Wikipedia:Peer review/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions about Wikipedia:Peer review. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current main page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

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

The most recent topics appear on top.

---

I have listed some proposed improvements on grammar as well as proposals for reworing the existing text and elaborating on certain parts of it, please comment on it. -- Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason 10:13, 2004 Sep 12 (UTC) Wikipedia:Peer review/list of real people appearing in fictional context

Sort of self descriptive, but I think it should be longer. -Litefantastic 00:35, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)

What about those who merely smoulder? Seriously, since lists will never be featured articles, I doubt this is the correct venue for this article. Davodd 11:21, Sep 14, 2004 (UTC)

Agreed, listings like this just make the page too long and take away from its focus. Please move this listing to Wikipedia:Requests_for_expansion - Taxman 23:38, Sep 20, 2004 (UTC)

Added an imcomplete notice at the top. I think this list should be divided by type of publications they appeared and/or preferred type of tobacco(like cigars, pipes, etc.). More on how this list may be improved in Talk:List of fictional people who smoke. Revth 04:46, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I think this one is getting very good. Probably not quite a featured-level yet, but I'd appreciate suggestions on what it would take to get it there. -- Jmabel 21:11, Sep 1, 2004 (UTC)

More prose would be an obvious start. Also, might there be a way to reduce the space the lists take up, or possibly move them to another list article? IMO, the article will be drastically long if you add more prose but keep the lists. Johnleemk | Talk 06:47, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)

TNX. Guess that's all I'm getting. Feel free to delete or archive the request. -- Jmabel 04:57, Sep 9, 2004 (UTC)

Just rewrote the article completely. I want to put this on WP:FAC. What do you guys think? Is it featured-level yet? How could it be improved? Johnleemk | Talk 14:27, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Another excellent piece. I've taken the liberty of doing a couple of minor edits - just tidying up some phrases here and there, such as swapping "in Abbey Road at Studio 2" to "at Abbey Road in Studio 2", stuff like that. But aside from that, as I said, another great article! You'll soon have more featured Beatles songs than Emsworth has featured nobility! :-) Angmering 15:29, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I believe it should be IN Abbey Road, it's In Abbey Road Studios, and the album is also called "... in Abbey Road"Pedant 16:35, 2004 Sep 3 (UTC)

Hmmmmmmmm, well I'd respectfully disagree. "In Abbey Road", in my opinion, makes it sound like you're in the middle of the Road itself... Now, of course "at Abbey Road" doesn't sound that much different (in fact "at Abbey Road Studios" would probably be better, although I didn't add the Studios in my original edit because I thought it was well-known enough not to need it...). In my experience of reading articles on albums, television programmes and films, they are nearly always made "at Pinewood Studios", or "at the Record Plant" or "at BBC Television Centre" and so forth, with "in" being used to clarify exactly where. (Although of course if it were a film, you'd probably say "on" Sound Stage so-and-so, but I digress!). Angmering 18:15, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Forgot to mention — this is now on WP:FAC. Johnleemk | Talk 07:46, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I put this article up for peer review once before last year. It only attracted one comment back then, which I acted upon, but I think now it's a much better piece all round so I'd like to try it again to see if it attracts more feedback, possibly with a view to putting it up on FAC. The article is now illustrated with screengrabs from various relevant productions; it's up-to-date; it contains quotes and links backing up points and is just a generally better piece than it was last year. However, any advice for how it could be further improved would be gratefully received! Angmering 00:17, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

• I wouldn't exactly call Doctor Who a drama. I also miss mention on dramas for BBC children's TV in the article like Featherboy and Pighart boy for example or the longer running series Byker Grove and Grange Hill. - Mgm|^(talk) 12:54, August 25, 2005 (UTC)

It was made by the Drama Department - still is! - and was initiated by the Head of Drama at the time. If it's not a BBC television drama then nothing is! Good point about the children's dramas needing a mention, though - but then again, they were / are made under the aegis of the Children's Department rather than Drama. Angmering 12:36, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

I think I've more or less completed this article. Please have a look; I'm not sure whether I've put everything in sufficient context. - Mustafaa 03:20, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Well it needs comparison to the other languages it is geographically and/or linguistically close to. What makes it different? Also the intro has way too many red links. If you know what those things are, try to create at least the Perfect stub article - Taxman 17:12, Aug 31, 2004 (UTC)

The first draft of this article is now complete. Please have a look. --mike40033 02:21, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)

• A very nice article. You might consider using the name polychoron for a 4-dimensional polytope. As well as (or maybe instead of) the animated image of the 24-cell, I'd like a static image showing several slices (Wikipedia has a general bias against animated images because they don't transfer well to print). The article needs to be integrated with the other content at Wikipedia, so that all the related articles can benefit from your work. In particular, some of the material would fit well in the articles polygon, polyhedron, polytope, Platonic solid, Archimedean solid, and others (in some cases the other article should have a summary, with a link to regular polytope for the full story, but in others, e.g. "Polytopes in nature", I think other article should have the details, with merely a link from regular polytope.) Gdr 13:00, 2004 Aug 30 (UTC)

I started this article as there used to be a large cult following surrounding this short lived failed soda by The Coca-Cola Company. After the Coca-Cola article was featured a few days ago, I wondered why we didn't have an article on this cola at all. I'd love to have more OK Soda fans contribute to this, and eventually get it up to featured status. --DropDeadGorgias (talk) 01:14, Aug 30, 2004 (UTC)

Very thorough job. Needs: I would consider putting a caption under the logo since unlike GE, McDonalds and Coke, the OK brand is not a household name; I think you should mention that "OK" also is a reflection (a mirror reflection almost) of "KO," Coca-Cola's ticker symbol; and it would be nice to have something with an ISBN # that details the OK brand. Davodd 16:14, Sep 9, 2004 (UTC)

Thanks, I've added the logo caption and the detail about the ticker symbol. I looked on amazon, and while a fair amount of marketing books talk about OK Soda as a part of Coca-Cola's history, none of the books are really about OK Soda. I could include captions from the books, but there are probably copyright issues. Any other ideas for ISBN material? --DropDeadGorgias (talk) 15:34, Sep 15, 2004 (UTC)

OK soda had a phone number you could call, 1-800-I-FEEL-OK. I can barely remember calling it, but remember that it was an automated service that had different options where you could listen to jokes and learn about the soda and current pop culture things.

I was also surprised that there was no information on the McDonald's Arch Deluxe, also an example of failed rebel advertising in the mid-90s. I'd love to hear other people's opinions on this article, and any suggestions they might have. --DropDeadGorgias (talk) 01:14, Aug 30, 2004 (UTC)

This article is about an important, historical and historic, political documentary on the 2003 Quebec general election. I have written all of this article and worked on it for hours. It is now one of my proudest achievements (so, in featured article candidates-speak, it is a self-nomination). I wish to sumbit it for featured article candidates someday, and I now would like your opinion. I feel that there is close to nothing that could be added to it (realistically, humanly speaking) and I wish to know from those who agree and those who have suggestions on what to add to it and maybe make it even better. Thank you; I look forward to be reading your comments. --Liberlogos 05:59, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I just did a major edit to this to add a lot more history and statistics. It is my first ever post on Wikipedia. If anyone has any interest in rugby, or Australian sport, or would simply like to help me, if you could just read through the post and give me some pointers it would be great. Thanks alot. --Jimm dodd 03:45, Aug 29, 2004 (UTC)

This article has been through here once before (see Wikipedia:Peer review/Totalitarian democracy/archive1) , but has undergone considerable tweaking since. I'd like to submit it for featured article. Comments, please. Denni☯ 20:49, 2004 Aug 28 (UTC)

I just created my first wikipedia article, inspired by Ben Goldacre's [recent] "Bad Science" coloumn for The Guardian. I'm reasonably proud of the accomplishment, but am uncertain that I've attained the heady heights of NPOV. My POV, clearly, is that she is a fraudulent quack. Would it help to attribute the criticism to Goldacre rather than incorporate it into the factual exposition? --Si 22:24, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)

• Good for you for getting involved. Being an Ohioan, I'm not familiar with this woman. Is she one of those perennial guests that plague the chat shows? (We have a number of them here as well.)
  As for her criticism of her as a quack, has anyone else besides Goldacre raised this issue? Because dieting is such a fiercely disputed issue, I'd attribute criticism to your columnist rather than stating it flat out. I also wonder if you had any solid biographical data, such as how old she is, where's she from, where's she's worked?
  Stylistically, you could combine some of your sentences, something like "She claims to have degrees from . . . when they were actually issued by so and so, unaccredited schools not recognized by the Education Department, etc." Makes it flow better.
  Certainly a worthy start. Glad to have you aboard. PedanticallySpeaking 16:49, Aug 30, 2004 (UTC)

Firstly, sorry for the delayed response. I've been in Edinburgh for the Festival, and forgot that the rest of my life (including Wikipedia) still existed. As regards her status as a quack, the fact that she works in the field of nutrition doesn't have a bearing on the outright fallacies brought out by Goldacre in his second column. For example:

"Several of you are fans of Ms McKeith, and wrote to express how upset you were that I had childishly attacked her reputation, and not her theories. Well. Let's pick a quote at random. Chlorophyll is "high in oxygen". And the darker leaves on plants are good for you, she explains, because they contain "chlorophyll - the 'blood' of the plant - which will really oxygenate your blood." Here we run into a classic Bad Science problem. It may be immediately obvious to you that this is pseudoscientific, made up nonsense (and from the TV personality the Radio Times described as "no nonsense", no less). If it's not obvious nonsense to you, then, OK, just this once: the real science. Chlorophyll is a small green molecule that uses the energy from light to convert carbon dioxide and water into sugar and oxygen. Plants then use this sugar energy to make everything else they need, like protein, and you breathe in the oxygen, and maybe you even eat the plants. You also breathe out carbon dioxide. It's all so beautiful, so gracefully simple, yet so rewardingly complex, so neatly connected, not to mention true, that I can't imagine why you'd want to invent nonsense to believe instead. But there you go. That's alternative therapists all over."

Outright scientific rubbish, when coupled with a fraudulent academic history and various papers prepared but enver submitted for peer review add up to make, in my opinion, a quack. However, I never alleged that she was a fraud in the article - I merely said that was my POV. In the article, I only reported the fraudulent history by a series of objective and verifiable facts. I didn't even mention the scientific controversies, though now that you've mentioned it I might.

On style, the rephrase which you suggest ("She claims to have degrees from . . . when they were actually issued by so and so, unaccredited schools not recognized by the Education Department, etc.") is actually rather misleading, since it suggests that what she got were not really degrees when, legally, I think they were. Correct me if I'm wrong, of course. That the Ed Dep doesn't recognize them shows that they're not educationally valid degrees, not that they're not degrees per se. However, I accept the stylistic note --in general-- =) thanks for the tip. There are certainly improvements to be made.

And yes, she is one of those "Media Medics" (wheeeeeee look mummy I coined an alliterative phrase!). Thanks for your support and welcome =) --Si 21:03, Sep 4, 2004 (UTC)

It was a little bit too overtly political when I came to it this morning. I've done some work on it; however, it may require further attention. Crocogator 18:36, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)

The bulk of the article seems to be a portrayal of the issues surrounding socialized health care in the U.S., with an undercurrent of justifying use of the phrase that should be the main topic of the article. The article quotes no sources for the following assertions:

• "The United States is the only nation in the developed world that does not provide subsidized healthcare for all citizens"
• "A large proportion of its citizens, however, feel that..."
• "A large proportion of the uninsured are lower-income children, who have a higher risk of preventable death than middle- and upper-income children and, to a degree, healthcare costs are responsible."

The article also makes statements that are essentially content-free due to their vagueness or tautological nature, and some are POV in their choice of what to emphasize. They include:

• "On this controversial issue, political beliefs occupy a wide range."
• "Some propose" X, "while others believe" rebut X, affirm Y (and alternatives Z through RR are not remarked upon)
• "Even some liberals believe that..." (pattern here is: Even some STEREOTYPICAL_LABEL believe that AUTHOR'S_FAVORITE_IDEA)

In addition, I think much of this background stuff (especially the second paragraph) is extraneous and belongs better as a "See also" link at the bottom of the article. I'd like to see some information about who coined the term, in what contexts it has been used and with what persons or groups it has been identified, how popular it is in political discourse, etc. In short, the article should focus on not just the idea behind the phrase, but its origins and use.

Alanyst 19:43, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)

It seems to me that this article endorses the POV of "pro-life" groups in the US that equate abortion to murder, which is a whole another issue, separate from the debate whether healthcare should be universal or restricted. Etz Haim 22:18, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)

What a bizarre title! The topic here is universal health insurance, a legitimate and important topic. Although the rest of the content isn't bad, the title is not explained until the last paragraph, and it's a crappy paragraph. I've never heard the term and I've been interested in the topic for decades. It's stupid. It's like entitling an article on the gun control debate "second amendment genocide" because African-Americans suffer disproportionately from gun deaths. The author didn't even back up the allegations of differential early childhood mortality with links or references. No one except the creator of the article would ever think of looking for this topic under this title. What is the procedure for retitling an article? Alteripse 14:45, 30 Sep 2004 (UTC)

The article was very pro-Aum POV before some edits I made yesterday, and still needs a lot of work. A quick perusal of the group (now known as Aleph)'s website shows that our article ignores some major doctrinal points. This is to say nothing of most of the other sites on the web about the group, which bare little or no resemblance to the Wikipedia article. - Nat Krause 05:31, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Quality of the article has nothing to do with whether this resembles 'most of the other sites on the web' IMO and whether it looks like pro-something or contra-anything to anyone IMO isn't also very relevant as soon as factual correctness of the picture to the degree of absence of gross mistakes remains in place. Trying to 'balance' the article that gives an impression of being too mild towards the controversial subject with edits making the subject appear less attractive without regard to facts is imposing the POV de facto while advocating neutrality verbally.

It is best to be neutral, so removing the emotionally charged statements would IMO be the best NPOV. As to the doctrinal points, please kindly start to debate them in talks. Previously we debated one of the doctinal points which resulted in you deleting your signature from the text. Currently the text was considerably expanded with links to the sources and I very much thankful for this valuable addition. Quotes from the sources added that were contradictory to the facts were removed from the article text but edits thorouly explained. I am very sorry you didn't find the time to debate most of them by their merits.

Obviously a major subject, but the article is organized poorly and much too long (40+k). I have placed some ideas on the talk page, and may be tinkering a quite a bit in the next few days. I'd love some help, especially from a Brit and/or other non-Americans. Tuf-Kat 21:43, Aug 26, 2004 (UTC)

Completely rewritten version of this article. Was previously on peer review here and had a featured article candidacy here. Has been designated a Wikipedia:Good article. Thoroughly researched with notes, illustrated, thorough article on a proposed constitutional amendment. PedanticallySpeaking 16:05, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

• I think it's fine, nothing wrong with the plenty of good references. --Merovingian {T C @} 18:23, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, Merovingian. PedanticallySpeaking 16:39, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

• Looks pretty good to me - but maybe not that easy for non-Americans to understand the basic concepts. Deb 20:14, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Thank you, Deb. It is one of those very American topics, I understand, very peculiar to our constitutional system. Many Americans would have trouble understanding, say, the role of your Lord Chancellor. PedanticallySpeaking 16:39, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

• The article is thoroughly referenced and overall quite well done. Though it may be a little difficult to understand for for those not well-versed in US politics, this is a typical condition of such specialized articles; a little background reading usually fixes that for anybody who is interested enough to follow through. – ClockworkSoul 23:15, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks very much, Clockwork. I tried to include a good bit of background on American isolationism because without that, it is hard to understand the very strong feelings generated by the issue. PedanticallySpeaking 16:39, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

• Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, Andy _t 14:59, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I've looked at that list. I'm not certain why some items are on it, however. PedanticallySpeaking 16:52, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

• I agree with Merovingian about the references; the important thing is that the inline citations don't overwhelm and distract from the text. I really like this article; it's very comprehensive, well-researched and well-written, and while I found some parts a little unclear, I don't think there are ways to "simplify" and elaborate on them without making the text bloated and choppy. I noticed a few typos in the direct quotes, but I didn't want to change them in case they had been deliberately carried over from the source material. Also, there are a few red links in close proximity to one another in the "G.O.P. infighting" section, though I wouldn't mind if they stayed there. The sentences starting with "But" are a little awkward, but I'm not sure whether this is grammatically incorrect. Use of passive voice could be removed in some areas to reduce the number of words and give sentences a better flow, e.g. "no action was taken by the full Senate" to "the full Senate took no action"; again, I should stress that I'm not an expert when it comes to grammar. Anyway, great job! I hadn't even heard of this topic until recently; now I've learnt a lot about it. Extraordinary Machine 12:57, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

I am planning to do a complete proofreading of this, it was just I had been working on it so long I needed to put it out there for comment. Please, point out errors in quotes. I'm by no means a perfect copyist and very well could have gotten them wrong. PedanticallySpeaking 16:39, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Sorry for the late reply. Here are the ones I found:

• "...international organizations. They are ginding out treaties like so many eager beavers..."
• "...bargained away in attempts to show our good neigborliness and to indicate to the rest of the world..."
• "...international legislature to formulate socialistic laws which is hopes, by the vehicle of treaty ratification..."
• "whom he had three times backed form the presidential nomination"
• "I do not want a president of the U.s. to conclude an exectuve agreement which will make it unlawful for me to kill a cat..."
• ""Bricker had become alientated from the mainstream of his own party..."

