shi da yu 02:58, 17 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Taking you points regarding me in order.
Firstly with a little more context.
'Most people do recognize the complexity of the world, it's the supporters of Israel who do not. Specifically by not recognizing the terroist activities and gangs that helped in the formation of Israel.'
Have you ever read an NRP manifesto?
In a world with 'HEALTH NAZI' [2][3], 'Safety Nazi' [4], 'Stationary Nazi' [5] are in common use, it's hardly suprising someone uses it in that sense? I didn't use it myself.
Why did you even bring this up in the first place? Calling Jews Nazis is highly inflammatory! I think you know this. May I suggest more moderation in your comments in the future? - Ta bu shi da yu 05:10, 17 Oct 2004 (UTC)
It is inflammatory but I didn't use it. I was commenting on someone else use.--Jirate 10:22, 2004 Oct 17 (UTC)
When Viriditas say 'Since your claims amount to nothing but cheap, prejudicial personal attacks, they are worthless.' immediately before my 'There was nothing personal..' is that not worth of a mention, not just as personal?
I'm sorry, just because you believe that someone else is engaging in a personal attack, this does not give you the right to do the same back to that person! - Ta bu shi da yu 05:10, 17 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Where did I say I thought it was NPOV? Through out the entire exchange Viriditas avoiding the subjects raised. Even when it was pointed out that two of the items on the list Qibya_massacre King David Hotel bombing are entries on here, Sabra and_Shatila Massacre, another by 'http://www.guardian.co.uk/israel/Story/0%2C2763%2C433318%2C00.html' and another by 'http://www.ee.bgu.ac.il/~censor/katz-directory/00-01-22mideastweb.txt'. No considered argument was offered opposing the list, nothing. It would seem to be a more productive course to actually attack what was claimed within the articles, than to question it on the grounds of who has a link to the site on theirs.
I might have misread that bit. If that's the case, full apologies are due to yourself, and I give it unreservedly and humbly ask for your forgiveness. However, may I just note that none of these things (as far as I can see) should be going into the article? They should instead be going into the Arab-Israeli conflict article. - Ta bu shi da yu 05:10, 17 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Accepted and forgiven. It spiraled out from some comments in there. --Jirate 10:22, 2004 Oct 17 (UTC)
it shows how true my statment, on the same page was 'IMHO the basic unit of humanity is the "Gang" wether that gang calls its self a race,religion,football team or political view point. What we see here and in Palestian/Israel fight is gang warfare, nothing else. People try to show their loyalty to "their" gang in all sorts of ways, deliberate and studied ignorance etc, never admit they are wrong, never compromise etc. What the gangs and the zealot members are after is victory so they can say they were right and all their gangs actions where justified etc. They aren't after peace.--Jirate 15:03, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)'. In copying that I found this as a comment to it 'Poisoning the well. --Viriditas 00:02, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)'
--Jirate 04:48, 2004 Oct 17 (UTC)

Destination Imagination

I made major additions to this article bringing it up from a {cleanup}'ed short article, and think that it could become an FAC. I'm looking for a general review of content by anyone and more specifics from anyone else who was/is involved in the program. Another viewpoint is always good. Whosyourjudas (talk) 21:13, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Everything here looks right; I agree that it needs more information, but I'm not sure where to start adding it. (Also, I like it so much that I fear breaking neutrality... I keep wanting to edit it to say how awesome DI is, and can't.) HappyMutant 23:03, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Macedonia

After having attempted to promote language in the article that is not offensive to Greeks and is not directly from FYROM/VMRO/Tito propaganda playbooks, it has become obvious that the only people paying attention to this article are the propagandists! I implore the community at large, and more specifically someone with knowledge of the full context of the history of Macedonia (and with no agenda) to review the article and remove the eggregious propanda language. Thank you. Philaleth 19:18, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)

  • I have reviewed the article (albeit briefly) and found it to be quite balanced. I am Greek though, so I might be a bit biased (I try to be neutral). Also, I don't have great historical knowledge, but it looks like it's accurate. Poromenos 22:56, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Community

This page links to m:The Wikipedia Community and Wikipedia:WikiProject_Community and is intended for use by "rank and file" Wikipedians who don't have account at meta. I hope this project is deemed appropriate by the staff. It is planned only to augment what has already been accomplished. Please let me know what you think. 208.60.225.14 21:05, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Sorry, That was me Quinobi 21:09, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Brisbane Bears

This is my first attempt at a Wikipedia page and I'm interested in any feedback I can get on content, style and formatting. Particularly relevant to AFL/Australian sports fans. --The Brain of Morbius 06:59, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Mahjong

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

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

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

Sound localization

Need neuroscience/psych people to check this over. Most of it is reasonably backed by papers I've read, but the bottom section about distance localization I pretty much inferred a priori. Thanks --User:Chinasaur

Millenium Actress

Need anime or history fo japan people to help with this one. Main issue is the analysis of historical periods covered in the movie. I estimated about 13th century as the earliest, but this is such a lame guess. Thanks --User:Chinasaur

The time period is Sengoku period, 15th to 17th century, so it was close call. Revth 03:46, 9 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Isn't millennium misspelled? lysdexia 09:25, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Star Tours

Just want you guys to do the works. It's my first try at writing a Wikipedia article myself and I do believe I covered every aspect of it quite well. It's not an enormous article, but it's enough to give the reader a well informed feeling upon reading it, and maybe it will even encourage others to add to the compendium of Disneyland attractions.Indigoblu 21:19 , Oct. 7, 2004 (UTC)

  • You could make the picture a bit smaller and break up the large paragraphs under the last two headings to make it easier on the eyes. Other than that, I've got no idea. I'm not familiar with the ride. [[User:MacGyverMagic|Mgm|(talk)]] 14:45, Oct 9, 2004 (UTC)

Medal of Honor

On the way to featured article. Comments? Ydorb 23:47, Oct 6, 2004 (UTC)

  • How many women? Blacks? Hispanics? Breakdown by branch of service? Also, where is the Unknown soldier's medal kept? [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality (talk)]] 00:02, Oct 7, 2004 (UTC)

I cannot figure out where the Unknown soldier's medal is kept. I added statistics on branch of service and a paragraph about racial inequities in MOH awards. Ydorb

Sesame Street

Wikipedia:Peer review/Sesame Street/archive2
Wikipedia:Peer review/Sesame Street/archive3

What's the article need now? I think I've addressed the concerns from the previous PRs. -- Zanimum 17:50, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program. They may or may not be accurate for the article in question (due to possible errors/uniqueness of articles). If the following suggestions are completely incorrect about the article, please drop a note on my talk page.
Per WP:CONTEXT and WP:MOSDATE, months and days of the week generally should not be linked (Don't link September or Tuesday unless there is really good reason to). Years, decades, and centuries can be linked if they provide context for the article.
See below. -- Zanimum 18:55, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
Per WP:WIAFA, Images should have concise captions.
While I agree, concise captions don't allow me to prove enough supporting information to claim fair use. Ideas? -- Zanimum 18:55, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
Per WP:MOSNUM, there should be a no-break space - &nbsp; between a number and the unit of measurement. For example, instead of 18mm, use 18 mm, which when you are editing the page, should look like: 18&nbsp;mm.
I don't see any measurements. -- Zanimum 18:54, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
Per WP:MOS#Headings, headings generally do not start with the word "The". For example, ==The Biography== would be changed to ==Biography==.
Would look to odd with just "Humans" as a category. -- Zanimum 18:54, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
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, painfully. -- Zanimum 18:52, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
Per WP:WIAFA, this article's table of contents (ToC) maybe too long- consider shrinking it down by merging short sections or using a proper system of daughter pages as per WP:SS.
This is already a summarised version. -- Zanimum 18:52, 13 June 2006 (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.
Fixed any that weren't cited. -- Zanimum 18:52, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
This article can use copyediting to ensure that the it exemplifies some of Wikipedia's best work.
You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions (and the javascript checklist; see the last paragraph in the lead) for further ideas.
Thanks, Andy t 22:26, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
As said above, this article needs attention to dates. This can be done quickly, simply copy the entire contents of User:Bobblewik/monobook.js to your own monobook. Then follow the instructions in your monobook to clear the cache (i.e. press Ctrl-Shift-R in Firefox, or Ctrl-F5 in IE) before it will work. This will give you a 'Dates' tab. Hope that helps. bobblewik 17:54, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
What exactly about dates? I'm not at a computer right now where I can modify my Monobook. The date links all seem fine. I don't link to any months or days of the week. -- Zanimum 19:21, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
There are unnecessary links to solitary years. If you update your monobook as described and press the 'Dates' tab, you will see the proposed edit. Feel free to try it and accept or reject the edit. bobblewik 18:01, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Video game controversy

