Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Peer review/June 2007

< Wikipedia:Peer review

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

Diet of Japan (parliament)

edit

I realize that much of what is here can be cited by the Japanese Constitution, but I believe the structure of the article seems a bit strange. Even some of the material that is pasted here was copied from public domain sources, such as the US Government. Plus, I am not sure what to include in here and what sources I can take a peek at. Anyways, all help and suggestions are welcome and appreciated, since I believe this should be featured after some work and tender-loving care is applied to the article. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 06:08, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Welsh, Carson, Anderson & Stowe

edit

When created this article was a stub with refernces and a relatively NPOV. Now it has been altered. I am not fammiliar with expanding an article of this type any feedback would be appreciated.M-BMor 19:13, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Javascript-assisted review

edit

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

You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, DrKiernan 14:47, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Review by DrKiernan

edit

The article needs more links to other wikipedia articles. Should not be linked to blogs (which are unreliable sources) and the tags (neutrality, etc.) need clearing. DrKiernan 14:47, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Assata Shakur

edit

This article recently recieved GA status, but because it is a controversial topic I would like to get some peer review input before nominating it to be a featured article. I believe it to be comprehensive, neutral, and well-referenced. Comments about any aspect of the article would be appreciated. Savidan 16:53, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mr. Bungle

edit

I have been working on this article over the last while adding references and such and would like some comments, paticularly in how it reads, what parts should be improved? and is the lead section lacking a little? Thank you - Mr Bungle 02:06, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have noticed you have done many good edits to the article. I am going to read it later this week and tell you what parts should be improved! :) Zouavman Le Zouave (Talk to me!) 06:27, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry I haven't had much time to read the article. However, I have printed the article and am going to read it and write notes about how it could be improved. Expect the peer reviewing in the following days, although there may be a delay due to the fact that I do not have internet at home. ZOUAVMAN LE ZOUAVE 10:25, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Heh, had to blink a few times to figure out that your username is also Mr. Bungle... you must be a fan. :) Overall, an enjoyable read, but there's work to do here:

  • Need to mention in fair-use image and sound clip description pages where the image or sound clip is being used on Wikipedia; put this in the rationale itself (i.e. name the article, Mr. Bungle, where you're using it).
  Done
  • Image:MrBungle99.JPG is too small; the MOS allows you to specify a larger size for a thumbnail if the image's aspect ratio is such that otherwise it would look weird, like here. I suggest 220px.
  Done
  • Image:91SantaClaraMike.jpg could be too large; I don't like how it pokes down into the "Anthony Kiedis and Mr. Bungle feud" section following it. Once you shrink the size, you can absolutely prevent any poking with a trailing <nowiki>
    in the "Stage shows" section.
  Done Still hangs down a bit giving white space below it
  • Would be nice to have some critical commentary on the music clips in the clip boxes themselves (may even be necessary for fair use).
  Done
  • Should list the band's primary founders and most important members in the lead somewhere.
  Done
  • Sometimes you don't properly format album and song names correctly in the text (for example, italicize the former, double-quote the latter); I suggest going through the guidelines at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Music/MUSTARD in detail.
  Done
  • Issues with references:
  • Lots of references need publisher fields.
  Done
  • bunglefever.com - looks like a fan site, not sure about its reliability. I'm very concerned about the large amount of information in the text cited to the Mr. Bungle FAQ - are the authors of this FAQ just fans? If so, I don't think it's reliable. I'm not confident myself about when and how fan sites can be considered reliable; the MUSTARD guidelines seem to suggest top-of-the-line fan sites can be used if they provide a unique resource and/or have a connection to the band. Can any other project members chime in here?
This website has been mentioned as “semi official”, whatever that means, I would assume it is a fan site but without it I’m unsure how this information could be properly referenced. Most the bunglefever information is reliable and of all the information on the web I would put this website as the best (and I think it does provide a unique resource).
  • Bungle Grind - ditto. I notice this site contains copies of articles from notable magazines like Revolver - it's OK to cite them here as long as you're sure there's no copyvio (e.g. does Bungle Grind have permission to reproduce?)
This website seems to be a less well organized fan site and probably should go. As for it hosting articles that were published in reputable magazines, I’m unsure if it has the right to reproduce (I would assume not), I could just discard the | url = | section and not actually link to site, I just figured any source where people can read the article for themselves would be useful and wasn’t sure if Wikipedia frowned on links to external sites being a copyvio.
  • Goblin Magazine - seems to be an archive of some magazine called Goblin... was this a notable magazine... does this site have permission to reproduce?
To tell you the truth I’d never heard of it before researching this article and looks like it is now defunct, it appears the site is the actual magazines site now just hosting old articles (so it probably can reproduce their old articles)
  • ram.org is certainly not reliable, it's some professor's personal page.
Gone
  • Reference 23 is broken (and appears of questionable reliability from the URL).
  Done Found the original interview in a online magazine
  • A lot of other references are from web zines that are probably OK if used sparingly, but I think there's just too many. I would suggest replacing some with articles from reliable print newspapers/magazines (perhaps findarticles.com would be useful).
Some replaced, some kept
  • History section sub-section titles should have year ranges in them.
  Done Pretty much was just following Nirvana and Pixies here but other FAs (Slayer, The Smashing Pumpkins) do put the years in so followed suit
  • Any non-trivial music analysis or musical value judgment should be referenced to a critic who makes that analysis or value judgment (footnote close to the sentence in question, plus you should usually name the critic/publication in the text itself for really deep analyses and for value judgments).
Listed analysis with specific critic/publications
  • The "Style and influence" section is too listy — do you need to list so musical styles? Remember, these all must have been mentioned by critics.
I have referenced their genres to critics opinions but still think it looks too listy, should this list just be deleted or just mention a few genres (where to draw the line)?
  • The "Anthony Kiedis and Mr. Bungle feud" section has a "Quotes" sub-section, which is discouraged by guidelines. Do away with the "Quotes" sub-section, and expand the parent section with more prose that contains smaller quotes worked into the text.
  Done
  • The article overall needs a moderate copyedit (many run-on sentences, for example). I could help with this, but after the other issues are resolved and the text stabilizes.

- Merzbow 08:20, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again for the comments - Mr Bungle | talk 06:30, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Days of our Lives

edit

User:Elonka and I are trying to work to bring this article up to good or featured standard. It's in flux right now; half of it is sourced and sourced again, and the other half are remnants from the previous versions. I would like advice as to what to do from here to bring it up to a higher standard (any new sections to add, which ones to remove, what/how to source other sections). I've rewritten the lead to comply with WP:LEAD, and Elonka helped move a lot of extraneous information to daughter articles. If any of you have edited television articles and moved them to higher standard, that would also be a plus in helping us. Thank you. Mike H. I did "That's hot" first! 07:26, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Observations by J Milburn

edit

Not quite sure how peer review works, but here comes some comments:

  • It would quick-fail a GA review- none of the fair use images have rationales. That needs sorting ASAP.
  • Some refs have spaces in front of them. Only a little thing, but it should be [Fact].[1] and not [Fact][2]. or [Fact]. [3]
  • The table of opening titles is unreferenced, which could constitute original research.
  • The opening music and Friends sections are also unreferenced.
  • In fact, quite a lot of it is unreferenced- I think you are going to need to work on the references at this point. Every statement should be referenced. Well, should have a reference connected to it, if a whole paragraph is referenced to the same thing, you needn't put the same reference at the end of each line.
  • I have never heard of this programme before, but, I instantly thought of Pygmoelian, an episode of The Simpsons where they parody it. Now I get the joke! You mention the programme in Friends, and I am sure that it will have been referenced elsewhere on top of a single Simpsons episode. Perhaps it is worth considering placing information about other references? However, I would advise you to be careful, that kind of thing often lets down good articles. See Battle of Normandy for instance...

Right, I hope that has given you a couple of things to consider. J Milburn 08:26, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I know it's not ready for a GA at all. I want more comments to help me edit to eventually get to that point, which you have provided. Let me read over them and see what I can do about everything. Thank you! Mike H. I did "That's hot" first! 08:31, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm going to put a checklist here and edit it when I've completed the task. 08:59, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Fair use rationales for pictures: Resized pictures that were too large, and put fair use rationales on every picture. 11:12, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Spaces before references: Done. 08:59, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Referencing opening titles table: Done. I used Beth's Days Page, which is still a fan site but it's fairly neutral, very comprehensive and one of the most highly regarded and trafficked, with over 8 million visitors. 09:37, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Referencing opening music section: Referenced as to who wrote it. Could not reference 2004 section, searching for sources turned up nothing, but...it DID HAPPEN. I was watching the show then. How do I get past this problem? 09:37, 10 June 2007 (UTC) I since reworded this section, but still lacks source. 12:47, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Referencing Friends section: Done. 10:22, 10 June 2007 (UTC)


Laura Horton is redlinked, as well as Ken Corday, and Margaret DePriest. And some others. ⇒ SWATJester Denny Crane. 22:01, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Elonka wanted them to be redlinked for a bit, but I can remove them. What do you suggest? Yes? Mike H. I did "That's hot" first! 22:17, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Removed all red links. Mike H. I did "That's hot" first! 23:54, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My take on it:

  • The "Days in other media" and "Famous fans" sections strike me as pretty marginal trivia, even though they are cited.
  • The "Best remembered stories" section title should have a hyphen in it, I feel.
  • The infobox says "Alternate titles — Days (referenced as DAYS in some publications)". Is mere full capitalisation of the alternate title listed there really worthy of a note with reference?
  • The article switches between calling the program "Days of our Lives" and just "Days" randomly. This could do with being made uniform throughout the article one way or the other.
  • The article also uses "AW" to refer to "Another World", I think, which I feel would be too confusing for someone who has never heard of Another World.
  • In the box of opening credits, it says "save for the removal of the copyright notice of said titles". Using "said titles" in that way is not plain English and could be improved, perhaps to "save for the removal of the copyright notice from the bottom of the screen" or something like that.

That's about it for now from me. - Mark 04:53, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with the first bullet point, because to make these sorts of articles featured, you have to show their impact on people and pop culture, which those sections accomplish. Since Soap Opera Digest uses DAYS and not Days, yes, I do think that needs a citation. Please tell me where it switches and how we should do it uniformly. Days should be the uniform throughout the entire article, just to be simple. I can change the AW references. The copyright notice thing will be changed, too. Mike H. I did "That's hot" first! 04:59, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Frutti di Mare

edit

Hi, this is a very well-written article, but I see some problems, especially with the use of sources. Here are a couple of points about the lead and the "Storyline" section, to be going on with.

  1. Bell being credited with saving the show from cancellation doesn't deserve to be in the lead, IMO. The lead is supposed to summarize the article. The mysterious little factoid of Bell saving the show (save it why, where, how?) doesn't summarize anything in the article text, or even in the source—in fact, the source, a very brief obituary of Bell, has even less info than your lead (there's nothing there about the cancellation having been "imminent"). I've removed it, plus done a little general copyediting of the first sections, please see what you think and note some minor requests in the edit summaries.
    Looks good, thank you.  :) --Elonka 00:42, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. I don't think "which critics immediately panned, as it was seen as a departure from more realistic storylines for which the show had originally become known" is borne out, much, by the sources given. I expect the statement is true, but could you find something more like a "panning" to source it from? And with some suggestion of a comparison with former realistic storylines? The current references in footnotes 15 and 16 ain't it.
  3. "Best-remembered stories." Not a good use of a source (Jason Bonderoff). In the first place, you rip off Bonderoff's wording too much; while probably not a copyright vio, I would call it plagiarism. Secondly, to claim that the storylines mentioned "were most remembered by viewers", in a serious tone as if it was a statistical fact, with a note pointing at Bonderoff, is just misleading. I checked out the source, expecting some kind of survey of what viewers do remember... but no, Bonderoff simply makes a personal selection of the storylines that he thinks are "unforgettable". The whole section needs to go back to the drawing-board. Is it wanted at all? It's very unshapely to have the "Storyline" section consist of text one level higher, plus this one subsection. Not good structure.
    I'll try to be back with more comments later. Good luck, the article is in some ways very professional! Frutti di Mare 13:34, 12 June 2007 (UTC).[reply]
A little more:
  • "Cast": note 31, this photo page, is an odd source for the 27 actors and the 40 actors. Am I supposed to count the people in the photos..? Could you find a more professional source? I don't mean that the site is unprofessional, but that the photo page is, for this purpose.
  • Consider this sentence: "The cast stayed more or less at this size [meaning 11 actors] until 1974; by this time 27 actors were in different storylines, as the show planned to expand to an hour in length." I don't understand how the statements before and after the semicolon can both be true. 27 isn't, not even "more or less", the same size as 11. I have rephrased, on the supposition that you meant "at" this time rather than "by" this time.
  • Er, the show "planned" to expand to an hour in 1974? Very anthropomorhic of it... and why talk about plans in any case—did it expand to an hour or not?
  • "Days in other media? Not to quibble or anything, but TV is TV. Friends is in the same medium as Days. Can you phrase the heading differently?
Good point. I've changed it to "Cultural impact." --Elonka 00:42, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Famous fans": I have to agree with Mark that this section is excessively trivial. (I don't agree about Friends, though. That section gives a certain perspective.) You say that it shows the "impact on people", but what's really needed to make the article FA quality is cultural context on a much higher level. Impact on famous people is gossip rather than context. Can you perhaps find some more academic media analysis that's pertinent? Frutti di Mare 20:20, 12 June 2007 (UTC).[reply]
For now, I've merged that section into "cultural impact" and rewritten it a bit. I'll also search for better sources. --Elonka 00:42, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
(/Me talks to self.) "Thanks for your review, Frutti di Mare. I may address your points some day." —"You're welcome, Frutti di Mare." (/Me cheers up.) Frutti di Mare 09:21, 16 June 2007 (UTC).[reply]
So sorry! Your comments came in right as I went out of town to give a talk, and my work on Days got backburnered a bit. And I'm not sure where Mike went to. I do, however, appreciate your careful review and very thoughtful comments. Looks like I've got more reading and researching ahead of me!  :) --Elonka 00:42, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Super Nintendo Entertainment System

edit

Previous peer review: 10 September 2006

We have done quite a bit of work updating this article based on the points raised in the previous peer review. Before submitting it as a GAC or FAC, I'd like one more round of comments to try to make that process go as smoothly as possible.

I've also addressed the issues raised by the lazy automatic reviewer. There are three points remaining:

  • A warning about abbreviations, which is incorrectly picking up "program)" at the end of a parenthetical.
  • A warning regarding "vague terms of size", which itself is too vague to be useful.
  • The standard warning that always shows up.

Please be as specific as possible in your suggestions. Thank you. Anomie 15:44, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

With all the extra references I've added while waiting for someone to respond to this review, it now triggers a "summary style" warning from the automatic reviewer for being over 50 KB. However, after stripping the images, tables, footnotes, references, and such as recommended by WP:SIZE it is under 30 KB (and under 5000 words). Anomie 18:52, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]


"launch titles" section is a bit over-short; I'd expand it or merge it into another section. "Enhancement chips" needs references, on the whole, though, this is moving towards a GA, and on track for FA. Nice trip down memory lane. Adam Cuerden talk 19:47, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  Done I'd been procrastinating working on those sections... Any other comments? Anomie 12:55, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Black church

edit

I'm working on getting this article up to good article status. Any advice for getting it there would be helpful. Thank you. CJ 15:25, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Since this article has reached WP:GA and there's no point making this request again, please offer advice on getting this article to WP:FA. CJ 17:03, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Cornell (Chicago)

edit

This article has been thrice rejected at WP:GAC. Critical review would be appreciated. TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 14:12, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:SpecialWindler

edit

Some quick pointers

Thats a quick review. SpecialWindler 06:59, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jayron32's Review

edit

Honestly, had I reviewed this for GAC, I would have easily passed it. I see nothing to give me pause as a good article. It meets WP:WIAGA criteria well. That having been said, it is far from perfect:

Just some general ideas to improve the article. As I said, I most likely, had I reviewed this, would have passed it as a GA. Still has lots of room for improvement though. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 04:52, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for taking another look. I think in general I am suffering from lack of info. With the latest changes I will take another shot at WP:GAC. TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 17:01, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

  • Please expand the lead to conform with guidelines at Wikipedia:Lead. The article should have an appropriate number of paragraphs as is shown on WP:LEAD, and should adequately summarize the article.[?]
  • See if possible if there is a free use image that can go on the top right corner of this article.[?]
  • If this article is about a person, please add {{persondata|PLEASE SEE [[WP:PDATA]]!}} along with the required parameters to the article - see Wikipedia:Persondata for more information.[?]
  • Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (numbers), there should be a non-breaking space - &nbsp; between a number and the unit of measurement. For example, instead of 15 foot, use 15 foot, which when you are editing the page, should look like: 15&nbsp;foot.[?]
  • 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, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 03:26, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Make-Up (band)

edit

After working on this page for quite some time, I hope to have it assessed as a Good-Article or possibly, though unlikely, a Featured-Article. Please leaves some comments if there is room for improvement. Thanks! Drewcifer3000 01:19, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • comments - the article needs work on punctuation and grammar. examples include, but are not limited to:
  1. in the musical ideology section, the first sentence has a misplaced period after the word glance. within the same section, the words "its" in the second sentence of the first quote should be "it's" to indicate "it is" rather than the possesive form.
  2. the term "rock and roll" appears in different formats in the article, e.g. rock'n'roll, rock and roll, etc. using a single format would increase consistency across sections.
  3. the word "their" appears throughout the article, sometimes multiple times in the same sentence. reducing the occurence of the word will likely increase the descriptiveness of the article and improve readability.

a good start overall, but probably not ready for GAC based on the comments above. ChicagoPimp 23:07, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Done Fixed all of the issues above, except when contained within a direct quote (such as the its vs it's and one instance of "rock 'n' roll"). Also, for readability's sake, I left some "their's" in the article, but took out about half. I'll read through the article one more time, just to try and find anything else. A reevaluation would be greatly appreciated. Drewcifer3000 23:44, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please Note: I added quite a bit of content to the "History" and "Politics" sections. Sorry for doing this after peer review is already underway: I just got inspired. Drewcifer3000 08:10, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kuiper belt

edit

old peer review

This article is a bit of a mess; I've done my best to at least get it up to civilised standard, but it will need a major cleanup. Any advice you can offer on how to go about it would be appreciated. Serendipodous 18:11, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Póvoa de Varzim

edit
  • I again need help if someone is willing to review the English of this article, no bots, I want to try an FA status and I think the English maybe its only problem, I'll get some more pics. If you want to help choose a section of the article and review its English. thx in advance. Maybe the lead section needs a rewrite too. --Pedro 23:04, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Be Here Now

edit

Mediocre album by a great band; there is a good story here, hope that it is conveyed. Ceoil 21:46, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • I had a little trouble following the cast of characters. Who is McGee? In "Recording" can you specify who Morris is (I skipped the intro).
  • There are a couple of small unreferenced quotes throughout, like "regular, everyday collection of tunes." and "cocaine set to music".
  • "generated more hype than the British music industry had seen in decades" is quite the statement...the last 9 words are probably not necessary.
  • At the end of the first paragraph of "Reception", what is the footnote (currently #19) sourcing? (Hint: the link is to the wrong site but is a copy of footnote #22) --maclean 06:32, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The music sample description could perhaps be extended. What number track is it on the album, what characterised the piece? etc. CloudNine 11:00, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the tips, all now implemented. Ceoil 21:59, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Harry Potter parodies

edit

archive

Moving this back up, as it now requires a separate peer review. Serendipodous 16:51, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Blackstone Hotel

edit

This is a failed WP:GAC. I would like further critical review before renominating. TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 15:24, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 03:27, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merle Reskin Theatre

edit

I hope to renominate this for WP:GA and wanted further advice. TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 03:56, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 03:29, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Azusa Street Revival

edit

This article has recently become a GA, after a full re-write, a peer review, and a GA review critique. I'm hoping to bring it up to FA status in the next few weeks. It's currently 31k, has 25 sources and 9 good images. I'm wondering what kind of changes need to take place in order for it to become an FA. I'm willing to do the work myself, just need some critical eyes. Thanks a bunch! Nswinton\talk 03:24, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

David H. Hickman High School

edit

This article is slowly becoming a fairly well-rounded article. I would love comments about POV (as I have a bias related to this page), syntax, and suggest subject to cover. Grey Wanderer | Talk 02:15, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Big O

edit

Second Peer Review.

Since making GA on January 2007, the article has gone through some changes. The prose is tighter, the lead is longer and useless sections and images have been eliminated. I would like comments on current content and further improvements so that we can try for a FA nomination.

Archive of first peer review

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Hohansen (talk • contribs) 05:14, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Radiotrophic fungus

edit

I can’t think of much to add to this article. I found out about these particular fungi recently and thought it would be interesting to create a Wikipedia article on it. I don’t know if this article is anything like adequate yet and I actually created the term “radiotrophic” myself, for want of a better name. Can anybody tell what needs to added or subtracted to bring this article up to an acceptable standard? --Simpsons contributor 15:40, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's an interesting article but it seems a little brief. The introduction of the Dadachova et al (2007) paper mentions a number of other related ideas for "melanotic fungi" that would be intriguing to explore (if there are sufficient sources). For example, the relation of this fungi to mass extinctions and growth of melanotic fungi in Antarctica. — RJH (talk) 22:17, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rutger Hauer filmography

edit

I would like to achieve featured list quality for this article, and use this peer review for feedback on the completeness of the introduction, whether (and how) or not his television roles should be included, and general quality of this list article. – Ilse@ 11:04, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Well, I think the article should also give an account of his stints as director and other roles in films as filmography is not limited to acting only and they should also be incorporated within the list. DSachan 12:00, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I added TV roles for the 1960s and 1970s, I think it is still readable this way. – Ilse@ 14:10, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Though I am not familiar with the subject of article, the issue is that imdb says he has produced and directed a couple of films as well besides doing acting but your lead mentions only about his acting, which alone cannot be taken for the comprehensive account of his filmography. I hope I made myself clear. DSachan 18:27, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes I think you have, I will soon change the intro. – Ilse@ 14:06, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Transaction privilege tax

edit

I'd like to receive an initial assessment and feedback on what additional information the reviewer believes would enhance the article. (Hsin Pai 16:18, 13 June 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Automated Peer-Review

edit

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

You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, Morphh (talk) 16:41, 13 June 2007 (UTC) 16:41, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Radiohead

edit

I plan to resubmit the article for FA soon, so I'd be grateful for any improvements anyone could suggest.Atlantik (talk) 20:59, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There are several problems with non-free media in the article. I'll start tagging them with notices for work to be done. In brief, the fair use rationales don't explain why the audio samples are necessary and irreplaceable in this article per WP:NFCC#10c. A lot of non-free media also needs to be reduced in size. The free media could also be moved to commons. I know this is all very pedantic, but for FA we really need to organise our media properly. I'll try to review the text properly soon. Papa November (talk) 22:56, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Does Followmearound.com have permission to reprint myLaunchs articles? (ref 1) If not, the link should be removed (and be replaced with a magazine ref). I'm concerned at some of the quality of the sources as well. Who are myLaunch; are they a reliable source? CloudNine (talk) 12:50, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comments More will be added as I think of them.

  • Remove all links to unlicensed reproductions of magazine articles on fan websites. That's infringing on copyright. Credit the sources just as if you were citing directly from the magazine.
  • This article is currently 70kb, making it the second-longest article under the scope of WikiProject Alternative Music. Try and make the prose of the article more concise. One suggestion is to remove the 'Solo work' section, as its tangential to the band itself. CloudNine (talk) 18:00, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • You don't need the chart positions in the Discography section (especially when chart positions in only two countries are listed). That's what the main Radiohead discography article is for. All you need to list are the studio albums and release dates. WesleyDodds (talk) 12:53, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Here are some statistics to do with the page size, as the total can sometimes be misleading. Size (using User:Dr pda/prosesize.js) of this revision:

  • File size: 193 kB
  • Prose size (HTML): 58 kB
  • References (HTML): 67 kB
  • Wiki text: 68.4 KiB (10100 words)
  • Prose size (text only): 33 kB (5568 words)
  • References (text only): 9 kB

May be helpful. CloudNine (talk) 13:01, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Thanks for your comments. Atlantik (talk) 23:41, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Comment There's some excellent work in this article. Here's some points that will beat it into shape for an FA nomination:

  • The opening paragraphs should follow the guidelines at WP:LEAD (3 paragraphs, concise, accessible, vital information only).
  • The "In Rainbows" discbox section could be either completely removed or put into the album's article if it isn't already there. Similarly, it's probably best to keep release details out of the lead because knowing they plan to release a discbox doesn't really give somebody who doesn't know the band at all a vital piece of information on them.
  • The article is looooooong. Go through the entire article and try to reword any parts that are expressed in too many words. Try to make things leaner and more concise.
  • Put the discography into a table format like other featured articles (The Smashing Pumpkins, Elliott Smith, John Frusciante)
  • Actually, the current trend (with many alternative music articles at least) is to keep the Discography section as simple as possible, and then save the detail for the main discography article. (see Pearl Jam, Frank Black etc.) Adding a tabled discography to the article would not reduce its length. CloudNine (talk) 21:57, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That's a point well-made, so I'll strike my suggestion. ;) - Phorque 15:05, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Phorque (talk) 14:38, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Skipper Roberts

edit

The old peer review is archived here: Wikipedia:Peer review/Skipper Roberts/archive1.

I'd like to know what this needs to reach good article status. Should it be rewritten, should information be added/removed, and are there any formatting errors? If so, what are they? Tikallover 02:04, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is there any more information on what trends the different Skippers were created to take advantage of? A few more citations could be nice - as a rule of thumb, anything that's controversial, any quotes or dates need citing. Any less direct assertions need citing too - "some collectors say this", for example. The history of the doll's shape is quite complete, which is good, but it feels lacking in how the doll was recieved in the wider world. How popular was Skipper compared to Barbie? Some of the doll-collectors' terms such as Mint In Box could use a wiki link, or a Wiktionary link. -Malkinann 13:24, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks; I'll try to fix those problems. Tikallover 17:08, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What kind of dollars are you using for prices? US$? CA$? FJ$? AU$? NZ$? -Malkinann 00:55, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's US dollars, and I tried to fix it. Thanks for pointing that out. Tikallover 01:53, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Green Knight

edit

This article just passed for GA status, and we're shooting for FA. Look for copyedit, format, comprehension, and whatever else you think it may need before becoming a candidate. Wrad 02:27, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Review by Awadewit

edit

A very nice article. Most of my comments address prose problems.

On content:

  • I wonder if it is possible to give some historical background to these poems - approximate dates; where they were supposedly written; and their relationship to the culture at large - who were they written for and why?
    • Wouldn't that be better for each poem's individual article? Wrad 03:19, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • So basics like general time period, Celtic culture, etc? Wrad 19:21, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Exactly - imagine an undergraduate coming to the page who has a smidgen of knowledge regarding English literature. What basic information might they need to situate the piece of literature in their timeline of Chaucer to Shakespeare to Dickens to American Idol? Just positioning it for them in reference to things like Chaucer, major medieval historical events (with dates) and providing some details of the culture surrounding the text really helps people get a handle on how this literature was used. Seriously, people might actually think it was published in thousands of copies and everyone went to a bookstore and bought it if you don't tell them differently. (I once saw a student ask why Benjamin Franklin couldn't spell better in his autobiography - they simply didn't know that spelling hadn't been standardized yet. Everything has to be explained.) Awadewit Talk 19:41, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • I did some work on this, adding a few sentences to put them in context. Does it need some more?--Cúchullain t/c 21:11, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would say a bit more. Maybe something on the audience for the poems. Also, you say the dates are conjectural - can you give some of the conjectures and source them? Awadewit Talk 21:33, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Done sources added. Wrad 21:41, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The plot summary almost outweighs the interpretation here, thus if there is nothing else to add to the interpretation, I would suggest trying to cut down on the summary.

  Done

On prose:

  • He is Bercilak de Hautdesert[1] in Sir Gawain, while The Greene Knight names him "Bredbeddle". - This sentence is confusing. Why not just "He is called Bercilak de Hautdesert in Sir Gawain and Bredbeddle in The Greene Knight."
  • Tolkein described him as being "as vivid and concrete as any image in literature." Other scholars have called him the "most difficult character" to interpret in his most famous poem Sir Gawain and the Green Knight. His overall role in Arthurian literature includes being a judge and tester of knights, and thus he is both terrifying, friendly, and somewhat mysterious to other characters. - It would seem that the description of the Knight should come before the interpretation. Leads are particularly important for those unfamiliar with a subject, so they should be constructed with such readers particularly in mind.
  • In Sir Gawain and the Green Knight, Bercilak is transformed into the Green Knight by Morgan le Fay, an enemy of King Arthur, in order to test his court. In the Greene Knight he is transformed by another woman for the same purpose. In both stories he sends his wife to seduce Gawain as a further test. - The difference between le Fay and the "other woman" does not seem vital for a lead. What about simply say that the character is transformed into the Knight by a woman in order to test Arthur's court. Also, adding something more about that test would be helpful.
  • The Knight is similar to many other characters in literature, before and after, but is the only one of them to be completely green (at least in the Sir Gawain poem). - This is a very odd sentence. Usually one does not compare a character to the entirety of literature. Could you come up with a more reasonable comparison or simply leave that part of the sentence out? You could just say that the Knight is unique in literature by virtue of his greenness, but even that seems like a too large a claim to be supportable.
  • The name 'Bertilak' seems to derive from 'bachlach', a Celtic word meaning 'churl'. - Unfortunately, I think that you are going to have to define "churl" for the reader or link it to wiktionary.
  • He is described as being completely green: skin, hair, dress, and everything. - the "and everything" has a slangy ring to it; How about "He is described as being completely green, from his skin to his hair to his dress" or something like that.
  • He is holding a sprig of holly, which the poet points out is green at this time of year. - the poet or the narrator of the poem?
  • Beyond his greenness, he is described as very comely, strong, and well built, and having long hair. - not a parallel structure
  • The next time we meet the Knight, he is in the form of Bercilak de Hautedesert, lord of a large castle, who freely invites Gawain in as he journeys to the Green Chapel. - "we" constructions are generally frowned upon at wikipedia
  • In the end, however, he fails in accepting a green girdle from the lady, and not giving it to Bercilak. - awkward; perhaps "he fails when he accepts...and does not give it to..."?
  • Again, Gawain falters in his knighthood in accepting a girdle from her, and the Green Knight's purpose is fulfilled in a small sense. - "knighthood" does not seem the right word here - perhaps something along the line of honor or duty?
  • The earliest story with the beheading game element is the Middle Irish tale Bricriu's Feast. - "beheading game element" is an awkward phrase
  • Stories of the medieval period portray it as representing love and the amorous in life,[12] and the base, natural desires of man - awkward phrasing; perhaps "Stories of the medieval period use it to represent..." or "In the medieval period, green often represented.."
  • Despite the many characters similar to him, the Green Knight is the first of his parallels to be green. - "parallels" is awkward diction
  • In one interpretation, it is thought that the Green Knight, as the "Lord of Hades," has come to challenge the noble knights of King Arthur's court. - wordy; how about "In one interpretation, the Green Knight..."
  • Another possible interpretation of the Green Knight is to view him as a fusion of these two deities, at once representing both good and evil and life and death as self-proliferating cycles. - wordy
  • The final meeting at the Green Chapel has led many scholars to draw religious connections. - connections between what and what?
  • On the top of the garland is a quane, or a group of bright flowers. At the end of a ceremony, the quayne is taken off the garland and placed at the top of the church tower. - consistent spelling
  • Due to the nature imagery associated with the Green Knight, scholars have seen the ceremony as possibly deriving from his famous beheading in the Gawain poem, the quane removal being symbolic of the loss of the knight's head. - wordy

On organization:

  • It would seem that much of the information in the first paragraph of the "Interpretations" section should go under "Significance of the colour green," perhaps subheaded as "Interpretations."

  Done I think. Wrad 00:10, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Why do you list only one book in the "References"? I would suggest that you either list all of the sources you used in the article (for ease of consultation by the reader) or change it into a "Further Reading" section. Right now, it is unclear what that section's purpose is.

  Done erased the section. Wrad 00:10, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Various and sundry:

  • Footnote 8 is unclear to me. Is it a book?
  Done fixed Wrad 03:18, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • All of the footnotes need to be formatted the same way (11-15, 17-21 for example, are different than the rest and a bit confusing because of the lack of italics).
  Done fixed Wrad 23:16, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Final Destination

edit

Look, this peer review can't be ignored. We need it done, so I can figure out and get some help getting it to GA. Immediatly. Francisco Tevez 19:05, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Okay, here's my suggestions for getting it to GA status:

  1. There is a slight 'narrative' tone to the article; it needs to be taken out. Things like "causes a ruckus", "kicked off the plane", "Billy was lucky enough", etc. sound somewhat like a story, and could be replaced with other, toned-down phrases.
  2. The cast and characters section is a tad lengthy. Here's what a cast section should really look there. There's no need for a long explanation of the characters and their actions; the section should just list the actors and who they played. There can, in certain cases, be articles that give short descriptions of characters, but - and this is just my personal belief - articles seem much more professional if they're concise.
  3. The section on death is also longer than it needs to be. Whereas the article now gives an in-depth look as to how each person dies and gives us a complete description, all that's really needed is a short list (or something to that affect) that tells how the characters died without going too far into it.
  4. The trivia section should be omitted altogether. Although you do see a lot of 'trivia' sections in articles, there is a rule against them, albeit a rarely enforced on. But when trying to get articles to GA or FA status, the trivia sections are almost always removed.
  5. I would consider adding 'production' and 'reception' sections. Production sections should be in-depth and give good details about how, when, and where the film was made. Reception sections are usually one to two paragraphs and give the general consensus of the film and then usually compare two polar opposite reviewers (one who hated the film and one who loved it).
  6. And most importantly, there need to be way more references. Here's two good examples of what a reference section should look like: [1] [2]. Don't reference things in the plot, but reference everything else. And if you do add a 'production' or 'reception' section, be sure to reference them, too.

I think that this article definitely needs some work, but it has promise. The technical structure of the writing is excellent (not a comma out of place), and it would work as a news story or book, but to get to GA (or, eventually, FA) status, it needs to be changed to meet Wikipedia article standards. I hope this helped. Good luck! --Captain Wikify Argh! 20:28, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It definitely looks better now. I'd continue referencing as much as possible. --Captain Wikify Argh! 18:41, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Natasha Bedingfield

edit

I have recently added to this article about Natasha Bedingfield. Any suggestions on how to improve the article would be greatly appreciated, as hopefully it can be promoted to feature article status in the future. -- Underneath-it-All 19:32, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Nice article.
    • I'd like to know more about The DNA Algorithm. Now, I'm sure The DNA Algorithm has more detail, but it'd be good to include information on Natasha's role in the group. For example, the Gwen Stefani article discusses how her personal life influenced No Doubt's lyrics and how her public image was a major factor in the band's breakthrough and success. What exactly was Natasha's role in the group in terms of songwriting, production, etc. and how did this influence her solo career?
    • The last paragraph in Early life is very short. It should be expanded or merged into another paragraph.
    • "Her recording have appeared on the church's live album Shout God's Fame and the children's album Jesus Is My Superhero in 2004 and .[10]" Looks like something may have accidentally gotten deleted.
    • The part about her philanthropy seems incomplete. Is there more specific information on her work with Stop the Traffik, including any major events or campaigns?
    • There should probably be samples of the best-known or most representative song from Unwritten and one of "I Wanna Have Your Babies" to illustrate discussion of her work.
  • All in all, a good article. I would try to expand the article where appropriate, since it doesn't give the feel that her life and work is being covered in enough detail. I also have to ask out of curiosity, do parts of this use Gwen Stefani as a guide? I can't help but think that some of the phrases sound familiar. ShadowHalo 20:05, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your suggestions! I've added them to the article. And yes, I did use the Gwen Stefani article as a guide. I hope you don't mind. It was well written! :) -- Underneath-it-All 16:25, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cyclogenesis

edit

Per comments on the article's talk page, I have submitted the article for peer review in order to ready it for FAC. Comments are welcome. Thegreatdr 12:58, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • The main concerns I have with this article are: (1) the extensive use of meteorological jargon, and (2) the number of short, one-paragraph sections. You might take a look at Wikipedia:Explain jargon. Also there are a few possible spelling errors (perpedicular, prexisting, organised, exisitng, horizonal) that may need addressing. (Not sure if "horizonal" is an error or jargon.) Otherwise it was interesting content. I hope these comments were somewhat helpful. Thanks. — RJH (talk) 15:58, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Carlos Zambrano

edit

I've created this peer review in order to find suggestions on how to properly deal with this article's lengthy size, numerous subheaders, and seemingly over-abundance of quotes. Thanks in advance. --  ShadowJester07  ►Talk  21:04, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comments This article has several major problems, and I'll point 'em out for you:

  • First off, the lead is way too long. Take a look at some articles that are already FA-status, and you will see what a good lead looks like. The lead is basically supposed to sum up the article, so when you go to fix it, think to yourself "what material sums up the entire article best?" Keep it short, sweet and coherent. Something like "is a Real Madrid supporter" certainly does not belong there, if you know what I mean. (And you don't need to say where he was raised in the first sentence, just where he was born).
  • The article needs more pictures, especially one main one at the top. Even a bad one looks better than not having one at all.
  • The stats section belongs below all the prose, not above it. Where exactly, is up to you. Also, the stats look very weird on the MiLB one, and are incomplete on the other. They should have the format of the MLB table, but with cities filled in.
  • There are too many section titles throughout the article. Since he has only played professionally since 2001, it's not a terrible idea to have one section per season, but all of the subsections are unnecessary. If you ever must use a subsection, and it only has a short amount of prose after it, consider using the h3 section title format (bracket-bracket-h3|section title-bracket-bracket) instead of ===section title===. Your table of contents will appreciate it.
  • The quotes, as you said, are a little out of control. Pick the best three or four that you can find and stick to that limit. Cquotes are supposed to be very powerful and prolific, which is why they get to stand out. It detracts from the article when you have so many though.
  • The references need to be formatted properly, with authors (when necessary), access dates and publisher information. Any featured article will be a good example to look at for proper formatting.
  • The neutrality dispute is a big problem, as a good encyclopedia article should be unbiased in all facets. Make sure you take a good look at the entire article and remove any opinions.
  • The prose of the article, as a whole, needs a copyedit. For example, sometimes it says "Carlos", and other times it says "Zambrano". Stick to his last name only, and the use of "he". Also be on the lookout for poor grammar, which I noticed in several places.


That's what I see after taking a good look at this article. Although it needs a lot of improvement, it has the potential to be a good article, so don't get discouraged. At 39 kilobytes, it is not too long to handle. You just need to combine paragraphs (don't leave any with 1-2 sentences only) and make the article flow well. Just take down one problem at a time, and you'll have a better article in no time. Sportskido8 06:44, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • I know this was said above, but to reiterate, way too many quotes. Knock out at least half of them, then trim some of the others. They don't all need to be in the large quotespaces. This is just from a skim through, I can't give a full evaluation yet.--Wizardman 03:06, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Terry Pratchett

edit

Looking to get this to GA status, general comments on what needs work.

Why is there information about the adaptations of his work in his article? Wouldn't that be better suited to the articles about the works? (unless he was involved heavily in the process of adaptation, perhaps...) -Malkinann 03:18, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to address that by creating a new article (Adaptations of...), but he indeed was involved heavily in many adaptations. That's why I, for example, removed list of plays because they have more to do with Stephen Briggs (author of those plays) and Discworld and less with Pratchett, but left computer games there.
Could you possibly comment on style, grammar and such?--Svetovid 16:28, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Usually, adaptations are dealt with on the page of the work, unless they're notable in their own right. Sometimes I think the writing could be a bit more succinct. I don't get, for example, this: "These footnotes usually involve a comic departure from the narrative or a commentary on the narrative and occur in various numbers.[38]" Do you really need to say how a footnote works? If so, why not link footnote? -Malkinann 22:12, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Chad

edit

I've been intensively behind this country article since April 19, attempting to provide a good, or at least decent, article. I've (and I hope Brian won't take offence of this ;-)) used as a model the Cameroon FA; I've done my best to be concise (which is not generally one of my best qualities), but mostly I'm worried that the English may not be fluid enough. The last section (culture) is a bit too brief, but I must admit I'm having considerable difficulties finding reliable sources here.--Aldux 00:05, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Brian's review

edit

Wow! Very impressive work from Aldux has transformed this page over the past couple months. I went ahead and did an initial copy edit (mostly removing redundant language and clarifying points); I'll try to make another pass as the piece progresses. I also removed a bunch of links that I felt were not particularly relevant to the piece. For example, it's doubtful someone will gain much more understanding of Chad by clicking a link to the Netherlands. Here are the issues that I think remain:

  • Copy editing, especially in the use of Commonwealth vs. American English and in the use of the serial comma. I tried to change all regional English to Commonwealth, but I'm not sure which is preferable here since English isn't a major language in Chad. If necessary, we can check the revision history and change to the variety used by the earliest contributor. I'll try to do more work on this front unless Aldux gets there first.
  • There should be no need for footnotes/references in the lead section of the article. Be sure that all information in the lead is repeated in the article body and cite it there. For example, I don't think the stuff about Lake Chad being Chad's biggest lake and Africa's second largest is repeated in the body.
  • One instance of weasel words remains: ". . . it has been argued that . . . " Please reword this to say exaclty who argues this.
  • There was a lot of history about the administrative subdivisions in that section. I tried to reword things to emphasize how the country is subdivided now, but I may have deleted too much. Take a look.
  • All metric measurements should be accompanied by the equivalent in Imperial units and vice versa.
  • Be sure to insert a non-breaking space between all numbers and units of measurement.
  • Can we get specific months for the wet season and dry season?
  • The discussion of Chad's row with the World Bank over development money smacks of recentism. It would probably be better to boil the dispute down to a few lines at most.
    • Hmm... I'm not sore I fully agree here. I've cut down a bit, but I remain of the opinion that the rupture is an event of great importance for Chadian history and for its future relations with international organizations.--Aldux 15:58, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Well, you know more about it than I. I faced a similar problem with Cameroon's treatment of the Bakassi dispute with Nigeria; the issue has dominated (non-football) headlines on Cameroon for the past year or so, but it's hard to judge how important the events are in comparison to things like Fulani jihads or French colonialism. It's a tough balancing act. — Brian (talk) 00:52, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not sure I'm comfortable with listing ethnic groups in phrases such as "In the Sahel sedentary peoples, such as the Barma, Kotoko, Kanembu and Bilala, live side-by-side with nomadic ones, such as the Arabs, Daza and Kreda." I tried to avoid this in Cameroon for fear that members of other ethnic groups who edit Wikipedia might insist that their group be listed too. I tried to only mention a group by name if there was another reason to do so (such as Chad's assertion that the Sara are the most numerous group). But that's just my opinion, of course.
    • While I must admit I doubt I'll see many hordes of Chadian editors running to correct this article ;-), I see your point. I've kept the mention of three ethnic groups, as the three most relevant in the respective geographic areas.--Aldux 15:58, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Make sure the information in the infobox matches the data quoted in the article.
  • Make sure only the first instance of a term is wikilinked and delink the rest (excluding the infobox, lead, and images).
  • Make sure links go where they're supposed to, not to redirects or disambiguation pages.
  • And perhaps the largest problem: The "Culture" section is way too short! I know you said you're having a problem with this part, but this section cannot be comprehensive until it covers at least most of the topics of Chad's literature, film, cuisine, dress, dance, music, and sport. Further sources might be found at Google Books (do a search for each bit, such as Sport in Chad or somesuch). I know that there is a historical dictionary of Chad that can be had used for about $30. The volume from this series on Cameroon was invaluable in writing the Cameroon article.This book, while seemingly aimed at children, might also be of help.
    • While I absolutely agree that the Historical dictionaries are grand, it may be that the scope of Decalo's Historical dictionary of Chad is a bit different from that of the Historical dictionary of Cameroon. This is a book that I've already started using and will use a lot, because without it it would be impossible to move myself in the jungle of rebel and pre-independence factions and leaders; but you won't find anything that can help to fill the culture section there, this is mostly a book of political history. As for the Amazon book, it's a bit too costly and and I'm reluctant to buy a book I would only rarely use. What I mostly miss is a general panoramic, even if I found something good on the Toubous, and more important, this from a Chadian magazine, Tchad et Culture, that has published a dossier titled "L' industrie artistique au Tchad: un trésor mal exploité". Unfortunataly traditional culture is not covered, and I haven't found much on sport.--Aldux 17:38, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Glad to see the section has beefed up. I think it's adequate now, though it would still be nice to expand it more with information on Chadian writers or filmmakers, and traditional crafts. I guess my recommendation would be to keep looking for more sources, which I'm sure you're already doing. — Brian (talk) 00:52, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Actually, I hadn't completely finished the section, and what's missing is exactly, as you guessed, a section on writers and cinema. These should be helpful [3],[4].--Aldux 13:10, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • Finished with Culture now, after inserting some info on cinema; generally all the article should be now, for what regards the content side, more or less complete.--Aldux 22:15, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The stuff on education should probably be moved to the government section. Education is in the national control and is not really an element of culture as Wikipedia country articles define the concept.
  • There are some good images in the article, but there are also some duds. It would be nice if a better image of Déby could be found, and the picture of the Sara girl is kind of boring; she could be a girl at a disco in any country from Senegal to South Africa. Yesterday, I culled public-domain image resources and uloaded a ton of pictures to Wikimedia Commons; see if anything looks promising.

I think this article has taken great strides. With a bit more tender, loving care, I think it will have a good shot at achieiving Featured Article status. Let me know if I can help further. — Brian (talk) 08:12, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • One additional problem I noted is that the last two footnotes (the ones that reference the Canadian PDF paper) are external jumps. I'd rather see the paper fully cited with author, date, title, publisher, ISBN, etc. The external jump can be embedded with the title. — Brian (talk) 00:52, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I copy edited the piece one more time. This involved combining or splitting a few paragraphs, so sorry that the changes aren't all that evident by comparing the pre- and post-copy-edit versions. I noticed one final problem: There are several mm rainfall measurements given in the "Geography" section that have no Imperial equivalents. Likewise, there are some parts of that section that use Imperial first and convert to metric rather than the reverse as it should. Once this is fixed, I think the article will be ready for FAC! — Brian (talk) 12:55, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Azumanga Daioh

edit

Second Peer Review.

Once again, I would like people to comment on thing to improve this article and grade the content value, general interest, etc, anything else that the editors of this article have missed so that we can try for a GA nomination. --Squilibob 10:39, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Archive of first peer review

Looks like it's improved since the las go-around. :) Anyway, after just a glance, I'd say the two biggest issues from my perspective are the lack of a production section (which probably can't be helped), and the overly large character section: by the looks of it, the section simply reproduces part of the list of characters, so (per summary style) you can get away with condensing the character descriptions in the main article and providing a "Main article" reference. At the very least (and the following applies also to the character list article), would it be possible to shift to a simple dictionary list? In either case, I think the MoS frowns on the use of wikilinks in headers, and the presentation of the Japanese so prominently (rather than in the actual text) makes that section kind of unattractive. The use of the anime-voices template disrupts the flow, too; perhaps add a line at the end of each character's description that she was voiced by So-and-so in Japanese and Such-and-such in English?--Monocrat 13:29, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
With the section headers, it certainly wasn't like that at last peer review and can be changed back. I have personally trimmed each characters section down a few times but it is difficult summarizing them when the story is so character driven to begin with. I will take your suggestion in full and condense and simplify the characters section though. --Squilibob 13:35, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Since the lead should summarize, and they don't appear in the body of the article, the stuff about the Very Short Movie and Web Daioh seem out of place in the lead. Maybe you could combine it with the "Title" section into something about the origin of the TV series. Also, the stuff about the hoax could be moved down to the article.
Also, does every character need an article? They could just as well be merged into the list. (which is a mess right now; it looks like the character section before Squilibob fixed it)--Nohansen 14:30, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have moved the suggested material into an adaptation section since it seemed out of place in the Title section. The individual articles would require merge proposals, which will take time to gain consensus. --Squilibob 22:40, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Some of the citations could be more detailed - see WP:CITE#Full citations. I'm also not so sure that you need Image:Azuarticlepic.PNG in the article - the caption and fair use rationale doesn't make enough of a case for me. The lead needs some work - it doesn't summarise the article properly. As a whole, the article seems a bit short. -Malkinann 23:55, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok I will work on the lead and the citations. I have changed the caption to the image, as I think the editors of the article may want to keep it as it has been associated with the article for ages.--Squilibob 05:46, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The more I look at the article, the more I think the adaptations section and the media section could be combined into one section called media. -Malkinann 07:30, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, done that and it reads well thanks.--Squilibob 10:14, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Title" seems too short to be a section. Maybe you could turn it into a note, like how the Excel Saga article explains Koushi Rikudou's spelling. I did the same thing for explaining Harlock's name a few weeks back. The stuff about "Azumanga" being used for Kiyohiko Azuma's other works could be moved to his article.--Nohansen 15:27, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nutrition Assistance for Puerto Rico

edit

Recent Good Article, plenty of sources and a NPOV despite various controversies. I feel it has potential of reaching FA, but I need a fair and balanced review of the article, offering suggestions on how to improve it so that it reaches FA. - Mtmelendez (Talk|UB|Home) 01:39, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:BirgitteSB

edit

I think this is a very strong article; Good work.