Hope that helps. Extraordinary Machine 13:35, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, Extraordinary. Those errors have been fixed. PedanticallySpeaking 16:41, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

• Left some comments on the talk page, but suppose they might as well be here... more of the same :)

  ==Clarification==

  "The best-known version of the Bricker Amendment, considered by the Senate in 1953–1954, declared that no treaty could be made by the United States that conflicted with the Constitution, was self-executing without the passage of separate enabling legislation through Congress, or which granted Congress legislative powers beyond those specified in the Constitution."

  I am working on what 'self-executing' is supposed to mean; I am guesing that "no treaty could be made ... that ... was self-executing" means that no treaty could be made without enabling legislation. Is this redundant or am I mistaken? --Matthew 03:19, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Right, self-executing means that if the Senate ratifies a treaty it is the internal law of the United States and another law passed by both houses and signed by the president is not necessary. PedanticallySpeaking 16:36, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

• ==Spelling in quotes==

  Someone else mentioned spelling errors in quotes... guess they need 'sic' or corrected to what they really were. Watch for "slure" ... should maybe be slur?

  First one: Patrick J. Buchanan writes "the term is a dismissive slure on a tradition of U.S. independence in foreign policy and nonintervention in foreign wars"

  In the next sentence or so, it happens to be spelled Bucanan. I think it is Buchanan, but can imagine it being Bucanan. --Matthew 17:32, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Both are typos. The word should have been "slur" and the name "Buchanan". PedanticallySpeaking 16:38, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

• ==War plans==

  I am not particularly familiar with war plans, but Rainbow 5 and War plan orange seem to be different in the rather short United_States_Color-coded_War_Plans article. I deleted Rainbow 5 from the sentence; if that leaves it incorrect, you can fix it. --Matthew 21:53, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Rainbow 5 was the whole constellation of pre-World War II plans, color-coded for nations. I put it back in to be clear what's being talked about. PedanticallySpeaking 16:46, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

• ==United Nations==

  I am guessing that the abbreviations UN and U.N. are both acceptable. They are both used at least once. Which would you prefer we use? --Matthew 03:09, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

I went through and added periods so it is "U.N." since both letters are said aloud unlike in an acronym such as NASA. PedanticallySpeaking 16:46, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

• ==Sentence needs moved/changed to improve flow==

  I am trying to figure out what to do with "Nevertheless, Americans for Democratic Action had given him a "zero" rating in 1949." It doesn't seem to fit where it is; perhaps I don't understand exactly why it is included. I do see that it implies that they said he was as conservative (as far as disagreement with their policies goes) as anyone. It just seems to break the two sentences on either side of it. --Matthew 01:45, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

I've altered those sentences. PedanticallySpeaking 16:49, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Very detailed and through. Much better than prior version. I'd vote for FA, but my only caution is that at 80K, some may say it's too long. Rlevse 17:44, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm posting this as a featured article candidate today. PedanticallySpeaking 17:07, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

A controversial subject. I think it's missing something, but I'm not sure what. I've probably worked on it for too long, so some fresh eyes would help. Some NPOV touch-up would probably be good. Thanks! -- style 13:11, 2004 Aug 25 (UTC)

• Opening paragraph should say what the current status of the theory is. Consensus against, consensus in favor, more evidence needed? Gdr 18:14, 2004 Aug 25 (UTC)

Good point, fixed, although it's hard to say exactly what the consensus of medical science is about a widely-ignored theory. -- style 00:04, 2004 Aug 26 (UTC)

• What's the "dirty needle theory" doing in the opening paragraph? That's a theory about the spread of HIV, not its origin. Gdr 17:14, 2004 Aug 26 (UTC)

I see what you mean, but the OPV AIDS hypothesis involves both the origin and spread of HIV. Because HIV had multiple (4) origins, and some of the variants (i.e HIV-2) have spread little whereas HIV-1 is a global epidemic, the reasons behind the spread of HIV is just as important as the actual viral point of origin. But I'll remove the sentence, as it is only confusing to the main issues and doesn't necessarily compete with OPV (although it does provide an important alternate explanation). -- style 08:29, 2004 Aug 27 (UTC)

• Wow, nice article on something I'd never heard of. Only thing I can think of is more direct in article citations such as (Pascal, 1990 pp 100-102). That makes an article that much more reliable, NPOV and credible. Also, more sources in general if possible, especially from the journal articles mentioned which discredit the theory. But more sources from both sides would help. Currently the article seems to lean towards supporting the theory, as the criticisms are dismissed a bit. - Taxman 13:48, Aug 27, 2004 (UTC)

Thanks! I wasn't sure how much detail was wanted in citations, so in future I'll be more specific. As to more sources, unfortunately I don't have access to the critical journal articles in question and am talking about them second-hand; but I'll try to add whatever I find on the web. -- style 14:12, 2004 Aug 28 (UTC)

I would like for this article - not to mention the related ones I?ve written around it - to be as helpful and factually accurate as possible. With that aim in mind, I?m posting it here for scrutiny. Kael (Aug. 25)

• A good article, with only a bit more work needed. I'd suggest adding the Guide dog section, and I hope you can also clean up some of the red links. While I understand your purpose in doing so, it's probably not a good idea to put uncreated links in the See also section, since there isn't anything to see. Keep up the great work! Denni☯ 21:19, 2004 Aug 28 (UTC)
  • Thank you for the feedback. I did add to the guide dog section, in addition to putting a stub tag on it, but I'll be circling back soon enough. Kael
• How about adding things on how construction standards changed to better accomodate blind people? I know traffic lights that play a music when it's safe to cross and fences with automatic doors that open up when a train arrives. Revth 13:34, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Maybe some treatment of web accessibility for the visually impaired? some info here: www.w3.org/WAI ... if you write some of that up, I'd be happy to massage it a little. I don't really have time right now to do morePedant
    • Both good ideas - although I think accessibility for the visually impaired should be a separate article. Kael

I seem to be the only person left editing this article. While I have not removed any information, I have done some substantial rewording, including on potentially controversial topics -- I would be grateful for comments on (N)POV. Dbachmann 10:14, 24 Aug 2004 (UTC)

• If I understand rightly, this is an overview of a whole subject area, whose more detailed articles are listed in the navigation box. Could you make it more like the format recommended at Wikipedia:Guide to writing better articles#Summary style, with links to the main articles for each section? Put the important stuff first, move the section about the name to near the end. It would be nice to have a brief example to show how the comparative method works. It would also be nice to have a sentence or two about the range of languages in the family (the details and the full list can be left to other articles of course, but a summary would explain why the concept is so important). Gdr 17:56, 2004 Aug 24 (UTC)

I'm not sure it is a summary article. I'm not entirely happy with the navigation box, because it lists some loosely related concepts (Aryan invasion). As I understand it, there are articles about the Indo-European languages, the Proto-Indo-European language and Indo-European religion, but neither explains the term Indo-European itself. So the job of Indo-European is (a) to explain the term and (b) to explain what is known about the people (apart from the language). Hence the emphasis on the history of the term, but you may be right in that maybe it really should be made a summary article, with links to eg. languages, proto-language, origins, religion, history, i.e. replacing the navigation box? Originally, my concern was with politics/POV, but I think I will give this a try.

I am done with re-organizing the article into a summary and would welcome comments on any of the articles in Template:Indo-European. dab 13:58, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC)

The article is a bit weak on examples. Here's a few:

(1) almost all Indo-European languages use a variant of the word copper/kupfer to designate that metal because the main source of easily-mined copper was Cyprus.

(2) almost all Indo-Eurpean languages use the word salt/sal/saltz to designate sodium carbonate because an important source of easily-found salt was Salz (now Salzburg).

(3) almost all Indo-European languages use variations of the words papa/mama to designate mother/father

There must be dozens more examples. Ogg 12:21, 11 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Sorry, but your examples miss the mark: (1) and (2) are borrowing by some languages (not all IE, maybe?) after the divergence from Proto-IE and (3) was proposed as a universal correlation based on onomatopeia (/m/ = sucking noise and /p/ would be the first consonant babies can produce). One classical example is father/pater/pitar (English/Greek/Sanskrit). _R_ 11:02, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)

On the article about Thessaloniki, user Crculver has added the following paragraph:

For a time in the 9th century the city appears to had some population of speakers of Old Church Slavonic. Saint Cyril and his brother Methodius were born in Thessaloniki and the Byzantine Emperor Michael III, saying that "the inhabitants of Thessaloniki speak Slavonic quite well", encouraged them to visit northern Slavic regions from there as missionaries.

which I consider misleading. In particular, it is the first sentence mentioning speakers of Old Church Slavonic which I think is the source of the controversy. For more details, you may refer to the talk page of the article.

I worked on this article all night last night (Aug 22), and the section Career Summary was the only one left partially intact. This is my first article, also, and someone completely discarded the in-depth discography I had created. If I've done this wrong, please tell me. Also, this Michael/Dispute was added and none of the information was changed, only the deletion of the discography. Is this the problem? -K1da1

We have a vandal here called Michael. Well vandal is really the correct word, but it'll do. Basically Micheal likes to make stuff up. He adds loads of info to music related articles none of which is true. He edits from AOL. Checking his edits for factual correctness, is just too difficult. People tried but they couldn't keep up with him ( It's much easy to write rubbish than it is to check if it's true or not) So he was banned. Now because he edits from AOL we cannot block him from editing without blocking the whole of AOL. So what we do is revert everything he writes. It's unfortunatee that you have got caught up in this but if you also are an AOL customer, it's possible that you were mistaken for him. Add the discography back in under you logged in name (you can get it from the page history) and all should be well. Theresa Knott 22:34, 23 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I've worked on this article for about 2 months now. I think it's good and could be a featured article... only problem is it's size, but it deals with a historically very important and well documented city, and I think it's comprehensive enough to overcome this. I've just come back from vacation there and can add more pictures later. But before I make a self-nomination for featured article status I'm putting it here to see what concerns people may have. Hopefully you can help me fix any problems. - Asim Led 19:22, 23 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Yes, it's greatest objection is likely to be its length. So continue moving material into sub-articles and leave summaries in the article. Especially the government, communications and media, culture, tourism, and the municipalities sections. All contain information hard to justify in an overview of a city. In addition many other facts are included that would be hard to justify as encyclopedic such as the quotations. Also the Historical population section still has some NPOV and grammar troubles, specifically with the sentence "Combined with horrific living conditions forced upon by the besieging forces, the result was...". I would fix that, but I'm not sure what was supposed to be combined. There's for starters. In general, that is an amazing amount of information on a city. Great work so far. - Taxman 20:00, Aug 23, 2004 (UTC)

I like some of the recent work, continue on that path, moving some of the excess detail out. I hope you have maintained it in subarticles. Removing good info from wikipedia is never good I think. Also, the sections on historical population need some sort of reference, such as a book or webpage those figures came from. The 2002 population listed there differs from the figure quoted in the intro section. - Taxman 20:00, Sep 10, 2004 (UTC)

For that big hole next to the TOC - you may want to consider adding a city table like the one listed here: Wikipedia:WikiProject Cities and used in New York, New York, Chicago, Illinois and Warsaw. Davodd 16:07, Sep 9, 2004 (UTC)

Seems to me that this article has been pushed into pretty good shape, conceivably being a prospect for FAC. Before that, it needs some independent examination. (Clearly, it needs an illustration, and the sort of thing is abvious. Haven't found a good one in the public domain yet.) Dandrake 01:13, Aug 23, 2004 (UTC)

I've added one. Theresa Knott 09:32, 23 Aug 2004 (UTC)

The red dot (Mercury, I suppose) appears outside of its orbit (or out of the ecliptic) in one frame, kind of above the sun and to the left. But the image explains the concept pretty well. Mpolo 18:46, Aug 24, 2004 (UTC)

This is my first ever entry. I need some suggestions to help improve, espcially concerning the format/style. Thanks! Cacophony

• Try looking around wikipedia for other great articles on musicians and emulate those. Strive to reach the impossible ideal as discussed in Wikipedia:The_perfect_article. Especially the part regarding citing your sources in a 'References' section or similar. If you haven't used any, that would be a great start, to research and add more material. Also consider adding a 'See also' section to link to similar articles. Wikipedia's best articles have a freely licensed image reflecting the topic too. HTH - Taxman 19:38, Aug 23, 2004 (UTC)
• Needs a picture, ideally a photo of Hardin performing. Needs a category. The opening paragraph needs to explain why he is worth writing about. What is his significance? Was he a virtuoso? Innovative? Popular? The rest of the article should back this up. Did he influence other musicians? What is his legacy? Gdr 11:30, 2004 Aug 24 (UTC)

There is lots more stuff you could include: He married Susan Moore, before (or possibly after?) he wrote "Suite for Susan Moore" She was the main star of The Young Marrieds, a soap opera which was the highest rated show on TV then

http://www.mathie.demon.co.uk/th/fanmail.html

There is controversy about that song. Some say that its heroine, Susan Moore, was Tim Hardin's wife, although her real name was Morss, and she was from Vermont. Others say the song was written in Greenwich Village before he knew her, and the name was a coincidence. In 1970 Hardin recorded an album for Columbia called "Suite for Susan Moore." It was produced by Gary Klein, the same man who would produce "John R. Cash." He would also record a very powerful version of Leonard Cohen's "Bird On the Wire." Hardin would appear at Woodstock, but descended into a sad world and died December 29, 1980 in Los Angeles at age 39, of a heroin overdose. It was never established if it was intentional or not, but it is said that he had earned $22 million in his lifetime, and lost every penny of it--along with his wife and family--by the time he died.

http://www.maninblack.net/Mhic/folk.htm

His influence is far wider than the article suggests. Check this page:

http://www.coversproject.com/artist/Tim+Hardin

His best songs have a wounded vulnerability about them, suggesting some unknown hurt in early childhood. The third most frequently-recorded cover is "Hang on to a Dream", which you don't even mention. It's his best song I think. It was also sung by Graham Parker in concert, but he never recorded it. Please mention Johnny Cash's cover.

• I was told it would be a good idea to put this here, before I run it for a Featured Article again. Any of you who actually saw this film in its original cold war context would be of great help. -Litefantastic 16:41, 22 Aug 2004 (UTC)

There are three rock operas on this page. they are all 'the first rock opera'... can someone more familiar with Frank Zappa's and The Who's music edit this page to make it factual? I think only the FIRST one should be called the first, but I'm not sure what is and isn't 'rock', "opera", or 'rock opera'Pedant 07:18, 2004 Aug 22 (UTC)

Hello all! Where is the citation for this information???

<The weapons of mass destruction that the Coalition of the Willing invaded to capture have been found, but not in great quantaties. To date no significante evidence of nuclear or biological weapons have been found. There has been over 500 artillary shells found containing weaponized chemicals specifically Sarin and Mustard agents. These chemical agents, specifically Sarin gas have been used at times agains US troops by Iraqi insurgents.>

I did not read any news reports about more than 500 artillary shells found containing weaponized chemicals specifically Sarin and Mustard agents."

Where is the citation for this????

Hi All - With a better version in place, I request your help. I think the best thing we can do to fight instrinic POV issues of this article is to make it a featured article, that will be solidly defensible against vandalism and POV-warriors. It will also significantly help WP's reputation to be a reliable source on an important person. I must state here that this is not an article on the Bush administration, War on Terrorism or Iraq War. The data and prose must always focus on Bush the person, the individual. Rama's Arrow 19:51, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Note the size has reduced from 106kb to 64kb. Rama's Arrow 19:56, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

It could certainly stand to be shortened some more. Especially with all the offshoot articles, much information could be further summarized in this one.

