Wikipedia:Peer review/August 2007

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

Victoria Wood As Seen On TV

[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because…

It's an article I've been working on for a long time, and as one of the most acclaimed British TV comedy shows of recent decades, I think this subject deserves a detailed and thorough page to go with it.

Does it need more sections? Is the structure okay? The use of language?

In fact I'd be most appreciative for any advice on how to improve this labour of love.

Thanks,

bingo99] Bingo99 05:27, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good work so far. It can be improved by formating the references using the cite templates. The JPStalk to me 10:21, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This has now reached 'Good Article' status. I would be grateful if it could be looked at again with an attempt to bring it up to 'A-Class' status - Bingo99 19:59, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hiberno-English

[edit]

Howth575 23:17, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Javascript-assisted review

[edit]

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

  • Please expand the lead to conform with guidelines at Wikipedia:Lead. The article should have an appropriate number of paragraphs as is shown on WP:LEAD, and should adequately summarize the article.[?]
  • Consider adding more links to the article; per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (links) and Wikipedia:Build the web, create links to relevant articles.[?]
  • This article has no or few images. Please see if there are any free use images that fall under the Wikipedia:Image use policy and fit under one of the Wikipedia:Image copyright tags that can be uploaded. To upload images on Wikipedia, go to Special:Upload; to upload non-fair use images on the Wikimedia Commons, go to commons:special:upload.[?]
  • If there is not a free use image in the top right corner of the article, please try to find and include one.[?]
  • There may be an applicable infobox for this article. For example, see Template:Infobox Person, Template:Infobox School, or Template:Infobox City.[?] (Note that there might not be an applicable infobox; remember that these suggestions are not generated manually)
  • Please reorder/rename the last few sections to follow guidelines at Wikipedia:Guide to layout.[?]
  • There are a few occurrences of weasel words in this article- please observe WP:AWT. Certain phrases should specify exactly who supports, considers, believes, etc., such a view.
    • allege
    • apparently
    • might be weasel words, and should be provided with proper citations (if they already do, or are not weasel terms, please strike this comment).[?]
  • Watch for redundancies that make the article too wordy instead of being crisp and concise. (You may wish to try Tony1's redundancy exercises.)
    • While additive terms like “also”, “in addition”, “additionally”, “moreover”, and “furthermore” may sometimes be useful, overusing them when they aren't necessary can instead detract from the brilliancy of the article. This article has 41 additive terms, a bit too much.
    • Vague terms of size often are unnecessary and redundant - “some”, “a variety/number/majority of”, “several”, “a few”, “many”, “any”, and “all”. For example, “All pigs are pink, so we thought of a number of ways to turn them green.”
  • The script has spotted the following contractions: isn't, won't, doesn't, Don't, don't, doesn't, didn't, if these are outside of quotations, they should be expanded.
  • Please ensure that the article has gone through a thorough copyediting so that it exemplifies some of Wikipedia's best work. See also User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 1a.[?]

You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, DrKiernan 15:16, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ray Emery

[edit]

Just passed GA-status, and the reviewer thought it was on its for FA status. I'd like some input on how the article could be improved even more. --Клоун 14:49, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by LordHarris

[edit]
  • The article looks good but just a few points. Firstly about its comprehensiveness - theres no information on his life outside of hockey. Im aware the article is about a hockey player but it is also a biography, is there no information available about his childhood, possible marriage, parents, school etc?
    • I found a source here that might have some insight (it's already used 6 times in the article). I'll write in a new section today or after my WikiBreak.
  • Secondly I think the following sentance could also be rewritten as its a bit all over the place - "He was suspended for 3 games for a stick swinging attack on Michel Ouellet of the Wilkes-Barre/Scranton Penguins[8], and he had an ugly altercation with Denis Hamel of the Rochester Americans, after a racial slur was said. [8]" Perhaps this could be split into two sentances and the wording changed slightly?
  • Finally think the following sentance also needs clarification: "Emery subsequently played for the Senators in the playoffs as well, losing to Buffalo in 5 games, but acquired his first playoff experience." - shouldnt it be acquiring and this could do with a reference. LordHarris 11:51, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • It should say first NHL playoff experience... but I don't think a ref is that needed there, as it is mentioned further article (a check of the statistics "says it all".

Comments by Z1720

[edit]
  • This article has really improved from the last time I reviewed it. However, it is not up to FA status yet. First, I am confused by these two sentences: "He started playing hockey relatively late, at 17" (found in the lead) and "He originally played defence, but switched to goaltender at nine years old due to a shortage of players in his league" How can he switch positions at nine-years old when he did not start playing until he was 17? This needs to be varified
  • Secondly, what style of goaltender is Emery? Is he stand-up, butterfly, etc.
  • Lastly, these sentences should be re-written, as it is choppy and does not flow: "He has numerous tattoos. They include the initials of his parents, Charlene and Paul, and younger brothers Andrew and Nicholas. He has an African symbol for the number one, his jersey number with the Senators, and his nickname "Razor" written across his chest. He also has a tattoo representing his birth symbol, Libra." Perhaps you can combine the first two sentences, and add a connecting word to the sentence about the African symbol, like "also" or "in addition" Z1720 05:12, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

James Milner

[edit]

Ultimately I’d like to get this to featured status but obviously there is a way to go. Right now I’m more just wanting to know if the info that is there is ok. At the moment I’m struggling to find anything to put in the “Style of play” and “off the pitch” sections. But clearly as his career develops I’ll be able to add more. Unfortunately I’m away for the next two weeks so I won’t be able to address any issues until then. Buc 21:40, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Some comments

[edit]

The depth in coverage is definitely there from my first glance at the article. I will try to fix as many phrasing and spelling issues as I can. I will not be modifying the substance, just minor fixes, so don't worry about me chopping off content. I have however, removed some parts which I found to be over-detailed or insignificant encyclopedically, but again, they won't be noticeable. Here's some of my suggestions:

  1. The original lead overdetailed certain things which shouldn't have made the lead. I've rewritten the lead together with a couple other editors.
  2. As a matter of style, season-by-season analyses of a player seldom finds favour with picky editors. Personally I think it's fine, but many others (from my personal experience) will prefer a more thematic organisation of the content. Something along the lines of "early career", "success with Leeds" (purely hypothetical suggestions!) could do. Or if you prefer the less fanciful, simply "Leeds" and "Newcastle" suffices. When his Newcastle career expands of course, subheadings should be added to give meaning to the content.
  3. Another way to organise content is to divide club and international career. In several good football articles though, the preference is to integrate the content (e.g. Gilberto Silva, Thierry Henry. To me the former (for an e.g. see Cesc Fabregas) is easier to manage, but it's up to you. I say it's easier to manage because it takes quite a bit of skill and thinking to present information on his international career whilst in the middle of presenting info on his club career. See the original 2003-04 section as an e.g. -- I shall try and tie in the content for this one.
  4. While I try to fix spelling/grammar issues when I see them, you might want to get somebody who's got solid copyediting experience to tighten the prose, and ensure logical and grammatical consistencies.
  5. In the same vein, while I've tried to make the prose flow better, the job's not yet complete.
  6. The whole transfer trail in the 2005-06 section can, and must be summarised. The details are not particularly important, and they make the 2005-06 section much longer than other sections.
  7. The "off the pitch" section needs serious attention. It doesn't deal strictly with his life off the pitch, and contains many statements of opinion.
  8. On the other hand, here's a little checklist of what I think is good (but still requires some improvements) about the article:
  • coverage -- as already mentioned the coverage is impressive, although I should say I'm not the best judge of what Milner has accomplished -- I support a different club heh.
  • citations -- although one should always check for internal consistency -- common sense and benefits other editors.
    • E.g. footnotes 36 and 37.
    • Also consider if it's possible to provide refs for games/goals mentioned. Won't hurt and perhaps necessary. After all, statistics being factual should be verifiable to ensure accuracy.
  • NPOV -- for the most part, save for some instances, which I will help tone down. But there are some which I can't:
    • E.g. "His desire, ability with both feet and confidence in the game impressed many reporters." -- people are going to ask, impressed who? Can you prove it?
    • Somewhat similarly, "Milner has made 28 appearances for the England U21 side and is expected to be called up to play for the national side at some piont." The second half is speculative, or original research, unless you can demonstrate attribution.
    • "Milner was generally seen as a successful signing despite Villa having a disappointing season." -- best to attribute (to some specific, reputable source), otherwise it's just an opinion.
    • "Glenn Roeder was criticised for the way he had handled the negotiations with Villa, but refused to apologise." -- source needed.
See #22 Buc 16:28, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Automated Peer Review

[edit]

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

You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, Davnel03 11:51, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sir-Nobby

[edit]

I've gone through it and improved grammar, made a few copyedits and added endashes. I think improvements needed are:

  • Quite a few citations needed, such as "His desire, ability with both feet and confidence in the game impressed many reporters", "Supporters were also excited by Milner's performance" and "Tottenham Hotspur, Aston Villa and Everton all expressed an interest in him". There's probably more.
  • It's already quite a long article considering his age. To avoid it from becoming too bulky, some information could be cut down or removed altogether. For instance some of the goals mentioned weren't very significant (in the 06-07 season it could say "Milner scored four goals in four successive home matches"), negotiations between Villa and Newcastle are too detailed and could just be replaced with something like "negotiations between the two clubs broke down at the eleventh hour".
  • I would get rid of the season headings and call that whole section 'Early career'.
    • I did try that, but it just didn't look right. A bit deunting and hard to follow. Also Chensiyuan said I should put more sections in. Buc 20:26, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Style of play a bit more information. Stats like pass completion rate or tackling succession could be used to back up what has been said about his passing and tackling ability. As I said on the discussion page, these can by found on Sky's Opta audit.
  • Off the pitch similarly is lacking in information and some of it would be better suited in the football section, such as Souness' quote and his thoughts on Under-21 racism. "He takes an easy-going and optimistic approach to football" - I'm not sure what's meant by this, it should be made clearer with a reference. Also, is this supposed approach related to his character and personality off the pitch? If not it would be better suited in the style of play section. There is some more detailed info on his interests outside of football inthe 442 interview, which could be used to add to this section.

Those are the main improvements needed to be made as far as I can see. Apart from that it looks like it's shaping up to become a very good article. Good work Buc. Sir-Nobby 17:08, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dave101

[edit]
  • Some statements need citation. "The recall of Milner to Newcastle at the start of the 2006–07 season was generally received positively by Newcastle supporters" is one example. "Milner has always expressed praise for his team mates and managers" is another example.
  • The line from Off the Pitch, "In June 2007 he expressed hope that Uefa would take action following allegations of racism from fans at the European Under 21 Championship but that he was not in any position to suggest what the action should be" should probably be integrated into career section. Also put "UEFA" in caps and wikilink it.
  • "He was a season ticket holder at Leeds United before becoming a ball boy at the club." This isn't really relevant for the lead in my opinion.
  • Also from the lead: "His agent is PFA deputy chief executive Mick McGuire." I can't find this mentioned elsewhere, information in the lead needs to be covered further down in the article.
  • Use – for the year ranges (e.g. 2002-2004) in the infobox. Ditto for the stats table further down.

Overall the article looks in good shape, keep up the good work. Dave101→talk  17:31, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oldelpaso

[edit]

Getting this to FA status - or more specifically, keeping it there - will be a challenge; at 21 Milner is a fraction of the way through his career, making it likely the information will become outdated. That said, the article is in good shape in terms of comprehensiveness and isn't too far from Good Article level. Specific comments:

  • I guess I'm one of the people Chensiyuan is talking about in terms of disliking season by season subsections. The regularity with which the section headers arrive breaks the flow IMO. The substub nature of the 2007–08 season section emphasises one of the weaknesses of the approach. Dividing by club would be better IMO.
  • Ensure the article is given a thorough spellcheck. The latest version of Firefox has a built-in spellchecker, and similar add-ons for IE are also available.
  • There's a problem with the first two references - they both link to the same thing.
  • Blogs should not be used as references.
  • His earliest memory is watching them win the FA Youth Cup in 1993. It seems unlikely that something which happened when he was halfway through primary school is his first memory.
  • When Milner was 10 he officially joined the Leeds United Academy - implies that he joined Leeds unofficially at some stage.
  • Supporters were also excited by Milner's performance, having already seen the emergence of Michael Owen and Wayne Rooney at similar ages. - has a whiff of POV. Could perhaps be retained if put something like "Milners performance prompted comparisons to England internationals Michael Owen and Wayne Rooney, who also came to prominence as teenagers". Provided there's a reference to back it up, that is.
  • On several occasions, sentences are padded out with information we have already been given e.g. the young midfielder scored with a powerful 18 yard shot, Claudio Ranieri said after the game that the Englishman had performed like a much more experienced player - we have already been told that he was young and is English.
  • The style of play section has a number of POV issues e.g.Milner has always had a positive and unselfish attitude towards his team mates. A number of phrases lack attribution :He has been described as being "a good reader of the game", He is regarded as a player with a fair amount of pace - by whom? While the section waxes lyrical about his positive attributes, it glosses over weaknesses, like when defensive ability is mentioned.
  • The only occasion when possible dislike for him has been expressed is when Graeme Souness, his manager at the time said "we’ll never win anything with a team full of James Milners" it is possible however that he was saying because of Milner's lack of experience. - Burn this POV-ridden sentence with fire.
  • In June 2007 he expressed hope that Uefa would take action following allegations of racism from fans at the European Under 21 Championship but that he was not in any position to suggest what the action should be. - This sentence tells us very little about Milner.
  • He scored his first goal of the season in Newcastle's 2–2 draw with Manchester United on 1 January. It was a goal, scored from 25 yards away... One of several examples of tautology. Such repetition should be avoided.

Hope this helps. Oldelpaso 18:25, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment 2

[edit]

Wow, this article has certainly drawn a lot of feedback! Anyway, I think the article is in a nice shape now. My only grouse is that it is a *little* bland. But at least that avoids POV problems! Good job, although I would also add that, given Milner is still young, one's got to watch out for this article ballooning into a juggernaut. I think as seasons go by, sections will be condensed naturally so it's still all good. Chensiyuan 12:53, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Leeds insisted that he would not be sold, Milner was not informed that they were planning selling him and the then chairman referred to him as "the future of Leeds"." -- this sentence does not sound right, but I can't quite correct it because I'm not sure what it means. Chensiyuan 10:54, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jack Sparrow

[edit]

I might as well begin a review of my work, copyedited by PNW Raven and a few others, regarding one of the most intriguing characters in recent film history. I rewrote this after viewing Pirates of the Caribbean: At World's End, modelling it on Palpatine. Alientraveller 19:24, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Automated Peer Review

[edit]

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

You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, Davnel03 11:47, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okay I don't see the need for a header as this is just one comment. Overall I'd say this article is fine, and in my view, is actually better than Palpatine. That said, some mention of Sparrow merchandise could be made - action figures etc. That seems to be the only thing that Palpatine has that this doesn't. Gran2 08:18, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I thought it was a really informative article. However, I think parts of it need to be re-written to be more out of universe. See Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_(writing_about_fiction). Good luck! Karanacs 20:58, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of prep-to-pro players

[edit]

Just wanting to know what people think of this page. I've tried to make it as iformative as possible, and tried to make all links active. 44 05:08, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're never supposed to include wikilinks in section headings; the whole thing should be converted to a table to avoid the section headings. The List is also completely uncited, so it wouldn't make GA. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:37, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Agree. In fact, as it's a list, there's no "Good List" status - you might want to look at Featured Lists for inspiration on the standards to aim for. BencherliteTalk 12:45, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Automated Peer Review

[edit]

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

You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, Davnel03 15:01, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fire Emblem

[edit]

This is the first article I nominated for peer review. This is for the purpose of nominating Fire Emblem as a featured article. I want the Fire Emblem series to be more recognizable to the English speaking audiences. The peer review will help reach this goal. Decimus Tedius Regio Zanarukando 00:07, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To achieve FA, more out of universe information must be written in. Interviews with the developers on why they chose this path, or this route. This is kind of hard to synthesis in the broad series page, but something is better than nothing. Also, include commentary on the series as whole. For instance, I read on the Famicom Wars (NES) articel that that game supposedly inspired Fire Emblem, and on the surface have played handheld versions of both series and noticed that they seem to run the same engine, have the same concept, etc. Does this story have any merit? hbdragon88 06:02, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'd love to have a development section, or more information in its history. To my honest knowledge, I can't find that sort of information anywhere on the web. That sort of information on Fire Emblem can't be cited easily. It's exacerbated by Fire Emblem's unique Western-Eastern releases. The closest that I can find to interviews is just minor interviews withsome translators, and the info there is barely notable. Ashnard Talk Contribs 14:12, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Automated Peer Review

[edit]

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

You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, Davnel03 15:14, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have edited the article to clean up contractions, dates, and reference placement. I don't feel that the heading concerns can be dealt with – the heading "The Fire Emblem" does not refer to the article title, but a specific item by the same name. I haven't worked on the other items. Infernal Inferno 19:21, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The problem with the automated review is that they notify you about the nuances of MoS errors, yet there is no info on the general direction of an article. How the content can be improved; what needs expanding; what can be designated as minutiae. I'm sorry, but I'm just not in favour of automated review; I don't feel that it can really be called a review. Ashnard Talk Contribs 19:28, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I would say that by itself the automated review isn't extremely helpful. However, some of the nuances it points out are likely to be missed by the average human reader so it does help improve in the presentation, if not content, deparment. However, we really need some human input. I have left a message at WP:VG talk to that effect which will hopefully draw some human reviewers. Infernal Inferno 22:08, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ōkami

[edit]

Article information is stable, I've cleaned up plot and characters, added some appropriate images, and mass-cleaned-up the references. Looking for any other areas lacking for taking the article to GA and beyond. (I do note that the gameplay section can take a few more references). --Masem 18:07, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

UnaLaguna

[edit]

Aiming for GA is certainly a good place to start, and I definitely believe this article is within the scope of such a rating. Indeed, I'd say this is fairly close to B-class as it is.

As you've mentioned GA specifically (I'm ignoring the "and beyond" bit, basically because I'm lazy), I'll go down the GA criteria and list what needs doing by each criterion:

1. Well-written. See WP:MOS.

  • References does not confer to manual of style. The reference should come after punctuation. For example, a reference citing one specific sentence should come after a full-stop at the end of the sentence. This problem is most apparent in the "Development" section.
  • The second person "You" is used in the "characters" and "celestial point" sections should really be written in the third person (e.g. "the player").
  • All lists (weapons, characters, awards) need to be converted to regular prose.
  • "Audio" section isn't long enough to justify its existence. I'd suggest adding it as a subsection to the "development" section if you can't expand it any more.
  • Generally, "story" and "characters" sections are contained within a "plot" section.

2. Factually accurate. See WP:CITE, WP:RS, WP:V.

  • The sections you have sourced are generally well-sourced. However, the following sections are severely lacking in sources:
  • Lead section (although this isn't always needed).
  • Story
  • Gameplay and its subsections
  • Characters
  • Last four paragraphs of development mostly, a few random cn's
  • Audio
  • Some awards are tagged with {{cn}}, and E3 2005 section needs sources

3. Broad in coverage.

  • If you've got an article which covers the characters in depth, then you need only summarise each character's roles. Aren't there more characters than just two? A good character section can be found at FF7#Characters.
  • Remember WP:NOT#GUIDE. The "weapons" section needs trimming.

4. Neutral.

  • Are there only positive reviews for this game? The critical reception section seems rather unbalanced at the moment.

5. Stable.

  • I'll take your word for it.

6. Contains images.

  • Depending on length, you could do with a couple more screenshots, illustrating different aspects of the game. Keep up the fair-use-rationale-ness, though.

Any further questions, feel free to ask. Hope this helps, UnaLaguna 20:01, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]


A couple comments:
  • The character list here is a little different, as most of these characters are already in WP because of their Japanese legendary-ness; there are no individual pages for the characters as from the game itself. The two I've noted explicitly (Ammy and Issun) are the two the player controllers/deals with 95% or more of the time. If I were to add the next classification of major characters, the article would balloon out too much. I already ported the character list to the sub article noted in the Character section just to keep the length down (in addition to issues of writing about some of those characters in out-of-universe fashion).
  • I know I've missing references, just that I've added marks for cn for help on the print journals.
  • I've been able to delist-ify the parts mentioned, but I've seen GA video game articles that allow for long lists of awards (see Gears of War), as long as the awards are properly cited).
Thanks again for the help - just making sure I'm not missing anything obvious at the moment (outside of citations). --Masem 21:20, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Good work on the article so far. That character section is a bit sticky: as there's another article dealing with the subject you might get away with what you have. You've picked out two of the main heroes, so perhaps you could briefly describe a couple of the main villains?
I see your point about the list of awards, and if that's the case it should be fine for GA. However, if you're aiming to get higher than that you will need to de-listify it at some point.
Looking at the "critical reception" section, you might want to split the first paragraph up into two or three smaller ones to increase readability.
And please continue to update this page; it's great to see how an article takes shape in relation to the peer review! UnaLaguna 09:42, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've put in a couple of the more frequent villains, and this leads nicely to at least one other image.
Delisting the awards actually helps, since there's a more recognizable order to how and when they were given.
I think outside of adding references for supporting the gameplay, plot, and the missing cn's, I think the general content of the article is much better now. Any other comments on that ? --Masem 14:08, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I've been busy for the last few days. I checked up on the article and discovered to my pleasant surprise it was a GAC! And with reason, too. I would say, however, that citing specific pages in the game manual isn't necessary and makes the reference list needlessly large (there are some VG featured articles with half the number of refs you have here). I've got two articles to GA myself, and there was a considerable difference in the two reviewers (one was reasonably lenient, the other picked out much smaller points). However, if there is something else wrong with it, the reviewer will point this out to you and give you some time to sort out these problems. Unfortunately, as I've been involved in the process to get this article to GA, I can't do the Good Article Review myself. UnaLaguna 09:43, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's easier to back off on references than to have to scramble for more. :) --Masem 13:26, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Automated Peer Review

[edit]

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

You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, Davnel03 08:41, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Occupations of Latvia

[edit]

The article has had a major overhauling since placed on probation due to accusations of using WP original research. Any comments to improve the article welcome! Thanks--Termer 07:42, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Automated Peer Review

[edit]

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

  • Per Wikipedia:Context and Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates), months and days of the week generally should not be linked. Years, decades, and centuries can be linked if they provide context for the article.[?]
  • There may be an applicable infobox for this article. For example, see Template:Infobox Biography, Template:Infobox School, or Template:Infobox City.[?] (Note that there might not be an applicable infobox; remember that these suggestions are not generated manually)
  • Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (numbers), there should be a non-breaking space -   between a number and the unit of measurement. For example, instead of 600 kilometer, use 600 kilometer, which when you are editing the page, should look like: 600 kilometer.[?]
  • Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (numbers), please spell out source units of measurements in text; for example, the Moon is 380,000 kilometres (240,000 mi) from Earth.[?] Specifically, an example is 100 kg.
  • Per Wikipedia:Context and Wikipedia:Build the web, years with full dates should be linked; for example, link January 15, 2006.[?]
  • As per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates), dates shouldn't use th; for example, instead of using January 30th was a great day, use January 30 was a great day.[?]
  • Please reorder/rename the last few sections to follow guidelines at Wikipedia:Guide to layout.[?]
  • There are a few occurrences of weasel words in this article- please observe WP:AWT. Certain phrases should specify exactly who supports, considers, believes, etc., such a view.
    • allege
    • might be weasel words, and should be provided with proper citations (if they already do, or are not weasel terms, please strike this comment).[?]
  • Please make the spelling of English words consistent with either American or British spelling, depending upon the subject of the article. Examples include: honor (A) (British: honour), neighbor (A) (British: neighbour), meter (A) (British: metre), pretense (A) (British: pretence), organize (A) (British: organise), recognize (A) (British: recognise), recognise (B) (American: recognize), categorize (A) (British: categorise), ization (A) (British: isation), fulfillment (A) (British: fulfilment), installment (A) (British: instalment), any more (B) (American: anymore).
  • Please ensure that the article has gone through a thorough copyediting so that it exemplifies some of Wikipedia's best work. See also User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 1a.[?]

You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, Davnel03 08:39, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lithium

[edit]

I'm going over this article from top to bottom trying to improve it to at least GA standards, and I was hoping I could get some input concerning what needs immediate attention (in terms of comprehensiveness, prose and sourcing) to get it there. So far the only part of my draft I have placed in the article is its new introduction, so next is Characteristics. Thanks Enoktalk 05:57, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Some (hopefully useful) comments:
  • Many more citations are needed.
  • There are too many single-sentence paragraphs; they need to be expanded or consolidated.
  • The "Other uses" section needs to be converted into prose, rather than a bulleted list.
  • I'm an astronomy weenie, so for the occurance section I'd like to see some text about formation of Lithium during the big bang, the primordial abundance in the universe and the fact that most stars destroy most of their lithium shortly after they are formed. (If so, how does the Lithium in the Universe get formed?)
  • Aluminum-lithium alloys have also been tested for rocket launchers, and I think the Russians had started using it on their platforms. But I seem to recall there were cracking issues.
Thanks. — RJH (talk) 17:09, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Looks well done to me. I am confused by one thing: the passing mention that medical use of lithium causes increased excretion of potassium. It would be helpful to include a short paragraph explaining how and why that occurs. 08:38, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Automated Peer Review

[edit]

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

  • Consider removing links that add little to the article or that have been repeated in close proximity to other links to the same article, as per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (links) and WP:CONTEXT.[?]
  • Per Wikipedia:Context and Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates), months and days of the week generally should not be linked. Years, decades, and centuries can be linked if they provide context for the article.[?]
  • If there is not a free use image in the top right corner of the article, please try to find and include one.[?]
  • Per Wikipedia:Context and Wikipedia:Build the web, years with full dates should be linked; for example, link January 15, 2006.[?]
  • There are a few occurrences of weasel words in this article- please observe WP:AWT. Certain phrases should specify exactly who supports, considers, believes, etc., such a view.
    • apparently
    • might be weasel words, and should be provided with proper citations (if they already do, or are not weasel terms, please strike this comment).[?]
  • Watch for redundancies that make the article too wordy instead of being crisp and concise. (You may wish to try Tony1's redundancy exercises.)
    • While additive terms like “also”, “in addition”, “additionally”, “moreover”, and “furthermore” may sometimes be useful, overusing them when they aren't necessary can instead detract from the brilliancy of the article. This article has 16 additive terms, a bit too much.
    • Vague terms of size often are unnecessary and redundant - “some”, “a variety/number/majority of”, “several”, “a few”, “many”, “any”, and “all”. For example, “All pigs are pink, so we thought of a number of ways to turn them green.”
  • Please ensure that the article has gone through a thorough copyediting so that it exemplifies some of Wikipedia's best work. See also User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 1a.[?]