  • You seemed to be confused on "Notes" vs "References". What you have under the notes section are the references and I believe what you list as references is only repetition. Look at other recently featured articles and see how they handle this.  Done
  • Criticism and advocacy:I would rather see these issues worked in throughout the article. It very strange to have a section on "Program administration" and not mention the defects at that place.  Done
  • I am left wondering what the cost of living on PR is compared to the rest of the US. The chart showing US territories (many of them islands) having higher average benefits that the 50 states would be more useful if there was a column for cost of living. I believe food is generally more expensive on islands because of transportation costs.
  • The chart "Income-based eligibility" has an external jump.  Done
  • See also: These links should be incorporated into the article and the section eliminated.  Done

--BirgitteSB 15:34, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Response: Your suggestions are welcome to this article. I agree that the criticism section could be merged with the rest of the article, so I'll get to that soon, and I'll try to include the information you inquired since it is relevant to the article. But yes, I am confused. I included under notes the specific reference to pages and paragraphs within the main references, while including the complete reference title and name under the References section. I thought this was the best way to list references, but I might be mistaken. Could you please expand your suggestion to references? - Mtmelendez (Talk|UB|Home) 00:54, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Never mind about the references/notes. That is not the way I am used to seeing it handled but I just looked at some other FA and there does not seems to be any unifomity on these issues. So it does not seem to matter after all.--BirgitteSB 16:38, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, putting this issue aside, I'm really grateful for your suggestions. Thanks again for your time. - Mtmelendez (Talk|UB|Home) 00:06, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cthulhu

edit

Greetings! I decided to put up Cthulhu article for peer review. Waiting eagerly for your comments and suggestions on improving the article. --VR999 20:13, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's referenced almost entirely to primary sources (Lovecraft's writing). There are many, many secondary sources available about Lovecraft's work. Please use them. - Merzbow 05:03, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. Though Lovecraft is the top source, the article could benefit from more references by Lovecraft scholars/peers. In all, though, a well-researched article. As a Lovecraft fan, I'm impressed. --Ispy1981 05:34, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Middlesbrough F.C.

edit

We're attempting to get the article up to Good Article status(and then hopefully onto FAC/FA status, and would like some comments on how the article can be brought up to those standards. Thanks. --Simmo676 23:07, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Quite a lot of points here, but you did say you were aspiring to FA status... :-)

  • The "Stadium" section could do with expansion.
  Done Expanded.
  • The "Media relations" section is rather fluffy and contains little of substance. That some ex-Boro players work in the media is unremarkable; there are a plethora of pundits in the media, and pretty much every club can list a number of ex-players who do such work. The other bits can probably be merged into the Supporters section, though the tone needs a little work in places. Phrases such as FMTTM is now available online as well as in its original paper format come across as promotional in style.
  • Remove the "famous fans" listed in the Supporters section, consensus across a number of other football articles and the Football WikiProject is that such lists should not be included. If someone's support for the club is of particular note, it should be mentioned in their article instead of that of the club.
  Done Removed. --Simmo676 10:05, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • There's a couple of instances where the articles displays a "fan point of view": "resulting in relegation, which still remains a sore spot with fans to this day.", "He was to prove a revelation". The Supporters section is perhaps a little too flattering in tone.
  Done Tried to remove the flattering inclinations. --Simmo676 10:05, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Avoid using colloquial terms such as "bounce back"and "yo-yoing"; write Manchester City, not Man City.
  Done Changed to more suitable phrases. --Simmo676 10:05, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remove the lists of the youth team squad and minor staff members. Putting "no players out on loan" is redundant information.
  Done Removed loan info. Will move youth team to new youth team article as per other teams soon. --Simmo676 10:35, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Are the "Notable former players" chosen using specific criteria or listed arbitrarily based on the personal opinions of editors?
Were at the moment arbitrary, working on List of Middlesbrough F.C. players which includes finding appearances/goals, to provide better notability criteria. --Simmo676 10:35, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • A "for more details" header is only for internal links, not external links (Managers section). If the site was used as a reference, list it in the references section. If not, remove it entirely.
  Done Changed to reference. --Simmo676 10:35, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • A pedantic one: it's anachronistic to describe the early Middlesbrough kit as "AC Milan style" - Milan didn't form until 1899.
  Done Fixed. --Simmo676 10:35, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • "However, rumours abound that the band will not be on the next incarnation of the home strip - a move proving controversial with Boro fans": remove, Wikipedia is not a crystal ball
  • "Middlesbrough also have a historical rivalry with Chelsea" Is this really a rivalry, or merely a way of saying the clubs have contested a number of important matches? Needs citations.
  Done Removed it since no source can be found and have never heard anyone describe it as a rivalry. --Simmo676 10:05, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • People like User:Qwghlm know more about this sort of thing than me, but you might want to double check the validity of the fair use rationale on the image of the programme.
Will check that with Qwghlm. --Simmo676 10:05, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • A lot of the paragraphs in the History section are only one or two sentences long, giving a choppy feel. Some of these should be merged; it may require some rewording to get them to flow more easily.
  Done Done some work. Hopefully it flows better now. --Simmo676 10:05, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are a number of copyediting issues. Take this paragraph as an example:
    • Before the season restarted, Boro were victorious in the Northern Victory League, but the team's chance at the league championship had faded and they finished mid-table. They remained there for the next few seasons, before finally slipping to relegation in 1923-24, finishing 22nd of 22, ten points adrift of their nearest rivals.
No season restarted, the suspension of football ended and a new season began. Consider Before competitive football resumed.... Saying that a club was victorious in the Victory league is jarring due to the repetition of "victory", using "won" would be simpler. Similarly, "bottom" has more effect than "22nd of 22". The paragraph could instead read something like
  • Before competitive football resumed Middlesbrough won the Northern Victory League, but the team were unable to sustain their form and finished the 1918-19 season in mid-table. The club remained in the First Division for the next few seasons, but were relegated in 1923-24 after finishing bottom, ten points adrift of their nearest rivals.
If you want further help with copyediting, drop a note on my talk page.
  Done Fixed up those and will have a look for some others. Will drop you a note if I need more help. --Simmo676 10:05, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hope this helps. Oldelpaso 15:49, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers! It certainly did help. Will work on the rest of the comments. Thanks again. --Simmo676 10:05, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Waite Phillips

edit

Thank you for considering my Peer Review. Expanding the Waite Phillips stub was my first experience writing biographical information on Wikipedia, and I want to make sure that I am not violating any consensus rules that I'm not aware of. Also, I'd like to know how I can improve my writing. I don't think that I'll have time to take it to FA, but I would be happy with good article status. I went of on a Philmont trek last year, so the topic has a personal connection for me.
Thanks for looking it over,
Pnswmr 00:30, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Howitzer

edit

Could someone give me all the things I could add to this article so I could bring this to featured article. I already did a few changes. Thanks Flubeca (t) 23:29, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A few problems/suggestions:

  • The lede paragraph is unreferenced. There are also many other statements in other paragraphs without references that should definately have them.   Doing...
  • "In 1939 they started dropping the words "Gun" and "Howitzer" from their artillery nomenclature." This seems like a typo...the British no longer use the word gun? Or is it that they dropped the "Gun" from "Gun-Howitzer"?
  • The bulleted list at the beginning of the History section is awkward, should be converted to prose.   Done Flubeca (t) 23:41, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Needs a lot more on Howitzers after WWI...if they are still widely used.
  • On that subject, you should decide whether this article will cover only weapons called "Howitzer" or if it will cover "Gun-Howitzers" as well.

Hope I've been a help. -RunningOnBrains 20:05, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"In 1939 they started dropping the words "Gun" and "Howitzer" from their artillery nomenclature." This seems like a typo...

Er, I thought peer reviewers were supposed to know the subject they pontificate about. In 1939 UK manuals started using only nouns such as 'Ordnance', 'Carriage', 'Mounting' in the titles for new indigenous equipments. A previous version made the point that after a suitable lapse of time the term Gun re-entered the lexicon and was used for what pedantic armies call howitzers.

Incidentally the 49 word sentence that replaces the bulleted list is a real horror. A classic example of 'improvement means detioration'.

Nfe 02:59, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Architects (Registration) Acts, 1931 to 1938

edit

General comments; accuracy; usefulness to the very small readership that will have a close interest in the subject matter. Salisian 19:06, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Californication (album)

edit

This is the first WikiProject Red Hot Chili Peppers article to get to GA status and it needs some fresh eyes to look over it and point out areas for improvement so that we can pull it up to FA :) Any and all comments are appreciated! Kamryn Matika 12:30, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Automated suggestions

edit

I went ahead and used the javascript thingy to make these;

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

You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas.

Comments from CloudNine

edit

Here's a few points to help you improve the article. I'll add more as I go through it:

  • "Pre-composition"? "Background" works better as a section title in my opinion. Done Kamryn Matika 15:18, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is there any information on Californication's release? What formats was it released in, where did it chart (it's nice to have such information in prose form), when did it achieve gold, what are the album's current sales? etc. See Surfer Rosa#Release and Doolittle (album)#Release for an example.
  • "In March 2006, the Red Hot Chili Peppers' albums were made available to purchase on iTunes. Albums bought there included new previously unreleased tracks. The original tracks, unlike the bonus tracks, were not remastered." Personally, I don't think this is worthy of note in the lead. This is an ideal candidate for inclusion in a Release section.
  • You may want an "Accolades" section; have a search around AcclaimedMusic.net. Done NSR77 (Talk|Contribs) 19:38, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure I see an Accolades section. Is the information about accolades part of the Critical recognition section? CloudNine 19:40, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is purely a stylistic point, but the book reference should be "lastName, year. p. page". Just a preference of mine.
  • An external links section would be helpful. I recommend links to Google Music, All Music Guide and Last.fm (et al), and perhaps a {{Wikiquote}} box if there were any interesting Californication quotations. Done Kamryn Matika 15:16, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • In general, take a look at some featured album articles (I've written Doolittle (album) and Surfer Rosa) for general layout and tips.

Hope that's enough to keep you going for now; good work so far! Feel free to strike out points if you feel you've addressed them. By the way, you may want to consider listing this at the alternative music project's peer review page. CloudNine 14:56, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, thanks a lot - this will be hugely helpful :) Working on it now. Kamryn Matika 15:16, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

LuciferMorgan

edit
  • Consider merging the "Critical recognition" and "Release" sections into one section like I did with "Christ Illusion" (FA). Currently the article is chronologically incorrect in the sense it mentions the recognition before it mentions it being released.
  • The album has received criticism for what some perceive to be excessive compression and distortion in the process of digital remastering - This is a misleading statement since "some" implies several, whereas Tim Anderson is the person saying this. It'd be much better to say; Tim Anderson of The Guardian noted how the album has received criticism "for excessive compression and distortion".
  • This change has been attributed by some to the return of Frusciante to the lineup. Has the same problem, since "some" is incorrect. What's correct to say is; Music.com's Greg Prato attributed this change to the return of Frusciante to the lineup.

I think all of your concerns have been dealt with, thanks a lot for pointing them out. Kamryn Matika 04:24, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, just trying to help you improve the article. :) LuciferMorgan 01:43, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from AllynJ

edit

Nothing major from me, the prose reads fine as it is as far as I can tell. Two points:

  • Why is Fortune Faded listed under singles? It's a single from Greatest Hits, not Californication, no?
  • It may simply be that it's just a small number of people calling for it, but Californication has been one of the most criticised albums for it's mastering as a part of the loudness war; certainly by audiophile and music engineering circles - perhaps it's me but I certainly think it could do with its own paragraph (at least!). Couple of sources that would be appropriate for it: The Guardian, Stylus Magazine.

Thanks. AllynJ 13:15, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ooh, thanks for the Stylus source! The Guardian one is already in the article but I couldn't find any more sources so I couldn't expand the comment about mastering. I'll take a look in a bit and try to improve it. Kamryn Matika 16:51, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Aberdeen

edit
As of 14th May 2007, all suggestions to this date have been implemented and this peer review is now closed. Bobbacon 12:22, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about Scotland's third largest city. There has been a lot of editing lately on this article and would like to help make it a featured article. As this is the first article I have worked on to this level and I would like a peer review so that I can get a better idea of the strengths and weaknesses. Bobbacon 12:39, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It needs a good copyedit to start with and if going for FA more referencing would be good. I haven't read the whole article yet but these are some points from the 1st few sections:
  • Swap the order of the 2 sentences in the opening paragraph?
  • The sentence 'There has been settlement...' is odd, the 2nd half doesn't follow well from the 1st. Is this continuous settlement? Could we have a paragraph or even 2 in the summary entirely on the history of Aberdeen? Maybe saying how relatively important a city it was before oil was found.
  • Are the Britain in Bloom awards really worthy of a mention in the lead section?
  • Is Aberdeen really sturdy? Or does it just look sturdy?
  • 'various different people' - do you mean this? or 'peoples'? in the 1st case this is obvious so can be cut, in the 2nd why not say which peoples?
  • Can we have more about 'Bon Accord'? Why do you need a secret phrase to lay seige to a castle?
  • 'had all been removed by 1770.' sounds better to me
  • 'comprising of'?
  • 'and by 1805 George Street, King Street and Union Street opening.'? do you mean opened? why are these streets noteworthy?
  • 'a fine granite arch' NPOV? or is this granite that isn't coarse?
  • 'second largest granite building in the world.' citation? what is the largest? in fact there aren't any citations in this or the religion section.
  • 'Crossing the cities other river'?
  • The Norwegian wikipedia link implies it is a featured article but this doesn't seem obvious from the article itself. JMiall 23:11, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
thanks for taking a look at this article. I have added a copyedit tag to the page (my English isn't the best :P ) I haven't had time to make any changes yet but after the weekend I will put the suggestions for the first few paragraphs into place. I have also shared these suggestions with other people working on the article so they will prove invaluable. Bobbacon 15:33, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • There's quite a lot of one sentence paragraphs in some of the lower sections of the article ie Transport, Politics and Sport. Would it be possible to maybe expand some of these, or knit these one sentence paragraphs together? To give one example: "There are five major roads in and out of the city the A90, A96, A93, A92 and the A947." maybe you could say what directions they head in, which places they connect to Aberdeen to etc, just to give that little bit more information. Globaltraveller 19:41, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your comments, your suggestions have been implemented with one-sentence paragraphs moved to put them in single paragraphs knitted together and extra information added to each of the three sections mentioned. Further information for transport with directions have also been added. Do you have any other suggestions I can implement? Bobbacon 12:32, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have carried on and read the rest of the article. Personally I think that this is a really good article (and much improved from 3 weeks ago) but it still needs work before it is ready for FA on the copyediting/brilliant prose side

Some more specific points (apologies if you have already changed any of these - I was reading yesterday's version):

  • Use of terms like recent, recently, lately, today - if possible can these be written to use terms like 'in the early 21st century', 'as of 2007' or even missed out altogether. How does the reader know when that bit of text was written?
  • 'but the city ranks only a poor fourth in Scotland for shopping' - citation? why poor fourth?
  • majour?
  • Is the first paragraph in the education section important? If Aberdeen has 2 universities then you would expect more students in the area than nationally. Also can the word 'Educationally' be dropped?
  • 'In 2001 it UK census records'?
  • Don't start a new paragraph with 'it'
  • 'which have 49% of residences'? do you mean 'which comprise'?
  • Can the Performing arts section be rewritten so there isn't so much information in brackets and the Lemon Tree link be put at the 1st mention of this venue.
  • 'For those looking for a less flower orientated experience then Hazlehead Park is the place to go' - this is straight out of a guidebook. Rewrite. Some references in this paragraph wouldn't go amiss either.
  • Why does the Doric Festival get a direct link in the text? Can this not go in external links?
  • Short paragraphs in the media section.
  • 'and has enjoyed success on all levels from North District to international' - what is North District? JMiall 22:44, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your suggestions, I have been taking a bit of wikibreak right now which is why I have taken time to get back to you. I will be integrating your suggestions soon- I have found that after working on an article for some time I start to read what I think is there as opposed to what is there and I stop noticing the small problems; so I am taking an Aberdeen break so I can look at it with fresh eyes again! Bobbacon 15:07, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As of 14th May 2007, all suggestions to this date have been implemented and this peer review is now closed. Bobbacon 12:22, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Aberdeen Peer Review 2

edit
Closed (with no interest) on 06/08/2007 Bobbacon

Since the first peer review on 21/02/2007, a lot has been changed particulalry the formatting, style and prose has been vastly improved. As with any article the eventual aim is FA status, I think the current B status could be improved. Thanks, Bobbacon 09:08, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Boar

edit

I have never before requested a peer review, so please bear (boar) with me, haha. I stumbled across this article and have been doing some minor cleanup. It seemse the sort of article that could quickly be polished to good or featured status. I am hoping for constructive criticism and guidance to improve this article. thanks. —Gaff ταλκ 19:29, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • This article needs to be more completely referenced and the internal jumps cleaned up. Also it could use sections on "Anatomy" and "Habitat".--BirgitteSB 15:09, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Internal jumps are link to external websites within the main prose as opposed to in the references or external links sections.--BirgitteSB 18:49, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  Doing...

At the moment I'm afraid it's quite far from even GA status. It contains a good deal of information, however, and with some clean-up it could be a decent article. Here are my main objections:

  • It needs more references. The info on weight and on the size of the sounders need to be referenced, but these are only examples, it should be referenced throughout. Also, the references that are there need to be more uniform. Rather than links in the text to external sites, there should be footnotes. Especially web links such as the ones in the section about WWT are not good. The same goes for "See also medieval hunting". "See also" should be kept to its own section at the bottom.
  Doing...
  • Much of the information is in "bullet point" form; it should be written in more continuous prose. Detached 1-sentence paragraphs such as "Also, in Hindu mythology, the third avatar of the Lord Vishnu was Varaha, a boar", and "The wild boar was a symbol of Richard III of England" should be avoided. The sentence on the Grimsby coat of arms following directly upon the story of Shahrbaraz (without even punctuation!) is quite simply bizarre.
  Doing...
  • Pictures: at the moment there are probably too many, some of them could safely be moved to Commons.
  Done

Good luck! Lampman Talk to me!

By the way, there's an interesting anecdote about how John of Gaunt supposedly killed the last boar in England. You can find it here. Lampman Talk to me!

  Doing...
I agree that it has a long way to go to become even a good article. That's part of the fun, since ultimately this article should reach Featured (it did in German). I know its going to take some doing and I am in no hurry. Your comments are much appreciated. —Gaff ταλκ 08:32, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sargon of Akkad

edit

This article has undergone extensive revisions and has recently been accorded GA status. Am trying to get it up to FA standards. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 03:37, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Water Cycle

edit

Somehow, this article became GA back in November despite a dearth of references. It needs work. Fresh eyes would be appreciated. Thegreatdr 14:44, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nadir Afonso

edit

I just created this article on the geometric abstract painter. I made an effort to go through all his monographs (luckily, providing lots of sources) and to document pictorially the evolution of his style. As this is my first arts-related article, I would like some specialized peer feedback. Thank you. --maf (talk-cont) 13:40, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ginsenoside

edit

Please state what you want out of the review. --Bduke 08:37, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The user who added this for review staed in reply to my request on his talk page:

I am a new comer at Wikipedia, so not very confident. I just want experts to validate my work and receive ideas for further improvement. dick 00:23, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I will add this to the normal WP:PR by transclusion so both debates are in the same place. --Bduke 02:45, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, there seem to be a lot of good resources being used in this article. However, there is also a plethora of formatting issues:

  • Sections should not be created with '''Bold Text''', but instead with hierarchal ===Section Headings===.
  • Every sentence should be part of either a decent-sized paragraph or a list. There should be no one-sentence paragraphs.
  • The diagram you uploaded must have a licensing tag. It looks like you scanned it from a chemistry handbook. The image page must document the image's source.
  • Reference tags should go immediately after punctuation marks without spaces between them, like this.[19]
  • Avoid using fragments, such as "Appears to be most abundant in Panax quinquefolius (American Ginseng)".
  • Avoid unencyclopedic tone, such as "Rb1 seems to affect..."

I also recommend a thorough reading-through of the Manual of Style and its relevant subpages. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 23:20, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed a few formatting issues mentioned by Cryptic C62. No idea about content though. - TwoOars 19:20, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

San Juan, Puerto Rico

edit

This article has been under work by me and several other members of WikiProject Puerto Rico and we have worked hard on raising this page to where we believe it should be in the process managing to get it pass Good Article. To reviewers please judge this article as if you where judging a Featured Article Candidate cause that is where we are headed, any concerns presented will be attended by me or by any other member of WikiProject Puerto Rico, thanks for your time. -凶 13:55, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Some points to consider:
  • Go easy on the sub-headings. Some, like "Subjected to attacks", break the narrative flow (they are unnecessary) and some, like "Subdivisions", don't have enough meat to justify itself ("Subdivisions" is only two sentences long).
  • In "Demographics" place the boxes to one side and allow the text to flow around them. Having them in the middle creates a lot of white space on both sides.
  • What source did the climate figures come from? Please provide a footnote.
  • A map of the city, with such features as roads, rail, watercourses, landmarks, etc. would be great.
  • The "Sports" section only consists of a list and a box. Prose is encouraged.
  • Personal opinion: I don't like "Notable residents" sections. Little info, little relevance, a lot of space.
  • This link [5] provides a good guide of sections and content that could be valuable to add. --maclean 06:11, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]


We Got Homework, i definitely agree with points mentioned above.
We should look at other cities articles, the Charts we have look like big rocks that we have to climb over, we still got an overdose of References, Miami with three times more population has only a third of the References, Las Angeles 10 times more a handful for its size, most of ours should go to External links, we're out of balance! it seems we are just filling-in to make article seem longer or for lack of info, hey guys'n gals, Where’s The Meat?, We have to look into having sections like:
  • Arts, Culture and Fine Arts
  • Economy
  • Tourism
  • Parks and recreation
  • Government
  • Education
  • Ecology
  • Bibliography
These are all things We Stand Out (or we should). San Juan shines when we get into music, (Education section) and we don't just play the guitar and drums, we excel in wind instruments amongst others but zilch, why are we in such a hurry to get a GA nomination when so much stuff is missing, how did we get a GA nomination just bogs my mind, lets make this a World Class Article, lets get the homework done ~ Moebiusuibeom-en 17:04, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thank for reviewing, I will get to work now. -凶 19:23, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Lets continue - Moebiusuibeom-en 19:49, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]


So much silence, any commentaries? Did some adjustments in Transportation section, added more “Meat”
Also added positive aspect of Tren Urbano and some Link shuffling, moved link about negative aspects of Tren Urbano and placed it in Tren's Urbano article where "i believe" it should be, (let me know thoughts!) sort of hid the truth, or in other words if reader wants more detailed info please refer to Main article: Tren Urbano in this case. furthermore articles line; "2006 has reported a 7.5% increase in ridership over 2005" should have a link, news is available in el Nuevo Día but is not digitalisized!
Who knows how to place Demographics charts on right side as per peer view suggestions?! Hey, lets keep fine tuning Moebiusuibeom-en 16:04, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I tried, but the format seems to be failing, I presume it's because of the way the tables are constructed I think we should be using graphs to illustrate this, they take less space and look better. -凶 20:46, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Yes. I've tried too, try using graphs then, sounds like a good idea!~ Moebiusuibeom-en 21:43, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]


This is what Peer review maclean may mean:

Denton, Texas

edit

Notable Residents

edit
Main article: List of notable residents of Denton, Texas

Denton's position as a cultural and educational center for the Dallas-Fort Worth Metroplex has resulted in many notable people having resided in the city.

Who's going to do it?! ~ Moebiusuibeom-en 22:10, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]


  • I can take care of that, can you look for the graphs? I can't believe Wikipedia doesn't have a code for graphs, we need to look for them in books and I'm short on that area. -凶 22:31, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The biggest problem with the "Notable residents" section (now list-article) is that it was unreferenced. Each person should have a footnote indicating what their relationship is with the city (to illustrate the relevance). The article is looking good. That is the first time I've seen show/hide used with charts. --maclean 09:10, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Further comments @ User talk:Dark Dragon Flame ~ Moebiusuibeom-en 16:53, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

History of poison

edit

This article started out as a DYK back in April. Since then, it has been vastly improved and expanded, and gained GA status on May 22. User:Anonymous Dissident and I would like to know how to improve the article, specifically, what points might we want to expand to, if the present tone, quotations, and content are encyclopedic, or just a general review of the article. If there are any questions or concerns, please contact me or User:Anonymous Dissident. bibliomaniac15 An age old question... 02:00, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks biblio, by the way, for creating the page. I hope we get some good feedback. Anonymous Dissident Utter 07:42, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A few observations: The lead section should be expanded to comply with WP:LEAD. Also, I notice at least two significant poison themes/stories that are not mentioned. Shakespeare's use of poison in his plays deserves at least a little mention, I think, as well as Socrates' death by poisoning in Greek History. Wrad 23:17, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I found this article difficult to read. There is a real problem with the flow of the article as a whole. It seems to be made up endless examples of poison mentioned in various times, with without enough analysis or context. This makes me think the article might simply need better quaility sources. The section "Borgia family" goes into too much depth for such a general article and writing is especially poor. Also the transitions betweens the sub-sections are either awkward or non-existent. Missing is a discussion of radiation poisoning. --BirgitteSB 14:20, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Disinvestment from South Africa

edit

I just put together the page this past week with a DYK entry making the main page today. I myself am not that familiar with the disinvestment campaign nor the general circumstances surrounding it as I am not South African nor was I alive at the time of this campaign. As such, I am looking for feedback in the following areas:

  • Is the topic adequately covered? Are there any major aspects of the campaign or its effects that I missed?
  • Is the article organization sufficient?
  • General constructive criticism of any nature.

Last, but not least, I am admittedly not the most skilled writer, thus any copy editing help is most than welcome. --CGM1980 01:47, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Get rid of things like "According to Lisson" and "Knight writes"; this isn't an essay for university (it could almost double as one, though—it smells like university material).
  • It is organised and written well. Any prose concerns would be largely negligible.
  • Scrap the criticism section and integrate this into the article itself.
  • Enlarge the "Effects on South Africa" section. The article seems to be a lot of talk, talk, talk (the campaign) and then we only have a few paragraphs about its actual effects (the economics).

Michael talk 01:57, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It needs a more global perspective. For example, in New Zealand the New Zealand Insurance (NZI) company was picked by the anti-apartheid movement as one company which invested in South Africa, and some hundreds of people bought a minimum parcel of shares in the company each and then turned up en masse to AGMs to ask awkward questions and move motions for the company to disinvest. The anti-apartheid protesters made up a sizable proportion of the people attending the AGMs and couldn't be excluded because they were shareholders, but they had a tiny proportion of the votes. I think the campaign wound up when NZI sold its South African subsidiary. A similar campaign was waged on South British Insurance. I'd add this myself but I don't know of any reliable sources to cite. http://unctc.unctad.org/data/e84iia5.pdf mentions these two companies in relation to South Africa, but not the campaign waged in New Zealand. Anti-apartheid organisations in other countries doubtless pursued their own strategies.-gadfium 04:44, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Found a couple of partial sources: [6] and [7].-gadfium 04:51, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Final Fantasy IX

edit

This article is going to be an FA soon. I believe this article is one of the best of Wikipedia in my honest opinion. Any comments here to improve this article is appreciated. Thanks. Sjones23 21:39, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Okay, I know I wrote this myself (shame on me), but this is a really awkward sentence in the audio section: "and incorporated ideas such as "the old intro for battle music" and arranged the Volcano theme from Final Fantasy and the Pandemonium theme from Final Fantasy II." --Teggles 04:41, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yeah, hopefully we'll get a couple people to give it a pass before I FAC it tomorrow/Thursday (ideally Thursday, since tomorrow is going to be a Day From Hell). — Deckiller 04:44, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rockhurst University

edit

I am looking for comments/contributions to make this article on Rockhurst University appropriate for and eligible for consideration as a featured article. As a major editor of this article, please provide me with feedback. Shaverc 23:49, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

  • The lead of this article may be too long, or may contain too many paragraphs. Please follow guidelines at WP:LEAD; be aware that the lead should adequately summarize the article.[?]
  • The lead is for summarizing the rest of the article, and should not introduce new topics not discussed in the rest of the article, as per WP:LEAD. Please ensure that the lead adequately summarizes the article.[?]
  • Per Wikipedia:Context and Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates), months and days of the week generally should not be linked. Years, decades, and centuries can be linked if they provide context for the article.[?]
  • See if possible if there is a free use image that can go on the top right corner of this article.[?]
  • 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.”
  • Avoid using contractions like (outside of quotations): hasn't.
  • This article needs footnotes, preferably in the cite.php format recommended by WP:WIAFA. Simply, enclose inline citations, with WP:CITE or WP:CITE/ES information, with <ref>THE FOOTNOTE</ref>. At the bottom of the article, in a section named “References” or “Footnotes”, add <div class="references-small"><references/></div>.[?]
  • The article will need references. See WP:CITE and WP:V for more information.[?]
  • Please ensure that the article has gone through a thorough copyediting so that it exemplifies some of Wikipedia's best work. See also User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 1a.[?]

You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, Zginder 12:31, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cola

edit

Okay, please get this done. I need some experienced editors to have a look at this article and see what can be done. So an archive of how to improve it and get it to GA could be achieved. Telcourbanio Care for a talk? 21:24, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ramblin' Wreck from Georgia Tech

edit

I recently expanded this article, paying attention to references. However, I'm somewhat unfamiliar with writing articles about songs, and I'm not sure where to take the article from here. What needs to be done to bring it closer to GA status? —Disavian (talk/contribs) 02:19, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A few suggestions:

  • Put the "Lyrics" section first or second....I was reading the article and there are references to the song, but I didnt understand them because I didn't yet know the lyrics!   Done
  • There are a few parts that have questionable notability. For instance, why is the "Diversity Task Force"'s proposal worthy of mention if it was ignored by faculty and opposed by students?   Not done
  • An image of any sort (Public Domain sheet music, photo of the band playing it, etc.) would color up the article nicely IMO.   Done

Other than that, nicely written and sourced article. -RunningOnBrains 19:49, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I got a couple images last night/this morning, and I'll put them up soon. I was having trouble thinking of a good free image, but someone helped me out :) I agree that the "Diversity Task Force" proposal paragraph needs to be rewritten. According to the sources, it was a big deal at the time, and I need to write it as such. Thank you for reviewing the article :) —Disavian (talk/contribs) 22:01, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I did a bit of work on it tonight, including adding one image. I think it needs a few more before I'll be satisfied. —Disavian (talk/contribs) 07:32, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Do you consider sheet music to be in the public domain? For example, SONGAMB.gif on [8] or ramblin_partition.gif on [9]? —Disavian (talk/contribs) 18:47, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, you mention in the article that some versions of the song are in public domain, so I'm pretty sure sheet music of public domain music would fall under public domain. However, the yearbook page you added works just fine. The modifications to the article as of now look excellent. I would recommend putting it up for WP:GAN. Good work.-RunningOnBrains 15:10, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, GA status has been my goal for this article, and I think it'll be an easy pass when I get around to nominating it in a few days. I'll also add that sheet music, since I think it'd be a good addition. —Disavian (talk/contribs) 16:45, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Found the template for public domain sheet music: {{PD-ineligible}} and the category Category:Music images. —Disavian (talk/contribs) 23:04, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Huolongjing

edit

NOTE:This article's title has been moved to a new one, I am reposting the info on the new request page.--PericlesofAthens 20:48, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This article describes one of the most important books of medieval literature from China. Compiled and edited by Jiao Yu and Liu Ji in the 14th century (with Jiao's preface added in a publication of 1412 AD), this military treatise outlines, describes, and illustrates in many different drawings the various 'fire-weapons' employing gunpowder in their time. This includes 'fire arrows', flamethrower/firearm 'fire lances', early guns, bombards, cannons, exploding cannonballs, land mines, naval mines, rocket launchers, two stage rockets, winged rockets, and more. Although the article is mostly sufficient and meets criteria for at least B-class status (in my opinion), it could be improved in many places, such as in organization, clarity, etc. I am aiming for Good Article status, although the eventual Featured Article is always a possibility. Since I created the article (and Jiao Yu's), I would be grateful of anyone's suggestions and additions to it. Thank you.--PericlesofAthens 18:50, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good article. I enjoyed reading it.
I would suggest that the article title be moved to "Huolongjing" per pinyin grammar rules on word formation - i.e. that multi-syllabic words expressing one concept should be written as one word. Ditto "Tian Gong Kai Wu" and "Wu jing zong yao" (also note inconsistent capitalisation in those two examples).
It could just be me but I don't like insertions of Chinese text in an English article without some indication as to it being Chinese text or its meaning. I would suggest that "元大德二年 (1298 AD)" be re-formatted as "2nd year of the Dade era, Yuan Dynasty (1298 AD)", since the Chinese text by itself is likely to be meaningless and perhaps confusing for a non-Sinophone reader.
The lengthy quote under "Land mines and naval mines" could benefite from the Template:cquote template.
The vast majority of information seems to be sourced from Needham, Volume 5, Part 7. Perhaps a greater variety of sources would improve the article further.
Thanks, Sumple (Talk) 01:06, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply First off, thank you for contributing to the peer review, great suggestions!
First point - I realize my mistake now, and I will go through the long and dreadful process of changing that to one long word in this wiki article and dozens of others. Ouch. Lol.
Second point - I'll fix that in a moment.
Third point - Actually, the Template:cquote page says cquote is only appropriate for short quotes given at the beginning or very end of a section to provide context for the rest of the text material. For large quotes (like that one) it says simply to use the blockquote method.
Fourth point - a good point! Lol. But I don't have any books (besides Needham's) lying around my house that are focused solely on the history of gunpowder. There's only so much web material I could muster and find out there on the internet. Google scholar is of little help (only sporadic content in a sparse amount of books here and there will provide anything good on the history of gunpowder in China...I was lucky even to find Partington's book...what little I was allowed to see of his book). My school's library has the Needham collection of volumes, but when it comes to gunpowder history, they are sorely lacking, I was lucky to find Khan's book to be honest. I do have an online library of information thanks to the university I am attending, but they have a limited amount of books to choose from. If anyone could help contribute to this article with further book sources at hand, I would be very grateful. Peace. --PericlesofAthens 16:09, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

An excellent article, I very much enjoyed reading it. However, I am a bit puzzled to find no direct quotations or citations of the actual book... is there some kind of new WP:RULE saying "no citing the actual thing the article is about", or this this a simple oversight? I think it would help if relevant passages amd translations can be backed up with actual quotes in footnote format. Also, it would be better if you provided Chinese characters along with their pinyin transliterations: it is sometimes really confusing to read a pinyin and have to struggle to recall/conceptualize the actual word. Lastly, the cartoon color picture looks pretty... unprofessional. Is it reliable? -- 我♥中國 20:35, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To your first point: There should be no need for you to be puzzled, since there are two quotations of the Huolongjing in the article, one on sea mines, the other on rockets. I will try my best to see what I can do about pinyin to Chinese characters (I don't speak or write Chinese very well, I am just now taking an elementary language course for pǔtōnghuà). Also, I don't see anything necessarily wrong with the cartoon pic, but if others agree with your sentiment, I don't mind removing it. I do agree that it does look a little too...apprentice-like for a good article (or any article on wiki for that matter).--PericlesofAthens 21:38, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think that, given the article is about the book, more than 2 direct qoutations from it are warranted... For the Chinese characters, I might be able to help you with that, as long as I can figure out what they are. Finally, as for the picture, it's not really the quality I'm worried about, rather, the accuracy/reliability... is it an illustration from a history book? Is it an online picture? Does wherever the picture was obtained from have some information on what exactly it depicts, and is it accurately depicted? -- 我♥中國 15:05, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
An additional nitpick: For the caption to the last picture (currently "Chinese Ming Dynasty (1368-1644 AD) era matchlock firearms featuring serpentine levers"), can you specify a date? 300 years is a lot to be ambiguous about. -- 我♥中國 15:09, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I can try to find more quotations, I suppose, but the two will suffice for now (wikipedia articles are more about prose than quotations, that's why Wikiquote was established). As for the picture of the rocket and the Chinese soldier, I decided to just scrap it. On the description page for the Ming Dynasty matchlock firearms, it simply says "Illustrations of Ming-style matchlock muskets", which is kind of stupid, since it is a photograph, not an "illustration" or drawing. Anyways, I think it might be dated to the 16th century, but I am not certain; it could be early 17th for all I know.--PericlesofAthens 17:59, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You misunderstood me, I meant using more direct quotations as a source to back up your prose, not more quotations in the prose (although that might help too). As for the matchlock picture, I think I uploaded it... :p I'll go back and find if I have some more sourcing information for it... -- 我♥中國 02:26, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This article needs a revision to include some reference to "Chinese Military Technology and Dai Viet, c. 1390-1427" by Sun Laichen and "Chinese-style Firearms in Dai Viet (Vietnam)". Also reference to Ho Nguyen Trung ("Li Cheng" in Chinese), the inventor of the flash pan and wooden sabot in Vietnam and later taken to Nanjing and put in charge of manufacturing weapons for use against Mongols. Trung ultimately rose to position of Minister of Works in Beijing (c1443) for his work on "shenji qiangpao 神 机 枪砲 ". In 1407, the Ming acquired from the Vietnamese a weapon called shen qiang, shenqiang jian, or shen shi huoqiang [神機火鎗 Thần Cơ Hỏa Thương],meaning literally "magic fire-lance arrow." It was a fire-lance but better than its Chinese counterpart due to one unique featrue: it had a heavy wood wad (wooden sabot) made of ironwood behind the arrow to increase pressure within the barrel This "arrow" could be fired as far as three hundred paces. A fire-lance is basically a stick carrying an explosive device (ignited by a fuze) fired from a gun (hand-cannon aka handgunne aka pole-gun),

Risk (game)

edit

Wikipedia:Peer review/Risk (game)/archive1
Wikipedia:Peer review/Risk (game)/archive2

After much work, I feel that this article is very close to becoming FA. It needs someone to do a grammar check and suggest where I should include more citations. Granted, there is still one section that I still need to add a little bit more to, viz. the official Risk versions section. However, I plan on working on that as people give me suggestions. Thanks. :D b_cubed 05:42, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Review by Clyde

I took a look mostly References. Here we go.
  • There is a lot of OR in this article or it simply is not citied. A few random examples are (not all-inclusive):
  • "In the most recent rulebook, three variations are given."
  • "The official rulebook suggests variations to the gameplay mechanics for "Risk experts,""
  • Some sections are missing a citation. While there is no law that there must be X citations in an article, it would be wishful thinking to believe someone could read a whole paragraph or section without challenging a single fact in it. Hence, you need more citations.
  • Standard setup. There's no proof that what is written is the proper order or accepted practice of beginning the game.
  • Player turn. There are seven paragraphs present, and it is a stretch to believe all of that without any refs.
  • Basic strategy. How do I, the reader, know the official rulebook said that? Cite.
  • Popular Culture. See if you can find something out there about the episode, and then look for a mention of Risk in the write-up.
  • You have a bunch of rulebooks in the external links section of the article; you're the expert here (I don't know which one to use) but find one to cite anything and everything.
  • Several sentences are POV and need a reference and possibly rewrite for FA standards. A couple examples (Not everything)
  • "Compared to other military board games, Risk is relatively simple and abstract."
  • "Setting up the Risk board for play is more involved than in many other games."
  • It looks like most of the refs are in cite web (you might want to make them all cite web), which is good, but try to flesh them out so every single one has a publisher and wikified publishing date.
  • Reference 8 is simply Risk II. If you must remove the lid to open a paint can, it is better to cite the directions or an FAQ rather than the paint can itself. Just a suggestion.
I think that'll get you started.--Clyde (talk) 15:34, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Attraction to disability

edit

Please comment on the content, length, verification, language, and relevance of this page. Please give suggestions for revision, renaming or? By the way, I'm not the original author, and this page has been up for some time. Altairah 03:44, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There's no doubt that this is very long; brevity is... wit, don't forget. People coming here would be looking for a simple overview. If necessary, create other pages for more specific components. More importantly, though your sources list is decent, there are no in-line citations. This article won't go far without them. As for the title, unless there is a more scientific word, this title seems fine to me. Your use of copyrighted images will almost certainly be brought into question, however. -Midnightdreary 19:17, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Midnightdreary, Thanks for the feed back. I'm not sure whether to shorten or add citations first, it's a doozy. I just edited my original peer review request, as I realized that this is an unusual circumstance. I'm not the original author looking for feedback on a new article, I'm an editor considering what changes are needed for a major revision. I'm reading the "fair use" policy to determine if any of the images used comply. Thanks!. Altairah 19:43, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'd suggest starting with the citations - that's essential to get any article up to good status. It's gonna be tough if you're not the person who originally added that reference list. Try leaving messages on talk pages for the users that added them if you need to. While you're going about citing things, you may find better ways of wording things and compact a few sentences. Either job is going to be tough... but best of luck. -Midnightdreary 23:56, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'd second that - you probably won't be able to find citations for some of the stuff, and then it can get cut out of the article. Also, the image captions could be better, and relate the picture more to the text, and justify why that picture is used in the article. Do only straight men have communities based around experiencing attraction to people with disabilities? You might ask for help from WP:SEX in general on this article. The lead will also need rewriting, it needs to be a summary of the whole article.-Malkinann 05:57, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bird

edit

A Vital article, and one that has been the subject of a considerable amount of work as well as a collaboration by the bird Wikiproject. It's long, mostly because of the references, but also because it is covering a truly massive subject. I'm mostly tinkering with it at the moment (the taxonomy section needs some more work) and would appreciate some more eyes for typos, mistakes, bits that make sense to me but no one else and other suchlike. Hopefully we can get this featured soon. Sabine's Sunbird talk 23:30, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Only thing I noticed after reading the first few sections and skimming the rest would be there's a "citation needed" tag at the end of the Use of the term Bird section. Wouldn't that be a problem in a FA candidacy? Also, although it's of no consequence, all this British English tickles me to the bone. Corvus coronoides ContributionsMGo Blue 23:41, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What is the reason behind capitalizing all letters in 'SUBCLASS NEORNITHES' in the Bird Order section? It looks a bit odd at the place. DSachan 01:16, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • No idea. I changed it.
Birds are social and communicate using visual signals and through calls and bird song, and participate in social behaviours including cooperative hunting and breeding, flocking. - perhaps make it less redundant by replacing bird song with songs, unless that's too ambiguous for the reader. Also, am I misunderstanding the end of the sentence or should there be a word before "flocking"? I'm so glad this is finally at PR. The vital bio articles are what need the most effort and this isn't too far from becoming the first animal class FA. Enoktalk 02:23, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The flocking bit was a slight mistake, it should read cooperative hunting and cooperative breeding and flocking. I clarified and fixed. I also changed song. Sabine's Sunbird talk 03:55, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Fascinating article, and it seems to be in excellent condition. I only have a few comments:
  • The article uses a lot of jargon, which may be an issue for some. (C.f. Wikipedia:Explain jargon.)
  • The "Evolution and taxonomy" section has a pair of "[citation needed]" tags.
  • Can molecular dating and radiation be wikilinked?
  • In the "Bird orders" section, it might be better to use a semi-colon colon (sorry) following the family names in order to distinguish the common names. For example: "Falconiformes: falcons, eagles, hawks and allies".
  • "[17]," — citations should follow punctuation.
  • Finally, could the article explain why birds have beaks rather than teeth? Perhaps it could mention cooling techniques, such as gaping? Also it could briefly discuss bathing, and why some birds take dirt baths.
Thanks. — RJH (talk) 18:33, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Cheers. I'll get working on that. Sabine's Sunbird talk 19:56, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:BirgitteSB

edit
  • Lead: Humans make use of birds in a number of ways: yuck
Fixed, better? Sabine's Sunbird talk 19:32, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Evolution and taxonomy: I would really like to see some information on how Aves came to be classified under the dinosaur linage. Was there one important discovery or a series of small discoveries?
    • Aves is commonly defined as all descendants of the most recent common ancestor of modern birds (a specific modern bird species like Passer domesticus for the purposes of phylogenetic taxonomy), and Archaeopteryx lithographica. These kinds of parenthetical statements are hard to follow.
  • Use of the term "bird":This (mostly) self reference section needs to go. The lead has already defined what is meant by bird in this article.
  • Dinosaurs and the origin of birds,Radiation of modern birds, and Bird orders:I think this info needs to be simply merged under the heading "Evolution and taxonomy". The actual list of Bird orders should be cut but dissucusion of the difference between taxononmies is good. I think this because the distinction between these different topics are diffucult to see. Where does dissucion of origin end and radiation begin? How are orders not tied in with the radiation? Also "bird" should neve be in a subtitle.
  • Distribution: It would be nice to see some disscusion of why the bird "plan" is so successful that it has been distruted so widely.
  • Bird anatomy: Rename "Anatomy". The comparision "unlike mammals" isn't very informative. If what is being dicussed is unlike other forms of life; you should say "unquie among birds". If it is not you should mention what other groups shares this trait "similar to reptiles".
done.
    • In addition, many species of birds regurgitate pellets. This should be moved to the digestive paragraph.
I disagree, personally.
    • A bird’s eyes are developed for taking off, spotting landmarks, hunting and feeding I would guess the eyes vary highly amoung birds, at least compared to feature like the crop and air sac. This statement is way too general and it hard to claim to know what anything "was developed for" at all.
Removed. Sabine's Sunbird talk 19:32, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Feathers and plumage: The second half this section could be rewritten more clearly. There is no mention sex-specific plumage.
  • Flight: This section is weak. There is so much more to say about this. Varitety in types of flight (hummingbird vs. albatros). Competeing effciencies (diving in the water vs. air flight). Variety in the amount of time generally spent airborne.
  • Relationship with humans: I think this section needs to be refocused a bit more on the bird. Bird as vectors for disease effects more than just humans.
A separate section is being worked on to cover birds effecting other animals and birds tehmselves. The focus of this section should be on humans impacting birds and birds impacting humans.
  • Use by humans I would rather see this called "Domestication and captivity".
How's economic importance? The section covers more than just domestication and captivity.
  • Missing: Where is the information on birds role in the larger ecosystem? Thier role as pollinators and how they spread seeds. Most islands owe a large portion of their plant species to birds. Birds also spread disease which is mentioned, but what about the common role birds play in the lifecycles of parasites?
Plenty to think about there. TRhanks. Sabine's Sunbird talk 19:56, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ornithology is mentioned, just not covered as its own subject, and the genetics is covered in part in systematics but the other stuff in the bacteria genetics stuff section that might be covered here is better covered in the eukaryotes article. Sabine's Sunbird talk 20:13, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Some further comments

edit

Sorry I didn't spot this when it was originally posted. At Sabine's Sunbird's invitation here are peer review comments. Anything I've spotted which I felt was a non-controversial fix, I've made directly to the article.

Lead
edit
  • "9,000 to 10,000 species" - are there any recent authorities which suggest that the world species total is anywhere as low as 9,000? The new Gill & Wright checklist has a total of over 10,000. Maybe it would be better to say "around 10,000" or "9,700 to 10,200" or whatever the ranges of recent estimates are.
  • Question - are there any major topics which are featured in the body of the article which aren't summarised in the lead?
I like to think it covers the important stuff. Sabine's Sunbird talk 02:06, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can we work a definition of the adjective "avian" somewhere into the lead?
This is a encyclopedia entry not a dictionary. If you like we can interwiki to Wiktinoary the first time we iuse the word avian. Sabine's Sunbird talk 02:06, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's all for the lead, more to follow for the article body later SP-KP 16:40, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Evolution & taxonomy
edit
  • I've added some citation needed tags.
  • Neornithes is mentioned, what are the other subclasses?
  • Dinosaurs & origins - last sentence of first paragraph not quite grammatical.
  • Second paragraph - basal is a bit of jargon so ought to be wikilinked to a relevant article.
  • "Both may be predated by Protoavis texensis" - I presume this doesn't mean Protavis ate Archaeopteryx and Confuciusornis?
Nice catch ! Shyamal 16:11, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • After each of Cretaceous, Jurassic & Mesozoic, how about (xx MYA) in brackets?
  • What do "uncinate processes" do?
The wikilink at uncinate process seems to explain this. Shyamal 16:11, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can we give dates of existence for the dromaeosaurs & oviraptorids
  • Which modern bird features does Archaeopteryx lack?
  • "the larger members of the family are secondarily flightless" (which family?)

More later. SP-KP 17:18, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • We have a contradiction in this section - at the start Neognathae is termed a superorder, later on in the radiation section, Galloanserae is a superorder ... only one of these can be right, I think? SP-KP 22:23, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Radiation section - we have some inconsistent spellings of Neognathae, Galloanserae.
Seems to be proper pluralization - neognathes and galloanseri. Shyamal 16:11, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Could we work a wikilinked occurrence of the word radiation early into this section so that readers unfamiliar with the idea of a radiation can go & read about it.
  • Question - how should we show that there is not completely universal agreement on the orders of modern birds?
  • Radiation section - the end of the first paragraph appears to contradict the end of the second one.
  • Add S&A and S&M to the references section & link to them where they are mentioned

SP-KP 16:33, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Distribution section
edit
  • How about some more material - e.g. on continental vs island avifaunas, endemism - with some stats to illustrate. Ian Newton's Speciation & Biogeography is an excellent source. SP-KP 16:59, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is the subject of my PhD yet I'm at a loss on how and whether to include it. I decided not to in the end because it is kind of specialised in one sense, is kind of irrelevant for birds as a whole and is a phenomenon not especially unique to birds. Sabine's Sunbird talk 02:12, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Anatomy section
edit

On the diagram:

  • "Typical birds" don't have wattles do they?
Altered the caption ! Shyamal 15:59, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Are lesser coverts significant enough to indicate? And "coverts" is too vague.
Added Median covert. Only other possibility is to alter the image and remove pointers.
  • Beak or bill?
Per a discussion on WPBIRD we're leaving it as is. Both are correct, one more usually used for smaller bills, one for larger beaks.
  • How about wikilinking the features in the caption to their respective articles?

SP-KP 11:43, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:TimVickers

edit

The text is pretty good, but could be improved by removing superfluous qualifiers such as "can" and "may". For a random example "Some displays can be quite elaborate, using such varied methods as tail and wing drumming, dancing, aerial flights, and communal leks depending on the species." would be more concise as "Some displays are quite elaborate, using such varied methods as tail and wing drumming, dancing, aerial flights, and communal leks, depending on the species." another is "Chicks can be helpless or independent at birth, or be at any stage in between." would be better as "Chicks of different species vary in how quickly they gain independence."

The loose writing - "can", "may", "often", "many" etc. - makes the text read hesitantly, where it is possible to remove these words, do so. Tim Vickers 00:47, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think you're right and I'll give it a go, but just so you know "Chicks can be helpless or independent at birth, or be at any stage in between." and "Chicks of different species vary in how quickly they gain independence." actually have very different meanings. One is about the state they are at hatching, the other when they become independent. BTW the example was a good one for me to see as chicks aren't born, they hatch! Sabine's Sunbird talk 01:23, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Ravedave

edit

Overall the article overly technical and quite dry until you get most of the way through. I would almost call it over cited as well, (ex: citing that a humming bird is a nectar feeder). I also feel the article is too long. Some specifics: I'd like to see the origin of "Aves" (latin, greek etc). Shouldn't Aves be italicized rather than bolded? Should "winged" and "feathered" be added to the in initial sentence? Remember all cites should go after punctuation (ex:...9,800[6] to 10,050[7] ...). This is interesting: "...the earliest known bird is the Late Jurassic Archaeopteryx." and "The basal bird Archaeopteryx ... though it is not considered a direct ancestor of modern birds." If it isn't an ancestor of birds, is it a bird? The Evolution and taxonomy section is quite long. -Ravedave 05:05, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • I would almost call it over cited as well _personally I'd agree, but I had a editor throw a lot of citation needed tags in and at this point Sandy georgia gave it the thumbs up which is good enough for me
  • Shouldn't Aves be italicized rather than bolded No, Aves (capitalised) is a class, same as Mammalia. In taxonomy only the genus and species is in italics
    • I'll fix that on the other class articles then.
  • I'd like to see the origin of "Aves" Somewhat trivial, especially considering the already prodigious length of the article.
  • If it isn't an ancestor of birds, is it a bird? Yes, it just means it and the other birds shared a common ancestor.
  • I also feel the article is too long. I haven't added a great deal of content for month, back when it was a usual length for a topic. the fact it has so many citations is a large part of its size, the other is that it is an immense subject (a whole class of animals with 10000 odd species)
  • The Evolution and taxonomy section is quite long. Yup. Birds have been around for 130 million years plus. That is a lot of history to cover. Sabine's Sunbird talk 08:10, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I guess I disagree with Sandy Goergia. Based on the over citations and length I would oppose. -Ravedave 18:07, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It is about the same length as evolution, which was recently featured. Slightly more references. Back before the references for this article broke 50 it was about 60 k Sabine's Sunbird talk 20:38, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sabine, if people knowledgeable on the topic say it's overcited, I defer to them. I don't know what is common knowledge vs. not in the field. When I think of overcited, I think of those article that show up at FAC with strings of three citations after every few clauses, and I'm more accustomed to working on medical articles, where there is very little that doesn't require citation. (By the way, I'm confused about articlehistory at the talk page; there's a peer review in articlehistory, one not in articlehistory, they appear to be the same one, and it doesn't appear to be listed at PR. Before you come to FAC, that should be sorted out in articlehistory.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:30, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The editor that threw in all the citation wanted tags alsdo works with birds. I am more than happy to whittle them down some. I just don't want this to be an issue at FAC. Sabine's Sunbird talk 23:32, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dirty Dancing

edit

Seeking to take the article about this 1987 film to Featured status. It's already been through one WikiProject Peer Review in June 2007, and is at Good Article status, but an FA nomination a month ago did not succeed. I've done some more cleanup since then, and am seeking another Peer Review before trying again for FA. Thanks, Elonka 12:38, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • The story details the moment of time that a teenaged girl crosses over into womanhood both physically and emotionally - have a think about this bolded bit and see if it reads any less with it out. Can definitely lose the 'both', the adjectives don't really add much but make it more cumbersome to read.
    • Hmm, will think about it. It's sort of one of the key elements of the story, and as I recall some of the crew described it this way, but I'll think if there's a different way to word it. --Elonka 07:25, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • As she further befriends the staff, - I find this clunky but an alternatve is yet to spring to mind...
  • pursues a clandestine affair anyway. - I haven't actually seen the film. If they are already in some form of relationship I'd use continues rather than pursues here.
  • Homework - make a stub for It's My Turn the movie as this links to the song.