On the "Early Life" section in particular, it is far from chronological. The numerous jumps around in time make it difficult to build an accurate picture of GW's development through childhood and early career. Lyrl 01:11, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

• Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, Andy _t 15:38, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
• There's some key aspects missing needed detail, such as medicare reform and health savings accounts, but mostly, there are too many unsourced statements for the article to have a realistic chance at FA status. Make sure all of those are fixed, and that all citations are made in one consistent format. Titoxd^(?!?) 23:53, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Additionally, many sections are too dense, meaning that they are not illustrated enough. Titoxd^(?!?) 23:57, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
• I'm not sure you have a prayer to get this featured — I don't see any way it can meet the stability requirement. Also, you're never going to be able to please the people that are clammoring for more detail on certain items, while keeping it to a reasonable length. To be shorter, which I believe it needs, you'd have to find some more detail to move off to daughter articles, not an easy task. Finally, while there are many cited facts, there are few very high quality references, and not enough cited facts to support the whole article on such a contentious topic without truly authoritative overall references. If you discovered what are considered the highest quality references on him and obtained and cited them, you might have a chance to quiet the edit wars. Then defending the article's quality would be easier because if no one could find a source with higher quality, they couldn't justify changes. As to form and structure, it seems to have everything looking right. Beyond that I don't really know enough about the topic to tell you if it is balanced right or has any major POV issues. - Taxman ^Talk 18:29, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

this article is locked in an edit war, could use some level heads and neutral Points of View... maybe especially from wikipedians outside the U.S.A. Since this is a highly visible page, it seems to me unsuitable to keep it protected. See what you can do to help reach consensus. Thanks.Pedant 08:48, 2004 Aug 22 (UTC)

The article seems fine for now. Because of vandalism and edit wars, I see no reason it should not remain locked until after the U.S. elections in November. Davodd 23:22, Sep 10, 2004 (UTC)

Yes it seems okay. I think the one part that could be improved is in the foreign policy section; giving a rationale behind the various policy decisions. RJH 09:56, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Fine for now but it still has a couple factual errors. There should be some mechanism for addressing them... for one, regarding Bush's first company: "Some of this funding came from Saudi Arabian nationals including the bin Laden family" this was partisan campaign disinfo. It shouldn't be in an encyclopedia. -=Steven

Um,it should be removed provided that it is wrong,shouldn't it?--CAN T 08:21, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

ARCHIVED!

I think that George W. Bush article should be featured.It is very well written and informative already. And vandalism is not a reason it should not be.sasha_best

See WP:WIAFA: 2.e "stable" means that an article does not change significantly from day to day and is not the subject of ongoing edit wars. This article will not become featured in the near future, but it can be improved to a more neutral point of view.

Now, onto the actual discussion about the article...

• Check all the links. There are some duplicates, and some are pointing to disambiguation pages.
• Verify that the images qualify as fair use; I'm not sure Image:Indy cover 22 july 2006.jpg qualifies with the way it has been included.
• There are two references made as regular links, unlike the other refs in the articles. The first of those two isn't linking to the actual page with the information, but to the general source itself.

And finally, it could use a copyedit and more sourcing. For example, take a look at the first paragraph of "Domestic agenda." I think that explains itself. ♠ SG →Talk 21:46, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Also, there are a lot of citation needed statements that need to be fixed. ♠ SG →Talk 16:29, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

The article is excellent, and vandalsim shouldn't be a problem with the page being semi-protected. 0L1 13:54, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

{{Link FA|ast}}

Bush's leadership on national security and for his war on terrorism following 9/11 have won him emotional support from a large number of Americans,, but he lost most of it because of the US soldiers killed in the Irak-war. Bush has also enjoyed strong personal and working relationships with foreign leaders, but had severe problems with Gerhard Schröder and José Luis Rodríguez Zapatero and other foreign leaders opposing the Irak-war. If this paragraph is called Criticism it has to critizise at the points even if they are obvious!--Stone 16:47, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

In the 3rd paragraph, it discusses partial birth abortion and faith based initiatives. These are sensitive subjects, and furthermore, Bush spent very little time on them. How about energy policy? Patriot Act? Promotion of democracy? Social security reform? Reorganizing our government around fighting a war on terror? Bush signed the PBA ban because Clinton vetoed twice. If Clinton had signed it, Bush would have not. It was an issue before Bush came to office, and this context is relevant, and why it should be removed from the 3rd paragraph.

In the Katrina section, no blame is given for the poor levies, and for the weak response by the mayor and the governor. From reading it, you would think it was all Bush's fault. Also, Michael Brown had overseen a number of disasters before, but no one had criticized them.

The environmental policy section leaves out the fact that the Senate voted against Kyoto 95-0 before Bush got into office. Bush formally withdrew, and is blamed for its demise, but it was a dead duck already. This context is relevant.

There is no mention of Bush re-organizing the US gov't to fight terrorism. The patriot act is mentioned in passing in one place, and the other time it is used to criticize bush for 'perceived excesses.' No explanation of what those excesses were.

In other words, I think the article sucks right now.KeithCu 02:57, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

It's always been pretty good, but never great. Went through WP:FAC once but didn't pass - criticisms were that it was too disorganized, inconsistently used British and American spellings, used informal and colloquial language, etc. I've contributed a lot but everyone needs an editor! Thanks a bunch. Ðåñηÿßôý | Talk 07:26, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC)

This article seems rather one-sided. It is almost uniformly critical of the theory, and the single contributor who has written most of it seems fond of rhetorical flourishes that have no place in a neutral source. This article needs to be cleaned up by someone more persistent and knowledgeable than myself.

Seems to me that what it needs is an advocate for the theory. As it stands, the POV is pervasive, but mere copy editing wouldn't do enough to improve it. Dandrake 08:39, Aug 24, 2004 (UTC)

Also could do with the "To do with..." sentences being turned into full sentences. ··gracefool |☺ 09:21, 24 Aug 2004 (UTC)

The article is one sided in the context that a modern day scientist would be appear to be one-sided if he were writing about alchemy or astrology.

That comparison could only be made if the theory has already been proven false. This is still under dispute, unlike alchemy or astrology. Furthermore, you wouldn't WANT a modern day scientist to write a paper on alchemy or astrology because it would likely focus too largely on who it was proven wrong, and you will miss a great deal of information.JLAF 04:58, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Information that was proven wrong. Anyways, there is about as much evidence for Gardener's theories as there is for Bigfoot. And astrology isn't proven wrong (mostly because nobody's bothered to, being an irrational theory, much like Gardener's) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.144.178.98 (talk) 02:18, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

It's a great Primus album, and deserves a much more in-depth and neutral entry from someone more qualified than myself. 12.25.45.101 19:02, 19 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Just finished reading the book, so I've tried to precis it down, focussing on the horse rather than the jockey / trainer owner GWO 12:26, 19 Aug 2004 (UTC)

This article was on the "new additions" list a day or two ago. I think it has the makings of a "featured article". It seems reasonably comprehensive to me, but really it needs other reviewers. There are two photos now though, as well as a diagram! If there's not much comment, I'll move this to FAC. zoney | talk 23:18, 18 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I read it too, and liked it. But it needs more info on history and all around expansion before it is FA quality. --mav 06:13, 19 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Perhaps the GWR broad gauge/standard gauge dual gauge railway needs to be brought forward in prominence - I should find out if it was the first. There isn't much more one can write about history of it! Apart from that - I can't see how one would expand other sections! Could you be more precise? zoney | talk 10:32, 21 Aug 2004 (UTC)

might be some useful info at this link:

http://www.trains.com/Content/Dynamic/Articles/000/000/003/011gsqfq.aspPedant

"railroad engineers... ...had responded, in general, that 4 feet, 8-1/2 inches was slightly suboptimal, and that something around 5 feet 0 would have been better."

There we go, the Irish 5 ft 3 in (1600 mm) gauge is best :o) zoney ███ talk 00:03, 24 Aug 2004 (UTC)

A general article about the Great Jubilee of 2000. Could someone look it over for completeness and POV? Unfortunately, the only free photos I could find are a bit small... Mpolo 19:58, Aug 18, 2004 (UTC) Maybe a brief treatment on the significance of the 'holy door' being opened during Jubilee years?Pedant {{Wikipedia:Peer review/Alan Keyes}

For the upcoming battles on the Fascism and especially the Nazism article, I plan to remove the word "reactionary" from the article. All my facts are placed here for your reading enjoyment--Talk:Nazism/Revolutionary not Reactionary WHEELER 16:41, 18 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Interesting points, but we shouldn't be basing our articles off Nazi propaganda. "Reactionary" and "Revolutionary" are words with many connotations, and I feel that both should be avoided. The first one, I don't like in any context, and the second as a noun, rather than an adjective... --Tothebarricades.tk 13:33, 22 Aug 2004 (UTC)

• Revolutionary viz. evolutionary. Nazi ideology is reactionary (and even millenarian) in that it attempted to preserve and revive various 'Germanic' components from the past and was very much against the (conventionally-viewed) 'revolutionary' political parties (SPD and KPD). On the same token, its racist doctrine and racialist policy was, in a sense, revolutionary. It all depends on the context provided. The vague manner in which this polemic has been phrased, it is largely a play with semantics, and as such, valueless. El_C

Depending on how you define these terms, the same political group can be revolutionary and reactionary at the same time: Reactionary because it seeks to return to some past state or revive some traditions, and revolutionary because it seeks to achieve its goals by revolutionary means. -- Mihnea Tudoreanu 22:36, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

I think this could be a featured article at some point: too often, when this subject arises, someone will briefly refer to one selected aspect of the issue as if it was the only aspect worth mentioning. This article is the only treatment I've seen that gives a comprehensive, neutral overview of all aspects. Now, I think it could use some review for POV, etc. (See the questions at the end of its Discussion page.) Thanks! Neow 18:47, Aug 17, 2004 (UTC)

• A few issues: 1. The "who is to blame" section doesn't seem to add anything to the article, and is full of weasel words and/or POV. I'd remove it. 2. No definition is given for "civilian"--is there a distinction between a Sadr militiaman and a collateral damage victim? How is that distinction made? Other than that, not bad. [[User:Meelar|Meelar (talk)]] 19:43, 2004 Aug 18 (UTC)
• Arlo Guthrie "...they fly them in at midnight and unload the body sacks..."

I wrote this about a month ago. I'd like other people to look at it, I'm afraid my inherent sympathy may have made it POV despite attempts to make it at least reasonably objective. I'd like it to be a featured article some day, but it needs some work, preferably not all from me. --Tothebarricades.tk 03:45, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I wrote this a little while ago and it has not since been edited by another person, so if anyone has some improvements or articles that should link to this one, fire away. - Centrx 23:00, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)

• Opening paragraphs are rather confusing. Make clear the three elements: (1) the participants; (2) the law they challenged; (3) the judgement. At the moment these are all mixed up. It would be nice to set the case in a bit of context (by linking to an article about the line item veto act, if one exists, otherwise by writing a paragraph about why it was passed). What happened next? Needs the code for the case, and a category. Gdr 11:38, 2004 Aug 24 (UTC)
• You have good material here, but I would rewrite that first sentence so what you're defining comes first, e.g. "Clinton v. City of New York is a Supreme Court decision regarding the Line Item Veto Act.". You should also include the citation to the U.S. Reports right after the first reference. While briefs or the opinion may say "et al", they aren't used anywhere else. Just put Clinton v. City of New York and it'll look fine. Did you include a link to the text of the case, either to Findlaw or the database at Cornell's law school? Ave atque vale!PedanticallySpeaking 19:59, Aug 26, 2004 (UTC)
• The article is unnecessarily legalistic and verbose, e.g. "duly enacted statutues", "in a concurrence of the opinion." The substance is there, it just reads like a lawyer's brief. The Supremes are an interest of mine; if I can help, please let me know. Ave! PedanticallySpeaking 16:38, Aug 30, 2004 (UTC)

This article claims ammonium hydroxide is fictional, but seems to have been written too quickly to be coherent. What of this article is correct? --Eequor 02:33, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)

• It's pretty much all correct, albeit worded awkwardly. Notice how it speaks of the Bronsted-Lowry theory, which completely explains how the Arrhenius theory, which only applys to certain chemical doesn't work. Actually, where does it say what you claim? The article is fine. -- KneeLess 07:16, 18 Aug 2004 (UTC)
• I think the "fictitious" refers to the text 'It is sometimes convenient to refer to these ions as "ammonium hydroxide". However this is a wrong way...' This certainly sounds as if it's saying that a molecule "ammonium hydroxide" doesn't really exist, but is just a convenient way of talking about aqueous ammonia, and an inaccurate way as well. OTOH the ammonia article explicitly says (under Properties) that a small amount of NH4OH exists in solution. At least one of these ought to be amended. I sure can't say which. Dandrake 19:55, Aug 19, 2004 (UTC)

Ammonium Hydroxide does in fact exist in, among other places, aqueous solutions of ammonia (NH3 plus water). The idea that water consists only of molecules of H2O nicely paired off is outdated; in fact, a glass of pure distilled water contains dissociated water (H+ and OH-) which in combination gives the charge-neutral H2O.

Ammonia in water combines with the OH- to give NH4OH; still present in this case are : OH- H+ H2O NH3

Ammonium Hydroxide (NH4OH) is "fictional" only in the sense that you can't walk around with a container of pure NH4OH; it is nevertheless present in each and every single bottle of water/ammonia cleaning solution. (Paul Anderson, September 22nd 2004). Readers looking for more information should consult any standard inorganic chemistry textbook.

IMHO, Ammonium Hydroxide (NH4OH) is exactly as much fictional as is Hydronium/Oxonium Hydroxide (H3OOH). When will people get it? Beryllium-9 (talk) 10:52, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

This article just had major surgery to cure some POV ills. It could use a fresh inspection. It also sorely needs more info on the history, the ideology, and criticisms of Progressivism, if anyone here happens to be familar with or interested in the subject. See the talk page for details. -- Beland 09:20, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC) Wikipedia:Peer review/Decimal time

We have lots and lots of information on the UN in the main article and in subtopics, as well as a large category tree. But what is missing? Help composing a to-do list for bringing this large article up to featured article standards. [[User:Sverdrup|❝Sverdrup❞]] 02:59, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC)

• As someone mentioned on the talk page, the Reforming the UN section needs a lot of NPOVing work. Markalexander100 05:53, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I rewrote this article. Did some research into the issue a couple of years ago as a part of my undergrad thesis. The article could use some copy editing. Additionally, I think it would be a good idea for someone who also knows the issue to give it a good once-over. –Floorsheim 03:43, 14 Aug 2004 (UTC)

• I did some editing. --Nabla 12:48, 2004 Aug 14 (UTC)
  • I've added a diagram, though my explanation might need some tweaking. [[User:Theresa knott|]] 20:08, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC)
    • And a beauty it is! What software do you use? (I need to do a few myself...). Oh! the text is good enough IMO --Nabla 00:19, 2004 Aug 21 (UTC)
      • I used Serif DrawPlus for that one, but I've done quite a few with the drawing tools that come with microsoft word (no kidding - honest) If you are interested take a look at my image gallery [[User:Theresa knott|]] 00:25, 21 Aug 2004 (UTC)
• In the picture, the circle should be labelled "visible universe", not just "universe". Something's wrong with the formatting of 10^-32. Gdr 18:13, 2004 Aug 24 (UTC)
  • I've fixed the formatting. I'll do the image soonish. Theresa Knott (Nate the Stork) 23:14, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Did a little internet research and fixed this article to save it from deletion. Please check for accuracy. Also, there are a couple of rough spots that could use some copy editing. –Floorsheim 03:43, 14 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I would like some general feedback in the article about the writing, style, references, images etc. Ive been able to expand the article greatly in recent months and would like to nominate it for an FAC run. I am aware however that there are quite a few things that need improving before I nominate and given the controversial subject of the article I think a peer review is definately needed! Thank you! LordHarris 12:20, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Books, books, books. I cannot emphasize this enough. Pretty much all of the current references are to online material. Using the main biographies of Clinton as well as his own autobiography would give a lot more credibility and completeness to the article; particularly if the article is able to show where and how his main biographers differ, etc. Savidan 18:17, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Hi thanks for the comment. I've tried greatly to incorporate several written biographies and my life into the article and these are reflected up until the end of his administration. However post 2000 any new books deal with his presidency and early life not with his recent activities - only online sources focus on these. If you could perhaps identify some specifc areas where you feel a book reference could be used instead of an online one, I will gladly use the Clinton biographies I have to update the references. LordHarris 14:44, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

What an excellent article - I really enjoyed reading that. Great citations. If 124 references doesn't impress at FAR, I don't know what will. I've started by looking at the images as that seems to be topical at the moment in FAR. Generally they are OK, mostly PD images. However, Image:Clinton at Georgetown 1967.jpg is a problem. It has neither a detailed fair use rationale nor does it specify where the image was obtained. Perhaps try contacting the original uploader to ask where they found it and then write a good fair use rationale. I would also change the caption for little Billy in his topcoat to read William Jefferson Blythe III, 1950 to be more accurate about his name in 1950. Image:Debates.jpg is also a copyrighted image and has a weak (one line) fair use rationale. The Georgetown poster is fairly unique and adds nicely to the early years of Clinton's career. It would probably be worth writing a good rationale to try to keep it in the article. The debate image I would personally replace with something else. The National Archives may have something else interesting to replace it with here [1]. Image:Clinton approval rating.png should really be in .svg format (it's already tagged as such). It may not be a problem at FAR but there is a Wikiproject dealing with images that may be able to convert it and re upload. Image:DailyShowClinton.jpg is a copyrighted screenshot and is lacking a detailed fair use rationale. Likewise Image:Senate in session.jpg is not a free image and does not have an appropriate fair use rationale. Finally, (bet your glad i said that!) Image:Jp2presidents.jpg has a PD template (albeit an ancient one) but actually looks to be a copyrighted image. The good news is that the White House sent a photographer along and there is an even better shot of Bill at John Paul II's funeral here [2], which is probably a Public domain image. Hah! I just found it already uploaded on Wikipedia - Image:JPII on bier.jpg. I'd replace the one with the dubious tag with this PD image. That should keep you going for now - I'd be happy to give more comments, if these are useful and if you need some more help. Cheers, and keep up the great work. Paxse 20:13, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Hey thanks for your comments, they're most useful! Ill get on sorting out the images over the next few days and let you know my progress once I sort each one out. Thanks again. LordHarris 22:18, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

•  Done Image:Jp2presidents.jpg replaced with PD image Image:JPII on bier.jpg.
•  Done Image:DailyShowClinton.jpg given a detailed fair use rationale.
•  Done Image:Senate in session.jpg given a detailed fair use rationale.
•  Done Image:Clinton approval rating.png sent to Wikipedia:Graphic Lab/Images to improve for SVG conversion.
•  Done Image:Debates.jpg given a detailed fair use rationale.
•  Done Image:Clinton at Georgetown 1967.jpg given a detailed fair use rationale
•  Done Image caption of Image of young Bill in 1950 rewritten

I have some minor quibbles about working. Some of it is redundant -- "considered" is used too frequently, for example. I will make some minor changes. 22:29, 21 July 2007 (UTC)—Preceding unsigned comment added by Bearian (talk • contribs)

Great Job! I checked the rationales and they look good. Ok, I'll start going through again for some more ideas. One small thing - you need a nice caption to go with the Georgetown poster. I kinda feel that together with all those cites, the additional reading and external links section are almost too much - don't change it unless someone at FAR complains, it's just a thought as they dominate the article a little (though they are certainly comprehensive). More soon Paxse 08:16, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps stub Roger Clinton Sr. to avoid red links early in the article. Paxse 08:25, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

•  Done Georgetown image caption wrote and Carter meeting image caption extended
•  Done Article created - Roger Clinton, Sr..