You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, Davnel03 17:16, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The lithium niobat in usage states that 60% of lithium is used in cellular phones. Although this might be right it is not used as niobate, but mostly in the Lithium battery.--Stone 09:52, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
alloying agent in organic synthesis is unspecific and the link goest to alloy which has no meaning within organic synthesis.--Stone 09:55, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
supply submarines and space capsules with oxygen and the air purification should be combined.--Stone 09:58, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
the double reference of lithium niobat should be combined.--Stone 09:58, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Luxor Hotel

[edit]

Could individuals with appropriate talent please review this article for suggestions regarding possible removal of over-promotion, i also think there needs to be clearer emphasis on its architectural significance. Possibly requires an expansion as well. In fact any help on general improvement of this article would be appreciated.

Jsimeon75 16:07, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Question, does http://www.vegas-dreaming.com/luxor.htm mirror WP or did the article rip off this page?

In any case, I think the biggest problem with the article right now is the lack of sources.

Then we would need to look at the architecture aspect. This is one of the more recognizable buildings in Vegas and I cannot imagine that someone hasn't written something about it. There are several articles from last month (I referenced one in the WP article) about the building going through a renovation right now. That might be a good place to start. Montco 05:11, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The introduction should mention that MGM Grand is the current owner, and is currently in the midst of a major renovation. In the article, there should be links to comments from management about the purpose and goals of the renovation. There should also be a mention of the history of the additional buildings that were added after the original pyramid. 08:28, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

An article that gives some technical details about the exterior strobe lights, and interior nightclub renovations from a few years ago: http://livedesignonline.com/mag/lighting_pyramid_power_relampingand/index.html. Speculation that the property will be renamed to simply "The Pyramid:" http://www.vegaspopular.com/2007/03/20/hot-vegas-gossip-luxors-new-name-and-new-criss-angel-cirque-sh/ Associated Press article about the current renovation: http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/business/20070712-1128-nv-luxorremodel.html VisitorTalk 05:42, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ford Taurus

[edit]

Previous peer reviews, Wikipedia:Peer review/Ford Taurus/archive2, Wikipedia:Peer review/Ford Taurus/archive1

I have recently done a lot of work on this article, with what I have done bordering upon a complete rewrite, and I believe that it is now more close than ever to featured status. Thus, I would like to hear any suggestions, to see if I can improve this article any further. Karrmann 05:53, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent article. I attended a talk at an art school by a former Taurus designer, who brought along a sample copy of the Ford "Human Factors Design Guide." This document had criteria to be used to evaluate designs, for example, controls should have distinctive shapes so as to be operable by touch without looking, and seats should provide for a variety of shifting positions on long trips. As a long time Taurus owner, I believe these principles contributed to the positive public response of the Taurus during its heyday. I would love to be able to find a copy of this document online. I'd also like to see some comments about reliability history and repair costs of the Taurus lines, since a big part of the ascendancy of Japanese sedans in the marketplace has been their reputation for better build quality than American cars. Finally, I'd like to see some mention of how the automotive press has responded to the renaming of the 500 as the new Taurus. I wonder if the professional reviewers have been as skeptical as I have about the very significant difference between the 500 and what I think of as the philosophy and patterns that went into the best aspects of the Taurus. VisitorTalk 05:32, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

4u1e's comments
  • Very informative article, with a good, logical top level structure and plentiful references.
  • Introduction of terms: There's quite a lot here that probably won't make sense to readers who are neither North American nor interested in cars in general. For example, from the lead: 'Fairmont-based' - Is Fairmont a place, or a car, or what? I know it's linked, but for something like that I don't need to know much detail about it, just that it's another Ford model. Actually in that case, is it even worth mentioning that the LTD is based on the Fairmont? We're only talking about the car the Taurus replaced, so perhaps it's not worth mentioning the Fairmont at all? Suggest finding a non-North American victim guinea pig who has no interest in cars to read through the whole article and point out the terms that make no sense to them. These can then be introduced at their first appearance (i.e. "North American automobile manufacturer, General Motors").
  • Can you specify in the lead where the car was/is sold? I see that it was later sold in the Asian/Pacific market, for example, but from the lead one might think it was a US -only model.
  • From the lead: 'Milestone design' - in the US or worldwide?
  • Is the balance of the lead right? The model has existed for 20 years, but the longest part of the lead considers the death of the model name and its recent resurrection. Should there be more material on its history in the lead?
  • Redundancy. For example: "even prompting Honda..." in the lead could be simply "prompting Honda..." and "development started as early as 1981" could be "development started in 1981". See Tony's useful guide on this topic and see if it can be applied throughout the article. A longer example is the first para of 'Fifth generation', I reckon you could cut the length of that para by about half without losing any content. Much of the second para then repeats the same information. Have a go at chopping it down a bit!
  • "with Ford selling nearly 7.5 million examples during its 20 years of production—a longer bestselling run than the original Ford Model T" I know this statement is referenced, but I'm not quite convinced by it:
- What is meant by bestselling run? I guess in the US, rather than worldwide? Overall or in its market segment? And does it mean length of time as the bestseller, or just a bestseller (i.e in the top 10 for sales)?
- The Taurus's bestselling run (i.e. as the bestseller) was from 1992 to 1996 (five years, inclusive), in the US. Again, in what market segment?
- I find it hard to believe that the Model T wasn't the bestselling model in the US for longer than five years: "[In 1914] Ford produced more cars than all other automakers combined. The Model T was a great commercial success, and by the time Henry made his 10 millionth car, 9 out of 10 of all cars in the entire world were Fords" (from Ford Model T). A quick google didn't throw up more exact evidence one way or the other, so strictly speaking I'm arguing from personal incredulity here.
- If that's true, however, the 'bestselling run' referred to above couldn't literally mean the length of time for which the car was the bestseller in the US
- It also couldn't refer to the total numbers sold, since that's 15 million Model Ts, against 7.5 million Taurus
- So does it really mean simply the length of time for which the car was sold in large numbers? The Taurus was sold for 20 years (longer now) against 19 years for the Model T. However, the Model T was essentially the same car for its 19 year run, where several different models were given the Taurus name over the 20 year period, so that's not really a direct comparison. And if this is what is meant, it's not terribly notable, either. Looking at List_of_bestselling_vehicle_nameplates, I can see over 30 other mass production (i.e. bestselling) cars with longer production runs, several of which are Fords and several of which are for the North American market.
If my argument above is right, I suggest the statement is removed as not being very notable. It could be replaced with a more precise statement regarding the model's position compared to other North American Ford models (i.e. something like 'has the third (?) longest production run of any North American Ford model')
  • "Most Tauruses were built either in Chicago, Illinois (until April 23, 2004, at which time the plant was retooled to build the Five Hundred) or in Ford's Hapeville Plant in Atlanta, Georgia." This sentence appears towards the end of the final para of the lead, which is otherwise all about the ending and revival of the Taurus name. Should it be moved to another part of the lead?
  • The thoughts behind the writing are generally clear, but I'm finding quite a lot of cases where the wording is strictly ambiguous or incorrect. For example, from the first few sections:
-"the Ford Fusion, a midsize car closer in size to the Taurus". Closer in size to the original Taurus (described as a midsize vehicle) or the 2006 Taurus, a full size vehicle? Suggest this is clarified.
-From 'Development': "Originally, Ford, as well as General Motors, had its engineers, as well as the exterior and interior designers work separately without any input from each other.". Strictly speaking this says that the engineers worked separately from each other, which I guess is probably not correct! Should it be: "Ford, like General Motors, had its engineers, exterior designers and interior designers work in separate teams, with no input from each other."? Also, I'm not too keen on "Originally" here. Does it mean at the origins of Ford? Or at the origins of the Taurus? I guess it is neither and so should probably go or be replaced by a more precise statement on when this practice was in place.
-"As a result, many American cars at the time had their interiors seem "mismatched"". Again, strictly this says that only the interiors were mismatched (with what?), whereas presumably it means that the interior and exterior designs of the cars were mismatched? Suggest "As a result, many American cars of that time had interior and exterior designs that did not match." Does this point also relate to the engineering of the car? If not, is the inclusion of 'engineers' in the sentence from the previous point relevant?
-"The premiere for the Taurus was a resounding one". This can be re-written more simply as "The Taurus' premiere was resounding", which should presumably actually be "The Taurus' premiere was a resounding success"? (Which might in itself be considered peacock-y).
I'm not going to try and pick out all similar instances - you should be able to spot them youself if you read through the article very carefully (perhaps aloud?), considering whether each sentence is completely unambiguous and means exactly what you want it to. I suggest you also find a good copyeditor and get them to go through the article, with an especial eye to precision and clarity of phrasing. If you don't know any good copyeditors, you could either try the League of Copyditors (but they tend to be incredibly busy) or otherwise find someone on Wikipedia whose writing you find particularly clear and ask if they can help you. I also suggest finding someone who does not have an interest in cars, because this will help with the point made earlier about use of 'jargon'.
  • The development methodology. The first para of 'Development' says that for the Taurus Ford "employed a new strategy of teamwork that would prove to be revolutionary", but later in the same para it says that Ford used "a development method similar to that [...] used when developing the Escort". These two statements seem to contradict each other. Was the methodology new for the Taurus or not?
  • "...and even BMW 5 Series automobiles" My emphasis. Why is the 5-series picked out in this way?
  • "If the Taurus failed, Ford would not have been able to survive it, and would have had to file for Chapter 11 bankruptcy." This can't be a fact, because it didn't happen, so is presumably someone's opinion. If so, perhaps it should be attributed to that person, to make it clear where the view comes from.
  • The Sable appears in the second paragraph of 'First generation' without having been previously introduced. I guess from context that this is a rebadged sister model? Suggest that it is introduced fully earlier in this section, or possibly even in 'Development' if it was a significant consideration in the development of the Taurus. (Update: The mysterious Sable is finally explained in the section on the 'Fifth generation' so perhaps that bit should be moved nearer to the start of the article).
  • In 'First generation', the second and third paragraphs seem to overlap in content. Would it be better to make the second para about the exterior design, and include all the material about the aerodynamic styling of the car there, and make the third paragraph about the interior styling? Since the point about 'mismatched' interior and exterior styling was made earlier, it would also be nice to have something here about how successfully the interior and exterior of the Taurus were matched.
  • In 'First generation', the model designations (L, GL, MT-5 etc) are used in a paragraph about engines before they are explained in the following para. Better to move the fifth para to a position before the fourth para? SHO remains unexplained until even later and is never spelt out. What does it stand for?
  • Should the 'story' nature of the explanation of the origins of the SHO be made clearer? According to the source used it is only "The story that is most widely accepted among SHO owners", rather than a fact.
  • What is "a set of ground effects"? I would guess that it's what I would call the airdam at the front and the skirts at the side and rear? I'm 100% sure they don't produce any ground effect - the car will rarely be going fast enough, for one thing, and with no underbody shaping what you're really talking about at best is a (small) amount of front lift reduction from the airdam. I would strongly suggest using another term for this. If it really is normal, everyday usage in North America to call such a styling package 'ground effects' then I suppose it could stay, but it doesn't sound very encyclopedic and I feel it's a very misleading term.
  • First para of 'Second generation'. 'Taurus' is in italics twice in this section, but nowhere else in the article. Suggest the italics are removed - the name appears too often to italicise it consistently.
  • Minor slip: "The new second generation SHO gets its own distinctive front fascia" should be in past tense.
  • 2nd generation SHO station wagon: It seems obvious that this was only ever a one-off special, with nothing to do with Ford, which makes the statement that "This model never got past prototype form" seem a bit odd. Perhaps that whole sentence could be removed?
  • Third generation: Did the design team really spend "sleepless nights" on the design, or is this a figure of speech? It's reported as reality, which I suspect is probably a bit misleading. Perhaps give a direct quote instead?
  • "specially tuned every panel so that it was acoustically pleasing, and so passengers could tell human tones from mechanical tones" I'm not quite sure what this means, can it be clarified?
  • The Vulcan engine should be wikilinked at its first appearance.
  • Wikilink Mercury Sable at first appearance (which partly answers my point above!)
  • Based on those two points, probably do a sweep checking for wikilinking throughout the article.
  • 'Initial discontinuation': The term "foreign sedans" is an interesting one! I guess you actually mean Japanese sedans? Although I think the article as a whole has a fairly North American point of view (as suggested by some specific points above), I guess most readers will understand what is meant by this. Is is right, though? I assume the foreign sedans are built in North America by Japanese owned firms? Are they really foreign, then? Just a thought (from a Brit - our entire car building industry is foreign owned, so I probably have a rather different perspective on it!) In any case, it might be useful to specify which sedans. The Toyota Camry, presumably? Any others? Also, how was the Taurus performing against other domestic sedans? The current wording suggests that it was only 'foreign' cars that were a problem.
  • The third para of 'Initial discontinuation' gives both sides of the argument about whether Ford should have 'saved' the Taurus or not, but repeats the 'for' argument ("mostly due to the fact that it was believed that the Taurus was just left to die by Ford" and "because some believed that if Ford wanted to save the car, they could have easily done so") . Suggest only one of those is needed, and both could probably be written more neutrally.
  • "letting the Taurus widdle away". I don't know about the US, but in the UK 'widdle' means 'piss' (as in urine or to urinate). You might want to change the wording!
  • "After Mulally took position as Ford's CEO" - Who is Mulally? (Update - he's actually introduced in the next paragraph, so probably just shift that introduction to the first para)

Phew: That's a lot of comments! I actually think it's a fundamentally sound article, but it needs some work on the writing, on POV (mildly US centric) and on neutrality in places. Hope that's helpful! Give us a shout if I've been unclear anywhere. Cheers. 4u1e 13:57, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Final comment (sorry): Some points from previous peer reviews also do not seem to have been addressed. In particular, Pc13's comments about the "design revolution that saw the end of the 'boxy' cars" and the loss of four wheel disc brakes from this review 4u1e 14:04, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mendy Rudolph

[edit]

I've cleanup this biography of Mendy Rudolph and am looking for additional feedback to further improve the article. This article is well-cited and I believe it is GAC-ready. RyguyMN 05:17, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Automated Peer Review

[edit]

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

  • Please expand the lead to conform with guidelines at Wikipedia:Lead. The article should have an appropriate number of paragraphs as is shown on WP:LEAD, and should adequately summarize the article.[?]
 Done I believe the lead provides a fair summary of the article. RyguyMN 07:11, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • If there is not a free use image in the top right corner of the article, please try to find and include one.[?]
 Not done No free image exists of the subject. RyguyMN 05:26, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • If this article is about a person, please add {{persondata|PLEASE SEE [[WP:PDATA]]!}} along with the required parameters to the article - see Wikipedia:Persondata for more information.[?]
 Done RyguyMN 05:25, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, Davnel03 17:07, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

History of professional wrestling

[edit]

This article is in limbo. Professional wrestling has had a long and extensive history across the United States. It has produced many major popular culture figures, including the Rock, Mankind, Triple H, Stone Cold 3:16, Hulk Hogan, and many others. Who hasn't heard of Hulk Hogan, or Mr. T, or gained a little glimpse of wrestling on TV ?(which isn't hard considering that it has over 5 hrs of showtime a week) Professional wrestling, far longer and wider than reality TV, or many American sitcoms, has been a major part of America's culture, and is part of our exports to foreign nations.

Wrestling's popularity is cyclical, and its current scene is definitely down. In fact, it seems to be looking very bleak. People want to erase every vestige of wrestling from their minds. But, it is still a mainstay in our minds; news articles read like wrestling events; ex: "slammed a proposal by Republicans to...", "The astronomers teamed with ocean scientists to study the phenomena of the reflective sky ...", "...the city Council decided to flex some muscle in its fight against a corrupt garbage company accused of mafia...", "...On Aug 15, Mrs. Jackson finally submitted after wrestling a virulent form of Hodgin's lymphoma for two-years...", etc.

I urge non-fans and critics, as well as more casual or older wrestling fans, to please contribute some info to the page. I know that memory is limited, and history can only be added to through multiple perspectives. For a form of entertainment that has arisen in the media and has provided some of the wackiest and unique programming on television, I'm sure that many different people will have something to say about it, especially for the periods I've missed out (the 60s, 70s, and 80s.)

Please help edit this page and provide a fresh perspective. My major concern is that hardcore wrestling fans will make it too esoteric and add jargon that will be confusing; non-fans usually won't even see the page, but if a compromise can be reached, it can be both historical, and enjoy wide readability.

Contact me personally for any questions or comments, or leave a response on the article's talk page or underneath this notice. Thank you! --Screwball23 talk 23:39, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

None of the figures of speech you mentioned are exclusive to professional wrestling. Slam is a general purpose term that can refer to slamming a door, a lid, a window, or a rock down on a bug. Flexing muscle as a show of potentially coercive power is as old as muscles and bullying. Forming a team is not exclusive to wrestling. Submitting after wrestling goes back to at least ancient Greece. Ironically, you didn't mentioned "tag team," which as far as I know IS exclusive to professional wrestling, and has entered general conversation.

I'd like to see some controversies discussed:

A few years ago, a professional wrestler died upon falling from the ceiling in an unsuccessful stunt; the event was continued. This was widely covered in the news, and seemed to some people, including me, to show an appalling disregard for human life.

Some wrestling insiders claim that the characters, scenarios and even some particular moves are scripted ahead of time, despite the presentation of professional wrestling as a "reality show" event that is unpredictable. "As fake as professional wrestling" is another modern cliche!

Finally, are there different attitudes among wrestling fans and the general public about use of steroid drugs to enhance muscularity, aggression and physical performance of professional wrestlers?

These all seem like historical elements worth mentioning in your article.

I'd better quit commenting now, because I'm sure your article could kick my laptop's behind into the next state. 08:47, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Automated Peer Review

[edit]

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

  • Please expand the lead to conform with guidelines at Wikipedia:Lead. The article should have an appropriate number of paragraphs as is shown on WP:LEAD, and should adequately summarize the article.[?]
  • Consider adding more links to the article; per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (links) and Wikipedia:Build the web, create links to relevant articles.[?]
  • If there is not a free use image in the top right corner of the article, please try to find and include one.[?]
  • There may be an applicable infobox for this article. For example, see Template:Infobox Biography, Template:Infobox School, or Template:Infobox City.[?] (Note that there might not be an applicable infobox; remember that these suggestions are not generated manually)
  • Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (numbers), there should be a non-breaking space -   between a number and the unit of measurement. For example, instead of 78 feet, use 78 feet, which when you are editing the page, should look like: 78 feet.[?]
  • Per Wikipedia:Context and Wikipedia:Build the web, years with full dates should be linked; for example, link January 15, 2006.[?]
  • Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (headings), headings generally do not start with articles ('the', 'a(n)'). For example, if there was a section called ==The Biography==, it should be changed to ==Biography==.[?]
  • Per WP:WIAFA, this article's table of contents (ToC) may be too long- consider shrinking it down by merging short sections or using a proper system of daughter pages as per Wikipedia:Summary style.[?]
  • Please make the spelling of English words consistent with either American or British spelling, depending upon the subject of the article. Examples include: behavior (A) (British: behaviour), organize (A) (British: organise), recognize (A) (British: recognise), criticize (A) (British: criticise), ization (A) (British: isation), travelled (B) (American: traveled), any more (B) (American: anymore), program (A) (British: programme).
  • Watch for redundancies that make the article too wordy instead of being crisp and concise. (You may wish to try Tony1's redundancy exercises.)
    • Vague terms of size often are unnecessary and redundant - “some”, “a variety/number/majority of”, “several”, “a few”, “many”, “any”, and “all”. For example, “All pigs are pink, so we thought of a number of ways to turn them green.”
  • The script has spotted the following contractions: wasn't, if these are outside of quotations, they should be expanded.
  • Please ensure that the article has gone through a thorough copyediting so that it exemplifies some of Wikipedia's best work. See also User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 1a.[?]

You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, Davnel03 17:05, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Augusta, Georgia

[edit]

This was a former GA that I've been working on to try and restore it to that status. I would like some feedback on any improvements that need to be made in order to get it back to GA and possibly even FA status. – Dreadstar † 21:12, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Automated Peer Review

[edit]

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

  • Please expand the lead to conform with guidelines at Wikipedia:Lead. The article should have an appropriate number of paragraphs as is shown on WP:LEAD, and should adequately summarize the article.[?]
  • If there is not a free use image in the top right corner of the article, please try to find and include one.[?]
  • Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (numbers), there should be a non-breaking space -   between a number and the unit of measurement. For example, instead of 3 mi, use 3 mi, which when you are editing the page, should look like: 3 mi.[?]
  • When writing standard abbreviations, the abbreviations should not have a 's' to demark plurality (for example, change kms to km and lbs to lb).
  • Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (headings), headings generally do not start with articles ('the', 'a(n)'). For example, if there was a section called ==The Biography==, it should be changed to ==Biography==.[?]
  • Per WP:WIAFA, this article's table of contents (ToC) may be too long- consider shrinking it down by merging short sections or using a proper system of daughter pages as per Wikipedia:Summary style.[?]
  • Please ensure that the article has gone through a thorough copyediting so that it exemplifies some of Wikipedia's best work. See also User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 1a.[?]

You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, Davnel03 17:04, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent suggestions! Thank you. Dreadstar † 17:07, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Neil deGrasse Tyson

[edit]

This article has a good start and I would like to get some feedback on how it can be expanded or improved. Fl1942 15:59, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Automated Peer Review

[edit]

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

You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, Davnel03 17:09, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Green Wing

[edit]

I am currently trying to be the article promoted to FA status. I am not sure which areas need to be improved. An archive of the last here. ISD 20:11, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Automated Peer Review

[edit]

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

You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, Davnel03 17:08, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Santiago Martínez Delgado

[edit]

-Hi English is not my first language so any grammar correction would be appreciated. I intend to Wikkified all major Colombian artists articles one at the time. (They are all very incomplete. I also have a contact with the Museo Nacional de Colombia to obtain pictures of the artists and their works with the proper copyrights for the use in Wikkipedia.

So lets start by fixing this article Thank you for your help. pgehr(Pgehr 17:36, 8 August 2007 (UTC)).[reply]
-Old peer review

Review by DrKiernan

[edit]

-*The lead contains too many paragraphs. I should join a few together.

  •  DoneSimilarly, the sections are very short. Can you either expand or combine them? Maybe the middle five sections could be one larger "Career" section with 5 sub-headings?
  •  DonePlease add {{persondata|PLEASE SEE [[WP:PDATA]]!}} along with the required parameters to the article - see Wikipedia:Persondata for more information.[?]
  •  DonePer Wikipedia:Manual of Style (headings), headings generally do not start with articles ('the', 'a(n)'). For example, if there was a section called ==The Biography==, it should be changed to ==Biography==.[?]
  •  DonePer Wikipedia:Manual of Style (headings), avoid using special characters such as ampersands (&) in headings.
  •  DonePlease reorder/rename the last few sections to follow guidelines at Wikipedia:Guide to layout.[?]
  •  DoneAs done in WP:FOOTNOTE, footnotes usually are located right after a punctuation mark (as recommended by the CMS, but not mandatory), such that there is no space in between. For example, the sun is larger than the moon [2]. is usually written as the sun is larger than the moon.[2][?]
  •  DonePlease check the licensing information for Image:Revista Vida 1940 Santiago Martinez delgado.jpg

Thanks, DrKiernan 07:17, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dear DrKiernan great advice I had done what I could. Can you go ahead and make the grammar revisions? Also let me know of any other suggestions. I will be working on other Colombian artists after I am done with this article so don’t be surprise If I come back to you for advice. (Pgehr 13:53, 9 August 2007 (UTC)).[reply]
-Old peer review

Ace Telephone

[edit]

- I know little of art, so have refrained from any edits.