OK - prosewise it isn't too bad. I picked up a few things an no doubt others will pick up more. WRT comprehensiveness, it looks pretty good, I wonder if there isn't some other scholarly critique which discusses its success and/or place in culture in a bit more detail. It would be fantastic to add something if there was something about. The last section Other versions' is a bit stubby, a few more words on each item may make it run a bit better. Anyway, not too far away. Must see this one day I guess....Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 19:25, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much for your time! In terms of a scholarly work, there's this, I'll see what I can work in:
Wiams, William (2004-11-20). "Baby in the Underworld: Myth and Tragic Vision in Dirty Dancing" (pdf). Retrieved 2008-04-06.
--Elonka 07:25, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Brilliant find. Have a read and see what you can add. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs)
Alright, I've grokked it and have added a new section, Dirty Dancing#Plot analysis, let me know what you think? --Elonka 00:34, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comments by Matthewedwards (talk · contribs)

That's all from me. Any comments, questions, or if you need a re-review or follow-up, let me know. -- ṃ•α•Ł•ṭ•ʰ•Ə•Щ• @ 00:46, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the help!  :) --Elonka 07:58, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Review by User:Bzuk

  • Given the iconic nature of the film, textual sources should be available and included as a bibliography
  • All reference citations should have the following format: Author (last, first name), Title, Place of Publishing (if required): Publisher, date (retrieval date). An example is:
    Judith Newmark. "How a Disney made-for-TV movie suddenly became ... A 'high school' craze", 'St. Louis Post Dispatch', 2007-01-21. should appear as: *:Newmark, Judith. "How a Disney made-for-TV movie suddenly became... A 'high school' craze." St. Louis Post Dispatch, January 21 2007. Retrieved: April 13 2008.
  • Why is there an ISO dating in the references?
  • There is no consistency in retrieval dates used for citations, some have them, some don't
  • "Dirty Dancing: Live in Concert" should be in italics as a title of a work
  • There is no cast list or cast section
    • This is one of those things I've been getting conflicting advice about. Some people like cast lists, others don't. I opted to remove it entirely --Elonka 15:39, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "seventeen-year-old" is normally written out as "17-year old"
  • "wrapped up" is normally "wrapped" in film lingo
  • "Many filmgoers, after seeing the film once, went right back into the theater to watch it a second time." is inconsistent, did you mean they immediately went back to catch the next showing? probably not. Suggestion: "Many filmgoers, after seeing the film once, went back to watch it a second time." (based on the premise that you didn't literally mean that they watched the film twice in succession)
  • "So Vestron promoted the film themselves, and it premiered on August 16, 1987." could be more effectively written as "Consequently Vestron promoted the film themselves; premiering Dirty Dancing on August 16, 1987." These two thoughts/main ideas could also be two separate sentences as the promotion is not necessarily tied to its premiere.
  • "off the script." usually written "off script"
  • "Other casting choices were Broadway actor Jerry Orbach as Dr. Jake Houseman, Baby's father; and Jane Brucker as Lisa Houseman, Baby's older sister." could be written as "Other casting choices were Broadway actor Jerry Orbach as Dr. Jake Houseman, Baby's father and Jane Brucker as Lisa Houseman, Baby's older sister." (no need for a semi-colon)
  • "Baby then proceeds through tests and trials (dancing lessons, Penny's abortion, the performance at the Sheldrake) to achieve personal growth, "knowledge acquired through personal experience", for which she is rewarded, by sexual union with Johnny." (sentence too long, consider two sentences)

After saying all that, the article is a comprehensive, well-written and eminently interesting article. FWiW, all my comments hinge on minor aspects of the writing and referencing. 15:08, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks very much! With all the comments here, the article is much stronger as a result. I look forward to submitting it for FA again soon, please let me know if you have any other suggestions. --Elonka 13:44, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The prose is much better than in the last FAC. This shows especially in the plot section. I don't see any major obstacles for a successful future FAC, but I can still suggest a few minor tweaks. Ignore them where you think they are bad, in which case you don't have to explain yourself. I like working in batches, so the following isn't everything; if this peer review closes earlier than I can complete my review, I'll give you my notes in other ways. This review includes everything up until (including) the "Pre-production" section

  • "Baby brings her father, who is a doctor," - it is mentioned earlier that her father is "the personal physician of the resort owner Max Kellerman". Maybe move his job description there, e.g. "Baby's father, Dr. Jake Houseman (Jerry Orbach), is the personal physician of the resort owner Max Kellerman (Jack Weston)."
  • The "Plot analysis" section should say who made this analysis. If available, a second analysis source wouldn't hurt.
  • "The hero, Baby, is an innocent who receives" - an innocent what?
  • direct quotes like "knowledge acquired through personal experience" need a reference right behind the quotation marks, even though this duplicates unnecessary refs
  • "Dirty Dancing is in large part based on..." -> "A large part of Dirty Dancing is based on..."
  • "For a location for the film, they did not find anything suitable in the Catskills, so they decided..." -> "As the producers did not find a suitable filming location in the Catskills, they decided..."
  • "However, the two of them met, worked things out, ..." -> "However, the two of them worked things out in a meeting, ..."
  • "Bergstein initially wanted him to play the part of the social director, but then later asked him to play the part of the magician." - contains the phrase "to play the part of" twice
  • "The part of Baby's mother was originally given to..." - this is a run-on sentence. Consider splitting after "Bishop" and combine the resulting second sentence with the following sentence

– sgeureka t•c 13:40, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(continued) As was suggested, I made some quick improvement attemps myself, which should be doublechecked for grammar (just in case). I also have some more notes (below) where I rather not touch the article myself at the moment.

  • "When it came time to select actual music for the film,..." sounds grammatically awkward to my non-native ears, but I may be wrong. Shouldn't it be "When it became time" or "When the time came to"?
  • "The film's huge success had the paradoxical effect of backfiring on some of the participants." - I don't really see what and how something "backfired", just a little bad luck that is not necessarily related to DD.
  • In the "Legacy" section, the facts about Swayze's future career appear disjointed, at least as far as it comes to their connection to the film. How was he parodied? Did he get the other roles because of the success of DD? (probably, but that needs to be pointed out). The prose in this section also seems not as fluent as elsewhere, IMO, and I can help out once the Swayze sentences are fixed.
  • "Johnny Castle's line "Nobody puts Baby in a corner" has been used in song lyrics," - source?
  • The last two sentences of the first paragraph in "Stage version" mix Simple Present and Simple Past in an awkward way.

– sgeureka t•c 20:08, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just some quick thoughts. Much better than before.

(1) The coming of age aspect should reference Bildungsroman as a matter of simple professionalism, given this is the generally accepted academic term (descriptor), as monomyth is more of a Campbellism (i.e. analytic).

(2) Still marred by overly trivial descriptions especially in production and filming sections.

(3) prose: still weak & really needs some work for FA:

Ok, so instead of just shooting my mouth off, here's what I mean in this regard: Consider this paragraph (selected randomly):

Director Ardolino was adamant that they choose dancers who could also act, as he did not want to use the "stand-in" method that had been used with the 1983 Flashdance. For the female lead of Frances "Baby" Houseman, Bergstein chose the 26-year-old Jennifer Grey, daughter of the Oscar-winning actor and dancer Joel Grey of the 1972 film Cabaret. They then sought a male lead, initially considering 20-year-old Billy Zane, who had the visual look desired, but initial dancing tests when he was partnered with Grey did not meet expectations. The next choice was 34-year-old Patrick Swayze, who had been noticed for his roles in The Outsiders and Red Dawn, in which he had co-starred with Grey. Swayze was a seasoned dancer, with experience from the Joffrey Ballet. The producers liked him, but Swayze's agent was against the idea. However, Swayze read the script, liked the multi-leveled character of Johnny, and took the part anyway. Grey was not happy about the choice, as she and Swayze had had difficulty getting along on Red Dawn. However, the two of them met, worked things out, and when they did their dancing screen test, the chemistry between them was obvious. Bergstein described it as "breathtaking".[9]

I would rewrite this as:

Director Ardolino, after his experience using stand-ins with Flashdance in 1983, was adamant actors be chosen who could dance. This requirement disqualified 20-year old Billy Zane, who otherwise had the desired "look." Producers then considered 34-year old Patrick Swayze, a seasoned dancer after his lengthy experience with the Joffrey Ballet. Against the advice of his agent, Swayze liked the character and took the role. Although he and Jennifer Grey had previously clashed on the set of Red Dawn, they met and resolved their differences. By the time they took their screen test, the chemistry between them was "breathtaking" according to Bergstein.[9]

(I removed completely the sentence about Jennifer Grey, which is redundant wrt her starring in the film, says nothing about her dancing and is a pointless non-sequitur in terms of the minibio. If you have something about her ability to dance, place it here. Otherwise, kill it.)

Pretty much every paragraph needs to be tightened up like that; crisper prose, a more judicious eye for the relevant detail and less unnecessary guff that distracts from the main points.

(4) Finally, last time I objected to unsourced claims about the legacy, but I think that is one of the most interesting things about this (chick)flick ;). Is there no material that can be used to flesh out its legacy? After reining in the prose and trivia of the various production sections, there should be plenty of space. As it stands, we have a sort of laundry list of stuff; since this has been the subject of academic treatment, however, it suggests there may be something more substantive to say about it.

Ok, sorry if I am being too direct, but there's a strong potential here. Just needs some more work. Damn now I have time of my life stuck in my head. Damn you Dirty Dancing! Eusebeus (talk) 16:27, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Banglapedia

edit

Amply referenced, quite detailed and stable. The layout looks alright, and the infobox is pretty complete. Please, take a look and post comments. Aditya Kabir 12:33, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Daspletosaurus

edit

Is this the next dinosaur stomping its way to featured article status? I'd like to think so. But then again, I wrote it, so I'm posting it here for peer review! A lot of the content has already been vetted by WP:DINO editors, but any suggestions to improve to the article in any way will be greatly appreciated. Thank you! Sheep81 23:17, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sheep, I've added this to Scientific peer review as well. We've often been frustrated by the lack of peer review of WP:DINO articles, but Styracosaurus received quite a few comments on its scientific peer review, a process which I don't believe existed last year when we were submitting a lot of articles. Firsfron of Ronchester 00:40, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments: Overall, a very impressive effort from our whizkid Sheep. I'll make a few comments here, as I don't want to edit the text without consulting everyone about these changes.
"Like all known tyrannosaurids, Daspletosaurus was a multi-ton bipedal predator[...]" Is this true? While I understand the debate concerning a certain genus, and whether or not it was a juvenile, some online sources indicate Nanotyrannus wasn't exactly multi-ton. As it's a tyrannosaurid, whatever it was, perhaps this portion could be rephrased somehow? "Like all well-known tyrannosaurids..."?
Changed to "most known tyrannosaurids"... I think the Nano = T. rex debate is pretty much settled at this point, but we'll give Bakker and Larson the benefit of the doubt. :) Sheep81 04:34, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"Daspletosaurus had the small forelimbs typical of tyrannosaurids, although they were proportionately longer than in other species." Wouldn't genera be better here, as I assume we're comparing Daspletosaurus to Tyrannosaurus, etc?
Duh! Changed. Thank you. Sheep81 04:34, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The scale diagram shows the correct number of fingers, and the feet seem to be proportionate... ;)
I have an image from Columbia University that shows that D. torosus walked around on its metatarsals and so... never mind. :) Sheep81 04:34, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"On the other hand, Phil Currie and colleagues find Daspletosaurus to be more closely related to Asian tyrannosaurids like Tarbosaurus and Alioramus." Aren't there several authorities who consider Tarbosaurus a junior synonym of Tyrannosaurus, and place them as species within the same genus? If so, how would Daspletosaurus be more closely related to Tarbosaurus than Tyrannosaurus (or, rather, wouldn't it be good to clarify that there are some researchers who disagree about which ones are most closely related to one another)?
Mmmm... yes. Let me think how to write this... Sheep81 04:34, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
How about now? Is it precise enough? Too clunky? Feel free to edit away. Sheep81 04:48, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, that works for me. I also inserted your tyrannosaurid size comparison chart, as I thought it might be useful in this article since there is already an appropriate section on size, but if you'd prefer to use Dinoguy's cool theropod shape/size comparative diagram, that would also work. Firsfron of Ronchester 05:04, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
More later, as I think of stuff. Firsfron of Ronchester 04:23, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments OK, I'm back for more.
"The type specimen of Daspletosaurus torosus (CMN 8506) is a partial skeleton..." compare this to later in the paragraph: "Aside from the type specimen, there is only one other complete skeleton". This probably needs clarification.
Fixed, thank you. Sheep81 10:39, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"The higher and broader muzzles of tyrannosaurines like Daspletosaurus are mechanically stronger than the lower snouts of albertosaurines like Gorgosaurus, although tooth strengths are similar between the two species." The first part of the sentence discusses two genera, without mention of species. The end of the sentence refers to two species. Either the specific names should be included, or the last word should be changed to genera. I'd change it myself, but I don't know which you would prefer.
Actually the comparison was between tyrannosaurines and albertosaurines, if you read closely. So even worse! I changed it to "groups" because it sounded better than "subfamilies". Sheep81 10:39, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Same thing here: " A full-grown Daspletosaurus (TMP 85.62.1) from the same formation also shows tyrannosaur bite marks, showing that attacks to the face were not limited to younger animals. While it is possible that the bites were attributable to other species..."
Added "sp." after Daspletosaurus. "Genera" sounded odd there to me. Sheep81 10:39, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
We'll want to blueify these red links, if possible. Nothing else really sticks out, that I can see, but you may want to have one of the other WP:DINO staff go over this with a fine-toothed comb. Firsfron of Ronchester 09:03, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, maybe I'll write something up real quick for Bearpaw Sea/Shale. Greg Erickson and Darren Tanke are the other two red links right? Yeah... later. Thanks Firs, you're a huge help as usual. Sheep81 10:39, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, no problem. What are you still doing up? You mentioned going to bed an hour ago. Firsfron of Ronchester 11:15, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Archived PR: Wikipedia:Peer review/Manchester United F.C./archive1

Manchester United F.C.

edit

This article has improved a lot since the last Peer Review, and I would like it to be reviewed with a view to getting it to FA status in the near future. Thanks. - PeeJay 18:48, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]


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

  • Please expand the lead to conform with guidelines at Wikipedia:Lead. The article should have an appropriate number of paragraphs as is shown on WP:LEAD, and should adequately summarize the article.[?]
  • Per Wikipedia:Context and Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates), months and days of the week generally should not be linked. Years, decades, and centuries can be linked if they provide context for the article.[?]
  • 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 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.[?]
  • The script has spotted the following contractions: don't, if these are outside of quotations, they should be expanded.
  • Please ensure that the article has gone through a thorough copyediting so that it exemplifies some of Wikipedia's best work. See also User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 1a.[?]

You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, DTGardner 20:58, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The History section is too long. --Kaypoh 06:20, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

M62 motorway

edit

I'm attempting again for a push to FA, and I think that I've included nearly everything I can that is verifiable, but my main concern is the dreaded 1a), so I would like opinions on ways to improve the text of the article. Will (talk) 02:26, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've had a stab. I go over the M62 a lot, on Thursday I'm en route to the Leeds Festival - if I remember, I'll stop in the layby at the summit and get a photo or two. It would be good if there was a more-zoomed-in image of the route rather than (or in addition to) the little line on the whole UK map. Neil ム 09:36, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Map   Done, I leave the photos to you (or grab some off Geograph) Will (talk) 21:56, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Bah, there's nowhere safe to stop anywhere near the summit. Neil ム 13:45, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, what's the height of the summit? Some like CBRD give 1442ft, others like LMARS give 1221ft, and I can't remember which one it says at the summit. Will (talk) 18:21, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
How much of the route is mountains and how much is flatlands?
I recommend merging the timeline chart into the route table: simply add a column for "opening date." VisitorTalk 07:59, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Branded to Kill

edit

There are precious few foreign film FAs and I'm hoping this article might help fill in that gap. It's currently a GA. There's not a lot written about it in English, comparitively, though much more than about any of Suzuki's other films. Still, I've managed to Frankenstein together a lot more information than I'd thought would be possible. Seems to have managed comprehensiveness. Any and all criticism is welcome. Be brutal, I can take it. Thanks, Doctor Sunshine talk 01:24, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comments
  • First lead paragraph: "...with his sanity as much imperiled as his life." Can this be written to be clearer?
  • Second lead paragraph: "...its unconventional style, rather confusing narrative and arguably as his greatest and best known work." Was the film really renowned for its "rather confusing" narrative? Also, "arguably as his greatest and best known work" seems out of place, as the first two items describe why the film was liked, and the third item separately describes the critical status of the film. Can these items be separated?
  • Synopsis seems to be too succinct of a word to describe the three very full paragraphs about the film. What about Plot or Plot summary?
  • Is there a significance to the second sentence in the Synopsis image's caption? If there is thematic significance, slightly further explanation and a citation may be appropriate.
  • In Production, the first mention of Kaneo Iwai should include that he is a producer.
  • In Production, it does not mention the first screenwriter at all (Hachiro Guryu, I assume?) and only mentions who rewrote it by his last name. My suggestion is to write the Production as stand-alone as possible, assuming that the reader does not look at the lead paragraphs or the Infobox Film template for information. Identify the director, the star, et cetera in the beginning of Production so someone new to the material can follow it.
  • I notice that "It" tends to be used a lot to refer to the film. Try to mention the title or refer to it as "the film", such as in the first sentence of the third paragraph in Production. This helps re-identify the subject for the reader, especially if you talk about other nonpersonal subjects like the script and the set.
  • "He felt that the only person who should know what is going to happen is the director and that inspiration made the picture." Are the two parts of the sentence related? It seems to imply that the director's exclusive knowledge causes inspiration to help direct the film. Some separation and/or clarity may be needed here.
  • "One example of his script changes is the addition of the Number Three Killer's rice-sniffing habit, he explained that he wanted to present a quintessentially "Japanese" killer, "If he were Italian, he'd get turned on by macaroni, right?". This is a run-on sentence. I suggest writing it as "One example of his script changes is the addition of the Number Three Killer's rice-sniffing habit. Suzuki explained that he wanted to present a quintessentially "Japanese" killer, "If he were Italian, he'd get turned on by macaroni, right?" (Note the re-identification of "he" so it won't be assumed that "he" is the killer, the last subject of the previous sentence. Also, no punctuation at the end after "right?"
  • Is it possible for the Cast section to precede the Production section? It seems better as a transition section, covering some aspects of the film's story and some aspects of the casting (which is production-related), before moving on to in-depth Production information.
  • In Style, "The influence of film noir permeated the film" sounds too personified. Something like "Branded to Kill was influenced by film noir..." would be more neutral and encyclopedic.
  • "Due to the wide frame, moving a character forward did not produce the dynamic effect desired so he relied on spotlight use and monochromatic images to compensate in creating action and suspense for the viewer." This is a long sentence. Perhaps rewrite as, "Due to the wide frame, moving a character forward did not produce the dynamic effect desired. Instead, he relied on spotlight use and monochromatic images to compensate in creating action and suspense for the viewer."
  • In Style, can the image be described in more detail to be more self-sufficient, so the reader does not necessarily have to find "When Hanada is unable to kill Misako he wanders the streets" in the text itself to understand the context of the image?
  • In Reception, key figures need to be re-identified so the section can stand alone without having read Production. For instance, Hori needs to be described in full at his first mention in Reception.
  • "...were told that "Suzuki's films were incomprehensible...'" should be rewritten as "...were told, 'Suzuki's films were incomprehensible...'"
  • Tony Rayns is described as a historian (I assume film historian), but his Wikipedia article does not say anything about this. Can this be cleared up?
  • "[it] is a bloody marvellous looking film" → Should be [It]. There needs to be capitalization of letters at the first instance of a quotation that is not fragmented. This is an fragmentary example: "He called it a 'terrific masterpiece'." A full quotation would be, "He said, Branded to Kill is a terrific masterpiece." There are different punctuation rules depending on how you quote someone.
  • Branded to Kill needs to be identified at the very beginning of the Legacy section for re-identification.
  • "Although Elvis Mitchell maintained its zeal fell slightly short of the original." This is a fragmentary sentence, and the reviewer should be identified more fully without needing to click on the wiki-link. Even "Reviewer Elvis Mitchell" would be fine. Also, "maintained" seems to indicate Elvis said something about it before and has kept saying it. A different verb would be more appropriate.
  • Home Video → Home video, per section titling conventions
  • The first paragraph of Home video does not cite the release dates. How can the reader now if the dates are indeed accurate if there is no citation available for verifiability?
  • The Criterion Collection DVD cover image seems to serve as a decorative purpose, since it is not in the same section as the text mention, and also, the text mention (only part of a full sentence) may be too insufficient for fair use rationale. DVD covers have been challenged in film articles as not adding any realistic substance, though I imagine that the DVD packaging for something like Memento would warrant DVD cover inclusion with enough content. Not sure if this is the case here.
  • If the reason for the image was to break up the monotony of the text, maybe you could use quote boxes instead, as seen at Aaron Sorkin, citing reviewers or producers.
  • Caption for film poster should avoid punctuation; images with captions that are one sentence or less do not need punctuation. Something like "Original Japanese theatrical poster" would suffice.
I hope you can make use of my suggestions! 155.91.28.231 17:55, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks very much for taking the time to do this. Your comments were extremely helpful, especially in regards to the prose with which I was a tad clunky. I think I've address almost everything above, though I'm going to take another swing at copyediting keeping your suggestions in mind.
In regards to the original writer, I've found no information who it was. Most reliable sources simply state the writer as Hachiro Gyuru without any elaboration. The few reviews that attempt to elaborate seem to get the facts rather mangled. The actual film credits indicate that someone named Akira Suzuki wrote the script, unless I'm crazy. However, the information I do have about Hachiro Gyuru being a joint pen name is most I've been able to find on the subject (and most reliable) so I've left it at that rather than risk including anything erroneous.
I put the DVD cover in that section in keeping with the text about the film's introduction to the West. I think it is useful in showing how the film is marketed today, as opposed to the original marketing with the poster. Of course, no one's analyzed Criterion's marketing so I can't add anything and the image has to speak for itself. It's also how most North Americans were exposed to the film but only one review mentioned that and I'm not sure it's a notable enough website to be cited. I'll see if I can come up with a better caption or someway to confirm it's worth including but nothing's springing to mind at the moment.
Anyway, thanks again. Much appreciated. Doctor Sunshine talk 22:21, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Some of the purpose of use descriptions in the fair use rationales of the images in this article could be improved, because "for informational purposes" is not really explaining why an image significantly contributes to readers' understanding in a way words alone cannot (WP:NFCC #8). – Ilse@ 23:47, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Some words seem to be misplaced in this sentence: "In 2006, Nikkatsu celebrated the 50th anniversary of his directorial debut by sponsored the Seijun Suzuki 48 Film Challenge retrospective at the Tokyo International Film Festival, showcasing all of his films to date." – Ilse@ 23:55, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yikes. Obviously I still need to give the article a thorough read through. I've cleaned that sentence up and I'll fix the fair use rationales tomorrow. Thanks very much. Doctor Sunshine talk 08:01, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I tried to improve the readability of the lead: I separated and grouped some elements, tried to remove some unencyclopedic wording, and removed some details about Seijun Suzuki being fired. It can probably be further improved. – Ilse@ 11:40, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Does "fatalistic femme" mean femme fatale? – Ilse@ 11:49, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That looks better. Both terms, fatalistic femme and femme fatale, apply. Fatalistic femme is admittedly a pun but it encapsulates the defeated, death-obsessed and dangerous nature of the character concisely (I hope) whereas it's explained in more detail in the plot and cast sections. I know puns seem iffy but, FA-wise, B movie has a few and I'm sure there are others. Doctor Sunshine talk 01:25, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Northeastern United States tornado outbreak of 1989

edit

Believe I have done all I can, need a second set of eyes to do a copyedit, and any other comments would be appreciated. -RunningOnBrains 04:15, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Still seeking comments, please. -RunningOnBrains 14:56, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I'm not that experienced an editor, but here are some thoughts:
  • It would be nice if the Template:Tornado chart template (or the area around it) would somehow link to the Fujita scale article in an intuitive way.
  • There are some length measurements (e.g. size of hail) that are given in English units with no SI equivalents.
  • The last paragraph (second paragraph of "Historic outbreak") section is worded a little awkwardly -- e.g. repetition of phrase "this area of the world".
Aside from those minor nitpicks, though, it looks great to me! --Iknowyourider (t c) 19:04, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Western Ganga Dynasty

edit

The Western Ganga Dynasty ruled over Southern Karnataka, India, for over six centuries and played an important role in the development of the region. Although a small Kingdom, their contributions are well worth documenting and that is what this article has tried to establish. I am looking forward to constructive feedback on prose, format, grammar etc that could help take this article to FA.Dineshkannambadi 01:45, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mammal

edit

After searching for mammalogy articles to work on, I decided to start with the most important. Right now it looks to be in need of a copyedit and a thorough sprinkling of citations. As I comb through it, I'm hoping to get some specific comments from anyone knowledgeable about the topic or GA/FA standards in general. Thanks - Enoktalk 17:26, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Review by Daniel Case

edit

You are correct that the article needs references. I would go further and suggest that the one reference needs to be replaced with something deeper. Science articles should, whenever possible, not use Fox News as a reference. Or any news outlet unless it's a breaking piece of news and that's the only source available. Where possible, they should be sourced to acceptable sources within the field like journals. It looks there are some good ones inline; I would guess that the further reading section contains some other citations as well.

I would also look at the German and Croatian articles as well, both of which are featured within their respective projects. Even if you don't speak either language, they're worth looking at for organizational hints. (And of course, if you can find an editor willing to help you translate things ...). The German Wikipedia is very well-regarded and is always worth looking at for inspiration if the corresponding article has been seriously developed.

Now, as to some things that stand out about this article itself ...

  • The anatomy section needs some work. The subheds should not be linked; rather {{main}} or {{see}} should be used as section hatnotes (it seems the former template would be more appropriate). Adapt the content of the "mammalian lungs" section of lungs for this article instead of simply referring peope to it. Lastly, the brain and skeleton sections link to articles specifically about the human versions of those organs. We need them to be about all mammals, not just humans.
  • "Dinosaur" does not to be capitalized any more than the usual rules of punctuation require. It's neither a proper name nor a trademark.
  • You could probably get away with a hatnote refer on the convergent evolution section as well. I would also note that contradiction tag on that article and see if that problem affects any of the discussion here.

It's good that someone is working on this article ... it's a core subject and it would be nice to be able to feature it on the Main Page. Good luck improving it. Daniel Case 14:16, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Review by Sabine's Sunbird

edit

If you look up the page you'll see that bird is also being peer reviewed, and as a major contributor to that article hopefully I can provide some useful thoughts.

  • Split out evolution into its own article and summarise the sections a little more concisely. It's good but a little overlong.
  • Anatomy - numerous stubby sections. Eliminate the subdivisions, create one section anatomy. Concentrate effort in this section on uniquely mammalian features, particularly hair.
  • Split reproduction out of anatomy. It covers a wide range of subjects. It is important to discuss parental care, all mammals have (often extended) periods of parental care, along with the birds and a few other animals this is fairly unique. Mammal reproduction is different from the birds in that most birds form monogamous pair bonds whereas most mammals don't. Reproduction needs to cover the biological aspects (gestation, pregnancy, lactation), social systems (leks, harems, monogamy, polygamy, promiscuity), parental care.
  • Diet - what and how do mammals eat?
  • There are other sections that can be included, communication and behaviour, distribution, etc etc. Depends on what is important to mammals. Check out the featured frog for ideas on how to set out a high order animal.
  • The almost obligatory and humans sections (which is odd I guess since it is Mammals and Humans (also mammals), but you know what I mean). Mammals are vital economically, culturally, and we also have a massive impact on them, so a section on threats, extinction and conservation.

More generally, writing a higher order article is a lot of work. The approach I use is to really familiarise myself with the subject with a good general text, and then initially expand and write the article using that text to provide the meat and structure. Having gotten there I then work section by section polishing using more specialised texts (journals) to refine and cite. Trying to write an article of this magnitude using only journal articles is next to impossible, the article will be bogged down in interesting, factual details important to a species or family but irrelevant to the whole class. That sort of detail is important in this article as examples of the concepts, but should not be included for its own sake. I'm struggling here a little to explain what I mean, so here is an example; in a hypothetical section on the worldwide distribution of mammals, imagine that someone obsesssed with Christmas Island included the following statement, at the end of the section, all by itself.

On Christmas Island there once were two rodents, but these are now extinct.[4]

This is a highly detailed statement that while fascinating in the context of mammals in Christmas Island, is pretty much irrelevant to the article on mammals and their worldwide distribution. However as an example of a point, it could be very useful, as below....

Terrestrial mammals, other than bats, are poor colonisers of oceanic islands, and few native mammals are found far from the continents. A few exceptions include Christmas Island, which once had two rodents,[5] and the Falklands, which had a fox.

Anyway, there is a lot that needs doing here, so I suggest finding some help (maybe a collaboration). If you want any journal articles email me and I can get most of them at uni. I hope you aren't too daunted by the task! If you have any more questions or need further suggestions let me know. Sabine's Sunbird talk 22:11, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:BirgitteSB

edit

First of all this needs more content before it can get a very thorough peer-review and start thinking of GA/FA status. "Distinguishing features" should probably not be a subsection but instead the information should be dealt with in the course of the "Evolution" discusssion. The "Evolution" section could probably make a daughter article Evolution of Mammals and the information in this article condensed per WP:SUMMARY. The information given in bullet points needs to be reworked as prose with some of it probably being too indepth for this article. Missing are sections on "Mammology", "Genetics", "Domestication", "Parental care", "Social systems", and considering that most if not all megafauna are mammals there should be some discussion of the Holocene extinction event.--BirgitteSB 12:53, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keane (film)

edit

Hi, this is my first stab at writing an article from scratch and i just wanted to run it by people for your comments and views. This article did exist before i edited it but it literally was only one very short paragraph with no infobox or anything. Thanks Murphy Inc 09:44, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's certainly an excellent start to an article. However, I think the one major problem with it at the moment is the "Interpretation" section. There are no cited sources for this, so it all seems like speculation or original research at the moment. This either needs backing up with cited critical comment on these interpretations, or else removing altogether. Angmering 15:32, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your feedback, i have changed this section now and think it is much better. Thanks Murphy Inc 01:49, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Another issue is the images from the films — you claim they're low resolution in the rationale but they seem pretty big to me. Also, the aspect ratios on them are horrible; everything's suqeezed vertically. Angmering 06:36, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Good call, this has been rectified now. I have carried out a redraft of the article and cleared up some errors i have noticed myself, i think this article is pretty much complete, i cannot think of anything else needed.Murphy Inc 22:59, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

More work been done to get this article up to scratch

edit

Hi, i was wondering whether this could be looked at again now i have made changes as requested above, thanks Murphy Inc 10:34, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Doctor Sunshine

edit
  • I did some copyediting but I think it still needs some more. I don't like the "we see" bit under plot. Metaphors and adjectives should be avoided to achieve an encyclopedic tone.
  • In the plot there seems to be some interpretation, especially the breakdown bit. Either find a way to rewrite that or a reference from a review might work.
  • The images are rather dark and vertically stretched. Consider using images from the imdb or here.
  • Also, the images need a source (the DVD, or the links above if you use those) and fair use rationale.
  • The festivals and awards need to be mentioned after the lead, probably an awards section would be best as the cinematographer nomination sentence should go in a section like that.
  • This may just be me, but I don't like the use of Rotten Tomatoes percentages. They're a hassle to keep updated and seem lazy. A fair representation of reviews with quotes and such would be better.
  • The last reference should be fleshed out with a cite template. Including the DVD company as the publisher, etc.

Otherwise, looking good. Doctor Sunshine talk 03:24, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Eminem

edit

This article has improved a lot since it was last rated.--Peterm1991 22:01, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please review {{citeweb}}. LuciferMorgan 03:22, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

CloudNine

edit

A few points:

  • The logo shouldn't be in the infobox; it doesn't seem to meet the fair use criteria. (This is the case for a lot of music articles by the way).
  • You may want to begin the article with "Eminem (born 17 October1972 as Marshall Bruce Mathers III) is an..." (like Frank Black). I would leave Slim Shady for the "Also known as" section of the infobox.
  • Is "Marshall Mathers" really an a.k.a? It's his birth name, so I would remove it from the infobox and refer to "Marshall Mathers" throughout the prose,
  • "Early Life" should be "Early life". See WP:MOS.
  • "Born..." should be "Marshall Mathers was born ...".
  • More inline citations are needed in the biography.

I'll add more comments as I go through the text. Otherwise, it's a promising article! CloudNine 19:17, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yannismarou

edit
  • Why do you bold "Bassmint Productions"?
  • "enjoyed the professional sylings of Josh Houlihan [], going...". Avoid external jumps like this one - instead, create proper citations.
  • "Recent events" needs rewriting. It is too listy, and many paragraphs are too short.
  • Overall the citing is not good. Try to have at least one citation in each paragraph.
  • Stubby paragraphs in "Acting career". It needs rewriting.
  • Your citations need formatting. Use Template:cite web and Template:cite news.
  • After reading the whole article, I am not sure that the lead is properly summarizing.
  • I would like a more coherent, and comprehensive approach of his art. Controversies is an issue, but what about the clearly artistic part of what he has done? What critics say about his lyrics, music etc. What Seamus Heaney says is a part of such an approach, but we need more material.
  • Alphabetize categories at the end of the article.--Yannismarou 18:57, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Roy Welensky

edit

I have completely written this article in the past fortnight using a variety of sources. Welensky is a somewhat controversial figure in the decline of colonisation. Help would be appreciated regarding the standardisation of terms relating to Africans to ensure neutrality.

Thank you in advance to any comments given. michael talk 03:15, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The article looks good. Very informative, and I don't see any major WP:MOS issues. Doesn't seem to be any licensing issues with the images on the article. Here are a few minor suggestions:
  • Welensky described himself as "half Jewish, half Afrikaner and 100% British". - Is there a source for this?
  • The first paragraph of the "Amalgamation and federation" section might need some footnoting/sources.
  • Link the dates in the Notes according to WP:MOSDATE so they'll appear according to user preference.
Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 06:26, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A big thank you for going above and beyond and managing to delve through the mess of PR's to leave a comment! Exceptional work my friend! I've read your comments, and will add some refs, and see about fixing up the dates. Regards Welensky's love for Albion, it's going to be a rough trip finding a reference, which is unfortunate, since I'll have to take that line out if I don't find one. Michael talk 13:11, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No need to thank me. I put in a request myself for an article I had worked on, so I thought I'd take the time to look over an existing request here. Just use your best judgement on whether or not to take out texts. I am by no means an absolute authority on these things. I'm only offering my humble suggestions. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 15:20, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Kevin Whitrick

edit

I've done a great deal of reformatting based on the Biography project template, and I think this is a few steps above a stub now. How did I do? BodyPride 11:07, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yannismarou

edit
  • Isn't there any public space or allowed to use image? By the way, there are better ways to introduce external images like the one of BBC. Check Roman-Spartan War.
  • The article needs a proper structure. For instance, the lead is almost as long as the rest of the article (check WP:LEAD), and "Marriage and children" is too stubby.
  • Format properly you on line sources, using Template:cite web or Template:cite news.
  • "The death has been widely reported in the press and is notable due to the fear of it inspiring other suicides, [5] the possibility of the web cam footage being made available on the Internet,[6] and discussions over the culpability of web users who encouraged the man.[7]" I think you could expand on all these issues. These are interesting parameters of the incident.
  • "At the time of his death, he was survived by his former wife, Paula, and 12-year-old twins." If you want to write a proper biography, you should tell us some more things about his life.--Yannismarou 18:29, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Back to the Future timeline

edit

Hey, I want to get this unique article to FA status. Any suggestions?--The lorax 00:33, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I definitely think this is a really unique and interesting article (I own the trilogy) and the overall subject is very interesting. I recently watched the trilogy and the information is exact and very well documented. I do have a few suggestions, mostly on formatting the article differently. I believe the informationm is spot on and really cant be improved but here are a few suggestions I feel will make the article look more appealing and be easier to read:
  • I like when articles have some type of Infobox and/or a photo at the top-right corner to give it some color and some visualization for the reader.
  • The intro is way to lengthy, it should be one-two paragraphs (in this case) and just summarize the article (such as the overall subject matter (time-travel, etc)). This intro is too in-depth and is actually concrete details that shouldnt be in an intro. This info (or most of it) should have its own heading (such as Background).
  • The Chart of alternate timelines should be reformatted so that the chart itself is located on the right, while the info/words should be on the left. This just removes some empty space, and ties the description of the chart with the chart itself.
Overall the info in this article is very good and the topic is very interesting. Good luck on the higher rating.
--Josh Matthews 02:50, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Mary Martha Sherwood

edit

This is another article in my series about early British children's writers. As with Sarah Trimmer, there is very little information available on Sherwood's life. There is, unfortunately, even less written about her works than there is with Trimmer. I have done what I can with what is published. The article is currently GA. I am aiming for FA eventually. There is one book I haven't seen yet, but I can't imagine that it is going to be some amazing revelation that will necessitate a complete rewrite. Awadewit | talk 23:11, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Carom

edit

Excellent job on a rather obscure personage. A few (minor) quibbles:

  1. The lead seems a tad on the short side. Would it be possible to expand it a touch?
What do you feel is missing? It's hard after reading the article so many times to know what the lead reads like "the first time." Awadewit | talk 15:09, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think that there is anything really missing, per se; the lead just seems rather terse. Your prose is very compact and "tight" (you must surely be an academic of some kind) and could stand a little expansion for the sake of the average reader. For example, the last two sentences of the second paragraph seem like they could be recombined and expanded a little. Note, though, that this is really a minor detail.
That is hysterical! I am indeed an academic but am a very verbose writer (as are most academics). I am glad that my efforts to rein that in are working to some extent. Too bad my 70-page dissertation chapter hasn't been cut down to 45 pages yet. I will work on the lead. Sometimes it is very hard to put myself in the place of the reader who doesn't know anything about the topic. Awadewit | talk 16:11, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Heh, I don't dispute that academics are verbose, but I find that they tend to opt for more tightly constructed sentences (and paragraphs). That is, while there may be plenty of superfluous paragraphs (witness the twenty pages excised from my undergraduate thesis) there are relatively few superfluous words within each sentence.
I've tried to fix this. I'm not sure that I'm happy with the first paragraph, but we'll see. Let me know if you think it is an improvement. Awadewit | talk 17:54, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  1. There are several very short sections. It doesn't look like it would be appropriate to merge these into the larger sections around them (although I may be wrong), but would it be possible to expand these slightly?
I am generally against short sections myself. The problem is that there is very little published research on Sherwood (most of it is indeed listed in the Bibliography). I am thus not sure how to expand these sections without veering into unnecessary plot summary or original research. Do you have any suggestions? (I assume you are referring to "Sentimental novels," "Tracts," "Anti-catholicism" and "Victorianism"?)
Personally, I would not fault you for a little plot summary in these cases. Fo example, you tell us what people have said about Caroline Mordaunt, but I don't have any idea what the story is about, other than that it concerns a down-on-her-luck governess (a description which could easily fit a hal-dozen other stories, at least). Obviously, you want to stay away from paragraphs composed entirely of plot summary, but a little expansion would not be amiss.
I will work on that. There is another problem with that, though. I don't even have access to many of these texts. Many of them exist only in a handful of copies in rare books libraries around the world. Happily, I have read Caroline (it was boring). Awadewit | talk 16:11, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have expanded "Sentimental novels," "Tracts" and "Victorianism." Let me know what you think. Awadewit | talk 21:56, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  1. There are a handful of redlinks - would the understanding of the article be enhanced by turning these blue and allowing a reader to follow a link to a brief stub?
I could do that for most of the redlinks. I just don't like creating stubs that I have no intention of expanding much in the near future. It feels so irresponsible somehow.
If the reader might gain from having more information available to them, and it is inappropriate to add that information to this article, I would say you are not being irresponsible in creating a stub. A nice, short, one-paragraph stub, properly formatted and categorized, is a nice addition to the encyclopedia.
Sure. I can do that. Awadewit | talk 16:11, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have stubbed the ones that I feel competent to stub. Awadewit | talk 21:17, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As I said, nothing major, and an excellent job thus far. Carom 14:45, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much. I appreciate your helpful comments. Awadewit | talk 15:09, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hope my further comments help a little more. Carom 16:01, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, they do. Awadewit | talk 16:11, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No problem, then! I look forward to being able to support this at FAC. Carom 16:16, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Your additions and alterations look good, and I have no further quibbles or complaints. Nice work! Carom 23:08, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WillowW

edit

(pasted from Awadewit's talk page)

I'll keep thinking about Mary Martha Sherwood, but here are some general suggestions from a random lay-reader

  • Maybe go easier on abstract nouns in the lead, such as "patriarchalism"? Maybe you could also combine the two examples, e.g., "such as prescribing social roles by gender and class" or some-such?
    • I agree that that sentence is a problem. It used to lack examples (to avoid just that problem) but then a reviewer suggested more details in the lead. I will keep working on it.
  • I'm really prone to writing, "It was X who did Y.", but it usually seems swifter and more direct to write "X did Y".
    • I do that as well - I will look for those sorts of verbiage problems.
  • I was taught never to start a sentence with "But..." or "And...". But I occasionally backslide on that. ;)
    • Such rules are often given to students (even in college) without any reasoning, unfortunately, which leads to the absolutes. It is justifiable and even elegant to begin sentences with those words. You just have to know what you are doing - I usually use "But" at the beginning of a sentence to emphasize a contradiction or juxtaposition of some sort. The reason for the rule is that most people cannot do so properly.
  • Perhaps the Literary analysis might be organized more ruthlessly chronologically? Or as a milder change, perhaps the section titles could be extended to strengthen the reader's sense of progression, e.g., "Victorianism of later works". The reader seems to want a firm guiding hand in that section.
    • I'm not sure what a chronological analysis would add. I tried to discuss the sentimental novels (written first), then proceed to the evangelical and colonial themes (which occupy Sherwood's early to mid works) and end up with Victorianism (later works) to give a sense of chronology. But when someone writes 400 works, there isn't an overarching "story" that is easy to tell about their works. Also, the scholarship doesn't really say much about "progressions" or overarching changes in her writing, so arranging it that way would be difficult. I would not be able to tell a "chronological story," as it were. I will see what I can do with the section headings. I found this section very difficult to write because of the dearth of material; that is part of what is restricting my options, I think. Awadewit | talk 19:42, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hoping this helps, Willow 18:56, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much! Awadewit | talk 19:42, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Leo J. Ryan Federal Building

edit

This article was recently passed as Good Article Status. The GA reviewer suggested that it be put up for Peer Review. Specifically, the points brought up on the way towards Featured Article Status included refreshing the prose so as to be more "sparkling". However, any other suggestions as to how to improve the quality of the article towards FA status would be most appreciated. Thank you for your time. Smee 12:55, 29 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Review

Some points I noticed about the article:

  • It is incredibly well-referenced. No problems whatsoever there.
  • It is fairly short. Might need a good bit more content before FA.
  • Written well.
  • Appears to have a good structure.
  • Good use of an infobox, and 3 images.
  • Many wikilinks.

To sum up: I think that it has pretty much everything going for it, excepting length of content. If it can be expanded to 1.5 times or even twice its current size, it will breeze through FA with flying colours.

Great work and well done to all who were involved in this article! Anonymous Dissident Utter 02:41, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Autoreview by mcginnly

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

You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, Mcginnly | Natter 09:32, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by mcginnly
  • Whilst the article purports to be about the Leo J. Ryan Federal Building, it focusses almost exlcusively on the contents and functions of the building rather than it's architecture. We need some hard facts about it's architecture.
  1. Who built it - contractor and architect?
  2. How long did it take?
  3. What was the budget?
  4. What materials is it constructed from?
  5. What style is it in?
  6. "As a primary research source for Asian-Pacific immigration, environmental, Naval, Native American,[2] as well as other aspects of American history" - is this reflected in any way in the architecture?
  7. What is the organisational layout?
  8. The landscaping looks interesting - can we describe it?
  9. Context - "The Leo J. Ryan Federal Building is surrounded by a cyclone fence" - has it always been like this or just after the oklahoma bombing. - where does it sit in the city - what part did it play in the urban fabric?
  10. Why is it in San Bruno - is it to isolate it?
  11. Any chance of a plan?
  12. What's the floor area?
  13. Is it single story, double story?

There's some pretty big gaps there - I'm not comfortable with the GA status as it stands. --Mcginnly | Natter 09:32, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also

  1. the lead needs some work - it contains information not in the body text
  2. "It would take 40 people approximately 100 years to microfilm all of the records currently available at the National Archives and Records Administration division of the Leo J. Ryan Federal Building" - this is rather spurious and unencylopedic, the earth article does not contain information about how many paper clips laid end to end would be required to encircle the earth. Did you mean to talk about an ongoing programme to microfilm the records - is it being done? - why aren't they scanning? - how long will it take?
  3. I confess I'm ignorant of US legislation - is a legislative act required for all renamings of public buildings? This is quite surprising - the artilce could be globalised by explaining this.
  4. "A San Mateo County publication identified the building as a "local treasure." - on what ground (the contents presumably)
  5. who or what are "Interactive Resources"
  6. "only Member of Congress to die in the line of duty." a first scan of this and I assumed he died in WWII - I had to check his article to find out the actual circumstances - a one sentence explanation of his death probably wouldn't be inappropriate here.
  7. What's a "cyclone fence" - can we link it, stub it or describe it - it may be common knowledge in the US, but I can only guess what it is.
  8. The article doesn't seem to have a beginning, middle and end. I'd take all of the facts and rearrange them in an order that leads from one to the other - chronological would be fine - but at the moment, to end with a technical fact about temperature, jarrs and leads me to think "well is that the current state of the building - has the environment always been maintained at these level........."
  9. Are there any plans for the future.

Regards --Mcginnly | Natter 15:16, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • These are all good points, and I will begin to address them. As to the quality of the article, I can only say for the time being that two other editors - the other commentator, above, and the original GA reviewer, both wrote positively on the article's quality, both here on this page and on the talk page of the article itself. I will take a look at some of these points in more detail to improve the quality of the article further. Of course, if you find more citations to address some of these points as well, by all means. Yours, Smee 19:42, 22 June 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Starry Nights

edit

I have beefed this article up some, but it needs a review I think to help me to improve the quality of the writing. Pumpernickel pickle 12:50, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A lot of work is required to further improve the article. for example, There are no citations in the article. Moreover, you might want to add a section as a background on the synopsis of real life story which really made Shobha write the novel. The sections on literary significance, impacts (if any) and responses can be added and finally Trivia section can be appended to account for trivial details. You can see more on WP:NV for the general guidelines and layout of the article. DSachan 01:48, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Harisu

edit

I'm looking for some general feedback on this article following my recent efforts to get it up to GA standards. I don't think there's a great deal I can add to it in terms of content, but I'd like to get any potential issues resolved before I list it at WP:GAC. Thanks in advance! PC78 22:26, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! If I may be so bold, what would it need to get it up to FA class? PC78 22:48, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Submitting it and addressing other editors concerns? If you have the time to address any concerns FAC reviewers may give, then it'll pass FAC likely. Depends on whether you have the time to address any concerns (should they be forthcoming). LuciferMorgan 00:40, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, yes. But I meant if the article was lacking in any way that might prevent it getting FA status? Still, I'm not too worried about that now. I'd rather get it through GA review first. PC78 01:22, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Not that I can pick out. LuciferMorgan 01:24, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment "By the end of 2001, Harisu had published her autobiography, Eve from Adam" - Did it enter any book charts in the continent she is from? Are there any critical reviews available you can use as feedback it has received? LuciferMorgan 00:40, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No idea, and no. All I have for that are a couple of vague comments, one that says it wasn't a bestseller, and one that says it was. Not much I can do with that! PC78 01:22, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Any feedback on her albums then that can be added? LuciferMorgan 01:24, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Not really, only the chart positions and sales figures mentioned in the discography section. Might be as well to work those into the main text, I suppose. PC78 01:29, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It would be a good idea to do so. The only thing holding the article back at present is the amount of available info. LuciferMorgan 01:46, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I've tweaked the text a bit so that it now mentions the chart positions (or lack of) for each of her albums, but not the sales figures, since they're pretty meaningless without any frame of reference. I've also added a short paragraph to the discography section which mentions her musical influences, mainly because I couldn't find anywhere else to put it. PC78 19:05, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Supernature (Goldfrapp album)

edit

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

Deborah Gibson (beta rewrite)

edit

I have moved an updated beta article for /wiki/Deborah_Gibson as of this writing to User:B.C.Schmerker/Deborah Gibson (beta). What points still need to be updated? added? - B.C.Schmerker 13:35, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

History of Georgia Tech

edit

Please review this article with the Featured article criteria in mind. As it stands now, there is one redlink yet to be written (George C. Griffin), and there are a few mid-sentence references. A previous peer review for this article is located at Wikipedia:Peer review/History of Georgia Tech/archive1. —Disavian (talk/contribs) 06:24, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Overall, one hell of an article. I also like the subtle organization by administration by having the 'Includes the administration of..' subheaders. Some points:

  1. I'd like to see the lead section expanded to 3 paragraphs per WP:LEAD so it can serve as a concise encyclopedia article in its own right   Done
  2. The last paragraph of the ==Establishment== section has a jarring transition from a description of the first land being donated and sold for the campus to an almost aside recalling of some Civil War trivia. A better place is needed for the Civil War stuff (maybe near the top of the section or in a new section that talked about how the land that Georgia Tech now sits on was used prior to its establishment.   Done
  3. This sentence should be moved to another article "Several sources claim that The Technique is among a number of student organizations to be founded by the ANAK Society." Who cares besides the members of the society?   Done
  4. One of my pet peeves is seeing a series of paragraphs all start with 'In YEAR', 'By YEAR' or 'Around YEAR' (even when the month or day is mentioned as well). This is especially notable in the ==Integration== section. Please try to mix things up a bit.   Done
  5. This sentence is awkward and not particularly clear: "In 1981, the Southern Technical Institute was split from Georgia Tech, around the same time most of the other regional schools were separated from University of Georgia, Georgia State University, and Georgia Southern University." Please rephrase (I think that should be split into two sentences).   Done
  6. How does the 1992 Vice-Presidential Candidates Debate fit into the ==Reorganization and expansion== section? Sounds like trivia to me. I suggest finding a better place for it or simply removing it.   Done

Again, great job. If the above points are adequately addressed, then count me as an Approve vote on FAC. --mav 20:53, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Great suggestions. —Disavian (talk/contribs) 22:02, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I wrote the article for that last redlink, by the way. —Disavian (talk/contribs) 22:47, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I Not Stupid

edit

On 26 December 2006, the article's GA nomination was failed by ExplorerCDT (who has not edited since 8 February 2007). He cited the following two reasons for failing the article:

  • The prose is choppy and the article contains too many two-sentence paragraphs and short sections.
  • The images are poorly placed.

Please offer advice and suggestions on addressing these concerns, so I Not Stupid can become a GA. Note that due to external systemic bias, finding referenced information on Singaporean movies is difficult. This has hindered my ability to add information to and improve the prose in the Production section. For more information, you may wish to read the mini-argument between ExplorerCDT, myself and several of my Wikifriends shortly after the GA nomination was failed.

The lack of referenced information means that I Not Stupid will never become an FA, so I do not need advice on meeting criteria that apply to FA status but not GA status.

This article has previously undergone two peer reviews:

--J.L.W.S. The Special One 01:34, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jayron32's response

edit

As a frequent GA reviewer, and also frequent FA reviewer, I must note that the differences between GA and FA status are not as great as usually assumed. The 3 main differences between the two types of reviews are:

  1. GA's require only "broad" coverage while FA's require "comprehensive" coverage; thus GA status may be accorded to articles that are often far too short to be considered Featurable.
  2. GA's require correct grammar, spelling, and no overt violations of the Manual of Style with regard to article organization. FA's require brilliant, compelling prose, with a strict adherance to ALL aspects of the MOS. Thus, GA's may be passed with less stringent requirements on the quality of writing.
  3. GA's require a single reviewer to apply the criteria to the article. FA's require a consensus of several reviewers to pass.