This is an amazing article compared to many of the articles I have seen here. However, naturally, it does have its problems. I would go through all the links and make sure the end up and the correct pages without redirects, check capitalization and spacing, fix anny grammatical errors and spelling, and things like that. I've already done a little bit of this, especially with the early biography and controversy sections. There are very few substantive errors I found, if any. Almost all facts are very well cited. Good luck with FA. --queso man 01:27, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Now that I think about it, upon rereading the article, there may be a very subtle bias towards Clinton. Except for in the controversy section, everything seems to be pro-Clinton. The sources, too (The Natural by Joe Klein, for example) seem to reflect this too. I would try to diversify the opinions in this article. However, I'm sure it'll make it to FA regardless of whether you decide to do this or not. Also, considering that the article is 93 kilobytes long, I would aplit it up into smaller articles. A good way to do this would be by creating more specific pages using the subsections of this article, keeping a moderate-size summary here, and linking them with

Main article: split article here

. --queso man 01:35, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure about splitting the article up. Most of the sections already have a main article and each section on here is written in a summary style. If you could suggest a particular section that could be split up into a new article and summarised better we can work on doing this? I'll try meanwhile in moving some of the less important information to split pages like Foreign policy and the Clinton administration. LordHarris 11:48, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

While trying to answer this, I realized that the parts that are too long are the parts that can't be split up (like the early biographical stuff). Of course, it wouldn't be a good idea to delete any information here (all of it is useful) or in the references section, which is also extremely long. So there's not much that can be done about it.

Examples of the above: There used to be a space after the slash after HIV, the term high leader was used even though there was nothing to suggest its meaning (I changed the wording), there are various awkward sentences sprinkled throughout, the most commonly cited source was "First in his Class", and only one scandal was mentioned in the intro even though more probably were notable enough to warrant a mention. There was also an almost unnoticeable lack of subject-verb agreement in some places, notably a part about the Republican National Convention being uninspiring. (I fixed most of these) I'm aware that most of these things are superficial, and it's unreasonable to ask for better even out of an FA article, but it's so hard to find mistakes in here. Once again, good luck with FA. I hope these reviews help. --queso man 01:44, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

More examples: "In 1993, Clinton supported the North American Free Trade Agreement for ratification by the U.S. Senate. Despite being negotiated by his Republican predecessor, Clinton, along with most of his Democratic Leadership Committee allies, strongly supported free trade measures." The phrase "despite being negotiated by" is awkward. Does this mean that Clinton was lobbied, or that George Bush also negotiated NAFTA? Also, what I interpreted as a subtle bias earlier was really just the fact that the scandals during Clinton's time in office are not given a lot of space in the article. I personally believe that most of these so-caled "scandals" are really non-issues, but some people may want a little more information as to what Clinton actually did to get impeached instead of just information on impeachement proceedings. There are a few grammatical errors, but these will be easily corrected. --Qmwne235 20:41, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

•  Done The NAFTA section has been rewritten to make it clearer. I think the despite being negotiated by was a pov edit. The NAFTA idea was started under the Republic admin but this is mentioned in the NAFTA article, I dont think it needs mentioning here. LordHarris 11:46, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure what to do about the scandals section really. The impeachment is mentioned in the intro and in the presidents section term and in its own subsection in the scandals section. IMO he was impeached as part of a massive republican conspiracy, which for years had been trying to get the President out of office. Whilst this is supported by dozens of pro Clinton books, documentaries, several journalists etc, it is just as opposed by dozens of republicans, anti clinton fans etc. However the legal reasons for why he were impeached i.e. the technical reasons are provided in the impeachment section. I'm not sure what else I could whilst keeping the section NPOV. LordHarris 11:46, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree on the massive Republican conspiracy thing (I am very pro-Clinton), and that essentially most of these scandals were non-issues. However, if you ask most Americans what they'll remember most about Clinton, it would most likely be Monica Lewinsky. I agree that it's much more importnt to cover substantive policy issues. I think that a lot of the "bias" I encountered upon reading this article a second time was imagined (probably out of a desire to find stuff to put on this peer review) as, even before reading your comment above, I got the feeling that it wasn't there anymore. As for my bias examples about references, the references are all fine; I noticed where these pro-Clinton sources were used, and they were mostly in biographical sections. I also noticed that the controversy sections were split up. I'd noticed this earlier but I didn't see the extent of it. Overall, the article is written like a featured article ought to be written. --Qmwne235 20:15, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

If you want to get this article to FA status, you should nominate it for the Core Topics Collaboration of the Week. Laleena^{talk to me contributions to Wikipedia} 12:37, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

We need to expand this article. --Lst27 23:06, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I just expanded this one quite a bit, from being a stub. I'd like suggestions on disposition and subject, what needs to be expanded etc. [[User:Sverdrup|❝Sverdrup❞]] 22:27, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Nice work! It seems to have everything (subject-wise) I would put into a national park article except for the WikiProject Protected Areas table. --mav 03:43, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I have added a table and a location map. I'm missing some statistics though (long, lat and visitaiton), but I'll see if I can find it. [[User:Sverdrup|❝Sverdrup❞]] 08:39, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)

• I'm narrowing down instructions, so I can maybe get someone interested in giving the article a little peer review. I have the question: What is missing in the article for making it a featured article? I know that my language is not perfect, so I could use someone copyediting/language-checking my text. [[User:Sverdrup|❝Sverdrup❞]] 19:44, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)

This is an article on what appears to be a fringe movement in physics/new age religion. As of right now, the article is poorly written and very non-NPOV. If anyone can improve it, please do so. Otherwise I'm putting it on the VfD. –Floorsheim 00:59, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)

This was at WP:FAC, but I should've put it here to begin with. ··gracefool |☺ 22:28, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)

The statement about the Hurd is wrong, for one. Just for starters, it was not started in 1984. Suggest time on Wikipedia:Peer Review. Dan Gardner 04:22, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)

It's awfully short. →Raul654 05:13, Aug 11, 2004 (UTC)

Objection/Comment. Not sure if this can ever be much of an article to feature. I mean you've got what vapourware is (two lines enough?) and then it's just examples. If there is a way to expand it, I suppose it is an interesting topic to feature - non-techies may not be familiar with it. But it should be moved to vapourware (just kidding). Zoney 14:51, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)

This article definitly needs more history, context and content -- for instance Atari was infamous for vaporware in the 1980s. ( http://www.google.com/search?sourceid=navclient&ie=UTF-8&q=atari+vaporware ) In addition, you can beef up use of "vaporware" product announcements to intimidate or damage competition ( http://ethics.csc.ncsu.edu/commerce/anticompetitive/vaporware/study.html and ) of minor relevance: Wired.com has an annual Top 10 Vaporware list that it publishes every January. -- Davodd 23:34, Sep 10, 2004 (UTC)

Not sure whether this article belongs here, but since it's my first attempt at a complete article I thought I'd list it here and see what happens. I don't expect this article to be all that popular, but any feedback of any kind would be appreciated. Paul August 20:07, Aug 11, 2004 (UTC)

I found the article interesting and informative and it told me clear information about something I knew nothing about before, so I consider it to be a success! Very well done for a first attempt I would say, and well-written too. The only slight niggle I had was with the last sentence of the intro: "Perhaps best known as the founder of Massilia (modern Marseilles)". It's not entirely clear to me what this means - presumably that a group of Phocaeans founded the city, but this doesn't seem to be made entirely clear in the article. Angmering 21:06, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback, and for your kind words. As to your confusion about Phocaea being "best known as the founder of Massilia (modern Marseilles)" - Yes, it means, as you suppose, that Phocaeans founded the city. Can you suggest alternate wording that would make this more clear? Paul August 17:11, Aug 12, 2004 (UTC)

Hmmmmm, it doesn't really need that much changing. Perhaps something like: The Phocaeans' most lasting legacy was the foundation by a group of their people of the city of Massilia, now modern day Marseilles in France. How does that sound? Angmering 17:55, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Massilia is the Roman name of the city. Its ancient (and modern) Greek name is Massalía (Μασσαλία).

Wikipedia:Peer review/Wikipedia:Infobox templates

I would like feedback on this article. Anything is appreciated. Specifically, I want to ensure that even people who have never heard of this game before can understand it. Is there any information that you think should be added? Does anything not make sense? --Slowking Man 05:27, Aug 11, 2004 (UTC)

This is one of the articles I'm most proud of so far, and I wouldn't mind putting it up as a candidate for featured articles. However, I don't think it's quite there yet. I'd appreciate any feedback that anyone can give. Ambi 23:20, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Yes, the FA and recent main-page feature. It's a mess; poorly sectioned, rambling narrative, not quite long enough for such a riveting subject -- no meaty details about uses in any of the great elephant campaigns, though it touches on many. No deep discussion of the differences between the kinds of elephants mentioned, nor links to biology/species articles... other comments welcome. Up for FA status review. +sj+ 20:13, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Could use some review from you "rad boarders" and skaters that really know skateboards,

also could use some massaging of some of the descriptions from someone with a talent for clear writing.

Also a skateboard tricks section describing tricks, possibly prefaced with a 'skateboarding can be dangerous don't try this without proper safety equipment' disclaimer - as well as a list of what safety equipment is recommended.Pedant 21:57, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Needs photo badly. [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality (talk)]] 16:59, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I wrote it from memory and local knowledge and it could do with a review from a geologist. Steinsky 13:53, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I might as well kill two birds with one stone. I've been trucking along on writing soap articles with little help, and this is something I just can't do on my own. I think with the former, I've done a good enough job that all it needs is someone with some more expertise in the field to add to. Guiding Light, however, needs much more history and plot synopses. The show is rich and has been airing on radio and TV for over 65 years. There's much on the radio version, and early TV, but nothing of the last fifty years, and the stuff that is there is meager and was added by myself. Can someone help me? Message me on my talk page if you are interested. These are very important pages in the history of television and should be given care accordingly. Mike H 19:06, Aug 7, 2004 (UTC)

Some causes for morning sickness suggested by this article are somewhat dubious (increased sensitivity to odors, toxins from vegetables). Fact checking is needed. Eequor 22:07, 7 Aug 2004 (UTC)

This article was written nearly entirely by me, so I would appreciate comments from people knowledgable about OpenVMS on its accuracy, and also help to expand some of the missing sections (for example Record Management Services).

—Kate | Talk 06:44, 2004 Aug 5 (UTC)

I think this article may be a bit of information overkill. It is loaded with all the information neccessary to understand the Act short of reading the actual text, but it is very lengthy. Could I get some feedback on this?

Skyler 02:59, Aug 5, 2004 (UTC)

Do you think this could be a Featured Article? What needs to be improved?

--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 21:44, 31 Jul 2004 (UTC)

• The bio section has way too many one-sentence paragraphs. It needs more detail; as is, it reads like a timeline. [[User:Meelar|Meelar (talk)]] 20:04, 2004 Aug 7 (UTC)

• • This has been fixed. Tnx. Any other suggestions? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 19:18, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I would like to elicit general comments and impovements with a view to moving this article into Featured status. In particular, any comments on how to write biographies that don't sound like a shopping list. Any ideas for getting better illustrations - tricky since Moore is in copyright which I guess doesn't apply to photographs of his public works, but it would be nice to show some of the early, smaller direct carving sculptures and they can be difficult unless lit correctly.

Solipsist 10:38, 30 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I think this would be suitable for nomination. Perhaps more mention of artists who were influenced by Moore? [[User:Meelar|Meelar (talk)]] 19:40, 2004 Aug 15 (UTC)

Thanks for the input. Its usually easier to find the backward influences rather than the forward influences, but I will have a think about it. -- Solipsist 18:19, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Via the Village Pump, we have developed this idea of a "To do list" for each article. We are now ready to launch it, but would like final peer review of the idea. Pcarbonn 21:35, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Neat idea. +sj+ 20:10, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Stellar. I'm for it.Pedant 08:19, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I like it. But (and a little off-topic) Category:Wikipedia pages with to-do lists may become huge - and irrelevant - soon Nabla 13:09, 2004 Aug 13 (UTC)

Good idea. I say run with it. Denni☯ 22:07, 2004 Aug 28 (UTC)

(The previous peer review discussion has been archived.)

This is a former Featured Article that has undergone extensive renovation in the past few weeks to add references, achieve balance between the Christian and secular aspects of the holiday, and in general move it back to something that could be an FA again. Additional input on what else needs to be improved would be greatly appreciated. - Eron ^Talk 16:59, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

See Also is a no-no. Wiki-newbie 17:03, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean. Many articles have see also sections and the Manual of Style refers to them. Is there a problem with the content of this one, or how it is formatted? Or am I missing something in the article? - Eron ^Talk 17:14, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

If I understand correctly, it is because the See also section has too many links. Remove all links there that have already been linked to in the article. AZ _t 22:28, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying that; it makes sense. I'll make those changes (more-or-less) immediately. Doc Tropics 22:45, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

• Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, AZ _t 21:54, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Very helpful, thank you. - Eron ^Talk 23:26, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Very timely article review.  :-) Here's a few comments that you can take or leave:

• Specific things:

1. The opening sentence needs to be rephrased. For now it reads Christmas or Christmas Day is an annual Christian and secular[1] holiday that celebrates the birth of Jesus, which suggests that Christian or secular, all people celebrate the birth of Jesus.
2. Footnotes should generally come after punctuation, a problem that I bet you can fix with the same reordering. I think this is applicable to footnotes 1, 2, 3 (further down) and 31.
3. My first thought was "whoa, there are a lot of links". This could be cut down by removing a few things are linked more than once in the article, e.g. Western Culture and Nativity of Jesus are wikilinked twice.
4. Also, links to "birth", "volunteer", etc. probably don't have much value to the reader and just break up the text.
5. Finally, many of the links that begin with "Christmas" can be written with just the latter word, disambiguated to the Christmas variety. E.g. Another tradition is for people to send cards to their friends and family members.
6. "Etymology" section has three paragraphs and only five sentences. Could these be combined with a clever topic sentence? There are a few other times in the article where a sentence is also its own paragraph. This makes the information look more like a list of facts than good prose, and it also makes it harder to read. Try to incorporate these unless you want to call particular emphasis on a single factoid (and I would not do this frequently).
7. In "Origin of the Christian holiday" there's an entire paragraph on March 25 and Jesus' death. I wasn't sure exactly how this was related to Christmas.
8. The article could be more consistent on its use of AD. The Origin section begins using AD with the year, it just kinda trails off, but then AD shows up again in the next section. Perhaps you can keep using AD throughout that section and then drop it once you're well away from the boundary?
9. (Although many stories about the truce include a soccer game between the trench lines (often reported as a 3-2 victory for the Germans) there is no evidence that this event actually occurred.) - ouch, parentheses within parentheses. At least one set should be removed.
10. What does "Modern times" mean? Being more specific (e.g. Post WWII, 1900s and beyond, etc.) would be great. "Modern times" is also used in the text.