I did some extensive work reorganizing and rewriting quite a bit of this article, and I think it may be worthy of featured article scrutiny. Any thoughts? Ian Pugh 03:27, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I think this needs a section on those hacked out computer games that are released soon after a tragic event and make fun of it. Also, there is nothing on those first person shooter games based on actual historical events nor the fact that a similar game is used in some militaries for training. Revth 12:55, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)
See Talk:Video_game_controversy#Left-Wing/Right_Wing. The notion of a "left wing" and "right wing" in this debate exists solely in the mind of one Wikipedia user and, in my opinion, should be removed from the article. Taco Deposit | Talk-o Deposit 13:21, Oct 6, 2004 (UTC)
(1) Agree that "left wing" and "right wing" have no place here. (2) There's a bit of hand-waving with "a professor at West Point who was interviewed several times" -- what were his qualifications? What is his name? (3) It's a bit strange to have video game proponent linked, but not video game censor -- "censor" may be not be the best opposite for "proponent", as it carries a very different emotional charge. (4) Maybe it's because I grew up in the Bible Belt, but I never even heard about these supposedly erotic Atari 2600 games (until like 2 years ago), and much is made of them... Was there really a wide-spread controversy here? (5) Might be good to mention Leather Goddesses of Phobos in connection with Leisure Suit Larry, since they're from the same time period (though very different approaches) (6) "cults of Christianity" is POV and pushes buttons (While you or I might personally feel that way, the members would take issue with being called a cult. We also have to be careful about too broad a brush here.) (7) "Enforcing a recall based on religious grounds is a violation of the Constitution" is false and POV. The Constitution forbids establishment of religion. A recall of a (hypothetical) game where you play a Nazi trying to round up Jews and put them to death is not establishing Judaism as a state religion. (8) The one-line sentence about Nazism in games in Germany probably deserves a little expansion -- the rationale, examples, showing that even "Nazi-killer" games like Wolfenstein were forbidden, etc. Mpolo 13:39, Oct 6, 2004 (UTC)
(1) Removed. (2) Removed at first, but then looked deeper and found him: Lt. Col. David Grossman. Added it back, with titles of his books and a link to an interview. (3) The link to video game proponent has been deleted; without a proper NPOV counterbalance (and video game proponent is largely POV), there's no point. (6) Removed. (7) Removed. (8) Some more stuff on Germany has been added. Have been largely dealt with. I'll get to the others ASAP. Ian Pugh 14:30, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Re. (6): I've listed Video game proponent for deletion. I don't think that article can be saved. Taco Deposit | Talk-o Deposit 20:41, Oct 16, 2004 (UTC)
While it's nice to have the "around the world" section the main text is still too US-centric. It may be good to make mention of Manhunt recently being banned in the UK [6], or anything to do with the UK! violet/riga (t) 19:44, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Definitely understandable. This was certainly a POV-concentric article when I found it, and I've attempted to clean it up in that respect, but I also admit to not being totally knowledgeable on video game legislation globally. If there's anything that anyone from around the world can do to help, I'd be much obliged. Ian Pugh 22:42, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)
I agree with violet/riga, up to a point. The body of the text is essentially a US-based article, and does not make that clear. The country-specific bits which follow are actually quite helpful, and give good context and comparison. I'm not sure that the UK needs any more prominence, or the US less, but perhaps if the main body were to be made country-neutral and the country-specific bits moved to the sensible sections which already exist? Naturenet 18:59, 16 Oct 2004 (UTC)

John Paul Jones

This article contains a number of factual errors and seems largely based on a bowdlerised version from popular myth than one based on historical facts. (Listed by 194.70.193.37 Oct-5-04)

  • Well it may be, but what is that based on? Do you have some sources? If so, be bold and go fix the article! - Taxman 16:38, Oct 5, 2004 (UTC)
    • I've tried multiple times, but the revisionist [[7]] keeps rewriting it. (unsigned comment by 213.249.179.23)
      • Revisions without sources will be reverted. Simply claiming someone to be a pirate, etc. is not encyclopedic. Back up your claims and they will be included. Jinian 11:58, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Civilization III

How can this be improved? Seems to have quite a bit of content for a game article; is this a possible Featured Article Candidate? Johnleemk | Talk 15:32, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)

  • External book references (with ISBN codes). It is fairly complete, otherwise. [[User:Davodd|DAVODD «TALK»]] 05:41, Oct 4, 2004 (UTC)
  • The worst thing about this article is that it is written for someone who knows quite a lot about this topic already. Overview starts with "Among its enhancements, Civilization III introduced ..." and this is not a helpful start to someone looking up this game. I think "Wonders" section needs improvements as there is nothing on that topic in Civilization II and someone who had never played this game would have no idea why this change is important. "Civilizations" section also needs improvements as "Qualities" is never explained. Revth 05:51, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Overview section should be improved with more explaining the Civ games and linking to appropriate articles. Also, tables should be updated to also list civilizations from the expansion packs. I may do some work on that one myself. Solver 19:08, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • I think we need to think globally on the civilization articles IMO the following article are inter-related Civilization (computer game), Civilization II, Civilization III, Freeciv, Civilization: Call To Power. And there's a need for more there are several other clone and a Civilization board game that was the inspiration for Syd Meïer. I think a main article (I suggest Civilization games) could include common feature of those games and historical aspects while others articles could be centered on each version characteristics. Ericd 23:48, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Gilligan's Island

  • Someone's already referenced this information ("Meet the Internet's Two-Headed Wonder, Investors.com, 10 Sep 2004: On the daughter of Newton Minow, Nell Minow, who runs Yahoo's Movie Mom, and is author of The Movie Mom's Guide to Family Movies. "Minow's sharp rebuke angered the Hollywood community. To extract a measure of revenge, according to online encyclopedia Wikipedia, the creators of the inane but much-loved 1960s situation comedy "Gilligan's Island" named the doomed cruise ship the "S.S. Minnow, as a dig at Newton Minow.") Yet there are no references in this article to back up this fact! Can someone please do some fact checking for us and put in some references? - Ta bu shi da yu 12:58, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • In the Professor's own book ("Here on Gilligan's Island" by Russell Johnson with Steve Cox. New York: HarperCollins, circa 1993), he writes that Sherwood Schwartz told him the boat was indeed named for FCC Commissioner Newton Minow. You might try looking at Schwart's own book, "Inside Gilligan's Island" (Jefferson, N.C.: McFarland, circa 1988) for what he says about it--I checked my own notes on the latter and didn't record if he commented about the commissioner. Ave! PedanticallySpeaking 16:57, Oct 8, 2004 (UTC)
  • Newton Minow himself has heard and believes the story:

The S.S. Minnow has made me immortal. I had told my kids to put on my tombstone, "on to a vaster wasteland." I think I will amend it to say "on to a vaster wasteland on the S.S. Minnow."

Letter from Newton N. Minow, Esq., to Robert M. Jarvis Good stuff in that article. Wish I'd found it before rewriting the entry on Minow. Mykej 09:22, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Republic of Macedonia

I believe we should just respect the U.N. decisions and just use the name that the state is recognised by U.N., regardless what Greeks or Macedonians think about the argument and regardless what reasons made the U.N. make this decision. Its a matter of respecing and international organisation such as the Unighted Nations. Regards, Steve