  •  DoneA writer? He's an artist! * Done"Master Martinez" is bizarre in English. * Done"Raphael de Urbino" (Italian, Raphael da Urbino) is simply Raphael in English -- and WP (the archangel gets second billing). * Done==References== or ==Notes== instead of ==Appendices==. English speakers tend to be confused by double barreled last names especially when not hyphenated (he'd be alphabetized as "Delgado, Santiago Martinez"). * DoneI don't know if Frank Lloyd Wright can be characterized as following the art deco school. * DoneThe article would be better if it followed the Spanish language original more closely. --Ace Telephone 17:55, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you ACE, I had made some changes, as for the Frank Lloyd Wright issue / in the book about this artist by Joaquin Pineros Corpas- used as reference -- it mention that it was at taliesin where Martinez made his move to the Art Deco Style. --- As for the double barreled last name, is because there are other 3 Santiago Martinez paiters. --- Great help, and if you can look in to the grammar, tone and cohesion (Pgehr 19:03, 9 August 2007 (UTC)).[reply]
-Old peer review

Pgehr

[edit]

-It still need's someone to check: copy editing for grammar, style, cohesion, tone and spelling. (Pgehr 22:52, 13 August 2007 (UTC)).[reply]
-Old peer review

Holguin1943

[edit]

-I think the article is great, you may work on the cohesion, yet it would be nice to work in the other prominet Colombian artists ast the majority are stubs, I hope this article get featured. (Holguin1943 18:56, 15 August 2007 (UTC)).[reply]
-Old peer review

thanks

[edit]

-The idea is to work on all major Colombian artists; yet I will do one at the time and all the way to GA feature article, so ass soon as this is feature I will move up. (Pgehr 00:59, 16 August 2007 (UTC)).[reply]
-Old peer review

NEW TO WORK ON AS OF OCTOBER 5 - 2007

[edit]
  • The article needs to be copyedited by a native English speaker; there are many instances of inappropriate comma use, incorrect grammar, and what appear to be awkward translations from Spanish. (Pgehr 14:25, 5 October 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Impossible Princess

[edit]
previous PR

Cyclone Gonu

[edit]

I wrote this article while it was still current, to which a lot of WPTC members added and helped expand it. Now, it is an A-class article, and I'm curious what else might be needed before an FAC run. Hurricanehink (talk) 01:39, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • I split a few paragraphs in the "storm overview" section. Overall the writing is high-quality, and the referencing is outstanding. Organization could be improved by adding sub-sections. I also wouldn't mind another entry in the "see also" section to explain more generally all the terms used in discussing cyclones. Shalom Hello 21:21, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I re-titled "storm overview" back to "storm history", per the standards set by the tropical cyclone Wikiproject. The problem with adding some more sub-sections is that currently in preparations, impact, and aftermath, each country has one paragraph, so adding sub-sections would create several one-paragraph sections. Good suggestion regarding to the "see also" section, and I added two more entries. Hurricanehink (talk) 22:07, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Automated Peer Review

[edit]

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

You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, Davnel03 17:15, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Driftless Area

[edit]

I've taken this article from inadequate to what I hope can be GA soon. If you have a background in geology and glaciology, all the better. I have tried to gather related articles, in the category Category:Driftless Area. --Ace Telephone 22:16, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • It's a good article. Not being an expert in geology, I found the subject a little boring (and didn't read the whole article, but I don't usually read entire articles anyhow). There might be some way to make the content seem more interesting to a general audience without sacrificing the high standards of fidelity to geological terminology and scholarship. The organizational structure is also good. Shalom Hello 21:34, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm interested in geology and glaciers, and had not heard of the driftless area before. I have two questions: 1. Did the geological history affect the pattern of human settlement of the region? In other words, does its driftless nature make it more suitable for farming, or cities, or mines, or whatever? 2. Is the driftless history of the region the primary cause of any especially beautiful or famous locations? If the answer is yes to either question, please include this information in the article. 08:32, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Automated Peer Review

[edit]

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

  • There may be an applicable infobox for this article. For example, see Template:Infobox Biography, Template:Infobox School, or Template:Infobox City.[?] (Note that there might not be an applicable infobox; remember that these suggestions are not generated manually)
  • Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (numbers), there should be a non-breaking space -   between a number and the unit of measurement. For example, instead of 20 miles, use 20 miles, which when you are editing the page, should look like: 20 miles.[?]
  • Watch for redundancies that make the article too wordy instead of being crisp and concise. (You may wish to try Tony1's redundancy exercises.)
    • Vague terms of size often are unnecessary and redundant - “some”, “a variety/number/majority of”, “several”, “a few”, “many”, “any”, and “all”. For example, “All pigs are pink, so we thought of a number of ways to turn them green.”
  • Please ensure that the article has gone through a thorough copyediting so that it exemplifies some of Wikipedia's best work. See also User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 1a.[?]

You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, Davnel03 17:25, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Warpcon

[edit]

I'm looking for recommendations on whether this article qualifies under notability for Wikipedia. Buceph Haelez 03:00, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Automated Peer Review

[edit]

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

You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, Davnel03 17:23, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Durham School of the Arts

[edit]

I need to know what should be improved in this article, so it would have a realistic chance at becoming a good article. This is my first time trying to raise an article up to good article standards so I need someone with experience to tell me what I should do to improve the article. Thanks --Mr.crabby (Talk) 21:22, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Automated Peer Review

[edit]

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

  • Please expand the lead to conform with guidelines at Wikipedia:Lead. The article should have an appropriate number of paragraphs as is shown on WP:LEAD, and should adequately summarize the article.[?]
  • If there is not a free use image in the top right corner of the article, please try to find and include one.[?]
  • Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (headings), headings generally do not start with articles ('the', 'a(n)'). For example, if there was a section called ==The Biography==, it should be changed to ==Biography==.[?]
  • Watch for redundancies that make the article too wordy instead of being crisp and concise. (You may wish to try Tony1's redundancy exercises.)
    • Vague terms of size often are unnecessary and redundant - “some”, “a variety/number/majority of”, “several”, “a few”, “many”, “any”, and “all”. For example, “All pigs are pink, so we thought of a number of ways to turn them green.”
  • The script has spotted the following contractions: wasn't, if these are outside of quotations, they should be expanded.
  • Please ensure that the article has gone through a thorough copyediting so that it exemplifies some of Wikipedia's best work. See also User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 1a.[?]

You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, Davnel03 17:21, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Swindon Town F.C.

[edit]

The article is currently rated GA and I'm (hopefully) working towards FA. Input on the article layout and quality of prose would be great especially suggestions on how to rework the first four paragraphs of History into something which reads better. Foxhill 19:32, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • The History jumps from 1920 to 1969 - what happened in this period?
  • A few things which could do with citations:
    • ...defeated Luton Town F.C. 9–1 in their first game of the season. This result stands as a record for the club in League matches.
    • the Football Association had previously agreed to inclusion criteria with the organizers which mandated that only League Cup winners from Division One would be able to take part.
    • They were relegated after recording only five wins and conceding 100 goals — the latter record has yet to be broken.
    • The addition of floodlights in 1951 at a cost of £350, gave Swindon the honour of being the first League club to do so.
    • The ground itself is on land owned by Swindon Borough Council to whom the club pay rent.
    • The completion of this match meant that Swindon had played a League game at home and away against every current team in the FA Premier League, Championship, League One and League Two. - though presumably the promotion of Morecambe and Dagenham & Redbridge makes this outdated.
  • long unsuccessful period culminating in them being relegated "Culminating" is inappropriate here, as it generally means "reaching the highest point".
  • I think the amount of detail about hooliganism is excessive - we're not talking Chelsea Headhunters type notoriety. The incidents mentioned, while regrettable, look like isolated events rather than a recurring trend.
  • Some of those rivalries look like non-entities e.g. Swindon Fans do not seriously consider them as rivals. If anything, mentioning so many clubs gives the impression that the club lacks strong rivalries.
  • Ditch the bolded headings in the colours and kits section
  • Trim the staff list. In particular, do not include those who are not notable enough for their own article.

Hope this helps. Oldelpaso 18:56, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for this review Oldelpaso, i'll get working on it now. Cheers - Foxhill 12:22, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Automated Peer Review

[edit]

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

You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, Davnel03 17:21, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Windows Media Audio

[edit]

I'd like to know what else needs to be done for this article to gain a higher rating than say B. It's got essentially everything covered, at least comparable to other codec articles like DTS. I've made some large edits lately, adding references, consistent writing style and all that. Please let us know what you think. Many thanks!

  • The lead summary: you need to split it up, or add to it, because at the moment it looks really chunky.
  • Sound quality: "Some conclusions made by recent studies". Source it, please.
  • References, change {{reflist}} to {{reflist|2}}, and properly cite all references using {{cite web}} and {{cite news}}, etc.

Hope these comments have helped, –sebi 07:44, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the heads up sebi! I'll get myself and others to work on them. Regarding the sound quality section, there are source links for each quality level. Do you mean I should reference them in a different way? Thanks!
Yes, there are sources provided, but they aren't in the correct format. If the stuff in the sound quality was referenced from all different sources, and put together by you or some other editor, that's original research. Yes, they should be referenced in a different way. See citing sources for more information on ref syntax, etc. –sebi 10:23, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks again for the reply! When you say "put together", do you mean as in the interpretation that is given in each quality level? (ie. At 64kbps, WMA was better than...), etc?
In that case, do you think "At 64kbps, source claimed that WMA was better than...) would comply with NOR? Thanks
Ugh, did you compile the list of the different kbp levels with the sources yourself? Because if you did, that is original research. I have no problem with the list of different levels, however, the fact that you put them together yourself and said "Some conclusions made by recent studies", is original research, and isn't acceptable for a Wikipedia article. If you didn't compile the list, you need to track down the person who did compile the list, and cite it. –sebi 02:56, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Automated Peer Review

[edit]

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

You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, Davnel03 17:20, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Indianapolis Colts

[edit]

I'd like to get this article up to GA and then FA status...anything along those lines would be much appreciated. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 17:11, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • As a start, the first thing I would do would be to cite references. There is only one reference source listed for a lot of information. I would think that having no references would be a big obstacle to getting to GA status. Doing it retroactively will be very time consuming, especially for info you didn't add personally. I can sympathize with this. I went through the same thing with the Kinston Indians page. It might help to place the citation needed template: [citation needed] after each sentence that needs to be backed up with a source. I just did something like that on the Reggie Jackson page.
  • The next would be to incorporate the trivia section into the body of the text. Trivia sections are frowned upon during reviews. Kinston eagle 13:05, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure about the sourcing...I mean, there's no real reason to source something that's not controversial or challenged. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 16:37, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • as a GAC, GAR, and FAC reviewer, i concur that the inclusion of a broad set of reputable references should be cited with inline citations. i have marked several portions where claims need a specific reference. check other recent GAs related to players and you will notice proflific referencing. also, the prose needs to be formalized to remove slang speech and formalize the text, eg the "ashes of the Texans". was the franchise on fire? i have done a minor ce on the sections and will watch the page to offer more help. LurkingInChicago 16:52, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bobby Robson

[edit]

Extensive work has gone on here since achieving good article status, including getting a Flickr editor to provide a correctly licenced image for the infobox. Please review with WP:FAC in mind. It's been copyedited by User:Dweller to remove my heavy Ipswich bias, so I hope it meets with the approval of the community. Thanks. The Rambling Man 12:47, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Very good indeed. As an FAC run is imminent these comments are extra-pedantic.

  • Lead
  • Playing career
    • electrician apprentice - apprentice electrician surely?
    • Despite being offered a contract by Middlesbrough - implies Middlesbrough was a preferential option. "nearby Middlesbrough" perhaps?
    • newly-promoted Fulham - might be better to introduce the First Division before mentioning promotion, the question "promoted to where?" arises otherwise.
    • indeed he was relegated with Fulham from the top-flight - something that doesn't flow right here, but I can't put my finger on it. "He and Fulham were relegated from the top-flight"?
    • Despite press reports of interest from Arsenal,[23] and the offer of a player-manager role by Southend,[24] Robson left Fulham in 1967 and accepted a three-year deal with Canada's Vancouver Royals to be player-manager in their inaugural 1967–68 season in the North American Soccer League, believing it "...was a chance too good to miss". Run-on sentence.
    • Fulham came back for Robson Came back from where? A little informal.
    • He was selected for the 1962 World Cup finals... Another run-on sentence. The article contains a few, I won't list the others.
      •  DoneThat one's split, when I come back I'll recheck for others, but for me it's difficult as I wrote a great deal of it myself. A bit like not being able to see the wood for the trees. If you spot any more, even during FAC, please let me know. The Rambling Man 22:14, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Managerial career
  • Other comments
    • The "Outside football" section has a disjointed trivia-like feel in places.
    • The phrase "Despite this" or similar is used many times, which gets a little repetitive.
    • The "culture shock" at PSV that the Robson quote in the article mentions could be expanded by a couple of lines as it appears to have been a big factor in his PSV career - there's a chapter about his first spell at PSV in Dutch journalist Simon Kuper's Football Against the Enemy" entitled "Dutch and English - Why Bobby Robson failed in Holland". For the second PSV spell - the article reads like third was a big achievement, but at PSV, third is failure.
      • Yeah, agreed, for PSV for come third probably was a disaster for them, but for a manager to spend a single year with a club and still gain Champions League was, in my opinion (!), not bad work. However, I don't have Kuper's book, do you? Is there anything you could suggest and cite that I can add? The Rambling Man 22:26, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'll see what I can add. What does your book say about his departure in 1992? Kuper states that he learned about the decision not to renew his contract from the Dutch press. For the second spell, one simply needs to look at PSV's all time record. The last time they finished outside the top three was 1981, and since then they have finished outside the top two only four times. Oldelpaso 09:09, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hope this helps. Oldelpaso 18:34, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  •  Not done As yet, I can't see anything suitable to add. Perhaps you can suggest something reasonable from Kuper. For a single year in the job and Robson (for some reason) stating that finishing third was a "miracle", I've got nothing substantial to go on. His auto-bio claims a single year contract, no sign of sacking... The Rambling Man 16:03, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Frances Oldham Kelsey

[edit]

Looking for peer review to determine if the article is ready to submit for featured status. In particular I am soliciting comments on whether the article meets criteria 1(b) "Comprehensive" means that the article does not neglect major facts and details. --Trödel 21:27, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please add {{persondata|PLEASE SEE [[WP:PDATA]]!}} along with the required parameters to the article - see Wikipedia:Persondata for more information.[?] Thanks, DrKiernan 06:40, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Guns N' Roses

[edit]
Previous reviews:
1

Myself and alot of other users have been working hard to improve the article from its previous state, mostly adding sources and rewording already written material. However, I am confused; what can be done now to the article? Any comments and constructive criticism are welcome. Kind regards, Sebi [talk] 09:47, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Automated Peer Review

[edit]

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

You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, Davnel03 13:32, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

LuciferMorgan

[edit]

I think it's overall a thorough, well done article, but strangely there seems to not be a specific description of musical style, tonality, composition and production techniques, etc. For comparison, look at the descriptions of musical techniques in the articles on Pink Floyd and Nine Inch Nails. I also wonder if you'd like to include some comments about the band's role in the "Sunset Strip scene/hair band genre" trends. VisitorTalk 06:11, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Singapore

[edit]

This article has previously undergone a peer review.

Singapore achieved GA status on 21 March 2006, but was delisted on 16 July 2007. I would appreciate any suggestions for improving the article so that it will regain GA status. --J.L.W.S. The Special One 13:54, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • There's really not enough referencing with footnotes in the article. Many of the sections need more referencing. It's especially important to have footnotes when numbers are cited or when absolute claims are being made, and this is something the article is lacking in certain areas. For example: The highest natural point of Singapore is Bukit Timah Hill. Something like that definitely needs a footnote, I would think. Another example: The lowest and highest temperatures recorded in its maritime history are 18.4 °C (65.1 °F) and 37.8 °C (100.0 °F) respectively. The highest wind speed recorded is 150 km/h on 26 May 2007. You don't need to add a footnote behind every single sentence, but ideally (in my opinion), you shouldn't leave a whole paragraph without footnotes either, and every fact should be verifiable by a reader who doesn't know anything about Singapore. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 04:49, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Automated Peer Review

[edit]

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

  • Per Wikipedia:Context and Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates), months and days of the week generally should not be linked. Years, decades, and centuries can be linked if they provide context for the article.[?]
  • If there is not a free use image in the top right corner of the article, please try to find and include one.[?]
  • Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (numbers), there should be a non-breaking space -   between a number and the unit of measurement. For example, instead of 280 metres, use 280 metres, which when you are editing the page, should look like: 280 metres.[?]
  • Per Wikipedia:Context and Wikipedia:Build the web, years with full dates should be linked; for example, link January 15, 2006.[?]
  • As per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates), dates shouldn't use th; for example, instead of using January 30th was a great day, use January 30 was a great day.[?]
  • Per WP:WIAFA, this article's table of contents (ToC) may be too long- consider shrinking it down by merging short sections or using a proper system of daughter pages as per Wikipedia:Summary style.[?]
  • There are a few occurrences of weasel words in this article- please observe WP:AWT. Certain phrases should specify exactly who supports, considers, believes, etc., such a view.
    • it has been
    • might be weasel words, and should be provided with proper citations (if they already do, or are not weasel terms, please strike this comment).[?]
  • Please make the spelling of English words consistent with either American or British spelling, depending upon the subject of the article. Examples include: flavour (B) (American: flavor), neighbour (B) (American: neighbor), meter (A) (British: metre), metre (B) (American: meter), defence (B) (American: defense), offence (B) (American: offense), organize (A) (British: organise), organise (B) (American: organize), recognize (A) (British: recognise), colonize (A) (British: colonise), criticise (B) (American: criticize), ization (A) (British: isation), curb (A) (British: kerb), mould (B) (American: mold), programme (B) (American: program ).
  • Watch for redundancies that make the article too wordy instead of being crisp and concise. (You may wish to try Tony1's redundancy exercises.)
    • Vague terms of size often are unnecessary and redundant - “some”, “a variety/number/majority of”, “several”, “a few”, “many”, “any”, and “all”. For example, “All pigs are pink, so we thought of a number of ways to turn them green.”
  • As done in WP:FOOTNOTE, footnotes usually are located right after a punctuation mark (as recommended by the CMS, but not mandatory), such that there is no space in between. For example, the sun is larger than the moon [2]. is usually written as the sun is larger than the moon.[2][?]
  • Please ensure that the article has gone through a thorough copyediting so that it exemplifies some of Wikipedia's best work. See also User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 1a.[?]

You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, Davnel03 14:56, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cambridge United F.C.

[edit]

I have recently spent significant time improving this article and its related pages, and would now like independent feedback on how it can be improved and what grade the article should recieve. Many thanks Oli 12:40, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Foxhill's comments

[edit]

This is my first peer review for another article, I apologise if any of this is overly picky.

Formatting
References should be placed directly after punctuation, see Wikipedia:Footnotes#Where to place reference tags
checkY Done Oli 13:30, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Seasons and date ranges in the article use both 1990-91 and 1990/91 format, WP:MOSNUM#Longer periods prefers the use of 1990–91 (using – instead of -)
checkY Done Oli 13:30, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Content

History - League era - consider changing

"Although it reached 10th place in the Second Division in 1981, successive relegations in 1984 and 1985, including setting a league record for most games without a win in the 1983/84 season and equalling the record for most losses in a season during 1984/85 (33), put the club back in the league's basement."

to the following (or something you feel works better)

"Although it reached 10th place in the Second Division in 1981, the club was relegated in 1984 (setting a league record for most games without a win) and 1985 (equalling the league record for most losses in a season). These successive relegations placed the club back in Division Four, the lowest professional league in English football at the time."

and

"On 22 July 2005 the club came out of administration with a deal being struck with HM Revenue and Customs at the eleventh hour, after the intervention of then sports minister Richard Caborn, but by then had been relegated to the Conference National and lost control over its ground."

to

"On 22 July 2005 the club came out of administration with a deal being struck with HM Revenue and Customs at the eleventh hour after the intervention of then sports minister Richard Caborn. Cambridge had sold their Abbey Stadium home earlier in the season for £1.9 million; although they lost control of the ground - the money was essential in keeping the club afloat."

History - Recent history - consider changing

"Jimmy Quinn was appointed manager soon after Power took charge and after a difficult settling in period (including a humiliating 5-0 loss to local village team Histon), guided Cambridge to safety including five wins from their last seven games."

to

"Jimmy Quinn was appointed manager soon after Power took charge and, after a difficult settling-in period which included a humiliating 5-0 loss to local village team Histon, he guided Cambridge away from another possible relegation by achieving five wins from their last seven games of the season."

Colours and badge

"Cambridge has had a number of different shirt manufacturers since the first was displayed on the shirt including Umbro, Nike, Patrick, Sporta and currently Vandanel"

What does 'since the first was displayed on the shirt' refer to? Sponsors from the previous paragraph or kit manufacturer? If the latter, consider -

"The team's kits have been manufactured by a number of companies, with Umbro providing the first strip on which a maker's logo appeared. The club have subsequently worn kits created by Nike, Patrick, Sporta and Vandanel with the latter providing the strip for the 2007-08 season."

Stadium

"Cambridge United currently play their matches home matches at the Abbey Stadium" lose one of the matches

Supporters

The placement of the references for the list in this sections seems odd to me, consider what the sources are providing and the best location for the link.
"Away Travel Club[15]: officially linked with the club and provides match day travel to every away game, as well as hosting various fundraising events particularly for the youth system and sponsoring senior and youth players"
With the ref tag here, it seems to me that the source is verifying the fact that this group exists and what their name is, the statement that follows is then unsourced.
"Away Travel Club: officially linked with the club and provides match day travel to every away game, as well as hosting various fundraising events particularly for the youth system and sponsoring senior and youth players[15]"
With the ref tag here, the source would be verifying the entire statement.

for the following prose section -

"In the Conference, however, attendances at the Abbey have been among the highest in the league - in the first two seasons in the league the average home gate has been 2,607[20] (2005/06 season - 4th highest in the league) and 2,815[21] (2006/07 season - 4th). Attendance at away games has also been high in recent years compared to the home gate, although a precise figure is not available due to mixed crowds in some Conference games."

consider changing to -

"Since relegation, attendances at the Abbey have been amongst the highest in the Conference. Cambridge's first two seasons in this league saw them post the 4th highest attendance figures in both years (2,607 in 2005-06 and 2,815 in 2006-07).[20][21]"

The away game attendance is uncertain and shouldn't be included unless a figure or general statement can be provided to back the sentence up.

"Other rivals include Northampton and Rushden and Diamonds (due to geographical proximity), Brentford (due to sporting rivalry during the 1990s) and, due to their recent rise to the same league as Cambridge, Histon (based in the village of Histon just north of Cambridge)"

consider

"Other rivalries include those with Northampton and Rushden and Diamonds (due to geographical proximity), Brentford (due to sporting rivalry during the 1990s) and local team Histon who were promoted into the Conference in <season>."

Players - Reserves and centre of excellence

"Cambridge's Centre of Excellence is widely thought regarded throughout professional football circles as one of the best in England." choose between thought and regarded

Notable managers

Lose the 'arguably' statements, they're not needed

Honours

Consider formatting to the guideline for this section at Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Clubs
Note also that Cambridge won the Southern League Cup in 1969 and were Souther League Premier Division champions for 1968-1969 and 1969-1970

Records

Biggest League Defeat is shown twice

External links

You can use the template {{BBC football info|c/cambridge_utd|Cambridge United}} to link to the relevant sections of the BBC Sport website as below

checkY All Done - mostly changed in accordance with suggestions save for a few minor edits Oli 15:37, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Following some changes to this article I feel it could be reclassified as a B-Class, however it would need a thorough copy editing by an outsider before pushing for GA. Hope this is of some help - Foxhill 18:32, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dave101's comments

[edit]

A few comments:

Records

Convert this section to prose, if you want to make a list of all records then I would suggest making a new article, but in the main article you should keep the lists to a minimum.

Honours

Convert this to a table.

☒N Not Done - reformatted, but not to a table as per Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Clubs guidelines Oli 15:37, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Don't worry about the guidelines - there are plenty of FA's which use tables. Guidlines aren't policy, so we can twist them a bit. Mattythewhite 11:04, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
References

Use {{reflist|2}}, personally I have no problem with the use of scrolling references but the general opinion is that they should be avoided, see discussions here and this AfD.

checkY Done - having read the arguments on the above links, I've decided to remove the scrolling box Oli 15:37, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
History

I think if you wanted to bring this article to FA standard this section would need to be expanded with content from the History aritcle, at the moment it is perhaps too brief.

Overall, I think the article is in good shape, with a few changes you should be able to bring this to GA and then push for FA status. Dave101→talk  21:17, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Automated Peer Review

[edit]

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

  • As done in WP:FOOTNOTE, footnotes usually are located right after a punctuation mark (as recommended by the CMS, but not mandatory), such that there is no space in between. For example, the sun is larger than the moon [2]. is usually written as the sun is larger than the moon.[2][?]
  • Please ensure that the article has gone through a thorough copyediting so that it exemplifies some of Wikipedia's best work. See also User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 1a.[?]

You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, Davnel03 14:55, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

California State Route 37

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

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

Automated Peer Review

[edit]

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

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

Chia Thye Poh

[edit]

It needs:
1) a photo of the subject.
2) information about his activities since full release in 1998.
3) access to this work might reveal some information - Hussin Mutalib (2003). Parties and Politics: A Study of Opposition Parties and the PAP in Singapore.
4) information about the full extent of his activities in 1966 that the got the government of Singapore so scared of him.
5) venues and timeframes for the places where he was detained in the period 1966-1989.
6) anything from his own inside story, although I don't believe he published memoirs.
7) the description of his religion for the infobox.
8) information about his public speeches, writings, and activities in the period from 1999 onward.
9) a source confirming that he was conferred with his Masters degree and his PhD.
10) confirmation of his exact year of birth. If it wasn't 1941, it was 1940 or 1942.
The biographical subject has a email address which I've messaged to. It is: [email protected]
I have no idea whether he is still in the Netherlands at the present time, or how freqently he has been back to Singapore.
NonlisteningFriend 02:14, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Automated Peer Review

[edit]

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

  • The lead of this article may be too long, or may contain too many paragraphs. Please follow guidelines at WP:LEAD; be aware that the lead should adequately summarize the article.[?]
  • If there is not a free use image in the top right corner of the article, please try to find and include one.[?]
  • If this article is about a person, please add {{persondata|PLEASE SEE [[WP:PDATA]]!}} along with the required parameters to the article - see Wikipedia:Persondata for more information.[?]
  • Per Wikipedia:Context and Wikipedia:Build the web, years with full dates should be linked; for example, link January 15, 2006.[?]
  • There are a few occurrences of weasel words in this article- please observe WP:AWT. Certain phrases should specify exactly who supports, considers, believes, etc., such a view.
    • it has been
    • might be weasel words, and should be provided with proper citations (if they already do, or are not weasel terms, please strike this comment).[?]
  • Please ensure that the article has gone through a thorough copyediting so that it exemplifies some of Wikipedia's best work. See also User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 1a.[?]