It should be noted specifically, that in other areas, such as verifiability(referencing), neutrality, and stability, the criteria for GA's and FA's are nearly IDENTICAL. As applies to this article, the referencing requirments for a GA are NOT less stringent than for an FA. If you read the two standards: WP:WIAGA and WP:WIAFA you find that:

  • A Good Article requires: a) references to sources used b) cites reliable sources for quotations and for material that is challenged or likely to be challenged, preferably using inline citations for longer articles c) contains no original research.
  • A Featured Article requires: claims are verifiable against reliable sources and accurately represent the related body of published knowledge. Claims are supported with specific evidence and external citations; this involves the provision of a "References" section in which sources are set out, complemented by inline citations for quotations and for material that is challenged or likely to be challenged.

The only real difference is that the guidelines were written by different editors and so use a few different words; in spirit GA's and FA's have the same referencing standards. If, as you say, the references needed to bring this up to standard simply don't exist, than (and I feel bad about saying this) the article will probably never be even a GA. It should not stop you from TRYING to improve the article until it meets as much of the requirments as possible; but the non-existance of source material does not simply eliminate the requirement that the article be properly referenced. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 04:02, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jayron32, thanks for providing information on the differences between the FA criteria and GA criteria.
References are few, but they do exist (as the 28 citations prove). Are the few references that are available sufficient for GA status? Probably, if we use them well (a reference can be used multiple times) and are not overly stringent on reliability.
With the few references available, writing most sections (except the Plot section, where the movie is the assumed reference point) is a matter of perusing each reference for information, and adding any useful information I can find to the article, mentioning the reference it came from. This leads to poorly-organised information and low-quality prose. The Production section is the most glaring example of this.
As my command of English is of a near-native level, not a native level, I don't think I can produce "brilliant, compelling prose" (although I aspire to be a professional writer). However, I believe I am perfectly capable of writing prose that meets GA criterion 1a. Perhaps you could evaluate the prose in each section, fixing any spelling or grammatical errors you spot (note that the article is written in British English) and offering advice on improving the prose to ensure it meets criterion 1a.
You mentioned that the FA criteria demands "comprehensiveness" while the GA criteria only requires "broad coverage". After you read the article, do you think the following comment by ExplorerCDT would only apply if I was aiming for "comprehensiveness", but does not apply since only "broad coverage" is needed for GA?
"[The article offers] only a cursory or perfunctory examination of subject and its reception or effects on possible reforms [sic] Singapore's education system. Does not delve into depth concerning the extent of the satire and satirical devices, omits a few important themes of the movie."
Lastly, what advice do you have to offer regarding images? (NOTE: In my entire reply, by "you", I am referring not only to Jayron32, but to anyone who reviews this article.)
--J.L.W.S. The Special One 06:32, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Some notes on expanding the article:
  • Consider turing the cast section into prose, perhaps by expanding each main character into a paragraph long description of that character, and/or specific critical reviews of performance of the actors that played them.
  • Shorter paragraphs could be expanded by including specific examples and quotes, perhaps. For examples:
  • you could expand on the concept of streaming, in the "Political satire" section.
  • You could expand the paragraph beginning with "other issues" by including specific examples of each issue you raise from the film.
  • You could expand the paragraph "Following its success in Singapore..." by including specific critical reviews of the film from each country cited and perhaps commercial success or total viewership data for each nation, or for those where it can be found.
  • You could expand the paragraph "Critics gave generally positive reviews " by quoting and paraphrasing several SPECIFIC reviews.
Overall the article is fairly good. I only hope you can find the references to provide for expanding the paragraphs I noted above. I would recommend, if it can be expanded in these ways, to possibly run it by GAC again.--Jayron32|talk|contribs 00:28, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Simply following your suggestions for expanding the article won't cause a second GA nomination to succeed. The other concerns - choppy prose and images - also need to be addressed. Could you offer advice on addressing the issues with images, and evaluate the prose in each section, giving suggestions on how the prose in each section can be approved?
That being said, thanks for your suggestions for expanding the article. Following them would certainly cut down the number of two-sentence paragraphs outside the Plot section (those in the Plot section should be addressed seperately).
Although I don't wish to rely on it, IMDB provides some information on I Not Stupid's release in other countries and its performance at the Hong Kong box office. Quoting specific reviews would be trival, but expanding the "Political satire" section would be harder - in fact, I had to remove several sentences I wrote in that section, as they were original research. Nevertheless, I'll do my best.
--J.L.W.S. The Special One 09:28, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I myself am not that great at copyediting. My best skills are in organization and flow of articles. I can read an article and tell if it is "good" or not WRT its prose, but I am not very good at fixing articles with poor prose. There is an active project, The League of Copyeditors, who ARE very good at that. Once the article is long enough and broad enough so that the ONLY thing left is the choppy prose, you can ask for a review there. They are backlogged, and a review can take a few weeks to complete, BUT they usually always get to every article, and are quite good and throrough. Articles I have requested that they copyedit have always come out better. Good luck! --Jayron32|talk|contribs 16:01, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for the late response. My computer couldn't have chosen a worse time to break down - just after the mid-year exams. Thankfully everything's up and running again.
I filed a request with the League of Copyeditors after the article's GA nomination failed. Last week, I filed a request for the article on the movie's sequel - I Not Stupid Too - which is also on peer review. Once they complete that request, I'll file another request for I Not Stupid.
Since you are able to read an article and quickly assess the quality of its prose, could you do so for I Not Stupid, with a review of the prose in each section? --J.L.W.S. The Special One 14:51, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As per your suggestions, I have expanded the Recetpion section by quoting specific reviews and adding information on I Not Stupid's screening in other countries (I also found some information on VCD sales). I will continue to look for referenced information to add to the atricle, especially in the Production section. Since you aren't good at copy-editing, perhaps you could give advice regarding the image issues? --J.L.W.S. The Special One 07:20, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Boochans Response

edit

I don't respond often to peer reviews or other internal evaluations but I have seen this article grow in the past year or thereabouts to when I first glanced at the article, admittedly while I was reading up on the Singaporean Education System. The way the article is written does certainly suit the way the story seems to go in this film, as each paragraph in the plot section does explain the movie sequentially, and if they were not separated the article would read differently to how it does now. How its paragraphed compared to how it was has worked out to an improved article. None of the sections are terribly short and each section does provide sufficient cited information, and as the maintainer has explained the systemic bias will restrict the article to an extent.

The Images simply cannot be changed, as they are relavant to the plot as the plot is explained. More images would probably break up the article too much and overload the article viewer, as checking other quality film articles you see a similar amount of images to do with the film as you see on this article. The images are irrelevant to other sections of the article, and at the same time other sections of the article in my belief do not require further images, or further images would not increase the quality of the article.

I cannot comment on prose or the way the article is written because it certainly isn't my strong point as well. From what I can tell after throughly reading the article, the previous peer reviews, nominations and the above suggestions I do believe that despite some flaws that have been glossed over before, and somewhat improved since the last peer review that this article does meet the criteria for a Good Article, after a final "polish over" (i.e getting someone to copyedit it). It would be nice to see more opinions or to see a good copyediter to evaluate the article and check for any problems in that regard. - Boochan 11:48, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your review, Boochan. Although you did not really suggest how I can improve the article, at least you told me what I did right. --J.L.W.S. The Special One 14:04, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of Dragonlance deities

edit

I've worked on this article due to a cleanup tag being placed on it and think it's come a long way. I like it but second opinions are nice. Any information, small or big, is fine and definitely appreciated. All comments are helpful to me. Also, I was wondering whether to title this as is or as "Deities of Dragonlance" which currently redirects to this page. Thoughts on that are welcome. Thanks. DoomsDay349 19:58, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Some comments, hopefully useful:
  • Your average (non-D&D-knowledgeable) reader is likely to be puzzled by the statement that: "the gods themselves do not have d20 mechanics" Wha...?
  • A frequent issue I see here is that parts of this page require some pre-existing knowledge on the part the reader about the setting. The use of such terms as Graygem, "Chaos War", "All-Saints War", "War of Souls", "Dragonlance campaign" and "white moon" should include some type of context or explanation.
  • Citations should follow punctuation.
  • Most of the citations reference a single work. Could you not have a reference section for the full work and a notes section to list just the chapters or page numbers of those works?
  • The page is in need of illustrations.
Thanks. — RJH (talk) 20:54, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your comments! I'll work on the d20 mechanics statement, and also on the pre-existing knowledge issue. I'll also fix the citations, and your idea is really good actually, think I may go with that. Illustrations could be a bit harder but I have some ideas. Thank you very much for the comments! DoomsDay349 22:20, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You are most welcome. Thank you for the prompt reply. — RJH (talk) 16:31, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gore Vidal

edit

This article has the potential to become a featured article, but currently it seems to lack a lot about his younger life. CAN 03:38, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Review by Awadewit

edit
  • The lead should be a summary of the entire article per WP:LEAD.
  • I would delete the two "influences" fields from the infobox since such information is so debatable. Moreover, not all of the influences listed in the box are discussed in the article - that is confusing for the reader.
  • The article is sorely lacking in sources. The "Writing career" and "Political views" sections, for example, have almost none. Perhaps even more egregiously, the article has unsourced quotations.
  • Note: Links to websites should be placed in footnotes, not at the bottom of the article in the "External links" section.
  • I would suggest that the editors do a substantial amount of research as they revise this page. There is a lot of material written on Vidal by literary scholars - they should avail themselves of it.
  • The "Early years" jumps oddly to the death of Auster; it seems that that information should go later.
  • The structure of the article is not entirely clear to me. Do the editors want to cover all biographical material first and then turn to an analysis of Vidal's works or do they want to follow a chronological pattern, integrating the works with the life? Right now, it seems a bit unfocused.
  • There are several very short (even one-sentence paragraphs). These should be combined with other paragraphs or fleshed out.
  • Can you choose a representative work or two in the "Fiction" section and expand on it? This would help readers gain a sense of Vidal's style as an author.
  • The "Essays" section appears to be a prose list. Expand this section and describe Vidal's style as a prose writer.
  • The "Political views" section should probably be divided into subsections and its paragraphs made longer.
  • The "Trivia" section should be removed - any information you want to retain should be integrated into the article.
  • The article needs a thorough copyedit for dropped words, long and convoluted sentences, and punctuation.
  • Ex: The senator's steadfast isolationism contributed to one of the major principles underlying Vidal's political philosophy, which has been consistently critical of what he perceives as a foreign (and, by extension, a domestic) policy shaped by the imperatives of American imperialism.
  • If you eventually want to go for FA, check out the manual of style before doing so. Awadewit Talk 19:05, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Review by Karanacs

edit

I think if you can properly source the article this would be a good candidate for GA, but it needs more work before it will reach FA status. Some of my comments duplicate those of User:Awadewit -- I didn't read his review first.

  • Need citations for
    • "His second middle name honors his maternal grandfather, Thomas P. Gore, Democratic senator from Oklahoma." I would have assumed that the Gore was simply because it was his mother's maiden name
    • Last three paragraphs of Early Years
    • Writing career must be sourced or it appears to be WP:Original research
    • Pretty much everything after Writing career must also be sourced, especially quotations.
  • need to remove red links
  • The last two paragraphs of Early Years do not speak of his early years but of his later years.
  • Fiction section should not start with "The man" -- which man? for simplicity, simply say "Vidal"
  • don't spell out numbers over 10
  • I don't like the way you use a semicolon and then add more information -- this appears to be overdone in writing section
  • I recommend adding more info on critical response to his books in writing section
  • What made his novels "highly successful" in the 1960s? Sales or critical response?
  • The first paragraph of political views and activies should be removed. Most of that information is already in the early years section
  • All citations need to be formatted properly There are several in political activism section that are not footnotes as the rest of the article uses.
  • The Trivia Section needs to be removed
  • The external links section needs to be cleaned up. If at all possible, use these interviews as sources instead

Karanacs 14:38, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mary of Teck

edit

Queen Consort of George V of the United Kingdom. Currently B class, deserves to be higher. DrKiernan 09:46, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're probably right, only thing I can see on a quick overview is that most of the article beginning with the legacy section lacks sourcing. Wrad 21:11, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I'm in the process of amending that. DrKiernan 12:51, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Review by Awadewit

edit

Another nice article, DrKiernan. Most of my comments deal with small prose issues.

Content:

  • Do we know more about her childhood? There is very little about her early life or education.
  • Edward, in his memoirs, wrote with fondness of Mary as a mother,[14] although views expressed in private letters to his wife after his mother's death were less charitable. - quotes might make this more lively and more specific
  • The repeated "and now they were styled" business gets tiring - is that necessary? You list the titles in the infobox. If you added dates to the infobox, would that take care of the necessity of having that information in the article?
  • Two months after the end of the war, Queen Mary's youngest son, "our poor darling little Johnnie", died aged just thirteen. She described her shock and sorrow in her diary, extracts of which were published after her death. - again quotes would make her more human
  • The "Legacy" section seems like a prose list and more like trivia than anything else. Try to find a unifying theme for the legacy or eliminate some of this information.

Prose:

  • The first paragraph of the lead is over-burdened with titles.
  • major political changes arising from the aftermath of the war and the rise of socialism and nationalism - perhaps "such as" rather than "and"?
    • I'm uncomfortable with saying that socialism and nationalism were effects of the war. I would agree that their development was accelerated by it, but they had already started their rise a long time before 1918. DrKiernan 08:07, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • That's fine. I thought that was what you meant by the sentence. Could you then perhaps write "major political changes arising from the aftermath of the war such as [insert appropriate examples] as well as the rise of socialism and nationalism" or something to that effect? Awadewit Talk 08:26, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • as the model of regal formality and propriety - "the" or "a"?
  • her father, the Duke of Teck, was the product of morganatic marriage - "a morganatic marriage"?
  • The Duchess of Teck was however granted a Parliamentary Annuity of £5,000 - unnecessary splitting of the verb
  • the family was deeply in debt and were forced to live abroad from 1883 - "was" or "were"? shouldn't both be the same?
  • York Cottage was a modest house for royalty, but was a favourite of George, who liked a relatively simple life - "a favourite of George's"?
  • Whilst Princess of Wales, she accompanied her husband on trips to Austria-Hungary and Württemberg in 1904. - unnecessarily archaic
  • As she thought she should not be "Victoria", from then on she chose to be called "Mary" - explain the connection to Queen Victoria for the uninformed reader
  • During World War I Queen Mary instituted an austerity drive at Buckingham Palace, rationing food, and visited the many wounded, and dying, servicemen in hospitals, which she found to be a great emotional strain. - excessive commas
  • She retained an imperturbable self-assuredness throughout all her public engagements in the years after the war, despite civil unrest over social conditions, Irish independence and Indian nationalism. - awkwardly worded - almost seemed like non-parallel structure until I went back
  • Queen Mary paid particular attention to his care. During his illness in 1928, one of his doctors, Sir Farquhar Buzzard, was asked who had saved the King's life. He replied, "The Queen". - Can you connect these sentences together more?
  • Queen Mary later refused to meet her either in public or privately. - parallelism
  • She never wavered in her disapproval of what she perceived as his damage to the Crown, but as a mother her love for him as her son remained unaffected. - redundant
  • Queen Mary took an interest in the upbringing of her granddaughters, Princesses Elizabeth and Margaret Rose, whose parents thought it unnecessary for them to be taxed with any demanding educational regime, taking them on various excursions about London, to art galleries and museums. - not clear who is doing the taking
  • The two paragraphs on art collection could be joined into one and reorganized more fluidly.
  • Their joint tomb has above it magnificently carved recumbent effigies of both the King and Queen wearing robes of state. - awkward phrasing Awadewit Talk 17:47, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Teabagging

edit

I think this could use a peer review. Some of the problems with the article include: unverified statements, use of sources of questionable reliability, collections of trivial occurrences of teabagging, and the article detracting from the subject matter at hand slightly in places. I don't know if this ever could get good article status. I don't think it's possible at the moment, as I'm not sure exactly what a WP:RS is to this day, but notability is cumulative, I guess.-h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 23:36, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • You are right, the majority of references used are dubious. Urban Dictionary is useless as a source since there is no quality control or guard against hoaxes. Also, I don't know the policy on YouTube links but there might be a copyright issue with the clips linked to. There may be a similar problem with the "seeklyrics" reference, which, like many other lyrics sites, is probably a copyright violation. Finally, many of the other sites used like AskTaco, SexDictionary, etc are of questionable notability. Teabagging is certainly a valid phenomenon, but finding reliable sources will be your biggest obstacle to GA, and unfortunately I'm not sure how many actually exist. Even finding a couple of print sources on Google Books (if there are any) to replace some of the aforementioned sources would help. Enoktalk 13:20, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Indigo children

edit

I reviewed this article a couple days ago as start-class, however, it is extremely well-referenced and I feel is very well balanced for an article on a pseudoscientific topic. I feel it should be bumped up to at least B class, does anyone have any other suggestions to improve the article past what I noted at Talk:Indigo children/Comments? -Wooty Woot? contribs 21:28, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:SpecialWindler

edit

Some pointers.

  • The lead is right but should be put into one paragraph.
  • Needs Copyediting
  • Who is "Lee Carroll and Jan Tober", they arn't wiki linked or mentioned about who they are (are the famous novelist or what). I think this need to be mentioned.
  • Stubby sections like "Education" and "Commercialization"
  • In the In Fiction section, what does the Indigo (film) have to do with this subject.
    • Again in the "In Fiction" section, you should not external link in it. Move the link to the bottom of the page
      • And in Commercialization section (twice)

Thats my quick review.

While the "Beliefs" and "Scientific and critical interpretations" are very well written, the article lacks depth, and should be expanded in other sections, and well cited. Although it's cited alright at the moment, there are parts which could be well cited more. This is a "Start" but in reality is a way off "B-Class", but it can get there.

SpecialWindler 12:51, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Haystacks (Monet)

edit

This has twice failed at WP:GAC. Although the second time was mostly for faulty references, I would like some critical review. TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 17:22, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Resolved
 – most images are properly labelled although a few are missing.

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

You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 03:16, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kenya national cricket team

edit

The article looks good and is fairly sourced, what do the reviewers think needs to be done to give it a FA push.--THUGCHILDz 00:21, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just a few suggestions:
  1. The intro should be expanded to summarize the entire article. Usually two or three paragraphs. See WP:LEAD
  2. Are there any free-use pictures that can be added? -- Underneath-it-All 02:10, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'll look for some pictures and will get to work at the lead too, thanks.--THUGCHILDz 02:16, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:SpecialWindler

edit

My review, just some quick pointers to improve the article.

  • The lead should be expanded due to the size of the article
  • In the History section, here are some suggestions
    • Merging stubby sections like "Early Days", "ICC Membership", "1996 World Cup".
    • Can the tournament History section, with all the statistics be moved into tables, it would look better. Like
World Cup
Year Details
1975 First round (as part of East Africa)[8]
1979 Did not qualify (as part of East Africa)[85]
so on
    • Can the "The Future" section be a sub section of "History", which although it isn't history, it is going to be and that section should be expanded.
  • Maybe a table for the current players
  • Use {{dablink}} to link List of Kenyan ODI cricketers and List of Kenyan first-class cricketers
    • Here, add {{dablink|For a full list of Kenyan ODI and first-class cricketers see [[List of Kenyan ODI cricketers]] and [[List of Kenyan first-class cricketers]]}} to the top of the "Players" section, and remove the section "List of Players"
  • May use tables for the "Records" section, which may need expanding. It may be better to type the Records section.
  • Avoid red links, there are a few throughout the article, just leave them without links.
  • Categories need to be in alphebetical order (numbers 1-9, then, letters A-Z)

Thats a quick review. SpecialWindler 09:36, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have started putting the tournament section into tables like you requested.Blackhole77 talk | contrib 15:09, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  Done

African American culture

edit

I'd like to see what's remaining to get this good article up to featured article status. Thanks. CJ 00:53, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. How do we do this? futurebird 01:26, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It might help if I finished setting up the peer review. Oops. CJ 12:46, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Margate F.C.

edit

I thought it would be interesting to see if I could get a non-league football club article up to featured status (I realise that York City F.C. is a FA, but I don't count them as a "true" non-league club as they were in the Football League until three years ago, Margate on the other hand have never been in the FL), so have been working hard on this one for the last fortnight or so, and would now like to get feedback on what further improvements need to be made. Many thanks in advance for your time! ChrisTheDude 23:29, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Structurally everything is sound. The same source is used for a large proportion of the references, but as non-league clubs garner less media attention than more illustrious counterparts this is difficult to avoid without access to a professional newspaper archive. No major issues, these points are fairly picky minor things.

  • It appears that the club were initially refused promotion in 1998-99 due to ground standards, this merits a mention.
  • in 1923 the club was suspended from the league due to financial irregularities and promptly folded. A year later the club was reformed as Margate Town and returned to the Kent League, still playing at Dreamland, but folded again due to heavy debts. This could do with referencing.
  • this policy had to be abandoned when the team were relegated back to Division One in 1965–66 This could do with rewording, unless it was mandatory to be non-professional in Division One.
  • Avoid colloquialisms and tabloid terms such as "bounced back" and "star-studded".

Hope this helps. Oldelpaso 17:44, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers for the comments, I've addressed points 2 and 3 and will look at the others tomorrow but right now my wife wants to go on the computer ;-) ChrisTheDude 21:24, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Point 1 has been addressed, and I think I've amended every point where I wrote like a red top journo ;-) ChrisTheDude 12:16, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Rambling Man

edit

Hey, good stuff and a nice idea to see a non-league club to FA. My comments:

  • ...have reached the third round proper of the FA Cup on two occasions, including a match against Tottenham Hotspur in 1973. - I know why this is significant, but would the non-football savvy reader? Presumably you could just add something about them being in the top league of English football here. I'm also not 100% keen on the words ...including a match against... - but can't think of an alternative yet!
  • Move ref [3] to end of sentence.
  • (Very) personal preference, I prefer First World War and Second World War to World War I and II, it looks more elegant and helps with the prose flow, such as prior to the First World War instead of prior to World War I. But feel free to ignore that one!
  • The unusual Dutch signing - was it unusual to Margate alone or to English football at that time?
  • Could make a brief explanation of nursery side for the non-expert reader.
  • 3rd round - I'd prefer third round, especially as you have First qualifying round later instead of 1st...
  • I'm not keen on the three seasons in parentheses, perhaps something like home attendances from 2001 to 2004 were 1,233, 684 and 562 respectively?
  • Move ref [32] to in front of ref [33], after the end of the sentence.
  • Are the tbcs in the manager list really to be confirmed or are they simply unknown?
  • Consistent use of & in Honours section (i.e. between the penultimate and ultimate seasons of a given honour).
  • Space before refs [73] & [74] should be removed.

None of these points are in any way major and I can't see a big problem with taking this to WP:FAC sooner rather than later! All the best, The Rambling Man 17:04, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • Many thanks for the feedback Rambling, and I'll address all those points ASAP. As for the TBCs in the manager info, well, they're unknown/unconfirmable via all the sources I've found thus far, but that doesn't mean a source might not be found by me or someone else at some point (there might be a book about the club of which I'm not aware, for instance) so I chose to put TBC rather than "unknown" as the latter seems (to me at any rate) to suggest that the info will never be found. What do you reckon.........? ChrisTheDude 20:33, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mattythewhite

edit

Not much I can recommend really! Great work with the article so far, I'm sure it'll get to FA status soon. But I would recommend..

  • Moving some of the sections around, so its structured a bit more like Ipswich Town F.C. or York City F.C. for example.
  • Putting the honours into a table.
  • Having a reference after each of the members of the Current Staff looks a bit dodgy.. perhaps one could be added for the last one or 'As of 14 June 2007.' with the ref could be added?

Not very major things I've got to bring up, this article is in a very healthy state at the moment. Mattythewhite 10:22, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

France national rugby union team

edit

The article is about the national rugby union team. One of the best teams in the world and currently ranked number 2. This article was the WikiProject Rugby union collaboration of the fortnight recently. When the collaboration was over I nominated it for GA and it passed without any problems. I'm looking for any feedback that will help this article get to Featured Article status - as the next step is to nominate it for FAC. Thanks. - Shudda talk 23:43, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Khan Wali Khan

edit

ok guys I've been struggling with this article for awhile now..getting help and getting time to sort it out..has been a pain to say the least. But all in all a good learning experience. Still I realllly wanna get it up to FAC status..so criticise without abandon..but be detailed because I don't have the time to go through it myself..I am also slightly blind to it's imperfections.

Thanks --Zak 18:42, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There are a number of images used in the article (such as Image:WaliKhan4.jpg) that we apparantly know nothing about. They're sourced to a webpage that doesn't contain the image. There's no information on the photographer or copyright holder. They are tagged as being public domain, but we cannot demonstrate that. Can some research be done on these images? They shouldn't have been uploaded without more information. Jkelly 22:44, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've updated the information on the link to the site. What proof do I have to give? Can you post an example of a pic I coud use as a template? What about the rest of the article? Thanks --Zak 17:51, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Guys this is my third request for peer review on this article, it's gone through some huge changes since i started working on it early last year. So what do you guys think? --Zak 19:43, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
My thinking is that there are many paragraphs with significant claims but no citations. For example, "Wali Khan accused Zulfiqar Bhutto of attempting to arrange his assassination" is uncited, yet it's a powerful accusation. The citations that are there aren't consistently formated. So I'd recommend using the appropriate cite templates as much as possible. Also, can you get any more images for the article? I only see the two near the top. The text "...chose not even participate..." seems improper. — RJH (talk) 22:34, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
thanks for the comments, I think additional pictures are difficult to get because of copyright issues. but i'll see what improvemets I can make to teh rest as you suggested. check your page.. --Zak 15:41, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

50 Cent

edit

A lot of people have worked hard to improve this article, I think it's close to GA. Comments are welcome, Tayquan hollaMy work 04:11, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Automated review

edit

I've already mentioned this on the talk page, but I think the main thing holding this back from a GA is the controversies, especially the "Other New York rappers" section, which simply names other artists without context. Spellcast 08:50, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

*Per Wikipedia:Context and Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates), months and days of the week generally should not be linked. Years, decades, and centuries can be linked if they provide context for the article.[?]

Done. I don't think years alone such as '1997' need to be linked. Spellcast 13:12, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

*See if possible if there is a free use image that can go on the top right corner of this article.[?]

  • If this article is about a person, please add {{persondata|PLEASE SEE [[WP:PDATA]]!}} along with the required parameters to the article - see Wikipedia:Persondata for more information.[?]

*Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (numbers), there should be a non-breaking space - &nbsp; between a number and the unit of measurement. For example, instead of 8 Mile, use 8 Mile, which when you are editing the page, should look like: 8&nbsp;Mile.[?]

Here, 8 Mile is a soundtrack/movie, not a unit of measurement, so it doesn't need a - &nbsp;. Spellcast 11:00, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

*Per Wikipedia:Context and Wikipedia:Build the web, years with full dates should be linked; for example, link January 15, 2006.[?]

Done. Spellcast 13:35, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

*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==.[?]

The only heading starting with "The" is "The Game", which is allowed because it's a pronoun. Spellcast 04:41, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

*As per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (headings), please do not link words in headings.[?] *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 Wikipedia:Manual of Style (headings), avoid using special characters (ex: &+{}[]) in headings.

  • 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.[?]

*Avoid using contractions like (outside of quotations): didn't, Isn't, couldn't, didn't, didn't, couldn't, Don't, don't, wouldn't, didn't, didn't, didn't, doesn't, wasn't, wasn't.

As well quotations, I'm assuming contractions are allowed if it's the title of a cited source. Spellcast 04:30, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not crossing this out because no matter how well you think an article is copy edited, there always seems to be something that can be improved. But I still think the prose is pretty good. Spellcast 19:57, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, APR t 23:57, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yannismarou

edit
  • "and a small but permanent slur in his voice.[8][9][25]" When you have many citations in a row, you can combine them in one. Tourette syndrome indicates ways to do that.
    • Comment I think the only way you can do that is if they're not repeated refs. Like if all three refs only occur in that spot, two of those are repeated refs. Tayquan hollaMy work 00:22, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment But those 3 refs are needed to verify each of those injuries. Ref 8 verifies the swollen tongue, ref 9 verifies the slight voice change, and ref 25 verifies the lost wisdom tooth. Spellcast 20:08, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment He's saying if the refs only appear in that spot you could do this <ref> ref 1 info <br> ref 2 info <br> ref 3 info </ref> from what i can tell by looking at that article. But that only works if none of the refs are repeated (incidentally the "br" makes the next ref go down a level but all three refs will appear in one footnote). Tayquan holla My work 00:38, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Interscope then granted 50 Cent his own label, G-Unit Records in 2003.[34] He appointed his manager Sha Money XL as the president. The label signed ..." I think the prose is a bit choppy here.
If there's no objections, I'll cut the part on Sha Money XL being president. It doesn't seem that significant to the article as a whole. Besides, Sha Money is no longer president. Spellcast 07:17, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No objection here. Tayquan holla My work 14:59, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In March 2000, 50 Cent was punched by brothers Christopher and Irving Lorenzo (head of Murder Inc. Records) and then stabbed in the chest by rapper Black Child outside The Hit Factory studio in New York." Child's article just say that "on West 54th Street, future multi-platinum rapper 50 Cent had an altercation with Ja Rule, Black Child and others from Murda Inc." My point is that you make sure you describe all events in a NPOV way.
Comment Ok I tweaked the wording and also corrected a factual error. This New York magazine article said 50 Cent was treated for a partially collapsed lung after being stabbed in the chest, but in this interview, he says it was three stitches. Spellcast 08:18, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • "50 Cent released a song and video called "Funeral Music", in which he insults Cam'ron. Cam'ron also released a diss track and video called "Curtis". He also made a second derogatory video, "Curtis Pt. II". Young Buck and 50 Cent responded..." Again choppy. Take an overall look to the prose.
    • Comment I agree. I added some info about what Cam'ron said, but I didn't know someone replied to this peer review. I'll definitely work on that part. Spellcast 14:14, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • "When the album was released, 50 Cent felt The Game was disloyal for wanting to work with artists G-Unit was feuding with. He further claimed that he was not getting proper credit for the debut of the album." Citation for what you say 50 Cent claimed?--Yannismarou 16:07, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Van Halen

edit

This article has undergone significant editing and revision in the last five months. I believe the main objections have been rectified and this article is very ready to go through the FA process again. --Chevan 02:04, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • My first suggestion would be to go over to recommendations through the Wikipedia:Featured Music Project. I noted that a review has been made of the page, and I agree with the suggestions. Just about all the new FAC music articles have some sort of sound sample. As well, the FMP noted there were no outside references, i.e. books, referenced in the article, although Van Halen has had numerous biographies, official magazines, and music entries over the years.
  • Personally, I think the article is a bit wordy, and at times sounds more like a "VH1 Behind the Music" special than an encyclopedia entry. Some examples, "The commercial success that Van Halen reached with Sammy Hagar set high expectations — and fans everywhere were watching and waiting for the band's next move" sounds odd. "By 1980, Van Halen was perhaps the world's most successful and influential hard rock band" sets yourself up for arguments by fans of Led Zep, AC/DC, and others who might feel there were other more successful and influential hard rock bands. Similar unsourced opinions slip through the article, like "5150 is generally considered the strongest album of the "Hagar era." and "A left over track entitled "That's Why I Love You" found its way onto the internet, leaving fans to wonder why it didn't make the album." are two other quick examples, although there are others. Also, the article is very wordy, i.e., "By September, however, David Lee Roth and the rest of the band were asked to present an award at the 1996 MTV Video Music Awards. On September 4, 1996, the four original members of Van Halen made their first public appearance together in over eleven years, presenting an award at the 1996 MTV Video Music Awards." Essentially, both sentences repeat the same thing.
  • I think that the article is there information-wise, but the writing needs a complete copyedit. Work on eliminating duplicate words, opinions, and POV. Otherwise, an informative article on a major rock influence.
  • Hope this is helpful. Best of luck!

--Ataricodfish 16:42, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


We need to discuss this more

edit

Someone offer me some support. I've done major work, but progress is slow (The Elfoid 18:02, 18 May 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Message me on my talk page if you wish for me to highlight specific concerns with the article, and I'll review it with a fine toothcomb. LuciferMorgan 00:43, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

NWA Hawaii

edit
  • This article, along with Hawai'i Championship Wrestling are apparently edited almost entirely by two editors. These are competing organizations and apparently they are using Wikipedia as a platform for promotion and to make the other organization look bad. Input from other non-interested editors would help these articles. Antonrojo 12:18, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Is it a dead link or something?? SpecialWindler 21:16, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Very odd. There was an article there and the talk page is still there. However the article history is not. Seems like an incomplete speedy delete or something...I will leave a note at WP:AN. Antonrojo 12:34, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The request for deletion review. Antonrojo 13:04, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Olm

edit

I translated and expanded this article from the version I wrote on Slovenian WP where it received FA status. I'm aware that standards here may be a bit higher, so for now I'd just like to see if it's good enough for GA status. It may seem to lack citations, but everything has been checked in the mentioned sources, I just didn't provide source for every sentence separately (but can add it without problems if it would look better. Please also check style and grammar, I'm not a native english speaker. Thanks, Yerpo 12:01, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:BirgitteSB

edit

First off this is a very fine article, good work! I did some cleanup of the language. One thing I changed often, was larva to tadpole. That life-stage is most always refered to as the tadpole in amphibians. The lead needs to be a more complete summary of the entire article per WP:LEAD. Some of the subtitles are awkward like "Life in the Darkness" and the titles should not ever say "olm". It still needs a better writer than me to check some style issues. There are parts that sound off to me, yet I am unsure how to change them. The only thing I find missing is a section on "Evolution and taxonomy" even though there is some discussion on the issues throughout. --BirgitteSB 15:24, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the swift response. I'll implement your suggestions shortly, although the section on evolution and taxonomy might be a problem, because I haven't found much about it in my sources. --Yerpo 21:29, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am having second thoughts about that suggestion. I don't know that I should expect a species aricle to have that after all, it just the olm is so unquie of a species and an entire genus that I thought of it in the first place. BTW, did you see the video of these in the "Planet Earth" TV series? There where some very impressive images and you should look into finding a copy of the "Caves" DVD if you haven't.--BirgitteSB 01:18, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's been a week since the last comment. The article was improved in the meanwhile and I think it's time to nominate it for a FA. Archiving this Peer review. --Tone 12:33, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

John Mayer

edit

I and several other dedicated editors have been toiling away at this article for almost two years, and I think it has improved dramatically from its stubby roots. All disputable claims, statistics and quotes are cited by reputable music and general topic sources of today. All the images are free or have appropriate fair use rationales, and likewise for the music samples. The article is apropriately wiki-linked and connected with other Wiki projects. Efforts have been made to improve the prose, eliminate bias, and trim fannish information. I feel that the article is thorough, but not overly-detailed. Specific topics have been spun off into new articles (ie - John Mayer discography and John Mayer Trio). We editors have made every effort to conform it to the Manual of Style. I have copyedited the darn thing ad nauseum. All it needs is a final set of eyes before it goes to the judge and jury: the FAC committee. Please be that set of eyes. Thanks in advance!--Esprit15d (talk ¤ contribs) 15:34, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Review by Karanacs

edit

I found a few issues that you probably want to fix before attempting FAC. There were some more general prose issues too, but I didn't note all of them. At times, sections or paragraphs seem to read more informally, like a magazine article, than formally like an encyclopedia article. There are also several instances of clunky sentences, where you've tried to stuff a lot of information into one sentence and it makes it hard to read. Sometimes if you read the article out loud to yourself you'll be able to catch some of these (although I recommend doing that when you aren't around lots of people ;) )

  • don't wikilink single years (1998, 2005)
  • instead of "latest studio album" can we use a year? That way the lead doesn't become out of sync with real life
  • Prose Issues
    • "has also gotten involved" -> he is also involved in
    • second paragraph in early life does not read well
    • and even now he keeps Xanax (an anti-anxiety drug) with him, just in case. - >and now he keeps Xanax, an anti-anxiety drug, with him.
    • "Cook's insistence proved successful" -> this doesn't make much sense
  • did he meet James Blake at school or in his hometown?
    • Comment: In his hometown, which I think is pretty clear in the article. It says

      Born in Bridgeport, Connecticut, Mayer grew up in nearby Fairfield, the second of three sons. There, he became friends with future tennis star James Blake.

  • Is it important the it was believed that Mayer's father gave him a Stevie Ray Vaughan album, or just that he got one?
    • Comment: It is such a common misconception, that it should probably be at least noted as false, since editors come in and re-add popular fiction (particularly this factoid). But it does clog up the paragraph, and is not pressingly important. I put it in notes.
  • Under Major label Success, three paragraphs in a row start with "In <year>"
  • "This album also brought critical and commercial success" - can you expand on the critical success for any of the albums? It would be nice to know what the critics thought of them.
  • Need a source for first paragraph of John Mayer Trio
  • The section Continuum and beyond is missing sources
  • Make sure all full dates are wikilinked
  • Don't embed external links in the text (Meyer's auction site)
  • Need a source for "Tape trading was also instrumental in Mayer becoming better known in the early stages of his career."
  • The selected events section may border on trivia. Is it important that this be included in the article?
    • Comment Still included but trimmed.
  • I don't know if MySpace links are allowed.
    • Comment: I believe that is only if someone is using it as a reference about, say, genetic engineering. Mayer is a major blogger. I think mentioning his MySpace page and then linking to it is only logical.
  • You probably don't need all the interviews as external links -- if any of those are in the sources already, don't include them here.

Good luck! Karanacs 14:17, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks so much for your critique. It is really helpful.--Esprit15d (talk ¤ contribs) 14:11, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But I'm a Cheerleader

edit

This article became a Good Article a little while ago. I'd really like to know what needs to be done to get it to FA standard. Thanks, --Belovedfreak 19:46, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're better off biting the bullet and nominating it for FAC. If you're willing to address whatever minor concerns they may have, it should pass. LuciferMorgan 22:17, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the comment, I may well do that at some point, but before I do I would really appreciate some feedback with regards to the prose and whether or not I need help with copyediting. --BelovedFreak 22:29, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Calogero Vizzini

edit

Just wondering how the article would be assessed. - Mafia Expert 19:34, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yannismarou

edit
  • "In the media he was often depicted as the "boss of bosses" – although such a position does not exist in the loose structure of the Mafia, and later Mafia turncoats denied Vizzini ever was the boss of the Mafia in Sicily." A bit repetitive the prose here, don't you think?
  • I see a quite long short in the lead. I do not think if this is compatible with the lead's role as summary of the article. Check WP:LEAD.
  • In general, maybe the lead should be rewritten, so as to get a proper thematic and stylistic (proper paragraphs) structure.
  • Try not to have uncited paragraphs.
  • "Mafia in Villalba" is a mixture of assessments about the mafia and Vizzini. The latter IMO could be placed after Vizzini's biography in an "assessment" section. The first one could constitute an introduction in the biography sections (the first one is "early years").
  • I think the article is under-wikified; it could have more links to Wikipedia articles (e.g. Catholic Church).
  • I think that per WP:MoS you should not use italics, when you quote.
  • "In the middle of the start of the Cold War, the 1948 elections were a triumph for the Christian Democrats, who would govern Italy for the next 45 years." Too simplistic. They were not governing alone, and the Italian politics during these 45 years had many ups and downs.

I rated the article as B, although I am not still sure about my voting! Some sections have no citations. I think there could be further improvements in terms of content, referencing, structure.--Yannismarou 17:18, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jimmy Wales

edit
Peer Review request, from Smee (talk · contribs)

Requesting comments/feedback on steps that can be taken to bring this article up to Featured Article Status ? Thank you for your time. Smee 10:09, 29 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]

The external links section needs a trimming; it is out of control. Also the reference could use a litter formatting help (useing the correct template for all of them, and including access dates for all the websites). Jon513 11:47, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Instead of a trimming, the external links should be converted to smaller font, and made into a "Further reading" section, inside the "References" section. Then any external links that could instead be used as citations to expand the article itself, should be. Smee 12:05, 29 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]
I disagree. I just noticed the page was protected when I tried to click edit on the External links section and add {{linkfarm}}. References do need consistent formatting, although you can do that manually—templates aren't required for consistent formatting. Quadzilla99 11:54, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dune (film)

edit

This article has come along way, and is very informative, in excellent shape and worthy of a GA or FA status. Please provide some suggestions. Angel2001 09:10, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Basic stuff like citation templates and fair use rationales for images are necessary. I also recommend finding a few books to further cite the subject at hand. Alientraveller 14:03, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Looking further, I also think production can be expanded with sub-sections if necessary, studying also why there were departures from the book, rather than coming off as trivia original research. Alientraveller 14:05, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Life on the Fast Lane

edit

Aim to get this to FA at some point in the future, currently a GA. Need to get some creative imput from elsewhere. Based on FAs Homer's Phobia and Cape Feare. Gran2 16:41, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The production section needs to be rewritten. Right now it reads like a list without bullet points. Alientraveller 18:27, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've re-written it. Any better? Gran2 18:36, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Better, still reads like someone's in a hurry, but I think sectioning and combining related info would the way to go. Alientraveller 19:09, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Alientraveller. I also think that you should consider making a "Theme" section in which you discuss this episode in relation to other Simpson episodes where either Homer or Marge is attracted to another person. --Maitch 09:54, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

NMDA receptor antagonist

edit

Please give any tips that might improve this article to GA status or A-Class status. Jolb 01:20, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • At first glance, it looks as though the lead could be either expanded or the facts in it could be combined into paragraphs better, or both. Citations look good. The list of 'see also' templates is unsightly. There is a way to combine all of them under one template, just keep listing them and put a '|' between each one. Wrad 04:07, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:SpecialWindler

edit

Some quick easy pointers to make it a better article

  • The lead needs to be expanded, probably into two paragraphs.
  • The "Neuroscience Portal" should be below in the "See Also" section
  • You should perhaps have a "external links" section
  • "neurotransmitters" & "psychedelics" in the see also section should be capatalised.
  • Does the picture really need to be that big?
    • And does the summary need to be so long and complicated.
  • The section "Examples" should be a sub section of "Pharmacology of blockade" there fore have three equal signs rather than two.
    • If it is not a sub category of Pharmacy of blockade, what are the examples of...
  • In "Examples" there is a list at the start with 10 Uncompetitive channel blockers, perhaps you could elaborate on what all of those are. People who don't know anything about them, arn'et really going to get it.
    • Some what like the "Noncompetitive antagonists" bit, which elaborates on which the are.
  • Try to avoid Red (dead) links.
    • Use bold to identify the name.
  • Your citing is fine.
  • I think you should explain what NMDA stands for, it is used quite frequently in the article, use it at the start of the article then use the initials
    • Example: North American Space Assosiation (NASA)
      • thats not what nasa stands for but
  • In the sentence, "They are used as anesthesia for animals and (less commonly) for humans, and some" use comers rather than brackets.
    • ... for animals and ,less commonly , for humans
  • there are quite short sections, perhaps expand them a little to provide greater detail.

SpecialWindler 09:44, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

After seeing what NMDA actually stands for, you may want to ignore my point about initials, but you still may want to refer to it. SpecialWindler 09:47, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I made a bunch of the changes you asked for here. Thanks for your help! Any further changes I should make? Jolb 16:34, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kuiper belt

edit

old peer review

This article is a bit of a mess; I've done my best to at least get it up to civilised standard, but it will need a major cleanup. Any advice you can offer on how to go about it would be appreciated. Serendipodous 18:11, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Controversy over Harry Potter

edit

This article's been a GA for a while; I was wondering what it would take to get it up to FA. Thanks. Serendipodous 11:57, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • It is looking good. I only have a few nit-picking things. The first image seems a little out of place. It's caption seems over-long and does not relate to anything around it, and also seems a little non-NPOV. The lead could be a little longer. It also ends with the sentence "a number of free speech groups have organised protests against them", which is not expanded upon at all in the article except for the KidSPEAK thing, so either get rid of the sentence or expand more upon it. Finally, you mention once a comparison to LOTR and Cinderella, and I think that might want to be expanded on. Who has said "Well if you ban Harry Potter you might also want to ban ..." It might lengthen the article a little too much, but it seems neccesary to draw comparisons to better illustrate the point. It also puts the controversies in context. Again, I'm just nit-picking, overall a very good article. --kralahome 00:50, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, issues addressed; the only thing I'd disagree with is your comment that the article doesn't say who claimed that the school would have to remove Macbeth and Cinderella; the line is attributed to Education attorney Victoria Sweeny. Any ideas on how I could expand the lead? Serendipodous 08:14, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm sorry about the miscommunication with the removal of other stories line. What I meant to say is that who else has said it. I mean it seems like it would be a widely used-counterargument. Expanding on that could help put the controversies in context. In the lead you have several items in parathenses. If you made those into their own sentences and expanded on them, it would probably make the lead as long as it needed to be. After that I can find nothing else. Good job! Sorry I forgot to sign! kralahome 04:36, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hamilton, Ontario

edit

This article was submitted to a peer review on December 23, 2006. Since then, major improvements have been made to the page by User:Nhl4hamilton and User:Alan.ca (who requested the original review). All of the suggestions made by User:Nichalp during the review were taken into account. Please see a comparison here: diff.

It has already been listed as a Good Article.

I would like to nominate this article for Feature Candidate status, but I want to make sure it's ready. Thanks for all the input you all can provide. ... discospinster talk 14:01, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • If you were to submit it to FAC they would tell you:
    • to remove the external links from the body of the article and place them, either in the "References" section or the "External links" section, (DONE)
    • not allow the text to be squeezed between the two tables in the "Demographics" (DONE)
    • provide a footnote for "has been called one of the most beautiful naturally formed in the world." (DONE)
    • use Wikipedia:Summary style on the "Culture" section with Culture of Hamilton, Ontario (currently the "Culture" section is 4 kilobytes larger than the "Culture" article). (DONE)
  • Other comments to consider:
    • Google Earth can be used under Fair Use?
    • the climate table and sentence look oddly placed. (I considered it and think it should stay where its at for now- DONE)
    • "In 2005, Hamilton has an estimated population of 714,900..." according to who? Stats Can? (DONE)
    • the first two parapraghs of the "Economy" section should be merged and rationalized. Just state it is the "centre" (economic centre? geographic centre?) of the GH and this is what that means... (DONE)
    • "Currently the Airport needs 1,000 hectares of" - 'needs'? I doubt that. 'projects it can use' or 'requests' would be more accurate. (DONE)
    • The "Oh What a Feeling" paragraph of the "Culture" section is stretching to relate it with Hamilton. (DONE)

--maclean 23:57, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Plymouth Colony

edit

This article failed its first FA attempt. Based on comments during that attempt, I have further expanded the article. The original criticisms included:

  • Overreliance on one print source: The article now cites 3 print sources extensively, with additional input from several others. Additionally, some unreliable web sources have been fixed or expunged.
  • Too much history, not enough other information: The article has been expanded with information on government, religion, marriage and family life, education, etc.
  • Copyedit needed by other editors: The article has been through WP:LOCE and has had extensive attention from 2 different copyeditors, as well as minor edits by at least half a dozen other editors.

I feel that this article is now feature ready, but I want a full review here before I take it to WP:FAC. Please make any suggestions of further work this article needs to be featurable. Thanks in advance!--Jayron32|talk|contribs 04:47, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Review by Awadewit

edit

I do want to say that I think that this article is coming along very well and I am impressed by the effort that the editors are putting into it. That said, I do still have some concerns.