The name utilized for this article is not the formal, internationally accepted name for the country described in the article. Just as the article for "Hellas" points to the page for "Greece" and the one for "Britain" points to the page for "United Kingdom" the article titled "Republic of Macedonia" must redirect to the page for the "Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia" which is the name that is accepted by all nations and therefore NPOV. The purpose of Wikipedia is not to further the propaganda and agendas of individual states but rather to present the facts. Philaleth 05:07, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Keep name as is. WP naming convention is to use the simplest and most-common language to refer to place names. For example, we use Los Angeles, California - not El Pueblo de la Reina de Los Angeles, California, which is the city's little-used "official" name. And as for United Kingdom and Greece, you are mistaken. Their "official" names are United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and Hellenic Republic, respectively. - [[User:Davodd|DAVODD «TALK»]] 08:29, Oct 3, 2004 (UTC)
I don't think that Philaleth's point includes anything about "official" names. Both "Republic of Macedonia" and "Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia" are official names, the former being the Republic's constitutional name, and the latter the name the Rebuplic is recognized by most foreign states, including Greece. As I see it, Philaleth argues that the Republic is recognized as FYROM by most, which is basically true. I'm not going to discuss Wikipedia's naming policies. As far as I'm concearned, I'm satisfied with the article as is, provided that disclaimer saying "The title of this article is not meant to imply an official position on this naming dispute" stays, whatever the title is. That's a compromise, and that's the best we can do. Etz Haim 13:07, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)
If I may add to Etz's sober commentary: I believe that what is appropriate for Greece, Britain and Holland, is also appropriate for ROM/FYROM. There is no rational reason for which Wikipedia should concede to be used for the furthering of the propaganda of that (terrorist/extremist friendly and drugrunning and money laundering friendly) state. We must vehemently protect Wikipedia from such aggressors if it is to become relevant as a source of information to the world and worthy of this concerted effort. The one internationally legal name of this state is FYROM and so the article should be titled. A footnote can then show that its inhabitants want to use a different name for themselves. I believe that to do otherwise would not only be not NPOV and offensive to the people of Greece, but it would also run contrary to international laws and conventions. This article's title must be changed forthwith. I don't know how to do this so someone please advise. Philaleth 22:30, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)
My opinion is that allegations regarding illegal activities taking place in the FYROM are completely out of focus here, as they have nothing to do in an argument about the Republic's name. I strongly object to demonizing the FYROM, as this contradicts my experiences of meeting many of its people, who are friendly and decent, and are neither propagandists nor affiliated with drug lords, terrorists etc. Besides, I wouldn't want anyone to overlook the progress this country has made over the last years on its relationships with its neighbours, ie. its demilitarization framework that included its Greek border. Etz Haim 23:13, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)
I felt that it is indicative of the country's policies and practices, and therefore relevant in putting in the appropriate light that country's covert efforts to promote through propaganda a different name than that by which it has been internationally recognized. I have not had the pleasure of meeting any of the nationals of FYROM, but I am certain that they are in the majority nice, peace loving people. The facts listed in the Library of Congress and CIA websites regarding friendliness toward terrorism, drug running and money laundering in FYROM are not a reflection on the whole of the population or an attempt to demonize them. Unfortunately their government's policies and practices in fact place the population in the compromising position of having to tolerate activities which run contrary to international laws and insofar as those activities include covert efforts for the de-facto changing of their country's name to something other than the internationally legal one, I felt it was relevant. I offer my sincere apologies to any FYROM nationals who may have been offended by the revelation of that truth. Philaleth 23:44, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Don't preach. Present facts relevant to the issue. Perhaps Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia is the name that should appear in the article title, but talk of government corruption is irrelevant and the "truth" of such corruption is irrelevant. I may get time myself to check what current name is recommended by thorough checking ISO standards and relevant lists of countries in postal information websites for other English-speaking countries and seeing what usage actually seems to be so forth. That is what needs to be done. This is a naming dispute, and Wikipedia policies of using the most common name and using the name by which an organization wishes to be known may conflict here. Whether the organization itself is seen as a good thing or bad thing shouldn't matter. What is common usage? I note that Encyclopædia Britannica 's article is currently under simple Macedonia. [8]. Encarta has Macedonia (country) [9]. I note that Canada Post lists in full "The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia" as the country name that should be used for addressing though mostly it gives short names [10]. On the other hand at [11] the simple form "Macedonia" appears. More research along these lines is needed to see what actual usage is, not just what it perhaps should be. Jallan 18:08, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)

There will never actually be a neutral solution to this. The page should be titled Macedonia (the page on Italy, for example, is not written "Italian Republic"). As with any other shared names, a disambiguation notice can serve. I think the first line should read "The Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia (Republika Makedonija) is...". The longwinded name is the one commonly used.

I'm not Greek nor any type of Yugoslav, though, and just can't work up much ire about this ridiculous subject. I just imagine the English demanding that the Americans call their state "the American State of New Hampshire", or that Candians call London, Ontario "the Canadian City of London in Ontario". None of this has any place in an encyclopaedia that favours neither side.

Just my 2c and worth exactly that.Dr Zen 02:49, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Yes, but we aren't talking about a city or a state, we're talking about an entire nation. There's an Athens, Georgia, and Crete, Illinois, but Greece could care less since they're far enough to not be territorial or historical claims. Also I believe the English themselves named New Hampshire and London, Canada, so that's their own fault. Again, Italy can be named Italy instead of the Italian Republic because there, to the best of my knowledge, is no international controversy surrounding the names Italy or "Italian". Nevertheless, I don't see why the titles for countries don't use their official names. If someone searches for Greece, and the Hellenic Republic comes up, they'll probably end up learning something new since very few people actually know what Greece officially calls itself. Also, the vast majority of people call the USA America, but titling the Wiki US page "America" would undoubtedly offend Mexicans, Canadians, Central Americans, and South Americans. HawkeyE 07:21, 16 Jul 2005 (UTC )

Dabbawala

I recently wrote a duplicate article on this with another spelling, but when someone pointed me here, I found the existing article had more information. I'd like to help the editors who did this work to get it featured so:

  1. At the moment it's kind of small. Any suggestions for expansion?
  2. Any comments on the lead section?
  3. Any comments on the existing body of the text?

What is the preferred length for featured articles? -- [[User:MacGyverMagic|Mgm|(talk)]] 22:17, Oct 2, 2004 (UTC)

As to length, there is no set guideline, the biggest thing is completeness. That said, I'm not sure when the last time an article too short to have multiple sections and a table of contents was promoted to featured article. I'm not sure what can be expanded except if you can give an idea of what the price is exactly and a comparison of what that is to the person's salary that utilizes the Dabbawala. Specific comments are that the text is a little too colloquial in parts, especially "fast food joints" and "B-schools". That whole paragraph has some issues with clarity and grammar. How are they able to do this task so well? - Taxman 03:14, Oct 3, 2004 (UTC)

History of slavery in the United States

Written mostly by me, but I'm no historian, esp. when it comes to non-political history. Could somebody fact-check this for me? Thanks, [[User:Meelar|Meelar (talk)]] 21:47, Oct 1, 2004 (UTC)

There already exist articles on Slavery in Colonial America and the first slave-trader John Hawkins so you may as well make cross-references to them Ogg 08:39, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)

History of feminism

Previous COTW - is it ready for featured status? Davodd 20:33, Oct 1, 2004 (UTC)

Lead section really needs to be reworked. It should have 2 or 3 paragraphs summarizing the most important facets of the topic and ease the reader into the subject. That may include defining the subject for those unfamiliar with it. - Taxman 13:58, Oct 2, 2004 (UTC)

Comprachicos

Needs fact-checking. Rhobite 20:25, Oct 1, 2004 (UTC)

Is this an urban legend? I've come across the word in Ayn Rand, but she only uses it as a metaphor. There's nothing really about this in Leslie Fiedler's Monsters that I recall. Some kind of medical evidence or closer sources would be helpful. Smerdis of Tlön 18:08, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)
A quick google search finds the mention of the term in "The Man Who Laughs". This link [12] looks remarkably like our text, though (at least the first few words are identical -- no time to read more closely) Mpolo 19:08, Oct 4, 2004 (UTC)
I spent some time paging through the Google links. Just about everything seems to relate either to the Victor Hugo story, Ayn Rand's political metaphor, or an Atomic Bitchwax song "Comprachico Boogie." Of course, Google is not the universe, but my impression is that this was made up for a scary story. Smerdis of Tlön 03:43, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Space Race

This is the article's second review- see here.

Lots has happened to the article since 2004, the time of the last peer review. After being demoted from FA status, I'm trying to take it back up there again. I've cleaned it up a bit, but what else needs to happen to it?  MichaelHenley (Page-Talk-Contribs) 13:04, 26 July 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:Build the web, years with full dates should be linked; for example, link January 15, 2006.[?] This is no longer a current Wikipedia standard. The new standard is to leave dates unlinked.--Abebenjoe (talk) 19:14, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

  • 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==.[?]
  • Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (headings), headings generally should not repeat the title of the article. For example, if the article was Ferdinand Magellan, instead of using the heading ==Magellan's journey==, use ==Journey==.[?]
  • Per WP:WIAFA, this article's table of contents (ToC) may be too long- consider shrinking it down by merging short sections or using a proper system of daughter pages as per Wikipedia:Summary style.[?]
  • There are a few occurrences of weasel words in this article- please observe WP:AWT. Certain phrases should specify exactly who supports, considers, believes, etc., such a view.
  • 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.”
  • The script has spotted the following contractions: shouldn't, if these are outside of quotations, they should be expanded. This is in a quotation JustinTime55 (talk) 15:47, 31 March 2010 (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][?]
  • Please ensure that the article has gone through a thorough copyediting so that it exemplifies some of Wikipedia's best work. See also User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 1a.[?]