You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, Davnel03 14:51, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Emotions Anonymous

[edit]

I would like to know how far this article is from A/GA/FA quality. I would also appreciate some suggestions on the article's organization, some sections (e.g. Neurotics Anonymous in Mexico) seem a little out of place and could be integrated better. Also, I'm wondering how detrimental the articles length is, and would like suggestions on what could/should be cut. Suggestions on improving it's readability would also be appreciated. Please also point out anything else you consider to be important. -- Craigtalbert 21:42, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Automated Peer Review

[edit]

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

You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, Davnel03 14:59, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lethbridge

[edit]
old Peer Review

Moncton

[edit]

Hello! I would like this article reviewed with Featured Article regulations in mind. Recently we achived GA status and were just wondering what needs to happen in order for the article to make it to FA. Any comments at all would be greatly appriciated. Stu pendousmat 21:56, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Automated Peer Review

[edit]

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

  • The lead of this article may be too long, or may contain too many paragraphs. Please follow guidelines at WP:LEAD; be aware that the lead should adequately summarize the article.[?]
  • The lead is for summarizing the rest of the article, and should not introduce new topics not discussed in the rest of the article, as per WP:LEAD. Please ensure that the lead adequately summarizes the article.[?]
  • Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (numbers), there should be a non-breaking space - &nbsp; between a number and the unit of measurement. For example, instead of 265 ft, use 265 ft, which when you are editing the page, should look like: 265&nbsp;ft.[?] Done-FlubecaTalk 17:25, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (numbers), when doing conversions, please use standard abbreviations: for example, miles -> mi, kilometers squared -> km2, and pounds -> lb.[?]
  • Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (numbers), please spell out source units of measurements in text; for example, the Moon is 380,000 kilometres (240,000 mi) from Earth.[?] Specifically, an example is 15 km.
  • When writing standard abbreviations, the abbreviations should not have a 's' to demark plurality (for example, change kms to km and lbs to lb).
  • Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (headings), headings generally should not repeat the title of the article. For example, if the article was Ferdinand Magellan, instead of using the heading ==Magellan's journey==, use ==Journey==.[?]
  • Per WP:WIAFA, this article's table of contents (ToC) may be too long- consider shrinking it down by merging short sections or using a proper system of daughter pages as per Wikipedia:Summary style.[?]
  • This article may need to undergo summary style, where a series of appropriate subpages are used. For example, if the article is United States, than an appropriate subpage would be History of the United States, such that a summary of the subpage exists on the mother article, while the subpage goes into more detail.[?]
  • Please make the spelling of English words consistent with either American or British spelling, depending upon the subject of the article. Examples include: honour (B) (American: honor), armour (B) (American: armor), neighbour (B) (American: neighbor), favorite (A) (British: favourite), meter (A) (British: metre), metre (B) (American: meter), defence (B) (American: defense), recognize (A) (British: recognise), ization (A) (British: isation), orthopedic (A) (British: orthopaedic), enrollment (A) (British: enrolment), program (A) (British: programme).
  • The script has spotted the following contractions: don't, doesn't, if these are outside of quotations, they should be expanded.
  • Please ensure that the article has gone through a thorough copyediting so that it exemplifies some of Wikipedia's best work. See also User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 1a.[?]

You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, Davnel03 15:07, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Baltimore City College

[edit]

previous PR

This article has gone through various changes, since its last peer review and I am looking for further criticism in hopes of nominating it for FA. Any comments would be helpful. Thanks, Golem88991 02:27, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have much to offer but I wanted to give you something besides the automated review. What I'd suggest is a look at WP:CAPTION to add some weight to your photo captions (the photos are great, by the way). There are also some definite places that need more citations that should be relatively easy. For example, under Alumni Association, one of the 2007 inductees... there should be a news article or press release or something you can cite. I'm also questioning the origins for the name of The Collegian - a source would make it more convincing. Also, under Notable Alumni (and here and there throughout) there are very short paragraphs. As a rule of thumb, I usually suggest at least three sentences in each paragraph. Those are all just examples of some suggestions that can be applied throughout. Overall, though, it's a great article! I'm especially impressed by the breadth of sources - college/university articles tend to have difficulty finding third party sources, but this looks great. Keep it up! --Midnightdreary (talk) 03:36, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the review. I will work on making these improvements in the next few days. 128.252.254.17 (talk) 03:37, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I left the previous comment. Golem88991 (talk) 03:37, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mass Transit incident (ECW)

[edit]

I made a large edit to this page, creating paragraphs, fixing linking, and creating somewhat of a logical progression and flow to the article. I'd like to see what people think. 44 05:15, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like a decent article, with plenty of content. There are a few style fixes I'd be tempted to make, just to bring it up to the standard it could be at. For one, I'd be tempted to link the page back to its disambiguation page at Mass transit incident, but I'd read WP:DISAMBIG before going ahead and doing that. Second, it's a pretty hefty chunk of text at the moment. Try splitting it up further, using ===section dividers===. For guidance on that, I think you can refer to WP:MOS. Thirdly, a picture would add a lot to the article. Check out WP:IUP for guidelines on that. Perhaps most vitally, some inline references would add an enormous amount of credence. See WP:CITE and WP:REF for how to do that. I know that's a lot of guidelines and generally boring shit, but it's the backbone of this place. Lastly, think about what wikilinks are really necessary. It's tempting to link every noun and verb you use, but I'm not sure we need referring to "fuck" and "shit". If you need further help or whatever, just message me. Good luck with it all. Seegoon 22:16, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Automated Peer Review

[edit]

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

  • The lead of this article may be too long, or may contain too many paragraphs. Please follow guidelines at WP:LEAD; be aware that the lead should adequately summarize the article.[?]
  • The lead is for summarizing the rest of the article, and should not introduce new topics not discussed in the rest of the article, as per WP:LEAD. Please ensure that the lead adequately summarizes the article.[?]
  • This article has no or few images. Please see if there are any free use images that fall under the Wikipedia:Image use policy and fit under one of the Wikipedia:Image copyright tags that can be uploaded. To upload images on Wikipedia, go to Special:Upload; to upload non-fair use images on the Wikimedia Commons, go to commons:special:upload.[?]
  • If there is not a free use image in the top right corner of the article, please try to find and include one.[?]
  • There may be an applicable infobox for this article. For example, see Template:Infobox Biography, Template:Infobox School, or Template:Infobox City.[?] (Note that there might not be an applicable infobox; remember that these suggestions are not generated manually)
  • Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (numbers), there should be a non-breaking space - &nbsp; between a number and the unit of measurement. For example, instead of 7 kg, use 7 kg, which when you are editing the page, should look like: 7&nbsp;kg.[?]
  • This article is a bit too short, and therefore may not be as comprehensive as WP:WIAFA critera 1(b) is looking for. Please see if anything can be expanded upon.[?]
  • The script has spotted the following contractions: didn't, if these are outside of quotations, they should be expanded.
  • This article needs footnotes, preferably in the cite.php format recommended by WP:WIAFA. Simply, enclose inline citations, with WP:CITE or WP:CITE/ES information, with <ref>THE FOOTNOTE</ref>. At the bottom of the article, in a section named “References” or “Footnotes”, add <div class="references-small"><references/></div>.[?]
  • The article will need references. See WP:CITE and WP:V for more information.[?]
  • Please ensure that the article has gone through a thorough copyediting so that it exemplifies some of Wikipedia's best work. See also User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 1a.[?]

You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, Davnel03 15:05, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Super Crazy

[edit]

I made a number of edits to this page, adding more information about his ECW and independent career. I'd like to know what people think. 44 05:13, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This article appears to be fairly content-full. The first thing I noticed was the non-verified tag. The second thing I noticed was a red link for the image. The lead section is a bit short (should be 1-2 paragraphs for this length article), and its not clear to a non-wrestling fan like myself. (e.g., what is "RAW Brand") The Lead section should be able to explain the entire article to a no-brainer with enough detail that I don't need to read the rest. Perhaps:
Francisco Pantoja Islas (best known by his ring name Super Crazy) was born on December 3rd, 1973. He is a Mexican professional wrestler who is currently signed to World Wrestling Entertainment and performing in the RAW brand category. Super Crazy has fought for Extreme Championship Wrestling, Independent circuit and World Wrestling Entertainment. He is known for his signature line "I am super! I am crazy! I am...Super Crazy!"
The career section is very large and detailed, although it can be a bit difficult to read for a non wrestling fan. The other sections seem fairly empty in comparison to the career section. The "Wrestling facts" is a bad section for an article (its like Trivia (see WP:Trivia). Much better would be to change that to "Finishing and signature moves", and to move the one quote somewhere else (perhaps the intro as per my example), or come up with a few more quotes and make a section of it. Also, that section needs paragraphs and sentences, and explanation. (e.g.: Missile dropkick - Jumping off the turnbuckle and kicking the standing opponent) take a look at Wikipedia:Explain jargon. The entire article is a tad Jargonish actually. Another section that needs sentences is Championships and accomplishments.
The personal life section needs expanding. (and why is is last name used, instead of his first name?) When was he married? What are the kids names and ages? What does his wife do? Where do they live (not a full address...) How does he recreate? Where did he grow up? Parents names? Uncle with one eye? Lastly, this article needs Images. Portrait in the box, a few of him fighting or doing some move on a guy, winning a big trophy. anything. Sorry if I have been harsh, and sorry for my factual non-accuracy (I know nothing about wrestling). Best of luck. --TheJosh 12:18, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Automated Peer Review

[edit]

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

You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, Davnel03 15:03, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've got a couple of input that'll help make this article more well rounded - a couple of quick ones really.
    1. This article is CRIMINALLY short on his pre-WWE time and then goes almost in the opposite direction and gets bloated with details the second he hits the WWE. it's a classic issue that a ton of wrestling articles suffer from and it's very evident here.
    2. The section of Crazy's personal life reads like a trivia bullet point list, expand the prose a bit so it's not just two lines
    3. Sources, sources and sources - I don't think I really need to say more right?

Just my first impression of the article. MPJ-DK 18:51, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

National University of Kyiv-Mohyla Academy

[edit]

I'm trying to make a good and eventually a featured article of this one. I would be very thankful if you could leave comments on what can be improved. Silin2005 10:53, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Automated Peer Review

[edit]

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

  • Please expand the lead to conform with guidelines at Wikipedia:Lead. The article should have an appropriate number of paragraphs as is shown on WP:LEAD, and should adequately summarize the article.[?]
  • Per Wikipedia:Context and Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates), months and days of the week generally should not be linked. Years, decades, and centuries can be linked if they provide context for the article.[?]
  • Avoid including galleries in articles, as per Wikipedia:Galleries. Common solutions to this problem include moving the gallery to wikicommons or integrating images with the text.[?]
  • Per Wikipedia:Context and Wikipedia:Build the web, years with full dates should be linked; for example, link January 15, 2006.[?]
  • Watch for redundancies that make the article too wordy instead of being crisp and concise. (You may wish to try Tony1's redundancy exercises.)
    • Vague terms of size often are unnecessary and redundant - “some”, “a variety/number/majority of”, “several”, “a few”, “many”, “any”, and “all”. For example, “All pigs are pink, so we thought of a number of ways to turn them green.”
    • Avoid misplaced formality: “in order to/for” (-> to/for), “thereupon”, “notwithstanding”, etc.
  • As done in WP:FOOTNOTE, footnotes usually are located right after a punctuation mark (as recommended by the CMS, but not mandatory), such that there is no space in between. For example, the sun is larger than the moon [2]. is usually written as the sun is larger than the moon.[2][?]
  • Please ensure that the article has gone through a thorough copyediting so that it exemplifies some of Wikipedia's best work. See also User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 1a.[?]

You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, Davnel03 15:12, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not bad...

[edit]

It looks pretty good. It's already been rated for a B-class article, which I fully agree, but I'm not sure what the article's missing from lifting this article into a GA or even a FA. I'll probably come back with a fresh pair of eyes again later. - Jameson L. Tai talk ♦ contribs 12:42, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

QI

[edit]

previous PR

I am trying to get this article to FA status. I have put it up for FA before (See archive here) and some thins were raised up that prevented. The main problem that was not resolved where the images. It was said that they were too large, though I don't know if they referring to the image size within the article, or the images were just too large to begin with.

Most of the references are to the List of QI episodes articles. Whilst there are references to Wikipedia are considered to be weak, these articles are the most detailed guides to all QI episodes that I am aware of, and therefore I believe to be acceptable. ISD 07:27, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Automated Peer Review

[edit]

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

  • Per Wikipedia:Context and Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates), months and days of the week generally should not be linked. Years, decades, and centuries can be linked if they provide context for the article.[?]
  • Watch for redundancies that make the article too wordy instead of being crisp and concise. (You may wish to try Tony1's redundancy exercises.)
    • Vague terms of size often are unnecessary and redundant - “some”, “a variety/number/majority of”, “several”, “a few”, “many”, “any”, and “all”. For example, “All pigs are pink, so we thought of a number of ways to turn them green.”
  • Please ensure that the article has gone through a thorough copyediting so that it exemplifies some of Wikipedia's best work. See also User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 1a.[?]

You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, Davnel03 15:11, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Rape of Nanking (book)

[edit]

Preparing the article for FAC. Please check for any WP:MOS problems. Thanks. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 00:22, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by BillDeanCarter

[edit]

Well, writing about this book is definitely a worthy endeavor albeit a horrific topic. It makes me wonder how many terrible massacres have occurred throughout human history, and especially most recently. My comments are:

  • The lede should state where the massacre took place right away, which is in the then capital of the Republic of China. Perhaps copy something out of the Nanking Massacre article. Also maybe mention the historical context of this massacre. Was it the only massacre done by the Japanese Army. Also, why were they doing it? Why were they there? Maybe even convey what the book revealed that had been forgotten. Although this article's about the book, it presents important facts and you want the lede to basically give the reader a complete picture. So because the history is so important, the lede should tell you more about it.
  • Also, mention in the lede how Chang took her own life which is sad.
  • See WP:MOSQUOTE and WP:PUNC - Punctuation goes outside of the quotation mark for incomplete sentences. The punctuation doesn't conform throughout the article, starting with In the introduction of The Rape of Nanking, she wrote that throughout her childhood, the Nanking Massacre "remained buried in the back of [her] mind as a metaphor for unspeakable evil."
  • Why didn't The San Francisco Chronicle publish her rebuttal? Was it cowardice or something else? Surely, they should have. Who did publish it?
  • In the lede mention that the book was published in English, and that a Japanese language edition was never published due to the controversial publishing practices, and Chang's refusal to submit to them.

Overall excellent and really the only issues are with the lede, and you definitely know this topic inside out. Best of luck as you proceed towards FA.-BillDeanCarter (talk) 20:09, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the comments, especially about how to use quotes - that has always been confusing to me but was one thing I was too lazy to go and read about. I'll see about implementing the changes you suggested and reply again later. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 20:31, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by John Smith's

[edit]

I would personally not mention Chang's suicide in the lead, though it may be relevant somewhere else. If I'm right she was so traumatised by the research on the massacre that it was the main reason she "lost it" in her last years?

I would propose merging the criticism section with the "reponse to criticism" bit. The critical review mentioned in the latter is confusing to lead off a section titled "response". Put that review in criticism and then have a sub-heading for the attempted response. It slots in much better that way. John Smith's (talk) 20:34, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wisden Trophy

[edit]

Wikipedia:Peer review/Wisden Trophy/archive2

Just got this page to GA and want to put this through another peer review before I nominate this to FAC Monsta666 19:10, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Um, still needs caps for "first Test" and so forth. I should read it more cerfeully soon. And don't compare it to The Ashes simply because it is an FA. The Ashes is in terrible shape and isn't even a B class really. It became FA in the old old days. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 01:35, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Raven

[edit]

The famous poem by Edgar Allan Poe. A couple of us have been putting some significant work into this article, essentially recreating it over the past month or two. I'm wondering if the information feels complete, well-organized, and well-presented with the intention of aiming for Good Article status. Also curious about its use of images. Some discussions were started throughout the article's talk page if anyone cares to take a look at where we struggled. Any comments are welcome and appreciated! --Midnightdreary 23:37, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Review by Awadewit

[edit]

I like your username! I found this a very good start on "The Raven". Here are my suggestions for improvement.

Major content issues:

  • It seems that you rely on very few sources for this article. Since scholars have written so much on "The Raven", I was hoping for a greater diversity in the sources. Also, it is hard to know what the "scholarly consensus" is on a poem if you have only read a few books and articles (whether you have read more or not, I cannot know, but from the article it looks like not). Wikipedia articles are supposed to present the scholarly consensus, so it usually takes a lot of work to figure out what that is (I would assume that the Cambridge Companion would lead you to other sources via a bibliography or its footnotes). I have higher standards regarding this than other editors, though. Certainly for GA, no one will ask for that level of research (too bad, really). However, your restricted list of sources also limits the article. For example, you discuss only one real "theme"--loss. Certainly there are others. I would recommend a large expansion of that section ("allusions" are not themes, as I am sure you know - they can point to themes, but they are not themes in and of themselves).

Lead:

  • You might think about expanding the lead per WP:LEAD. Also, having one paragraph is a bit difficult for the reader who only glances at the article - I would separate out the first two sentences into their own first paragraph.
  • I think including a publication date in the first two sentences of the lead would be a good idea - let the reader know right away what time period the poem belongs to.
  • it tells of a talking raven's mysterious visit to a distraught lover, tracing the lover's slow descent into madness - Can we say a bit more about the lover?
  • Poe claims to have written the poem very logically and methodically to create a poem that would appeal to both critical and popular tastes - this is a bit vague and I'm not sure how "logically" connects to a broad appeal
  • The poem was inspired in part by a talking raven in the work of Charles Dickens and the complex rhythm and meter of Elizabeth Barrett. - which Dickens work? Barrett Browning herself doesn't have complex rhythm - her poetry does :); also, I believe she is usually referred to as "Elizabeth Barrett Browning"

Organization:

  • I would put the section on "Poetic structure" first, followed by a "Themes" section and then the "Allusions" section. I would illustrate the meter and rhyme scheme with a quotation - it helps readers follow what you are saying. Also, make clearer what "trochaic" means - most people don't know.
  • "The Raven" has also appeared in numerous anthologies, starting with Poets and Poetry of America edited by Rufus Wilmot Griswold in 1847. - What about putting this in the "Critical reception and impact" section?
  • The "illustration" paragraph could be arranged more coherently. Also, what has been said about these illustrations? Could you have a whole section on them? (See here for a small example of this kind of section; it's not the best, but you get the idea.)
  • I can see why you placed the "Composition" section later in the article, but I would place it after the "Overview". Although Poe's statements about inspiration and literary theory come chronologically after the publication of the poem, obviously his ideas about writing the poem came before the publication of the poem. To me, it makes more sense to put that section earlier in the article.
  • The information in the "Inspiration" section seems like it could be better placed - I would place the Dickens bit in the "Allusions" section and the Barret Browning bit in the "Poetic structure" bit.

Minor content issues:

  • Suddenly distraught, he remarks that his "friend" the raven will soon fly out of his life, as "other friends have flown before" as well as his previous hopes. - Is he "suddenly distraught"? I thought he was already distraught over Lenore? (awkward sentence contruction as well)
  • Nevertheless, "The Raven" has influenced many modern works, including " Vladimir Nabokov's Lolita in 1955, Bernard Malamud's "The Jewbird" in 1963 and Ray Bradbury's "The Parrot Who Knew Papa" in 1976. - Might you explain how?

Citations:

  • You need inline citations for any quotes from the poem that appear in the article. There are multiple versions of the poem, as you know, so the reader needs to know which one you are citing from.

Prose (I would suggest you find a copy editor for this article - there are a lot of awkward and wordy sentences). Here are some examples:

  • He thinks deeply about this, not saying anything, but his mind wanders back to his lost Lenore. - What is "this"?
  • Presumably at the time of the poem's recitation by the narrator, the raven "still is sitting" on the bust of Pallas, its shadow casting over his soul. - last phrase is awkward
  • The poem is about loss with the narrator having a perverse conflict between desire to forget and desire to remember. - awkward
  • The narrator is often assumed to be a young scholar, suggested by his reading books and the bust of Pallas, representing wisdom.[4] This is not explicitly stated in the poem. - Perhaps you could combine these two sentences?; also, the syntax is a bit awkward in the first sentence
  • Similar to the studies suggested in Poe's short story "Ligeia," it is likely meant to suggest the occult or black magic. - hard to follow - what is "it"?
  • This is emphasized in the choice of setting the poem in December, when the forces of darkness are believed to be especially active, and the use of the "devil bird" of the raven. - awkward and wordy
  • Later works paired "The Raven" with premier illustrators. - diction could be better
  • The poem made an instant impact. - vague; it would, at the very least, seem to be a positive impact

Minor style points:

  • Apostrophe "s"'s go inside links (see WP:MOS-L#Form).
  • All of the images are on the right side of the page - could you stagger them? It is more aesthetically pleasing that way (see WP:IMAGE). Per your question about the images, I think they are fine, although I didn't check their fair/free use status.

If you have any questions regarding this review, feel free to drop a line at my talk page. I'm happy to see someone working on this page - I assume it will be visited a lot! Awadewit | talk 22:18, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Response All these suggestions were great, but I struggled with two of them. The information about how "Lolita" and Ray Bradbury were inspired is unclear and I'm not familiar with the works to comment further. My source didn't go beyond a quick mention. I also did not change the sentence, "The poem made an instant impact." I wasn't sure if adding the word "positive" would take away from WP:NPOV and, besides, the Critical Response section emphasizes both positive and negative. What do you think (or anyone else, for that matter)? --Midnightdreary 17:23, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • If your sources do not expand on the influence on Bradbury and Nabokov, then you cannot say anything more. Did you look at any Bradbury and Nabokov sources, by the way? They might have more details. Awadewit | talk 07:12, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The reason I was suggesting "positive" is because that is what the evidence in the paragraph suggests. I would expect that the Cambridge Companion would have a general statement regarding the reception of the poem. Your "impact" sentence is a mini-claim followed by bits of evidence, so the claim should be as specific as possible. You need such a sentence, otherwise the section will simply become a list of critical responses and will not synthesize that data for the reader. I understand your concerns about original research, but I am confident that you can find a source that discusses the reception in broad enough terms to enable you to write a claim-sentence here. Awadewit | talk 07:12, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Automated Peer Review

[edit]

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

You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, Davnel03 15:16, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Singapore Stone

[edit]

Thanks to a major expansion by Jacklee, The Singapore Stone passed DYK on 22 July 2007. This article appears to have GA potential, and I would appreciate any suggestions for improving the article so that it can achieve GA status. --J.L.W.S. The Special One 07:35, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Automated Peer Review

[edit]

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

  • There may be an applicable infobox for this article. For example, see Template:Infobox Biography, Template:Infobox School, or Template:Infobox City.[?] (Note that there might not be an applicable infobox; remember that these suggestions are not generated manually)
  • Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (numbers), there should be a non-breaking space - &nbsp; between a number and the unit of measurement. For example, instead of 10 ft, use 10 ft, which when you are editing the page, should look like: 10&nbsp;ft.[?]
  • Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (headings), headings generally do not start with articles ('the', 'a(n)'). For example, if there was a section called ==The Biography==, it should be changed to ==Biography==.[?]
  • Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (headings), headings generally should not repeat the title of the article. For example, if the article was Ferdinand Magellan, instead of using the heading ==Magellan's journey==, use ==Journey==.[?]
  • There are a few occurrences of weasel words in this article- please observe WP:AWT. Certain phrases should specify exactly who supports, considers, believes, etc., such a view.
    • it has been
    • might be weasel words, and should be provided with proper citations (if they already do, or are not weasel terms, please strike this comment).[?]
  • Watch for redundancies that make the article too wordy instead of being crisp and concise. (You may wish to try Tony1's redundancy exercises.)
    • Vague terms of size often are unnecessary and redundant - “some”, “a variety/number/majority of”, “several”, “a few”, “many”, “any”, and “all”. For example, “All pigs are pink, so we thought of a number of ways to turn them green.”
  • Please ensure that the article has gone through a thorough copyediting so that it exemplifies some of Wikipedia's best work. See also User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 1a.[?]

You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, Davnel03 15:21, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Peer review Habbo Hotel has had a peer review by Wikipedia editors which is now archived.

Habbo Hotel

[edit]

Relisting for peer review, as I received no response last time. I'd really like for someone to give this article a thorough review, if not, a short note pointing out some obvious errors. Input on the talk page is limited, so please, any input will be much appreciated. Kind regards, –sebi 05:33, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Box at the top: "This article or section is written like an advertisement.". That's no good. Plenty of pictures, good (although be careful with copyright, that's a lot of fair-use images). There appears to be a lot of content about the in-game world, although not that much about the game itself. I think you should shorten the "Inside the Hotel" section. i.e., you probably don't need to explain the four in-game games with a paragraph each, just give them a sentence (e.g. Wobble Squabble - an elimination game played on inflatables in a swimming pool in the Hotel). The image under "Habbo eXperts" flows beyond its section, killing the line under "Sponsorship", you should move that image up so its under the previous heading. There are some table cells missing in "Current Hotels". --TheJosh 12:42, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The only pictures that we can include that are relevant to the subject are in-game screenshots, which are fair-use images, and so there's not a lot anyone can do about that. The inside the hotel section is just about the main cause of that advert tag at the top of the page, I'll discuss that a little further on the talk page. And I'm planning to expand the Habbo eXpert section and the Sponsorship section, so it might fit after I've finished. Thanks for the review, though :) –sebi 07:19, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Review by Giggy

[edit]

Well, the advertisment tag isn't a good start.