  • On the source issue.
  • I still feel that you are relying too exclusively on single sources for this article. I'm not quite sure that you understood what I was driving at last time. Yes, you now use three different sources, but they are for three different sections of the article. So, for example, the history section is still told entirely from Philbrick's point of view and the social life section is told from Demos' point of view. This does not qualify as establishing and presenting a scholarly consensus. What you have done is present two different aspects of the colony from two different sources. You need to present the same aspects, but indicate that you have read multiple sources on each aspect. That is why I said earlier that writing this page would take so long - there is a lot of scholarship on Plymouth and you need to read more of it to make sure that you are not presenting just one scholar's opinion of Plymouth. According to the book review I read of Philbrick's book, he overemphasizes the Native American storyline; you have tried to compensate for this by describing religion in the social life section, but is this the best solution? I'm not sure. The point is to try and find out what elements of the history and the social life most scholars agree on and present those. When I read reviews of Demos' and Deetz's book, it was also clear to me that they practice a very particular sort of history, so their conclusions are going to be different from a historian who is less material and more documentary. This is why you need to have multiple viewpoints.
  • I am not sure what you are driving at here. I can read this two ways:
  • Philbrick's facts and interpretations are unreliable, and need to each be referenced to a second source to establish their reliability (since his book has an extensive bibliography and uses footnotes well, I disagree with that frame of reference).
First of all, no I am not saying that Philbrick is unreliable, but because histories are interpretations of facts, for something like wikipedia, relying on a single interpretation is dangerous. Then the reader is getting just one viewpoint of history. Awadewit Talk 20:29, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Philbrick's book is incomplete, and additional historical facts need to be added from additional sources to better fill out the article. (I can see this as being doable, but the History section is huge as it is. If I add more facts to the article, I will have to fork it to a new article probably. I have no problem doing this, but I want to know if this is what you are going after).
All histories are incomplete. By their very nature they have to be. Authors decide to highlight some ideas and leave out others (they have limited space). Philbrick decided to focus on the Native American story. Other authors will decide to focus on other parts of the history. That is why you need to read several versions of the history and figure out what they all agree on. Awadewit Talk 20:29, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also, I feel that references HAVE been added to sections where appropriate. Look, Philbrick's work, by your own admission, deals extensively with Native American issues; the book is used mostly in the following sections; "First winter", "Early relations with the Native Americans", "Military History". However, NONE of these section exclusively relies on him. Other history sections, such as "Prior exploration and settlements" and "The "First Thanksgiving"" and "Growth of Plymouth" cite him very little or not at all. Again, my question is is Philbrick's work unreliable or merely insufficient. If insufficient, could you point out specific historical facts that are lacking? If unreliable, could you point to places where I would need to double reference a fact? I really want to make this article better, and I am not challenging your judgement, I merely want to know specifically what I am doing wrong here.
Like I keep saying, Philbrick's narrative is one that dominates your story of the "history"; if you were to read five other retellings of Plymouth, you would get five different ideas of why the Pilgrims went there, what the "Miles Standish" raid was about and all of those events. Interpreting history is not easy and historians do not agree on a single storyline. It is your job to try and find out where they do agree; if there is some important disgreement, you should mention that as well. You don't seem to grasp that Philbrick's single book cannot give you a sufficient overview of Plymouth. More importantly, it does not give you an overview of the scholarship and wikipedia is not a place to advertise Philbrick's view, it is a place to present the consensus of scholars. Please let me know if this is any clearer because it is crucial to doing research for historical articles like this. Awadewit Talk 20:29, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You keep assuming that Philbrick's work is the only one I have read, or that I am pushing his view. Neither item is true. I have read several other histories, and found that they largely AGREE with the facts laid out here. I could take every Philbrick reference, add three more references, but that would simply bloat the article with redundant footnotes. Also, I still disagree with your assessment that his work dominates the history section. It is used where it is the authoritative source, and it is NOT used where better sources exist. If you honestly want me to get a dozen more books out of the library and start double and triple referencing every point, I can do that. I find that a pointless activity, and I am not sure that is what you are after, but other than that I am not sure what specific action you want me to take. You keep listing vague fixes the article needs without going into specifics. WHICH references to Philbrick's book are you contesting? Which specific areas provide a non-neutral treatment or a one-sided interpretation. A full historiography and literature review of the entire bank of Plymouth related literature is well out of the scope of this article, and indeed probably any Wikipedia article. I really want to fix this up, but the vagueness of these responses leaves me no where to go.--Jayron32|talk|contribs 05:29, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You are right - I was assuming that you had only read Philbrick, but the reason I was assuming that is because the page looks that way. Other careful readers will assume that, too, because Philbrick (and Demos) are the dominant sources. How is a reader supposed to know that what you have cited from Philbrick agrees with the other histories you have read unless you cite them? I actually think that it is important to cite those other histories to establish that scholarly consensus I was talking about. Triple citing, etc. is far from pointless. Let me give you some examples from the Joseph Priestley page. There are two major biographies of Priestley and two other works that discuss his life in some detail. Those are my major sources. Interestingly, they do not all agree on the facts of Priestley's life or the interpretations of those facts. How should I resolve this situation? I think that the only honest way is to offer citations for what they agree on and mention disputes. For example, there is a dispute over why he moved from Warrington to Leeds. There also seems to be a dispute over whether he invented the eraser (I am still looking into this one). The point is, I want the reader to know on which points all of the sources agree and on which points the sources disagree. I hope, eventually, to have most of the notes (of major events and interpretations) at 3-4 sources. For Priestley, a figure who has not drawn a lot of scholarly attention, this would be good. (By the way, this project of mine is far from completed. I simply offer it as an example of what I am driving at.) Awadewit Talk 06:51, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • With regard to Demos' work, it is the definitive work on social history in Plymouth Colony. There is no earlier work that deals with this issue, and later works covering this material rely HEAVILY on it to the point where they merely paraphrase it. I don't want you to think I didn't try to find additional works; its just that adding references just to say you added them, where they don't substantially add new information to the article, seems disingenuous. In places where Demos's work HAS been added to (for example, by the Deetz book and websites) by later scholarship, I have used it.--Jayron32|[[User
talk:Jayron32|talk]]|contribs 18:51, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I know it is the definitive work but other works would not have been published unles they had something new to say. Also, if they are verifying Demos' work, it is important to note that. If many scholars have endorsed his view and found evidence to support his claims, that should be made clear by using them in the notes, otherwise it looks to the reader like only Demos is advancing this theory. Awadewit Talk 20:29, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Again, I am stuck here. If you have specific examples of works that either refute or add to Demos work, I would LOVE to add them. It seems pointless to triple reference every citation simply to prove that Demos knows what he is talking about. I understand that differing points of view exist on this, that is why SEVERAL other works are cited here to either support or add to Demos. Your review seems to indicate you are largely just "counting" references, and when you see that one author gets over a magic number, you are making the assumption that the article relies to heavily on that reference. Please give me some specific guidance as to WHICH other historians perspectives you would like me to include here. I want to help this article fix these deficiencies.--Jayron32|talk|contribs 05:29, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, no, I am not "just" counting references, as you imply. When I go to a page, I often check to see what kinds of sources it uses. When I see that a page is using just a few sources (in your case, primarily three on a topic on which I know a lot has been written), I become concerned because I feel that view I am going to be given is skewed. If I see the triple references, then I know, ah, the editors have done their research. Sometimes that kind of research isn't possible, but here it is. A large part of this is about appearance - what are close readers going to think when they look at your page? You can't assume they know what research you did. I will try to track down some other books for you; I'll ask around in the history department at my university what the standards are on Plymouth. Awadewit Talk 06:51, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Article structure, layout and prose.
  • The lead is not an adequate summary of the article yet. WP:LEAD says that it should be able to stand on its own and that it should reflect nearly every part of the article.
  • "Prior explorations" section needs to be condensed; it should contain only information relevant to Plymouth Colony.
Will work on this.--Jayron32|talk|contribs 18:51, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree with the editor on the talk page that Squanto should be referred to by his real name. He is not called Squanto on his own wikipedia page and it is demeaning to refer to someone by a name given to them by another group of people if it is possible to refer to them by their own name. This is true of all Native Americans on the page; they should be referred to by their names, if known, rather than the English names given to them.
  • Well, I am torn on this issue. I may agree with you that it leaves me with a bad feeling in using the "White" name for him rather than his Birth name. However, we are faced with maintaining a Neutral Point of View on this issue. WP:NPOV clearly states that articles should maintain the majority viewpoint as represented by mainstream reliable sources, and while giving minority viewpoints their due, they should not be given undue weight. Look, in the dozens of histories on the subject, from those of Bradford in the 16th century, to those written since 2000, they ALL USE THE NAME SQUANTO... Yes, while I may agree with you that this is not his proper name, you and I are not in a position to change it simply because political opinion holds it is the right thing to do. Wikipedia does not follow political correctness, or makes changes to existing scholarship simply because it is "right" to do so. Look, the POV that he should be called Tisquantum may be morally correct, however, that stance does NOT bear out in the majority of reliable publications on the issue, and Wikipedia can only reflect that viewpoint, not create its own. As I stated on the talk page, to note that his correct name is Tisquantum is proper, to imply that Squanto isn't used by reliable historians even to this day is NOT.--Jayron32|talk|contribs 18:51, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What does late twentieth-century scholarship say? That is the proper reference. Of course in the 16th century they are going to refer to him as Squanto - they also referred to blacks by some pretty prejorative terms - does that mean that we use those? No. We follow today's linguistic conventions of respect. Awadewit Talk 20:29, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't want you to think I am poo-pooing this. I can open any one of 30-40 distinct books and websites I have looked at in writing this (not all of them have contributed unique facts to this article, so not all appear in references) and EVERY one, where his name is used throughout the work, uses the name Squanto. They allmost always NOTE that his proper name is Tisquantum, but they ALL, each one, uses Squanto to refer to him. I have print sources here from: 1911, 1970, 2000, 2006, 1997, plus dozens of websites and EVERY one uses Squanto to refer to him. Is it morally correct to do so? That is neither here nor there. We can only recreate scholarly opinion, we cannot enforce our own opinions. Scholarly opinion clearly calls him Squanto. YES, I am certain we can find some paper in some Journal somewhere that rails against this practice, and demands that it stop and that everyone call him Tisquantum. Untill this becomes the majority, mainstream opinion of historians as published in reliable sources, however, such a view should not dominate a wikipedia article. I still agree that people probably should use the name Tisquantum. They don't.--Jayron32|talk|contribs 05:29, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Odd. That's fine with me, then. Awadewit Talk 06:51, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The fourth paragraph of "Social life" is a little jumbled; there are too many ideas. Perhaps some of this could be moved to the "Education" section (which is a little short now)?
  • Can you work the baptism and marriage information into another paragraph more smoothly? It is rather isolated right now.
  • You need to clearly explain what kinds of magic the Pilgrims believed in - it is a little vague right now.
  • Could you move the information about how marriage was a civil and not a religious event to the "marriage" section? It would seem to fit better there.
  • Don't overstate the comparison between women's legal rights in Europe and America. Women's legal rights in Europe are very complicated and greatly influenced by wealth. Rich women, for example, had many more rights than poor women. You might give some concrete examples from your sources here to prove what you are saying.
  • Both Demos and Deetz, the two sources used in writing this section, make this comparison as I have done. If you feel that other historians have reached different conclusions please provide those so that I may provide thier viewpoints as well. Both Demos and Deetz are fairly strong in their assessment of women's rights vis-a-vis Europe vs. Plymouth. I can only report their own interpretations and without references, cannot provide an alternative. Works dealing with Plymouth in this manner do not really critically analyze the status of women in 17th century Europe to the depth that you imply; such an analysis may be outside of the scope of this article anyway. However, if you feel that existing scholarship provides a different interpretation than the one presented by the article, I would be glad to add it if you can point me in the right direction. Also, the section is RIFE with specific examples. Some were moved to footnotes to avoid cluttering up the text. Check there. With regard to women and prenuptual agreements, I cite a specific contract. With regard to women and juries, again I cite a specific court case. If you can see any other claims the article makes that could benefit from specific examples, please let me know and I will add them.--Jayron32|talk|contribs 18:51, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
See Holly Brewer By Birth or Consent. Awadewit Talk 20:29, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The "Marriage and family" section needs to flow a little better; not all of the paragraphs transition into each other.
  • I wonder about trying to summarize more in the "Government and Laws" section; also, would subsections help you figure out what is the most important material? Some of this could probably be cut (this is a long article - some of it needs to go).
  • Will work on this, however if I were to cut anything for the sake of length, I think the history section would be more appropriate. In the interest of balance, I feel that this article has an appropriate length.
I say this only because at FAC some reviewers get picky about the 30-50kb length. Also, you want readers to get to the end! Awadewit Talk 20:29, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The "Boundaries of Plymouth" can probably be summarized more succinctly.
  • Will work on this. It is a bit bloated, isn't it?
  • Do you think the list of counties and towns is necessary? What about a separate page for that with a nice map? Also, I question the source - it is from 1890 - how reliable is the source? Is there a more recent source that you could use?
  • With the exception of 3 additional towns, the list and its facts closely matches one in Deetz and Deetz (2006), see footnote. However, SEVERAL sources besides Deetz refute the three extra towns they include, so I have kept the list as is. Old is not necessarily unreliable, is it? I mean, featured articles here at Wikipedia cite Suetonius for facts on ancient Rome... However, a fork for size purposes may be appropiate. I will consider spliting this to a list article, and shortening and prosifying the section.--Jayron32|talk|contribs 18:51, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Old is not necessarily wrong; it is just that older sources have to be used with extreme caution, that is why I asked. Rome is whole separate issue. Awadewit Talk 20:29, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The "People" section replicates a lot of information from other parts of the article. I would delete a lot of this, move the rest into the history of the colony and "demographics" sections.
  • This is a minor point, but I was wondering if some of the pictures couldn't be made bigger so that they were easier to see.
  • Well, per the relevent MOS guidelines on picture size, I have left them as the default thumbnail size, which is setable in an individual users preference, rather than forcing a certain pixel size, which is actually deprecated. They look fine on my monitor (1024x768) though they will probably look smaller on monitors with higher resolutions and conversely they will look larger (and thus better) on monitors with lower resolutions. Forcing one picture size would make the article substandard in other resolutions, and thus the size should be left as "thumb"--Jayron32|talk|contribs 18:51, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Most of the other FAs I have seen have picture sizes delineated. Just a suggestion. Awadewit Talk 20:29, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I will play around with it then. As I said, on the resolution of MY monitor, however, the pictures look fine. If I forced them to be bigger, they wouldn't leave enough room for readable text.
  • Even though I copyedited this article myself, I would suggest that someone else do so as well. It is hard to catch everything in so large an article. I specifically spent several days working on it, but I did not have time to go over it repeatedly, which is really what a copyeditor should do. I will see if I can find someone. Awadewit Talk 18:06, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you SO MUCH for all of the work you have done. I am MUCH indebted to you for your work, and cannot express how much help you have been. Please don't take my lengthy responses to some of your points above as being in any way animositous towards you. While I may disagree with your assessement on some of my sources, I am will to be convinced otherwise, and look to improve this article even further as needed.--Jayron32|talk|contribs 18:51, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am not trying to be difficult - I do honestly want this to be a good article and I am convinced that the foundation of a good article is comprehensive research. Awadewit Talk 20:29, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am not trying to be difficult either. I honestly need help with this. I am doing the best I can with the local public library system, and with the internet, in finding as much reliable sources as I can. I just want to be clear that I have read more and researched more sources than are used here. However, where such sources are redundant, I have avoided referencing them specifically since it seemed pointless. Again, full historiography is well out of the scope of an encyclopedia article like this. What I have tried to do is use sources that are definative in their own scope, note places where other definative sources disagree, and avoid filling the article with every nuanced difference between each and every historians own interpretation of the events. You complain in several places that the article is too long; adding every historians own unique view will only make it even longer. Again, all I seek is specific examples of where this article needs neutralization.
What do you think about adding a "References" section? You could list all of the books you used and it would also offer research assistance to others on the topic. I often find the most helpful sections of wikipedia articles the bibliographies. Maybe we could come to some sort of compromise that way? Instead of adding all of the additional notes that I would prefer (but that I gather you feel are useless), you could add a list of relevant research materials and add a note "consulted in the writing of this page" or something? Awadewit Talk 06:51, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(undent for new thread) OK. I understand and accept your basic premise here. A wider range of sources is needed. One thing I am starting to do is to work some additional perspectives in from the Plymouth Colony Archive Project, a HUGE repository of scholarly works on Plymouth. There are literally HUNDREDS of distinct works here, so it should give me a good start on adding additional perspectives on this article. Could you please check out these recent additions and comment to see if THAT is what you are looking for. Also, you repeatedly state that the "appearence" is one of overreliance on a few sources; part of that might be in the different way that websites and text sources are referenced. For comprehensiveness, each time I cite a book, I have been citing page numbers, meaning that, say, 10 references from a single book will generate 10 distinct footnotes. When I cite a webpage, which can often be a LONG bit of text without any page numbers, I can multi-referene the webpage, meaning that 10 refereneces from the same webpage will result in only 1 footnote. Thus, the footnotes give the illusion that certain texts are being used more than others, even when they aren't. Please look at my references more carefully. I am trying to see that eventually EVERY paragraph will contain perspectives from multiple sources. I am not there yet, but my recent additions today are an attempt to start on this. How does it look? Am I on the right track? --Jayron32|talk|contribs 07:13, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I do understand the bit about how books appear more often the websites - I have taken that into account. I am analyzing your references quite carefully, actually. It will take me some time to go through the whole article again properly. I did notice that footnote 86 references an MA thesis. It is not a good idea to reference an MA thesis unless there is no other research on the topic; in this case, there is - Brewer's book By Birth or Consent has a lot of information on just that topic. Masters' thesis are not as reliable as books published by established scholars because they are written by students. Awadewit Talk 20:15, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I looked back over the references. It still looks like certain books dominate certain sections of the article. So, for example, King Philip's War has only two sources (which I find a small number for Plymouth - I just reviewed Amenhotep I and it used more sources for that nearly unheard of figure than you are using here). But what is more important is that the major claims still only have one citation. I would suggest a citation style such as this (Smith 89; Johnson 60-79; Black 45-65) to suggest a scholarly consensus. It's a way to keep the number of notes down, as well; I have been trying it out myself. I'm sure the article would pass FA at this point, though. Very few reviewers look as closely as I do at sources, sad to say. The article's biggest issue will probably be length, although sometimes that requirement is waived. Awadewit Talk 12:21, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate the academic rigor you have given this article. Thank you for your frank review. I may soon renominate this at FAC to give it a second go. I hate to sound like a shithead when I say this, because of course each point you make is correct, but I am simply spent working on this article. I personally think that this article meets the standards as set out in WP:WIAFA and stands up against most precedent established for Featured Articles of this type. To be fair, it wouldn't pass muster in a scholarly journal, or as a thesis paper, or as a graduate dissertation; however, it is none of those things. It is a Wikipedia Article, and again, while I appreciate the academic rigor you have put it through, I am not sure such rigor is necessary here. I know it sounds like I am settling for a substandard article, and there is no way for me to say this without sounding like a shithead, but there it is. I still appreciate all you have done, but I may renominate at FAC simply to get more eyes on this. Your opinions are valued, but perhaps this article needs more opinions.--Jayron32|talk|contribs 04:50, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I was not testing it against any of those other criteria, by the way. I just happen to think that wikipedia's FAs should be as rigorous in their research as they are in their other criteria. If we want wikipedia to eventually be recognized and accepted as a reliable source, our articles have to be better than printed sources, simply because they are anonymous. They have to prove their merit ten times over because they don't have "Professor" or "Harvard" attached to them. Thus, while other reviewers may see 100 footnotes and go "wow," I and a few others tend to scrutinize more closely. We, unfortunately, don't have time to scrutinize all of the articles. I want wikipedia to succeed but it will only succeed if it can gain credibility. Its FAs, therefore, need to be of the highest quality. I would ask that you demand this of yourself when writing for the sake of the project if nothing else. I subscribe to a listserv of academics; one proposed a panel at a conference on wikipedia. Another responded by saying that he had checked out the Samuel Johnson page but it was so riddled with errors that he was disgusted (too bad he didn't fix them!). In the humanities in particular, there is large resistance among academics to using, participating in or endorsing wikipedia. One way for this to change, in my opinion, is for them to see truly excellent work in their field appear. If you don't like that reason (improving wikipedia's credibility), think about embracing this kind of rigor simply because it is good for the mind - it is a challenge and it produces better articles. Awadewit Talk 05:07, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, again I largely agree with you on every point that you make. I guess, with some further introspection, is that I am mainly suffering from psychic fatigue over this article. I have literally run out of energy in dealing with it. Let's look at this from your perspective. This peer review right now is suffering from a paltry shortage of viewpoints: namely mine and yours. Unfortunately, Peer Review isn't something that gets as much traffic as other means of review, such as FAC. So I am faced with a Hellerian Catch-22: The article may not be FA-ready, especially by your standards; however to seek more opinions than yours I must nominate it for FA, which then risks it getting passed, which I would ultimately disagree with, since you have valid reasons to object to its passing FA. See? How do I get more eyes on this article, without nominating for FA? Likewise, I make no pretenses about being ANY sort of historian. I am a decent researcher; I can read books like anyone else and make decent prose out of summarizing said books. I can synthesize said information from several sources, but really I am just a guy with a library card and internet access. Again, what this article needs more than more sources than Philbrick and Demos and Deetz is more editors than Jayron32 and Awadewit. Does that make any sense? --Jayron32|talk|contribs 05:23, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It does. Unfortunately, very few people seem to take the time to carefully peer review articles. I'll see if I can find some reviewers. Awadewit Talk 05:38, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Willow's review

edit

Hi Jayron32,

Awadewit asked me to review the article, which I'll be happy to do; can you be patient with me, though? At first glance, it seems great, but I'd like to take a few days to study it and brood over it. Here are just a few initial ideas:

  • As I read the article, I found myself wanting to know more about the Native Americans, the context into which the European settlers plopped themselves and the consequences for the various tribes. You already have some of that there, but it might benefit from being grouped together and discussed in a focused way.
    • Actually, lots of stuff on the Native Americans was removed. Rjensen, while copyediting and reviewing the article, removed a bunch of it saying that it didn't really belong since the article wandered around too much as it was and needed to remain focused on the colony itself, which being an English colonial venture, should focus mostly on the settlers. Also, Awadewit notes above, and in prior reviews, that one of my main sources, the Philbrick book, gives undue emphasis on Native American issues, and that this article suffers from same. Take that as you will.--Jayron32|talk|contribs 03:19, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • You might want to move the "Prior exploration and settlements" section to the beginning, and perhaps generalize it to "Historical context", to place the settlers in the context of preceding and subsequent drives to settle North America. Speaking for myself, I'm curious about the historical tides at work. Were there many such religious groups looking for a haven to set up an isolated community? How did the Pilgrims differ in motivation from other settlement drives? Were there non-religious (e.g., commercial or military) motivations for the Pilgrims?
    • I wasn't sure where to put this section. I added it to provide context, the problem is with narrative flow. I thought the information was relevent for context; however you don't want it FIRST since you want to start the Narrative in Scrooby. Scrooby leads to Leiden which leads to Mayflower, and putting it between any of those sections would break it up. By putting it where I did (after landing but before settlement) I did my best to find a natural break in the narrative to include this info. If you have a specific place that might work better, I invite any changes you could suggest.--Jayron32|talk|contribs 03:19, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • It also might be good to have more on the legacy section. Where are the descendants of the Native Americans and the European settlers today? I see that the Wampanoag tribe still exists, and there's The Mayflower Society for descendants of the original passengers. When the quadricentential of the Plymouth Colony happens, what will people mention as the lasting consequences of their settlement?

I hope this keeps you occupied until I write again. It's great that you're eager to bring this to FAC, but everything matures at its own pace, and you can be justly proud of this article, regardless of when it becomes an Featured Article. Meanwhile, we'll keep trying to recruit more reviewers.

Affectionate wishes and thanks for all your work in making this a fine article, Willow 10:24, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • Muchas Gracias and Danke Schoen and Merci Beaucoup. Your suggestions are very welcome, and I intend to act on them soon (I have 2 other articles I am working on this minute, but when those are done I will be back to this one to make your suggested changes). Thanks again!--Jayron32|talk|contribs 03:19, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

qp10qp

edit

I've just read the article, and it's taken me all evening. In places it was interesting, but, really, it became a slog, and I think the main editor should seriously address whether an article of over 95kb is appropriate for a Wikipedia encyclopedia page. I suggest the article be reduced to something over half the size. However, most of the material need not be wasted: I'd suggest a separate article on the government and law of the Plymouth Colony and one on social and religious life in the Plymouth Colony, the latter to include the education section. Material on Thanksgiving and Plymouth Rock could largely be shifted to the existing articles, I believe.

You may disagree with this suggestion, in which case, what follows is rather beside the point. But if you agree, the present article should retain summarized versions of the two new articles with a summary-style link to them. Other specific material could then be cut for real, for example most of the Pequot war section, which isn't about Plymouth (and there's an article on it anyway), chunks of boundary stuff and some of that repetitious stuff about one boat after another visiting. In the history section, some of the preambulatory material might be cut, particularly whether the ships were at Southampton, Dartmouth, or Plymouth needs briefer treatment, and the preliminary landing before reaching the site of settlement could also be reduced. Some of the art, literature and film stuff seems superfluous too.

If all the above were to be carried out, the article would probably emerge at a fighting weight of about 60kb and less unwieldy to edit as well as read: research could then concentrate on referencing the core rigorously. An alternative suggestion for managability might be to make an article called "Founding of the Plymouth Colony", for which there is already a good basis here, and concentrate on bringing that to FA first. People are genuinely interested in all the ins and outs of what went on during the first year of settling, and so it would be a popular article; but here the minute mapping of that mixes oddly, in my opinion, with the more generalised sections later on in the present article. For example, the fact that a boy was captured or a store of corn stolen is certainly important for the founding story, but it seems very particular set against the whole history of the colony, during which other boys were no doubt captured, other stores of corn stolen. As it is, the article veers widely in focus.

If you agree with my suggestions, I can help with the process. If not, I fear I would find it unrewarding to copy-edit and help reference the article as it stands, though I have made many notes.

If all the above seems to be a criticism, may I say that I am thinking in terms of FA standards for a core article here, and so one needs to be a little direct. I do admire the amount of work and detail that has been invested: whatever happens, the editors have provided Wikipedia with much valuable extra information, and that's the bottom line. It's appreciated; and I've just learned a lot. qp10qp 22:28, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comments. I have struggled with the length of this article as well. I believe at one point it was OVER 100 K. If I were going to fork a section, however, it would be the history section, and probably not one of the other sections. My idea was to start with one article, then fork it to smaller ones once it was largely complete. It might be ready for that by now. How does this sound as a possible solution to the size problem:
  1. Plymouth Colony which focuses on the government, geography, and demographics of the colony (much like any other article on any other political entity would), with a summary treatment of the other sections.
  2. History of Plymouth Colony where I will move most of the History and Social Life sections, perhaps in three sections: Political History, Military History, and Social History.
Thoughts? Suggestions?--Jayron32|talk|contribs 03:26, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You could do it that way. First of all it's probably best to consider which article you would wish to bring to FA and shear it of other elements, which could wait for the time being in other articles. The reason I suggested Founding of the Plymouth Colony was that it seems a discrete piece of history, whereas the rest of the colony's history comes over as diffuse in comparison: I'm not sure therefore whether History of the Plymouth Colony, though it is certainly a worthwhile article to make in summary style, could ever be a satisfying read in itself. In addition, King Philip's War stands well enough already as an article in its own right and doesn't really need rehashing in such a history article: even more than the founding section, that story naturally forms a discrete block within a general article. For the history article, I'm not entirely in favour of a history which starts as narrative and then disperses into general sections; I prefer to see the general elements addressed as they come up in the narrative, perhaps in small subsections, before the narrative resumes. In the general article, however, that need not apply: the history section could be short, no bigger than that for geography, religion, or whatever. The readers would quickly sense the kind of article they were reading, rather than reading a long history narrative followed by what feel like individual mini-articles in a different style. qp10qp 13:04, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That's a good point. Still, my intent is to bring the main Plymouth Colony article to FA for promotion. I would agree that cutting the other sections down and forking them as appropriate would be a good idea. I disagree that "Founding of Plymouth Colony" should be a distinct article yet. The first step, in my opinion, is to make 2 articles: The main one and the history one. After that is done, the history article can be expanded as needed; if it appears that THEN the founding events are dominating THAT article, a further fork may be necessary. I have a few other things on my plate right now. Let me get those cleaned up, and within a few days I will work on forking the article into smaller articles, then come back and see if that is what you were after.--Jayron32|talk|contribs 17:03, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The most important thing, I think, is that you give yourself a much shorter article to prepare for FA. You will then find yourself making quick progress.

On a different note, the article takes for granted that the pilgrims were fleeing from persecution. The article, it seems to me, conflates two events rather too neatly. "During the Hampton Court Conference, King James I had declared the Puritans and Protestant Separatists to be undesirable and in 1607 the Bishop of York raided the homes of and imprisoned several members of the congregation." But the Hampton Court Conference took place in 1604, and so there was a gap between the two. There's plenty of evidence that James was not a persecutor of moderate Puritans; but the government came down heavily on radicals who challenged the authorities. From that point of view, the Scrooby clergy can be seen as troublemakers. In the words of historian Pauline Croft, "It gradually became clear after Hampton Court that what the king required was not full ceremonial conformity but loyalty, obedience and goodwill. Only those clergy who openly defied royal or episcopal authority would incur penalties. Under this benign regime...only two obdurate ministers were deprived for nonconformity between 1610 and 1625." qp10qp 21:53, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I will take those suggestions into consideration as well in cleaning this up. Thanks again.--Jayron32|talk|contribs 01:27, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Quick comment

edit

I don't have time for a full review but the one quick suggestion I'd make is on the length. My personal opinion is, if you're interested in splitting, the easiest and most appropriate would be a separate article on the First Thanksgiving. It wouldn't kill too much of the length, but I'm sure that article would be expanded upon. Maybe. :) Good luck in bringing this to FA status. -Midnightdreary 19:23, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

SHPS

edit

I would like t o get this article to good article or status and I am sort of stuck. Any input would be greatly sppreciated. M-BMor 03:18, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like it needs inline citations. ShadowHalo 20:23, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Added intext ref. Thanks for the feedback M-BMor 21:11, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Some suggestions:

  • The article reads like it was written by a publicity firm. Isn't there any criticism or impartial coverage of this firm?
  • There seem to be a lot of inappropriate capitalizations of words. E.g. "...including Large market...", "...include Health plans...", "...Though Based in...", &c.
  • More wikilinks are needed.
  • It's Colmes, not Combs.
  • The inline citations should use proper cite templates and be placed following punctuation marks.

Thank you.— RJH (talk) 16:38, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oort cloud

edit

In order to get a number of articles added to the Solar System series, I have to get this article up to GA status fast. It's pretty flaccid as is so any ideas would be welcome. Serendipodous 12:15, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Review by Spawn Man - First off, it's pretty cncerning that the opening is nearly as big as the rest of the text in the article - expansion of the article is needed, as at its current length, it will never make GA easily. The image captions seem a bit weird also, with both of them starting with "This image..." etc. Cut off that front bit & just have "The oort cloud..." etc. The end bit of the article is too overpowered by the large table - sufficiant text additions should solve that problem. Other than that, I don't have enough knowledge in the subject to make suggestions on factuality etc, so I'm sorry I couldn't be much more help. Cheers, Spawn Man 01:15, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I want to make several observations. First, the range 50000-100000 AU is not right in light of the current understanding of the Oort cloud formation. The author contadicts himself when he states above range while calling Sedna an Oort cloud object (a~500 AU). The correct range is 50-50000 AU, which in turn can be subdivided into inner Oort cloud with 50-20000 AU (it is mentioned in the Structute section as Hill cloud and in the last section as inner Oort cloud) and outer one with 20000-50000 AU. Second, the outer cloud is the source of isotropic (long period >200 years) comets and probably also Halley type comets (see [arXiv.org/astro-ph/0512256], this paper provides a very good overview of the current knowlege about outer Solar System populations and should be read). However Oort cloud is definitely not a source of the short period comet population, because their Tisserand parameter and angular distribution are very different (see the link above). Third, the upper bound for the Ooort cloud mass is overestimated. The mass of all solids in the jovian region of Solar System is estimated to be lower then about 100 Earth masses, so current mass of the cloud is unlikely to exceed 3 Earth masses. Fourth, the phrase "however, as a mass greater than the combined masses of Uranus and Neptune (about 31 Earth masses) is inconsistent with those planets having scattered the comets to the Oort cloud in the first place" is strange, because Uranus and Neptun were incapable of such a scattering regardless of the cloud's mass as Origin section correctly states. So, I think, it's necessary at least to remove the internal contradictions, which I mentioned above, before this article can be promoted to GA status.Ruslik 08:45, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well since you obviously know more about this topic than I do, why don't you have a go? It shouldn't take more than 20 minutes. Serendipodous 08:56, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Large Group Awareness Training

edit
Peer Review Request by Smee (talk · contribs)
Comments by jossi (talk · contribs)
There are substantial problems with this article. It reads very much like a advocacy piece, for example (my highlights): .
  • These techniques are applied during long sessions, sometimes called a marathon session when lasting for eight hours or more. Compare with regular psychiatric outpatient care, where sessions last thirty to sixty minutes.; and
  • The trainings are usually run by non-psychologists and often involve more than two hundred people at a time. ; and
  • Large Group Awareness Trainings often take place in relatively closed confines.
  • The comparison with "cults" is based on anti-cult sources, some of which have been discredited;
  • The lead could be tightened to remove duplicated material such as the emphasis on the "white collar cults" opinion.
  • Basically the article reads as not neutral, and seems written from an antagonistic viewpoint.
  • Another concern is the selective use of sources in the lead. For example, one source describes this as "Large-group awareness training refers to programs that claim to increase self-awareness and facilitate constructive personal change." But there is no mention of this in the lead. Lead needs to explain the subject, not to frame a dispute.
The article will benefit from an expansion on the content of the only peer reviewed article provided as a source (1982 peer-reviewed article) ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:53, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comments by Lsi john (talk · contribs)
  • There are a number of problems with this article. The biggest problem is the mixing of the usage of LGAT. The article alternates between using LGAT as a methodology for training, and as a label for companies. The article should have one focus or make a clear distinction between the usages.
Large Group Awareness Training (LGAT) = a training methodology.
Large Group Awareness Training Organizations (LGATs) = companies.
This article appears to slur the two together and implies that cult-claims made about specific companies somehow ties back to the methodology. I believe this is inaccurate and very misleading.
I think the article is supposed to be about the methodology. And, in this case, claims about companies being cults, unless somehow tied directly to the methodology, either should not be included in this article, or should be included in a separate section on 'Companies who use LGAT' .. and 'Criticism of companies who use LGAT'.
Note: In the same way that a hammer cannot build a building or make claims about building things, a methodology cannot be a cult or make claims of success. LGAT is a tool that is used by companies which make the claims.
I am also concerned that this article, by incorrectly bringing 'cult' into the definition of LGAT, is being used to slur cult references into other articles about companies that have not been referred to as, or called cults.
Lsi john 23:54, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Automated peer-review

edit

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

You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, Morphh (talk) 23:09, 28 May 2007 (UTC) 23:09, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Stereolab

edit

Recently rewrote this article about the alternative music band Stereolab. I've scoured other modern music FA's like The Smashing Pumpkins and Kate Bush to determine what's expected here, and tried to follow their style. I think it's FA quality now. - Merzbow 08:27, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good so far. Most of my comments are minor. There are some prose issue, but I can deal with them myself. Here's the things for you to address; feel free to strike them out when you take care of them:
  • Rearrange the lead section. Basic information first; mention the band's main genre (rock, alternative rock, or indie rock, depending on how specific you want to get) in the first sentence, and the formation date and who's in the band (or in this case, who formed the band or who's been in it longest) pretty quickly thereafter. Follow that with the overview of their sound, then move the sentences about their influences and the coining of the post-rock term below that.
Reorganized the lead per these suggestions - Merzbow 04:20, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • You don't need to list the member's birthdates in the band article.
  • Why are their record labels in quotes?
  • Retitle some of the subsections in the History section to be more netural. Titles like "Evolution" aren't subjective enough.
Decided just to use the bare years like in Kate Bush. - Merzbow 00:12, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Make sure citations come after punctucation marks.
  • Maybe it's just me, but "The Groop Play Chord X" seems to be one of their better-known (or at least most frequently mentioned) songs, so it might be worth uploading a sample of that. Totally up to you, though.
Explained below. - Merzbow 23:47, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Make sure the dating in the article itself follows the conventions of whatever type of English you're using for the article (which should probably be British English, since this is a UK-based band the members of which are predominantly British). Date formatting like "2002-12-09" is for footnotes; for the prose, write "December 9, 2002" (American English) or "9 December 2002" (British English).
  • You don't need to link items repeatedly (ie. Mary Hansen), just the first time they appear in the article, or if the article is rather sizable, if the item is mentioned in two separate sections that are very far apart (There was a little debate about this on The Smashing Pumpkins once when someone kept wikilinking The Cure in the "Musical style and influences" section, even though it had already been linked in the band history section.)
  • You probably don't need the subheadings in the "Impact" section.
True. I also merged some of the sub-sections under "Musical style". - Merzbow 00:15, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • If you are clinking to a previously published source that has been reprinted on the web by a site that does not hold a copyright, reference the original article and remove the link, because the link is technically a copyright violation. For example, the link in "Eliscu, Jenny. "Warner to Ax Eighty Artists", Rolling Stone, Rolling Stone, 2004-06-03" is fine because the link is provided by rollingstone.com. On the other hand, a citation like "Gilbey, Ryan. "Pop: Live - Too hip for berks", The Independent, The Independent, 1997-10-10." should have the link removed, because it is not linking to the Independent's website.
Explained below. - Merzbow 23:47, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Overall a very solid article. Like I said, there's some minor prose issue, but I'll comb through the article at a later date to correct those. Keep up the good work. WesleyDodds 08:54, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks—good suggestions, I'll get to them today. For "The Groop Played Chord X" the issue is its only 2 minutes in length, so I could only have a sample of about 10 seconds; not enough to properly convey the feel of this slow-moving song properly IMHO. I also have a question about your last comment regarding linking. Findarticles.com, highbeam.com, and rocksbackpages.com have almost certainly licensed the content of the articles they provide; I had to pay the latter two for access, and the first appears to be a major corporation. If you still think I should err on the side of caution, I can remove the links, but is there a specific policy/guideline regarding this where I can read more? - Merzbow 17:30, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If they're licensed, it's fine. It's just sometimes people link to articles reproduced without authorization on fansites for bands, which they really shouldn't. WesleyDodds 22:03, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think I've addressed all the comments above. I also made another copyedit pass; let me know if you still see prose issues. - Merzbow 01:55, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The only thing that I have left to mention is that while copyediting I came across some redundancy. Sadier's and Hansen's vocal interplay is mentioned about four times. There was another redundancy, but it escapes me at the moment. Also, while Stereolab has hardly sold many records, you might want to include some indicator of their sales, like relevant chart positions. For example, Dots and Loops was their first album to chart on the Billboard charts, which is a notable achievement. WesleyDodds 22:34, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Good point, I've added US and UK charting mentions. I also mitigated the Hansen/Sadier redundancy, and fixed another as well (Elektra/Warner). - Merzbow 03:56, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This image which is used in the article needs a source, and also a fair use rationale. LuciferMorgan 20:33, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wow... when I added that image less than a week ago it was listed as being in the public domain. The original uploader was apparently clueless about copyright. Thanks for catching this, I'll have to find a replacement. - Merzbow 20:56, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think you need the image all that much. If you can't source it properly you can just remove it. WesleyDodds 02:11, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I replaced it with a picture of a Moog synthesizer, which is probably even a better choice. - Merzbow 03:30, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the copyedit. After a final once-over, I intend to nominate the article for FA tonight. - Merzbow 16:59, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Two minor suggestions: I think you should remove the phrase "Stereolab have been classified as post-rock, alternative pop, and indie electronic" and replace it with something that explains the groups importance to the post-rock genre (and also replace "post-rock" in the first sentence with the more general alternative rock or rock); and it should be made clear that Sadier was in McCarthy too, since the prose doesn't mention that. WesleyDodds 09:53, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Done. She wasn't technically a member of McCarthy as far as I can tell, but contributed vocals to their final album, which I noted. - Merzbow 05:30, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"With their 1994 full-length Mars Audiac Quintet, Stereolab took their sound in a lusher, more pop direction, with horns and a marimba giving the record a lounge-pop vibe." - This is an opinion that a critic offers, which the article needs to attribute. At the moment this sentence acts as though it's factual, when actually it's an opinion. LuciferMorgan 01:41, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Done, with some rewording. - Merzbow 05:30, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Drexel University College of Law

edit

I would like to upgrade the quality of this article. evrik (talk) 17:55, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • So I'll ask some naive questions in the hope they may spark some ideas: What was the motivation in adding this structure? Did any individuals provide the driving force for this addition? (Such as a wealthy patron or one of the members of the Universify faculty. I'm guessing the later since the building doesn't appear to be named after anybody.) Who was the contractor that build the building? The architect? Is there anything architecturally unique or interesting about this building? Are there, as it appears, four floors? Was parking added? Is the structure in any sense designed to be eco-friendly? What is the size of the library collection? How many classrooms does the building provide? How does it compare to other University Colleges of Law? Thank you. — RJH (talk) 18:39, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Edward Scissorhands

edit

I have done a lot of work on this article, cleaned it up and added extensive information - it's a big improvement from what it previously looked like. I'd like some comments and suggestions on how to upgrade this article to a GA/FA status. Cheers, James Morton (User) 09:57, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This citation "Roger Ebert of The Chicago Sun Times was one of the few to give it a dismissive review, feeling it may be too dark for children and lacked character building, and concluded that the end was so lame that it was disheartening to the viewer.[20]" doesn't exist - can you please fix that? Also, the prose rambles in places, especially the plot. -Malkinann 00:01, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The sourcing information for the screenshots are lacking in detail, and, vitally, fair use rationales. Suggest looking at existing FAs, e.g. Jaws (film) to see what is required. A section about the music would be good too. Suggest using cite web etc templates for consistency and encourage all relevant information. The JPStalk to me 19:24, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Saudi Arabia

edit

Archived reviews: Wikipedia:Peer review/Saudi Arabia/archive 1

Huo Long Jing

edit

This article describes one of the most important books of medieval literature from China. Compiled and edited by Jiao Yu and Liu Ji in the 14th century (with Jiao's preface added in a publication of 1412 AD), this military treatise outlines, describes, and illustrates in many different drawings the various 'fire-weapons' employing gunpowder in their time. This includes 'fire arrows', flamethrower/firearm 'fire lances', early guns, bombards, cannons, exploding cannonballs, land mines, naval mines, rocket launchers, two stage rockets, winged rockets, and more. Although the article is mostly sufficient and meets criteria for at least B-class status (in my opinion), it could be improved in many places, such as in organization, clarity, etc. I am aiming for Good Article status, although the eventual Featured Article is always a possibility. Since I created the article (and Jiao Yu's), I would be grateful of anyone's suggestions and additions to it. Thank you.--PericlesofAthens 18:50, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good article. I enjoyed reading it.
I would suggest that the article title be moved to "Huolongjing" per pinyin grammar rules on word formation - i.e. that multi-syllabic words expressing one concept should be written as one word. Ditto "Tian Gong Kai Wu" and "Wu jing zong yao" (also note inconsistent capitalisation in those two examples).
It could just be me but I don't like insertions of Chinese text in an English article without some indication as to it being Chinese text or its meaning. I would suggest that "元大德二年 (1298 AD)" be re-formatted as "2nd year of the Dade era, Yuan Dynasty (1298 AD)", since the Chinese text by itself is likely to be meaningless and perhaps confusing for a non-Sinophone reader.
The lengthy quote under "Land mines and naval mines" could benefite from the Template:cquote template.
The vast majority of information seems to be sourced from Needham, Volume 5, Part 7. Perhaps a greater variety of sources would improve the article further.
Thanks, Sumple (Talk) 01:06, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply First off, thank you for contributing to the peer review, great suggestions!
First point - I realize my mistake now, and I will go through the long and dreadful process of changing that to one long word in this wiki article and dozens of others. Ouch. Lol.
Second point - I'll fix that in a moment.
Third point - Actually, the Template:cquote page says cquote is only appropriate for short quotes given at the beginning or very end of a section to provide context for the rest of the text material. For large quotes (like that one) it says simply to use the blockquote method.
Fourth point - a good point! Lol. But I don't have any books (besides Needham's) lying around my house that are focused solely on the history of gunpowder. There's only so much web material I could muster and find out there on the internet. Google scholar is of little help (only sporadic content in a sparse amount of books here and there will provide anything good on the history of gunpowder in China...I was lucky even to find Partington's book...what little I was allowed to see of his book). My school's library has the Needham collection of volumes, but when it comes to gunpowder history, they are sorely lacking, I was lucky to find Khan's book to be honest. I do have an online library of information thanks to the university I am attending, but they have a limited amount of books to choose from. If anyone could help contribute to this article with further book sources at hand, I would be very grateful. Peace. --PericlesofAthens 16:09, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sunderland

edit

Needs seriously pumping up in a few ways for the CD version of wikipedia, I need major help on this, and I can't have this peer review ignored. Alphablast 17:12, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination came from now blocked sockpuppet of User:Molag Bal. Martinp23 19:39, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Some points to consider:
  • Typically the history section comes first, followed by the geography section.
  • This has a large table of contents.
  • Add footnotes to sources for "On average, it is around 80 metres above sea level." and "The University of Sunderland...currently has over 16,000 students."
  • I would merge the "Civic history" sub-section into the "History" section.
  • Remove external links from the body of the article, like "See the full list of victims", just use footnotes.
  • A map of those wards in the "Demographics" section would make it a lot easier to understand.
  • Add information on what services the local government provides, (ie. drinking water, sewage, hospital, police, etc?)
  • The area that could use the most improvement is getting rid of one-sentence paragraphs, there are currently two of these in the lead section, and several throughout the article. --maclean 19:48, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Terry Wogan

edit

This article has gone from unrated to GA status in about a week, and I feel it has the potential to advance further. So I am requesting Peer Review to help point out how the article can be improved, ultimately to Featured Article status. I am aware that facts are missing with regards to his parents names, and I'm taking steps to track that information down. But I'm not sure what needs doing with the rest of the article. Any comments are welcome --Fritzpoll 15:43, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Many more sources needed-the article is a bit big and there's only 15! Dalejenkins 15:48, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Automated review

edit

Slp1

edit
  • Ah yes, Terry! I remember him well. I enjoyed reading this article and learning more. Thanks very much for all your work on this article. I see that you have been getting suggestions from other sources in other places, but here's mine. I have made a few changes directly into the article itself: I hope you don't mind!

The Lead: to go further than Good Article this needs to be longer and summarize all the main ideas in the article. If I was you, I would say "But it does already!" and you are right, but I think you will find that you can expand it and give a little potted summary of his whole life so that if that is all people read they would get good overview.

  • Early Career-Is it relevant who followed him on the breakfast show?
  • Return to Radio- I don't know anything about Katie Melua and her lies so this needs some more explanation.
  • A general comment is that you have a number of subjective comments in your article: e.g. "seemed to appeal to have become popular" "is particularly noted for his sardonic commentaries" "Many British viewers consider his comments to be amusing, but his comments are far from being universally liked?" It will be important to find sources for all of these kinds of statements.
  • You have chosen to organize sections by medium (radio/TV etc). My preference would be to do it more chronologically as I find these things easier to follow. Something to think about perhaps?
  • In general, and I think you know this already, the article needs lots more sourcing and citations. But it is a very good and interesting start and it is definitely worth the hunt for some biographies etc to nail things down with appropriate sourcing. Good luck --Slp1 00:19, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yannismarou

edit
  • I agree that the lead should be rewritten, and a bit expanded per WP:LEAD.
  • "and is often referred to as a "national treasure"". What does this mean exactly? And why was he called like that? You should expand on that in the main article.
  • "He participated in amateur dramatics[clarify]" "In 1981, he had a chance to host a one-off[clarify]"You should fix these tagged by other users phrases.
  • "Personal life" is a mixture of early life, personal life, and quotes. Maybe you should reconsider both the prose and the structure.
  • Try to have at least one citation in each paragraph.
  • Do not wikilink month-year or year alone; only day-month-year (per WP:MoS).
  • "Many British viewers consider his comments to be amusing, but his comments are far from being universally liked." Assertions like this one need citing.
  • "He claims that the BBC also wanted his scheduling slot for the ill-fated soap Eldorado." "He claims that presenting the programme is a light relief after so many years on radio. Wogan also designed the set for his new show, allowing him to get a better feel for it. He even claims that the seat he uses is designed to support the lower back since he suffers from back complaints."Again: your source?
  • Format your online sources using, Template:cite web and Template:cite news.--Yannismarou 14:47, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Chocolate

edit

The article is currently rated as a GA, and I would like to know anything I can do to bring it up to FA status. Cool Bluetalk to me 23:47, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I just have a little thing to point out, but it may be something wrong with my knowledge rather than something that is missing from the article. I remember hearing that the finished chocolate is much more valuable than cocoa itself, however the African countries cannot produce their own chocolate for export because of high tarrifs placed on them by the developed world - ie forcing them to export the low cost raw produce (cocoa) rather than exporting the finished product (chocolate) at higher prices. Not sure how accurate this is, but if true perhaps it deserves mention here or at least the history sub-article? (Of course my memory is hazy and I could be wrong). I do not have the time today, but I will try to come back for a fuller review later.--Konstable 08:18, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A few things that have been brought up at the Good Article Review for this article - the lead doesn't meet WP:LEAD, you could add more wikilinks to relevant topics, every {{fact}} tag needs to be taken care of with a reference to a reliable source, and your citations aren't full enough (per WP:CITE#Full citations) and are inconsistently formatted. -Malkinann 21:37, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think it might be useful to note here that the article really needs a section which expands on the last paragraph of the lead, discussing chocolate in society. This would also be a place to discuss the tarriff issues mentioned above. Geometry guy 13:06, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bourke engine

edit

I have been working on the Bourke engine page and have had the help of another person who is familiar with automobile engines...he has been helping and correcting any errors I have made. We have reached an impasse on how to correctly explain the expansive cooling that occurs in the bourke engine...it can be seen on the discussion page of the engine and on this talk page under comment. Request any comments and expertise you can provide....thank you very much.....sno2Sno2 11:36, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To save time, this is my understanding of the expansion phase of an IC. If you hear an echo of JB Heywood's explanation, well, that is scarcely surprising: In the ideal otto cycle the expansion stroke is the one where work is extracted from the working gas. In the ideal otto cycle this expansion is assumed to be adiabatic, which means that no HEAT transfer takes place. In the real world, heat transfer takes place, so the expansion is not adiabatic. If you look at data from real engines you can compare the pressure/temperaure vs stroke, with what the ideal Otto cycle would predict. The agreement is not too bad, usually because the expansion is rapid and so there is not enough time for significant heat transfer to take place, but is not perfect. The Bourke engine is by no means unique in having an expansion cycle that is near-adiabatic, but it is not adiabatic precisely because heat transfer takes place. Greglocock 23:30, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The rest of the article could do with a once-over as well, a lot of it is fan-boy cruft. Greglocock 23:54, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have also transcluded this into WP:PR so discussions there, as well as at {{WP:SPR]], are together. --Bduke 00:02, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:SpecialWindler

edit

Version Edited:133541537

A few pointers to make it a better article

  • Template:Reqedit is up the top of the article, get rid of this

Went to help chat and was told to put it there..and someone would be by to edit it..will check again to find where it should be...maybe is why no one has been here to edit..because is in wrong place...as you suggest...??

  • The lead is too long for an article this size, see WP:LEAD
  • In the section "Simplified Explanation", the wordings need to be in paragraphs, rather than in just sentences which are all seperated.
  • The image in "Simplified Explanation", get rid of the "click to enlarge bit"
  • Categories should be in alphebetical order (numbers then letters)
  • Videos section should be moved to "External Links" and there is no need for (large files, will take time to download on low speed connections).

A number of people are aware of bourke but do not know/believe that it is a running engine...video section with those two videos are to point out immediately that their are running engines...other videos are available at the more video link if they are interested in seeing them...along with link at bottom of page...realize they are long...have compressed versions that I have made am trying to get permission to put those two here...am concerned that site where they are at may go down and they would be lost.

  • The section "Simplified Explanation" should be moved to section one after the LEAD because it explains what it is.

Have debated with myself where that should be..thank you for your very good reason...and reminding me to think about it some more

  • If you want this article to have any chance of becoming B, GA, A or FA, you need citations (basically every major statement needs a citation).
  • Does the template on the right up the top (the Thermodynamic cycles one) does it have to be there. What does Bourke engine have to do with Thermodynamic cycles, this should be explained in the article.

This a common chart on all engine sites, all engines are heat engines and thermo cycle applies to them. Reason is there is that it shows other engines that are avail on wiki, plus some that are not, so people can compare different ones..I think that is the reason...at least that is what have used for.

  • this article needs copy editing for stuff like spelling, punctiation and grammer.
  • the design features and claimed / measured performance sections have dot points, they should be integrated into paragraphs.

Thats a simple peer review (my first actually) thanks. SpecialWindler 09:06, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Special...thank you much for making us the first special peer review...have put a couple of answers to a few of your suggestions...will start working on rest as I get time....thank you again....sno2Sno2 10:03, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Heian Palace

edit

I'm looking for any useful suggestions and criticism regarding the article.

Based on some quick comparisons, I've come to think that the article might suitable for Good Article status; feedback on this would be appreciated.

