Wikipedia:WikiProject Paranormal/Peer review/2007
This page is an archive of all WikiProject Paranormal peer reviews for 2007. Please do not modify discussions here.
Peer Reviews
editThis request for peer review is respectfully submitted in conjunction with the recent request here on the Remote Viewing article. The material in Early psi research at SRI, which has been characterized as a mainstream science POV fork, should probably be considered as a candidate for merging into the remote viewing piece. jxm 08:11, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
The Monroe Institute is doing cutting-edge work in areas that are clearly paranormal: Remote viewing, expanding consciousness, communicating/assisting the dead, OBE, etc. There's a bit of a row concerning the possibility that the organization's stub represents an ad. I'd like help clean this up and I'm looking for suggestions from level heads. Thanks in advance for any assistance. Maxwellordinary 04:10, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
Bruce Moen has written five titles dealing with assisting the dead and collecting verifiable evidence. In my research I've uncovered an active blogger zone that he maintains at no cost to whomever who may wish to learn his techniques.
There seems to be a lot of discussion about the article being a rank ad, and I'd like to help clean it up. Would someone please give this a fresh look, share some ideas, and I'll try help out. Many thanks in advance Maxwellordinary 03:59, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
- Just wanted to say that Bruce was close friends with Robert A. Monroe, who's got a proper wiki page about him. I'd know cause I knew and worked with Bruce. All I can say he was just as legit. Do whatever you want with it though, I'm on no mission here, found this by accident and decided to chime in ;) 83.21.183.202 (talk) 21:00, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
I did some mayor cleanup to the page a few months ago as well as some sourcing, however I'm not exactly familiar with the structure that its expected of a article concerning the paranormal, the article probably needs some help from users specialized in this field, thanks for your time. -凶 00:33, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
Currently, what I am doing is re-writing the current articles involving the Bermuda Triangle. This is to remove some of the juvenile or amateurish writing that is already present, or to include more-detailed, factual info. From the Triangle main page I have also went into the following pages and re-worked about 65% of USS Cyclops; 85% of Flight 19; 100% of Marine Sulphur Queen; 100% of V.A. Fogg (but it could use more info); 85% of Star Tiger and Star Ariel (this involved merging both articles). The ultimate goal is to have a good, sound category that anyone can be comfortable with in researching. I don't mind a peer review at this time, but any help I could get, as far as writing, finding sources, would be appreciated. Carajou 08:11, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program, and might not be applicable for the article in question.
- Please expand the lead to conform with guidelines at Wikipedia:Lead. The article should have an appropriate number of paragraphs as is shown on WP:LEAD, and should adequately summarize the article.[?]
- Per Wikipedia:Context and Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates), months and days of the week generally should not be linked. Years, decades, and centuries can be linked if they provide context for the article.[?]
- This article has no or few images. Please see if there are any free use images that fall under the Wikipedia:Image use policy and fit under one of the Wikipedia:Image copyright tags that can be uploaded. To upload images on Wikipedia, go to Special:Upload; to upload non-fair use images on the Wikimedia Commons, go to commons:special:upload.[?]
- Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (numbers), there should be a non-breaking space -
between a number and the unit of measurement. For example, instead of 20 feet , use 20 feet , which when you are editing the page, should look like:20 feet.[?] - Per Wikipedia:Context and Wikipedia:Build the web, years with full dates should be linked; for example, link January 15, 2006.[?]
- As per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates), dates shouldn't use th; for example, instead of using January 30th was a great day, use January 30 was a great day.[?]
- There are a few occurrences of weasel words in this article- please observe WP:AWT. Certain phrases should specify exactly who supports, considers, believes, etc., such a view.
- Please make the spelling of English words consistent with either American or British spelling, depending upon the subject of the article. Examples include: neighbor (A) (British: neighbour), analyze (A) (British: analyse), analyse (B) (American: analyze), grey (B) (American: gray), skeptic (A) (British: sceptic), sulfur (A) (British: sulphur).
- 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, “
Allpigs are pink, so we thought ofa number ofways to turn them green.”
- Vague terms of size often are unnecessary and redundant - “some”, “a variety/number/majority of”, “several”, “a few”, “many”, “any”, and “all”. For example, “
- As done in WP:FOOTNOTE, footnotes usually are located right after a punctuation mark (as recommended by the CMS, but not mandatory), such that there is no space in between. For example, the sun is larger than the moon [2]. is usually written as the sun is larger than the moon.[2][?]
- Please ensure that the article has gone through a thorough copyediting so that it exemplifies some of Wikipedia's best work. See also User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 1a.[?]
You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, DTGardner 06:50, 16 September 2007 (UTC)