You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, DrKiernan 15:03, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Comparison of operating systems

Needs to go under POV check, factual check and more... squash 04:16, Sep 29, 2004 (UTC)

  • Maybe the Linux kernel type could be called "module-loading monolithic" linking directly to Linux_kernel#Architecture. The prices should specify if that's street or manufacturer's suggested retail price. SUSE should probably mention the possibility of a support package. Might be worth a footnote that Fedora can be set up for NTFS support, but that it is considered experimental. (Is it not experimental on SUSE?) -- Mpolo 08:45, Sep 30, 2004 (UTC)
    • You can help by making your suggested changes on the article :-) squash 02:12, Oct 1, 2004 (UTC)
  • The price section makes it too US-centric. There must be a better way of doing that! - Ta bu shi da yu 14:08, 30 Sep 2004 (UTC)
    • I can't really think of a better way either which doesn't compomise the information... squash 02:12, Oct 1, 2004 (UTC)
  • The row titled "Target audience" seems problematic. Paul August 14:29, Sep 30, 2004 (UTC)
    • Yes, I'll agree with you on that one, but there is no way to make is sound less problematic... squash 02:12, Oct 1, 2004 (UTC)

Human

This article is looking better than ever after the a long and wild trial by fire. Please help us make it a WP:FAC. Sam Spade 23:19, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

Wow. This is very well written, and quite comprehensive to my first glance. If I saw this on FA, I think my only objection would be its length. Unfortunatly, I'm not sure how to suggest to bring it down any... it seems like just about all of it has been divided up into subsections already. In analyzing this, I think that even the length is passable... each section is indeed in summary form, which is good. Hm. Sorry I can't help more right now. Maybe others'll have more constructive criticism? Fieari 06:41, September 12, 2005 (UTC)
  • This is an impressive article, and I don't think its length is a problem. As such an important subject it will, however, need to be immaculate to get through FAC. One quick suggestion is that the very brief "The word people" section be merged into the longer "Terminology" one. The "Mind" and "Psyche" sections also need a rewrite. Why are they almost wholly focused on psychoanalysis? While a notable theory, it is far from the only one, and today is not even very widely held. The "Religion and philosophy" section reads like a list of bullet points. I think a general overview, such as what we have in the lead sections of the religion and philosophy articles, would be far more useful than the current far from comprehensive listing of worldviews. - SimonP 18:13, September 12, 2005 (UTC)
My only suggestion is to double check the image copyrights, but the length does not bother me as much as it could others. Though, the Table of Contents could be shortnened a bit. Zach (Sound Off) 18:15, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Soon I'm going to be opposing FACs for articles where raster images are in use for content more correctly displayed using vector graphics in the SVG format. Human contains five such works, the pioneer 11 image, the migration map, the skin color map, the brain, and the psyche. Because the human image was fairly simple, I recreated it using Inkscape, althought it took me a while. :) The migration map looks like it was orignally created using Illustrator, ... I would be glad to assist converting it to a SVG (the landscape can stay a raster object), but it is a truly wonderful image which really must be placed into a more editable form before this article reaches its potential. The skin color map looks like someone should be able to provide a SVG version, the psyche, I could convert if no one else gets to it before me. The brain I don't really care about, but it's missing source information, so something should be done about it.
  • I noticed that many of your images are not very big. Requests for larger images are a common question asked in the wikipedia mailbox, since our software autoscales you should always use the larges images possible. Generally I like to see images at least 1200 pixels in their largest axis, and preferably larger. This is an article of such quality that I think the desire to reprint it will be great, as a result I would oppose featuring this article for low resolution images where I might not another. The USDA should be contacted and at least asked about the two girls image, if they do not have a higher resolution version I will not oppose on the basis of that image. The skeleton is great, (thanks Raul) although a more isolated photo would be better if one ever became available. Vitruvian Man is good considering its use. The freud image is too small and copyrighted, it should be replaced the current text of the article does not justify a claim of fair use. The photo of the thinker is untagged and probably copyvio, 2D renditions of 3D art do not have the same copyright status as 2D renditions of 2D art. It is also low resolution, higher would be prefered but isn't a deal breaker considering the use of the image. Cavehand's resolution and image quality are poor. Again not a deal breaker, but I think the article would be greatly enhanced with a better image. Okay, I've given you enough reasons to hate me now. Feel free to contact me to help with making any changes resulting from my comments. --Gmaxwell 03:17, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
I've found a somewhat higher res Freud image, looks like it is from the same series, confirmed taken in 1921, so it's PD-US. I've uploaded the image on commons and changed the article. --Gmaxwell 03:37, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

Patent medicine

I've just gone over this, added categories and standardized the old-fashioned image markup, and made some minor expansions. Wondering if anyone has anything significant to add. Smerdis of Tlön 16:29, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Concentration

I've expanded this article, but it needs to be checked over by someone with expertise in chemistry. Also, the examples given need to be double-checked for accuracy. -- FirstPrinciples 06:49, Sep 27, 2004 (UTC)

Six Flags Over Texas

Just need another set of eyes to look over the article for clarity and errors. --BrandonR 04:33, Sep 27, 2004 (UTC) Tightened up text. Question....in one paragraph you mention that the engines were converted to oil and in the next paragraph you mention that they park kept the integrity of the steam engines. Which is it?

The engines were converted from wood to oil, but were still steam engines. The oil heated the boilers instead of wood heating the boilers. I fixed that part. Still could use a look. I added an interesting fact under "free publicity" section, that would not be apparent if you had not watched the park being built. good article by the way.Pedant 01:41, 2004 Oct 26 (UTC)

Cardboard

Needs fact-checking, especially the history section. Was cardboard invented to soak up sweat in hats? I don't know, that's why I'm asking here! Rhobite 02:12, Sep 27, 2004 (UTC)

I doubt it, so I changed the article. For reasons, see my note on Talk:Cardboard. --Heron 12:55, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

The Black Ships

The material in this article is less clear and less complete than it should be. Somebody familiar with Japanese history and the Japanese language should review it to make sure it is accurate. --[[User:Eequor|η υωρ]] 12:03, 25 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Holly Valance

Mostly edited by myself. Can anyone see any inaccuracies or incomplete infomation? - Ta bu shi da yu 01:22, 25 Sep 20 04 (UTC)

Well the image copyrights are worrisome. The image page of the first image says: "This image is copyrighted. The copyright holder allows anyone to use it for any purpose, provided that we abide by their terms." What are their conditions? But at least that one is with permission. The others are fair use and quite troubling. Also, the discography is very disrupting to the prose, and to be a featured article would have to be moved to a separate article and the prose expanded. - Taxman 03:00, Sep 26, 2004 (UTC)
The images are all taken from the Universal website, which I got copyright permission for. I still have the terms and agreements, which I can place on the site. Incidently, only one of the images is fair use. I have gathered copyright permission for the rest of the images! - Ta bu shi da yu 04:39, 26 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Well make sure to include those terms in each image pages description section. The terms may or may not be compatible with a GFDL encyclopedia, no matter how pretty she is. - Taxman 15:54, Sep 28, 2004 (UTC)

Dawson's Creek

Probably the longest article I've done in Wikipedia. Only a couple others have offered edits and I'm curious to see what everyone else thinks. PedanticallySpeaking 18:50, Oct 7, 2004 (UTC)

  • Wow! Amazing synopsis of the show... I never realised things were that complicated in the series (I never really watched it though). You need to expand the intro, and fix the "only one worthwhile book" POV, get some images - do this and I reckon I'll vote this up on WP:FAC. - Ta bu shi da yu 02:12, 16 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Some comments:
    • No lead section
    • The controversy section needs a lot of work - it should probably be at the end, and needs a vast amount of NPOVing
    • The synopsis isn't bad, but it does have quite a few NPOV problems.
    • A few grammar problems, and the tone can be overly casual at times.
    • The credits section is very long, and I think some of it could be turned into prose.
    • The theme song should probably be mentioned in the lead, rather than at the very bottom, the broadcast history should probably be further up, and that could also do with a copyedit. Ambi 03:03, 16 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Physical cosmology

Appears to be totally unlegitimate; a troll? There appears to be no sensical version in the history.