Stca74 18:58, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The lead needs to be expanded per WP:LEAD. Make sure it summarizes the most important facets of the article and topic. More references would always be better, see if you can't find a few more. See how they approach the subject and what they consider important about it. It says the palace is no longer extant, perhaps the transition into the details could tell a little more about how any information is known about it at all. Is it from archealogical digs or from study of written records of the time? (After looking again I see that mentioned a bit later, but more specific information earlier in the article would help.) Is the article comprehensive? Are there any other important facets to the topic? - Taxman Talk 21:35, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  Done Good input, thanks. Implemented changes that have been strikken out above. As for comprehensiveness, many connecting topics could be added or expanded here, as always. Examples include court rituals and administrative routines at the palace as well as more details on the architectural styles and facilities at the buildings. However, my view is that the previous should go into an expanded article on ritsuryo government, while the latter belong better to a much expanded article on shinden zukuri architecture. Thus I feel the proper coverage for the palace-specific article is here, and that related topics are better covered elsewhere Comments and suggestions are welcome. Stca74 18:31, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You're right, most of the information on those should be covered elsewhere, but a summary of them and how the palace fits into that would be well placed here. That would provide useful context for the reader of this article. Follow summary style and don't give too much per your comments, but enough for the reader to usefully understand the palace's place in the broader context of it's use, architectural style, etc. Also the lead paragraphs could still stand to be a bit more substantial. 2 or so sentences more each. - Taxman Talk 20:17, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  Done Much later than I thought, but now I feel the several expansions made over the past few weeks address the comments above. Stca74 14:44, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  Done as applicable; see the link above for details. Stca74 19:04, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A quick suggestion to help in proofreading is to copy and paste from the article (not the edit window) into word-processing software such as Microsoft Word. Its spell-checking features can help you catch double errors such as "preciding over the excatly ... ." Also pay attention to spaces near marks of punctuation. Regarding names of former capitals of Japan, there's a discussion here. It seems to be coming to a conclusion. While you're editing your article, you might want to anticipate the outcome of that discussion, and of course you're welcome to participate in it. Fg2 10:14, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Done Proofread. As for the proposal on spelling of historical capitals with hyphen, I second that and the article has been updated. Stca74 16:35, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Review by Karanacs

edit
  • Overall, I think this is well-written, but there are areas you could tighten your prose a little bit more. Here are examples just from the lead:
Thanks. Good comments. See below for progress. Stca74 10:13, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I would change "The Heian Palace refers to the original imperial palace " to "The Heian Palace was the original imperial palace"
    • "very large rectangular walled enclosure" -don't need the very
    • "Within this larger enclosure was situated" -> "Inside this enclosure was the "
    • "almost no trace of it remains to be found in modern Kyoto" -> almost no trace of it remains.
  Done
  • The article needs more inline citations. Every paragraph should have at least one citation
  Not done: Some added, though. This author is personally against too heavy use of inline citations and prefers to use them only when the material is challenged or likely to be challenged (WP:CITE) or when a particular citation is likely to be otherwise useful to the reader. When condensing a few standard references like in this article, many paragraphs should not need separate footnotes pointing to the same few sources. Stca74 10:13, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Measurements need to be listed in both standard and metric format. see WP:CONVERT
  Done (Careful with "standard" when writing to Europeans... :-)
  • "As the Chōdō-in, also the Buraku-in had " should read, "Like the Chōdō-in, the Buraku-in had"
  • remove red links
  Done
  • need more wikilinks within the article
  Done Added from lead to Daidairi and Dairi
  • "However, starting already in the ninth century," -> "Beginning in the ninth century, however,
  Done Partially as suggested
  • "fire in 960, another building became the regular residence of the emperors: the smaller Seiryōden " -> "fire in 960, the regular residence of the emperors moved to the smaller Seiryoden
  • "Seiryōden gradually became more and more used for meetings as well," -> "Gradually, Seiryoden began to be used for meetings,""
  Done
  • were the ones with proper location with regard to the symmetry of the Dairi " -- I'm not sure what this means
  Done Explained differently.
  • "The Dairi also housed in the Unmeiden hall (温明殿, Unmeiden hall?) one of the Imperial Regalia of Japan, the sacred mirror.[3]"-> "Located in the Dairi's Unmedien Hall was the sacred mirror, one of the Imperial Regalia of Japan"
  • History section, first sentence is long and clunky. Please reword or separate into multiple sentences.
  Done
  • "The centre of gravity of the Palace complex " - I don't think "centre of gravity" is the appropriate phrase to use here.
  Not done Thought about it but quite like the phrase in the context. At least could not come up with a better one. But othes feel free to rephrase.
  • At the same time the Greater Palace began to be guarded less and less, until safety at night time on the palace grounds outside of the Dairi was not guaranteed." - clunky sentence
  • " Daigokuden was reconstructed after fires in 876, 1068 and in 1156 despite the limited use it had" -> "despite its limited use"
  • "Also the Dairi was repeatedly destroyed by fires from 960 on, but was rebuilt and used " -> "Beginning in 960, the Dairi was repeatedly destroyed by fires but was rebuilt and used"
  • "While the Dairi was being rebuilt following fires," -> "During the rebuilding"
  • "Thus the residences of the maternal grandparents of the emperors in the north-eastern part of the city started to take over the residential function of the Palace itself already before the end of the Heian period. " -> clunky sentence
  Done
  • References should be before External links
  Not done In fact, according to WP:GTL the ordering of these sections is not fixed, and in this particular case I feel the external links are more natural before the footnotes.

Karanacs 03:18, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Stanley Marcus

edit

I'm trying to get this article up to GA status. So far, I have tried a few different suggestions:

  • Looking to see if there are articles on the topic on the wikipedias in other languages. There were none, although German Wikipedia had an article on Neiman Marcus that mentioned Stanley Marcus. (I've since gone on to create a stub in Spanish Wikipedia and a start-class Simple English Wikipedia article.)
  • Using Google to find articles and reliable sources online. I've used several reliable sources and cited them as thoroughly as I can.
  • Using print materials that meet the reliable sources criteria. To tell the truth, I got so interested in this topic that I even paid for access to an article in Commentary magazine. (See my user page for my "Are you a Wikipediholic?" score; I even edited the test to include an item on those of us who pay for materials to use in editing.) I used a book by a local author and searched a database of U.S. newspapers. I haven't been able to locate the family copy of Marcus' Minding the Store.

I don't know of a good way to get pictures for the article, so suggestions on that are welcome, as are suggestions for other appropriate forms of illustration. Incidentally, I had to find ways to write around some inconsistencies in the data; for instance, there seem to be different answers on exactly which degrees Marcus had from Harvard Business School, as well as the year in which he started with the company. I also have some additional data and sources I haven't quite figured out how to work in appropriately.

FYI, I have no vested interest in the article other than being a Dallasite and daughter of a Jewish-American Texan and salesman who's a great admirer of "Mr. Stanley," as he's known around town. I started the article because a person complained about a line in the Neiman-Marcus article about Stanley Marcus' death being "mourned by the fashion world." (I've no problem with a complaint about the use of a non-NPOV, uncredited quote from the N-M web site, but instead, the person seemed to be saying that Mr. Marcus was non-notable, which is just not true.) Lawikitejana 23:17, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. Note that Stanley Marcus the retailer should not be confused with Stanley Marcus the judge, who appears to work (to have worked) in the same region. Lawikitejana 23:21, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Further update: I can see from a look at the other articles submitted for peer review that mine is far skimpier. Nonetheless, I'd be grateful for input, and please consider me a newcomer to the review process.

Yannismarou

edit
  • You could add an infobox.
  • Isn't there any public space or free-use photo available?
  • "The Advertising Hall of Fame notes: "Stanley Marcus was among the most important figures in the history of American retail merchandising and marketing. Through his many innovations, he transformed a local Dallas clothing store into an international brand synonymous with high style, fashion and gracious service."" 2/3 of your lead is a quote. I do not know if this is OK with WP:LEAD. Don't forget that the lead is supposed to be a summary of the article. Maybe some recasting into alternative language would help.
  • "did not feel the raise he was offered by Sanger's was sufficient to support a family". What was Herbert doing in Sanger's, from where he left? You do not clarify that.
  • "and made his the first department store". What do you want to keep here: "his" or "the"?!
  • "(including pairs of animals), camels, and live tigers.[6][1][7][4]" Personally, I do not like so many citations in a row. Maybe, you could consider combining them per the model in Tourette syndrome.
  • "and industry leaders." (Biderman, p. 60)[2]" Get rid of the parenthesis, and make a proper citation, where you can also mention the page. After all, when you have printed sources, you should always in the notes mention pages.
  • "Later life" is not actually "later life" but trivia (writing, collections etc.). I would suggest that you create the respective sections with appropriate headings, and then work the prose, and expand them, if yoy have more material.
  • "Quotes" again look like trivia. Maybe you could incorporate the quote in one of the previous sections. Maybe Demosthenes or El Greco could give you some ideas about how to do that.
  • Is note 9 OK? <-- not sure what this one meant, but think it's fixed
  • Some of your know online sources have no author no publisher and no work mentioned. You should have at least an indication, about where this comes from. Have fixed where possible; some items simply have no named author (for example, older TIME magazine stories found online)
  • Couldn't "Additional references" be merged with "External links"?--Yannismarou 15:05, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Guitar Hero II

edit
  • I'd appreciate an all-around review on this one. I think that the article has improved greatly since the last assessment, which placed it at B-Class. I think it has a good number of references and is well written. Some areas:
  • Reception - Critical reception is, I believe, important for games, and it would be good to see how well the article is doing there.
  • Technical Issues - There has been some conflict in that area, and it would be great to see how well the working out has been done.
Thanks for any and all feedback! --tennisman sign here! 02:41, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't mean this to be rude, but the article is hard to read in its current state. Here are some notes:
    • The structure of the article needs to be re-thought. Sections like "Venues" and "Characters" are part of the gameplay and should not be separate sections.Sections have been integrated into text. --tennisman 02:38, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • The History section starts with the release of GHII. I would expect a history section to start with development and end with release.
    • Game guide material needs to be removed; go through the entire article and ask "Is this of interest to some one who will never play the game?" — if the answer is no, then remove it. Removed game guide material. --tennisman 02:48, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I see large sections of bulleted lists that should be converted to prose.Removed, except for track lists. --tennisman 02:38, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • The "Musical references" section just looks like trivia under another name. Anything that can't be incorporate elsewhere should be removed.Section has been removed. --tennisman 02:38, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • The lead is is insufficient. Added a paragraph of information akin to the introductory material in games such as Shadow of the Colossus. --tennisman sign here! 16:59, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Reply here once the above have been addressed and I'll take another look. Pagrashtak 15:48, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

MS-06 Zaku II

edit

I would like people to comment on thing to improve this article anything else that the editors of this article have missed so that we can try for a GA nomination.I wold also like to know if there is anything that needs to be split off this article to make it smaller. I would really like to avoid removal of large sections of information.Jeffpiatt 13:07, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think you could provide more context in the lead, maybe just with more links. To an uninformed reader what is a Grunt? With "After the original show's run" Which series is the original? When did it "run"? The article probably needs to be more obvious to the reader. Things like the interwiki links to the Japanese pages should use one of the further reading templates, should be in English and should state that they're in Japanese like See also MS-06J Zaku II Ground Type (in Japanese) --Squilibob 00:46, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Space tourism

edit

Could somebody please review this? It's currently B status, and I would like to see what changes/additions need to be made to it to take it to GA status. Thank you! Cool Bluetalk to me 20:07, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Later in the article, there is a "commercial space flights" section. From just looking at the TOC, it seems this is the same or similar thing as "Private space tourism". The Private space tourism section seems to be specifically discussing the Russian program, which has a private partnership component. It should possibly be renamed and focus on the Russian program. All those space tourists appear to be part of that program, and maybe the list (both past space tourists, and the future space tourists list) could go under this section.
  • The latter sections on "opinions" and "objections" to the terminology could possibly be combined, and of course those sections need work.
  • Finally, is the hoax section needed? It sounds like a popular culture references; some other articles have such sections, though these can be problematic and degrade the quality of the article if not handled with care. - Wikipedia:"In popular culture" articles --Aude (talk) 20:37, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Removed. It's really not needed. Cool Bluetalk to me 23:19, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bernard Quatermass

edit

Over the past few months I have been working on improving the quality of Wikipedia's articles relating to the Quatermass series of films and television productions, and have recently expanded, rewritten and referenced this article on their main character. This was a bit of a new venture for me as I'd never really worked on an article about a fictional character beforehand. I'd just like general feedback on it, really; I'm thinking of possibly nominating it as an FAC, depending on the verdict of reviewers here. Angmering 15:39, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

LuciferMorgan

edit
  • "In 2005, the digital television channel BBC Four produced a new version of The Quatermass Experiment, transmitted live as the original had been.[44] Jason Flemyng starred as Quatermass.[45]"

Has there been any critical feedback or critical commentary by the papers / magazines as concerns Flemyng's portrayal of Quatermass? This critical reaction could be added to the article. LuciferMorgan 03:08, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Runcorn

edit

This has been accepted as a GA and I am interested to learn what needs to be done to develop it into a FA. Peter I. Vardy 20:13, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • First thing that jumped out at me was the use of unparished area in the lead, that needs some context for the unaware reader to know what that is talking about. Seems a good place to explain why that population figure is different from the population figure in the infobox. 2) Eliminate one and two sentence paragraphs. They break up the flow of the text and should either be expanded into full paragraphs of their own, merged with related material, or removed. The article generally seems to cover the right topics, and is overall well done. Keep up the good work. - Taxman Talk 22:00, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your comments on the Runcorn article. I've re-written the lead to get rid of the confusion and had a go at reducing the number of sub-sections and short paragraphs. I've also taken note of the automated peer review suggestions and have in particular removed a lot of 'redundant' words and phrases. How's it looking now? Any more advice or suggestions? Is it getting anywhere near FA quality? Best wishes. Peter I. Vardy 12:45, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it's not so far from FAC readiness. The second paragraph of the lead needs expansion and the lead needs to give a useful summary of the entire article. Currently I only get a good idea of the town's location and history, but not much about what it's like today. It sounds like a typical small English town to my uninitiated self, but is it, or is it rather unusual? Simply tell us that if you can find a good source for it. 2) The climate paragraph needs a few hard numbers, such as what is the average temperature, and what is the approximate range. Average rainfall and frost and snow days wouldn't be bad. 3) We need some more context on what a unitary authority is and the situation with the borough of Halton. What type of administrative district are those? That may help resolve the issue with the Demographics. 4) In the Demographics section you either need to provide a lot of context about why this town of 60k people doesn't have any demographics info or provide us a summary of the borough's numbers and whether they are considered to be reasonable for Runcom. What do the sources say? 5) The History section is too long, as well as the Communal facilities and Religion sections. Articles should be well balanced in the amount of space they allocate to each subtopic in proportion to the importance of those topics to the overall subject. After working on these, let me know if you need more (just ask me to peek back here), and I'll see if I think it needs anything else or if it's ready for FAC. - Taxman Talk 00:54, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've had a go, following your advice. 1) I've expanded the second paragraph of the lead and extended the following paragraphs to try to give a better summary. My difficulty is that I live in the town, so I know what it's like, but if I say it as I see it, that will not be NPOV. I am not aware of any sources which might give a better feel about the town and, were there any, the NPOV problem might still be there. 2) Hard numbers added to the climate paragraph. 3&4) Not easy. I have extended the demographics section giving the reason for their not being separate statistics for Runcorn and Widnes. I have not gone into great detail about what a unitary authority is because I presume that is what the internal links are for. I do not know of any source which would say that the features are similar for the two towns - except for my own personal knowledge! Do you think this will be adequate or is there a better way of dealing with it? 5) History, Communal facilities and Religion sections all shortened. Peter I. Vardy 15:52, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think that's pretty good, and once you're back from holiday, I'm confident you'll be able to handle any suggestions brought up in FAC. That's enough context for Unitary authority I'd think, just enough to get the basic idea. Perhaps that could go back in the lead to explain how the city is governed, but only if you think it's important enough. The lead should contain a summary of only the most important items of course. The history is still a little long given the size of the article and town and it's importance to the overall topic. Move further details to a history of Runcorn article if you'd like to preserve them all. - Taxman Talk 17:27, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jacobson v. United States

edit

I developed this article on the U.S. Supreme Court's last major entrapment case from barely over a stub last summer and recently revisited it after a couple of other articles I've worked on made GA.

I think this is GA-quality, possibly even FA if I can get some images, and I'd appreciate some feedback to improve it to that end. Daniel Case 15:44, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think the lead could use a few citations as per WP:LEAD. Wrad 21:02, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Done Daniel Case 14:57, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Master of the Game

edit

I've done a considerable amount of work on this article, and felt that it was ready for a review. I am sure that after a few more weeks, it'll be ready for a GA or an FA. --Kzrulzuall Talk• Contribs 23:47, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Some basic suggestions

edit

First I would say this is an article that is showing a lot of improvements, so good work here. For further work I would suggest looking at our article template and then having a go at the following.

  • Adding anything you can find more to demonstate notability
  • Put in a section on any form of critical comment, reviews etc.
  • separate out the "historical" and "cultural" references.
  • the image used should ideally be of "slightly" better quality and also ideally a "first edition" I know of no reason why a later edition would be more notable, unless you do.
  • remove the blurb (likely copyright voilation).
  • add a "Plot introduction" which introduce the basics of the Plot but without any spoiler material.

How about those for a start. :: Kevinalewis : (Talk Page)/(Desk) 07:56, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've changed the image to a first edition one, removed the blurb, deleted the cultural reference as there is hardly any, and added a short plot introduction into the lead. As for the critical reviews, I am pretty sure that NYT has some, as it is a reasonably well known book... --Kzrulzuall Talk• Contribs 09:51, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bud Grant

edit

I've recently re-worked this Bud Grant article in an attempt to bring it to GA-class. I'm just looking for feedback or contributions about what else needs to be done to reach GA. Thanks! RyguyMN 02:59, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jayron32's response

edit

As a frequent GA reviewer, I can say that this article is close, but has some distinct problems that need fixing before it will be GA ready:

  • The image in the infobox has got to go. Wikipedia's fair use policy WP:FU in no way covers this use. Keep in mind that from GA's point of view, having NO image is better than a non-free one. An article CANNOT be held up for GA if it has no images; misused images are grounds for failure every time however.
  Done RyguyMN 06:42, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article is inconsistant about how it handles numbers. Some are spelled out and some are simply numerals. See WP:MOSNUM for information on how this should be standardized.

Other than those two items, I think this article is GA ready. If those changes were made, I would probably promote this article to GA status. Other reviewers may see it differently, so understand that your mileage may vary. However, the article is otherwise well written, well referenced, and broad enough to merit GA status in my opinion (given, of course, that the above fixes were made).--Jayron32|talk|contribs 06:22, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Done Thanks Jayron32! Did I catch everything? RyguyMN 04:31, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I caught something else: If Grant were drafted by the Lakers in 1950, then the 1950-1951 season would be his first in the league, unless something else happened here I am unaware of. Either 1950-1951 was his FIRST season, or he had played in the league before he was drafted? Either way it is unclear and needs some work to make it better. Also, the concept of "playing out his option" may need some clarification. Was he really the first ever Free Agent in NFL history, as this makes it sound? Since the CFL is a completely separate league, why would it matter, since he wouldn't be covered by the NFL contract anyways??? This needs some clarification as well. Also, if he was chosen as the Blue Bombers coach prior to the 1957 season, then why does the next sentance say 1956? Which is right? Also, in the infobox you should change the external link to a wikilink for the Canadian Football Hall of Fame. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 05:54, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gopher backer

edit
  • If it were me, I would seperate the following section out into its own section (called something like High School & College career). To me this isn't really his personal life at all, especially when you consider that above this part it talks about Bud's childhood, and below talks about his children:

Grant played football, basketball, and baseball in high school.[3][4] Grant graduated from high school in 1945 and enlisted in the Navy[4] during World War II. He was assigned to the Great Lakes Naval Training Station in Illinois and played on the football team coached by Paul Brown.[4] Using an acceptance letter from the University of Wisconsin to be discharged from the service, Grant decided to attend the University of Minnesota instead.[4] Grant was a three sport, nine letterman[5] athlete in football, basketball, and baseball for the Minnesota Golden Gophers,[3][4] earning All-Big Ten honors in football twice.[4][5][6]

  Done I've created a new section for his high school and college playing days. RyguyMN 04:55, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Grant contracted poliomyelitis as a child, which left him with one leg shorter than the other. This statement seems a little too much like a random piece of trivia. I would either remove it, or esle add some supporting information on how/if it affected his ability as an athelete.
  Done This statement was removed from the article. RyguyMN 04:55, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Lastly, Grant is just as well known for his success with the Winnipeg Blue Bombers ... When I first read this it took me about two more sentences before it was clarified on whether he was a player or a coach for Winnepeg, maybe change it to ''Grant is just as well known for his head coaching success the Winnipeg Blue Bombers
  Done The summary was reworked for clarity. RyguyMN 05:09, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's about it, I think most of it is very good. Gopher backer 16:53, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

AZPR

edit

Slp1

edit

Well I know nothing about football, so you are going to get a real outsider's comments. Overall I think it looks very good and your references seem great. I have taken the liberty of making a few obvious corrections of typos etc directly into the article.

  • Lead: "Best known" and "just as well known" seems subjective (and contradictory!) and are not cited in any case! Something simpler is probably better. I would suggest avoiding these terms and sticking to the facts. The word "winningest" grates on my nerves, I fear and I would suggest changing it.
  Done These phrases were removed from the article since they could violate WP:NPOV as well. RyguyMN 05:33, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Personal Life. I agree with Gopher Backer and the idea of splitting the Personal Life section into his early life and putting the achievements of his offspring and retirement activities in another spot later.
  Done These sections have been split. Grant's achievements in high school and college were moved into the playing career section below his personal life. RyguyMN 05:20, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't understand this sentence "Grant decided to sign with the Lakers for the 1950–51 NBA season, his second in the league." His second what?
  Done This statement was copyedited for clarification. RyguyMN 05:34, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • It may not be necessary for Good Article but I would suggest a copy edit by somebody else who knows something about sports etc, as there are some stylistic things that might be improved with some fresh eyes. But overall, a great job! Well done. --Slp1 01:11, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Colin

edit

If you are serious about writing a good bio article, then you should seek out his biography: Bud: The Other Side of the Glacier by Bill McGrane ISBN 0-06-015583-3. If you can't get it at a library, you can buy it second-hand from Amazon for next-to-nothing. Wrt to Gopher backer's comment about polio: this is seldom a "trivial" disease. According to this source, McGrane's book contains more info on the subject. It looks like he was encouraged to take up sport by his family physician as part of his recovery from polio. This is not an uncommon suggestion — exercise will help the weakened limbs recover. So, rather than being trivia, this could actually be a key life event. Colin°Talk 10:53, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Patrick Henry College

edit

We recently reached GA status and now we want to make it even better. All constructive criticism is greatly appreciated. Thanks in advance! Professor Davies 18:53, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I noticed you had this, so I'll leave one or two quick thoughts I had. The introduction could be reorganized into three paragraphs. And more info can be included in the infobox. The history section mentions the number of founding students twice, which is awkward. Also there are many one sentence paragraphs under history which could be combined and shortened. Perhaps the history section could have a subsection on the founding and events leading up to it. Also the rest of the section should be chronological. Image captions could be much more informational, providing info about the place, and not just what it is, like the captions under Student life. The Student life section does need some citations. Is there a school paper yet that might describe more about it? Otherwise, just keep putting in more references when you can.--Patrick 00:03, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

New Peer Review Request: 10-4-07

edit

It's been a few months since the last peer review and I think we've made most of the improvements suggested in that one. So I'd like to request a new peer review of the article in general with the goal of preparing it to be nominated for featured status. I think we've made some good improvements just since reaching good article status and are just about there. Thanks for any suggestions that could help give this article the quality needed for featured.--DebateLord 23:06, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Benchley

edit

Things I do know: I'm working on a public domain image for the infobox with his grandson (really!), so that's forthcoming. The subpage with his works is incomplete, but is being compiled as I write this and may, in fact, be done by the time anyone sees this. I also need help on the lead. Outside of that, pointers would be appreciated. --badlydrawnjeff talk 03:53, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Well written, but it's clear you are suffering from an overdose of reading too much writing from the primary source. :-) In other words, you're writing humorously, and animatedly, which is fun, but, well... we're an encyclopedia. If Benchley had to choose between being light-hearted and amusing but confusing, and plain but dull, he'd choose the former. Out of the same choices, we have to choose the latter. If you can manage to be fun to read but scrupulously understandable and correct, OK, but if there is any doubt, go to the shorter, plainer sentences, please. If in doubt, feel free to replace almost any given "and" with a period. :-) I also see you have made good friends with the semicolon. :-)
      • I've learned semicolons a bit. i'm getting there, haha. As for the tone, I didn't realize it was that noticeable, and I actually had some struggle with getting it done. Go fig. Anyway...
    • Westminster Abbey)[1]), parens
      • Fixed.
    • Actually, rewrite that whole first sentence of Biography - it's very amusing, but hard to understand, implying that RB was jailed for Underground Railroad work
      • Suggestions? Is what's there now better?
    • September 15 1889 - WP:DATE
      • True story - I only realized today that the software actually recognized the year in formatting. Fixed
    • Edmund Benchley, who after his death in the Spanish-American War in 1898 impacted Robert's life considerably - err... again, please rewrite. He did something after his death?
      • Got it.
    • year of high school[4] - add period
      • Fixed.
    • humor and style began to reveal itself during this time as well; - dump "as well" (or rewrite so to get rid of "began")
      • Fixed
    • most entertainment programs on campus would request his services - "most"? Really? More than half of all entertainment for the entire college focused on one freshman?
      • From the text: "[Benchley's] 'talks' grew so popular that, in time, most student organizations viewed it as something of a necessity to include a Benchley appearance in their entertainment programs." Surprising to me, too.
    • Papyrus Club - red link should be stubbed out at least, otherwise the sentence doesn't really explain what it was
      • Done
    • Another English professor recommended Benchley speak with the Curtis Publishing Company, and, following some explorations elsewhere, took a position at a civil service office - So the English professor took a position at a civil service office? Probably want to rephrase, breaking into two sentences would be simpler.
      • Adjusted this better, I think
    • French - disambiguate (probably French language)
      • Good catch
    • The first issue was soundly criticized by management - why? Badly written, not funny, too funny...?
      • Went with the exact criticism.
    • Again, it would be good to rewrite that sentence into two.
      • Done
    • He reentered the public speaking circuit - when was he in the public speaking circuit before? I guess he told jokes at Harvard, but that's hardly "the circuit"
      • Better now?
    • The Chinese professor caper sentence - again, very long. I recommend moving the whole bit between the dashes into a following sentence.
      • I may have fixed this, but I'm not sure. It's hard for me to remove that section, as I think it loses what the joke was about.
    • with the New York Tribune[20] - needs a period
      • Got it.
    • Sunday magazine sentence has two clauses led by ", and" which, to me, is a clue that it needs to be broken up
      • Better?
    • The experience inspired Benchley's fellow staff at the Tribune magazine on further topics for articles, such as Benchley playing a corpse - this was due to inspiration to the staff? In other words this was the staff's idea?
      • I think this is fixed
    • The freelancing attempt did not start out well, having sold one piece - the attempt sold one piece?
      • Fixed?
    • pictoral - pictorial?
      • It says "pictorial" now, which I believe is my intent.
    • Benchley tendered his resignation in a terse letter ... and their attempts to - who are the "they" of "their" in this sentence? I mean, I can guess you mean the people who want Benchley and Greuning to resign, but don't make me guess, write it.
      • Entirely logical. Fixed.
    • Collier's - wikilink, first mention in article, if we don't have an article on it we darn well should
      • AWB error, fixed.
    • Benchley's Fair pseudonym - come on, write out Vanity Fair, otherwise I'm wondering exactly what an unfair pseudonym would be :-)
      • Ba-dum-ching.
    • most of Benchley's work, which was typically published twice a month, were attributed - pick either was or were
      • Better?
    • Others, featuring a character Benchley created, were attributed to Benchley's Fair pseudonym Brighton Perry, but most of Benchley's work, which was typically published twice a month, were attributed to Benchley. - You mention "Benchley" four times in this sentence. I know normally I'm all for specificity, but just this once I'll let you use a pronoun. :-) Honest. Go ahead, I won't make it a habit. :-)
      • Aw, okay. better?
    • The three writers became close - scanning back a bit, I imagine you mean Benchley, Parker, and Sherwood, but the fact that you spent several sentences on other issues made me first think you were counting his pseudonym Perry!
      • Gotcha.
    • often having long lunches at the Algonquin Hotel, and, when the editorial managers went on a European trip, the three took advantage - another long sentence to break up. "often" is the indefinite - many occurences - , while "when" refers to a specific instance, putting them in a single sentence is confusing. Date the specific instance.
      • Dating the specificity is hard given the source. Does this work better?
    • The latter in particular worried Sherwood, as he felt it may jeopardize - tense issues. could have jeopardized, perhaps?
      • Fixed.
    • The situation at Vanity Fair would deteriorate upon the managerial team's return - how about just "deteriorated"?
      • Fixed
    • the management sent out a memo forbidding the discussion of salaries in an attempt to begin to reign in his staff. -- Aaagh... First, "the management" and "his staff"? The mgt is one male person? Second, he forbade trying to reign in staff through discussing salaries?
      • Fixed?
    • which Benchley filled out, in very small handwriting, an elaborate story - with an elaborate story?
      • Fixed
    • her theatrical reviews by the producers of the plays - the producers wrote her reviews? For that I'd have fired her too... :-)
      • Fixed
    • word of it was published in Time by Alexander Woollcott, who was at a lunch - please, break up, I can't even make fun of this one. :-)
      • Yikes, you're right. Better?
    • Given that Benchley had two children at the time of the resignation - whoah! (Dead? I didn't even know he was sick!) Last we heard of his personal life, he was a libertine at Harvard. Now he suddenly has two children? I would humbly submit the article might be missing a somewhat important incident or two.
      • I need your help on this, probably hands-on. There's a section about his personal life on the bottom (something that's a good deal of an afterthought in most bios about him, for the exception of the one by his son, but Gertrude and family don't really factor into the big picture - they didn't influence his work, they didn't affect him at all from the looks of thigns. I need help.
        • You did OK, moving his family bit to the top is a fine way of handling it.
    • Its title, "Books and Other Things," ran for one year - the title ran for one year? Surely you mean the column.
      • Fixed
    • covered both literary subjects as well as the more mundane - so there are only two literary subjects? What's the other one? :-) (Either drop "both", or replace "as well as" with "and")
      • Fixed
    • In fact, make it "books on literary subjects as well as..." otherwise it seems the column was about bricklaying, not about a book on bricklaying
      • Fixed
    • the magazine.[35]),[36] - can you figure out a way to put both ref marks together? I guess technically it might be correct, but period-ref-paren-comma-ref just looks gruesome.
      • I'm going to get a second opinion on this one.
    • Algonquin Round Table - wikilink here, you last mentioned this in the lead, which was a long time ago, and this is possibly the most important thing in the whole article
      • Done. I need some help in incorporating more information on this, too, possibly. Or is the Wikilink enough
        • The link is enough. Our article on that isn't an FA candidate like this one is, but it's not a stub.
    • It was a number of years into the arrangement, however, that changed things - the number of years changed things? Suggestion: "In 192X, the arrangement changed." Short and specific.
      • Better? I don't have exact dates.
    • a challenge, and Benchley's contribution to the program, called "The Treasurer's Report," - put a period after challenge, start next sentence with "Benchley's contribution was called" "Benchley played..." could well be yet a third sentence.
      • Fixed

That's roughly the first half, don't worry, I'll be back. -- AnonEMouse (squeak) 15:00, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Return of AnonEMouse

edit

Better late than never, I guess. :-)

    • influenced many modern humorists. - modern meaning what? early 20th C - "contemporary", later 20th C - i'd suggest "later" - or just be more specific: "influenced later humorists such as Sinbad, Stephen Wright, and Weird Al Yankovic ..." (though I kind of hope not those...)
      • Fixed.
    • His legacy is his - a bit strong. How about "His legacy includes a "?
      • Fixed.
    • a distinct pacifist leanings - singular or plural, choose one
      • Fixed.
    • financial aid from his late brother's fiancee, Lillian Duryea - 1) Why was Duryea rich, and 2) why was Benchley's family poor enough to need the help? Or, rather, what did Charles and Maria Benchley do for a living? This isn't strictly required but could be worth a few words.
      • Well, Duryea seemed to have inherentence money, and Benchley's family wasn't poor, but simply not rich enough for this type of schooling. Regardless, the story behind it isn't terribly interesting or necessary, so I'm going to leave it alone for now unless I can mke it work otherwise.
    • thereby damaging his academic credentials.[12] Benchley enrolled at Harvard University - How is that? Now a days, kids with damaged academic credentials don't usually get into Harvard. Was Harvard less selective then? Or were Benchley's credentials so stellar they still qualified for Harvard even after a bit of damaging? Or did Dureya build them a new wing or something?
      • I've qualified this better.
    • I'd wikilink Harvard Lampoon again here. MOS seems to say something like link once per section, or once per screenful, both of which are different from the link in the header.
      • Good catch.
    • Owing to an academic failure in his senior year, - he caroused again, and all his grades dropped?
      • Got it.
    • the better magazine; and Vanity Fair - recommend a comma here, rather than semicolon
      • Fixed.
    • the annual Harvard–Yale football game - if you like, you can make a more specific link: Harvard-Yale football games (The Game)
      • Oh, sweet!
    • When an job as a press agent - a job
      • Confused on this, I'll leave it be for now.
    • Brady was extremely difficult to work for, and he resigned - presumably Benchley resigned, not Brady :-)
      • Yeah, yeah.
    • Some of Benchley's columns, ... were attributed ..., but most was attributed - either "were" or "most of his work was" or something
      • Yup, you caught that.
    • mocking the local theatre establishment and offering parodic articles - insert or move "articles" or "columns" to the front of this phrase, otherwise it's not clear they mocked in print
      • Fixed
    • $500 a week - WP:$
      • Fixed
    • the lure of filmmaking would not keep Benchley away - actually it seems filmmaking did lure Benchley away. Rephrase.
      • Got it
    • Benchley, who had also been offered a syndicated column by Hearst, was able to film the shorts in New York, but not before taking a role in the Clark Gable film Dancing Lady.[53] - confusing, what does the column have to do with the shorts, and what do the shorts have to do with the Gable film? Split by subject, please. :-)
      • I think I've fixed this
    • The only group not initially pleased - so they were pleased later? Worth specifying, or dropping "initially"
      • Not sure how I slipped that in there
    • at the 1935 Academy Awards - I'd wikilink 1935 Academy Awards, header link is far away
      • Done
    • A Night at the Movies - that wikilink doesn't go where you think it goes! :-)
      • Fixed, page to come.
    • Nearing the end - not a great section heading, not clear if you mean his life, in which case it seems rather dramatic, or his career. I recommend retitling to "Downturn in career" or "Later life" or "end of life" something.
      • I never felt comfortable with it. LAter life works
    • His experience with Weekend at the Waldorf was especially upsetting, as the writing was subpar. - who says it was subpar? A criticism like that needs a reference, even if it was his own judgment.
      • Yeah, umb move on my part
    • caused by a drinking problem which had developed later in his life. - can you be more specific than "later"?
      • I've tied and failed. There's no real time period where it clearly started
    • Oliver Wendell Holmes - disambiguate link
      • Thanks
    • The Algonquin Round Table - Ah, I see your point now. Yes, that is a short section, but I can't immediately suggest improvement. As is, it may even be worth removing the short section and relying on the earlier Wikilink... Is there something specific about Benchley's influence on the Table? Was he among the most acerbic, the kindest, did he welcome new members, recruit new members, drive away members, did he actively gather the publicity that the group is famed by, did he avoid publicity for the group?
      • I've decided that the actual Round Table article will be one of my next projects, so I hink I'm going to leave this be - he was a "founding" member, per se, so it's important enough to note somehow on the side. So I'll clarify the short part a bit more and get to work on the round table article soon.
    • Works cited - give ISBNs where you can. Amazon books almost all have ISBNs listed. Also WP:DATE link the years with days and months too. :-)
      • Believe it or not, the two books lacking ISBNs, my versions don't have them. Go figure.
    • External links - mixes major archives with individual articles. If you can move the individual articles up to works cited, that would be better. Surely they have some interesting bits to cite. Specify that Texaco Star Theatre is a recording, not just a page

--AnonEMouse (squeak) 15:41, 5 June 2007 (UTC) PS - With most of the above fixed, I'd support this for FA. Well done. --AnonEMouse (squeak) 15:43, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Definition of planet

edit

archive archive 2

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

I don't really have any good suggestions other than to think about a complete re-write from scratch. It appears to me that the IAU hasn't really decided on the criteria for selecting border-line cases yet. Here's some references that are marginally relevant:
Sorry I couldn't be more helpful. — RJH (talk) 23:37, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

William Spaniel

edit

This is an article I wrote, and while I think it's good, I hope for the article to continue to be able to expand, as well as further incorporating its 3rd party sources. The ultimate goal of this article is to get featured. Anything to help will be appreciated, thanks.stealthymatt 00:41, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't mean to be a splash of cold water, but as noted on the talk page, your efforts are good at satisfying verifiability, but still not necessarily showing notability. If you consider that, say, Starcitygames and TCGplayer.com themselves don't have WP articles, it seems hard to justify a writer for one of them who hasn't done something else really incredibly notable (like become a major Wizards designer or win a World Championship). It'd be a shame to waste all the work, but perhaps one of the Magic wikis would be a better place for the article? SnowFire 03:44, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tippecanoe and Tyler too

edit

I'm looking for any suggestions on how to improve this article about a historical political slogan most people don't realize was originally a song. It seems pretty complete to me, but it would be great to have some more eyes looking at it. Thanks.--Pharos 21:31, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • In the lead section, the article mentions that "Tippecanoe and Tyler too" is better remembered today as a slogan than a song. Somewhere in the article should probably talk about that.
  • If you need more sources for the article, I recommend searching Google Books which has numerous albeit older, but full-text sources. For a historical topic like this, I don't think the age of these sources is much of an issue. [10] --Aude (talk) 20:56, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Liopleurodon

edit

I was just wondering if anyone could give suggestions what this article needs for GA. It appears to be well cited. b_cubed 20:47, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, will need a reshuffle; size section can be split between description (which should come after lead) and discovery and species. More references would be good too. A classification section - what it is related to etc. cheers, Cas Liber | talk | contribs 01:53, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kevin Pietersen

edit

User:SpecialWindler

edit

Only my third review, but I may make some suggestions

  1. May I suggest merging (with other sections) stubby sections including
    1. 2005–6 tour of the subcontinent
    2. Awards for performances in 2005
  2. In the infobox, for sections "5 wickets in a innings" and "10 in a match", it would be better to have "0" rather thatn a dash (unless the dash indicates information that is unknown)
  3. Same with stumpings
  4. There are often parts of the article that have - "27*" or "108*", non-cricketors would not know what this is, it would be better to say "not out".
  5. It's faily well sourced but some sentences (in my opinion) need to be sourced
    1. "Pietersen was selected for the full England one-day side to tour Zimbabwe and South Africa in 2004–05."
    2. "Pietersen was added to the one-day squad to face South Africa. He was subjected to a barrage of abuse from the South African crowd, who regarded him somewhat like a traitor."
    3. "Born of an English mother and a South African father, Pietersen attended Maritzburg College in Pietermaritzburg."
  6. The achievements section looks messy.
    1. In the "Achievements" section, you may intergrate the records and awards into a written section rather than dot points.
    2. Is it really necassary to have every man of the match performance?

SpecialWindler 06:15, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comments/Reply re SpecialWindler:

  • 1. Done - Addressed, there is one small section that probably needs expansion rather than merging - I've placed a template there for reference.
  • 2., 3. and 6. Pause for thought - Just following a comparative Featured Article (Paul Collingwood) and the standard infobox developed by WP Cricket - perhaps these comments should be addressed there, if you don't mind I'll leave it as it is for a moment until we get further comment.
  • 4. Done - I've altered this in the prose, in tables * should suffice.
  • 5. Done - All referenced.

Thanks for the review. –MDCollins (talk) 13:21, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I brought these issues up with the WP:CRICKET team, and we've come up with the idea that if, for example, a regular bowler hasn't taken 10wkts, a 0 shall be used, and if it is unlikely that a part-time bowler will do so, – will suffice. Same goes for stumpings (KP isn't a wicketkeeper so 0 seems a bit unfair).
As for the achivements, nobody seemed to comment, Paul Collingwood became FA with something similar, and all the records are in the prose. If you've any further comments, the article is now a Featured article candidate, and another review would be most welcome.

–MDCollins (talk) 22:45, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Automated Peer review

edit

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

You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, –MDCollins (talk) 00:13, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pipe organ

edit

A review please to assess further changes before FA nomination. –MDCollins (talk) 16:24, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Walton_monarchist89's review

edit
A few points:
  • Currently, key terms throughout the article are bolded - unbold them, at least in the lead section. According to the Manual of Style, the only words in the lead section that should be bolded are the article title and its synonyms. Having bold text throughout the article is confusing for the reader, and isn't consistent with other Wikipedia articles.
  • I'd advise moving some of the excessive detail from the lead section to other parts of the article. For instance, I don't think that this bit needs to be in the lead section: "Solo organ music is usually played before and after the service. These pieces are generally called voluntaries." Possibly move all this detail to a separate heading on "Common uses of pipe organs" or something of that nature.
  • On the plus side, the prose quality is good, and there's plenty of sourcing. The areas for improvement are fairly minor, so overall this is a very good article. Walton Need some help? 19:27, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

N.B. I've unbolded the article, moved some of the lead out, and I'm giving full citations for the weblinks. Looks like FA is not far off now. Thanks. –MDCollins (talk) 20:24, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jayron32's Review

edit
  1. The lead has organization issues. In clipping the lead as described above, you may have cut TOO much, and introduced some organization issues. For example, the second paragraph isn't coherent at all. It jumps from history to structure to music. Then in the third paragraph, we jump back to structure again. Think of the lead as an article in minature. For each substantial section in the body of the article, consider a paragraph in the lead that generally summarizes (hits the high points or gives a general idea of the content of) each section, in the same order as the article and also of the same proprotional size as is given in the article.
  2. Construction section is not bad, but needs tightening up in places, for example:
    1. allowing the pipes to speak Really? What wisdom do they expound? Metaphor is great in other venues, but an encyclopedia article should stick to straight speech. It needn't be boring, but it should be academic...
    2. Before the advent of electricity, this is how all organs were provided with wind awkward sentance. Maybe include this nugget of info in a prior sentance rather than hanging it out like that. Even if you keep the sentance, it needs a rewrite...
    3. Playing the organ in those days required at least one person to operate the bellows Those days? ugh...
    4. Before the advent of electric blowers it is thought that some organs were fitted with motors (often water turbines) which manipulated the bellows through the use of a crankshaft commas maybe? This sentance is hard to parse, and needs something...
    5. may feature a wind pressure of only 1.5 inches, while an orchestral organ from the early twentieth century may have wind pressures as high as 25 inches in some divisions. Non-standard pressure designations. Either use the correct unit (inches of mercury) or use more standard units using torr, bars, kilopascals, or something like that.
    6. There may be more copyediting needed, but this is a start...
  3. Referencing has big issues.
    1. You probably need a separate "references" and "notes" section. See WP:CITE or WP:FN for more info on this.
    2. Inline referencing, either using parenthetical notes or footnotes, may be appropriate if each section contains information from a wide range of sources. You should indicate which specific source provides each fact; if a web source use a link to the specific page, or if a book a cite to a specific page or pages as appropriate.
    3. Where a whole section may be referenced to a single source, consider indicating such in the reference section, such as:
      1. Construction: Doe, John (2002). Pipe organs and You, Some University Press, Anytown USA, ISBN: 987656451
      2. History: Smith, Jane (1999). The History of the Pipe Organ, Dick Jones Publishing, London, ISBN:1233464578
    4. Superlative claims should ALWAYS have direct inline citations, even if you have cited the entire section to a single source, as I describe above. For example The most famous composer of organ music was Johann Sebastian Bach, is challengable, since it expresses a superlative claim, and an opinion at that, and thus needs a specific reference (to a specific webpage or page in a book) where the claim is made.

That's a start. Good luck on improving this. It is a pretty good article right now, but needs some work to get to FA status...--Jayron32|talk|contribs 05:31, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just a comment on the use of 'speak' - this is the term generally used when discussing pipes, and indeed SOED says 'speak' may apply to any musical instrument. But perhaps it will be unfamiliar to the general reader and 'sound' might be better? Barnabypage 13:35, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Likewise, a quick comment on the use of pressure units: wind pressures in the organ are always given in inches of water... not sure what this works out to, but it's not mmHg, kPa, bars, or torr. —Cor anglais 16 13:50, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sorted the wind pressure - now in first paragraph of wind system. copy edit please! Also created inch of water (approx 250 pa). –MDCollins (talk) 14:24, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Recent changes look good. The lead is MUCH improved. It summarizes the article, and has a coherant organization. The inches of water thing now makes sense as well. Referencing still needs work, but I expect that will take longer anyways. Good job on the improvements done so far though!--Jayron32|talk|contribs 00:44, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Responding to a comment on my talk page. The referencing looks VERY good now. I think the style of referencing now largely mimics those I often see on most Featured Articles. Compare this article to Cricket World Cup, a current FA article which is fairly short and uses a referencing style very similar to this one. With regard to the appendix sections at the end; they look great. I would EXPECT the largest section to be footnotes. I would probably list the appendix sections in this order: See also—References—Notes—Bibliography—External links. For more information, see: Wikipedia:Manual of Style (headings)#Standard appendices and Wikipedia:Guide to layout#Standard appendices and descriptions. Also, several sections are as yet without any reference, I am sure you are working on this... Good luck, and drop me a line if you need any more help! --Jayron32|talk|contribs 16:55, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Automated Review

edit

St. Mary's Church, Lübeck

edit

This A-class article was translated by User:WilliamH from the German Wikipedia. Copyediting is needed and any suggestions on what needs to change featured article status. User:Mahanga 14:40, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

History of the New York Giants (1979-1993)

edit

Getting this article ready for FA, any comments are welcome. Quadzilla99 10:15, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The lead in particular needs some tweaking but I can't think of how to go about it. Quadzilla99 10:24, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Christian Church

edit

This article has undergone substantial expansion and rewrite and is now considered relatively "complete." Looking for general feedback and peer ratings. In particular looking for feedback as to the "scope" of the article (too broad? too narrow?) given the other articles on Christianity that exist.

Thanks in advance.

--Mcorazao 15:41, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Article is well-written, linked, broad, and seems NPOV. Despite it's scope and importance, it has only 8 sources listed, and 3 images. Could use singificant improvement in those two areas. Nswinton\talk 16:48, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A separate list of references used would also be very useful. John Carter 20:58, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the feedback so far. I've been doing some enhancements to address these. More to do ...

--Mcorazao 14:03, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

History of India

edit

I think that, with some feedback, this article can be made a candidate for a Good Article. The structure of several sentences is flawed, thus flawing the flow of the article as a whole. However, before I do some corrections, I find myself stopping, as I am not sure. So, I need the feedback of others for this article on how to improve it. Universe=atom•Talk•Contributions• 16:44, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment The article needs references, inline citations. Few days back, some inline citations for the sections "Pre-historic era", "Bronze age" and "Colonial era" were added. However, the rest of the article is absolutely lacking in inline citations. Most of the sections have daughter articles. And the sections here are summaries of corresponding daughter articles. So inline citations used in those daughter articles can be used here.--Dwaipayan (talk) 18:10, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Evolution

edit

One of the core topics of biology. All suggestions are welcome - copy-editing, suggestions for content, sources, corrections and simplification. NOTE - if you have not edited Wikipedia before, please just click the "Edit this page" tab above and add your comments at the bottom. Formatting will be added later. Thank you. TimVickers 22:28, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Quadell

edit
  • Wow. To this lay-person, the article looks fantastic. Well-written and approachable, copiously referenced and well-illustrated. I'm afraid I don't have the biology background to say if it's missing any major facets, but what's there is very good. (I don't think the to-do list at the top of the talk page is up-to-date, is it?) – Quadell (talk) (random) 00:10, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, that list even refers to some sections that no longer exist! Thanks for the comments. TimVickers 01:02, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Firsfron

edit
  • There's a problem with this passage: "These anatomical similarities between living and fossil organisms can provide evidence of the relationships between different groups of organisms. Important fossil evidence includes the connection of distinct classes of organisms by "transitional" species, such as the Archaeopteryx, which provided early evidence for intermediate species between dinosaurs and birds,[161] and the recently-discovered Tiktaalik, which clarifies the development from fish to animals with four limbs.[162]" Archaeopteryx isn't a species, it's a genus. You could substitute Archaeopteryx lithographica here, or change "species" to something else. However, since every species can be considered an example of a transitional species (because species are always evolving), this passage is an oversimplification, and it should be modified to address this issue. Firsfron of Ronchester 02:25, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Good point. How about "Important fossil evidence includes the connection of distinct classes of organisms by "transitional fossils", such as Archaeopteryx specimens, which provided early evidence for the evolution of dinosaurs into birds," Is that more accurate? TimVickers 02:33, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That works for me. :) Firsfron of Ronchester 02:54, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Nope. "Classes" implies a distinct taxonomic level. How about "taxa"? Esseh 04:50, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
OK, how about - "Important fossil evidence includes the connection of distinct species by "transitional fossils" TimVickers 05:24, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't like the reference here to "transitional fossils". Technically, every fossil in the record is an example of a transitional fossil because all populations of organisms are in transition. Firsfron of Ronchester 06:48, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Also, "distinct species" is far too specific (no pun intended). That implies the fossil record is complete. It also implies that the transition is a quantum jump, rather than a gradual transition. Is "taxa" too much jargon, even with a link? How about "distinct groups of organisms"? Clumsy, but not jargon. Esseh 07:25, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
OK, "distinct groups of organisms" added. Thank you. TimVickers 16:52, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Esseh

edit
  • I tinkered with the 1st two paragraphs. I found that the gradual nature of evolution was too implied. Similarly, be VERY careful with the use of the word "survive". We're talking degrees of fitness here, not an "all" (survive and reproduce) or "nothing" (die and do not reproduce) phenomenon. This is a common misconception, and we have to avoid it here. I tried to make it clearer in the intro that even a slight edge in reproductive fitness (and some luck) will cause an increase in the genes for some traits.
On further comments, I notice you start with a microevolutionary approach and lead into macroevolution. I prefer that approach myself, but notice that they're not headings. Perhaps the article would be better divided into those sections, with appropriate sub-sections? Might do to explain the distinction up front, too. Hope that helps. Esseh 05:14, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Added a brief definition of these terms at the beginning of the "Outcomes of evolution" section. TimVickers 05:32, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tim. Well worded. Thanks. You may want to check the intro paragraph again. Apparently someone didn't like my changes - the inclarities remain, and I promise to keep my hands off from now on. Esseh 05:37, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tim, couldn't resist tinkering a bit with the genetics section. One bit bothers me still. This section:
"His research laid the foundation for the concept of discrete heritable traits, known today as genes.[20] Mendel's ideas replaced the notion of "blending inheritance" prevalent at the time Darwin wrote The Origin of Species, and solved the long-standing problem of the persistence of variation within populations."
My problems are:
  1. Heritable traits are not genes; genes encode (carry information about) heritable traits.
  2. Blending inheritance was more than a "notion", and there was more than one flavour. Though now discredited, they were widely accepted hypotheses (even theories) at the time. Might I suggest "...replaced various theories of "blending inheritance" prevalent..." Or "hypotheses", if you don't want to give them undue weight from a modern perspective. Esseh 18:12, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Replaced with "Mendel's findings disproved the various ideas of "blending inheritance" prevalent at the time Darwin wrote The Origin of Species," and also "His research laid the foundation for the concept of discrete heritable traits, which are controlled by genes." Thanks for these corrections. TimVickers 18:36, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds good. Thanks. Esseh 19:03, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Nowimnthing

edit
  • I don't think I like the outcomes of evolution section. I think we have avoided the macro-micro terms due to their conflation with the ID movement in the public/layman mind. I know that is not too valid of a reason, but if we are going to have this here we need to word it very clearly that there is not a qualitative difference between the terms just a quantitative one. Nowimnthing 05:49, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Not all the references I found agree with that interpretation. Have a look at the citations and see what you think. TimVickers 05:53, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am not a biologist so I will take your word for it, but as someone who has battled the hords of creationist vandals I would just note that they try to exploit any crack in scientific knowledge. Sure there may be some scientists, working at the cutting edge of genetic and biology who have the knowledge to disgree about the exact definition of macro vs micro but if we word that incorrectly, the ID people will jump all over it as proof that they were right all along and that macro does not exist. They will point to wikipedia for proof that there is a fundamental difference between the two. In the past I have done some academic article database searches for the terms micro and macro and found very few peer reviewed articles using them. Maybe part of the problem is the poor shape the macro and micro pages here. We need some serious work to be done there, but most of us are not biologists and not competent enough to take a stab at it, maybe we need peer review on those pages as well. Nowimnthing 06:07, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
OK the latest edit seems to read a little better I think the technical aspect and references help, we do need something like this to clear up the confusion in laymen. Nowimnthing 06:13, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Madprime

edit

Intro

  • this is minor. 1st paragraph, last sentence - natural selection and genetic drift are mentioned. Later in "Mechanisms of Evolution" these two are mentioned, but gene flow is also mentioned. Is this inconsistent? (I'm not an expert in these definitions, don't take this too seriously.)