  • The lead is to long and drawn out IMO - we really don't need that much of a gameplay analysis in it. Merge paragraphs 2 and 3, and shorten them both, so it's only a broad, broad summary.
I actually think the lead is a perfect size, but thanks for the suggestion anyway. –sebi 05:27, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That's because too much of the article is devoted to gameplay ;) If you shorten that and de-cruft it, you'll have to shorten the lead too! Giggy Talk 06:33, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
But the lead only covers a short history, credits and furniture, moderation and management and achievements in a short summary; these are the most important points of the article. I personally believe that there is absolutely nothing wrong with the lead right now. –sebi 07:13, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Expand the history section - discuss the idea, the creation, any problems in its creation, etc. That's a much more important section then gameplay etc.
  • Remove the subsections in the features section, and merge the whole thing into one paragraph on features - avoid gamecruft, this isn't a game manual.
  • Same with the inside the hotel section - a few paragraphs could summarise the entire thing. Precedent: [1] The current article discusses gameplay, and instructs, way to much - shouldn't be a game guide!
  • You only really need one paragraph on mods and experts, not all the (I'll say it again) cruft.
IMHO, the mods and experts sections don't look like cruft to me, the information in them is quite valuable. If you could point out a couple of advertise-y comments in those sections, I'll remove them. –sebi 05:27, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Moderators can be recognised by the prefix "MOD-" in front of their account name and by a Habbo Staff badge. - Does the article really need this? It's totally useless to someone who isn't/hasn't played the game. Habbo eXperts are given a badge next to their avatar to enable newer users to identify them easily - Same...and a lot of the gameplay based statements here fall under the same cat (only I don't want to cite the majority of the paragraph!) Giggy Talk 06:33, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Expand on the sponsorship section, wherever possible. This is something that the article SHOULD discuss.
I have an idea on expanding the section, I'll make the changes later on. –sebi 05:27, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Really? I wouldn't have thought so, the list isn't that long. –sebi 05:27, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but if you make a separate list article, you can discuss the hotels too, rather then just plonking them on this one. Giggy Talk 06:33, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What is there to discuss? I think that everything about the Hotel can be included in this one article, rather than expanding to other articles; the scope isn't that large anyway. –sebi 07:13, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • What's with the external links - where's the link to the HH home page, etc.?
As there are 29 hotels with 29 different home pages, the Current hotels list has all the links to the websites. –sebi 05:27, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There isn't a "main" hotel? Giggy Talk 06:33, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Nope. –sebi 07:13, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's all I've got for now...I've watchlisted this page, so ask any questions :) Giggy Talk 23:45, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Automated Peer Review

[edit]

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

  • Please expand the lead to conform with guidelines at Wikipedia:Lead. The article should have an appropriate number of paragraphs as is shown on WP:LEAD, and should adequately summarize the article.[?]
  • Per Wikipedia:Context and Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates), months and days of the week generally should not be linked. Years, decades, and centuries can be linked if they provide context for the article.[?]
  • If there is not a free use image in the top right corner of the article, please try to find and include one.[?]
  • Watch for redundancies that make the article too wordy instead of being crisp and concise. (You may wish to try Tony1's redundancy exercises.)
    • While additive terms like “also”, “in addition”, “additionally”, “moreover”, and “furthermore” may sometimes be useful, overusing them when they aren't necessary can instead detract from the brilliancy of the article. This article has 23 additive terms, a bit too much.
    • Vague terms of size often are unnecessary and redundant - “some”, “a variety/number/majority of”, “several”, “a few”, “many”, “any”, and “all”. For example, “All pigs are pink, so we thought of a number of ways to turn them green.”
  • The script has spotted the following contractions: wouldn't, if these are outside of quotations, they should be expanded.
  • Please ensure that the article has gone through a thorough copyediting so that it exemplifies some of Wikipedia's best work. See also User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 1a.[?]

You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, Davnel03 15:19, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Alexander Graham Bell

[edit]

Looking for Peer Review to get to GA status. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 16:14, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

4u1e's comments
  • According to Wikipedia's guidelines, the lead should be longer. There's plenty more material that can be included in two or three paragraphs of summary.
  • It would 'feel' better to me to describe his parents before his siblings, but I'm not sure I can explain why!
  • Re middle names (and this is probably too trivial to cover in the article) it strikes me as odd that his three brothers all had middle names, but that he apparently did not until he adopted one at the age of 11. Are we sure that the story is correct?
  • Which version of English is the article in? I can see 'at age 11', which is American English (instead of 'at the age of 11'), but I can also see 'honoured', which is British English. I guess you can make a case for either version, given the man's history, but whichever it is it should be consistent. (On further reading, It looks like the article is in US English, in which case 'honoured' needs to be changed to 'honored', and any other necessary changes).
  • The order of events in the early part of 'Biography' seems a little mixed up. I would suggest moving the elements on deafness in the first para to around about the second mention of deafness (the fourth para).
  • Some one sentence paragraphs throughout, which probably need to be integrated more fully into the flow of the piece. 4u1e 14:30, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • What's a 'pupil-teacher'? Not a term I've heard of before - a pupil who also teaches? Suggest it should be clarified.
  • "The following year, he attended the University of Edinburgh, but he graduated from the University of Toronto." I assume that he did not graduate from Toronto until after he emigrated to Canada in 1870, 6 years later? If so, this should be clarified.
  • "He served as an instructor at Somerset College, Bath, Somerset, England". Do we know what he was an instructor in?
  • "...endeavored to find a way to transmit musical notes and articulate speech." Is ambiguous. Should it be "...endeavored to find a way to transmit speech and musical notes"?
  • The wikilink to the Bell Telephone Company goes to a disambiguation page. I guess it should probably go to American Telephone & Telegraph, or that a new article should be created, or there should be a redlink here.
  • The split between the biography and the other sections doesn't quite come off at present. I like the general principle, which I take to be to give an overview of his life first, before going into particular topics in depth. It's an approach I use myself. At present, though, the biography section doesn't cover enough of Bell's career - in particular the 'invention' (or whatever term you wish to use!) of the telephone. In the current version para 9 of the biography has Bell wondering whether he has the knowledge to make a telephone work. The next para starts with the foundation of the Bell Telephone Company - surely there must be something significant development that can be summarised in between these two points! More generally, in places the 'Biography' feels a bit like it's all the bits that couldn't be got in under any of the other headings (sorry!). I would suggest reviewing the structure and content of the biography from scratch, and finding other homes for bits of information that do not fit.
  • Bell's presidency of the National Geographic Society is repeated in two successive paragraphs; Suggest that it be rewritten so that it appears only once.
  • "Upon Bell's death, the nation's phones stilled their ringing for a silent minute in tribute to the man whose yearning to communicate made them possible." - This is unreferenced, sounds a bit unlikely and is not really in encyclopedic style: If it is true, and can be referenced, suggest something along the lines of "On Bell's death, phone services in the United States were suspended for one minute in tribute."
  • Does the 'Competitors' section belong here in such detail? I was expecting a brief summary of all the others who had worked on various telephone like devices, and their relationship to Bell, rather than a detailed account of Meucci's work. I suggest the current material be cut down, and perhaps some added on other inventors. I also suggest refocussing the piece on AGB's own involvement.
  • The heading 'Other inventions' under 'Later inventions' is a bit awkward - can an alternative be found?
  • The 'Other inventions' section lacks any inline references. Can these be added?
  • What is " the metal jacket that assists in breathing"? Sounds a bit like an Iron lung, but I can see no reference to Bell in that article.
  • "investigated on how to separate salt from seawater" Is this an invention? If so what is it? If not, suggest it is moved out of the list of inventions.
  • The 'Eugenics' section has no inline references. This is always going to be a controversial topic and needs to be carefully referenced from excellent sources.
  • 'Tributes' is a bit listy, and reads a little like a trivia section. What is the relevance of the points listed? (presuambly that Bell has made it into the wider public consciousness or similar)
  • You need to reference points marked as [citation needed]

Hope that's helpful - it is intended to be! Please contact me if you have any questions. Cheers. 4u1e 18:28, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Genesis I (module)

[edit]

I've recently completely rewritten this article (along with Genesis II (module), which I intend to submit for review at a later date, and Sundancer) and feel it may be acceptable as a Good Article (certainly too short for FA). Everything is fairly stable, decently sourced, etc; I like it, but extra eyes can only make it better. Any and all feedback is appreciated. -- Huntster T • @ • C 11:12, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think you should have the year in the lead. Also, I would prefer that these be Genesis I and Genesis II, and the movie be moved to Genesis II (film). ←BenB4 11:30, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As in 'launched in 2006' or similar? That should be easy enough. My reasoning for the article titles, however, is the conflict with the books of Genesis in the Christian Bible. It is something I've been tossing around in my skull for some time, that the "Genesis 1"/"Genesis I" current redirects should point to Genesis rather than this article, given that they are likely going to have higher intended traffic. For now, I'd like to see what others think, but it is certainly something that needs to be taken care of, one way or the other. -- Huntster T • @ • C 11:40, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ramón Emeterio Betances

[edit]

Article recently passed GA. It is compelling and very comprehensive. It has 110 references and nearly 10,000 words. Only issues arising are copyediting, its lead section, and its length. Suggestions as to how to correct these situations before nominating for FA are welcome. - Mtmelendez (Talk|UB|Home) 02:20, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand this sentence:

  • Since buying the freedom of slave children cost 25 pesos if the child was a slave, and 50 pesos if the child had been freed, Betances, Basora, Segundo Ruiz Belvis and other members of the society waited next to the baptismal font on Sundays, expecting a master to take a slave family to baptize their child.

--Ace Telephone 18:08, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Automated Peer Review

[edit]

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

  • Per Wikipedia:Context and Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates), months and days of the week generally should not be linked. Years, decades, and centuries can be linked if they provide context for the article.[?]
  • If there is not a free use image in the top right corner of the article, please try to find and include one.[?]
  • Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (numbers), there should be a non-breaking space - &nbsp; between a number and the unit of measurement. For example, instead of 8 kg, use 8 kg, which when you are editing the page, should look like: 8&nbsp;kg.[?]
  • When writing standard abbreviations, the abbreviations should not have a 's' to demark plurality (for example, change kms to km and lbs to lb).
  • Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (headings), headings generally do not start with articles ('the', 'a(n)'). For example, if there was a section called ==The Biography==, it should be changed to ==Biography==.[?]
  • Please reorder/rename the last few sections to follow guidelines at Wikipedia:Guide to layout.[?]
  • Per WP:WIAFA, this article's table of contents (ToC) may be too long- consider shrinking it down by merging short sections or using a proper system of daughter pages as per Wikipedia:Summary style.[?]
  • This article may need to undergo summary style, where a series of appropriate subpages are used. For example, if the article is United States, than an appropriate subpage would be History of the United States, such that a summary of the subpage exists on the mother article, while the subpage goes into more detail.[?]
  • There are a few occurrences of weasel words in this article- please observe WP:AWT. Certain phrases should specify exactly who supports, considers, believes, etc., such a view.
    • apparently
    • might be weasel words, and should be provided with proper citations (if they already do, or are not weasel terms, please strike this comment).[?]
  • Watch for redundancies that make the article too wordy instead of being crisp and concise. (You may wish to try Tony1's redundancy exercises.)
    • Vague terms of size often are unnecessary and redundant - “some”, “a variety/number/majority of”, “several”, “a few”, “many”, “any”, and “all”. For example, “All pigs are pink, so we thought of a number of ways to turn them green.”
  • The script has spotted the following contractions: don't, didn't, don't, if these are outside of quotations, they should be expanded.
  • Please ensure that the article has gone through a thorough copyediting so that it exemplifies some of Wikipedia's best work. See also User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 1a.[?]

You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, Davnel03 17:06, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thoughts on the Education of Daughters

[edit]

This is a work on education by Mary Wollstonecraft. I am aiming to take it to FAC in the future (part of my Wollstonecraft "featured topic" endeavor). Any comments towards that end and with regards to accessibility would be much appreciated. Awadewit | talk 23:04, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

4u1e's comments
  • MIght be useful to review the lead as a summary of the main article. At first glance there is some material in the lead that does not appear elsewhere.
  • What forced Wollstonecraft to close her school in the late 1780s? It may not have any relevance; I think it was just the use of the word 'forced' together with Wollstonecraft now being thought of as a feminist that made me wonder if there was anything to it.
  • The first para of 'Structure and composition' seems to be more about Wollstonecraft's origins as a writer (first para) and a summary of the book (second para) than the composition of this specific book - I agree that this is relevant, but should it be under this heading? The summary of the book (second para) doesn't feel to me like a 'structure', but that may be my unfamiliarity with articles on books.
  • Kind of you to say "that may be my unfamiliarity" when really it was my poor organization. I have moved the material that briefly describes the book (the equivalent of the "plot summary") to the "Genre" section, although perhaps it should be in its own section ("Overview"?). I have moved the generalized comments about Wollstonecraft as an educator to the "Pedagogical theory" section and renamed the section "Biographical background". Let me know if you think these are improvements. Awadewit | talk 22:04, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, I like the revised version. I think probably you are right to suggest that the 'plot summary' should be in a separate section, rather than being included with 'Genre'.4u1e 12:35, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'liberal publisher' Joseph Johnson - would it be useful to have slightly more background on this man? How 'radical' was this book (i.e. how small 'l' liberal did Johnson have to be to publish it?) Are readers going to get liberal confused with Liberal? Have I got the two confused?
  • I have described Johnson as her friend and publisher now, skirting the "liberal" problem. His liberalism was not relevant to his publication of Thoughts, although it was relevant to his support of Wollstonecraft as a writer. Awadewit | talk 22:04, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'Theater going' - US or UK English? The subject matter would suggest the latter, although no doubt someone will inform me that 'theater' was normal (or at least acceptable!) UK English in the 19th century ;-) (On further reading, I've spotted 'favorably' as well. Strictly speaking the article should be in UK English, which wouldn't really involve many changes.....)
  • I speak AE, so it is easier for me to write that way. Since I am (sadly) the sole editor of the page, I think it is easier to leave it as AE. That way the article won't constantly be in a state of dialectical flux. Awadewit | talk 22:04, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • OK. One thought, though: I know Wikipedia articles are never 'finished', but since you are the sole editor, it is likely that once you get this to FA standard (as I'm sure you will) it will be pretty stable. You could fairly easily convert it to UK English at that point. In this case I think it's only a matter of spellings (or > our, ize > ise er > re), since you're writing in a formal style and idiom is not likely to be an issue. Happy to help if you wish to do this. 4u1e 09:23, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • That is very kind of you. Unfortunately, the articles I work on tend not to be "finished", even in a loose sense after FA. Since I am constantly researching the topics I have written articles on, I often find a better way to discuss something or a new article or book that should be included. Most of my projects are truly ongoing, especially since most of the people and texts I am writing about are so interconnected. I hope, as I learn more, to make those connections clearer. I would hate to bother you every time I made a major change to an article I was working on (I really only write about British events, people and texts). :) Awadewit | talk 09:55, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sounds like you're in the ideal position to learn another language (i.e. UK English!) :). I tend to be sensitive to the varieties of English used in articles, (probably through continuously having to revert 'tire' to 'tyre'...), but it's your call. 4u1e 11:33, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm a little uncomfortable with the shifts in tense: I can see that Wollstonecraft's life should be in the past tense, while the 'aims' of the book (if a book can have aims :S) should be in present tense, since it still exists. However, phrases like "In her later works, Wollstonecraft repeatedly returns to the topics" feel to me as if they should be in the past tense, since we are talking about the woman, not the specific works. Again - this may be a convention for this kind of writing.
  • Really picky: "At the end of the 18th Century" (Beginning of the 'Genre' section) implies only the final decade or so to me. Since we're talking about the final quarter century, would "In the last quarter of the 18th century" be more accurate? Or some other wording?
  • "More recently, a few scholars have argued...." - It would be nice to know how much more recently. Is this a 1960s/70s phenomenon, as many will assume?
  • "These scholars therefore see..." It's not clear to me how one gets from seeing Wollstonecraft as a proto-feminist to seeing Thoughts drawing on several different literary traditions. The link may need to be expanded (Or I may just be missing the point! ;))
  • Under 'Education of women', the final sentence of the first para ("Unfortunately, by envisioning a masculine role for women, one that they could not actually perform in the public sphere, Wollstonecraft leaves women without much of a place in society") sounds like an authorial view. Whose view is it? Kelly's (in which case, could it be attributed?) Or is that the generally held view, in which case it should be re-worded. In any case, probably a good idea to lose the word 'Unfortunately' as it tends to set off those of us with our POV-meters turned up to 11.
  • I checked back in a few of my sources. Only Kelly makes the explicit connection to the professional man (as far as I can tell at this moment), although all of my sources emphasize how Wollstonecraft's view of femininity in Thoughts is limiting and confining to some degree or another. The question, I think, is whether this idea merits mention in the text as "belonging" to Kelly. Since it is only a comparison used to make the same larger point as other writers, I would tend not to think so. Your question, by the way, is one that I wrestle with for almost every sentence. Attributing everyone's idea to them can have deleterious consequences on an article because it will start to sound like "X says...Y argues in response...However, Z maintains..." I am struggling with precisely this problem at Maria: or, The Wrongs of Woman, for example. It is the bane of literature articles. Awadewit | talk 10:11, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would suggest perhaps re-writing the sentence as the more general version of the comment about the worldview being limiting and confining, then. Your call, obviously, but that sentence just has a strong 'feel' of an individual view, which may set the spider senses of other reviewers tingling. 4u1e 11:33, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Although having read it again just now it doesn't seem like so much of a problem! That may just be increasing familiarity with the article though.... 4u1e 12:35, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • What I have done is attribute Kelly's quote in that sentence to him - that should cover the sentence. I have also added a phrase to the next sentence, making the "confining" bit clearer. Awadewit | talk 01:51, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Next para: "Thoughts was insistent". Thoughts is usually referred to elsewhere in the article in the present tense ("Thoughts advocates...", "Thoughts follows..."). Why is it different here?
  • I'm not familiar with the author or the work (I know, philistine....) but this seems quite comprehensive. A few thoughts on elements that might be added:
-Did the re-printed book have any influence in the 1970s (other than widening academic study of Wollstonecraft's work)? Given its content, it seems unlikely, but the influence of The Art of War in modern management seems pretty unlikely too!
-I tend to get overly hung up on why and how things got started, and on that level I don't get much sense from this article of why Wollstonecraft wrote this book at that time. There is a hint in the lead ("Wollstonecraft took advantage of this burgeoning market to publish Thoughts") but nothing more. Was it such a deliberate, market led decision?
-Is it normal in articles on books to give chapter headings? Might give another form of summary of the content.
  • Sorry! It was meant as a suggestion: Would it be useful to give a list of chapter headings? One possible advantage of doing so is that it might (depending on what the headings are) give the reader a different or supplementary view of the structure and content of the book. 4u1e 09:23, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would rather expand on the summary of Thoughts by adding another paragraph rather than by adding a list. Let me know if you think the current description of the text is too spare and I will augment it. Awadewit | talk 09:55, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • It 'feels' sparse, but I haven't read the book. If the book really has a structure, this could be described further. Are themes and arguments developed in any particular way, or is it simply a set of chapter headings on different topics? 4u1e 12:35, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The book is basically a set of loosely-linked chapters. However, I will add some more detail to this description so that the readers has a better idea of what it is exactly. Awadewit | talk 01:51, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Obviously I don't have the sources, but I'm a little suspicious of the article's unanimity of view on Woolstonecraft. The only area in which different views are expressed is that of the book's radicalism. Are scholars really so in agreement on the books influences and themes?
  • I actually tried to present the consensus opinions, as that is how I interpret wikipedia's idea of "encyclopedic". The alternative views on the conduct book and the text's radicalness are there because they are important minority opinions. (There are only a handful of scholars who have written on this text, anyway. I am fearful of making disagreements between ten or fifteen people sound like different schools of thought. This is in contrast to the works of Jane Austen or John Locke, for example, whose texts have been interpreted by thousands of people.) Awadewit | talk 22:04, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's fine - I just wondered if the consensus was so even. If everyone's generally in agreement (without blowing up minor differences to something they're not!) then I think your approach is right. 4u1e 09:23, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hope that's helpful. It's been an educational read! Please contact me if (when...) you find any of the above unclear. Cheers. ;-) 4u1e 15:58, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much! Your comments are helpful, indeed. Awadewit | talk 22:04, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Automated Peer Review

[edit]

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

You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, Davnel03 17:14, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

karanacs comments

[edit]

I don't normally review articles about literary works, so I am not familiar with the wikipedia standards for those articles. I reviewed this primarily from the standpoint of a regular reader. Overall, I though the article was informative and well-written. I only found a few minor things to correct.

  • I would remove "However" from the 2nd sentence of Biographical background section
  • I need some sort of word there that demonstrates a contrast between her attempting to run the school and it failing. Do you think it would be better if I joined the first two sentences together with a "but"? Awadewit | talk 20:25, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't think you need the sentence about Johnson helping her to find rooms in the city and becoming a close friend unless you mean to imply that the only reason he bought the rights to the book was to help her.
  • Johnson may very well have bought the rights only in order to help her out. Very few of Johnson's records are left and none from that period. Some of the scholarship on Wollstonecraft suggests that Johnson purchased several of her works out of charity, but none of them make a strong claim for that. Let me know what you think I should do. Awadewit | talk 20:25, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't include external links in the body of the article. There is an external link to a poem. Instead, link to the wikipedia article for that poem, which already includes an external link to the gutenburg project

Good luck! Karanacs 14:48, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pennsylvania Route 145

[edit]

After its first FAC failed, I would like broader input about how this article can be improved. Major parts include sourcing, grammar, and the overall readers' experience. (→O - RLY?) 02:28, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The article seems full of facts about the current route, but I don't see a comment about what is significant about this road unless one happened to be planning a drive to or from Allentown. VisitorTalk 06:14, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For me, the article was difficult to follow. As somebody who has never been to Pennsylvania, the article was "fact overload". If I were planning a trip through Allentown and wanted to know if PA145 were right for me, it would be more helpful to know that PA145 is routed along MacArthur Road, a major thoroughfare. Listing every street or feature crossed makes it tough, as I have no map nor know what these things are. If I did need to know this I'd go to maps.google.com anyways. Similarly I'd cut down on, the highway is 2 lanes undivided here, 6 lane undivided there. With that said the article has a lot of potential. I definitely know more about the Lehigh valley than I did before. I'd say less facts, more detail on the more important facts. I suspect I will receive the same feedback on my request above, as I tend to do the same =-) Davemeistermoab 04:01, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Automated peer review

[edit]

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

You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 01:00, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Apprentice (UK Series Three)

[edit]

Want to get it to GA status soon. All comments welcome/appreciated. Dalejenkins | The Apprentice (UK)'s FA plea-please have your say! 15:06, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • A very good article, in my opinion. Some things I would note though:
    1. The image in the template does not have a substantial fair use rationale.  Done
    2. You might be over-linking references in some parts. I don't think anyone will care, though.
It's better to over-link than under-link, that's what I go by. :D Dalejenkins | The Apprentice (UK Series Three)'s Peer Review-Review now please! 21:30, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lion

[edit]

A couple of editors (me included) have been sort of making improvements to this article in an attempt to get it to FA. Things are going pretty well, but we'd like to here the comments of some others impartial to the article. Suggested improvements, things that could be better referenced, better prose ideas... anything at all is greatly appreciated. Thanks -- Anonymous DissidentTalk 02:12, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Spebi's review

  • Add the parameter |small=yes to the protection template; this large banner at the top has a history of scaring away readers who come to the page to get information for a school project, or something similar. A large banner at the top of "Today's featured article" isn't the best form of welcoming newcomers with our slogan "anyone can edit".
  • Either WP:LEAD or WP:SUMMARY, it states that the lead summary should not have citations, because the information to be cited will be cited later on in the article, as the lead summary is supposed to be a summary of the whole article.Carry on. –sebi 22:09, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ugh! {{fact}} tags! Work hard to track down sources to replace those ugly, little things.
  • Conservation status: there is a big fat [#] external link in there, that I think was intended to be a citation; fix it. They appear again in Attacks on humans.
  • Clean out External links section, looking carefully at each external link, and deciding whether the information it provides adds to the discussion.
  • Look at the current images in the article, and remove, I'd say about 1 or 2 of them. Otherwise, the article will start to get very cluttered easily, full of lion pictures. Also, rewrite the image captions, so they aren't as bland as some of them are right now. Example: "Male lion in the Ngorongoro Crater, Tanzania", you may want to specify what breed of lion this lion is (if it isn't just the standard lion breed).

You've done a great job at improving the article. I believe that all popular zoo animals should be brought up to featured articles, as they are among the most viewed articles on Wikipedia (mainly of school children completing assignments on zoo animals). Keep up the great work :) –sebi 02:39, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Looks pretty decent overall. Finish up finding sources where the citation needed tags are. I am also interested in knowing more about maneless male lions. What is the cause of a lack of a mane? Is it heat, subspecies, diet related? How common are they (I have never heard of them). It might not be too easy to get more info on them, but here's a few links: [2], [3], [4], [5], (pdf file)--MONGO 17:28, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the links. I'll take a look tomorrow. -- Anonymous DissidentTalk 17:35, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

50 Cent discography

[edit]

Apart from a few stability issues (he's releasing an album next month), I think this is close a featured list. Comments are welcome. Spellcast 00:18, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Spebi

  • This may take a while (and you don't have to do it), but I'd like to see all citations cited properly using {{cite web}}.
  • The 50 Cent image, you may wish to change the caption from just "50 Cent", to something like "50 Cent at the 2006 Music Awards in California, Los Angeles, May 2007" or something like that.
Done. Spellcast 16:16, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • You may also wish to change the opening statement to "This is a comprehensive listing of the discography of American rapper 50 Cent", or something similar, rather than just "This is the discography [...]".
And done. Spellcast 16:16, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not much else to say, I'm afraid, but you've done a good job at tidying up the article. It's bordering featured list, however, keep a close eye (much closer eye) on the article as the release date grows near. Kind regards, –sebi 05:48, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dalejenkins

Don't just use {{cite web}}, use {{cite news}}, {{cite book}} and so on if applicable. Dalejenkins | The Apprentice (UK)'s FA plea-please have your say! 09:54, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To be honest, I prefer the manual format. The references are consistent and would look exactly the same if it used a template. The templates are somewhat bulky and the manual form takes up less space yet gives the same information. Spellcast 16:16, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Anti-pedophile activism

[edit]

POV problems.

Then I suggest Wikipedia:Pages needing attention. — RJH (talk) 19:40, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pro-pedophile activism

[edit]

POV problems.

Then I suggest Wikipedia:Pages needing attention. — RJH (talk) 19:40, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of Kingdom Hearts media

[edit]

This article was recently an article about the Kingdom Hearts manga that is related to the Kingdom Hearts video game series. It was switched to a list format in order to encompass all the related media of the series since the manga article looked like it wasn't making any real progress. Myself and other editors would like to make it to Featured List and would appreciate any comments and criticism that would help accomplish that. Thank you (Guyinblack25 talk 22:52, 9 August 2007 (UTC))[reply]

User:Krator

[edit]
  • If possible, find a book review instead of amazon.com as a citation for the manga and the novels.
  •  Done Some notes might be appropriate with the mangas and novels. For example "follows the storyline of the second game" - I know it is in the title, but explaining it further cannot hurt.
  •  Done Mangas and novels have publishers. This is important, so note it.
  •  Done Instead of writing N/A, make the cell in the table another colour - white perhaps, or a darker grey. N/A everywhere is a bit ugly.
  •  Done I assume the Japanese titles are in Japanese, and that the current listings are translated from that. Maybe state the Japanese titles, and move the English titles to the "English" column.
  •  Done Decrease the margin between the first table in the novels section and the image, so that the Japanese titles do not span two lines (like "Kingdom Hearts Part 1", with only "1" on the second line).
  •  Done The lead section seems short, especially because you have some real text in the article as well, not only a list. See WP:LS.
  •  Done What about some useful external links?