  • Beyond crackpot. Send to VfD and delete. -- Decumanus 07:24, 2004 Oct 26 (UTC)

note was redirected to cosmology - Taxman 13:19, Oct 26, 2004 (UTC)

Bernie Ecclestone

Started and edited mostly by myself. Biography of one of the richest men on the planet and owner of Formula One. I'd like to make it a featured article. Ðåñηÿßôý | Talk 23:18, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)

White noise

This is a merge of white noise and the previous page on signal whitening. Both pages were subtly wrong before the merge, and the whole mess needs a thorough review, and possibly a rewrite. -- The Anome 08:12, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Pokemon articles seem to be about nonfictional animals

Beedrill, Butterfree - these articles have nothing in the first paragraph that states they are fictional. This seems to me like "Sherlock Holmes was one of the world's greatest detectives, and may have killed the arch-fiend Moriarty"... I think the whole pokemon constellation needs a look with this in mind. I'm not that sure what a pokemon IS, but it isn't a real thing...66.245.208.146 04:13, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Well I fixed those two. Just simply note in the intro that they are fictional characters. The fans of these things won't appreciate that, but they have to reallize that not saying they are fictional first thing is being misleading. You don't need peer review for these, just go fix them. Since this listing is not what this page is for, I'll remove this to Wikipedia:Peer review (to be deleted) in a couple days, or you can first. - Taxman 17:38, Sep 24, 2004 (UTC)

John Kerry

Any suggestions? [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality (talk)]] 03:33, Sep 24, 2004 (UTC)

A lot of good work. Very close to a featured article in my opinion. Nominating it there is likely to get objections from people that don't want another political article on the main page and don't understand that featured and on the main page are two separate things. - Taxman 14:52, Sep 25, 2004 (UTC)
A few specific items I noticed
  • Overall it faces a difficulty of covering a bit too much of the less important topic. For example the campaigning for congress section is very detailed considering he lost and in comparison to his successful bids for Lt Gov. and Senate getting only a few sentances. The campaigning for congress section is also difficult to undersand and follow for anyone not already familiar with the details. Maybe it should be in news style to give the important details up front.
  • Way too many one sentence paragraphs.
  • Sponsorship of legislation section is only one sentence. It should be merged somewhere else or expanded a bit.
  • The committee assignments listing could stand be moved out, perhaps to another sub article such as politics of John Kerry or similar.
Unlikely to get through WP:FAC on the simple objection that it's an edit war battleground. Same reason George W. Bush wouldn't get through - David Gerard 15:26, 25 Sep 2004 (UTC)

RX-78 mobile suit series

I was surprised nobody had done any of these fictional mecha as a wiki page already. I did most of the information, but I would like a)for others to help contribute to the information on each machine and b)to make sure that there are multiple viewpoints expressed. One thing to ask - if you do add info on one of the units that does not have it already, please add the vitals of the units, like I did on the first ones. AngelHedgie 22:30, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)

  • Edited and updated the RX-78-3 G3 Gundam data. I'd also recommend changing the general title of this section to the "RX Mobile Suit Series" since several of the mobile suits covered are not part of the RX-78 series.
  • Futher edited the page by fixing the information of the fate of the RX-78-1. Also add pictures for RX-78-1, the RX-78-2, the "G3", G04, G05, and the Mudrock. User-Name 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Been working with the Gundam Development Project section for the last few monthes, added pictures and the descriptions. Also included the Ships that these Mobile Suits were assigned to. TomStar81 22:49, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Editing away. Still adding pictures from the old Gundam Project website, which were made by the Gundam Guru Mark Simmons. Also working many mobile suit pages. Fixed up the RGM-79 GM page. Fixed up the MS-05 Zaku I page and currently working on the MS-06 Zaku II page. User-Name 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Well I'm done putting all the images in. Fixed up some of the info for the GP04 and removed the Gerbera Tetra info. User-Name 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Water

This article contains a number of shaky explanations, which might not even be correct, particulary in Water#The ideal properties for life. Large amounts of the article may be improved by better writing, and overall it doesn't seem to flow as well as it should. --[[User:Eequor|η υωρ]] 03:35, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)

  • It doesn't flow as well as it could, eh? That's a bit of a worry about an article about water... - Ta bu shi da yu 03:37, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Much better, but still needs improvement:
    • We still need a references section for where you are getting your information from. Also, there is unattributed information in this article that needs to be clarified.
      • "Experts predict more trouble ahead because of the world's growing population, increasing contamination through pollution and global warming." Which experts?
      • "40% of the world's inhabitants currently have insufficient fresh water for minimal hygiene. More than 2.2 million people died in 2000 from diseases related to the consumption of contaminated water or drought." Where are you getting this information from?
    • This article still has too many short sentences that should probably made into longer paragraphs. On this article I'm not that fussed about this point, but if it could be resolved it would be great.
    • No information about large bodies of water like lakes, oceans, etc. Just a brief overview with a picture of something like waves would be fine.
    • What about things that live in water? Surely that's important!
    • No mention of the recreational use of water. Again this is important.
    • Suggestion: what about the dangers of water? Again an important aspect of this substance.
    • What about things like water on other planets? Again, an important aspect of our understanding of water.
Ta bu shi da yu 04:21, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)
I agree with your comments, and I have put them on the to-do list of water. Pcarbonn 11:48, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)

(Duplicate listing, moving up) This article is a potential candidate for Featured Article, and I'm sure you'll learn a few things while reading it. Please have a final check before we submit it to FAC. Pcarbonn 20:04, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)

  • I'm confused with the diagram. What does it mean? Could you add more information onto the actual image itself? Could we also fix up the 1 sentence paragraphs? Some of the paragraphs could be fleshed out, say for instance "The Mpemba effect is the surprising phenomenon whereby hot water can, under certain conditions, freeze faster than cold, even though it must pass the lower temperature on the way to freezing." - give a bit more info (not the entire article it references, just some more info to make it more complete). Also, the history seems tacked on as an afterthought. I mean, there's water->History->Mythology and water->Water in practice->Water in religion... get my drift? Otherwise, this is a really well researched, well-written article! I would be happy to support it if you can sort out these things (especially a structural organisation). - Ta bu shi da yu 15:49, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)

24 hours of Le Mans

This long article covers the race fairly well, but I think the lead section could be trimmed/better organized, and the rest of the article could use some tightening up. Gentgeen 00:22, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)

  • There's a lot of good info here, but it's lacking structure and balance. Just a few things:
    • Lead section is way to long.
    • Part about the movie should be spun off.
    • Pictures are lacking. At least one action photo, and a map of the circuit would be needed, I think. A "Le Mans start" picture would also be great.
    • The "Le Mans start" is certainly not so important that it should be the first topic dealt with.
    • The history is very unbalanced. We get the top 10 for 2002 and long descriptions for various years, but the 1920s are dealt with in a single sentence. My suggestion would be to move very long descriptions to separate articles ("1968 24 hours of Le Mans" or so), and keep a global story here. Of course certain races need to get more attention than others, but keep it brief.
    • The list of winners is quite long, you may consider moving it to a separate "List of" article. I any case I would convert to a table. This looks better and allows you to search easily for marques and drivers.
    • Jeronimo 11:23, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)
    • The Le Mans start is a very important subtopic, as the race begin with the start it's not stupid to begin with it.
    • I am certainly responsible for the disbalance. My choice was to write what I remember from some editions I know well and to ignore others. It's obvious IMO that we will have to split the article as it expand. My fear is that if we split the article too early nobody will edit the articles on subtopics.
    • There's a lot of copyrighted photos of Le Mans but I'm not sure we could claim fair use. My dream would be that someone has a good amateur photo of the 1969 start !

Ericd 00:01, 9 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Brain

This article was the subject of a pretty vicious edit war earlier this year. A couple months ago, it was selected for improvement by Wikipedia:WikiProject Science and was much altered as a result. Before trying for FA status, I'd like some neuroscientists, MDs, psychologists, computer scientists, philosophers, and other interested Wikipedians to give it a look-over for completeness and fact-checking. Sayeth 16:17, Sep 21, 2004 (UTC)

  • I'll leave it to more knowledgeable people to comment on the body of the article - just thought I'd note that I thought the web site linked to in the first external link - the human brain, a learning tool is a bit weak. I'll let you know if I can find anything better Jerry cornelius 15:48, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)
I changed the first link to one of my favorite sites with lots of great info on the brain. Sayeth 02:46, Sep 29, 2004 (UTC)

Hospital medicine

Seems shaky. Is this really considered a special form of medical practice? If so, this needs work. If not, this needs deletion. - KeithTyler 20:39, Sep 20, 2004 (UTC)

My wife is a doctor, and yes, all the information in the article is essentially correct. I'm not sure there is much more to say about it but what is there already. And that's ok for this topic in my opinion. Not every article needs to be 14 printed pages. But again, this is not the best place for this listing. Requests for expansion may be better if that is what you want. I guess I'll have to come up with a better way to explain the aim of this page. - Taxman 13:38, Sep 21, 2004 (UTC)
I added some stuff. Legitimate article, probably could use redirect from hospitalist. Alteripse 14:29, 30 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Nice additions. Now it needs some direct citations for some of the important facts in the article. Were they all taken from the two links at the bottom? - Taxman 03:18, Oct 3, 2004 (UTC)