Heredity section (and a little beyond)

  • (minor) I don't think it should start with Mendel, although it should certainly mention him, but I'd rather the concept be mentioned first since this is really about the concept itself... For example I start Genetics#Discrete inheritance and Mendel's laws with: "At its most fundamental level, inheritance in organisms occurs by means of discrete traits, called "genes". This property was first observed by Gregor Mendel, who studied the segregation of heritable traits in pea plants."
Reworded.
Now completely re-written and Mendel removed to the History section. TimVickers 23:37, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm a bit uncomfortable with how much material is given to non-DNA inheritance. (This said as someone who is supposedly trying to study DNA methylation.) I think these are exceptional cases and it's very speculative that these might at all apply to evolution. If it's going to be in here, I think it should be done more succinctly. (I see this material was here before you got to the article. Well, my opinion is this is confusing trivia that, as far as we can tell, has very little to do with evolution. Maybe something will be found, but it's all very speculative. In my opinion, be bold and cut a lot of this out. Just because it's true doesn't mean it belongs.)
I cut about half of this.
  • If you want to add more appropriate material to this section, maybe add more about the sequence nature of DNA? DNA as a polymer of four different nucleotides. I'd also change "genes re-defined as regions within this DNA" to instead say something more like "genes re-defined as sequences of DNA within the chromosome" since they're more really defined by sequence rather than location. Also, I don't think it should say DNA is "within chromosomes", that almost sounds like the DNA is buried within a non-DNA chromosome when really the chromosome most fundamentally defined as being that piece of DNA. :-)
I think a lot of the mass of a chromosome is protein, maybe about half, judging from the nucleosome structure. I've reworded this completely to try to work around this.
Yeah, I only meant "most fundamentally" -- chromosome generally also includes proteins, but always includes the DNA. That is, admittedly, a definition that was arrived at after time, as originally chromosomes were just those things that got stained ... I just reworded it again to my liking, hope that's ok. Madeleine 03:10, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • If you add stuff about genes being sequences, maybe you can then you can say the sequence of genes determines the sequence of amino acids in proteins, which consequently determining protein structure and function? I wonder if maybe you're avoiding this level of detail. Later you can say point mutations sometimes change an amino acid in the protein sequence, causing a structural change that can affect the protein's function. (I notice now that the article mentions amino acids and codons in the context of frame shift mutation, given that it's mentioned there I think it'd be good to add this other stuff.)
Added, thanks.

Variation

  • "The heritable portion of an individual's traits, their phenotype, results from the interaction of their specific genetic makeup, or genotype with the environment." This sentence is confusing, it appears to be saying "A phenotype is the heritable portion of an individual's traits".
I've defined genotype and phenotype earlier, makes this much easier.

Recombination

  • The section starts with a statement on asexual = linked, then goes on to describe linkage in sexual organisms. It would be nice to have a little statement noting that between independent assortment and recombination, most genes are not linked to each other. Don't want the reader to walk away thinking linkage is the rule rather than the exception. :-)
Expanded, and added independent assortment (this is what comes from working on an (asexual diploid)!
  • "Recombination in sexual organisms allows disadvantageous mutations to be purged and beneficial mutations to be retained more efficiently than in asexual organisms.[52] However, recombination can also lead to more individuals with new and advantageous gene combinations being produced." I would replace "However" with "In addition", I don't see these as contrasting statements.
Good point. I'm addicted to "however"! TimVickers 00:41, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okay I have to do some other stuff but that's probably the major material I would be commenting on anyway. Good luck with the editing. :-) Madeleine 21:17, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Verisimilus

edit
Images
Images are laid out a bit haphazardly. Avoid sandwiching text between images on left and right, be wary of placing images on the left when they may offset section headings and make the article look messy.
Formatted left-aligned images. TimVickers 16:44, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Adaptation
The last sentence of the first paragraph here would use rewording, it's a little messy.
Ugh! It was wasn't it. Reworded. TimVickers 16:44, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
mdashes
Should be consistent in the presence or absence of a space on either side. I can't remember what the MOS says here...
I'll get back to you on this one! :) TimVickers 16:44, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
All text em dashes spaced, all citation en dashes unspaced. Done. TimVickers 20:17, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Co-evolution
The descriptions of the mechanisms could perhaps be expanded or clarified. At the moment it's a little opaque for the non specialist.
Reworded for clarity. TimVickers 20:36, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Common descent
Perhaps a mention of molecular clocks would be fitting here?
Added link. TimVickers 20:36, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speciation
has also been observed in the natural world, which should perhaps be added to "under laboratory conditions". There's a dandelion-like grass whose name I can't remember (maybe a ragweed?), which evolved into a new species, "Norfolk ragweed", by polyploidy. (I've probably got the names very wrong!) :I've also heard that mosquitoes have evolved into separate sub-species on different lines of the London Underground, although this may be an urban myth...
Added, with ref for apple fruit-fly review. TimVickers 20:36, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Evolution from monkeys
Monkeys is a paraphyletic group and thus the explanation may perhaps be more scientifically satisfactory if, say, Chimpanzees was used? Can't really use "apes" as we are apes...
I know, but this is the phrase you so often hear. Are we trapped by their inaccuracy? TimVickers 16:44, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Permian-Triassic extinction event
I'm pretty sure it's more than 90% of marine species that went extinct. I've heard 95% and think that was with regards to genera, it may even have been 99% of species? I'm sure there's a lot of variation in the literature but a reference would be useful. It would also make sense to use species as a measure of the size of the K-T extinction, for consistency.
Cited review and changed everything to species terms. TimVickers 20:36, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"Human activities are probably the cause of the ongoing extinction event"
{{fact}}
Ref added. TimVickers 16:44, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Phylogenetic tree of life
An unrooted version of this image would be much more satisfactory.
True, do you have any examples to hand? TimVickers 16:44, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Not in the public domain, alas...
Sigh. Welcome to the rat race that is Wikipedia. I replaced a previous rooted version with this upload of mine some time ago, but clearly, the dipsticks prevailed. There is an SVG version of this, too that I don't like particularly. Someone should probably do a more modern version from scratch and in SVG. Not me. Samsara (talk • contribs) 01:59, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Abiogenesis / Origin of life
Both of these links lead to the same page. Should both be wikilinked in close proximity? (I think maybe it's okay to do so.)
Removed link and defined abiogenesis in first sentence. TimVickers 16:44, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Last universal ancestor
Should this read last universal common ancestor?
The Wikipedia page is "last universal ancestor" but I've piped the link. TimVickers 16:44, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
All these multicellular forms of life were eukaryotes
It's simply not true that all multicellular forms of life are eukaryotes. All plants and animals are but that renders the eukaryote statement redundant.
Slime moulds are multicellular amoebae; Thiomargarita are multicellular sulfur-reducing bacteria that have been reported (unconvinceingly, see Bailey 2006, in Science) in the Precambrian, and acritarchs are still by definition unplaced in the tree of life. The Twitya Nimbia discs which are the first firm evidence of multicellularity are commonly assumed to be a microbial colony. I'd remove or dilute this probable overstatement.
Slime moulds are eukaryotes and Thiomargarita spp are unicellular, although macroscopic. Myxobacteria are the best example of multicellularity in prokaryotes, although this is just in part of their life cycle. Removed word "all" to blunt this statement slightly. TimVickers 16:27, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I stand corrected... Some Thiomargarita (if I've understood correctly) become multicellular as a response to stress. However they're not complex multicellulars... I'd recently received a firm slap on the wrist for making a similar statement but perhaps I said eumetazoans... Verisimilus T 21:12, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And repetition of 'Which' in the following sentence makes it read clumsily
Reworded. TimVickers 16:44, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
[The Cambrian Explosion] originated all the known body plans, or phyla, of modern animals ; Somebody's been reading too much Gould! Investigations into the Ediacaran biota have shown that not to be the case. It is in many cases the first instances of the phyla entering the fossil record, or becoming mineralised - not the same thing as their genesis at all. Hox genes certainly didn't cause the explosion, they evolved long before it (Rosa 1999?); Sex was almost certainly long before it too. Oxygenation of the atmosphere was produced by photosynthesis since around 3.5-2000Ma, depending on how sceptical you are - it was the accumulation that has been cited as a probable cause of the explosion. This may have been triggered by the completion of "rusting planet earth", i.e. the oxidation of all the metallic iron and rocks and minerals.
A favourite author, you've caught me! Replaced with "majority of body plans" I don't make any judgement on which explanation for the Cambrian diversification is correct, if that is the right word to use with HOX being a proximal explanation and oxygen an ultimate one. I've removed the un-cited example. TimVickers 17:13, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm still uncomfortable about the inclusion of Hox genes. Just about everything imaginable has been cited somewhere as a possible cause, and whilst I'm surprised to find HOX genes being mentioned so recently - especially from Jim Valentine - I can't help but feel that something more understandable to the lay reader would be more appropriate, especially as there's pretty condemning evidence against the role of Hox, and indeed reasonably firm evidence for the splitting of phyla well before the Cambrian (e.g. Kimberella) which stand against the hypothesis. Maybe I'm bordering on POV here though... Other perhaps more easily understood triggers could include an influx of nutrients or Calcium into the oceans (See Squire et al 2006, Brennan 2005), the advent of biomineralisation, or the evolution of planktonic microherbivores (mentioned in pretty much anything by Butterfield from 2001-2007). All these have their weak points, and indeed attempting to pin the explosion on a single cause is probably doomed to failure (which makes me feel that it may be best to avoid it altogether, as any hint of wavering on the part of science will probably be seized upon by the ID types).
I think you are right, HOX genes will be meaningless to the general reader. I've retained the reference and just used O2 as an example. TimVickers 22:03, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
References
A large and tedious job, this one! Use a consistent reference style (e.g. spacing and type of dash in pages xxx-yyy, author initial punctuation); expand all journal names. Try and ensure that all references contain a link, either in the form of URL or DOI or equivalent. DOI is by far preferable to PMID; these should be replaced if possible.
I'll check through these again. However, journal names do not need to be expanded, and PMID or DOI are perfectly acceptable equivalents - this is left up to the author concerned, see WP:CITE for discussion of reference styles and Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Proteasome for a discussion of this last time it came up during FAC. TimVickers 16:44, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Fine. I prefer DOI as it actually takes you to the article but I suppose that's a personal preference.
A rule I try to follow is that if the article is free-full text I add a link and then the article name is hyperlinked. However, if a subscription is required I just add a PMID, which takes you to the abstract. I think this makes it easier for the normal reader with no library access at their IP address. TimVickers 21:57, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That sounds fair enough... I assumed that DOIs took you to an abstract if you didn't have access rights, clearly not. The perils of being spoilt with access...

User:BirgitteSB

edit
  • History of evolutionary thought Great subtitle :)
    • I like everything here, but I feel it should not necessarily end at 1953.
Fixed by merge with "Modern research" section. TimVickers 16:54, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • It reads Lamark's idea were "seen in England as a threat to political and religious stability". By omitting this angle in the rest of the section it gives the impression later trains of thought were not seen as a threat. This is later dealt with; but I feel you should mention some thing like "evolutionary thought continued to evoke social and religious controversy throughout its history."
Added, thank you. TimVickers 16:55, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Mutation
    • When talking of germline vs somatic mutations, you might want to spend a little more time making it clear that somatic mutations have no effect on evolution.
Added. TimVickers 17:39, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • An example of chromosomal rearrangements is the fusion of two chromosomes in the Homo genus that produced human chromosome 2; this fusion did not occur in the chimpanzee lineage, and chimpanzees retain two separate chromosomes. However, in this case, chromosomal rearrangements do not appear to have driven the divergence of the human and chimpanzee lineages. It would be much better if you could replace this example with one that supports the idea of chromosomal rearrangment causing rapid speciation. It is too confusing to talk about that, give an example, and qualify it by saying that the example isn't actually and example of what was being talked about.
Looking at the literature more closely, I think chromosomal rearrangements are not really thought to be involvewd directly in speciation events. Have reworded the para to reflect this. TimVickers 22:19, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Gene flow
    • I think the discussion of hybridization needs to be reworked. The first mention is with mules which really should be just mentioned at the end as a counter-example. The introduction of mule is followed by Such hybrids are generally infertile, due to mispairings of chromosomes during meiosis. Which is really bad because many people will not read it as [Mules] are generally infertile; but instead may understand it as [Hybrids as a group] are generally infertile. I really think this paragraph should first discuss viable hybrids and their evolutionary consequences; importance of hybridization in plants, and then bring in non-viable hybrids.
But hybrids as a group generally are infertile! Verisimilus T 16:01, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have a bit of an agriculture background so I was mis-understanding hybrids there. Hybrid is primarily understood as "cross-bred variety" as opposed to "a product of different species" in my mind. Perhaps it is incorrect to call a cross-bred variety a "hybrid" but it is commonly done. If we are mainly talking about infertile hybrids here, I am even less certain how this is a relevent example for gene flow. It seems to be example of when gene flow doesn't happen and should be a less prominant part of the section.--BirgitteSB 17:27, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The term hybrid does have two common meanings in biology, this section obviously needs re-working for clarity! TimVickers 17:32, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Lead to this section re-written to (hopefully) make this clearer. TimVickers 22:34, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • The discussion of reinforcement should probably be moved to the natural selection section. It reads Selection against hybrids may result in reinforcement, this seems to be really about natural selection rather than gene flow.
Good point, removed. TimVickers 22:34, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Genetic drift
    • First I think the second paragraph about effective population size needs to be moved to the "Mechanisms of evolution" heading. Add some information about a population size having relevance or not to the importance of gene flow in evolution and it is a great introduction putting the various mechanisms in relation to one another.
    • After moving that out this section simply needs more content. One idea is to move "natural selection" to being the first of the three subheadings and then put the paragraph on current research prompted by the neutral theory of molecular evolution in this section. The new order would also help readers make sense of the phrase "In the absence of selection".
A very good idea, thank you. Rearranged as suggested. TimVickers 23:17, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Outcomes of evolution This little paragraph on macro-/micro-evolution fails to actually introduce what follows.
  • Adaptation This section is the most problematic so far.
    • The intro says an adaptation is a specifically defined trait that not only enhances performance of some specific function, but also evolved under selection to perform that function . However the section quickly begins discussing common descent and then spends a lot of time on vestiges which do not actually enhance performance of some specific function. If the description of adaption given is correct; the section should stick closer to discussing things that fit that description and describing how they fit that description.
    • I can see the relevance of exaptations here but only if there much more content of adaption discussion vs exaptation discussion. Right now there is little discussion that's main focus is adaption.
Section re-written with new introduction. TimVickers 18:46, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is better, but I still feel you need more information on things which are adaptions rather than things which are not. Actually I find the difference between expaptation and adaption hard to identify. Exaptation is co-opting an existing struture for a new use. Adaption is gradual modification of an existing structure for a specific function. Surely penguin flippers have been modified through evolution since the ancesteral species flew just as the bat wings were modifed from the forelimbs of some ancestral species which did not fly. Why is one an adaption and the other not? Also reading that section again, I see "trait" occasionally used, but all examples given are about structures. Behaivour is also subject to adaption. In fact adaption of behaivour likely drives the adaption of structures. Especially sex-specific traits relating to courtship. I think some readers could leave that section thinking adaption only relates to structures and not behaivour or complex processes at all.--BirgitteSB 20:13, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Co-evolution and cooperation
    • Missing the discussion of coevolution of symbiotic relationships.
Added plant/fungus Mycorrhiza. TimVickers 16:35, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • The second paragraph is weak. Human cells not growing uncontrollably is either a poor example or insufficiently explained. Cooperation should be explained more in terms of evolutionary fitness and who's evolutionary fitness.
Tried to explain this better. TimVickers 16:35, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • The ubiquity of cooperation in the natural world reveals that cooperation is a common outcome of evolution and it is now recognised as the third fundamental principle in evolution, alongside variation and selection. If these are the thrre fundamental principles they are given no particular weight in this article.
Hyperbole removed. TimVickers 16:35, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Common descent I feel strangely about this section. It seems immature but I cannot say exactly what it should mature into.
    • It is misplaced. If, and I feel it is a big if, we are going to look at this as an "outcome of evolution" it should probably be placed last; possibly first.
    • I feel this is missing the necessary tie in to classification models.
  • Speciation Strongest part of the article so far. I love the first paragraph.
    • Second paragraph mentions what method is most common in animals . It would be nice if the other three processes could be mentioned with the group most commonly using them.
    • I find the image slightly confusing compared to what terms are used in the text. Looking at it I am now unsure how peropatric involves isolation. I thought it did not reading the text, but then how is it different than parapatric. The illustration shows separation between populations as the only difference. After a few re-readings I understand the only difference between the two is parapatric involves a change in the fertility time-frame that makes inter-breeding highly unlikely while peropatric involves organisms fully capable of inter-breeding which do not. Can the illustration be made less confusing.
Do you mean the difference between peripatric and parapatric?
Yes.--BirgitteSB 10:48, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Added discussion of difference between these two mechanisms.
  • Extinction A good summary of extinction itself, but little discussion of what this means in terms of evolution.
    • Holocene extinction should mention the time frame. Readers will unlikely think "current" means prior to the agricultural revolution.
Added, with discussion of species selection. TimVickers 00:47, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The Holocene extinction event is the current mass extinction, involving the rapid extinction of hundreds of thousands of species and the loss of up to 30% of all species by the mid 21st century. Human activities are probably the cause of the ongoing extinction event, and climate change may further accelerate it in the future It looks like you added the bit about the mid-21st century. My problem with the time frame is readers will not understand that this is an event that began at least 9,000 years ago. It is unlikely most readers will realize "human activities" could include the Clovis people's spear-hunting from reading the current wording.--BirgitteSB 16:29, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I'd mixed my edits up there. Added a broad time-frame "...associated with humanity's expansion across the globe over the last few thousand years..." TimVickers 19:03, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Major events in evolutionary history
    • No intro text
    • What follows is not really organized as the major events in evolutionary history.
    • I have a problems with covering "Common descent" separately from the topics in this section. Common descent info should be incorporated here.
  • Evolution of life Worst section of the article
    • This sub heading has no intro. Right now it seems added in by breaking up of a pre-existing train of thought.
    • Most of this could be bullet form. Needs an explanation as to why these facts are notable or how they fit in to the bigger picture.--BirgitteSB 15:46, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Both these sections re-ordered and re-written. TimVickers 19:59, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Adam Cuerden

edit

Right, let's see...

  • Lead: Mentions "genetic drift", but does not explain what it is, and genetic drift's really just a difficult name for a simple process (if an important one in some circumstances). Worse, in Paragraph 3, you act as if genetic drift had been explained, bringing it up as if people knew what it was.
  • History: Why is this first? It's hardly the most important thing about the subject.
It either goes first or last, I'm not fussed. TimVickers 04:43, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Heredity: Wanders far from the point, contains some things that are simply wrong, like "This simple correspondence between a mutation and a trait works in many cases". No, it does so for very few cases. The explanation of an allele never actually comes to the point of really explaining alleles. For that matter, very little it tries to explain is explained effectively.
Rewritten and greatly simplified, epigenetics removed entirely. TimVickers 03:35, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Mutation: There's a third important type of mutation: A duplication, usually from a crossing over error. The term "codon" is used as if you had explained it. Another mark against the Heredity section. The terms "germline" and "somatic" are carefully explained. They never appear in the article again. The description of the fusion event in human chromosome 2 fails horribly because there's no real explanation of chromosomes.
Chromosomes defined in hereditary section, cut codons, since this level of detail doesn't really help explain evolution. SImilarly cut "germline" and "somatic" definitions. TimVickers 03:35, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Recombination: "In these circumstances, the effective population size is reduced in the Hill-Robertson effect". Like anyone's going to understand that.
Cut and reworded. TimVickers 03:35, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thoughts so far: Some huge percentage of what I've reviewed so far has nothing to do with evolution, and more to do with teaching terms, mostly rather badly, and many of which are only brought up for the purpose of defining them. The least important gfacts get a lot of space, key concepts get a passing mention. Feels like the content was gutted, then re-expanded by adding trivia.

  • Mechanisms: What's with listing the terms, then explaining them in reverse order? More importantly, why aren't these simple, easy-to-understand explanations in the lead, insstead of the awful explanations that are there? Only quibble is "founder effect" needs explained.
Rearranged, and founder effect defined. TimVickers 04:05, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Natural selection: Natural selection is not actually explained, except in the diagram. Only things relating to it are. The last paragraph, "An active area of current research is the level of selection, with natural selection being proposed to work at the level of genes, cells, individual organisms, groups of organisms and even species.[68] None of these models are mutually-exclusive and selection may act on multiple levels simultaneously.[69] In the gene-centered view of evolution, which is the lowest level of selection, intragenomic conflict is caused by "replicators" such as transposons that can multiply within genomes,[70] while group selection may allow the evolution of co-operation, as discussed below." is non-essential information dealt with in huge numbers of new jargon terms.
Defined process in first sentence, reworded "gene-centric", clarified list and re-written sexual selection. TimVickers 17:20, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Genetic drift: Content is good, with the quibble that "most evolutionary changes are the result the fixation of neutral mutations that do not affect the fitness of an organism" should actually read "most evolutionary changes are the result the fixation of neutral mutations that do not affect the fitness of an organism at that time." Somewhat pedantic, could use a little copyediting.
Changed, also changed "affect" to "effect". Copy-edited. TimVickers 16:13, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
But it *is* affect in this case, isn't it? Adam Cuerden talk 16:51, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have to look this up every time! I think effect is better here see usage note as I think we mean no immediate changes, rather than no immediate influences. TimVickers 17:03, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Gene flow: "Horizontal gene transfer has also occurred within eukaryotes, from their chloroplast and mitochondrial genome to their nuclear genome.[90]" - I'm not sure that's actually HGT. "According to endosymbiotic theory, chloroplasts and mitochondria probably originated as bacterial endosymbionts of a progenitor to the eukaryotic cell." - That's the fusion theory of creation of Eukaryotes. Symbiosis is not normally considered HGT. "Horizontal gene transfer complicates phylogenetics, since it produces genetic connections between distantly-related species." Phylogentics has not actually been explained yet.
Good point, reworded to just "gene transfer", cut phylogeny sentence but kept "endosymbiotic theory" as this is the name of the Wikipedia page and is the most common term for this in Pubmed, are you meaning something else? TimVickers 17:50, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Outcomes: Who the hell uses macroevolution and microevolution any more? What's "Within the modern evolutionary synthesis, macroevolution is the compounded effects of microevolution." supposed to mean? Is there an "outside the modern evolutionary synthesis"? Cut the whole paragraph. And, for that matter, that paragraph on how evolution does not imply progress should come after the adaptations section, because you haven't explained adaptations yet, indeed, you don't define them until the first subsection, yet harp on about them throughout the progress paragraph. Write an introduction that actually introduces the content in the subsections, and doesn't presume you already read them!
Macro/microevolution added at request of Esseh, see above. As the terms are still in textbooks, I'm in two minds on if we should keep it. I've reworded it as a compromise. "Progress" paragraph was originally a section after adaptation, which probably explains why it presumes too much. TimVickers 04:43, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Reworded complexity to replace adaptation with natural selection, simplified language a bit. Also added introductory paragraph. TimVickers 00:04, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Adaptations: Poorly-organised, introduces a lot of jargon, and keeps presuming you know the jargon. Typical for this article so far, I fear.
Re-written and condensed. TimVickers 18:52, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Co-evolution and cooperation Content selection and orginisation are good; writing abominable.
Orginisation kept, writing chaged. TimVickers 04:45, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speciation: The explanations of the types of speciation fail to explain very well. For instance:
"In contrast, the second mode, sympatric speciation, is species divergence without geographic isolation, and its identification is typically controversial, since even a small amount of gene flow may be sufficient to homogenize a potentially diverging species.[137][138] Generally, models of sympatric speciation in animals require the evolution of stable polymorphisms associated with non-random assortative mating, in order for reproductive isolation to evolve.[139] However, a common mechanism of sympatric speciation in plants appears to the the formation of polyploid species and can involve either a single plant doubling its numbers of chromosomes (an autopolyploid such as cabbage),[140] or two related plants cross-breeding to form an allopolyploid such as wheat.[141][142]"
This article varies between baby-talk, pedantic term-definition, and journal article complexity. Do any of these terms actually matter at the level of competency this article is trying for? Save it for sub-articles.
Re-written and condensed. Unnecessary technical terms removed. TimVickers 18:52, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Extinction Pedanticism mixed with lists. Do not presume knowledge of the geologic column.
Re-written and condensed. TimVickers 18:52, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Origin of life: This is the most pedantic, content-free waffle I've seen. The point is "While the origin of life, or abiogenesis, is not strictly part of evolution, it of course had to happen before evolution could start. Abiogenesis is believed to have started once chemicals that could encourage (catalyse, in the language of chemistry) their own production emerged, followed by gradual increases in complexity that gradually produced something that could be called life. However, not much is yet certain about the process, though RNA, which is somewhat self-catalytic, may have had an important role.
Removed unnecessary technical terms and condensed. TimVickers 18:57, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Common descent: "All organisms on Earth are descended from a common ancestor or ancestral gene pool." I still don't understand how you're supposed to get a gene pool that can't reduce to a single ancestor if you back up far enough, given we surely don't presume that the genetic code originated multple times. Otherwise, it's pretty good.
  • Evolution of life Another jargon-farm. "The engulfed bacteria then evolved into either mitochondria or hydrogenosomes, structures that are still found in all known eukaryotes." makes it sound like both exist in all eukaryotes, I'm pretty sure that's untrue.
Good point, split into 2 unambiguous sentences. Section re-written for clarity. TimVickers 19:07, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Modern research: Informative and well-written enough.
No references however. TimVickers 19:07, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Social and religious controversies: An awkward section to end the article on.
Moved history section to end. TimVickers 19:07, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My recommendation: With the few exceptions I praised above, this article is awful. I think some parts used to be somewhat better - content wise, if not writing-wise - than this, there may be content in versions from six months to a year ago that can be used profitably. Adam Cuerden talk 02:46, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: The section on mutation in this March version is probably stealable, you could probably use the HGT description as well, though cut Valich's POV-pushing about how HGT is why trees cannot be rooted and the last common ancestor is hypothetical. Adam Cuerden talk 03:16, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Looking on this, I really should clarify: The "you" is plural, editors in general. Not meant to refer to any one editor. There's a mixture of old awfulness, a litle new awfulness, and some real improvements, and no one editor, as far as I'm aware, is responsible for all of them. Adam Cuerden talk 15:23, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's OK, I knew what "you" meant! TimVickers 15:51, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Right. I'm going to be a bit nit-picky, but:

  • Lead still doesn't explain genetic drift.
Added.
  • Heredity section is still a bit misleading, though trying to explain the many-to-many mapping of genes to traits is very difficult in the first place. The description of alleles needs to be a little more explicit in connecting the variant genes with possible changes in function.
Re-defined in terms of alleles.
  • "Variation also comes from exchanges of genes between different species, through horizontal gene transfer in bacteria, and hybridization in plants." - Too specific, ignores between-population gene flow.
I thought this was covered in the sentence preceding it. TimVickers 21:49, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

More in a bit. On a quick skim, it looks a lot better, but there are still probably some things to fix. Adam Cuerden talk 21:25, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:PhDP

edit

First, Tim, thank you for your dedication.

Genetic drift
Some relatively minor modifications;
  • Slightly deleterious alleles can easily reach fixation when the effective population size is low, I just added a line about this in the intro of the Mechanisms section, but it's not enough. The fate of mutations, and how the different forces of evolution act of them, is a central element of the theory of evolution and it’s worth more details.
  • Nothing on the molecular clock ?
  • The time for an allele to become fixed by genetic drift depends on the effective population size. The distinction is quite important.
  • I think any discussion of genetic drift should contain an explanation of the concept of effective population size, it's fundamental to understand drift and the single sentence in the introduction of the Mechanisms introduction is simply not enough. In comparison, in Genetics of Population by Hedrick, more than half of the chapter on Genetic drift and effectice population size is devoted to the effective population size. Many discussion on effective population size are quite technical and I don't think they should be added to the article, but at least some explanation is necessary. I might do a simple graphic with Matlab to show how different sex ratios can reduce the effective population size.
  • These investigations were prompted by the neutral theory of molecular evolution, which proposed that most evolutionary changes are the result the fixation of neutral mutations that do not have any immediate effects on the fitness of an organism. That's inaccurate. A mutation can be neutral and still have an immediate effect on fitness. It's just that, considering the effective population size, the effect is so small that natural selection won't affect the fate of the allele significantly, by definition, a mutation is neutral when its fate is determined by random genetic drift, it's not defined by its effect on phenotype.
History of evolutionary thought
In my opinion, this section is too short. There's nothing about the development in the past the 50s, nothing about our great discoveries and new problems we've encountered; the importance of gene duplication, the C value enigma, molecular clock, endosymbiosis, the important of random drift, the neutral and nearly neutral theory, the integration of game theory...

The Unsex'd Females

edit

I would be particularly interested in what people with an interest in the eighteenth century or the Romantic period have to say, but I would also like to know how well this article works for a more general reader. An early reader thought that in places it sounded too academic; I have tried to address that but different eyes would certainly help. I am also wondering if the article gives a solid sense of the poem, or if the various topics seem unconnected. Another question I have is whether there is sufficient background given, and whether the significance of the poem comes across. Thanks in advance! — scribblingwoman 01:27, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Willow

edit

Hi Scribbling!

Your article reads very well! I love the way the language flows; I don't find it too academic, and I appreciate the way that thought follows on thought. I found myself feeling some unscholarly outrage at a few points, esp. the quotes from Polwhele, whom indeed "no decorum checks"; but that reflects more me than any lapse in scholarly presentation.

As you suggest, I think the article might benefit from being expanded and reorganized slightly.

  • For me, the core of the article lay in the "Unsex'd females" and "Proper ladies" sections; rather than putting them near the end, maybe you could put them ahead of the "Fashion" and "Botany" sections?
  Done
  • An interesting sidelight would be how the women themselves viewed each other, e.g., Hannah More and Mary Wollstonecraft. Were they on friendly terms? The nasty thought occurred to me that Polwhele was trying to drive a wedge into the commmunity of women writers. But it mainly seems as though he praises his women friends/teachers and chides women unknown to him.
  Done: material added to the "Proper ladies" section.— scribblingwoman 01:25, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Perhaps you might preface the article with a "Historical context" section? You could perhaps set the stage for the poem's publication, talking of the strides that women writers had been making, the general English reaction to the French revolution, and a short biography of Polwhele up to his authorship. That might lead gracefully into the "Publication history and reception" section.
  Done. At least, I think so … — scribblingwoman 01:25, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I was curious about the political dimension of the poem and the possibility of Polwhele's having political motives. Perhaps Polwhele was trying to rouse disgust at the French ways to reduce the probability of similar reform/revolution happening in England? It seems implausible, but maybe this flamboyant derision of women was merely ancillary to the political effects he hoped to evoke?
  Done: I tried to make this more clear in the "Historical context" section. — scribblingwoman 01:25, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • If the poem has large-scale structure, you might consider devoting a section to that, e.g., describing not only its length and meter, but also the topics covered in its various sections.
Not really applicable; main topics (good girls, bad girls, naughty plants, trashy French fashion) are covered. — scribblingwoman 01:25, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Wolcott appendix is tantalizing. Is it understood why the publisher thought the two parts might go well together? Does it reveal something about the targeted audience of the poem?
  Done: Or, at least, I added a phrase. Is it enough? — scribblingwoman 01:25, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Anyway, I hope that these initial thoughts are helpful to you. :) It was a pleasure to read the article (despite my flickers of outrage ;) and I'll keep thinking about suggestions for improving it. Willow 17:50, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thank you for such a close and generous reading. I think your advice about re-ordering the sections is good: I will do that. Re. the topics in the poem: I think I have given the gist of it, but I will check to be sure. The idea for a "Historical context" section is a good one, though it won't be easy to collapse so much into a paragraph or so! But I think you're right; this poem makes little sense without some wider knowledge. Perhaps I could say something about the relationships among the women there (More and Wollstonecraft, by the way, were oil and water). There is a separate entry on Polwhele, but I could probably say some more about him here, too. Re.the Wolcott appendix: it was highly political, so the implication is that the same audience would have found the "Unsex'd Females" congenial. I will clarify that and make it more explicit. Thanks again, Willow, for your time, effort, and kind words! — scribblingwoman 18:12, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • More and Wollstonecraft may not have been friends, but as Mitzi Myers has pointed out, their educational reform programs and their discussion of women's roles were often very similar. Just in case you haven't seen this article yet, it is a very good one. It reveals how our categories of "conservative" and "progressive" do not map very well onto the late eighteenth century (which, of course, you know). Awadewit Talk 19:21, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Myers, Mitzi. “Reform or Ruin: ‘A Revolution in Female Manners.’” Studies in Eighteenth-Century Culture 11 (1982): 199-216.
  Done: Mitzi Myers added in a footnote to material in the "Proper Ladies" section.

User:Quadell

edit

Greetings. This article is comprehensive, well-sourced, well-organized, and well-illustrated. There are a few parts that I think could be improved, however. (Don't feel you have to change everything I bring up, of course. Some of it's just my opinion.)

  • Structure: The final paragraph is not a part of the "French Fashions" section, but summarizes the importance of the poem. I think it's a good idea to have a summary here, but I would give it its own section, "legacy" or somesuch. The last paragraph of the "publication history and reception" should also be here, I think.
  Done
  • Writing: the text is, in places, unnecessarily stilted. Here are examples.
    • The first sentence calls the poem an "intervention", followed by four prepositional phrases. I think it would be better to call it a "poem designed to influence the public debate. . .", or words to that effect.
    • The text uses too many colons and semi-colons. The first sentence in "Historical Context", for example, uses a colon, a semi-colon, and two dashes.
    • Later in that section, sentences begin "And much of his criticism. . ." and "Or so it seemed. . ." I don't think of this as encyclopedic style. That last sentence should probably be something like "Ideas about enfranchisement, liberty, and equality were everywhere. To Polwhele and others who shared his perspective, these ideas were accompanied by attacks on. . . "
  Done
    • Similarly, "were conflated with the most outrageous actions" would be more clear and approachable as "were accused of the most outrageous actions". Most of the first half of the article should be proofread with this in mind.
  Done (the suggested change, not yet the general edit)
    • The first sentence of "Unsex'd females" seems redundant with the previous two sentences.
  Done
    • The last sentence of "Proper ladies" sounds polemical to me. Consider "Polwhele's polemical structure was not concerned with these nuances, however, preferring to [something or other]".
  Done

But all in all, it's a great article, and well-written. – Quadell (talk) (random) 15:28, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, these are useful suggestions. It is so good to get an outside pair of eyes! — scribblingwoman 16:10, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I like your improvements. "Confused with" rather than "accused of" is more specific, and more accurate. ("Conflated with" is probably the most accurate, but difficult for many readers.) By the way "I have, several times, seen boys and girls botanizing together" is now my favorite 18th century quote. :) – Quadell (talk) (random) 00:01, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I know! In a century when people were trying very, very hard to be quotable, here comes this guy who pulls out the rug from under everyone else with a throwaway line in a footnote. Sigh. I love the 18thc. — scribblingwoman 01:10, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Review by Awadewit

edit

What a nice article on Polwhele's poem! Your succinct summary of the historical context made me despair of ever becoming a succinct writer (my latest dissertation chapter has ballooned into 70 pages). Here are my suggestions.

  • I wonder if you could say something more specific than "the role of women" in the first sentence - is it "the role of women in the public sphere" (although of course you couldn't use public sphere)?
  • Made a couple of unsatisfactory stabs; will come back to this.
  • In the second paragraph of the lead you imply that the poem is only of interest to scholars. Perhaps you could find a way to phrase it that broadens that field such as "those interested in the history of women as well as revolutionary politics" or something like that. If someone reads the lead who isn't a scholar and sees that it is only of interest to scholars, perhaps they will not be encouraged to read on.
  Done
  • In the infobox you list Cobbett as the publisher - usually the infobox gives information for the first edition (Cadell and Davies?) Also, I deleted the "subject" information; I am begining to find that that field fosters reductive information.
  • Deletion fine by me. Cobbett is listed as the illustration is of the edition he published; have added the original publisher in parentheses.
  • In the first paragraph of the "Historical context" section I think that you need to give slightly more context. For example, give just a few phrases describing Behn's and Philip's careers and their reputations so that the reader knows more precisely what kind of comparison you are drawing. Also, mention a detail or two that made Wollstonecraft's life unconvential. Essentially, make the history "come alive" for the reader through detail.
  • I tend to identify scholars when I name them so that readers know why they should take the quotations I am providing seriously; so, for example, "Janet Todd, a scholar of the period," or whatever is most relevant to the quotation.
  • As indicated by his subtitle - did you mean title? I was slightly confused.
  Done
  • One reviewer comments this "ingenious poem" with its "playful sallies of sarcastic wit" against "our modern ladies,"[13] though others found it "a tedious, lifeless piece of writing." - I found this sentence a bit awkward.
  • I might rearrange the pictures - it is odd to have Wollstonecraft looking off the screen. Left-facing portraits usually go on the right side of the page. They are "looking at" the reader more, then.
  Done
  • The Wollstonecraft quote from the poem is missing what I presume is a book number as are several others.
  • Polwhele's polemical structure is not concerned with these nuances, however, and he positions these writers strictly according to his overarching scheme. - which is primarily political?
  • The contemporary reader may find some of Polwhele's preoccupations, particularly botany and fashion, amusing. - this is opinion and probably doesn't belong in an encyclopedia
  • Footnote 5 - wikipedia is not a suitable reference. You have to find outside sources. The page's characterization of Wollstonecraft is problematic to say the least.
  • If you want to submit this page for "featured article" eventually (and I think you should), you will need to standardize the footnotes and bibliography (ISBNs for all books, formatting for every note should be the same, etc.). Awadewit Talk 07:20, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Golf

edit

Since this is such a large article, it's hard to know where to start when trying to improve it. I'd just like some ways to improve the article, as I hope the article will be a good article and eventually a featured article in the future. Could you please indicate whether you think this article is ready for GA status as yet? Thanks very much for the time and effort the peer reviewers put into not only this article but all articles. Grover 11:22, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, I would say that the article is huge - over 70kb. It's a big topic, so the best way to approach it may be to split some topics off into separate articles, and cut down the summaries of topics that already have their own articles. For example, the "Hitting a golf ball" and "Environmental impact" sections could be split off, and summarized much more briefly in the Golf article. The "Cost to play" section is far too detailed and long - it's not a major concern in an encyclopaedia entry about the sport. There are many areas where the prose could be cut down and expressed more succinctly, so some copyediting could be in order.
The second thing you must look at is inline references - there aren't many for an article this long, and there are lots of unreferenced statements. Try to have at least one reference for each paragraph. Hopefully that should get you started! mais (talk) 13:24, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

An article this long probably merits a four or five paragraph lead to summarize it accurately. (see WP:LEAD) Wrad 21:12, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Police

edit

I was sort of suprised when I saw the article was only rated B class. However, I would like to help the article in anyway I can, and maybe get it to GA status, someday. Cool Bluetalk to me 21:22, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tantra

edit

I think that this a "B" quality article. Please suggest areas that need expansion or better sources. Please comment on formatting. Suggest directions that the article might go in.

TheRingess (talk) 15:55, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Some comments I made previously Buddhipriya

edit

I have not actively worked on this article but I would like to make some general comment about how I think it currently reads. Overall I think the article gives a very limited view of a very broad subject that is difficult to categorize because it includes several major subdivisions that are not articulated in the article. In a nutshell, I think the article could be improved by making a more clear differentiation between the concepts of Tantra, Vamachara, and Shaktism. It also would benefit from more clear separation between modern Western interpretations and original Hindu sources. This need to separate Western from Hindu materials also exists on related articles such as Chakra, Kundalini, and others.

In Hinduism the term "Tantras" covers a huge range of scriptures that in addition to metaphysical material includes things such as guidelines on consecration of public water tanks, laws of inheritance of property, and guidelines for punishment of treason. N.N. Bhattacharya notes the broad sociological issue in this passage:

"(Tantrism) was more than a mere religious system or stream or undercurrent. Its intimate association with the practical aspects of life is proved by the emphasis it attached to the arts of agriculture, metallurgy, manual and technical labour, chemical sciences, physiology, embryology and medicine. The sociological viewpoints expressed in the Tantras were in virtual opposition to those upheld by the Smārta-Puranic tradition." <ref>N.N. Bhattacharya, ''History of the Tantric Religion'' (Delhi: Manohar, 1999), p. 12.</ref>

There is a popular tendency to identify Tantra exclusively with Vamachara, "the left-handed path". However in most of the philosophical and legal Tantras there is no place for Vamachara at all. The Western tendency to interpret Tantra in a highly sexualized way tends to overlook the existence of the practical Tantras as a category and to misrepresent the highly abstract philosophical nature of the philosophical Tantras. I must admit that in saying this I show a personal bias, which is that I think that Western interpretations of tantra are sometimes culturally-insensitive to Hindu traditions, over-emphasizing sexual aspects. The same hyper-sexualization of religious sources is seen in the Western reflex to translate the term "lingam" as meaning only "penis" without being aware of more general meanings such as "sign" or "mark" or "characteristic". Conflict over this issue has shown up on the article for Lingam which now gives both views in a more balanced way.

There is a similar confusion regarding the relation between the Shakta tradition and the Tantra tradition. Douglas Renfrew Books summarizes this point by saying that:

"Goudriaan makes clear that not all Śāktas are Tantrics and that Tantrism, unlike Śāktism, is not restricted to any one Hindu denomination, or even to any single Indian religious tradition."<ref>Douglas Renfrew Brooks, ''The Secret of the Three Cities: An Introduction to Hindu Shakta Tantrism'' (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1990), p. 48. ISBN 0-226-07570-2.</ref>

Thus a worshipper of the Goddess is a Shakta but that does not automatically make him or her a Tantric, and vice versa. For example, within denominations such as the Ganapatya there are forms of worship that are classified as Tantric that are not primarily centered on the Goddess, and which have nothing to do with Vamachara. See, for example, Gudrun Bühnemann's book The Worship of Mahāgaṇapati According To The Nityotsava (Institut für Indologie: 1988) ISBN 81-86218-12-2. A similar issue arises within Shaivism, where some of the Agamic literature dealing with Shiva is classified as Tantric. For a table sorting out some of the Tantric traditions in Shaivism and distinguishing them from Shaktism see: Axel Michaels Hinduism, p. 217.

For all of these reasons, even the definition of tantra is problematic and some academics have taken to using a multifactorial approach in which some constellation of traits must be present to classify a text as "tantric" in one way or another. This approach is basically "if it looks like a duck, sounds like a duck, etc." it is probably a duck.

A slow process of expansion could begin to work some of these things in. But it all needs to be very well sourced using solid academic materials. No improvement will come unless multiple editors agree to raise the bar on source quality and draw the line on use of marginal sources. Buddhipriya 18:25, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This critique is quite wonderful. Five years later, someone is paying attention to it. Thanks! Jnananetra (talk) 06:44, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Automated Peer Review Results

edit

TheRingess

edit

In my opinion, the article does not provide enough of a historical context. I would like to see the following questions answered in the article.

  1. Where did Tantra originate and when? If there is a disagreement as to where and when then what are the various theories?
  2. Who wrote the tantras? When did they write them? Are there some scriptures that are considered more important than others? Are there scholarly debates regarding the Tantras?
  3. Who are the philosophers most closely associated with Tantra? When did they live?
  4. When did the various schools come into being? We should give a context for understanding why each school developed.
  5. Are there basic beliefs common to all schools? If so, can we elucidate them further?
  6. The article mentions that a guru is essential, but doesn't really give the reader any context for understanding why a guru is essential. Can we provide that context? Are there scholars who disagree? If so, what are there opinions.
A key problem with the mental model is that there is some easily-definable thing called "tantra" which has a consistent history and content. That is in fact false. If the definition of tantra were worked on to make it more clear that it is case of blind people describing an elephant (one grabs the leg and thinks it is a tree, one touches the side and thinks it is a wall, etc.), several of the questions above could then be framed from a multifactorial perspective. Buddhipriya 04:09, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I think TheRingess asks some great questions that are answerable, with recent breakthroughs in scholarship in the field. While not easily definable, Tantra now has clear, if complex, historical parameters that can be delineated. Jnananetra (talk) 06:44, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Questionable Content

edit

As with last time, comments I'm looking for are for bumping up the quality. Everything, including what's on the to-do page. Hopefully this can become a GA eventually. ~EdBoy[c] 00:21, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

IK Pegasi

edit

This astronomy article is of interest because it is about the nearest known Type Ia supernova candidate. The page is about 95% or so complete, and I'd like to request a pear review to see what else needs to be done. Currently it's lacking in illustrations and there are a few more minor factoids I'm planning to add. (Cooling time on the WD, and pulsation rate of the variable.) Any suggestions would be appreciated. Thank you. — RJH (talk) 23:12, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Glengarry Glen Ross (film)

edit

A lot of work has gone into this article to improve it in terms of content. It could definitely use some beefing up in the Plot/Synopsis section. Any help, comments, etc. would be greatly appreciated. --Count Ringworm 13:46, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Disclaimer: I have not seen this film. In case that makes a difference. It could use a few more refs here and there, and not only in places that are already mark with {{fact}}. You are right to identify the Synopsis as a weak area; it would be improved to some degree just with a rewrite, but a bit of expansion would not be a bad thing. The quote "the weaselly soul of Glengarry Glen Ross-Willy Loman turned into a one-liner." is not quite clear, so either explain it or cut the quote down to the first half. I mean, who is Willy Loman and what exactly would happen if he was turned into a one-liner? Incidentally, it should not have a hyphen with no spaces, but a dash instead, like – or — with spaces. I hate seeing contractions in writing, and I found and fixed one example. I think that the lead section could be revised to remove the specifics about the profanity (which is a bit in-your face) and expand on that elsewhere. The lead is supposed to be a summary and introduction, and some of the following content could be touched upon in the lead in order to expand it a little bit. Anyway, that is all that I can think of at the moment. Adrian M. H. 15:55, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rings of Jupiter

edit

I wrote a lengthy article about jovian ring system. Please, review it, any comments are welcome. Ruslik 11:05, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I could tell, scientifically the article appears solid. Nice! My handful of issues with the page were of a non-scientific nature. I.e. some of the jargon could be considered overly technical for some readers; there may be some missing wikilinks (e.g. optical density); the lead doesn't quite satisfy WP:LEAD; there a few grammar issues, &c. I thought it might also be helpful to compare the total mass of the rings with something to which a typical reader can relate. (C.f. Orders of magnitude (mass).) — RJH (talk) 19:14, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I would be very grateful if you pointed more precisely which jargon words irritate you and also elaborated more on grammar issues. I have become so used to my text and jargon that it may be difficult for me to find them all. I agree that the lead isn't good and I will try to improve it after the work on the main text is finished. Ruslik 13:16, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sure. (But just to clarify, the jargon words don't actually irritate me. They may prove an issue for some readers, however. I've been dinged in the past on the use of jargon during GAs, so I try to keep it in mind when I'm reviewing other's work.) Here's a list:
    • RJ -- it may be unclear this means the radius of Jupiter. You may want to clarify it at the first usage.
    • "forward scattered light" and "back scattered light", although I see they have a clarification now. Do these need a hyphen as well (i.e. forward-scattered)?
    • "broken power law", "normalizing parameter", "Poynting-Robertson drag", "Volatile compounds", "vertically integrated fluxs" (fluxes?), "Lorentz resonance", and "optical depth".
    • Possibly the use of a mathematical tilde (~) rather than "about" or "around" or "approximately". But I'm okay with it.
  • Spelling/Grammar issues: "unobseved", "allows to estimate", "aspherical" (a spherical), "approximatly", "begins steep decrease" ("begins a" or "begins to decrease sharply"), "light scattered by the small angle" (at a?), "outward of Adrastean['s] orbit", "actually very steep and [is] located", "ring is relatively steep[,] especially at the", "razor thin[,] extending", "The spectral properties [of] the Halo Ring", "and [the] ACS", "allowed to determine the particle size", "slightly decreases in the directions of the planet" (there's only one direction), "revealed the existence of the rich", and "allowed to observe". Some instances of "razor thin" may need a hyphen ("razor-thin").
  • The sentence that begins "Though there is a" doesn't reach a conclusion.
  • "albedo", "spectral properties", "orbital inclination" and "power law" need wikilinks.
  • When the article says "rectangular shape", perhaps it could clarify that this means cross-section?
I hope this was somewhat helpful. — RJH (talk) 16:47, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. From the context though I had taken the meaning as "...a spherical...". Please pardon my error. — RJH (talk) 16:24, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have also transcluded this into WP:PR so discussions there, as well as at {{WP:SPR]], are together. --Bduke 23:58, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comments on the lead.
  • First, make it clear that "jovian" is an adjective of Jupiter, maybe by writing Jupiter possesses a planetary ring system, the jovian ring system.
  • Indicate that Metis and Adrastea are Jupiter moons.
  • require largest available telescopes. Isn't it the largest or larger?
Anyway great article! CG 13:40, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The end of the review

edit

Thanks to everybody who participated in the review process. I think the article is now ready for GA or FA nomination. I also expanded the leading section to satisfy the requirements. Ruslik 13:06, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tropical cyclone

edit

After months of editing and adding subarticles after it became GA, it appears time to peer review the tropical cyclone article. Thegreatdr 19:37, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Aga Khan II

edit

I've been working on this article for a while and I think it is ready to be reviewed. Right now it is rated as Stub-Class. I'd like to see this article become a Good Article and perhaps eventually even a Featured Article if possible. Any suggestions to improve this article would be greatly appreciated! Thanks! - Erdling 04:11, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Yannismarou

edit
  • Per MoS, do not wikilink single years; only year-month-date. I have fixed some of them.
  • Thanks! I'll keep that in mind for future reference! - Erdling 20:15, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
  • In the "The Ismaili Imamat" I read only nice things about him. You know, I don't like so much (after my second rewriting of Pericles!) hagiographies. Any critics of his imamat?
  • Given the fact that he was the Nizari Imam for only four years, there is not a lot mentioned in the sources. - Erdling 20:15, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
  • "Like his father before him, Aqa Ali Shah maintained close ties with the Ni‘mat Allāhī Sufi order. This relationship was no doubt facilitated by the common ‘Alid heritage that Aqa Ali Shah and the Ni‘mat Allāhīs shared: both Shāh Ni‘mat Allāh Walī (d. 1430-1), the eponymous founder of the order, and Aqa Ali Shah traced their ancestry to Imam Ja'far al-Sadiq and, hence, to Ali..." Many names and terms here. And the rest of the paragraph gets even worse! I see no link for the Ni‘mat Allāhī Sufi order? Is it possible to have two words for it. Again, I say that from the view of a guy who is not familiar with the Muslim orders, schemes, dogmas etc., and what I say may just be stupid! But this is the voice of an ignorant who needs some kind of explanation for what he reads, in order to understand it.
  • I agree - the names would make the article difficult to read for someone who is not familiar with them. I don't think what you say is stupid; on the contrary! It certainly makes sense to provide more information about the mentioned Muslim orders, doctrines, etc. I'll provide a link from the Ni‘mat Allāhī Sufi order to the Wikipedia article written about them, and try to make the rest of the paragraph clearer. - Erdling 20:15, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
  • "Aqa Ali Shah became Imam of the Ismailis" About which geographical region or regions do we speak about (again the voice of the ignorant ...)? India mainly?
  • The Ismailis are a branch within Shia Islam. I'll try to make that clearer in the article. - Erdling 20:15, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
  • You rely a lot on Daftary and 2-3 more sources. Not a great problem, but some more sources and maybe some removal of burdain (if addtional sources are available) would be nice.
  • I'll try to dig up a few more sources. I used Daftary's book (published by Cambridge University Press in 1990) as he's generally considered the leading authority on the subject in academia, so I feel he's the most reliable source to use. - Erdling 20:17, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Happy to see you back here after your first successful FA with another nice and well-written article!--Yannismarou 19:19, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for all your suggestions and encouragement, Yannismarou! I'm quite new to Wikipedia, and this being my first article, its great to have experienced Wikipedians like you and Cimm who have FAs under your belts to show me the ropes! - Erdling 20:15, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Old Mobile Site

edit

I have recently conducted a major expansion of the article on the Old Mobile Site. I believe the article is well-researched and has a good layout. I would like to receive comments with the hope of developing the article to Good Article status. Thanks for the input. Leeannedy 22:59, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The "History" section seems very low on inline citations; I think that'll present a problem if you're going for GA status with it. Also, on a more trivial note, the lead seems to feature the word "settlement" an awful lot. You might want to consider some synonyms. Angmering 15:35, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the input. I am working to improve the citations in the "History" section. I have used several references throughout the section that should be properly referenced. I have also noticed in several places redundant phrasing (site, location, settlement, etc.). I will try to improve the word selection. Thanks for the valuable input. Leeannedy 15:56, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

1930 FIFA World Cup

edit

Article about the inaugural edition of the most prestigious tournament in football (soccer). I've been expanding it recently, and would like to know what areas could be improved. I'm starting to exhaust the sources I have access to, and I think getting it comprehensive enough to become featured wouldn't be possible without Spanish language sources, but what should be done to make it a good article? Oldelpaso 12:59, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say this was already at Good article level; I've made a few tweaks to it here and there (detailed in my edit summaries), but on the whole I found it to be a very readable and well-referenced article. As you suggest, I'm not sure there's much more detail that can be added to get it to FA level; I did wonder whether there should be some mention of why the British nations didn't compete, but that's probably more suited to the general World Cup article given that it covers all three of the 1930s tournaments. Angmering 15:23, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'll definitely give this a better once-over when I stop feeling ill, but the first thing to hit me was the use of the rsssf.com website. I'm not that sure about whether this site meets WP:RS but at least the reference descriptions should be consistent (i.e. all should say "RSSSF credits this goal as coming in the 21st minute." or "This goal is credited by RSSSF in the 40th minute."). More soon. The Rambling Man 17:38, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In fact, I think a lot of those references could be hyperlinked rather than just saying (effectively) "...because rsssf.com says so...". The Rambling Man 17:42, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Been meaning to do something about that for a while. I've changed them to a general explanatory note about disputed scorers and timings. Oldelpaso 18:23, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, Daviiid 20:55, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jeddah

edit

This article was posted at FAC but is a more suitable candidate for peer review at this time. --Aude (talk) 16:28, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • The Table of Contents is too long. The sections of the article need better organization.
    • Etymology section is good.
    • Geography would be a better name for the "Locations" section.
    • Weather section should be instead called "Climate" and be a subsection under "Geography".
    • Diversity section should probably be called "Demographics"
    • There should be a section for "Culture". Open air art can be part of the culture section.
    • There should be a section for "Economy". Organizations headquartered in Jeddah can be mentioned in that section.
    • The list of hotels and shopping is not suitable for including in the article.
    • Please look at other featured articles about cities, such as Ahmedabad and Jerusalem, to see how those articles are organized. These articles also have numerous references, letting the reader know where specific statistics and numbers, and other facts came from. References are essential for Wikipedia articles to become good articles and especially feature articles.
    • Please get the sections in order. That would be a good improvement. Once that's done, I can give more comments. Thanks. - شكرا --Aude (talk) 16:57, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pauline Fowler

edit

This article about the 22-year-run of a character in the UK's EastEnders series is already at Good Article status, has been through one Peer Review in May 2007, and had a run at Featured Article in June 2007. After a month's worth of debate, the nom failed, primarily because of too much plot-related information. The article since then has gone through an extensive rewrite, and we'd like to take another run at FA. If successful, this will be the first time that an article about a soap opera character gets to FA status, so this article will be held up as an example for future such articles.