• General thing:

1. The article mentions a few controversies over Christmas, but only gives us a link in the See Also section. You may want to incorporate a "Controversy" section with a "Main article:" link. I think the arguments over capitalism, secularism, and Christianity are interesting and even necessary for the reader to have a complete understanding of "how does Christmas stand today".

Good luck with the article, I hope some of these help!--Will.i.am 23:53, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Oh boy. More work. Thanks a lot. (But seriously, thanks. This is just the kind of input we've been needing.) - Eron ^Talk 00:33, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the many useful suggestions! We really appreciate the time and effort you put into your response. Doc Tropics 02:38, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

you shoyld put something about santa clause in it —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.146.153.170 (talk • contribs) 22:29, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, but there is a full section on Santa Claus. Is there information you think is missing? - Eron ^Talk 02:53, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Why info about Russia and Jehovah's Witnesses, Puritans, etc. are written in the same paragraph? These are not Russian religions, we are Orthodox Christians! And, actually, Christmas was not banned in U.S.S.R! We have Russian or Orthodox Christmas, and it is celebrated in December 7, Christmas Eve is December 6. Change it, please!

Considering that they have articles of their own, "Pre-Christian winter festivals" occupy a fair amount of the article -- and early, too, so that the reader has to page through a substantial amount to get to the information about Christmas. They should be pared down. Goldfritha 20:11, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

There is a lot of good material here, but it lacks consistency and focus. It is not getting a lot of comments and I would like to get it to featured article quality, but I'm not sure it is ready to be nominated as a FAC.

Taxman 16:48, Jul 27, 2004 (UTC)

I've made a lot of changes and additions over time to this article. However, given that its a subject close to my heart, I'm not certain that I've been appropriately neutral. I'd appreciate anyone looking it over and altering anything that comes across as POV. -- ALargeElk | Talk 12:35, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)

One reaction: I expected to find an article about Samaritans, the people of whom the parabolic Good Samaritan was one, and of whom there are, I believe, a few hundred remaining. Ideally there should be at least a stub on the ethnic/religious Samaritans with a disambiguation between the two articles. (And the other one would have a cross-link with the one on Sarmations, which ought to be brought into existence now that "King Arthur" has put them on the map. Figuratively speaking.) Dandrake 20:28, Aug 19, 2004 (UTC)

I just completely rewrote this article from scratch. Suggestions? I'm looking to nominating this for featured status after Something (song) and Yesterday (song). Johnleemk | Talk 15:45, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Another great article. Just one point: The only other song to ever top the charts which ran over seven minutes was Richard Harris' "MacArthur Park". - I don't know about other countries, but as this is at the end of a paragraph on the UK chart, it's incorrect. Oasis' 1998 UK No. 1 "All Around the World" runs to 9 minutes 38 seconds. Angmering 16:43, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)

The paragraph seemed to be confusing UK and US charts (or covering both, but not differentiating them very well). I've reworked it a little. I left out the bit about Oasis as I didn't feel it was directly relevant to the article, but someone can always reinstate it if they feel it needs to go in. (Incidentally, another Oasis no1 "D'You Know What I Mean?" at 7 minutes 32 seconds is also longer than "Hey Jude", though shorter than "I'd Do Anything For Love".) Bonalaw 17:48, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)

In response to a comment left in the article history, I've changed the wording again to avoid the phrase "single edit" regarding "I'd Do Anything For Love". What I was trying to get over was the fact that while the album version ran for over twelve minutes, that wasn't the same version released as a single. Hopefully my new wording has made that clearer. Bonalaw 09:18, 18 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification. Btw, I forgot to mention — for the benefit of future readers, this article is now on WP:FAC. Johnleemk | Talk 09:35, 18 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I just spent an hour on this article. How can it be improved? I'm already considering taking it to WP:FAC after Yesterday (song) expires. Johnleemk | Talk 13:15, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I mentioned on your talk page how much I enjoyed this article - hey, I was the guy who requested it on the Yesterday entry at WP:FAC. However, reading it through again, I'm not sure the final section, "so what are they all raving about anyway?" can't be dropped... It needs adding to, perhaps with some quotes from critics / reviews, at least. Also, forgive me if I'm betraying some style guide ignorance here, but is there a reason why song titles are in "quotes" rather than italics? Still a very good article, however, and I'm sure with some polishing it will easily make featured status. Angmering 20:40, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)

My idea for the section was to write something about the tune, melody, lyrics, etc. Sorry if that wasn't made clear. Reviews should be going into "An instant hit". And for the song titles, see Wikipedia:Manual of Style (titles). Johnleemk | Talk 11:50, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Got it! :-) Angmering 12:02, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)

(Note: This article was named Mains power plug at the time.) Steel1943 (talk) 04:58, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

I listed this on Wikipedia:Featured article candidates, and they said to list it here. So, here you are. — Chameleon Main/Talk/Images 17:27, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)

The two maps are in different map projections. In particular, the second one appears to be in the Mercator projection, which should be avoided (except for navigation charts) for the reasons given in the Mercator article. Gdr 14:48, 2004 Aug 8 (UTC)

CRASH was an anti-gang unit in Los Angeles which became notorious for corruption and excessive violence. The information about all of this, as of now, is pretty shaky. Currently Rampart Division, for instance, redirects to the main CRASH article. Was there more than one CRASH unit? One per division? Was it actually disbanded? Were all of them? Did the scandal unfold pretty much like that? Is there enough about the CRASH apart from the Perez scandal that the pages should be separated? This looked like a really interesting topic to me, but I'm having trouble getting it all straight in my head. Any LA historians are most welcome to help out. (Also see related articles I wrote or contributed to: Christopher Commission and Operation Hammer).

grendel|khan 20:34, 2004 Jul 23 (UTC)

Created this page. I need wikipedians to review it and evaluate if the list is accurate, and add countries if they have been omitted.

[[User:Nichalp|¶ nichalp | Talk]] 20:31, Jul 23, 2004 (UTC) {[Wikipedia:Peer review/Theodor Martens}}

Seems like a good article and I would like to nominate it for featured article status. I'd like to see what others thought of it and do some minimial editting on it. Alsocal 04:36, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)

This article is still very much a work in prgress. The Talk section is just bursting right now and many people are contributing. The result is a (hopefully temporary) Too Many Cooks effect. The article's very jumbled right now and is in need of a good copyeditor once the controversies get straightened out. But the potential is there. Many sections are quite well written, and a few even made me laugh! Fishal 15:16, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Eequor 03:39, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Note: he wrote down the page "Anything to add?" - Ta bu shi da yu 01:53, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Eequor 03:03, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Note: he wrote down the page "Anything to add?" - Ta bu shi da yu 02:00, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Anything to add? - Eequor 22:46, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC) Wikipedia:Peer review/Wikipedia:WikiProject Science

There's an image of the chemical structure of the drug, which would benefit from a good caption from an organic chemist. The same person could presumably also add some discussion of the chemistry to the article text. 18 Jul 2004

This article concerns the fames English moral philosopher Derek Parfit and his magnum opus, Reasons and Persons. Parfit is read widely by economists, political scientists, and philosophers alike and is work has proved incredibly influential. A biography of his life and proofreading is needed. 18 Jul 2004

I had a look at this article today, as it's listed on the 'to be wikified', and the 'to be clarified' lists. At the moment it is comprehensive but poorly written in many places. Someone with some knowledge of Derek Parfit and his philosophical leanings needs to go over it and improve the language and tone of the article. --Randolph 15:18, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

This article is about a unique flightless parrot from New Zealand. I think it should be checked for accuracy and detail; it contains pretty much everything I know about the topic.

Eudyptes 05:00, 18 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Irony.

Eequor 03:55, 17 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Is this commonly used at all? Is there any more commonly used term with similar meaning? When searching for "finished mathematics" on google, most of hits were either Wikipedia mirrors or pages with phrases like "I finished mathematics degree". Only about 13 pages using "finished mathematics" in this meaning which did not come from Wikipedia. Andris 13:29, Aug 10, 2004 (UTC)

I've never heard of this term. Neither has User:Michael Hardy. It was created by the same guy who created Folk mathematics, and who both may be User:JRR Trollkien. Is this a philosophy of mathematics term? Perhaps it was made up. Paul August 07:07, Aug 12, 2004 (UTC)

Not a term I'm familiar with. The creator was almost certainly our dear User:142.177.etc. I suspect it's ideosyncratic. Frankly, folk mathematics doesn't sound much like reality as I know it, either. Isomorphic 05:58, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC)

And now it is listed on WP:VFD. - Taxman 22:13, Aug 16, 2004 (UTC)

This article should probably be checked for accuracy.

Eequor 17:22, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I really feel this article could go all the way. It just needs a little push in the right direction. --Ppk01 15:48, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

• I may be mistaken but it appears that the article will require a complete rewrite. The intro gives the impression that the article is about the character. If this is what is intended, then the storyline and gameplay sections are overly detailed, and should only be found in detail in the article about the indivdual games. There also should be a section on the creation and developement of the character, as well as critical reaction to the character. There need to be a lot more references with inline citations, outside sources required for the critical reaction and the creation. Make sure the characterists section about Ecco follow the guidelines at WP:WAF. Jay32183 19:11, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
• Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Ruhrfisch 02:33, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

As far as I can see, these articles are fine, though expansion would be good - but then again, I would think so, since I wrote most of them. One person, who speaks virtually no English, is contesting this, on grounds that are frankly unclear to me; it would be great to have some independent review of the articles.

Mustafaa 18:02, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I've had PaX on WP:FAC for a while; overzelous me got tons of objections and there's been lots of work by me and the community into it :) It's a fairly technical article.

Well, objections slowed, but no support. A spell on here was recommended, so here we go. Go ahead and edit directly; I've been cleaning up behind people. Please don't try to guess at what something you don't understand "means," because you probably just don't understand it; I've already had a few edits I've had to clean up. Ask me for clarity if you're unsure of something, on the Talk:PaX page.

--John Moser 18:10, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Description: There is an accuracy dispute as to whether checks and balances is a concept universially applicable to democratic governments or whether it is only relevant to American politics.

Roadrunner 21:01, 9 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Description: I've basically written Peltier-Seebeck effect and Thermopower and would like some experts to check it out and make sure everything is correct, since I originally found the information because I didn't know anything about it, and I still only understand about half of it completely.

Omegatron 04:53, Jul 7, 2004 (UTC)

Over the last week or so, I've tried to bring the article up to snuff. However, given the large amount of technical material (epigraphy, phonology, historical grammar, language history) introduced, I would welcome review. Also, NPOV is a difficult matter here because of political argument between the "Russians" and the "Ukrainians" spilling over into linguistics. I can only say I've tried to keep any political opinions out of the article itself.

If it is felt the article is not actually ready for review, I would welcome more discussion.

A. Shetsen 06:54, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I've worked on the writing and storytelling, but this could use review from someone familiar with modern Argentine history, the Dirty War, the disappeared, etc.

--Macchiato 05:44, 2 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Any improvements I can make?

Neutrality 21:00, 1 Jul 2004 (UTC)

"Possible Motivations" as a sub-section

I wanted to find out if my ideas for the improvement of the Self-harm article are supported by people (other than me). This improvement focuses on the "Psychology" portion of the article.

The13thzen 09:30, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure whether this request is a peer review or an RfC. Regarding the proposed change, I suggest paragraph form with subheadings. The article already has one section in bullet form and it doesn't look good. Other general suggestions: expand the lead beyond one short paragraph. Add more citations, particularly for statements such as the one that concludes the article, "Self-harm is more common than many people realise, especially in adolescents under stress. People who self-harm often feel a great amount of guilt as it is, so when encountering or discovering self-harm it is vital that support and understanding be shown, for the good of all involved." Best wishes, Durova 06:15, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Could do with an aviation geek checking it for terminological accuracy and reasonableness. 81.168.80.170 12:29, 31 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Item: Innocence: Ghost in the Shell,

Discuss on: Talk:Innocence: Ghost in the Shell

Description: I'm a bit concerned, I found this article in a slightly glorifying point of view, with many quotes by the director of the movie, but more often than not only a strange part of it is actual worthwhile information. Being unsure on how to proceed, I'd like to ask for some help by others to read the article and suggest what should be change, or change it themselves. (This is not my own article.)

Posted by: towo 15:17, 2004 Jun 25 (UTC)

Item: Something Awful

Discuss on: Talk:Something Awful

Description: I like to think that this article is fairly unique to the Wiki, inasmuch as few of the other articles written about websites that I have seen have so much content, particularly in terms of waxing philosophical on my own part. I wrote most of the section on FYAD, personally, and have tried to tweak out most of the POV in the rest of the article. Nonetheless, I'm at a loss for what to do for some of this stuff, namely sections written by (most likely) dissidents from the site's forums. Also, I think a good amount could be eliminated from the article altogether.

Posted by: 69.143.172.48 08:03, 21 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Item: Boris Berezovsky

Discuss on: Talk:Boris Berezovsky

Description: The article was a stub. I added material from memory, and would like someone to check it and add any details they think relevant.

Posted by: Gazpacho 01:01, 21 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Description: His article needs a bit more details on his company Media Sports Investment (MSI), who bought in late 2004 51% of the rights to Sport Club Corinthians Paulista, Brazil's 2nd most popular football team. Anyone? Mr. Kiavash Joorabchian has been widely reported as Berezovsky's "testa-de-ferro" (can anyone supply me the term in English?) and, despite Berezovsky and Roman Abramovich became rivals, it is a common belief in Brazil that MSI-owned players could sign Chelsea at any time...

Posted by: Ohomemcueca 06:06, 06 Set 2006 (UTC)

Testa-de-ferro means figurehead. Regards, --Carioca 02:22, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Item: Handheld game console

Discuss on: Talk:Handheld game console

Description: I merged this entry with some stuff from Portable handheld console, and added a lot of information about the history of the industry. I tried to make it as non-Nintendo-centric as I could, but it was extremely difficult, considering how Nintendo-centric the market is. Could that be improved?

Posted by: Plutor 15:33, 18 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Item: Rinso

Discuss on: Talk:Rinso

Description: I wrote this article on Rinso, but admittedly, I have little to go on. I am not old enough to remember the product, and all my knowledge on the product is limited: a visit to Lever Brothers' website which turned up nothing, and various Rinso adverts from radio days and US daytime video footage circa 1966. Before I had read Margaret Thatcher's autobiography, I didn't even know Rinso was on the market in Britain. In any case, I'd like a couple of people (preferably an American/English joint venture) to look into the short article and see if there is anything to add/change, etc. Someone who can actually remember Rinso is probably a plus.

Posted by: TheCustomOfLife 23:50, 17 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Item: David C. Lane

Discuss on: talk:David C. Lane

Description: The article was written by Mr. David C. Lane himself and hence should be checked for facts and boasting. He certainly deserves an article though. Also, there are some American/Californian abbreviations that I don't know.

Item: 1972 outbreak of smallpox in Yugoslavia

Discuss on: Talk:1972 outbreak of smallpox in Yugoslavia

Description: This is an article that I've written, based mostly on web resources. I could not find all detailed data I wanted, especially precise dates. Anyway, the article needs to be read by somebody who can check if it makes sense medically.

Posted by: Zocky 05:54, 16 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Item: dopamine reuptake inhibitor

Discuss on: Talk:dopamine reuptake inhibitor

Description: Not entirely certain of the information....

Posted by: Eequor 23:43, 11 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Item: Sinfest

Discuss on: Talk:Sinfest

Description: I completely rewrote this page, as before it was a stubby page consisting of a few paragraphs. It needs a bit of a copyedit, and if any readers of Sinfest have anything to add, please do so.

Posted by: Decrypt3 11:39, Jun 6, 2004 (UTC)

Item: Gay Bathhouse

Discuss on: Talk: Gay bathhouse

Description: Please review this page for factual accuracy and NPOV.

Posted by: Exploding Boy 05:29, Jun 6, 2004 (UTC)

Note: this has been placed on peer review once already. See Wikipedia:Peer review/Japanese grammar/archive1.

Item: Japanese grammar

Discuss on: Talk:Japanese grammar

Remark: I've been trying to fill in the tables for the irregular verbs, I hope it is correct.

Posted by: 刘 (劉) 振霖 13:03, May 31, 2004 (UTC)

Item: Intuition

Discuss on: Talk:Intuition & User_talk:Heidimo#Intuition

Remark: I had a factual error dispute that I resolved but I don't know whether the subject is covered and whether what I wrote about this seemingly subject is correct. Iguess what needs to be done is to sort out the philosophical meaning of the word from the informal meaning. Thanks in advance Andries 18:31, 18 May 2004 (UTC)

Item: List of United States Legislatures

Can someone please do something about the width of the table? I have my preferences set so that the hot links float right, and this table is overlaying the links. I tried cutting down its width, but I'm obviously not doing something right.