Alternative political spellings

This is my first new article of any substance (though I recgnoize it is not very substantial). It could really use some people's thoughtful suggestions. Be gentle; I'm a relative newbie. Taco Deposit | Talk-o Deposit 21:12, Sep 19, 2004 (UTC)

  • I like the idea! I think the best things you could do would be to add a sentence to each entry explaining how and why it was used, preferably with a reference. I've added an entry on E$$o as an example. You could probably also add a link from at least most of the pages you've linked to. --G Rutter 19:21, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Walt Disney

Note: the first request for peer review can be found at Wikipedia:Peer review/Walt Disney/archive1. - Ta bu shi da yu 02:59, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I am going to re-request this article for peer review, because it needs a major rewrite, and the bulk of its content needs to be split into a second article called Walt Disney animation studio which should contain the infor that is currently at Walt Disney Feature Animation as well. See its talk page for more information. --b. Touch 22:27, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Once the article is split, little will be left. There needs to be more information about his personal life, and the subheadings under the main Biography heading need to be merged with one another. Alexs letterbox 07:49, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I've finished my contribution to an alternate version of the article at Walt Disney/temp. What do you think; is there anything that should be changed, added, or deleted? As far as the Disney studio is concerned, I tried to cover it as consisely as possible for the entire period that Disney himself was directly involved and interested in it (early Kansas City days until roughtly 1950). After that, the focus shifts to Disneyland, television, and Disney World. The article on Walt Disney animation studio would cover the studio in slightly more detail, and of couse be equally concerned with all of the studio's animated features and short subjects series. --b. Touch 17:18, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Well, if no one objects, I'm going to replace the old article with the new one tomorrow (didn't anybody want to try and help out?) --b. Touch 18:46, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Smile (album)

This topic is about to get a lot of attention with the release next week of a live version and an upcoming cable special. The article is pretty good right now; if somebody had a legal picture of the album cover (hint, hint) and somebody else did a good copyedit scrub I think it'd be ready to go to FAC. Jgm (originally requested) 23:24, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Red-black tree

I've recently made some expansions to this article detailing the complex insertion and deletion operations. It'd be helpful if someone who knows about red-black trees could help check for accuracy, and if other people could help with readability, clarity, and so on. Thanks. Derrick Coetzee 18:26, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)

  • I've only had a chance to start looking at this article; I haven't combed through to check the individual sections for accuracy. I think it looks like a good reference, but that standing alone, the article is more appropriate to an algorithms book than an encyclopedia. The article started out very sharply; there were a few links to simpler topics, but no real explanations of background material, the motivation for creating red-black trees, why we are making the decisions we're making, or where red-black trees are used.
I tend to think that articles like this should start off with nontechnical material, and become more technical as the articles go on. A beginning section might want to expand on why red-black trees are important (they're used in filesystems, they're efficient at certain types of operations, etc.). Since the article is very technical, I think that information should go before a description of "what they are". The second section might loosely cover technical background material (with copious links). After that, the article could go into an intuitive description of red-black trees, and why they're more efficient. Lastly, you go into the algorithmic details.
With an article structured like that, if someone without enough technical background to understand the page comes across it, they can still gain something before they get lost. I really think that Wikipedia, since it's aimed somewhat at a general audience, gives us a great opportunity to communicate our intuitive understandings of technical terms, and move away some from the style of current textbooks (where you define something, and then explain what it is).
Anyway, I know I'm pretty verbose. I added a short "Background" section (I forgot to log in at the time, I'm afraid), and I'd be happy to give more specific comments, or discuss things, if you're interested. Good luck with this article, and have fun! -- Creidieki 06:08, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)
I know this might sound silly, in the insertions bit could you illustrate case 1 and case 2 with an diagram, like you've done for case 3? - Ta bu shi da yu 06:56, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • As for combing through for accuracy, if it's not already done by then, I intend to do so in some two weeks. (When my exams are over.) - Jolson 20:56, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Christian views of women

This needs significant NPOVing (still). I've done quite a bit and made known why I've done all my edits in the talk page. Anyone want to assist here? - Ta bu shi da yu 15:51, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Triple J

It isn't looking bad at this point, but I'd like to see it get up to FA standard. Any feedback/assistance would be appreciated. Come on Australia, help us get another article featured. Ambi 14:22, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)

  • Good article, could do with a lot more information on past presenters. Merrick and Rosso come to mind. They were a cack! Out of interest, are you affiliated with the station at all? - Ta bu shi da yu 15:24, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)
    • I wish. ;) I didn't write this, either. I was just discussing it with User:Chuq earlier, and decided I'd post it here in order to gain some feedback, so we can get it up to scratch. Is there anything you could add? Merrick and Rosso were a bit before my time. Ambi 15:30, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)
      • Before your time? Say what? They were only on a few years ago before moving to Nova... to be honest I don't have too much I can contribute. The only thing about Merrick & Rosso is that they once accidently switched off the entire radio station when Merrick was mucking about with the studio equipment. It was amusing mainly because they didn't actually switch off the 'mikes, and the entire nation heard the producer running around swearing at them while he tried to work out why they weren't on the air. Apart from that, they also produced a "best of" compilation called choice cuts... that had me in stitches! Sorry that I can't help further. Maybe a general alert to JJJ listeners might help. Maybe you could get Triple J to help you out! They're a pretty dynamic station so they might be able to help. - Ta bu shi da yu 15:40, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)
        • I think that the presenters could do with their own sub-stub articles. There is additional information I could add about some of them but there isn't really space. It would shorten the Triple J article, to make more space for info about the station itself. Ideally, we would get the article featured on the front page and enter that as a Beat the Drum entry! More pictures would also be good - I have contacted Triple J about using pics from their site, am waiting to hear back... -- Chuq 00:25, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Tim Dorsey and his novels

Does anyone out there in Wikiland know anything about this guy? I've read some of his books, but I don't think I can help things more than what you already see. -Litefantastic 14:10, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Hi, requests for expansion should go on that page to help make the various wikipedia projects more useful. This page is for bringing mostly written articles up to featured article standards. Thank you - Taxman 23:38, Sep 20, 2004 (UTC)

Harry Dexter White and Henry Wallace

I'm not sure if this is the right place for this, but the Wallace page says outright that White was a Soviet spy, while the thrust of the White page is that he was not even a Communist. Can anybody with knowledge of this stuff look them over? john k 05:25, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Ziad Jarrah

I've been working on creating good articles for all the 9/11 hijackers (and related persons). How can it be improved? Quadell (talk) 03:11, 16 Sep, 2004 (UTC)

Safe Operating Area

I basically wrote this as a stub - I could use the insight of another electronics engineer with power electronics experience, especially to expand on protection schemes. Please edit it as you see fit!

The Food of the Gods and How It Came To Earth

Recently contributed. Constructive comments appreciated.

  • It would be helpful if there were some more information about the book before the spoiler part; perhaps some of the information from the later sections which indicate notability, give information on the adaptations, etc. could be moved up. I generally stop reading as soon as I get to the spoiler part, especially since the warning seemed to cover so much. If you could have a vague plot outline and other nonspoiler information, and then put the spoilerful plot summary at the end, I think that would be more useful. Also, "to" should not be capitalized in the page title. -- Creidieki 17:19, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Cilice

Very short article, last paragraph just needs fact-checking by a history person. Rhobite 18:49, Sep 14, 2004 (UTC)

Cathedral of Learning

I'd like to get this up to FA level, if that's possible (not sure if the topic is deep enough). Would love suggustions on style/organizing, more information to add, or anything else. Lyellin 18:09, Sep 14, 2004 (UTC)