We'd appreciate any further comments from the community, as to whether this article needs any other improvement, or whether we're ready to take another run at FA. Thanks, Elonka 04:11, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Previous peer review: archive
Previous FA nom: archive
Great article and I think you are almost ready for FAC. I wasn't sure not sure about this sentence from the marriage section and had to re-read it a couple of times:

"The storyline continued throughout 1993 as Christine was shown to make greater demands on Arthur, threatening to tell Pauline about their affair unless he did." I think it should say "did so himself" so there is no ambiguity. It might just be me being slow though! I'm only halfway through so I'll let you know if I come across anything else.--Opark 77 21:00, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for reading through it. I've altered the sentence per your suggestion.Gungadin♦ 22:57, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am suitably impressed. The article is improved beyond measure. I suspect it might get some prose criticisms from those who write better than I do, so it might be worth taking the time to get a copy edit prior to returning to FA. I have a couple of comments for improvement. There's a lot of use of em-dashes in the prose. Em-dashes are a stronger form of punctuation than a comma — more of an interruption than a pause — and so I think it's worth reviewing if they've been overused here and there, breaking the flow of the prose a little too much. My other point would be to look at Wikipedia:Words_to_avoid#Article_structure about the use of criticism sections. I think "Reception" would be perfectly readable with the two sub-sections merged. J.Winklethorpe talk 11:18, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. "Popularity" and "Criticism" kind of go hand-n-hand. Also, back to that family list at the bottom. It's an unnecessary list, since there are people in the infobox (which I assume are the immediate family...don't know, don't watch the show) and a box at the bottom of the page, which is in plain sight of the family list, that lists everyone again. Since the "Beale/Fowler" link is in the box, people can click that to see a family tree and learn what relation all those people are. "Cultural impact" should probably be titled "In popular culture". "Impact" suggests that she influenced something, when, as I read that section, it just appears that she was referenced in those situations. An example of "cultural impact" (this is hypothetical, as I don't have sources to back it up) would be discussing Sigourny Weaver's impact on the female protagonist genre, with her character Ellen Ripley from the Alien movies.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 12:34, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There's some duplication in the infoboxes, sure, but I don't actually mind the infoboxes at the bottom. Building the web, and all that. Would changing the family list in the top info box to The Beale/Fowler family be more appropriate? It would save having to decide which family members to include, and so on. (I'm thinking more as a precedent for other articles here) J.Winklethorpe talk 12:48, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The family list itself is undue weight, because no one knows what the importance of that is. You have a section called "Importance of family," which makes me think any important family members are already listed there, and everyone else is irrelevant. Again, there's a big box at the bottom the lists all these people already. Building the web means connecting relevant topics (through wiki-linking in sections), but not providing a list of every associated topic, no matter how small in relevance. What the article has is a "See also" section masquerading as a "Family List"; a "See also" section that is already listed just below itself in another box. My suggestion would be ditch both the lists, and do what you suggested, and that's put the "Beale/Fowler" link in the top infobox. This way, you can view the family when you start the article, and if you missed it, you can view it by the time you get to the end (as they are all listed in the box at the bottom of the page). To put a different spin on it, the "Family" list at the bottom is about as necessary as putting a list of all the "Batman" films on every single one of the Batman film pages. There's already a box at the bottom of the page that lists all the Batman films, and any important films (ones that had an impact on the article in question) would be mentioned in one of the other sections anyway. It's just a list, it doesn't establish what its importance is to the character. The only people that know of the importance to the character, for any of those family members, are probably fans of the show, which means to the casual reader it means nothing other than a list of family members (which repeats itself in a box just below the list).  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 12:58, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I'd completely missed the "family" section; I thought you were talking info-boxes only. My bad. In which case, I quite agree - there's no need for that family section and the infoboxes. Realistically, everyone of relevance will already have been mentioned in the article, and the info-box links will help anyone who wants to see the full line-up. Anyway, let's wait and see what the editors of the article say. J.Winklethorpe talk 14:00, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the comments. I made a request for it to be copyedited at the league of copyeditors a week or so ago, i'm sure it will take a while to get done though (if ever). As far as merging the "Reception", I dont have a problem with that if this is the preferred method. Do you mean just remove the headings? or do you want the text juggled around too? so that it alternates between crit and praise throughout, instead of just all praise and all crit?

I dont have a problem with removing the family section, but I suspect that others might. A while ago I suggested recreating an individual template box specifically for Pauline, that would recreate all the information in the family list i.e. explain how she is realted etc. This would go on autohide like the templates at the bottom. But I have no experience in making templates, so I dont know if this is possible to do. It might be too complicated to include that much information.

What about if we include this image in the article under the section titled family tree? That way the list would be removed, but the information will still be there for those who want it. I think that would look good actually.Gungadin♦ 14:45, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The image basically serves the exact same purpose as the list, only in image form. Generally, family members are not listed unless they have some how impacted the character in question, for example Darth Vader and Luke Skywalker, or Lionel Luthor and Lex Luthor. The pertinant (sp) ones should be mentioned, and I think they are in the "Importance of Family" section. Everyone else is just duplications of the box that is just below them. I think the link to the actual family tree article is sufficient. If someone wants to know the details of a topic not entirely related to the character specifically, they can click that link and be taken to an article that covers the whole family and how they are all connected. Who her cousin was isn't going to help you understand her, unless you know how that cousin affected her life (the same goes for her husband, which is why there is a section about her marriage to Arthur).  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 16:40, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not going to try and defend the family section because I agree that its purpose (linking to related characters) became redundant after the templates were introduced, but many others disagree. Basically, I dont have a strong opinion either way, so if you want to go ahead and remove it then I wont be objecting or reverting. I will leave a note on the project talk page to see if anyone other than me wants to add an opinion on this.Gungadin♦ 18:15, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
On the reception section, I would suggest trying to merge the text in so it reads as a cohesive whole. Trying to make it roughly chronological would probably work. For example, the starting paragraph from each section will probably go together quite nicely, then comments about the character during her run, then comments about her leaving. Really, just try to present it so that NPOV is maintained, and opposing viewpoints are presented fairly. On the family tree, I actually think that the templates are better than the family tree section — they link the articles up nicely. J.Winklethorpe talk 09:00, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
done my best.Gungadin♦ 15:58, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'll let other people voice their opinions. At the moment, and please correct me if I misinterpreted the opinion, it appears that at least three of us agree that the "Family" section, which just lists family members, is redundant to the templates that are already in place and probably also to the section "Importance of family" that details the important family members.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 16:23, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Religion in India

edit

RoI was massively expanded by Shahab, Dwaipayanc, and others when it was a INCOTW. I need comments about the article's structure, and how to keep the text comprehensive without making the article bloated. For example, do we need separate sections for each major religion? Should the "History" section be further subdivided and elaborated upon? We don't have any "Religion in X" FA articles to guide us, and the talk page comments and todo list have been (IMO) mostly acted upon. So far, following the example of Climate of India, I've copyedited most of the article, added refs, and did some expansion work. Please let us know other work is needed. Thanks. Saravask 19:32, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Review by SpecialWindler

edit

Some suggestions

  • In the "Statistics" section, can the the lists/tables be converted into text, it is better.
  • The History section dosen't really need to be expanded, but it may be good to add religion in X as you have stated
  • The External links section has headings, they don't really need these
  • Can elaborate more on the "riots" section, there seems to have been a few riots
  • you could elaborate on "eductation" to
  • There are two pictures in the top right hand corner, there only needs to be one, the other can move into the article.

Thats a quick review SpecialWindler 09:22, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thanks for the advice. I expanded the "Conflicts" section (doubled its size and added refs) per your request and made some lesser and unrelated changes to the "Education" section, which I will expand when I find other instances of curriculum-doctoring. For now, I must disagree with most of your comments on formatting (like the need to convert "Statistics" into prose or the need to have only one pic accompanying the lead (see Climate of India, which is FA). For example, I think prosifying the "Statistics" tables would make the resulting text horrendously boring and number-heavy, while tabular form allows people to use class="sortable wikitable" to sort, compare, and browse through the numbers quickly). But I'm willing to wait to see whether others agree with the rest of your comments, allowing us to see where the consensus lies.
For now, though, I need to suspend this for a week or two due to personal time constraints. Feel free to keep this watchlisted in order to get a heads-up when this PR goes live again. Thanks again for your help. Saravask 13:16, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Peer review/AHS Centaur

William Shakespeare

edit

William Shakespeare is currently a Good Article. WikiProject Shakespeare is attempting to bring this article to featured article status, so we are looking for overall comments about the article, along with specific critiques and corrections. The members of WikiProject Shakespeare feel it is vitally important to bring this article to FA status because William Shakespeare is ranked among the 50 most viewed articles on Wikipedia.

For the record, there have been two previous peer reviews. The first, at Wikipedia:Peer review/William Shakespeare/archive1, was of limited use because the review mainly focused on the cuts an editor made to the article. The second review, at Wikipedia:WikiProject Biography/Peer review/William Shakespeare, was extremely specific. We have addressed all the concerns in this review, as detailed on the article's talk page. Best, --Alabamaboy 00:09, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Smatprt

edit

I just did a top to bottom review and did a fair amount of spelling/grammer/readabililty work, which I hope is not contentious. The following is a list of items I saw that will require a number of editors to consider, depending on their particular expertise. The article gets better all the time.Smatprt 04:33, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

1) There are so many citations in the first paragraph (7 at last count) that it is difficult to read. Any way to combine references or find some references that can cover more than just one fact each?

  • I don't agree that thorough sourcing is ever a bad thing. If footnotes make the text more difficult to follow, that should be raised with the project's techies: it's not a reason to provide fewer footnotes. WP:ATT is a policy, and one that Wikipedia is trying to tighten up on. AndyJones 07:46, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

2) Same with first paragraph of Early Life.

3) Do we really need citations for such non-contentious issues as Shakespeare making numerous references to the theatre? So many citations for universally accepted statements make much of the article hard to read.

  • Surprised that you take this view: until recently the article said that the plays demonstrated they were written by an actor and you changed it to say they demonstrated they were written by "a man of the theatre". [And for the benefit of others reading this comment, that is because Smatprt holds the view that another author wrote the plays.] What I'm getting at is that you personally are one of the few people who finds this kind of statement contentious therefore it's odd that you are arguing it may not need citing. (I'm not trying to imply hypocrisy or anything, don't get me wrong, I'm just pointing out the reason why citations for this sort of thing can be important.) AndyJones 07:46, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Actually - I changed that line with little thought of the authorship. Yes, Shakespeare (whoever he was) was an actor, but he was more than that - author, director (Hamelt's notes),devisor of props and costumes & sets (midsummer - rustic converstions), song writer (numerous), etc. I simply thought "man of the theater" was more all encompassing, and given the Tempest quote that appears in the article (and now appears opposite this info), I thought the statement would not need a citation. I thought is was an example of a non-controversial statment. If you disagree, no prob. And I completely understand and support the need for sources - just wish there was a way to source these articles without so much clutter. It's the readablility issue that Alabamaboy raised (which I also agree with). Yes, maybe the techies can ultimately figure this out.Smatprt 14:10, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

4)   Done The first paragraph of Plays also has lots of cite requests and a statements in parentheses that make for a confusing read.

5) Same section – I find the “three stylistic groups” problematic. It’s a contentious issue that relies on dating, which is equally controversial (and I am talking about mainstream debates). For example “middle period romantic comedies and tragedies... as well as “problem plays”…). That's a lot for one stylistic period. Is there really agreement on these stylistic groupings as stated in this article?

6)  Done Suggest moving up the “All the world’s a stage” quote to “London and Theatrical Career" next to the paragraph that mentions Shakespeare making numerous references to the theatre. The context would be appropriate for the image, which also doesn’t need to be quite so wide. I don’t know how to adjust the box size or I would.

7)  Done In Style, you have: “While many passages in Shakespeare's plays are written in prose, he almost always wrote the most important passages in iambic pentameter.” Really? Seems like a reach to me.

8)  Done By comparison to the rest of the article, the Authorship section is underwritten. As a summary of the main article, it’s a pretty poor example. I am not referring to what was cut in the last concensus, but rather the lack of reasons or examples why the topic ever arose, and why it exists today.

9)  Done The Religion section has grown to be almost the longest section. Oddly, there is no main article, even though the subject is full of controversy and disagreement between scholars. Perhaps this should be the beginning of a Main article and someone could just summarize it for this page. It’s just too long.

10) Under the bibliography, we now have a parody section?? Shouldn’t this be elsewhere or deleted and moved to another article? The list of parodies would be endless…

  Done This is gone now. Wrad 21:54, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Review by Awadewit

edit

A thorough review for an important figure. If Shakespeare is one of the top 50 viewed pages, then that page should be some of wikipedia's best work. Thank you all for working so hard on this. Here are my suggestions and comments:

Lead:

  •   DoneIn general, the lead does not meet the requirements of WP:LEAD - it is not a standalone summary of the article.
  • He is widely regarded as the greatest writer of the English language and the world's preeminent dramatist. - Modern Shakespeare scholars really don't say things like this anymore (except perhaps for Harold Bloom) - I noticed that your sources are other encyclopedias for this, something we try not to do. To claim that anyone is the "world's greatest writer" in any genre is simply unsupportable. Let's take the rhetoric down a notch, shall we?
    • I thought it was taken down a notch, "world's greatest writer" is very different from "world's preeminent dramatist". Where does wikipedia discourage citing encyclopedias? Wrad 20:23, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • WP:ATT emphasizes that articles should use secondary sources. Encyclopedias are tertiary sources are not the most trustworthy regarding the subject at hand. Also, I have a problem with "world's" - I do not believe that it is agreed that Shakespeare is the world's best playwright. Some people have argued that he is the best playwright within the Western tradition, although, like I said, serious academics no longer make this claim. Awadewit | talk 21:05, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • his work has been adulated by eminent figures through the centuries - very awkward passive
By the way, 7 figures quoted in wikisource does not lend credibility to this claim.
    • Why not? I would think two would support the plural, "figures", although shakily. Seven seems fine. Besides, this is in the lead, and doesn't need to be cited if supported in the article, which it is, very thoroughly. Wrad 20:23, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • From WP:LEAD: The lead should be capable of standing alone as a concise overview of the article, establishing context, summarizing the most important points, explaining why the subject is interesting or notable, and briefly describing its notable controversies, if there are any. The emphasis given to material in the lead should roughly reflect its importance to the topic according to reliable, published sources. The lead should not "tease" the reader by hinting at but not explaining important facts that will appear later in the article. It should contain up to four paragraphs, should be carefully sourced as appropriate, and should be written in a clear, accessible style so as to invite a reading of the full article. - The implication of the statement "eminent figures through the centuries" is certainly more than two. I can come up with a list of seven such quotes for almost any writer - does that make them as "great" as Shakespeare? That is the problem with these sorts of statements. Awadewit | talk 21:05, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Still don't see the point, how does the fact that the statment applies to other writers make it any less true for Shakespeare? Also, How exactly does that quote show that this statement doesn't belong? Wrad 21:21, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • You wanted proof that statements in the lead needed to be cited - I gave that to you.
  • Why are we saying that Shakespeare's works have been praised throughout several centuries? We could say this about any writer. It is therefore a meaningless statement unless you say who has made the statements or how many people have made them. It is just too vague. I believe that what you mean to say is that many other writers who are considered great have lauded Shakespeare, but this is a difficult statement to prove. A secondary source would be better since everyone will disagree on the "many" needed to establish such a statement and an assemblage of quotes actually qualifies as original research. Awadewit | talk 21:42, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Many FA articles do not have any sources in the lead, for the very reasons I listed, and this continues to be trend in many current FAC's that seems to be accepted. Also, such a statement is not meaningless in my mind because it places him "among" the greatest writers for which that statement could be true. (Sorry if I sound really contentious here, but I am genuinely confused. I have made the "cite the lead" argument in several FAC articles and been shot down every time. I've never seen any such argument stand in an FAC discussion, and I've seen many, but the guideline seems to point otherwise. Perhaps this is a discussion to bring up on the guidelines' talk page or something.) Wrad 22:13, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, I have seen FAs use citations in the lead; since the guideline suggests it and we should use citations for statements likely to be challenged, such as this one. I urge you to find a citation or remove it. A list of quotations is actually original research, which cannot be included in a wikipedia article. If you want to prove that Shakespeare was adored by many writers after him, find a reputable secondary source that says so. Awadewit | talk 02:38, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • He is one of the few playwrights considered to have excelled in both tragedy and comedy. - Please remove this sentence until you have a citation. It seems a particularly problematic statement, given that later in the article, you do not break his plays down into tragedies and comedies.
  Done statement adjusted. Wrad 18:46, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Shakespeare is the most quoted writer in the history of the English-speaking world - I don't understand the "in the history of" part
  Done fixed. Wrad 20:41, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •   DoneMany have speculated about his sexuality, religious affiliation, and the authorship of his works. - This sentence is just hanging off the last paragraph of the lead.
Probably best fixed after making the changes suggested below. Wrad 20:53, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The authorship reference used to be connected to uncertainty over the works. Now it's included with two references about his personal beliefs. It was probably better before the edit wars between myself and a few overzealous editors who believe the authorship debate is not worthy of wikipedia. Until the regular editors of this page stop trying to stifle discussion of this subject, I fear that this article will always be problematic. During this FA review, for example, many, many suggestions are acted upon without debate. However, in reviewing the 3 or 4 authorship related references, I find that no action has been taken and only Wrad has even bothered to respond to those suggestions. If we all want FA status for this article, then we really need to deal with all the issues, even the unpleasant ones.Smatprt 23:23, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I did not realize that there had been edit wars (I am sorry to hear that). I am still concerned about the "Speculations" section as a whole. Please note its size in relation to other sections (it is larger than many). When reading this page I asked myself "What information would you include in an undergraduate Shakespeare course?" Interestingly, much is missing from sections on Shakespeare's writings (more on themes and style, for example) and much is included (such as "Speculations") that many academics would not bother to mention. I feel that this page privileges some rather sensationalized or arcane disputes instead of focusing on the basics of Shakespeare's life and works. I realize how difficult that this page must be to write (everyone has their pet theory about Shakespeare), but perhaps the best solution is to consult books like the Cambridge Companion to Shakespeare and use its bibliography. Such books provide "standard" readings and "standard" historical narratives, meaning the most accepted readings and narratives. Their bibliographies would also provide the editors with the most important Shakespearean criticism. (Then maybe we won't have people referencing obscure websites.) Awadewit | talk 23:38, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I agree that we need much more on themes and style. These sections do seem underwritten and do make the "speculations" look rather large by comparison. I will add for the record that I believe the Shakespeare Authorship question is a topic that merits research and scholarship and I do beleive it is achknowledged by many recognized researchers. Several colleges are now offering courses that are devoted to (or at least cover) the topic, and a number of international research conferences are presented each year.Smatprt 00:22, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I also agree that his style, etc. could be developed, but I don't know if the article is as unbalanced as you say. In my undergrad classes, we don't really study the biographical Shakespeare, because it's not a biography class. This, on the other hand, is largely a Biographical article (as well as a literary one). If I were to take a biographical history class on Shakespeare, rather than an English class, it would probably mention more about the speculations and less about his style and works. It's all how you look at it. Wrad 02:42, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'm sorry, I should have made my assumptions clearer - I meant a class that was using some sort of historical framework. Not all Shakespeare classes do that (some are psychoanalytic, some are feminist, etc.), I will grant you that. But any class that does use a historical framework for discussing Shakespeare's work will mention his biography. (I'm not really sure what a "biographical history class" would be - that is a strange phrase.) Awadewit | talk 03:12, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • On the point of "Shakespeare authorship," one should probably consider several factors before including much about it in the article. It is difficult to know what Shakespeare wrote at all because we don't have manuscripts for the plays (I know less about the poetry) - we only have second-hand and third-hand copies based on pirated publications and collections of actors' parts and other miscellaneous. The three different versions of Hamlet's "to be, or not to be" soliloquy is an excellent large version of this problem and the "too, too solid flesh" vs. "too, too soiled flesh" line is a good small example. Which version is Shakespeare's? No one knows anymore and there may never have been one, true Shakespearean text, as the plays altered from performance to performance. As far as I know, no reputable Shakespeare scholars take any of the "Earl of Oxford" kinds of theories seriously (I studied with at least two of the leading Shakespearean scholars as an undergraduate who said in no uncertain terms that these theories were crap, but perhaps these theories have suddenly gained traction? I know some popular books have been published on the topic, but that is not the same thing.). Most scholars are more interested in the kinds of problems I quoted above. I am curious what scholars Smatprt could point to support his/her argument. Also, just because there are conferences on a topic does not make it legitimate. There are conferences dedicated to creationism - that is not evidence of its acceptance by the mainstream scientific community; not all conferences have the same status within the academic community. Again, I would like to know what conferences. Awadewit | talk 03:12, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Major content and prose suggestions:

  •   DoneThe last paragraph of "Plays" should be organized more coherently - it does not follow in a logical order.
  • Please describe Shakespeare's "Other poems" a bit - their topics, their major themes, etc.
  •   DoneIn the "Style" section, you chart Shakespeare's changing use of iambic pentamenter. I am sure that scholars have speculated on why he did this. Could you provide some of that information here?
  • In the "Style" section, you note Shakespeare's use of soliloquies - why did he use soliloquies? What rhetorical effect did they achieve? Again, scholars have written stacks on Shakespeare's soliloquies - something could be inserted here to explain them. This paragraph merely defines them.
  • Shakespeare's writing (especially his plays) also feature extensive wordplay, in which double entendres and clever rhetorical flourishes are repeatedly used. - I would either expand on this one-sentence paragraph or delete it.
  • The "Influences" section (except for "Later influences") seems like it all belongs under "Plays" because it describes Shakespeare's development as a dramatist and his literary debts. Also, this section should be shortened so that it corresponds to the length of the others.

  Done I think this was fixed. Wrad 20:30, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • I found the "Later influence" section largely useless - it just listed names and the second paragraph was particularly incoherent. It needs to clearly state that Shakespeare and other writers could experiment with the language specifically because it was not yet standardized. (English did not become standardized until the 18th century - see John Barrell's An Equal Wide Survey). Moreover, if it is revised, it should be placed in the "Legacy" section - that is the more appropriate location.
  • The "Religion" section is much too long compared to the other sections, given its relevance (or, really, irrelevance). I would suggest that it be condensed into a single paragraph and the rest spun off into a separate article.

  Done Also fixed. Wrad 20:30, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • I would insert information from the "Sexuality" section into the "Biography" and put anything here not in the "Sexuality of William Shakespeare" article into that one.
    • This part is speculative; it doesn't belong in the "life" section.
      • Much of that section is speculative as well, if you really look closely at what is being claimed. What we know solidly about Shakespeare can be reduced to handful of facts. Awadewit | talk 17:03, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would place the "Authorship" controversy in the "Works" somewhere as that is the topic it is most relevant to. Topics should be addressed where applicable.
    • As above, the subject is speculative and would clutter the Works section if added there.
      • But it is related to that topic. I think that it is disingenuous to create a "controversies" section, which is what the editors have in effect done here. Either the "speculations" merit discussion under the relevant topics or they do not. Decide which it is. Awadewit | talk 17:03, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think Awadewit is correct on the above points. Because so much about Shakespeare is speculative,to spin off the three topics Authorship, Religion and Sexuality is a questionable move, and may be more about the editors POV regarding these issues than the issues themselves. Regarding the authorship references, a few months ago (before the ugly edit wars) the authorship references were more informative and better cited. The reference in the lead was also connected to the uncertainty about the plays - not tagged onto the other references (religion and sexuality)about his life.Smatprt 23:23, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • I would also add the bit about Shakespeare's will and the "second best bed." It is famous and funny.

Minor content suggestions:

  • Please check the "Black Plague" link in "Early life" - there might be a better page. That one focuses on the Black Death in the Middle Ages.
  • You might consider putting [sic] after the quotations that contain early modern spellings so that later editors don't change them (I've had this problem on other pages).
  • Every paragraph of "London and theatrical career" starts "By [year]" - a little variety in style would be appreciated. In fact, many sentences within the paragraphs themselves start this way as well.
    • I prefer parallelism to elegant variation. RedRabbit1983 07:12, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • This is not parallelism. It is repetition. It is poor writing. Awadewit | talk 14:31, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • I am not defending the quality of the writing; that is for others to judge. However, the device is parallelism — a form of repetition. It is exemplified by the King James Bible. There, if the forms were varied, the parallelisms would collapse. Every example of parallelism has a repeated form. I think the problem is structure, not repetition of "By". It could be changed to, for example, "By... In... X years later... By... In... etc." but the result would be ostentatious and unnecessary.
          • I know what parallelism is. I have to fix it in my students' writing all of the time. It is not only the KJV that uses it for emphasis, by the way. The problem is when parallelism becomes repetition. When I read that section, I thought to myself, "wow, that writer was really at a loss for sentence structures." I did not think to myself, "what a nice use of parallel sentence structure - it really highlights an important point." The form (here parallel structure) should be used to highlight particular content. In this case, there is no reason to have any parallelism - the content does not merit it. It is merely repetitious. Awadewit | talk 15:42, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The First Folio of his works divided these plays into tragedies, histories and comedies. - This sentence should probably mention that Shakespeare himself did not publish the First Folio.
    •   Done Good point.
  • You might mention Boydell's Shakespeare Gallery and Garrick's Shakespeare Jubilee - these are usually used as markers of Shakespeare's "arrival" - it helps to prove Shakespeare's popularity. There are pretty pictures associated with them as well.
  • Neoclassicism (the view that dramatic works should be judged by principles established by Aristotle) damaged Shakespeare's reputation until the Romantic era - This is unclear because the section suggests that it was during the 18th century (with Rowe's, Pope's and Johnson's editions), which was the time of neoclassicism, that Shakespeare became popular. Please clarify that there were opposing Shakespeare "camps" at this time.
  • Could the "See also: Timeline" be moved to the top of the "Reputation" section?
  Done Wrad 20:54, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Are the "Shakespeare on Screen" and "Parodies" necessary under the Bibliography? Shakespeare was never presumed to have written them, after all. I believe they should be placed in a "See also" section.

Specific prose suggestions:

  • As christenings were performed within 3 days of birth, tradition has settled on 23 April, Saint Georges day,[14] as his birthday. - too many little clauses
    • Two is too many? I agree that it is awkward.
    • Rewritten it.   Done
  • popular enough for the new king, James I (1603) - unclear what 1603 is referring to unless you already know
    • I extended the parenthesis.   Done
  • Shakespeare's writing shows him indeed to be a man of the theatre, with many phrases, words, and references to the stage. - This is an interesting statement - I would definitely need a cite for this. While I don't doubt that Shakespeare was involved in the theater, deducing that from his writings is an interesting move and highly problematic. Was Vladimir Nabokov a pedophile, then? See the problem? I wonder if scholars make this move so easily - they might qualify it.
    • Heh. Good point. I think the writer meant that Shakespeare described his craft in detail through his writings, although not directly.
    • I revised it.   Done
  • There is a tradition that Shakespeare, in addition to writing many of the plays his company performed, and being concerned as part-owner of the company with business and financial details, continued to act in various parts, such as the ghost of Hamlet's father, Adam in As You Like It, and the Chorus in Henry V. - wordy and full of clauses
    • I removed the cluttering pharses.   Done
  • A monument on the wall nearest his grave, probably placed by his family,[26] features a bust showing Shakespeare posed in the act of writing. - wordy
    • Revised it.   Done
  • They have been translated into every major living language,[27] and are continually performed all over the world. - Language is repeated verbatim from the lead.
    • I'm not sure what to do with this.
  • Like many of his contemporaries, Shakespeare based many of his plays on the works of other playwrights and reworked earlier stories and historical material. - repetition of the word "many"; in general, a redundant sentence
    • Don't agree it is redundant. It is general statement followed by a specific one. I removed one "many" and revised the sentence slightly.
      • How about "Like many of his contemporaries, Shakespeare based many of his plays on the works of other playwrights and earlier historical material." The "stories" part is vague. Awadewit | talk 02:38, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Stories include poems and other stories. Shakespeare's Troilus and Cressida, for instance, was partly based on Chaucer's Troilus and Criseyde, and Chaucer wasn't a playwright. I'm open to suggestions but I don't know how to make it more specific. RedRabbit1983 06:38, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • For plays on historical subjects, Shakespeare relied heavily on two principal texts: Plutarch's Parallel Lives (from the 1579 English translation by Sir Thomas North[28]) for most of his history plays, and the 1587 edition of Raphael Holinshed's The Chronicles of England, Scotland, and Ireland (which provided material for Macbeth and King Lear) for his English history plays. - very awkwardly worded
    • I made the sentence simpler and moved part of it to the following sentence.   Done
  • Shakespeare's plays tend to be placed into three main stylistic groups - by scholars? who does this?
    • By scholars, I think. I didn't contribute this, so I don't know what the source is.
  • The late romances have redemptive plotlines with ambiguous endings and magic and other fantastical elements. - too many "and's"
    • One fewer now.   Done
  • However, the borders between these genres are never clear. - These are not "genres" - the earlier sentence called them "stylistic groups." That is very different.
    • True. Duly amended.   Done
  • The lack of an authoritative print version of his plays during his lifetime accounts for part of the textual problem, the difficulty of identifying which plays he wrote, and for the different textual versions of some of his plays. - awkwardly worded - first phrase doesn't seem parallel with the others
    • I created a subordinate clause and simplified the sentence.   Done
  • Shakespeare served his dramatic apprenticeship at the height of the Elizabethan period, in the years following the defeat of the Spanish Armada - "dramatic apprenticeship" is a lovely phrase, but I wonder if it is too poetic for wikipedia
  • Shakespeare served his dramatic apprenticeship at the height of the Elizabethan period, in the years following the defeat of the Spanish Armada; he retired at the height of the Jacobean period, not long before the start of the Thirty Years' War. - Remind the reader of the dates.
  • His style changed not only in accord with his own tastes and developing mastery, but also in accord with the tastes of the audiences for whom he wrote. - "in accordance"?; also, give us a hint of what the change was
    • I fixed "accord".
  • Shakespeare wrote a large proportion of his plays and poems with a rhythm known as iambic pentameter - do we really need the rhythm bit?
    • Not at all. I got rid of it.   Done
  • To end many scenes in his plays he used a rhyming couplet—two rhyming lines of poetry—to heighten expectation of what is to follow. - redundant
  • Shakespeare's works have been a major influence on subsequent theatre and literature. - should be more restricted
  • The second paragraph of "Influences" has inconsistent verb tenses.
  • In the twentieth century, a professional field of study known as "English" developed, - I am not quite sure why "English" is in scare quotes here - would it not be better to say "the discipline of English literature developed" (for that is what it is called)
  • In the twentieth century, a professional field of study known as "English" developed,[79] so among academics, Shakespeare was subjected to critical methods such as structuralism, poststructuralism and semiotics, and was analysed from feminist and Marxist perspectives. - very awkward

Sources:   Done Please cite all of your sources in the same way. They are all over the place in the notes.

  • The Making of the National Poet: Shakespeare, Adaptation and Authorship, 1660-1769 by Michael Dobson, Oxford University Press, 1995. Accessed Feb 26, 2006. - This is a book abstract. Please quote from the actual book. Book abstracts are written by publishers. They often contain misinformation.
  • Footnote 13 - Shakespeare online - is a self-published website. There is no reason to use self-published websites for Shakespeare material. See here for a description of the site.
  • Footnote 19 - Who wrote this site? Why is this site reliable? I see that it comes from a .edu, but that doesn't mean a scholar put it up - it could be some student project.
  • Footnote 28 - Please note that on the site it says "We have used here J. W. Skeat's nineteenth century edition of North's Plutarch that selects several of the major Lives." - I'm not sure how useful that would be to someone interested in finding the version Shakespeare read.
  • Footnotes 107 and 108 need to be fixed.
  • Footnote 108 is promotional material for a seminar series. According to the page, "This seminar is adapted from chapter 4 of The Cambridge Companion to Shakespeare, Cambridge University Press." Why don't you just get the information from there? Awadewit | talk 17:17, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This has been pointed out and is in the process of being fixed. Wrad 20:43, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Analysis of "Influence" paragraph

edit

  Done Shakespeare's works have been a major influence on subsequent theatre and literature. Not only did Shakespeare create some of the most admired plays in Western literature,[71] Which of his plays are most admired? Not all of them have been equally influential. he also transformed English theatre by expanding expectations about what could be accomplished through characterisation, plot, action, language, and genre.[72][73][74] How? Can you give any examples of any of these "expanded expectations"? This is much too vague. The success of his plays also helped raise the status of popular theatre, permitting it to be admired by intellectuals as well as by those seeking pure entertainment.When and how did this happen?

Shakespeare's influence isn't has not been limited to the theatre. His plays and poems have influenced a large number of writers in the following centuries, including novelists such as Charles Dickens[75] How? What specifically is Shakespearean in Dickens? and William Faulkner,[76]Again, how? and Romantic poets such as Samuel Taylor Coleridge (with critic George Steiner calling all English poetic dramas from Coleridge to Tennyson "feeble variations on Shakesearean themes."[77]What themes?

Finally, Shakespeare's writings greatly influenced the entire English language. Prior to and during Shakespeare's time, the grammar and rules of English were not fixed.[78] As England and English culture gained power and pride during Shakespeare's time, he and other poets and playwrights experimented with the English language.[78] Because of the popularity of Shakespeare's plays, a large number of English words and phrases that Shakespeare created or modified[79] are now in common usage.The logic here still doesn't work.

How about something along these lines (it's messy, but you can fix it up): Finally, Shakespeare's writings greatly influenced the English language. Because English during Shakespeare's time was not as standardized as it is now, playwrights could experiment and play with the language. But once Shakespeare's plays became popular in the late seventeenth and eighteenth century, they helped contribute to the standardization of the English language, with many Shakespearean words and phrases becoming embedded in the English language, particularly through projects such as Samuel Johnson's Dictionary which quoted Shakespeare more than any other writer.<ref>Lynch, Jack. ''Samuel Johnson's Dictionary: Selections from the 1755 Work that Defined the English Language''. Delray Beach, FL: Levenger Press (2002), 12.</ref> Awadewit | talk 18:48, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Since I wrote most of this section, I'll address your concerns. Won't get a chance for a day or two, though. Most of your comments are fine with me, but the rewrite of that English language section doesn't quite work for me b/c it removes too much relevant and referenced info. How about if we combine the two versions into a new baby? --Alabamaboy 20:51, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds fine to me. The last paragraph, in its present form, just doesn't follow in a logically coherent manner. I tried to rewrite it so that it could be sourced from your sources and added the necessary source for what you probably don't have. Awadewit | talk 21:35, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've made most of these changes. However, the more I think some of the changes you want in this section, the more I think that's too much detail for the main article. Perhaps a subarticle should be spun off just on Shakespeare's Influence. let me know what you think of the new version.--Alabamaboy 19:08, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is obviously ample information for an article on Shakespeare's influence, but I think that this section has to have some specifics. Vague generalizations are not very informative. I still feel that the section is basically puffery. It proves next to none of its claims because it offers no evidence. Awadewit | talk 19:28, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Check out the section again b/c I was still revising as I wrote the previous comment. I think I addressed most of your concerns. What I didn't add was a detailed explanation of how Shakespeare influenced those novelists. That's too much detail, I think. Also, it's not that Dickens is Shakespearean, but that Dickens acknowledged a massive debt to Shakespeare. Same with Faulkner and others.--Alabamaboy 19:34, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The question is what is the debt? What is the influence? Shakespeare achieved many things with his plays and poetry - from the new version, I still don't know which of those things influenced later writers. The second paragraph still makes too many unsubstantiated claims. Citations are not enough - you need to give the reader some evidence to prove your point. Awadewit | talk 20:25, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have cross-referenced to this conversation in my vote at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of English words invented by Shakespeare. AndyJones 08:19, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The section has been revised and now addresses the concerns raised here. See this link for verification of this. Thanks to Awadewit for his incredibly helpful critiques on all this. --Alabamaboy 13:45, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

qp10qp

edit

The article is getting there. Congratulations to the editors for all the efforts they have put in. My strongest suggestion would be that website references be changed to print references except where reliable scholarly websites carry full publication details of articles or books they have reproduced. In the latter case, the whole book or article should be carried and the website should have permission to carry it. Anything short of this standard will leave the article's referencing looking amateurish in places.

Particular points:

  • His plays combine popular appeal with complex characterisation and poetic grandeur with philosophical depth.
The sentence invites a miscue.
Not sure what you mean by miscue, but I don't like that sentence either. I'm not sure how to fix it, though. Wrad 02:40, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The miscue is: "His plays combine popular appeal with complex characterisation and poetic grandeur..."
A short term solution would simply be: "His plays combine popular appeal, complex characterisation, poetic grandeur, and philosophical depth". But, I don't like the sentence either: it attempts too much and comes over like a blurb.
How about: "His plays combine popular appeal and complex characterisation; poetic grandeur and philosophical depth." Wrad 03:15, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A semicolon doesn't work for me there; it needs to be followed by a full sentence form (as in the sentence I am writing now). The trouble is that the original parts don't match: "popular appeal" is antithetical to "complex characterisation", but "poetic grandeur" does not have a similar relationship to "philosophical depth". So no attempt to set these four qualities off in pairs will work. qp10qp 04:09, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There's another potential miscue here: Stories of various genres were enacted for audiences consisting of both the wealthy and educated and the poor and illiterate. The miscue is: "audiences consisting of both the wealthy and educated..." I've advocated removing that whole passage (see below).
  • Two Noble Kinsmen and Pericles are listed under both apocrypha and comedies. I would list them under comedies, noting that they were only partly written by Shakespeare. The number of scholars who would dispute that description is too few to justify a listing under apocrypha as well, in my opinion. In any case, the double listing looks confusing, in my opinion. Whatever the decision, Henry VIII needs to be listed comparably (with a note that it was partly written by Shakespeare).

  Done Wrad 03:31, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • There is a tradition that Shakespeare also continued to act in various parts of his plays, such as the ghost of Hamlet's father, Adam in As You Like It, and the Chorus in Henry V.
"There is a tradition" seems to me too bald. If the tradition has no basis in fact, that should be stated, as it was for the "lost years" traditions; if there is any evidence or notable scholarly theory, for example, for Shakespeare playing the ghost (which I doubt), then it should be noted. Fact and fiction, and fact and tradition, should be scrupulously separated when it comes to Shakespeare's biography, and even traditions should be sourced.   Done Wrad 02:45, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The same applies to "Supposedly, Shakespeare died on his birthday, if the tradition that he was born on April 23 is correct."

  • By 1596 Shakespeare had moved to the parish of St. Helen's, Bishopsgate...He appears to have moved across the River Thames to Southwark sometime around 1599. By 1604, he had moved north of the river, lodging just north of St Paul's Cathedral with a Huguenot family named Mountjoy.
I think this all needs to be made clearer. Not everyone knows which side of the river was which. The first sentence here assumes that Shakespeare had lived somewhere else in London before he moved to Bishopsgate, but I can find no mention that in the article, so it lacks an antecedent.
  • He was married to Anne Hathaway until his death and was survived by her and their two daughters, Susanna and Judith. Although Susanna married Dr John Hall, there are no direct descendants of Shakespeare alive today.
This seems odd. Why mention Susanna's marriage and not Judith's? And why not mention their children, if we are talking about descendants? I believe Judith's children died very young (including one called Shakespeare Quiney) and Susanna's daughter Elizabeth Hall in about 1670. I'm not saying this information is actually needed, but the sentence should be logical and consistent, I think.
For death of Judith's children, Schoenbaum, 296; for death of Elizabeth Hall in 1670 and extinction of Shakespeare's line, Schoenbaum, 319. 1988 edition. ISBN 0195051610.
  DoneI added this. Any idea who Judith married? Wrad 03:43, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thomas Quiney. qp10qp 04:26, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Done Wrad 04:49, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • There's considerable analysis of the different versions of King Lear, for some reason. I suspect there's too much for this general page; perhaps that could be covered in a sentence or two, with one or two added about Macbeth, just as problematic a text, though in different ways (missing scenes, added Hecate scenes, corruption).
  • In a Shakesperean sonnet, poets often divide its 14 lines into 3 quatrains, followed by a closing couplet.
The text has jumped from Shakespeare's sonnets written by Shakespeare to Shakespearian sonnets written by others. A transition and explanation is needed, I think; better still, this stray little paragraph could be cut, with no loss, in my opinion, to the article.

  Done I didn't cut it, since I thought the fact that a poetic form is named after him is very notable, but I changed it and worked it into the prose a little better. Hopefully it doesn't stick out so bad now. Wrad 02:55, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • In "Other poems", should it be noted that Shakespeare wrote Venus and Adonis and The Rape of Lucrece at times when the theatres were closed owing to plague?
The situation is fully explained on pages 9 and 10 of Roland Mushat Frye, Shakespeare, Routledge, 2005. ISBN 0415352894. The theatres were shut for almost two years in 1593 and 1594 because of plague. qp10qp 03:59, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The citation isn't working right, the ISBN turns up empty. Wrad 04:05, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Here it is: ISBN search qp10qp 04:26, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  Done Wrad 04:49, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • During the reign of Queen Elizabeth, "drama became the ideal means to capture and convey the diverse interests of the time." Stories of various genres were enacted for audiences consisting of both the wealthy and educated and the poor and illiterate.
To me, this sounds weak. I would cut it and replace it with a similar point made in a less generalised way. The reference does not read like a proper academic reference (2005, Elizabethan Period (1558–1603), from ProQuest Period Pages, ProQuest). There's so much on Elizabethan drama that it is possible to make the same point with reference to a print source with a named author.
    • This was debated on the talk page, and I hesitate to change it. Apparently, the reference is more reliable than it looks, but I'll let someone closer to the issue decide. Wrad 02:59, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I don't even know how to find this source - how do you find it? Google didn't do me much good. Can we not link to it so that the rest of us can judge for ourselves? Awadewit | talk 04:27, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Shakespeare served his dramatic apprenticeship at the height of the Elizabethan period, in the years following the defeat of the Spanish Armada; he retired at the height of the Jacobean period, not long before the start of the Thirty Years' War.
Here again, this is generalised and imprecise, in my opinion. What does "dramatic apprenticeship" mean? How do we know he didn't serve his dramatic apprenticeship during the lost years? If it is meant that he wrote his first known plays in the years after the Spanish Armada, then perhaps the article could say just that. However, I would suggest cutting this paragraph as far as the point where style is at last mentioned, since the section is supposed to be about style, not history. Also because there are other things wrong, it seems to me: the word "height" is problematic applied to both the Elizabethan and the Jacobean period here—for a different reason in each case. It's true that the Elizabethan literary flowering was at its height in the last decade and a half of the reign, but, despite the defeat of the Armada, that is not true of the political situation itself: it was during this period that discontent infected the country and criticisms of and challenges to Elizabeth's policies arose: far from being at her height, she was past her sell-by date. In the case of the Jacobean period, it is true that the reign enjoyed both its greatest literary flowering and most of its political successes during its first ten years; but it seems to me questionable, from a semantic point of view, whether a reign can reach its height at its beginning. Finally, I don't see what the Thirty Years' War has to do with anything in this context, since James I kept out of it till his dying day (1625).
  •   Done Style: when we do finally get to questions of style in the "Style" section, the treatment seems to me rather tangential and superfical. The fact that Shakespeare used soliloquies, couplets, prose and verse in his plays was a question of form rather than style. And I wouldn't say that his originality lies in using those forms, which were common to all the playwrights of the time. A mere one-sentence paragraph at the end of this section at last addresses style itself by talking of word play and rhetoric, though without developing the point. However, writing a short section on Shakespeare's style is a stiff challenge, I admit.
Nothing wrong with having a style section; it's what goes in it. qp10qp 04:53, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That's just it, we already had the section, someone wanted soliloquies and stuff in it. Wrad 05:09, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As it stands, the section says that he used soliloquies and merely describes what they are. But it's the style of the soliloquies that counts. I'm not informed on this matter, but we can be sure that Shakespeare, being a genius, developed soliloquies in original ways; how he did that would reflect his style. I've seen Marlowe and I've seen Shakespeare, and it is very clear that Shakespeare brought the soliloquy on a long way from Marlowe's use of it.qp10qp 05:23, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • He and other dramatists at the time used this form of blank verse for a lot of the dialogue between characters in order to elevate drama to new poetic heights.
Shakespeare and his contemporaries certainly elevated drama to new poetic heights, but was it anything to do with writing dialogue in blank verse? I've just checked the pre-Shakespearian plays Arden of Faversham and Gammer Gurton's Needle, and, as I thought, they used iambic pentameters and verse dialogue too.
  • The plays of Shakespeare were also dismissed as rubbish by Leo Tolstoy.
This struck me as a rather crude sentence, and since it is referenced to Orwell's essay Lear, Tolstoy and the Fool, I looked it up. What Orwell actually says is: "As Tolstoy justly complains, much rubbish has been written about Shakespeare as a philosopher, as a psychologist, as a ‘great moral teacher’, and what-not." Rather different. I would therefore remove "as rubbish" from the sentence, because certainly Tolstoy did dismiss Shakespeare in other terms, if not that one.

  Done Wrad 03:06, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • While none of this evidence proves Shakespeare's own Catholic sympathies, one historian, Clare Asquith, has claimed that those sympathies are detectable in his writing. Stephen Greenblatt makes the case that the "equivocator" arriving at the gate of hell in the Porter's speech in Macbeth refers to the Jesuit Father Henry Garnet after his execution in 1606.
  Done I'm not quite sure how the two sentences above hold together. One would expect an example of Asquith's theory to follow, not a reference to the porter's scene, which in its ridicule of equivocation would suggest the exact opposite of Catholic sympathies ("Here's a farmer that hanged himself on the expectation of plenty...Faith, here's an equivocator, that could swear in both the scales against either scale; who committed treason enough for God's sake, yet could not equivocate to heaven"). Certainly Greenblatt is right in identifying this equivocator with Garnet (mind you, nothing original in that reading); but we need an example from Asquith (I wouldn't really call her a historian) against which to juxtapose it, and a reference to the book in which she says it (Shadowplay). qp10qp 02:05, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I just took out the second sentence (which mentions Garnet). If people want to the detail on all of that, they can go to the main article. Is this ok with people?--Alabamaboy 12:41, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure. Because the best solution would be to contrast the referenced view that Shakespeare was a Catholic with the contrasting referenced view, using a linking sentence. I'll have a poke round to see if I can find something: it needn't take up much space in the article. qp10qp 14:58, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I was able to find parts of Asquith's book on Amazon Search Inside, so I have added a short quote from her in a note and have referenced the page. I have removed the description of her as a "historian": she's a diplomat's wife with a pet theory, and the book is cringe-makingly dreadful, in my opinion (for example, she says that Titania's court is Catholic and that Puck is a coded representation of Sir Robert Cecil). qp10qp 22:03, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rmky87

edit

  Done Why do I see naked URLs in the footnotes?--Rmky87 19:23, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We are in the process of fixing citations. You can help if you like. Wrad 19:32, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I couldn't tell if anyone else saw that.--Rmky87 21:01, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bratislava

edit

This article has recently passed GA process and now I would like to get feedback on how the article can be improved for eventual FA candidature. Among other things, I would like to get comments particularly in three things: the unresolved name issue, which can be seen on the Talk page and archives, and to the Economy and Culture and entertainment sections, if there can be something improved. Any comments or suggestions are welcome. MarkBA t/c/@ 16:48, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: if you will post link to an automated peer review, please note that it was run already once, and results can be seen here. MarkBA t/c/@ 12:10, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This has developed extremely well in the last few months, the article was a pleasure to read concise, well structured providing all the information you would expect in a FA standard article. The article summarizes major topics particularly well. However one or two minor quabbles. Firstly I'd like to see more references particularly on broad statements that will need verification to reach an FA status. In many places referencing is still rather sparse and needs consolidation throughout and reliability of all sources checking before the proposal. Secondly there are one or two unencyclopedic sentences which will need to be factualized. For instance "Bratislava is an hour's drive from the Czech Republic" - maybe so but this is highly dependent on traffic, speed, automobile etc. Stick to fact as much as possible, which you genrally have very well. Thirdly I'd like to see the government and politics section written more coherently and a bit more detail given-this for me was the only flawed section I could see in the article. I have adjusted the structure of the article in places which are related to geography first and beleive this is the structure that will take this to FA. Other than these very minor flaws it is a very good article for the world to read and believe that with a bit of work should reach FA requirments. Well done Mark and to all who have worked on this - ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ "Expecting you" Contribs 10:13, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • As to the distance, this is an old unsourced fact, which I replaced with concrete distance and sourced. Strange that I haven't noticed that earlier.
  • To the Government section, it could be done more coherently but not sure about political parties. There are no notable local parties, only state parties make their business.
  • And finally to the source reliability and count, we have replaced some of the questionable sources with better ones and are trying to balance the coverage. MarkBA t/c/@ 14:19, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  1. ^ Ref
  2. ^ Ref
  3. ^ Ref
  4. ^ Ref
  5. ^ Ref
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Peer_review/June_2007&oldid=214054171"