--User:Krator (t c) 23:24, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've begun to make edits per your comments, two of your points have been addressed and others are partially done. Thank you for your suggestions. (Guyinblack25 talk 04:29, 10 August 2007 (UTC))[reply]
Address two more points and have expanded the lead paragraph and tried to make the manga paragraph more concise. (Guyinblack25 talk 15:46, 10 August 2007 (UTC))[reply]
Have finished addressing three more points. The list is really starting to shape up nicely. Any other comments/suggestions would be appreciated. (Guyinblack25 talk 05:51, 11 August 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Automated Peer Review

[edit]

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

You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, Davnel03 10:26, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Danny Tidwell

[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because I feel that the article is on its way to becoming a GA, but a second set of eyes never hurts. I am a (if not the) principal contributor to this article, and have worked on it exhaustively.

Thanks,

Esprit15d 21:09, 21 August 2007 (UTC

Overall a fine article. If you update it as his career developments, the individual events (e.g. 'So You Think...' appearance) will need to be edited down to summaries to keep the overall article length reasonable.

The sidebar photo is dynamic, but his hand obscures his face. I recommend having a picture that shows his whole face.

Currently I haven't been able to find any other free images, but when I do, I will change it out.--Esprit15d 17:40, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I just asked the webmaster at Danny's favorite fanblog for a photo. Danny invited him to a party last weekend, and I was hoping that he got a photo he might be willing to release into the GFDL.--Esprit15d 18:11, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The career section's first sentence has a punctuation error with extra space added. Done

If there are Wikipedia articles on jazz dance and ballet, I recommend linking to them in the lead. Done

Recommend adding a Biography section and moving the Early Life and Early Career sections inside of it.

VisitorTalk 15:18, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your suggestions - I appreciate them.--Esprit15d 17:40, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Water supply and sanitation in Honduras

[edit]

Please review this article to see if it conforms with the criteria for a good article.--Mschiffler 16:24, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Water supply and sanitation in Venezuela

[edit]

Please review this article to see if it conforms with the criteria for a good article.--Mschiffler 16:16, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Water supply and sanitation in El Salvador

[edit]

Please review this article to see if it conforms with the criteria for a good article.--Mschiffler 16:26, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Water supply and sanitation in Costa Rica

[edit]

Please review this article to see if it conforms with the criteria for a good article.--Mschiffler 16:27, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Water supply and sanitation in Haiti

[edit]

Please review this article to see if it conforms with the criteria for a good article.--Mschiffler 16:29, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Water supply and sanitation in Argentina

[edit]

Please review this article to see if it conforms with the criteria for a good article.--Mschiffler 16:32, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Water supply and sanitation in Chile

[edit]

Please review this article to see if it conforms with the criteria for a good article.--Mschiffler 16:34, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Water supply and sanitation in Bolivia

[edit]

Please review this article to see if it conforms with the criteria for a good article.--Mschiffler 16:37, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Water supply and sanitation in Paraguay

[edit]

Please review this article to see if it conforms with the criteria for a good article.--Mschiffler 16:41, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Water supply and sanitation in the Dominican Republic

[edit]

Please review this article to see if it conforms with the criteria for a good article.--Mschiffler 16:30, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Water supply and sanitation in Ecuador

[edit]

Please review this article to see if it conforms with the criteria for a good article.--Mschiffler 16:38, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Water supply and sanitation in Brazil

[edit]

Please review this article to see if it conforms with the criteria for a good article.--Mschiffler 16:33, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Water supply and sanitation in Colombia

[edit]

Please review this article to see if it conforms with the criteria for a good article.--Mschiffler 16:40, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Water supply and sanitation in Nicaragua

[edit]

This article already is one of the more comprehensive country articles on water supply and sanitation in the world. I would like to initiate a peer review process covering any aspect of the article to see if it could be categorized as a good article.--Mschiffler 15:48, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Water supply and sanitation in India

[edit]

Please review this article to see if it conforms with the criteria for a good article.--Mschiffler 16:43, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Water supply and sanitation in Ethiopia

[edit]

Please review this article to see if it conforms with the criteria for a good article.--Mschiffler 16:45, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mountain Meadows massacre

[edit]

Numerous editors have worked on this page over a period of months. We hope to have this featured near the 150th anniversary of the event on September 11, 2007. Please review for the following:

Speaking only for myself, I have trouble viewing this article in a dispassionate way, as my edits are perfect. I seek the clarity of fresh eyes, and the enthusiasm of neutral reviewers. Thanks in advance. Robbie Giles 13:11, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

AndyZ Review

[edit]

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

  • Consider adding more links to the article; per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (links) and Wikipedia:Build the web, create links to relevant articles.[?]
  • Per Wikipedia:Context and Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates), months and days of the week generally should not be linked. Years, decades, and centuries can be linked if they provide context for the article.[?]
  • If there is not a free use image in the top right corner of the article, please try to find and include one.[?] (Done. --Robbie Giles 14:02, 29 July 2007 (UTC))[reply]
  • Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (numbers), there should be a non-breaking space - &nbsp; between a number and the unit of measurement. For example, instead of 15 miles, use 15 miles, which when you are editing the page, should look like: 15&nbsp;miles.[?]
  • Per Wikipedia:Context and Wikipedia:Build the web, years with full dates should be linked; for example, link January 15, 2006.[?]
  • As per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates), dates shouldn't use th; for example, instead of using January 30th was a great day, use January 30 was a great day.[?]
  • Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (headings), headings generally do not start with articles ('the', 'a(n)'). For example, if there was a section called ==The Biography==, it should be changed to ==Biography==.[?]
  • Per WP:WIAFA, this article's table of contents (ToC) may be too long- consider shrinking it down by merging short sections or using a proper system of daughter pages as per Wikipedia:Summary style.[?]
  • There are a few sections that are too short and that should be either expanded or merged.
  • Watch for redundancies that make the article too wordy instead of being crisp and concise. (You may wish to try Tony1's redundancy exercises.)
    • Vague terms of size often are unnecessary and redundant - “some”, “a variety/number/majority of”, “several”, “a few”, “many”, “any”, and “all”. For example, “All pigs are pink, so we thought of a number of ways to turn them green.”
  • The script has spotted the following contractions: couldn't, can't, don't, hasn't, hasn't, don't, don't, doesn't, isn't, if these are outside of quotations, they should be expanded.
  • As done in WP:FOOTNOTE, footnotes usually are located right after a punctuation mark (as recommended by the CMS, but not mandatory), such that there is no space in between. For example, the sun is larger than the moon [2]. is usually written as the sun is larger than the moon.[2][?]
  • Please ensure that the article has gone through a thorough copyediting so that it exemplifies some of Wikipedia's best work. See also User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 1a.[?]

DrKiernan review

[edit]

You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, DrKiernan 14:43, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think it looks very good from a brief personal glance, and probably could reach FA status. DrKiernan 14:43, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Review by Remember the dot

[edit]

This article has some good information, but it is way too long. It needs to be split up into several smaller articles of manageable sizes. See Wikipedia:Summary style and Wikipedia:Article size. —Remember the dot (talk) 05:14, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is debate among those of us currently editing the article. I agree that this article is too long and some of the background material is too detailed. I am working to tighten the prose, but it needs major trimming after verifying that material targeted for deletion is in a companion article. Thanks for your review. --Robbie Giles 13:20, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
How about writing a 30 KB summary of the article, and creating articles such as Background of the Mountain Meadows massacre, Baker-Fancher party, Investigations of the Mountain Meadows massacre, and Commemorations of the Mountain Meadows massacre for the details? —Remember the dot (talk) 18:15, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Right now, the article is just under 60kb of prose. This is within the "may eventually need to be divided" range in the Wikipedia:Article size guideline. I've worked to shorten the background section. Now, the background, including the background on the Fanchers, is just 7 KB, which I think is quite reasonable considering the fact that the secondary sources generally devote a much higher percentage to background, and this subject matter requires a particularly-large amount of context. Since the background is short now, and already represents just about the most compressed summary of the background that I can think of, I think we should leave it intact. Splitting it further would start to cause problems with NPOV forking, since most Mormon apologetic commentators emphasize the "past persecutions" part of the background as a way of explaining the massacre, while Mormon critics emphasize the "blood of the prophets" part of the background as a way of showing how the massacre was inevitable.
I think the best candidates for sub-articles would be "Escalating tensions", "Conspiracy and massacre" and "Investigations and prosecutions". Each of these three chunks all have about the same amount of (or potential for) substantive material in them. COGDEN 19:58, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipediatoperfection review

[edit]

This is an exhaustive and well sourced article. Its main contributors should be proud. It seems to be more or less NPOV. It is, however, extremely long. To put this in perspective, this article is bigger than the article on Hitler. And the article on Hitler is massive. I agree with the suggestions above to break the article into several smaller articles. Particularly the section on the Utah War which already has its own page needs to be drastically scaled back. I tend not to like the policy of shoving virtually everything to separate articles as is often done with larger articles. I think that it tends to be used to sweep the dirt under the rug. However, this article desperately need it.

You have all obviously put a great deal of work into the article. If you do some trimming I think this page deserves to be on the front page around the 150th anniversary. Wikipediatoperfection 09:02, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, this article is somewhat smaller than Adolf Hitler. When considering article size, only the readable prose is counted, and the Mountain Meadows massacre article has about 60 kB, whereas Adolf Hitler has about 72 kB. By comparison, The Lord of the Rings, Alcibiades, and Punk rock, some of the larger articles to be featured on the front page, are each about 50 kB. I'm not saying that the Mountain Meadows article shouldn't be shortened, but the size isn't quite as out-of-proportion as the raw article size would suggest. That number is inflated because of the large number of citations. I think if we reduce the size slightly to 50kB we'll be okay. COGDEN 17:39, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bride burning

[edit]

This article suffered from some POVpushing back in February 2007. This cooled down a few months ago and recently I made a number of edits to remove original research and synthesis.

I'm interested to see what other editors think of the article, its sourcing, its neutrality, tone etc. I'd really just like to see what other people think needs improvement--Cailil talk 00:12, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Automated Peer Review

[edit]

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

You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, Davnel03 20:45, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for looking at the article--Cailil talk 19:31, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lung cancer

[edit]

This article is mature now, and complies with Wikipedia:Manual of Style (medicine-related articles). It is already a "Good article". I hope that it will soon be "Featured article" quality. Thanks. Axl 07:41, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Automated Peer Review

[edit]

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

You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, Davnel03 12:05, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

From SandyGeorgia

[edit]

Nice compliance with MEDMOS! There are some issues with WP:MOS though:

Very fine start, but the content could be beefed up. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:01, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the feedback. I'm working on it. Axl 09:49, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The footnotes can use more work. The empty paramters in the cite templates can add as much as 5KB (unnecessarily) to the article size, and make it harder to edit the article. You aren't using the URL and PMID parameters correctly in the cite templates; URL should be used for links to full-text versions of the journal reports, while the pmid parameter links to abstracts only. Make sure all publishers are specified on websources. There's a pmid filler in the userbox on my user page; you supply a PMID and it generate the entire cite template for you. The lead still seems short (see WP:LEAD, it should be a compelling, stand-alone summary), and perhaps you can get more feedback from the Medicine projects on how to beef up the content. Compare to Influenza, Tuberculosis and Coeliac disease. Great progress so far ! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:54, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You can ask Brighterorange (talk · contribs) to run his script to fix the dashes in your article per WP:DASH. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:02, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, thanks. Axl 07:11, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Marcus Trescothick

[edit]

This article has had a peer review archived here, but after a fresh input into the article, another Peer review from either a cricketing or style/prose view would be welcome –MDCollins (talk) 12:33, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

  • Per Wikipedia:Context and Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates), months and days of the week generally should not be linked. Years, decades, and centuries can be linked if they provide context for the article.[?]
    • Removed link to stand-alone year: no context there really.
  • If there is not a free use image in the top right corner of the article, please try to find and include one.[?]
    • In infobox.
  • As per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates), dates shouldn't use th; for example, instead of using January 30th was a great day, use January 30 was a great day.[?]
    • As far as I can see, the 'th' is only added to ordinal numbers (100th Test), and not on dates
  • Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (headings), avoid using special characters (ex: &+{}[]) in headings.
    • Not displayed, only in conjunction with –
  • This article may need to undergo summary style, where a series of appropriate subpages are used. For example, if the article is United States, than an appropriate subpage would be History of the United States, such that a summary of the subpage exists on the mother article, while the subpage goes into more detail.[?]
  • The script has spotted the following contractions: won't, if these are outside of quotations, they should be expanded.
    • One case, inside quotation so can stay.
  • Please ensure that the article has gone through a thorough copyediting so that it exemplifies some of Wikipedia's best work. See also User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 1a.[?]

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

Minor points addressed –MDCollins (talk) 15:27, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew Saul

[edit]

Request peer review for Andrew Saul. Would like to ensure NPOV, and elevate to GA and eventually A-class status. MrPrada 21:27, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hm. Sorry, but I couldn't make myself read all this. So, only a few points:
  • The lead is way too long.
Heh, I will try to work on that. A few other GAs I've submitted were initially turned down for having leads that were too short--so now I tend to do them overkill. I was attempting to follow the guideline that the lead should be an article in and of itself suitable for inclusion on Wiki for Schools CD or Wiki 1.0 MrPrada 10:19, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's more an article about the TSP and Saul's current campaign. Done
I figured this would be an issue (at least the part about the TSP). However I would like to point out that the TSP section is fundamentally different then the other actual TSP article, except for the section on the TSP funds. The reason that this information isn't on the other article is because it discusses Saul's direct involvement, which I think is more relevant to this article then the one on the plan. As for the "TSP Funds", which I think there smallest case to include, I put it in there because the article goes on to discuss all of these various types of funds and I think it helps the reader differentiate between them. Besides, I've taken it almost directly from the TSP website, because I am by no means a financial expert. MrPrada 10:19, 21 August 2007 (UTC)][reply]
  • It even links to Saul's campaign website in a most prominent spot. Is that compatible with our NPOV rules? Done
As far as I know, Yes. It is identical to every other politician infobox I've seen. If its wrong, please let me know so I can take it out of the templates (since I know I've added website links to a number of articles and probably won't be able to go back and remove all of them by hand) MrPrada 10:19, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Lupo 10:08, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have to agree with the above review that the current article is a disorganized and overlong mess.

I'm not sure I agree that it is overly long, although I have reread it several times and will attempt to organize it better. It weighs in about the same size as other FA bios.

"millionaire businessman from Katonah, New York" should be removed, and his candidacy should be included in the first paragraph. "Andrew Saul is Chairman... and a Republican candidate for United States Congress."

Out of curiosity, what is wrong with referring to him as a millionaire? I'd have no problem taking it out, I just don't really see a problem with stating the obvious. His money surely has had an influence on his political appointments and congressional ambitions.

All but the first sentence about TSP should be removed from the lead. The paragraph about the TSP's finances and his political views re: the TSP should all be moved to the TSP section.

Removing all of that content would bring it under what WP:Lead calls for. It is a summary of everything that follows in the TSP section, there is no new information to merge. Also, are you differentiating between the FTRIB or the TSP?

Cache: "has served on the board" - is he currently on the board? Done

As far as I know, yes, according to the last SEC filings.

Has he been required to set aside his board memberships for the political campaign, or would he be required to set them aside if elected?

No, at least not for his role as Chairman of the FRTIB according to the referenced Senate testimony. He may have to leave the board if elected, however I don't want to violate WP:OR and look it up. Perhaps I can include some prior precedent from another CEO-congerssman?

Bridge and tunnel "some public outcry" should be defined. Were there demonstrations? Newspaper editorials? Specific concerns about transportation safety, or just a general concern that maintenance should be better funded? How did the MTA respond? Done

The article that is cited details the outcry, it was town hall style meetings. Perhaps I could rephrase somehow? It is so recent that the MTA hasn't had their monthly board meeting yet to respond.

The photo caption is completely unneeded. It should simply read, "Andrew Saul (left) at an MTA station." Done

I was trying to follow the summarization suggestions from the how-to-write-an-FA guide. I can remove it.

The "bungled computer project" and "economic weapon" paragraphs read like campaign speeches praising a candidate, not encyclopedia reports of historical events. "Designed the TSP around index funds as a way to stymie..." is opinion unless you have a valid source indicating that this was officially the intention of Congress. "investment consultant" is duplicated. The nature of the conflict with Congress is not specified in the article. Done

Bungled computer project can easily be rephrased. Not sure how you would rework "economic weapon", that is what the divesting is supposed to accomplish, is it not? Also, it is cited, so I am unsure what other valid source I should provide? It is not the opinion of ALL congressmembers, I will reread it to make sure I am not implying that in the text. The conflict wtih congress was over political manipulation of the TSP-funds. I included a section on authority, and REITs.

ALL the background material about the TSP should be moved to a new article about the TSP. The Andrew Saul article should consist ONLY of material that is specific to Mr. Saul's career, campaign, and personal history. Done

The background material on the TSP (specifically, the first paragraph of the TSP section, and the "Fund section") already exist in the TSP-article. They are inserted here to help the reader better understand the difference between the different types of funds, how they work, and what they are invested in, since nearly all of what follow discusses Saul and the funds.

The references section should only be used for citing references. The long quotes should be used within the body of the article itself.  Done

Perhaps I can move the quotes to a footnotes section? I did not want to make the article any longer then it already is in the main portion of it, so the full quotes were left down at the bottom.MrPrada 21:29, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

VisitorTalk 15:49, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Clan MacAulay

[edit]

I'm hoping to get some feedback to help make a stronger article. Any suggestions would be great. This article hasn't been reviewed yet. Thanks.--Celtus 05:09, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

  • Please expand the lead to conform with guidelines at Wikipedia:Lead. The article should have an appropriate number of paragraphs as is shown on WP:LEAD, and should adequately summarize the article.[?]
Lengthened lead section.--Celtus 09:50, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Dates fixed as per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates).--Celtus 09:50, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed.--Celtus 09:50, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (headings), headings generally do not start with articles ('the', 'a(n)'). For example, if there was a section called ==The Biography==, it should be changed to ==Biography==.[?]
This recommendation doesn't seem to apply to this article.--Celtus 09:50, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You have several headings beginning with "The" and one beginning with "An", the recommendation is to remove these words, i.e. "An allliance with clan Gregor" would become "Alliance with clan Gregor", etc. Also, you have an extra l in alliance! DrKiernan 07:29, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
OK, got it. Headings no long start with The and An.--Celtus 06:51, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please reorder/rename the last few sections to follow guidelines at Wikipedia:Guide to layout.[?]
  • Per WP:WIAFA, this article's table of contents (ToC) may be too long- consider shrinking it down by merging short sections or using a proper system of daughter pages as per Wikipedia:Summary style.[?]
  • This article may need to undergo summary style, where a series of appropriate subpages are used. For example, if the article is United States, than an appropriate subpage would be History of the United States, such that a summary of the subpage exists on the mother article, while the subpage goes into more detail.[?]
  • There are a few occurrences of weasel words in this article- please observe WP:AWT. Certain phrases should specify exactly who supports, considers, believes, etc., such a view.
    • it is claimed
    • might be weasel words, and should be provided with proper citations (if they already do, or are not weasel terms, please strike this comment).[?]
  • The script has spotted the following contractions: wasn't, if these are outside of quotations, they should be expanded.
Fixed.--Celtus 09:50, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, DrKiernan 14:31, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lewis Hamilton

[edit]

This article underwent a peer review a couple of months ago, resulting in its promotion to GA. I'm looking for assistance from experienced editors as to what further needs to be done in order to achieve FA status. Specific areas of concern are:

  • The length of the lead section. During GA myself and other regular contributors reached consensus that the lead was of acceptable length for the overall article's length, whilst the reviewer commented that it "would need be doubled or tripled in length to reach FA." Specifically are there any areas that appear to be sparsely covered in the lead, or any topics which should be given an extra sentence or two?

* Stability. A quick glance at the edit history would seem to suggest that the article is unstable. However the high volume of edits immediately after a Grand Prix are necessary to ensure that recent events (i.e. the last race) are covered in the same manner as the rest of the article and not given undue weight.

checkYResolved, subject to a current event template being added to this page during grand prix weekends and a thorough check of the prose afterwards.

  • Reliability of a specific source: see recent edit history and talk page relating to the f1fanatic site.


Please feel free to make additional comments and suggestions on any other areas of the article.

Thanks in advance. BeL1EveR 00:29, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Automated Peer Review

[edit]

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

  • Please expand the lead to conform with guidelines at Wikipedia:Lead. The article should have an appropriate number of paragraphs as is shown on WP:LEAD, and should adequately summarize the article.[?]
☒N Not Done. Agree that this needs to be done, will make an attempt later this evening. Further suggestions as to what is required welcome.

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

checkY Done. As per this section, this article either conforms to the agreed standard, or there is no consensus objecting to the date linking currently applied. BeL1EveR 20:59, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

*Per Wikipedia:What is a featured article?, Images should have concise captions.[?]

checkY Done BeL1EveR 21:32, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

*There may be an applicable infobox for this article. For example, see Template:Infobox Biography, Template:Infobox School, or Template:Infobox City.[?] (Note that there might not be an applicable infobox; remember that these suggestions are not generated manually)

checkY Done already BeL1EveR 20:59, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

checkY Done BeL1EveR 21:09, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

checkY Done already. BeL1EveR 20:59, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

*The script has spotted the following contractions: don't, won't, if these are outside of quotations, they should be expanded.

checkY Believe to be done. The only instances I could find of these contractions were within <!-- ... --> tags, and are both appropriate and necessary. BeL1EveR 20:59, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]


You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, Davnel03 20:52, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
☒N Not Fully Done. I think the prose is of a good standard. However in response I will give article a thorough copyedit after the Hungarian Grand Prix and attempt to reduce redundant terms. I shall leave it for now as there is a grand prix weekend approaching and it would be more prudent to wait until the page is no longer documenting a current event. Thanks for the response! BeL1EveR 20:59, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]



Due to a number of factors, but primarily unforseen circumstances in the last race, some of these points will need to be put on hold until consensus is reached on how his F1 career should be covered. BeL1EveR 01:07, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Singapore 2006

[edit]

Singapore 2006's previous GA nomination failed on 18 January 2007. I would appreciate any suggestions for improving the article so that a second GA nomination will be successful. --J.L.W.S. The Special One 13:54, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-auto review

[edit]

The following suggestions were partly generated by a semi-automatic javascript program.

  • Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (numbers), there should be a non-breaking space - &nbsp; between a number and the unit of measurement. For example, instead of 8 metre, use 8 metre, which when you are editing the page, should look like: 8&nbsp;metre.[?]
  • The table of contents (ToC) may be too long - consider shrinking it down by merging short sections.
  • There are weasel words in this article - please observe WP:AWT. Certain phrases should specify exactly who supports, considers, believes, etc., such a view:
    • It has been reported that...
    • might be weasel words, and should be provided with proper citations, i.e. who reported it?[?]

You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, DrKiernan 07:53, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yellowstone fires of 1988

[edit]

previous PR

Oscar Wilde

[edit]

I am shortly to be doing a Jumpaclass for Robbie Ross, and because his life is most often written about through the context of Oscar's life, I'm going to be wading through every Oscar biography I can get my hands on. Which means I may as well get some work done on Oscar's article as well while I have the material in front of me (after I've finished the Jumpaclass). Immediate issues I can see are the short unhelpful lead and a lack of inline citations, but I haven't given the article that close an inspection. Reviews with an eye to an eventual FAC would be appreciated. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 16:34, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

  • Please expand the lead to conform with guidelines at Wikipedia:Lead. The article should have an appropriate number of paragraphs as is shown on WP:LEAD, and should adequately summarize the article.[?]
  • Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (numbers), there should be a non-breaking space - &nbsp; between a number and the unit of measurement. For example, instead of 30 miles, use 30 miles, which when you are editing the page, should look like: 30&nbsp;miles.[?]
  • Per Wikipedia:Context and Wikipedia:Build the web, years with full dates should be linked; for example, link January 15, 2006.[?]
  • Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (headings), headings generally do not start with articles ('the', 'a(n)'). For example, if there was a section called ==The Biography==, it should be changed to ==Biography==.[?]
  • Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (headings), headings generally should not repeat the title of the article. For example, if the article was Ferdinand Magellan, instead of using the heading ==Magellan's journey==, use ==Journey==.[?]
  • Please make the spelling of English words consistent with either American or British spelling, depending upon the subject of the article. Examples include: behaviour (B) (American: behavior), meter (A) (British: metre), defence (B) (American: defense), offence (B) (American: offense), recognise (B) (American: recognize), realize (A) (British: realise), criticize (A) (British: criticise), isation (B) (American: ization), travelled (B) (American: traveled), aging (A) (British: ageing).
  • Watch for redundancies that make the article too wordy instead of being crisp and concise. (You may wish to try Tony1's redundancy exercises.)
    • Vague terms of size often are unnecessary and redundant - “some”, “a variety/number/majority of”, “several”, “a few”, “many”, “any”, and “all”. For example, “All pigs are pink, so we thought of a number of ways to turn them green.”
    • Avoid misplaced formality: “in order to/for” (-> to/for), “thereupon”, “notwithstanding”, etc.
  • As done in WP:FOOTNOTE, footnotes usually are located right after a punctuation mark (as recommended by the CMS, but not mandatory), such that there is no space in between. For example, the sun is larger than the moon [2]. is usually written as the sun is larger than the moon.[2][?]
  • Please ensure that the article has gone through a thorough copyediting so that it exemplifies some of Wikipedia's best work. See also User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 1a.[?]