Posted by: RickK 21:44, 23 May 2004 (UTC)

Item: Fair division

Discuss on: Talk:Fair division

Description: This is as complete as I can think to make it, but it ought to be looked over by others. In particular, it's nearly a dead end page. More should be added, but I don't know what.

Posted by: --Eequor 18:53, 21 May 2004 (UTC)

Item: Nepal

Discuss on: Talk:Nepal

Description: An anon user has made some changes to the "Politics" section of Nepal which seem fraught with POV. I don't really know anything about the situation, nor have time to research it, but I thought I should log this (since the edits went untouched for several days even though the formatting broke the layout of the page).

Posted by: Stormie 05:39, 19 May, 2004 (UTC)

Item: Space Hijackers

Discuss on: Talk: Space Hijackers

Remarks: Not sure this article uses a NPOV. Not sure this article is real.

Posted by: SSherris 20:57, 18 May 2004 (UTC)

Item: Ethic Swedes and Swedes Discuss on: Talk:Ethnic Swedes

Remarks: Need comment from people with English as native language about use of Swedes and Ethnic Swede in an English language context.

Posted by: Den fjättrade ankan 16:25, 17 May 2004 (UTC)

Item: John Negroponte

Discuss on: Talk: John Negroponte

Description: Former UN Ambassador to Iraq.

Remarks: Would someone with any level of knowledge on this topic see if this is NPOV... it's gone under a lot of work by other recently, and was referenced by a distinctly NPOV article on John.

Posted by: user:zanimum

03:13, 1 February 2005

Item: Dedekind cut

Discuss on: Talk:Dedekind cut

Description: I've just added some information to Dedekind cut ... ( ... and think there may be some problems with factual accuracy; if some experts could check it out and offer suggestions, that'd be great! ... )

Remarks: ... namely some definitions for comparison, arithmetic operations, and evaluations of supremum and infimum. These definitions are not all from the same source (though presumably all "public knowledge", "well-known" or "sufficiently obvious" ); they may not be entirely consistent with each other and/or with the definitions that were stated (and presently remain unaltered) at the beginning of the article. Please comment, and correct as appropriate. Best regards, Frank W ~@) R 02:31, 8 May 2004 (UTC)

Item: User:Daeron/Scratch or Papua_(Indonesian_province)

Discuss on: Talk:Papua_(Indonesian_province)

Description: Known in western countries since 1961 as West Papua, I extended the article history section about 3 weeks ago to explain why the US thought it had to support Indonesia against Papuan independance in 1962.

Remarks: Article became subject to edit war (my version gets reverted over within minutes) between myself and others who believe article should remain under the common English name of West Papua, and those who believe the term West Papua should be expunged from Wikipedia. I believe my version (also avail. here in case of reversion) explains where and who the country is; has fair NPOV; and has worthwhile starter content in its Regions, Geography, and Ecology sections. Please tell us what you think on the Talk page. All comments welcome, even spelling or grammar corrections, and comments on the maps used, I hope others can help improve article over time. ;-)Daeron 20:02, 6 May 2004 (UTC)

Item: Libertine

Discuss on: [[Talk:Libertine]

Description: Article that I reworked from a dicdef originally slated for deletion needs more info.

Remarks: Since this was once a major socio-political movement, I felt it deserved a proper article. Not being that familiar with the subject, I did what I could. Still, Libertine needs some fleshing out (no pun intended), fact-checking, etc from someone more knowledgable about this movement.

Posted by: Alcarillo 21:46, 5 May 2004 (UTC)

Item: Sleeping Giant (Connecticut)

Discuss on: Talk:Sleeping Giant (Connecticut)

Description: The ridge system and the state park of the same name were discussed in one article; i've added material about the volunteer support group of the same name, that actually started the park & continues heavy involvement; is that group mentioned excessively?

Posted by: Jerzy(t) 09:35, 2004 May 5 (UTC)

Item: Sathya Sai Baba

Discuss on: talk:Sathya Sai Baba

Description: You don't have to know the subject. Please improve writing, grammar, spelling and punctuation, or add or delete sections, even if you don't know much about the subject. Only minor edits by others. I don't see my own mistakes. I am one of the few people who know a lot about the subject so I would be surprized (and happpy) if others could improve the contents.

Posted by: Andries 14:22, 1 May 2004 (UTC)

For the past few weeks, much of my work has been on this series, currently cosisting of Toronto Subway and RT, Yonge-University-Spadina Line, Bloor-Danforth Line and Sheppard Line. These are all unlinked (other than to each other) and 'lying in wait' while I wait to go live. They are designed to replace List of subway and RT stations in Toronto. I will also be adjusting Scarborough RT (to match the format of the other lines) and Toronto Transit Commission (as a lot is duplicated there), but not until it's time to go.

Any and all commentary is welcome on this setup. Graphic maps for the Y-U-S line and the SRT are forthcoming, but I'm not waiting on them to go ahead with the rest. Discussion is now at Talk:Toronto Subway and RT.

Posted by: Radagast 01:23, Apr 27, 2004 (UTC)

We've gone live, so please still check it out and provide your comments! (note that List of subway and RT stations in Toronto is now just a redirect) Radagast 18:04, May 3, 2004 (UTC)

Accuracy dispute: see Talk:Restriction fragment length polymorphism

France and weapons of mass destruction Only minor edits by others. Still quite short. Russia and weapons of mass destruction and The United Kingdom and weapons of mass destruction only had one other contributor, China and weapons of mass destruction is still a very short stub.

Posted by: Get-back-world-respect 23:57, 25 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Items: Otto Ville Kuusinen and YYA Treaty

Discuss on: the talk pages – or maybe better make changes in the articles!

Description: I wrote these. Partly, but not to any exaggerated degree, stealing a few sentences available at www-sites, but basically (re)writing the text from scratch.

If some native English speakers and experienced Wikipedians would care to revise the language and the style, I would appreciate this as a guidance for further articles. The main problem is not that of spelling or grammar, but that of nuances and un-idiomatic expressions, as well as of the degree of emotiveness/assertion deemed fit for a Wikipedia article.

Thanks! /Tuomas 12:41, 24 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Anyone familiar with the subject? Please check out this page because Maradona became croatian because his great grand grand mother lived in one part of Croatia which was in Italy back then. Also this information is uncertified because it was published by Croatians. Lots of other names that are incorrect but still being rewritten. Opus33 was trying to prove that Joseph Haydn is not Croatian but successivelessly.

Posted by: Avala 16:19, 22 Apr 2004 (UTC)

The anonymous user from 6x.y.z.w has been at this for months now. User:Elf and myself have been regularly tidying up after him. The page has been listed on Wikipedia:Cleanup already, but we instead need a page for perpetual cleanup :) --Shallot 15:32, 26 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Item: Motif of harmful sensation

Discuss on: Talk:Motif of harmful sensation#Confession?

Description: The article Motif of harmful sensation has drawn 24 edits from others in the roughly 40 hours since i used the phrase to describe the concept. I figured that the concept is clear and popular enough that there must be a standard name for it in folklore, and that someone who knows what they're doing would rename the article. Instead, it's gotten splashed onto Main Page#Did you know... in the form

...that the Monty Python joke-warfare sketch is an example of a motif of harmful sensation?

Please, someone move this article to a famous name, so we can stop claiming that the current title is one!

Posted by: Jerzy(t) 14:30, 2004 Apr 21 (UTC)

Item: Zebulon_Baird_Vance

Discuss on: Talk:Zebulon_Baird_Vance

Description: I've just written Zebulon_Baird_Vance and think its pretty good - however, I'd like for some NC Civil War experts to check it out.

Posted by: Reid 14:10, 21 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Item: Renga and related articles

Discuss on: Talk:Renga

Description: I've just copyedited Renga and think there may be some problems with factual accuracy; The original author probably didn't speak English as a first language, and I am concerned that I may have mis represented some facts in the rewriting. I've linked/started pages on Wakka and Hoku as well; If some Japanese poetry experts could offer some TLC to the page, that would be great!

Posted by: Reid 14:10, 21 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I'm not an expert but wrote out some interesting bits of informations. Will write more. Revth 16:16, 15 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Item: Spacecraft propulsion and related articles

Discuss on: Talk:Spacecraft propulsion

Description: Spacecraft propulsion is a featured article. I think, when it became such, it had loads of detailed information about many spacecraft propulsion methods. It got too big, somebody put each method in its own article, and replaced the list with a big (ugly) table (which I like, apart from the aesthetics). I've added some introductory sections with general information about propulsion in general, as well as some pictures, but I'm not convinced the page is back up to featured quality. The individual articles could also use better link structure.

Posted by: Andrew 09:52, 20 Apr, 2004 (UTC)

Item: Correlation between intelligence and social deficiency

Discuss on: Talk:Correlation between intelligence and social deficiency

Description: Interesting topic, meriting an article (IMO) but difficult to write upon. Also, I'm not a psychologist, and would like someone with more thorough knowledge to clean the article up, if need be.

Thanks.

Posted by: Mike Church 07:28, 20 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Lots of new information in this article, some of it attributed to reliable sources and some not. The field of addiction medicine has spawned much diverse opinion, and unique views need to be folded into the context of widely held views, and with emerging concepts in professional associations. Some attention by somebody or somebodies with experience in behavioral medicine or psychology would be helpful.

Posted by: Talbiano 04:46, 19 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I've fixed MANY typos, but a couple times I had to guess what word was intended. This article could really benefit from review of someone who knows the games. The word I am most leery of is near the bottom--I made "idom" "idiom", but it's possible it should be "item". Also, an argument can be made that it should be split into three separate articles--probably would be more easily found. There aren't many links to it, so it wouldn't be much work.

Posted by: Niteowlneils 18:12, 13 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Could an Arabic-speaker please add the word as it is rendered in Arabic script? Thanks.

Posted by: --Jeru 20:07, 12 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Item: Tesla Tesla turbine

Discuss on: Talk:Tesla, Talk:Tesla turbine

Description: We've been going back and forth on NPOV issues in the Cosmic waves section of Tesla, and the calculations section of the TT article between me and Reddi. Can someone ELSE please look at it?

Posted by: Rick Boatright 15:30, 10 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Rick, this thing between you two seems to be getting out of control.

--GeneralPatton 16:31, 10 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I was afraid of that. Ok, I'll shut up and cool off for a while.

Darn.

Rick Boatright 21:41, 10 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I hope both of you guys can reach an agreement, we are civilized folks, after all.

--GeneralPatton 22:19, 10 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Discuss on: Talk:HSV_color_space

• See also : User:Kim_Bruning/colorspace.py , talk:color, cyan, magenta, yellow.
• See eventually: white, black
• See examples that worked: red, orange

The formula at HSV_color_space is kind of tricky to actually use for actual calculation. I found out when I tried to use it in some simple code. I've solved it breaking for white and black, but it still breaks for cyan, magenta and yellow.

Is it the formula, or is it me?

Posted by: Kim Bruning 21:12, 6 Apr 2004 (UTC)

some people keep overwritting that this teritory belongs to Croatia even though there is agreement between governments of this two countries that this teritory should be neutral

Posted by: --Avala Apr 6, 2004

Mmmm... Talk:Prevlaka Peninsula. --Shallot

Discuss on: Talk:Dovlatov

Description: I just cleaned up Dovlatov, but due to the originally unclear writing some of my interpretations may be incorrect. Would appreciate it if someone better informed than me looked it over.

Posted by: Gregb 21:25, 4 Apr 2004 (UTC)

---

I've added a few notes under Talk:Dovlatov, although this shouldn't be consdered full review.

Discuss on: Talk:Graduate student

Description: This page's got a lot of content on US programs (primarily by myself), but only scanty on UK/CA. Can anyone help flesh those out more to help keep it NPOV?

Posted by: zandperl 14:25, 4 Apr 2004 (UTC)

User:Cantus moved this article from Roma and Sinti and deleted all references to the Sinti, and won't discuss his reasons. Should this be reverted in toto?

Posted by: RickK | Talk 02:49, 4 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Discuss on: Talk:CMYK,

Description: I've just written some formulas into CMYK and think I messed up my maths a bit. It's close, but not quite right. Could a maths (+ texvc ) expert take a look at it?

Posted by: Kim Bruning 13:38, 3 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Discuss on: Talk:Camille Henry

• Can anyone tell me whether this is a vanity page? Thanks! Mark Richards 16:36, 1 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Well, probably not literally, since Henry is deceased; does appear to be a real individual, with actual information available; I'll tack some on for verification. FZ 16:07, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)

C'mon, people, I'm begging for some attention here. Is there any point to what I'm doing here? Does anyone care? I'd really appreciate feedback on the following articles and stubs I've created, on their respective Talk pages or on my own:

• Dorothy Canfield Fisher- had been listed on Wikipedia: Requested articles
• E. L. Konigsburg
• Newbery Honor
• Guardian Award
• the Oz books - to be expanded into article series about Oz
• Land of Oz - to be expanded into article series about Oz
• L. Frank Baum - I did not create this page, but am in the process of majorly updating it
• Michael Hague
• Loquat
• Multisystem Developmental Disorder
• Autistic spectrum
• Monastery of the Cross- had been listed on Wikipedia: Requested articles
• Mordecai Ardon

Don't hesitate to correct spelling mistakes or make formatting changes. Thanks. Woggly 13:53, 1 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Item: Nazism and socialism

Discuss on: Talk:Nazism and socialism

Description: Consistant POV battle ground, rarely aproaching NPOV, with the page being less an article than a debating forum.

Posted by: Sam Spade 20:09, 26 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Item: Why_10_dimensions

Discuss on: Talk:Why_10_dimensions

Description: Several Wikipedia articles mention the fact that string theory predicts that the universe has 10, 11, or 26 dimensions. However, these articles never really explain why consistency requires these particular values for the number of dimensions. I've written the first part of Why_10_dimensions and now I am stuck; if some experts could check it out and offer suggestions, that'd be great!

In particular, I need help with the Euler beta function and Ramanujan Modular Functions.

Posted by: JWSchmidt 21:35, 25 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Discuss on: Talk:Ford Capri

Description: I've made some assertions about the deriviation of the Capri from the Cortina, can anybody check and veryify them? I'm struggling to find back-up info on Google. Thanks. --Pete Richardson 09:45, 25 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Item: Top

Discuss on: Talk:Top

Oops! That's what I get for taking you at your word and jumping in as a newbie. I just edited the Top page. I added a couple of paragraphs about a top called the "perinola". I'm reasonably sure of what I wrote. It could use some amplification, preferably by someone who can read the Spanish language sources. But this note is primarily to tell whoever may be "in charge", that I have a real email address, even though the IP address that your software captured is a temporary one assigned by my ISP and almost certainly not traceable. Feel free to email me as [email protected] either to slap my wrists or for any information I may have.

Thanks for the fun. (Since I'm not willing to read your copious documentation, I almost certainly will not try this again!)

Posted by: Marilyn Justman 11:11 CST 20 Mar 2004

Item: Heteronormativity

Discuss on: Talk:Heteronormativity

The old page read badly from an NPOV perspective, insofar as the authors were trying to give a neutral treatment to a very negative concept that comes from one side of the debate, without neutering the concept. The result was a somewhat stilted caricature of a villain. I rewrote the page to more clearly acknowledge the term's origins. However, I'm not an expert on the topics involved, and would like some Wikipedians with more investment in the page to ratify my changes, fix whatever errors or vagueness I put in, or roll it all back. My justification is on the talk page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ta bu shi da yu (talk • contribs) 04:24, 1 February 2005

Discuss on: Talk:Jamie Bulger

Remarks: How does it read?

Posted by: Pete/Pcb21 (talk) 18:45, 19 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Item: Dominant wavelength

Discuss on: Talk:Dominant wavelength

Description: This has been needed for a while, so I just wrote it up. Organized as a brief top part for color science afficionados, plus a more extensive explanation section that I hope will be helpful to less savvy readers. This page also really needs some pictures added, at least one to illustrate the CIE coordinates for everything. I'll do that eventually I supposed, but haven't figured out image uploading yet, so some help would be appreciated.