  • This looks like a very interesting building! How does it compare to the rest of the campus, and to the city? I assume a "nationality room" is an otherwise ordinary room decorated in some way that suggests a particular culture; is that true? Perhaps a picture would help here. AlexG 22:21, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)
    • DOH! I forgot to do the write up for that section. I'll get on that soon. Thanks! Lyellin 13:34, Sep 16, 2004 (UTC)
    • Just added a bunch of information about the room project/process- hopefully that will improve it some. Lyellin 17:44, Sep 17, 2004 (UTC)
      • To throw in my two cents, I can't help wondering what the tallest building is. Just so the comparison can be made. I'd say that, considering everything from fractals to foreskins have been FA, this is well within the realm of possibility. Not there yet, though... Also, try adding some brief blurbs about each of the rooms. -Litefantastic 14:15, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)
        • Do you think that might get it to be too long? Lyellin 06:38, Sep 17, 2004 (UTC)
  • No, it wouldn't be too long; whenever somebody says something is the "second-largest", the immediate reaction is to wonder what beats it. This article is nowhere near too long. My other point would be that reading the article, I don't really know what goes on in the other 39 stories. Could you elaborate? [[User:Meelar|Meelar (talk)]] 06:48, Sep 17, 2004 (UTC)
    • I meant with a blurb about each of the 26 rooms :-). I added in the floor information- see if that helps. I'm still looking for the name of the other building. It's in Russia.... Lyellin 17:18, Sep 17, 2004 (UTC) I just added in the info regarding the tallest building. Lyellin 17:51, Sep 17, 2004 (UTC)
  • A few comments -- Please add a source on the statement that the philosophy department is "one of the top three in the world" (either an external link or a link to a Wiki article would be fine). I'd also be interested to see a source on the usage of Floors 37-42 (I'm a CMU student, and I didn't know what those floors were for). Also, what are the "proposed rooms" -- have those still not been finished? Were they once proposed and then discarded?
The article needs a few references -- where are you getting this information? I'm sure the University of Pittsburgh library has a few books about this; even if you don't have time to read through them, you could email a librarian to ask for titles, etc.
The list of nationality rooms is useful; I'd like to see more information about how the building is used, though. Statistics on numbers of classrooms, square footage. I'm told that the astronomy club has antennas/telescopes/etc. on the top? The University of Pittsburgh uses the Cathedral for a lot of its official stuff (postcards, etc.; pretty much any picture of campus). Has the building ever been used for anything besides academics (giant parties, important events)? Has it ever appeared in any movies? Have there been any large pranks involving it? Has there ever been a suicide?
Anyway, I think there's a lot of stuff here to make an article on. I made a few changes, mostly copyediting. Let me know if you'd like me to take a look at it again at some point. Have fun! -- Creidieki 05:36, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Le déjeuner sur l'herbe

I wrote this article, but English isn't my mother tongue, so please review style, spelling, grammar. Needs also more on the reception of the painting and its significance in the history of modern art. Other suggestions are welcome too. - Karl Stas 11:38, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Same goes for the sister article Olympia. Karl Stas 19:36, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)


Malcolm McLaren's group "Bow Wow Wow" used the painting as the basis for a sleeve cover. See http://www.oldies.com/artist/biography.cfm/id_3181.html Ogg 08:47, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Pokémon

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

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

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

Lawrence v. Texas (Slated to be on front page on Sept 16)

Needs some last-minute fixing-up! [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality (talk)]] 02:09, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Amniotic sac

I've created this article, drawing info from others and adding as much as I can think of. Would appreciate others taking a look, especially if they're looking at the Twin / Multiple birth article as listed below. violet/riga (t) 18:58, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Twin / Multiple birth

I've reworked the twin article adding lots of things and bringing in information from identical twin (which I now think should just be a redirect). It may even be worth merging twin into multiple birth. I think this could work its way towards being a featured article but I'm pretty much out of things I can think of adding. Would appreciate any comments, additions or changes. violet/riga (t) 18:41, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I've made a few changes to twin (as you will have seen). Although twin is a special case of multiple birth, I think the two articles can sensibly be kept separate. -- ALoan (Talk) 16:01, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)
I noticed - thanks! My reasoning for placing twin into multiple birth was such that there may well be a large section of information duplicated between the two articles. The latter is quite small compared and perhaps just needs more work itself. violet/riga (t) 16:24, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Waved Albatross

I put together a brief article on the Waved Albatross, a breed that nests in the Galapagos Islands. I tried to get the scientific information correct, but could somebody double-check it? Thank you. — RJH 18:25, 11 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Griko language

I've just written a small article on Griko, the Greek language spoken in the Magna Graecia region. Anyone who is interested may contribute to this by adding linguistic, ethnographic, or other information. Thank you in advance.

Etz Haim 18:42, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Windows XP

  • Some help with turning the list into prose please! - Ta bu shi da yu 06:55, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Mona Lisa

from the FAC:

Was reading through this article and noticed it is not featured. It is a well writen article covering many aspects of the painting - history, sitter, the aesthetics. Even if it is not quite feature-worthy yet, please add constructive criticism to help make it such. --[[User:OldakQuill|Oldak Quill]] 10:22, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)

  • Refer to Wikipedia:Peer review; there's just too many things that need work. I've noted a few of them on the article's talk page, and have started to try and fix them. I agree that such an important painting deserves a featured article, but it's not there yet. • Benc • 21:42, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)
    • Agreed. It needs some fairly significant copy editing and structuring. Eudyptes 22:15 30 Aug 2004 UTC
  • I have added a couple of restructuring suggestions to the todo on the talk page. I may come back and implement these is time allows. Filiocht 08:39, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Krag-Jørgensen

I did a total rewrite on this a month ago, and think I did a fairly decent job - and I think the others who have helped afterwards have too. Still, I would like to bring it up to the standard of a Featured Atricle - so all the attention you could give it would be good I think. Perhaps someone could find some non-copyrighted images to place in the article as well, all the images I've found so far has been copyrighted and my attemts to contact the owners has not meet with success. Some more info on the danish and american patterns would be good as well, and perhaps a few words on it's use in the Werhmacht during WWII if someone knows anything. WegianWarrior 07:50, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I'll try again.. a lot of things have been added to the article since last I asked for a peer review, and in my eyes it's about ready to suggest as a FAC. However, I do want it to be as great as I can make it - so I relist it here for whatever input people can give me. WegianWarrior 10:03, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)

A Day in the Life

The usual, Beatles song article, have expanded it... Johnleemk | Talk 16:05, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Well written and excellent information about the origin and development of the song. Maybe too much, because not much else is covered. Especially how did it do in the charts/sales? What about this ban? Was it permanent? Did it impact anything? How was it famous? Similar reactions in the US or elsewhere? - Taxman 04:12, Sep 9, 2004 (UTC)
The charts in those days did not include individual songs unless they were released on singles. I've added more on the ban. (It took me ages to find anyone that said anything about the ban beyond just that "the BBC banned it, how could they?" or for the satanic conspiracy theorists, "the BBC banned it, see, the Beatles were evil.") Unfortunately the ban's become so famous that it's drowned out other items of interest about the song — I can't find anything related to the American public's response. Johnleemk | Talk 16:04, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)

"The ban remains in place until today" oh yeh? True it hasn't played on Radio One, but it has been played (partially at least) on BBC radio three, specifically on an arts program in the early 70s evaluating the musical abilities of the Beatles. Ogg 12:04, 11 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Well, that's the exact problem I'm having. People focused too much on the ban, and never mention when it was lifted. I'll need to ask some Beatle-maniacs about this. Johnleemk | Talk 07:52, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)

There are two minor problems. The first is that there's some confusion about the length of the final chord; Martin mentions 15 bars, while a quote from McCartney says 24 bars. As both are direct quotes, one deserves a [sic], to indicate a mistake that is being quoted in context. The second is that a number of elements are being quoted as occuring "at the end of the song", and it may be helpful to include what sequence they actually occur in, which I recall as being in the following order:

  • The end of the third verse, with "four thousand holes", etc., concluding with "I'd love to turn you on..."
  • The second orchestral crescendo, including Mal Evans counting the measures
  • The E Maj piano chord, which continues for over 30 seconds and includes a squeaky chair and the air conditioner hum
  • About two seconds' worth of a dog whistle
  • The sped-up chatter in the runout groove

Also, we may wish to check sources as to how the Beatles kept that final chord going. Boosting the gain was one way, but there's a semi-famous photograph of George Harrison underneath a grand piano manipulating it somehow...perhaps inserting the mic directly into the piano itself. All my sources are at home, so I'll have to check later. - Beatlemaniac Scooter 19:29, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Okay, William J. Dowlding's Beatlesongs gives nothing for the last chord other than the engineer pushing down the input faders at the moment of impact. However, I got a date for the Tara Browne crash, so I'll put that in. - Scooter 04:38, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)
The article clarifies which part comes after the other, but not at the same time. The elements are all addressed in the order they appear anyway. Johnleemk | Talk 14:29, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Norwegian Wood (This Bird Has Flown)

I just rewrote this article. FAC-worthy? Johnleemk | Talk 16:41, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Comments at Talk:Norwegian Wood (This Bird Has Flown). Jgm 19:36, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)

George Harrison had recently bought the sitar from Ray Man, Ethnic Music Instruments, in Covent Garden. The company still exists, but is now in Chalk Farm. The song has a strong Bob Dylan influence on it. The Beatles had been listening to "Blonde on Blonde" Ogg 11:07, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Assault weapons ban (USA)

Nominated for Wikipedia:Collaboration of the week but not a stub. Comments from there follow:

  • I am nominating this for AotW in the hopes that we can get it ready in time for the (likely) expiration of the Assault Weapon Ban on September 13th. It would be great to have it as FA for that day. It's sort of o.k., now, but it isn't great. Jimbo Wales 00:03, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Doesn't fit normal guidelines, but clearly needs alot of work, and with His Lairdship Jimbo's support seems like a shoe-in. Here's hoping the assault weapons ban goes out w a bang, Sam [Spade] 00:22, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Oh dear: I fear this is in the same category as Alan Keyes (removed the other day) in that Wikipedia:Peer Review it is more approraite place for it. -- ALoan (Talk) 09:27, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • I've started some work on the article. It turns out it had the wrong definition for the ban this whole time! AWB banned on weapons with TWO or more characteristics, not one like the article said, which is a big difference. Wodan 17:09, Aug 24, 2004 (UTC)
  • Hmm, I'd have to agree with ALoan - per the guidlines of this page, this should go to peer review. - Taxman 19:58, Aug 24, 2004 (UTC)
    • Agreed, this is not a candidate for COTW, its already too substantial. —siroχo 19:33, Sep 3, 2004 (UTC)
  • In the spirit of "we're all equal" this nomination should be deleted from here and moved to peer review. This article is in no way a stub. Davodd 18:19, Sep 5, 2004 (UTC)

This article covers the same legislation as Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act. At this point I'm not sure whether to list it on Wikipedia:Duplicate articles or take a crack at merging it myself; comments are welcome. Austin Hair 01:25, Sep 7, 2004 (UTC)

Well the navigation box and the article text implies that the assault weapons ban is a part of the act you reference. That should mean they are different and likely should not be merged. The two articles do mention different dates which I'm not sure which is correct. It does also have horrid POV problems, with many many comments against the ban, some with no attribution at all. - Taxman 03:35, Sep 9, 2004 (UTC)

From Me To You

A new Beatles song article this time. Johnleemk | Talk 16:44, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)

United States Libertarian Party

I'm considering working this into a featured article. What more does it need, besides references and a picture or two? Johnleemk | Talk 13:04, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)

It's a little on the brief side. It could use more detail on the various internecine maneuverings of the 70s and 80s. I've been meaning to write about this and perhaps I will increase its relative priority on my to-do list. - Nat Krause 12:03, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Psychologist for How to Heal Traumas /Waking the Tiger

I originally wrote this article but would like to ask for help from professionals. I would appreciate any psycologist/psychiatrist, etc. to edit or improve or even totally rewrite the article( with insights , phsycological comments, etc). I feel that this article and the book( Waking the Tiger) is very relevant. Thanks. --Jondel 01:12, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)

This book is on VFD. The book is very notable and has helped many people. I rewrote some portions. --Jondel 02:53, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Resubmitting (Step no. 3) The book Waking the Tiger by Peter Levine (1997) has a respectable Amazon sales rank of 1409. Google has 179,000 hits when the key word 'book' was added. This book has dramatically helped others and I hope the article will eventually help those recovering from trauma as a book review.The article is now under Vfd. Any help would be highly appreciated.--Jondel 05:13, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

  • This article is currently on VfD as Jondel says, where it seems in danger of getting speedied as a recreation of the previously deleted How to Heal Traumas. I'm sorry, Jondel, I understand that this is very important to you, but there's really not much point in an article being on peer review and VfD at the same time. I'll leave it on the list for now (can't speak for anyone else), but please see the peer review instructions: This page is for nearly Featured-standard articles that need the final checking by peers before being nominated as Featured article candidates. Since Waking the Tiger doesn't fit that description, and also seems quite likely to get deleted soon, I doubt that you'll get any useful input here. Anybody who sees this listing and wants to help Jontel keep the article, IMO you'd probably do more good by chipping in at its VfD discussion. --Bishonen | Talk 17:24, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Thanks for looking into this anyway.--Jondel 08:11, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)
I just want improvement on the quality. As a featured article that would be great however.As Jgm suggests I should focus on the book itself not the contents. --Jondel 09:40, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)


  • Here's my recommendation on this. There is little doubt in my mind that a NPOV article about a well-known book would be a welcome addition to Wikipedia. The problem seems to be that rather than an article on a book (see something like Men Are from Mars, Women Are from Venus or Lies and the Lying Liars Who Tell Them for examples) this is an attempt at a how-to or self-help guide based on the contents of the book. If the book is based on a particular and documented theory, then an appropriately-titled article on that theory would also be appropriate; again, though, such an article should be a neutral description of the theory rather than a wholesale regurgitation or promotion of it. So my suggestion would be to reduce the description of the contents of the book to a couple of sentences in the form of "In the book, Levine promotes the ideas that . . .", include details on the publishing history, reviews, criticisms, and popular reaction to the book, and then figure out whether a seperate neutral article on the underlying theories can be written. Jgm 18:59, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Thanks for looking into this. I'll work on this while it is still here. --Jondel 08:11, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)
trimmed down. Added on Author. Probably need to advertise the book more.--Jondel 02:15, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Copyleft

Is the first paragraph of Copyleft sufficently NPOV? In particular, should the use of the phrase 'intellectual property regime' be replaced by 'intellectual property law'? 'Regime' is generally but not always perjorative, but I don't believe that is the case when speaking of a body of law. Anybody know if there's a specific legal meaning? Google reveals the phrase 'intellectual property regime' seems to be used in a neutral sense, for example in the Australian Government's announcement of the Australia-United States Free Trade Agreement. Regardless, in the context of the sentence, which is to describe the point of copyleft, any of these sorts of laws are frowned upon. Does this make it ok? On the third hand, what I really mean by the phrase is 'intellectual property body of law' and I believe this really is the established meaning of the phrase 'intellectual property regime', which reads better. I haven't had to deal with NPOV before so it seems safest to ask. (As far as the rest of the article goes, I don't know that it's ready for peer review.) -- kop 23:09, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)

the very term intellectual property its self is POV and is in many ways quite undefined. It's better to specify what you mean; e.g. say copyright, trademark or patent, which are properly defined terms. Intellectual Property regime, is not POV in the sense that you worry about, however; it's standard usage by people who talk about "intellectual property". Mozzerati 21:54, 2004 Sep 8 (UTC)
Um, the first sentence doesn't make any sense anyway! - Ta bu shi da yu 01:16, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)

First Crusade

I'm not sure if I can add requests unilaterally or if it should be discussed with other editors first, but I think this article could use some outside eyes. Recently, a college prof made some complaints on the talk page, and in response, the article has more than doubled in size in about a month, with only two major editors in that time. Some possible problems are that it may be just too big, and may be too repetitive, both internally and with the general crusade article. Thanks! Adam Bishop 23:26, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)

If it's too big, then move parts of the article into seperate articles. The siege of antioch and battle of jerusalem should both be seperate articles. The material should go progressivly from broad view to detail. So the Original crusade article will have high-level overview, the First Crusade article will have enough detail to tell the story in summary, and individual parts then in seperate articles. There will be overlap between the articles, that is expected and normal as you zoom in from high-level to detail level.Stbalbach 00:54, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Economy of Sweden

The history description in the section "Unemployment" seems to rest on the Phillips_curve / NAIRU theory of a trade-off between inflation and unemployment. Economics not being my specialist field, I still feel this being something of a contested issue. Could someone take a look at the section and possibly de-POV it? Alarm 13:38, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Yes, that was pretty egregious. I made an attempt at a fix. Even Phillips didn't posit such a strong causal relationship. What the section really lacks is what was done, if anything, to attempt to reach the employment goals. And was the action the real thing that caused the unemployment to go down? The section reads like an essay without having any sources cited. - Taxman 03:25, Sep 11, 2004 (UTC)

She Loves You

Yet another Beatles song article rewrite. Comments? Johnleemk | Talk 18:28, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Made a couple of small copy edits. Just wonder if the story about the sixth chord doesn't belong in the Working in the studio section? Otherwise a really good read. Thanks. Bmills 12:04, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Agent provocateur

needs French speaker to correctly pluralise the term, it is currently pluralised as agents provocateurs

also some examples from the war protest movements in the late 20th century?Pedant 16:32, 2004 Sep 3 (UTC)

It's also the name of a reasonably well-known company specialising in ladies' undergarments here in the UK, but I'm not sure that warrants a mention in the article... Angmering 00:16, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)
The plural form here is quite correct. In the future, for short passages, I advise you to consult Wikipedia:Wikipedians/Translators and ask the members. ;) --Liberlogos 08:11, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Anwar Ibrahim

This article seems to me to be about the right size for a featured article. We do need the following, however:

  1. Lead section;
  2. Infobox;
  3. Picture(s);
  4. NPOVing (maybe? See Talk:Anwar Ibrahim)

Can somebody else help us decide the NPOVness of the article, and comment on other areas that need sprucing up? Johnleemk | Talk 10:29, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Peer_review/Archive_2&oldid=276163109"