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

The suggestions above are automatically generated so I don't know how many are generated from quotes rather than your actual article, anyway, I would suggest expanding the lead. Thanks, DrKiernan 09:08, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Review by Awadewit

[edit]

This article has some good parts, but many of the lists need to be changed into prose and whole sections on Wilde's writings need to be included. Here are my suggestions for improvement:

Missing sections:

  • There should be entire sections on Wilde's writings that explain their major themes and reception. These can either be integrated into the biography (see Sarah Trimmer) or separated out (see Anna Laetitia Barbauld, whichever you think works best for Wilde).

Content and organization:

  • I would delete the "Influences" and "Influenced" lists from the infobox. These lists are arbitrary, subjective and massive. Any important influences should be discussed in the article.
  • When you introduce people, you have to mention who they are in a brief phrase. Not all readers are going to know the names you are mentioning.
  • EX: Here, Lady Wilde held a regular Saturday afternoon salon with guests including Sheridan le Fanu, Samuel Lever, George Petrie, Isaac Butt and Samuel Ferguson.
  • EX: as it was in keeping with the doctrine of Art for art's sake, coined by the philosopher Victor Cousin, promoted by Theophile Gautier and brought into prominence by James McNeill Whistler
  • Wilde's address in the 1881 British Census is given as 1 Tite Street, London. The head of the household is listed as Frank Miles with whom Wilde shared rooms at this address. - This seems extraneous unless you can give more context.
  • Legends persist that his behaviour cost him a dunking in the River Cherwell in addition to having his rooms (which still survive as student accommodation at his old college) trashed, but the cult spread among certain segments of society to such an extent that languishing attitudes, "too-too" costumes and aestheticism generally became a recognised pose. - You might think about explaining "too-too" costumes and other topics readers might not be familiar with.
  • Wilde's mode of dress also came under attack by critics such as Higginson, who wrote in his paper Unmanly Manhood, at his general concern that Wildes' effeminacy would influence the behaviour of men and women, arguing that his poetry "eclipses masculine ideals [..that..] under such influence men would become effeminate dandies'. - Who is Higginson? awkward sentence - keeps going and going
  • Though he was sometimes ridiculed for them, his paradoxes and witty sayings were quoted on all sides. - Can we get a quote?
  • The section on Wilde's arrest is a little disorganized. Also, why not a quote from the famous poem?
  • Can you expand on De Profundis? What are differences between the versions? What does it actually say?
  • The "Biographies" section should either be rewritten in prose or made part of a "Bibliography" (by the way, novels are not biographies - the novelizations of Wilde's life should be separated out).
  • "Biographical films" should be written in prose, perhaps part of a "Legacy" section.

Prose:

  • The article needs a copy editor. There are quite a few awkward sentences:
  • EX: He was granted a scholarship to Magdalen College, Oxford, where he continued his studies from 1874 to 1878 and where he became a part of the Aesthetic movement, one of its tenets being to make an art of life.
  • EX: He also scrutinises the link that Oscar Wildes' writing, personal image and homosexuality may have, resulting in calling his work and lifestyle 'Immoral'.

Images:

  • Can we get a better picture of the Wilde statue in Merrion Square?
  • The "offending inscription" should be written out in the caption - the writing is hard to read.

Other:

  • The lead problem you have already recognized (see WP:LEAD for helpful hints on writing the lead).
  • The inline citation problem you have already noted (see WP:CITE for rules on this).

Let me know if you have any questions regarding this review. I look forward to reading the improved article. Wilde is an important figure and I'm glad someone has taken on the project of writing this article. Awadewit | talk 11:53, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's excellent, thank you. I've been having library card troubles but I should be fully booksed up in the next days and I look forward to dealing with your suggestions. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 22:39, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Not entirely certain where the hell a week went, but I do now have the books. It must because it's the holidays or something... Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 08:53, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Economy of ancient Tamil country

[edit]

The Sangam age is considered an important period in the history of southern India. This article aims to give the reader a detailed account of the state of the economy in the ancient Tamil country. Please review and provide feedback, as to how to make this article FA quality. Thanks. Lotlil 02:40, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: I haven't read the article in detail, but it contains very detailed information supported by appropriate citations. My initial suggestion is to include a discussion on the source of the information such as from the ancient literates, epigraphy, archeology, etc. I will add more comments when I find some time to read it in full. Also, attribution of Kallanai to the ancient Karikala has not been universally accepted by historians. Parthi talk/contribs 05:49, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the comments, Parthi. I've seen Kallanai attributed to Karikalan in many sources -journals and books - which is why I included that part. In any case, since there is doubt, I have removed his name from the article. We can take the discussion to the talk page once the review is over. As for the sources, currently the article mentions these primary sources not in one single section but wherever the reference to facts are made. For ex., in Foreign trade, I've included quotes from Periplus about the trade route. And, in the Markets section, I've mentioned the primary source to be Mathuraikanci etc. I will try to summarise all these into one section at the beginning, without repeating the info later. Lotlil 12:59, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Follow-up Both suggestions addressed. The sources section took longer than I thought, but it's there now. Lotlil 05:08, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program, and might not be applicable for the article in question.
    • Consider adding more links to the article; per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (links) and Wikipedia:Build the web, create links to relevant articles.[?]
    • If there is not a free use image in the top right corner of the article, please try to find and include one.[?]
    • There may be an applicable infobox for this article. For example, see Template:Infobox Biography, Template:Infobox School, or Template:Infobox City.[?] (Note that there might not be an applicable infobox; remember that these suggestions are not generated manually)
    • Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (numbers), there should be a non-breaking space - &nbsp; between a number and the unit of measurement. For example, instead of 000 pounds, use 000 pounds, which when you are editing the page, should look like: 000&nbsp;pounds.[?]
    • Please make the spelling of English words consistent with either American or British spelling, depending upon the subject of the article. Examples include: harbour (B) (American: harbor), neighbor (A) (British: neighbour), favorite (A) (British: favourite), fibre (B) (American: fiber), organize (A) (British: organise), organise (B) (American: organize), ization (A) (British: isation), isation (B) (American: ization), jewellery (B) (American: jewelry).
    • Watch for redundancies that make the article too wordy instead of being crisp and concise. (You may wish to try Tony1's redundancy exercises.)
      • Vague terms of size often are unnecessary and redundant - “some”, “a variety/number/majority of”, “several”, “a few”, “many”, “any”, and “all”. For example, “All pigs are pink, so we thought of a number of ways to turn them green.”
    • As done in WP:FOOTNOTE, footnotes usually are located right after a punctuation mark (as recommended by the CMS, but not mandatory), such that there is no space in between. For example, the sun is larger than the moon [2]. is usually written as the sun is larger than the moon.[2][?]
    • Please ensure that the article has gone through a thorough copyediting so that it exemplifies some of Wikipedia's best work. See also User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 1a.[?]
You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, DrKiernan 15:02, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for running the auto-review tool on this article. I believe most of the issues are taken care of already. I dont know if an infobox would be useful for this article. Lotlil 16:21, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Taprobanus:

  • 1) Per WP:LEAD, you need to provide context as to what ancient Tamil country is. Atleast one ot twop sentence although you are linking to it. For a reader who does not understand the subject matter will not have any idea as to what you are talking about.
  • 2) A map of ancient Tamil country would even be better
  • 3) It is imperative the article on Korkai be complete
Thanks for the comments, Taprobanus. I'm working on the Korkai article, just havent had a chance to complete my edits. Point taken about the map. I'll get to the context thing shortly. Lotlil 23:03, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Follow-up Done. Korkai article is a stub, but has relevant info to give a context to the reader. I'll expand it in the coming days. I also created a simple map, doesn't look too professional.. so please feel free to improve it if you prefer.Lotlil 05:08, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This edit and its edit summary caught my eye. So I thought that article was in pr and I typed out a review. Now I see that it is a different article that is in pr. However, most of my concerns for this article and few other articles also remains the same. So I will go ahead and paste the review of that article that I had typed out.

Reply Thanks for reviewing the article(s).
Review

I dont know any other way to say this, but since it is in PR, let me say this. Will you guys for once stop blurring the lines between history, mythology and fictional poetry?! Forget wikipedia for a minute, do you realise that when it comes to real historical evidence of the so called Sangam age, there is next to nothing? Do you realise that almost all the content of this and other articles that you've created is gleaned straight from Sangam poetry which is not considered to be of any historical worth by several historians? Even historians like KANS who claim to see an underlying historical 'basis' in Sangam literature do not go so far as to take every line literally. Even he does not advance beyond a nominal reconstruction of history from these Sangam accounts. And here, you have gone ahead and reproduced the entirety of Sangam poetry as history!! No disclaimers, nothing!

Reply First of all, let’s clarify this minor detail: I did not interpret Sangam poems, nor did I glean any material from them directly. I gleaned it from the books and journals written by the dozen-odd scholars, historians and academicians mentioned in the footnotes. In other words, these articles are based entirely on secondary sources, per policy. I should also mention here that I intentionally ignored any work written in Tamil, for the benefit of verifiability by the wiki community, even if it meant I had to spend some extra time collecting sources in English.
As for the alleged lack of "real historical evidence", I hope you meant non-literary evidence, because contemporary literature is the foremost source for the history of any age before the modern era. But, even with the non-literary sources, we do not draw a blank like you want to believe. There is numismatic and epigraphic evidence, that have been used by scholars to give us a corroborated version of the history. For a sample, see this article and this sandbox page which is incomplete.
BTW, whatever gave you the impression that this is the entirety of Sangam literature??


Getting into specifics, I havent read the article fully, but let me try..

Among the five geographical divisions of the Sangam age Tamil country, the Marutam region was the most fit for cultivation, as it had the most fertile lands.[3]

  • Comment - Tinai belongs in poetry. It belongs in the poetic imagination of Sangam poets. It is NOT recorded history.
Reply It is the accepted history. Saying that it is someone’s imagination is OR.
Follow-up: I've reworded this part a bit, clarifying that the division exists in literature. I will look for more instances that may need clarification, if you see any do mention them here. Lotlil 23:27, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The prosperity of a farmer depended on getting the necessary sunlight, seasonal rains and the fertiliy of the soil. Among these elements of nature, sunlight was considered indispensable by the ancient Tamils, because if rains fail other methods of irrigation could be put to use and if the soil wasn't naturally fertile, artificial manuring would enrich the soil.

  • Comment - Inanities. Is there any farmer or farming community in the world that does not depend on sunlight, rains and fertility of the soil? "Sunlight was considered indispensible"!! wow! I dont want to point out each one but the article is full of inanities like this.
Reply It was indeed thoughtful of you to remove that snide remark that you had made. Anyway, the bigger point to be grasped here is that their techniques were advanced enough that rain and soil fertility were *not* indispensable. People knew how to enhance shortcomings among these two elements of nature, but with sunlight they were helpless. Now, if you have a suggestion to reword, without compromising the information, I'm all ears.
Questionable historicity

Apart from the traditional landlords and cultivators, there were absentee landlords too. There are various instances in which the kings donated tax-free lands to poets, brahmins, educational institutions and hospitals. Lands given to brahmins was known Brahmateya. When lands were gifted to brahmins and poets, these donees quite often left the donated lands in the hands of tenants or farm laborers. The terms of tenancy in respect of such cultivation are not known. Sometimes independent laborers were engaged for specific puposes and were known as Adiyor. Regardless of the nature of ownership, ranging from great landlords who owned vast stretches of land to an ordinary cultivator who owned a tiny piece of land, there was a feeling of pride in the fact that they were the producers of food.

  • Comment - How do you/we know? Do you realise that to reconstruct a history of this sort, we'd need 'epigraphic' evidence? We'd need something like the copper plate grants of the later Cholas or Chalukyas or Hoysalas, Vijayanagara etc.,.? Do you realise that of epigraphic evidence there is next to nothing when it comes to the 'Sangam age'? For starters, there is no evidence even to prove the historicity of any of the Sangam kings.(see Early Chola kings). So how is it that you've managed to reconstruct the most minor details of how much land he held, how much he gave away as grants etc? Do you really think that reconstructing the most specific of details is possible from poetry?
Reply First of all, there are (unfortunately) no details of exactly how much the king owned and how much he gave away. But, like I said, to know more about how these details have been inferred from literature, I humbly refer you to my sources. They are better equipped than I am, to say why and how they did it.
About the apparent disrespect to literary sources, do you realize that all the accounts of early history has been arrived at using literature mostly. Other scientific evidence merely provides corroborative evidence. You wouldn’t, for example, find the entire account of Mauryan administration engraved in stone. But, let’s digress a bit: why do we even stop at epigraphic evidence, we could question that too. After all, they are just graffiti engraved on stone. Whoever did that could’ve imagined whatever they scribbled, couldn’t they? That is the very nature of reconstructing history. Any Tom, Dick and Harry can come up with their version of history or start questioning scholarly versions of history. We, at wikipedia, have the responsibility to give due weightage to every opinion, solely based on how popular it is among scholars. If you can bring sources that say all that I have written is trash, I will be happy to AfD these articles.
Coming back to literary sources, most of Roman and Greece history comes to us through literature, much more than epigraphy or archaeology. Ancient Ceylon became clear to us due to the Mahavamsa and the Culavamsa. For that matter, should we (as a fun exercise) analyse the articles on Gangas and Kadambas and find out exactly how much of the information is sourced from epigraphy or archaeology?
Let’s address the other issue about authenticity of Sangam literature, specifically. That was the very first thing I convinced myself of, before setting about writing these articles. The unanimous opinion is that the society, culture and polity that has been portrayed in Sangam poems is a reliable account of life during that time. I know people can opine all they want, but nobody can say so for sure. Which is why we need to accept the majority scholarly view as fact. If you can furnish proof that scholars are opposed to using Sangam literature to study history, we can talk.

I strongly advise you to -

Reply I don’t see the need to do that. It is the accepted history of ancient Tamil country and we should say so. And, there are other corroborative sources, not just Sangam.
  • Add a section about the primary sources involved in these articles.
Reply Fair enough. This is what Parthi has suggested above and I’m working on it (the sanbox article I referred to earlier)
  • Not letting people know that
a) these accounts are almost entirely drawn from poetry belonging to the "fiction" genre
b) several historians do not consider accounts in the Sangam literature to be of any historical worth; even the ones who grant it any historical legitimacy do it with qualifications and reservations and do not grant the corpus in its entirety any blanket historical legitimacy.

does not make for NPOV.

Reply This is POV and OR. I haven’t seen any historian worth his salt stand up and say that all of Sangam literature isnt worthy of historical study. I urge you to bring up sources that make these claims directly. I’m not looking for taken-out-of-context statements. Need solid accounts of scholars who say that *all* of Sangam literature is not to be used for historical study. Not only that, there needs to be enough of them, lest we violate UNDUE.
  • Change the tone of the article. Right now it reads like a {{story}}. Do not present accounts in a matter-of-fact tone as if their historicity has been established beyond a shadow of doubt!
Reply Specifics, please. All of what I said is paraphrased from accomplished scholars. The matter-of-fact tone is a direct consequence of the universal acceptance of what is being said.

I have typed this in a hurry and my choice of words may not be the best, but I really do hope that you see the point I am trying to make and take suitable action. Sarvagnya 20:18, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Again, thanks for taking the time to review the article. May I suggest further discussions along these lines be carried on in the article talk page. If you would like other reviewers to know about your notes there, you can post a message there and a single-line link to it over here. I will do the same for my follow-ups. Lotlil 23:38, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Follow-up Sources section is done. Let me know if there are other concerns of POV.Lotlil 05:08, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The article has the potential to be the single-most comprehensive resource on the web on this subject. Good work, Lotlil.

  • The prose flow needs to be tightened.
  • More pictures can be added.
  • Someone who can work with Inkscape can add more maps based on any geographic information available.
  • Cited references should include quotes wherever they add value.

Once content addition is complete, we can do some copyediting. -- Sundar \talk \contribs 11:30, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reply Thanks, Sundar. Most of the text content is there, except a section on primary sources, which was suggested by couple of reviewers above. I should be done with that section before end of this week. I will leave you a note then and we can work on the specifics of the flow/cpedit issues. As for the pictures, I tried to get relevant ones that are already in wiki with proper copyright. If there are other pictures that you can suggest, please let me know. Lotlil 13:36, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Follow-up Done with the content (text) addition. The sources section def.ly needs some cpedit. I will try and come back to it in a couple of days. In the meantime, please feel free to improve the flow/prose if you get a chance.Lotlil 05:08, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments: Great work collating this information. The sources section and the child article show the quantity of work that has gone into this article. As Sundar says, when the text is stable we can go through a series of copyedits to tighten the prose to fit a summary article. Although citing each sentence is superflous, some may demand citations for assertions such as 'Surface irrigation, sprinkler mechanism and drip irrigation methods were followed to prevent wastage of water.' In such cases it will probably be sufficient to not be very specific. Parthi talk/contribs 23:12, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nice work. A few comments. 1) The lead still needs work. I tried to help, but I couldn't think of how the third paragraph should be expanded. Three fully developed paragraphs that properly summarize the most important facets of the article would be ideal. 2) Is Ancient Tamil country really the accepted term scholars use? I'm not saying it's not, it's just rather jarring on first glance. 3) The Sangam era link and dates need to be looked at. The link isn't useful since it redirects to Sangam not really what the reader would be expecting, perhaps a stub should be created to Sangam era or Sangam just needs to be reworked a bit or the link should be taken out. The information in some of the related Sangam articles don't seem consistent at first pass. Sangam literature for example gives a 200BCE-300CE date range while Sangam gives a different one. And there's Sangam period which just seems to add to the confusion. 4) I agree with the comment Parthi made. A statement of such specificity and of a perhaps surprising assertion such as that is an excellent candidate to be cited directly. Try to directly cite only the most important or surprising conclusions such as that and not the mundane stuff that would be common knowledge to anyone familiar with the field. The references section covers that, so nice work organizing it that way. 5) Work to expand, merge or eliminate one or two sentence paragraphs. They break up the flow of the prose too much. 6) The rest looks pretty good to me, though perhaps the artistic license of the sources was followed a bit too much. For ex. "The ships returned from Tamilakam with rich cargo which, as soon as it was transported on the back of camels from the Red Sea to the Nile and descended the river as far as Alexandria, was poured without delay into the capital of the Roman empire." "Poured without delay" is possibly not true, and unless the source specifically expanded upon that point with evidence it isn't properly supported. - Taxman Talk 13:56, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tim Duncan

[edit]

As solid GA about a four-time NBA champion which our project WP:NBA wants to make a FAC soon. Feedback and suggestions are appreciated. —Onomatopoeia 07:24, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I believe the article needs a much stronger lead. This is a meaty enough article for a four paragraph lead. The first paragraph is fine. After incorporating the changes I suggested at the discussion at WP:FAC there should be enough for 3 additional paragraphs. One should be about his college career, one should be about his NBA career. There should then be another that includes his international play disappointments. This may not make a very complete paragraph. However, if volunteering to represent the USA is considered a part of marketing it might go along with discussion of his unmemorable (in my mind) commercial marketing. I can only think of seeing him in one commercial as the best player of his generation.

There should be a discussion of his endorsements since he has reached a level of prominence (possibly the best at his position of his generation) where he should be quite marketable.

A thorough copy edit is necessary as pointed out at the FAC.

The succession boxes for awards should be consolidated (Finals MVP). See Barry Bonds or Sammy Sosa.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 09:21, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See automated peer review.

Note that this peer review was terminated due to a WP:FAC nomination according to policy. --TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 15:59, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ronald Reagan

[edit]
archived PR

Muhammad Yunus

[edit]

He is Nobel Peace Prize winner for 2006. I would like to work to upgrade this article at least to a GA status. Please help me with your suggestions. Arman Aziz 01:29, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please standardize the reference format throughout.
Please clear the cite tags by adding a reference.
Please consider adding more wikilinks to the article. Thanks, DrKiernan 10:35, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

J Milburn

[edit]
  • To expand on one of the above comments, references should be standardised with [statement][punctuation][citation], with no space, even if there are two references. For instance-
The sun is a star.[1] Correct
The sun is a star[2]. Incorrect
The sun is a star. [3] Incorrect
The sun is a star.[4][5] Correct
The sun is a star.[6] [7] Incorrect
  • Section titles should only be capitalised if they are proper nouns. Not certain which are, but, for instances, 'Awards and Recognitions' should definitely be 'Awards and recognitions'.
  • We do not credit the author/owner of images in the image captions.
  • Are there really no public domain images, or images released to the press by the authority in charge of the Nobel prizes? They would be very much preferable to an image with obvious commercial value.
  • Are all the external links really needed? I think you could afford to lose a few.
  • A reference for each award would be rather useful.

Happy to give further advice, contact me on my talk page. J Milburn 20:20, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Crowded House

[edit]

We'd like to get Crowded House to WP:FA, though we haven't yet had it assessed for WP:GA, so this may be a bit presumptuous, but we want to know what could be done to improve the page? I believe it's pretty thorough, but I may be too close to the article to be adequately unbiased. I'm aware that there's a lack on referencing, but we're working on that. All the references needed are actually there, but they're just not referenced directly, just as a general footnote.

Any feedback, negative or positive (hopefully the latter, but we'll accept the former) would certainly be welcomed if it can be used to improve the page to get to GA and then to FA.

Thanks! --lincalinca 09:31, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mostly good, here are some tiny adjustments I'd suggest: mention of 7 worlds collide concert, less "Examples of Crowded House" designs, and a less confusing "band members" section. Alexandermiller 07:06, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like a good article. If the particular crowded house in Los Angeles is not currently owned or occupied by someone associated with the band, then the street address should be removed. 08:36, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for positive response. Just to clarify, are you suggesting implementing 7 Worlds Collide, the Neil Finn collaborative live project, into the "hiatus" era info? That's what I'm gathering, and I'll do just that. As to reducing the examples section, I was thinking of redesigning the layout so as to not rely on the gallery function and perhaps take up less space. To you, is it a space issue, a layout issue, or just a general content issue? As to the mention of the location of the actual Crowded House in LA, I don't suspect it's owned by the band, so I will remove the street address. Good suggestion. I wouldn't have thought of that. Thanks guys! Any further reviews will be more than welcome, though! I want all the eyes and opinions I can get to perfect this one. --lincalinca 13:11, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
 Done. Just curious abuot your suggestion to improve the members section/make it less confusing. I've run through a few ideas in my head, and none seems to be any better laid out than it is at present. It's a confusing history the band has had, so I don't know that there's a way of de-complicating it.--lincalinca 11:40, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Automated Peer Review

[edit]

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

You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, Davnel03 17:18, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Baby (No Doubt song)

[edit]

I've recently expanded the article, and it's currently listed as a GA. It seems like the article is comprehensive now, considering there aren't as many Internet sources available as there are about the Gwen Stefani articles I've worked with, but it includes a lot of information not commonly known in the States about how it affected Bounty Killer's career. The main issue I need some help with is the Critical reception section. There are five reviews that have some information about it, but that's less than I'm used to working with, so any help on how to spin out a larger section would be helpful. 17Drew 06:04, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

LuciferMorgan

[edit]

With older songs there are several ways of cheating in order to expand a "Reception" section. I've taken a look at the song you mentioned, and the amount of sources is used thus far are probably quite healthy. The following is recommended;

  • Trawl through reviews of "The Singles 1992-2003" - compilation reviews are one way of digging up more song reception considering the song is a single.
  • Press interviews (online or offline) done at the time may have introductory paragraphs, and ones in which the interviewer makes a critical comment on the song.
  • "The Videos: 1992-2003" may have reviews out there somewhere, and ones which make critical comments upon the music video.
  • If it's possible to excerpt slightly larger portions of each review currently used, that'd be particularly welcomed.
  • In the "Reception" section, it says "Stylus Magazine thought blah blah blah" and so on, but this is slightly misleading. Some other staff at the very same magazine may have different viewpoints, and a review is only reflective of the reviewer. It's better to say "Stylus Magazine's person X" or "person X of Stylus Magazine", or something similar. LuciferMorgan 10:55, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Automated Peer Review

[edit]

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

You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, Davnel03 17:18, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Naruto

[edit]
  • The Naruto (the series, not the character) article is well written, but it needs to be far more well written to reach either GA or FA quality. Any suggestions are welcome. The only one I have is to talk about the theme of the series: ninja; and to also desribe more about the relationships between characters. User:Artist Formerly Known As Whocares 16:46, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It reads a bit fannishly, and could do with a copyedit. Grand pronouncements about the series being character-driven should be cited to critics, for example. Are there any reviews etc. of the series? (or of parts of the series) You should change the "growth and popularity" section to be a "Reception" section, in which you talk about critics and fans. Take a look at the anime wikiproject's series GAs for more ideas. -Malkinann 01:12, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've changed the name to reception, but I fear what would happen should I put that It is the world's most popular anime and manga series (and it most likely is), since it is original research. I know nothing else about reception. Also, I would like to mention how the series developed into what it currently is and the themes of the series. I've already started to here, but it is far from ready to list yet. I'll start looking over other GA anime/manga articles tomorrow, I'm going to get off soon today. Artist Formerly Known As Whocares 12:15, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Naruto is quite popular, but hardly the most popular. Dragon Ball is still the most popular Shonen Jump title of all time, while in Japan alone One Piece is the most popular of current titles (although, Naruto and Bleach are not far behind). Here's a site with Shonen Jump circulation numbers. [6] Jonny2x4 16:18, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Additionally you need to distinguish between current popularity (which will vary according to what series are currently in production) and long term popularity where you consider how well series were received in their time, plus the longevity of that popularity. (In the latter definition, Evangelion usually seem to come out top.) Samatarou 22:21, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, DrKiernan 14:23, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ironically, I was about to suggest we take the example the Bleach article gave us and list a small and basic summary of the main characters. The problem is, however, we need to judge just which characters are main or major. For example, none of the other characters match up with Sasuke or Naruto, but some of them play just as important a role as Sakura and Kakashi do, like Shikamaru. So, like Bleach, we should decide just what qualities a character should have to be main besides be a mmeber of team 7. I suggest:
  • Close to Naruto Uzumaki.
  • Must have battled both a member of Akatsuki and a named follower of Orochimaru at least once.
I don't have any more ideas, though. User:Artist Formerly Known As Whocares 16:59, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would suggest that we only include Team 7 on the main page for simplicity's sake, and re-work the List of characters in Naruto article instead of adding other characters to the main page.--88wolfmaster 03:46, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've added a little to the reception section that you might like to expand upon. I'd suggest that you read through a review, and pick out what it says are the good bits and the bad bits of Naruto. Then rewrite it in your own words and use the review as a source. Here's a couple of links to get you started: meta-review review -Malkinann 03:24, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ala (Hala)

[edit]

Reviewers who like mythology and folklore may find the subject interesting and give me suggestions how to make this article as good as possible. Thanks in advance. VVVladimir 18:25, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

  • The lead of this article may be too long, or may contain too many paragraphs. Please follow guidelines at WP:LEAD; be aware that the lead should adequately summarize the article.[?]