Posted by: Chinasaur 18:36, Mar 19, 2004 (UTC)

Items: Steganography and Johannes Trithemius

Discuss on: Talk:Steganography and Talk:Johannes Trithemius

Description: I didn't write either, but both articles make a claim that seems incorrect, namely that the work Steganographia is a book on black magic disguised as a book on cryptography. In fact, most sources I've found on the internet make an opposite claim: that Book III at least is really a crytptological exercise disguised as a book on magic. However, the truth of the matter is difficult; who's to say what the real message is supposed to be? Please see Talk: Steganography for another wikipedian's take on this problem. If we could find someone more knowledgeable on this subject maybe we can clear things up; I don't feel too bold writing something up from my Google searches. If this is the wrong forum for this kind of request, please relocate and note it for me on User_talk:Chinasaur

Posted by: Chinasaur 16:26, Mar 15, 2004 (UTC)

Item: Blood alcohol content

Discuss on: Talk: Blood alcohol content

Description: I wrote most of the content in the present article. I felt a need to toe the line between encouraging responsibility and POV. For example, "Despite the liberal intoxication limits of many countries, one should not assume that driving with a BAC rating of, say, .079% is safe." This is good advice, but Wikipedia is not a place for advice, and "safe" may be construed as a value judgment. Does such a statement cross the line of POV, or is it within the bounds of NPOV?

Posted by: Mike Church 01:54, 12 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Nice article. I fixed a couple of things. alteripse 29 apr 04

Item: Fathers' rights

Discuss on: Talk:Fathers' rights

Description: I have added a fair bit to this topic and extended with a few links. I can add more material on various related topics, and wondered: a) what people think so far - I've been getting educated by User:Dysprosia, who deserves a medal, but another might wish to relieve her of her burden, and making this topic NPV is presenting me with difficulties. Part of my objective in posting here is to see if there is an OPV (other point of view?), not to be gratuitously provocative, and various journalists I have talked to have been very puzzled that no other informed point of view to counter that of fathers' rights campaigners seems to get positied anywhere b) how usefully to extend/re-structure so the thing doesn't become too cumbersome. c) specific guidange on fair-use of quotes in particular by Bob Geldof. I have already used a few, and wondered if my use of short quotes is problematic.

Posted by: Matt Stan 18:51, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Item: Totalitarian democracy

Discuss on: Talk:Totalitarian democracy

Description: This article has undergone major revision as per suggestions on the talk page. I would like to be able to remove the POV tag, and am requesting a review.

Posted by: Denni 21:52, 2004 Mar 7 (UTC)

Item: Time hierarchy theorem

Discuss on: Talk:Time hierarchy theorem

Requires knowledge of: computer science, particularly complexity theory

I've added the proof for this, and it would be really nice if someone could take a critical look at it.

Posted by: — Timwi 02:00, 6 Mar 2004 (UTC)

See the talk page. Gdr 23:48, 2004 Jul 4 (UTC)

This is the second peer review request for this article. I believe the issues raised by the previous peer review request have been addressed, and would like to nominate this for featured article status. However, the last peer review was a while ago, so I thought it would be prudent to let others take a look at it one more time before I did so.--MikeJ9919 20:46, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC) Old peer review is archived here: Wikipedia:Peer review/Paul of Tarsus/archive1

• I strongly advise putting subheadings within the individual sections, to improve readability, and split up those lengthy sections. --Scimitar 21:45, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Looks pretty good. I can't comment too much on the material, since almost all I know is from catechism class, and going to Mass. A few observations though: 1) You have cited and quoted from the Bible, so it would be good to note what version you are using and add it as a reference. 2) I wouldn't know, but are those citations standard? Do we know that (Rom. 11:1, Phil. 3:5) automatically refer to Paul's letters? Even if that is standard it could be made easier to read by explaining it quickly, and linking to a longer explanation if available. 3) The alternative views section needs reorganizing. Maybe subheadings would work or maybe just make it into prose without the numbered bullets. 4) The citations by title (The Mythmaker) seem strange. Is that common? I'm used to (author, year) or footnotes style, but maybe the way you've done it is fine. In any case the Spong citation is the opposite way, so there should be consistency there. All inline citations (including links to web pages like [3] should be made consistent and ideally listed either in the ==References== section if they are used throughout the article, or in a ==Notes== section if they just support one fact. Pick a system from Wikipedia:Cite_sources and use it for all the inline citations in the article. There is no consensus on which, but consistency is good. External links if used as sources for the article can be listed as references too. 5) Is the Spong work really notable enough to have a whole paragraph on his views? That quote at least doesn't seem to offer any evidence for the claim. - Taxman ^Talk 19:56, Jun 2, 2005 (UTC)

Since I was the one who originally added the Bible references (& I'm amazed at how much of what I originally wrote is still in the article), I can state that they are the standard abbreviations, per the MLA Handbook. Many revisions back, I tried to spell out the entire title of the reference (e.g. "Rom. 11:1" would become "Romans 11:1"), but it appears that someone changed that.

As for the citations by title, I may have responsible for that, since it was the style I used before I noticed a consensus had finally evolved embracing using footnotes. If it is troublesome, then it should be fixed.

Lastly, I am a bit troubled at the "Alternative views" section, mostly because it does not seem to provide a proper survey of Alternative view, but rather a scatter-shot collection of writers who have a bone to pick with Paul. But since I don't know the literature, I can't offer constructive suggestions. -- llywrch 18:32, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The article is detailed and well researched but unfortunately deeply POV-ridden, for example:

He was extremely polite, cultured, quiet, and reserved. In appearance he was small in stature, slim, and always impeccably dressed. His sense of sportsmanship was of the highest caliber, and his combination of brilliant play and personal modesty made him a welcome guest everywhere.

However, User:Drogo Underburrow objects my editing of the article, and redaction of comments like "an invaluable resource" and "a great book", on the basis that I haven't read the relevant books. I wondered if Peer Review might clarify the situation. Also other suggested improvements to the article would be welcome. Soo 16:53, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

As this edit is your only contribution to the article, I question the good faith of this request. Inline citation however, are a good method to attribute value judgements without cluttering up the prose needlessly. --zippedmartin 22:24, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

The fact that I have not edited the article ought to tell you that I am neutral with respect to it. Perhaps you should read WP:AGF and check out my edit history here before making accusations. Soo 11:18, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Asuming it doesn't mean you're never allowed to question it. It's never stopped people throwing policy pages around innappropriately, for starts. Peer review is simply most effective when active editors on the article request it, and are willing to put in work to make changes suggested. As you're unlikely to go and get the reference book, look up relevant passages, and then edit the article, there's not really much good me saying to you "inline citations are often useful for value judgements". If you're coming to peer review because you had an argument with someone on the talk page, you're probably not here for the right reasons. Just leave the pov tag if you like and get back to creating and editing articles. --zippedmartin 16:26, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

I was going to reply to this, but then I thought, "Why bother?" Soo 19:22, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Should be: I was going to reply to the content of this... 24.16.251.40 03:17, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Item: David Rohl

Discuss on: Talk:David Rohl

Description: I rewrote this article to make it more NPOV -- & offer more information -- than what was already there. However, Zestauferov claims it is "obscenely biased and full of false facts and hearsay." Obviously, I do not think that this is the case, but I would appreciate any comments -- or corrections -- to settle this disagreement, & so I can remove in good faith the note that states the neutrality of this article is disputed.

Posted by: llywrch

04:53, 1 February 2005

Item: Destino

Discuss on: Talk:Destino

Description: This is my first new article contribution. Destino is an animated cartoon originally created by Salvador Dalí and Walt Disney. I don't think this article has any glaring errors, but I'm interested if I've made any faux pas(es?) style/structure-wise...

Posted by: Garrett Albright

Item: Jim the slave

Discuss on: Talk:Jim the slave

Description: I've just written Jim the slave, referring to the character in The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn and was wondering about the second paragraph after the spoiler warning, which I included verbatim from Talk:The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn. Is it appropriate? Thanks, all.

Posted by: Johnleemk 08:17, 28 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Is this truly appropriate as a separate article? I'm guessing it's OK, as nobody's fired at me over it.

Item: Rosa Parks

Description: This page about Rosa Parks also indirectly mentions Irene Morgan, but in an incorrect way.

Remarks: See the Talk:Rosa Parks for further context.

Posted by: Katahon 22:13, 25 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Item: Short term Fourier transform

Description: I've just written Short term Fourier transform and want to make sure there are no problems with factual accuracy; if some mathematicians could check it out and offer suggestions, that'd be great!

Remarks: any remarks I might have.

Posted by: Omegatron 02:26, Feb 24, 2004 (UTC)

Item: Guru

I have written the section 'Common character traits and assessing the guru's authenticity' and would like to hear if that is okay. It is related to epistemology of religion. Besides I have a conflict with a user MKweise about one particular sentence i.e. 'All Hindu denominations say that it is necessary to have a living guru revered as an incarnation of God to attain moksha.'

Posted by: Andries 18:33, 21 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Item: School discipline

Discuss on: Talk:School discipline

Description: Have written a new article above but did not use an existing public domain import that some think has a POV. I left the original import there but attributed the source. Should it stay? Is my article OK on its own or too controversial?

Posted by: kiwiinapanic 17:13, 21 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Item: KLM Constellation air disaster 1948

Discuss on: Talk:KLM Constellation air disaster 1948

Description: I've written the above article, and was wondering if someone would check it for style and for naming. Most articles about aircraft disaster name it after the plane's code, which I don't know. If anyone could think of a better title, that'd be helpful.

Posted by: Chrism 12:07, 19 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Item: Werewolf: The Apocalypse

Discuss on: Talk:Werewolf: The Apocalypse, Talk:Mage: The Ascension

Description: I've just rewritten Werewolf: The Apocalypse and I'm not sure if this is "the right way" of writing articles. Please compare Werewolf: The Apocalypse with Mage: The Ascension and tell me which style is more appropriate: narrative one of Werewolf or factual of Mage. I'd really appreciate your suggestions. If they'd be in favor I'd rewrite Mage: The Ascension and maybe Vampire: The Masquerade and propose policy for WoD games entries.

Remarks: It's not said that Werewolf is done. It surely could have more both in-game and out-of game information but I'd rather wait for your comments.

Posted by: Forseti 09:26, 17 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I'm in favor of the more encyclopedic Mage: The Ascension style. Ausir 10:26, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Plants_and_animals_of_Belize there are alot of photos that need identification here please help.

Posted by: Belizian 20:05, 2004 Feb 14 (UTC)

Peer review requested for the article Heterosexuality which is currently in dispute.

Please see talk:heterosexuality for further details.

Posted by: Exploding Boy 16:12, Feb 14, 2004 (UTC)

Item: Try to standarize maps of country subdivisions

Discuss on: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Maps

Remarks: Previous discussion led to the creation of the Wikiproject Maps. Discussion continues there.

Posted by: andy 19:11, 8 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Request remarks for Socialism and Nazism

Posted by: -戴&#30505sv 04:05, 8 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Items: Bar (diacritic), ISO_8859-6

Discuss on: Talk:Bar (diacritic), Talk:ISO_8859-6

Remarks: Bar (diacritic), — needs heavy editing by someone who knows these diacritic characters. — Jor

ISO_8859-6 (table) - Can someone who knows Arabic and has a Unicode browser + Arab Unicode fonts look if it is correct? I might have made a mistake with a few of the characters. — Jor

Posted by: Onebyone 20:46, 7 Feb 2004 (UTC) (from cleanup)

Item: Duran Duran, Warren Cuccurullo, Duran Duran (album) and Rio

Discuss on: Talk:Duran Duran, Talk:Warren Cuccurullo, Talk:Duran Duran (album) Talk:Rio

Description: Factual history of the band, the guitarist, the albums.

Remarks: I've worked hard at writing these thoroughly and well, but since DD are such an obscure & retro act to many people, I'm not sure who else looks at these articles.  :) Some feedback would be helpful! I'd like to include more on how the album and the videos impacted the music industry, and could use some help from those with a broader perspective.

Posted by: Catherine 19:56, 6 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Item: Autonomous robot — Talk:Autonomous robot

Description: This is an article which (originally) tried to draw a distinction between a robot and an autonomous robot.

Remarks: I have suggested in vfd that the article be deleted but there was no response there, pro or con. My point is that a robot which is not autonomous is nothing but a machine tool or a RC vehicle. All robots must exhibit some degree of autonomy. My latest improvements(?) to autonomous robot are not entirely NPOV but it makes the articles redundancy plain, I think. But presumably at least one person disagrees with me otherwise there would be no such article: It would all be in robot or robotics. Another solution would be to rename this article highly autonomous robot. Anyway, a review or three of this article would be appreciated. Please wade in and edit away.

Posted by: Psb777 00:25, 4 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Is this fluid interpretation valid? If so, does it deserve to be the whole focus of the article? If so, can other interpretations be added bhy way of comparison? Discuss on Talk:Electromagnetic field.

Posted by: Onebyone 22:19, 3 Feb 2004 (UTC)

A widespread tradition among the east Slavs is to treat Jews as aliens. Thus discussion of the (extremely thorough) Holocaust in Carpathian Ruthenia, is being shifted to a separate section. Perhaps this will strike the reader as a vivid, though unconscious revelation of nationalist sentiment in the area. But what do we do to preserve some neutral balance and honest history in that article? Information that doesn't suit nationalist agendas gets "revised" or deleted. Ugly.

Posted by: Wetman 05:56, 2 Feb 2004 (UTC)

The above phrase demonstrates neutrally balanced racism with respect to Slavs. Mikkalai 08:37, 2 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Not to say about double standard. Wetman himself separated "Carpathian Ruthenia" from "Ruthenia", but violently dislikes when someone else does something similar. Mikkalai 08:59, 2 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I actually think there is a good bit of material in this area that needs to be re-juggled to different articles. I think moving "Carpathian Ruthenia" out of "Ruthenia" was a very good idea: the article "Ruthenia" is about too many different things. I think that "Ruthenia" can be about the use of the very problematic English-language word "Ruthenia", and the various geographic-historical referents of that word can each get an article of their own. (I actually believe that the three currently described there don't even tell the whole story.) Wetman's holocaust issues are now fairly summarized in "Carpathian Ruthenia" and detailed in a separate article: I think this splits the difference pretty well, myself. (For the record, I am ethnically Jewish, but secular.)

NPOV is tough here, and not just about the Jews (did Muscovy "subjugate" the Republic of Novgorod, "incorporate" it, or "destroy" it?) arises even in the organization of articles. I believe I don't have any particular animus here, and am available to arbitrate. I encourage all concerned to please skip the mutual personal attacks, refrain from deleting passages without some discussion (mark it as factually disputed rather than deleting), lay out their issues and cite their references on the relevant talk pages, etc. Still, there seems to be much less argument over what actually happened historically than in how to present it, and that's always particularly tough. -- Jmabel 07:26, 5 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Item: Safety valve

Discuss on: Talk:Safety valve

Description: I've improved Safety valve but it needs review by an Engineer.

Posted by: Psb777 04:12, 1 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Item: Scientific_skepticism

Talk: Talk:Scientific_skepticism

Description: Reddi, someone who appears to be quite interested in "fringe" theories and a general lack of inability to understand scientific principles, is known for engaging in edit wars when someone takes things out that he disagrees with (rather than discuss it). He and MIRV are doing that right now, trying to attack scientific skepticism with biased links, untrue and irrelevent "facts" on the analysis (formerly criticism), and are unable to compromise.

My version is at http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Scientific_skepticism&oldid=2243653

It is the "cleaned up" version, with inaccuracies and bias removed. I would like feedback on the talk page and on my talk page. Currently, the page is locked.

Posted by: - Lord Kenneth 01:32, Jan 29, 2004 (UTC)

Item: Adipose tissue

Talk: Talk:Adipose tissue

Description: I translated the bulk of the article from es:Tejido adiposo. My Spanish is good & my English is native, but this article had words I don't know well in either language (plus in some places it was a little vague), so the result could well contain errors.

Posted by: Jmabel 07:52, 28 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Still waiting for someone with solid knowledge of biology to review article and remove warning notice. -- Jmabel 18:43, 24 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Done. alteripse 29 apr 04

Adipose tissue is now fine and can be deleted from here. --Erich gasboy 05:49, 2 May 2004 (UTC)

Item: Borel's paradox

Talk: Talk:Borel's paradox

Description: Article describes the fact that, contrary to intuition, conditional probability density functions are not invariant under coordinate transformations.

Remarks: Recently written by me. Needs some fresh eyes to make it better.

Posted by: Cyan 22:08, 26 Jan 2004 (UTC)

• Please see, Talk:Pubic hair regarding the doubt over the statistics and it's source.
• Posted by: -- Rrjanbiah 05:36, 26 Jan 2004 (UTC)

• Item: 3D projection
• Talk: Talk:3D projection
• Found the article, but didn't understand it, so I changed the math around a bit. Is the article understandable and correct now?
• Posted by: Κσυπ Cyp   20:10, 25 Jan 2004 (UTC)

• Items: Blushing and Flushing (physiology)
• Talk: Talk:Blushing
• I just edited the intro secn of Blushing and added the next secn; i also created the stub Flushing. I (so ill-suited as to even forgot to link Fever!) am leaving to some non-amateur observer the task of determining whether the next two secns of Blushing should perhaps be broken out as, say Erythema, and linked by both of these articles. And of course the same person could add to Flushing (physiology) at least some common disorders that have it as major symptoms, or better, characteristics of flushes that justify professional triage or Dx.
• Posted by: --Jerzy 22:49, 2004 Jan 22 (UTC)

• Item: @+ Ancient Mystical Order Rosae Crucis @+
• Talk: Talk:Ancient Mystical Order Rosae Crucis
• Description: Its about AMORC, the mystical order. The article was created by me and is also actively maintained by me. Please peer review and tell me your opinion. Especially I want you to check this article for NPOVness. Tell me what is missing and what else you would like to read. The article is not finished and is not perfect. I plan to turn it into a brilliant prose before the summer, and maybe I will double its size. Place your comments on the talk page. I would appreciate it if you discuss on the talk page before making changes in the article. Also tell me your opinion on its size and suggest me whether Julie Scott (another article by me) should be merged with AMORC. If anybody has time to waste, have a look at my userpage too and check all of my articles, and give me comments and suggestions on how to improve them or on whether you consider them useful.
• Posted by: .'. Optim 07:27, 18 Jan 2004 (UTC) .'.

• Item: Tanya
• Talk: Talk:Tanya
• Description: Its about a book in Hebrew. The article's descrition kinda likens this book to The Bible or the Qur'an. I dont know how accurate that is. Secondly, I know nothing about this book, had never heard about it, and I was expecting this to be a disambiguation page (ex. Tanya Tucker, etc.). Third, that the article is not wikifyied.
• Posted by: Tanya Martin

• Item: Anti-Semitism
• Talk: Talk:Anti-Semitism
• Description: This article (perhaps out of some amount of necessity, considering its controvercial nature) is the source of a great deal of disagreement. My emphasis at this time is on the failure of the article to include Arabs and other semites under the definition of semite, and instead using the term to refer solely to Jews. There has been a large amount of discussion in this regard in talk (see Talk:Anti-Semitism (etymology), Talk:Anti-Semitism (etymology complete) as well as Talk:Anti-Semitism). Good luck!
• Posted by: Jack 12:57, 11 Jan 2004 (UTC)

• Items: User:Wapcaplet/Auto diagrams, Four-stroke cycle, Reciprocating engine
• Talk: User talk:Wapcaplet
• Description: I've been working on rather elaborate 3D model for showing automotive parts. Nowhere near completion, but these are indicators of the progress so far. Comments by anyone who knows stuff about cars are welcome! Update: Two articles (listed above) now use some of these illustrations. Comments and critique welcome---are the illustrations too dark? Would they be clearer in some sort of cartoon-style outline form?
• Posted by: Wapcaplet 02:53, 6 Jan 2004 (UTC)

• Item: Number-theoretic transform
• Talk: Talk:Number theoretic transform, Talk:Some related article
• Description: Anyone want to check if the article is accurate, is any use, or makes any sense? Also, I have no idea what the conventional notation is...
• Posted by: Κσυπ Cyp   16:13, 5 Jan 2004 (UTC)

• Item: Vitis vinifera and Grape seed oil
• Talk: User talk:dbroadwell
• Description: Worked up these two articles and am interested in having other read them, make formatting suggestions, ect. Are they Wiki linked enough? Any glaring errors in my usage of english? ... Rip them apart, they will be better for it.
• Posted by: Dbroadwell 05:54, 25 Dec 2003 (UTC)

I've added a comment to the Talk:Grape seed oil page. Scooter 00:04, 4 Jan 2004 (UTC)

I happened to find Crime fiction in Pages needing attention list. It is an extremely well-written article, which has a potential of becoming an example prose. Unfortunately, it is currently very unwieldy, and too lengthy. As a minimum startup effort, I managed to categorise the entire article under meaningful sections, and make it "look" at least "cosmetically appealing". I also moved a few pages to new and existing articles (Locked room mystery,The Hollow Man etc.) and added appropriate links. As far as I am aware, I have not DELETED CONTENT in a way that affects the flow of the article.

The still remaining flaws of the article I observe are - It looks POV-ed (though it is not, exactly. With minimal rephrasing (removing "You would notice"s and "Please note that"s), it will look better) and its size. I invite wikipedians to suggest/make the appropriate changes. As a final step, this article may need to be split up into smaller articles, combined under one heading.

Here is a proposed new article on Saddam Hussein. I have removed large amounts of propaganda and irrelevance and included material on the 1990s which this article lacks. Comments are welcome. Proposed new Saddam Hussein article.

Posted by: Adam 14:52, 16 Dec 2003 (UTC)

A high-grade commentator (probably the Sunday New York Times) is currently referring to him as "Mr. Hussein" (perhaps bcz of their style of referring to anyone but (last time i noticed) organized-crime figures as "Mr. ..."). I'm not going to suggest an exact wording, but i expect there's a small wording change lurking in there, that keeps us from claiming to be more authoritative than "the newspaper of record" and, more importantly, recognizes that there are more wrinkles in intercultural relations than are dreamt of in our philosophy. --Jerzy 06:09, 2004 Jan 9 (UTC)

There is a long history of discussion on the Talk pages and archives thereof about what to call him, many people thinking it racist and US-centric to call him Hussein. RickK 05:57, Feb 1, 2005 (UTC)

• Item: Fishing line
• Talk: Talk:Fishing line
• Problem: Page written by an anonymous user, seems to have gross factual inaccuracies.
• Posted by: Smack 00:31, 16 Dec 2003 (UTC)

This is the first article that I've written/destubbified here, and I'd like feedback. I'm particularly interested in whether other folks think I maintained NPOV in the section on alternatives. The citation styles for the references also had me a bit kerfuffled, so I'd appreciate your thoughts on that, too.

Posted by: Thalia/Karen 06:55, Dec 14, 2003 (UTC)

It looks to me like you did a very good job. I hesitated for a moment as to whether I agreed that genetically modified cotton could be seen as an environmental concern, but I quickly came around to your point of view. Jack 09:13, 14 Dec 2003 (UTC)

I gave it a bit of copy edit and formatting. Looks good to me, though the links probably need formatting. What about the link between dioxins and cancer--should that be mentioned here? heidimo 02:39, 9 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I think there are some factual issues in this article, and somebody seconded my motion ;) JackLynch 06:13, 13 Dec 2003 (UTC)

I created this list yesterday and it already has over 60 names on it. About half of the listed poets do not have articles yet. I think that, in a modest way, this list and the associated articles could be a real ornament to Wikipedia, being particularly useful to people doing Women's studies and the like, so I'm inviting everyone to a) check it out and add your favourite female poet, if she's not there already and b) add an article!

Posted by: Bmills 10:57, 10 Dec 2003 (UTC)

If anyone would like to take a look at this and see if it's written in the correct style, it'd be a great help.

Posted by: -- Chrism 17:14, 8 Dec 2003 (UTC)

I was wondering if the experienced Wikipedians would please review my recent article on Flags. I ended up rewriting it almost from scratch in order to make it flow better and include some important new facts; I also attempted to include all of the existing material in the new article as well. I'm new enough to this project that I do not have a user name as yet, but may be interested in getting one if my material is considered "up to snuff" (and if I can rediscover the page that allows me to do so...) I also requested feedback on the Talk page. Thanks in advance for your time and opinions!

Posted by: - Steve

Most excellent article. I've made a couple of cosmetic changes to the tail end of it, and it might be reasonable to put the "Alternate meanings" section at the beginning, but it's better than most of the stuff we've got. Please do register. If you do, you will have a "watchlist" that you can set up in no time flat to automatically monitor changes to that article. -Smack 18:56, 8 Dec 2003 (UTC)

I agree, in most articles alternate meaning show up at the beginning, so I'd do that here as well. The rest of it looks very comprehensive and complete. Well done! With a bit of work, I could easily see this article gaining featured status. - MGM 10:32, May 5, 2004 (UTC)

Does this article List of People by Known IQ have any merit in Wikipedia? I'm of two minds on this one -- it seems an interesting list, but given the shaky credibility of "IQ" as a metric and the verifiability of these numbers, I'm not sure. Put it here instead of Wikipedia:Votes for Deletion, in order to make "inclusionists" happy. :) Fuzheado 08:33, 1 Dec 2003 (UTC)

I concur. IMO, it doesnt deserve to stand as a single article. The list may be given as a "trivia" item at the bottom of the IQ page. Considering that not many articles link to the list presently, this is the easiest solution. chance 07:16, Dec 4, 2003 (UTC)

• I'd go with that, but I think it should include some kind of disclaimer, since you can't possibly sure these numbers are accurate. - MGM 10:24, May 5, 2004 (UTC)

This is pseudoscientific garbage, and should be deleted. The claim that we "know", or in some reasonable way can estimate, that Marilyn vos Savant, author of perhaps the worst popular mathematics book ever written, is much more intelligent than Galileo or Descartes, who died long before IQ tests were invented, is mind-boggling in its idiocy. Yes, someone did attempt to estimate the IQ of a variety of historical figures, and no, this is not "knowedge". What rubbish! Gene Ward Smith 08:12, 31 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Agree. -- Arvindn 14:09, 2 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Also agree.Doovinator 22:01, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Could not agree more, also. Ensiform 04:47, 28 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I agree. David.Monniaux 19:05, 23 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Seeing as tests can't even agree on my IQ, I fail to see how they could work out that of someone who is dead. Agree. Rissa of the Saiya-jin 23:43, 30 May 2004 (UTC)

(Lengthier material moved from here to Talk:Race by Wapcaplet 23:04, 5 Jan 2004 (UTC))

• Item: Race
• Talk: Talk:Race
• Description: Two authors of this article have used the hammer of reversion to thwart efforts by various people to eliminate the single-POV bias of several parts of the article. This is documented fairly well in the Talk pages (plural because part of the discussion has been archived). Being something of a newcomer, I'm not sure what can be done, especially as I do not wish to start a "reversion war." I have never reverted anyone's work, and in fact I adhered to Wiki protocol by offering additions and the smallest modifications possible. Newcomers are asked to be optimists, so any suggestions or advice would be appreciated.
• Posted by: Peak 05:32, 1 Dec 2003 (UTC)

• Music of Jamaica
  • It's a really major subject, as Jamaica is easily a rival for the UK and US in terms of popular music worldwide, and is a #4 Google hit. Doesn't really flow too well in parts, and needs expansion, especially on the last fifteen years or so.
• Posted by: Tuf-Kat 06:58, Nov 27, 2003 (UTC)

I revised this article, trying to improve on the language and accuracy, and added a bit here and there. It could probably use more. heidimo 21:15, 5 Jan 2004 (UTC)

I gave this article another going-over. Still needs work, but it's coming along. heidimo 02:28, 9 Mar 2004 (UTC)

This looks great. Fans should feel free to add detail to the various artist links, and useful external links. Otherwise, it's been wifi'ed to "beat the band". 20:53, 14 June 2004

• Hackers (short stories) needs some peer-editing. See Talk:Hackers (short stories) for what things I am looking for. thanks, Dori 07:55, Nov 26, 2003 (UTC)

(moved from Village Pump at 2:52 EST by User:Pakaran)

Hi,

I added a table to that article. It was based on another table (which I link to) but it shouldn't be a copyvio because I just copied the numbers (and to some extent the format). I could have generated my own table, or typed in the values from scratch, in a bit more time. Is my editorial comment at the bottom of the table section appropriate? I guess I have a sense of awe towards the function that's proving quite hard to get rid of, and it shows in the article.

On another note - I mentioned in the talk page that NIST has their own version of the Ackermann function - which seems incompatible with ours, and which does not appear anywhere else on the web. Are they just plain wrong?

Thanks! -- Pakaran 04:46, 25 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Update: I added a lot of content to the article, and I have been informed that there is no copyvio issue. I'd be interested in comments. -- Pakaran 06:47, 25 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Just in case you are not aware of it Wikipedia:Peer review is another place to ask for comments ... it seems to be on plenty of people's watchlists. (Probably not as many as the mighty VP though!) Pete 10:15, 25 Nov 2003 (UTC)

I'd already computed some of the numbers and put them on the talk page, based on the definition already in the article, so I doubt the numbers themselves could somehow in any way be copyrighted by some other site... Κσυπ Cyp   12:16, 25 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Thanks Cyp. Yeah, I doubt that's any longer a concern. I'm interested in re view of my comments on the asymptotic behavior of naive attempts to compute the function. Thanks. -- Pakaran 05:21, 4 Dec 2003 (UTC)

National emblem -- I've asked a few questions on its talk page 7 days back but got no responses. Probably not many have got it on their watchlist. The article lists the National Tree, National Animal, National Plant, National Flower, etc. of countries. I was under the impression that a National Emblem is distinct and separate from a nation's other symbols. So the basic question is : can a country have more than one national emblem ? And where can I get more info on this? Please visit Talk:National emblem and refer the first discussion.

Posted by: Jay 09:16, 12 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Hello, I am new here on the Wikipedia and I wrote an article about The book The Plague Dogs by Richard adams, could anybody add something to it 'cause it's not very complete yet...

Posted by: Oca 13:01, 29 Oct 2003 (UTC)

I know that Muriel referred you here, but I would say that you shouldn't post requests here unless you have exhausted your knowledge of the topic and find that the article is still missing something very important. If every wikipedist called for help on every article that he or she made a major contribution to, this page would get out of control. For our policy on writing about fictional works, see Wikipedia:Spoiler warning. Go ahead and finish that article. (By the way, please don't take my suggestions to discourage you. We all make mistakes, even when we have a little experience.) One more thing - according to Richard Adams, it's his third novel, not his second. -Smack 01:39, 30 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Okay, I didn't know, but that's fine, But I really think something's missing in the summary and I don't know enough about the book to add that...Oca 10:06, 31 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Different sources are telling me very different things about the origins of the Mao suit (I elaborate at Talk:Mao suit; please comment there.)

Posted by: --Jiang 00:51, 27 Oct 2003 (UTC)

(Lengthier material has been moved to Talk:Rush Limbaugh by Wapcaplet 23:04, 5 Jan 2004 (UTC))

• Item: Rush Limbaugh
• Talk: Talk:Rush Limbaugh
• Description: I don't think this quite rises to the level of problem of an NPOV dispute or an edit war, but I'd like someone (or multiple someones) to look at the following two paragraphs from Rush Limbaugh (initially, without looking at the edit history and discussion) and take a gander at which is more successful at being neutral.
• Posted by: Daniel Quinlan 07:21, Oct 11, 2003 (UTC)

I believe the page at Prime Minister of the United Kingdom is just wrong. My book disagrees, as does http://www.btinternet.com/~spansoft/data/tl_brpm.txt -- both of my sources agree with one another. In particular, take a look at the dates regarding Pitt the Elder and Lord Bute. (1757)

Posted by: LirQ 05:40, 1 February 2005

(Lengthier material and discussion has been moved to Talk:Suicide bombing by Wapcaplet 23:04, 5 Jan 2004 (UTC))

• Item: Homicide bombing
• Talk: Talk:Suicide bombing
• Description: It contains a lot of information POV'ed info (when Wik reverts it), ignoring other factual part of the term. It leaves out information which is not particularly difficult to verify. It is being reverted constantly by Wik who is known to write POV'ed on this topic. I have strived to include the comments by him, but to no avail, could someone please peer review the article (and check the history and the talk pages)
• Posted by: reddi 01:34, 26 Sep 2003 (UTC)

I naively left something on the talk page for the Nathanael West entry that this is going to duplicate: I did the best I could from what I could find, but information is contradictory and insufficient. The best that can be said is that people looking for information on this author from Wikipedia are no longer going to have to go away completely empty-handed.

Has anyone read Logan's Run? If so, take a look and what I've done. It's ages since I read it, but I've been bold and put down what I could. Cgs

responses moved to Talk:Logan's Run

I know that generally we don't want pages on songs with lyrics listed, but have a look at what I've done with Billy Joel's We Didn't Start the Fire. It needs work (not all the links are right - perhaps an American might have more insight), but I think it's a great starting point for browsing.

Posted by: CGS 17:16, 25 Aug 2003 (UTC).

I like the page, but I'm still worried whether it is ok from a copyright perspective. Andre Engels 09:43, 30 Aug 2003 (UTC)

It's a great article, but I believe it is a copyright violation, unfortunately. I have listed it as such. You could try getting permission for the article from the copyright owner. Daniel Quinlan 06:40, Nov 4, 2003 (UTC)

I think that there's probably a reasonable expectation of fair use when compiling an encyclopedia, especially when the majority of the song is a list of places and people. I like the compromise of leaving just the links until permission is secured from the copyright holder. You could also link to a site with the full lyrics... Voyager640 16:09, 20 Jan 2004 (UTC)

It's too good not to have here. I hope you'll pursue permission. Denni 08:29, 2004 Feb 17 (UTC)

I've extensively reworked some very obscure 1911 Britannica text, but I'd really like another set of eyes to read it and see if it makes sense. Topic is Neoplatonic philosophers and ideas are complicated. Wikipedia:Peer review/Category:Cold War people/archive1