 Done Now it is shorter and divided into two paragraphs. VVVladimir 23:17, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • The lead is for summarizing the rest of the article, and should not introduce new topics not discussed in the rest of the article, as per WP:LEAD. Please ensure that the lead adequately summarizes the article.[?]

 Done I removed the additional, somewhat less relevant information. VVVladimir 23:17, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

 Done This time, I was quite liberal with links. VVVladimir 23:17, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

 Done I have a question here: dates so linked in the 'accessdate' field of the 'cite web' template are shown in the double brackets on the article page; is this an error in the software? VVVladimir 23:17, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

 Done VVVladimir 23:17, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • There are a few occurrences of weasel words in this article- please observe WP:AWT. Certain phrases should specify exactly who supports, considers, believes, etc., such a view.
    • is considered
    • might be weasel words, and should be provided with proper citations (if they already do, or are not weasel terms, please strike this comment).[?]
  • Watch for redundancies that make the article too wordy instead of being crisp and concise. (You may wish to try Tony1's redundancy exercises.)
    • Vague terms of size often are unnecessary and redundant - “some”, “a variety/number/majority of”, “several”, “a few”, “many”, “any”, and “all”. For example, “All pigs are pink, so we thought of a number of ways to turn them green.”

 Done I kept two some's, one several, one many and two any's, which, IMHO, is not much for the size of the article. I suppose we cannot totally banish these words. VVVladimir 23:17, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • Avoid misplaced formality: “in order to/for” (-> to/for), “thereupon”, “notwithstanding”, etc.

 Done VVVladimir 23:17, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Copy editors, your suggestions are welcome! VVVladimir 23:17, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, DrKiernan 14:27, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Texas Tech University

[edit]

I would appreciate any general feedback on the article, and suggestions about content changes/additions that would help advance it toward FA status. Thanks.--Elred 20:52, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It strikes me as a very, very good article - so much so, that I can't actually find much/anything to critisise =P (but then I'm not hugely experienced). Seems very well referenced, a nice number of copyright-safe pictures. Reads very well (except for a slight hiccup in the introduction, which I corrected). I don't have a huge amount of experience with peer reviewing, but it seems to me that this article could certainly be worth FA status. Well done ;). TheIslander 11:10, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks--Elred 16:39, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oldag's review

[edit]

I am kind of busy today to do a full review. Id think the guidelines for structure from the universities wikiproject could be of help. http://en.wikipedia.orgview_html.php?sq=Envato&lang=en&q=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Universities#Structure Oldag07 15:18, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Oldag, but are you saying we're off the guidelines? I believe we've adhered to them pretty well. Is there something specific that you think is contrary to how it should be? Thanks.--Elred 16:40, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
ill be busy until wednesday. I wish i could read the article more carefully. Keep in mind, i really don't pay much attention to official guidelines. I generally make BOLD edits, and if you don't like it than change it back type of person. However here are some observations:
as for the advice above, well, the article doesn't violate the guidelines, but i feel it could be expanded according to the guidelines. notable people for example could have a paragraph or two with a pictures. I am not exactly sure why you have a libraries and research centers section and a notable buildings section, but no "campus" section. notable organizations could be merged into a expanded "student life" section. A campus section should describe the campus as whole.
There isn't a "notable buildings" section, unless you are talking about "facilities" which I agree should probably be folded into the (soon to be created) Campus section. My way of thinking with the libraries/research part is that these are entities more so than 'brick & mortar.' While they are housed in buildings, the buildings and physical aspect of them isn't the aim of the entry. It's more about the scope (and the work done within.) Perhaps that heading should be relabeled simply "research facilities." The Campus section seems to me that it should plainly entail the physical design of the campus (architecture, area, physical relationship, etc) whereas actual description of what goes on inside the specific buildings belongs elsewhere (mostly.) Do you agree?--Elred 00:49, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I feel: libraries/ research laboratories should go onto research i guess isn't a major section according to wikiproject university. parts of that paragraph could be merged into a research paragraph that goes under a a subsection of academics. part of it should go onto a brand new campus section with is another major section on wikiproject universities Oldag07 04:14, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Gotcha.--Elred 20:18, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Academics needs a major expansion.
  • Another big picture thing that i have seen. Well I can't exactly find where the guideline is, but i believe for either GA status or FA, most lists should be converted to prose (academics and facilities). bqzip01 probably could tell you more about that.
  • the school songs probably could move to another page. Much like the a&m fight song: http://en.wikisource.orgview_html.php?sq=Envato&lang=en&q=Aggie_War_Hymn
  • Not really a guideline, but i put athletics well below academics. I argued that athletics should be placed in a location reflective of its order of importance. The student life aspect of the school in my humble opinion is more important than its sports section. Traditions at a&m make sense to be above athletics. at another school, i can see the argument being the opposite.
  • so far so good. i have seen the a&m article in far worse condition. keep up the good work. i guess this is good enough for a peer review, but Id like to make a more detailed one. but keep up the good work. Oldag07 00:19, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Great. Thanks mate.--Elred 00:27, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Refs

[edit]

I notice that a bunch of the references are just URIs. You need to redo these using the cite web template. Look at the article World Community Grid for an example of how to appropriately cite web pages. —Remember the dot (talk) 01:47, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

BQ's review

[edit]

I am WAY too busy to do a full review, but at the request of Wordbuilder, I shall acquiesce. In addition, (start sarcasm) if there has to be another Big XII school that is a featured article (end sarcasm here), I'd prefer this one or Baylor. Your school (sadly) seems the most reasonable when it comes to matters of professionalism off of the playing fields (my sister-in-law and her fiance both went there). As Wordbuilder and the guys that submitted the OU page for FA status will tell you I can be a nasty SOB when it comes to editing.

That said, I'll give you a quick overview of the problems I see and I'll give you a full overview sometime in the near future.

  1. The lead is WAY too short. For an article of this length, you would expect 2-3 paragraphs. In addition, I am not a fan of citations in the lead. Everything in the lead should be addressed and expanded upon in the body of the article. Read WP:LEAD for more info. I think the last sentence is more speculation than fact and should not be mentioned in the lead. "Doctoral" is redundant since all universities grant doctorate degrees.
  2. Lots of passive voice throughout. Be more assertive and specific. Example: Though plans for opening a college in West Texas had been in the legislature since before 1900, it had long been thought that any such institution should be a branch of Texas A&M. In 1923, however, the legislature decided to create a new university system to best serve the needs of the region. How about: The Texas legislature discussed plans for opening a college in West Texas as early as (insert actual date here, not ~1900)[citation needed], but the planned Texas A&M branch did not materialize as envisioned. Instead, in (insert the FULL date of the measure) 1923, the government of Texas (note variety in word choice) decided to create a completely new university system "to best serve the needs of the region." (get an actual quote here, it adds credibility)[citation needed]
  3. Work on reducing lists to prose. It should be compelling, not a list. Example:
  4. Serious problems with commas and apostrophes Example: Texas Tech University offers 150 Bachelor's, 104 Master's and 59 Doctoral degree programs. Apostophes not needed
  5. Do a double check on the spelling. I didn't see anything jump out, but it is always good to do a double check for sanity. I recommend getting Firefox. It does a spell check as you type.
  6. I recommend putting the songs and traditions in another article and expand other sections.
  7. Get sources for ALL of your claims Examples: "1839-acre campus", the entire athletic section, etc.
  8. Wikify all dates IAW WP:DATE

I promise a much more expanded review later.— BQZip01 — talk 01:50, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Awesome. Thanks.--Elred 02:05, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
RE: Spelling. I ran it through Word a couple of days ago and everything looked good. I think we should continue to be vigilant in this area as material is added. Thanks for weighing in, BQ. →Wordbuilder 04:08, 29 July 2007 (UTC) (Unfortunately, after posting this comment, I edited the article, successfully MAKING a typo/spelling error. →Wordbuilder 00:04, 30 July 2007 (UTC))[reply]
There is a tceh spelling joke somewhere in there :-)
I set myself up for that... →Wordbuilder 13:44, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
RE: Apostrophe usage. They are called bachelor's degrees, master's degree, etc. So, aren't the apostrophes appropriate and shouldn't they be put back in? →Wordbuilder 00:04, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The people who wrote the main articles on that seem to think so. For some reason I have it in my head that they aren't supposed to have an apostrophe. I believe older "Driver's Licenses" used to simply say "Drivers License" and I would assume a similar syntax was in use. But TX DL's now say "Driver License." It would appear that the wiki consensus prefers the apostrophes though. I'll stick em back in since I pulled em.--Elred 00:34, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Whoops on that one. I guess it technically could go either way. My bad. — BQZip01 — talk 04:38, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, ****. Karancs beat me to most of my comments. I second her inputs and others, but that is a really good start. Keep up the good work! — BQZip01 — talk 06:20, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Automated Peer Review

[edit]

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

You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, Davnel03 13:41, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Review by karanacs

[edit]

I'm an Aggie like BQ and OlAg but I promise to be fair :) We got a lot of feedback when we brought Texas A&M University to FA and are just trying to share the knowledge. Some of my comments might mirror theirs; sorry for the duplication.

  • The lead is too short. It should contain one or two more paragraphs, and should mention more of the school's history and campus information.
    • Also, it isn't necessary to put major in quotes. The way that sentence is written it makes it sound like Tech competes in another division in minor sports. As I don't think that is the case, you might want to reword.
  • When Tech opened, was it coed or all-male?
  • make sure that all full dates are wikilinked
  • "In the 1960s, it was decided that " -> who decided or proposed the name changes?
  • Should board of directors be capitalized (Board of Directors)?
  • Need a citation directly after all quotations. This includes the sentence from the letter to the University Daily and the quote from Ed Whitacre.
  • "there is talk " of making Tech a flagship university. Who is talking? If this is the legislature, that should be noted.
  • The Organization section should be fleshed out more. If you choose to keep the list of colleges, you need to at least lead into it more (yes, you mention that there are 10, but then there are intervening sentences about locations). I prefer to see the list became prose, possibly containing the numbers or percentage of students who are enrolled in each college.
    • Although you mention in the lead that Tech has the 5th largest student body in the state, this is not mentioned anywhere in the body of the article. The Organization section would be a good place to add this. If it isn't in the body, then it should be removed from the lead.
    • The last paragraph, about the 1839 acre campus, should not be in organization, but instead in Campus. This fact is also listed in history -- does it need to be in both places?
  • All measurements should have both standard and metric versions. I use {{convert}}
  • Do not include external links (such as Museum of Texas Tech University) in the body of the article
  • The research facilities section reads like a list. It needs better transitions, or, at least, try to vary the beginnings of the sentences.
  • Is there anything else noteworthy about the campus?
  • Do you need to specify that the United Spirit Arena is in Lubbock?
  • First paragraph of athletics needs to vary the way the sentences start -- they all begin with Tech Tech or the university
  • Athletics section needs citations.
  • I would retitle the section Sports Traditions to Mascots.
  • You should mention in the athletics section that the team used to be called the Matadors (as is mentioned in traditions).
  • We got slammed in our FA for having a lot of citations reference various A&M websites, and percentage-wise we had a lot fewer that you. If at all possible, try to find non-university references for your facts. The Lubbock or school newspaper would be good places to look first.
  • Reformat your citations, and make sure to use named refs, as I see several of these are duplicated (10 and 11, 12 and 13, 24 and 25)
  • You need more citations -- everything should be able to be easily verified, and it's not from the article.
  • If the citation issues were fixed, I think this would have a good shot at GA. For FA, though, the prose is going to need major work. There are a lot of short and choppy sentences that don't flow well together. You would do well to go through each section and see if you can rewrite them into more cohesive, "compelling" prose.

Good luck! Karanacs 17:27, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Great feedback.--Elred 00:03, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Images

[edit]

I have an issue with some of the images. Image:TTUamin1923.jpg lists http://www.kensharpe.com/ as the source but I can't find the image anywhere on the site. Also, you state the image was released under the CC Attr 2.5 license. Did the photographer state that? Is there an OTRS ticket number? There is no proof the photographer credited released the image under the given license. Same issue for Image:MRstatue.jpg and Image:Techsubwide.jpg (which appears to be an HDR image which I'm not a fan of as far as being encyclopedic) which list http://dallasphotoworks.com/ as the source. I can't find either pictures on the site and there is no verfication the photographer released the photos under the given licenses. Please clarify the image issues.↔NMajdan•talk 17:10, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I've corresponded via email directly with the photographer's grandson (and copyright holder) and received permission to use the 1925 photo. As for the HDR aspect, if these are HDR they are very subtle examples (i'm an amateur photographer at best). I believe, however, that the majority of the dramatic effects are due to the time of day both of these shots were taken (dusk.) Apparently they were both shot in the short period of time where the campus lights are on and it's still a bit light outside. Other than that, I don't believe they've been manipulated dramatically, and certainly not to the extent that they create a false impression of the subject matter. --Elred 01:46, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Elred, what do you have in the way of licensing/permission on the other ones that NMajdan mentioned? →Wordbuilder 02:22, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
All the photos on the page came from four sources: 1. I took them myself 2. Are the property of David Kozlowski (whom I corresponded with personally and received permission) 3. Are the property of Ken Sharpe (whom I corresponded with personally and received permission) 4. are in wikicommons (the mastodon). If there is a problem with the manner by which they are authorized I'm sure they will be willing to help. They both showed interest in the article and endeavor.--Elred 02:51, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the feedback. I'll leave most of the issues to Elred since he uploaded the photos. I do have one quesiton. Is the use of HDR images—if that's what it is, I'm not sure either way—forbidden or discouraged? Thanks! →Wordbuilder 19:41, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is just my opinion (although, knowing Wikipedia, there may be some buried policy/guideline on it) it comes down to a matter of encyclopedic content. That image isn't blatantly HDR (look at the shades of blue around the tree and building compared to the rest of the sky - its the biggest HDR give-a-away in this image) so it could be a lot worse (like this one). I would probably say this photo is OK since its not heavily altered but generally photos in an encyclopedia should have only the minimal post-processing and nothing artistic (which is what HDR is). The only post-processing for images should be things to clean an image such as remove dirt, brighten or darken an image, etc.↔NMajdan•talk 21:56, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bruno Maddox

[edit]

Hello. I figured I would see if anyone had any useful initial reactions to this new article. Here are my concerns in list form:

  • Is the Themes section working out? Are Science and Satire actual themes or really topics? I took the Themes section idea from an earlier version of the Joss Whedon article.
  • Is this article the place for a plot summary of Maddox's first novel? I want to make this an FA that has depth enough to make it interesting but not enough that the article weights in at 60k or more.
  • Does the article need a copy edit?

Any comments you may have would be appreciated. Best, BillDeanCarter 22:47, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Postelsia

[edit]

I started an article a while back, Postelsia, and I'd like some tips on how I could improve it. This is the first article I've started all by myself, and it's kind of hard to judge your own work. I would really like to improve it enough to be a good article, and maybe even that most coveted of prizes, featured article status. Any tips? Comments? Things I did absolutely wrong? Werothegreat 12:10, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Well, the first "thing you did absolutely wrong" was adding this to the North Omaha review, instead of to the main Peer Review page. :-) Try going to Wikipedia:Peer review and following the instructions at the top of the page. --AnonEMouse (squeak) 15:01, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • But OK. While it's here, I'll write here. When you do it right, you can move my comments to the right place. Don't forget to do the other stuff in the instructions, like marking on its talk page that it's on peer review, etc.
    • First issue I see is a lack of inline citations. Not that this seems to be a particularly controversial issue, of course, so you don't need to cite every sentence, but writing where you got what fact would be useful.
    • Nice photos, well done.
    • How big are they? Either give citable measurements, or display a photo including a person or their hand or something.
    • "Postelsia was first described by Franz Joseph Ruprecht near Bodega Bay in California" - who was FJR? A botanist, a random passerby, a '49er looking for gold? When was it first described? Where - in a diary, in a scientific journal, in a newspaper article, on a website?
    • "and has been used by several textbooks as an example of multicellular protists, as well as an example of the class Phaeophyceae." - what textbooks? Give at least some examples, or a citation saying that, or strike the sentence.
    • link or explain first mention of important and/or uncommon terms: intertidal zone, thallus, photosynthesis, , gametophytes, holdfast ... there are others, but I got tired of listing them. Some are linked in their second mention and not in their first. Was Habitat originally a lower section, then moved up? California is also linked in second mention, but not in first.
    • "an algae" but "The Brown Alga" - which is the correct singular?
    • WP:$
    • The animation is cute, but distracting, and limited - typically you either display the whole cycle statically, or animate the whole cycle, this one seems to display most, and animate part.
    • Edible - cite or give an example of recipes using it
    • " illegal to harvest Postelsia for recreational use" - cite the law. "actually", "however" - is there a dispute about companies being able to harvest, but not individuals? If so, refer to or cite the actual debate. If not, we shouldn't express astonishment.
    • Where do harvesters get it? Do they maintain farms of their own, just trawl public coastlines, what?

--AnonEMouse (squeak) 15:20, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]


I would like to have the article reviewed a second time, as it has just recently been granted good article status, and I would like to know what improvements could be made so that it might warrant featured article status. Werothegreat 01:37, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My Musical

[edit]

I've been working on this article, heading towards GA, and possibly in the future FA, status. I'm looking for overall anything and everything that could or should be done to the article. Thanks so much! --Gpollock 06:33, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think this article is good enough to pass GA, but there are some ways you can improve it.
  • For example, some of the paragraphs are very short, consisting of only one sentence at times. It would be better to merge some paragraphs.
  • You make references to earlier episodes made in the show. For example, in, "The Rant Song", you say, "Janitor's section in this song ("It all started with a penny in the door") refers to an incident in Scrubs' pilot, "My First Day."" As someone who does not watch, Scrubs, it is a bit confusing. In this case, I would advice using the cite episode reference template. See Wikipedia:Citation templates.
    • Attempted to make that reference clearer, and changed other ones to footnote citations. --Gpollock
  • The image "My Musical.jpg" does not have a fair use rational. One needs to be added.
ISD 07:01, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the help. --Gpollock 21:33, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Muse (band)

[edit]

Hi there, I'm interested in improving the article on Muse. I'd like some help identifying the areas that are most in need of editing/cleanup/expansion and how I should go about it.

Thanks :) -- M2Ys4U (talk) 02:15, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Someone has clearly put a lot of work into this and respect is due for that. The main deficiency at the moment is that there are quite a few places where references to sources are needed (I think this has already been flagged). Also, I suggest that the section titled "The Future" might be better as a sub-section in history.Circusandmagicfan 15:07, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

  • Please expand the lead to conform with guidelines at Wikipedia:Lead. The article should have an appropriate number of paragraphs as is shown on WP:LEAD, and should adequately summarize the article.[?]
  • Consider removing links that add little to the article or that have been repeated in close proximity to other links to the same article, as per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (links) and WP:CONTEXT.[?]
  • Per Wikipedia:Context and Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates), months and days of the week generally should not be linked. Years, decades, and centuries can be linked if they provide context for the article.[?]
  • Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (headings), headings generally do not start with articles ('the', 'a(n)'). For example, if there was a section called ==The Biography==, it should be changed to ==Biography==.[?]
  • Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (headings), headings generally should not repeat the title of the article. For example, if the article was Ferdinand Magellan, instead of using the heading ==Magellan's journey==, use ==Journey==.[?]
  • The script has spotted the following contractions: didn't, couldn't, if these are outside of quotations, they should be expanded.
  • As done in WP:FOOTNOTE, footnotes usually are located right after a punctuation mark (as recommended by the CMS, but not mandatory), such that there is no space in between. For example, the sun is larger than the moon [2]. is usually written as the sun is larger than the moon.[2][?]
  • Please ensure that the article has gone through a thorough copyediting so that it exemplifies some of Wikipedia's best work. See also User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 1a.[?]

You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, DrKiernan 14:38, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Make sure every reference to any album is italicised. In the lead, Black Holes and Revelations needs doing, and there might be further instances. Plus, that really isn't a lot of references, and they don't all look to have {{citeweb}} templates going on. Seegoon 22:23, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Youngstown, Ohio

[edit]

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

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


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

Manzanar

[edit]

Greetings...Manzanar recently passed GA review. Although there has been what may appear to be a mini-edit war since then, I think we've settled our differences and agreed upon terminology that should be used.

As such...what do you all think needs to be done for this article to reach FA status? Any suggestions would be most appreciated. Gmatsuda 08:14, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

From DrKiernan

[edit]
  • There's no need to include "Manzanar" in the sub-headings; and the additional reading section should be after the references and above the external links. DrKiernan 10:46, 25 July 2007 (UTC)  Done Gmatsuda 18:17, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

  • As done in WP:FOOTNOTE, footnotes usually are located right after a punctuation mark (as recommended by the CMS, but not mandatory), such that there is no space in between. For example, the sun is larger than the moon [2]. is usually written as the sun is larger than the moon.[2][?]
I didn't see any references/footnotes that didn't follow this. Then again, perhaps I missed something. Gmatsuda 18:03, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, DrKiernan 10:48, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for taking a look at the article. Gmatsuda 18:03, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK...more peer reviewers, please!! :-) Gmatsuda 06:27, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

From SandyGeorgia

[edit]
  • The article has jumps to external websites; Wiki is not a blog, a webhost, or MySpace. External content belongs either in External links, as a reference, or in a Wikified article if the subject is notable.
The article has just two jumps to external web sites, one to the official web site of the Manzanar National Historic Site and the other to the Manzanar Committee web site. I think the article text shows why these jumps are pertinent to the article and appropriate for inclusion. Could you elaborate on your objection to including them? Thanks. Gmatsuda 05:11, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't say they shouldn't be included; there shouldn't be external jumps in the article. If you need those sites, they would either be as references or External links. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:19, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
OK...so they just shouldn't be in the prose. I get it. :-) Gmatsuda 05:36, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article has a massive External link farm that should be radically reduced according to WP:EL, WP:RS and WP:NOT.
I removed a few of them that weren't as important as the rest, but the remaining links offer important information, about all of the "eras" of Manzanar's history, not just the wartime period, and in trying to offer resources covering that entire spectrum, including material that isn't covered in the article, I hesitate to remove more of them. Can the article be promoted without paring the EL list down further? Gmatsuda 22:41, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If links include information because it's needed yet not included in the article, then the article fails 1b, comprehensive. A well-written article covers all important aspects of the topic, minimizing the need for External links. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:19, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Reading up on what the phrase link farm actually means, I don't see this as meeting the criteria. A link farm is a group of web sites that all hyperlink to every other page in the group. --Epeefleche 05:19, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
From WP:EL...the ELs in this article are those that actually do provide a unique resource beyond what the article would contain if it became a Featured article. In fact, the ELs appear to meet the requirements spelled out in WP:EL. In any case, if they MUST be pared down for the article to be promoted, I guess we can do that. Gmatsuda 05:44, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • References/footnotes are not fully and correctly formatted (see WP:CITE/ES). All sources should have a publisher, all websources need a last access date, author and publication date should be listed when available, and book sources need page nos. I identified the PDFs.  Done Gmatsuda 02:41, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • See WP:DASH and fix throughout; I did a sample edit. Spaced emdashes aren't used on Wiki (or just about any other manual of style) and endashes are used to separate date and page ranges.  Done Gmatsuda 02:42, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
FYI: during GA review, a reviewer specified that for citations where dates were not available, we needed to indicate that, so now I'm getting conficting information. Gmatsuda 04:59, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, that's why it's GA and not FA :-) Anyone can promote a GA; FA undergoes scrutiny by a large number of experienced editors. Did this "GA person" give you any Wiki guidelines page for that info? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:19, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I just checked your GAReviews and didn't see that anywhere. By the way, those green marks really clutter a review. Of course,you're free to ignore any of the items I mentioned. Best regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:32, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
For the record, it was here...User:IvoShandor/Manzanar_GA_review. But no matter now...it's fixed. :-) Gmatsuda 06:20, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I read that, and I didn't see IvoShandor anywhere saying to add "date not available"; s/he said, "The references (footnotes) need tighter formatting, it is pretty inconsistent. Many lack publication dates that should be readily available." SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:55, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, adding (date not available) made him happy so...*shrug* Like I said, it's fixed now. :-) Gmatsuda 20:17, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Have a look at WP:MOS#Images; there are over-sized images. Thumbs should not have sizes set; user preferences determine size. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:55, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the size setting for all the images, but added the setting back for the first image (flag) because I thought the blank space in that portion of the article looked far worse than having a photo take up some of that space. Can the article be promoted with this one photo still having a size setting?
In reading WP:MOS#Images, it states that "...the image subject or image properties may call for a specific image width to enhance the readability or layout of an article." I think this might be the case here, given all that white space I'm referring to. What are your thoughts about this? Gmatsuda 08:56, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please see WP:MOSLINK and WP:CONTEXT regarding overlinking of common terms in the article; I suggest an independent copyedit before approaching FAC. Perhaps the WP:LoCE will help. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:56, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Removed a good number of unnecessary wikilinks. You might want to check it out now. Gmatsuda 08:50, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for taking the time to review the article and to provide suggestions for improvement. Gmatsuda 04:59, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good luck. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:19, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for taking another pass through the article. i think I've addressed your latest comments. Let me know if you think there's more we can do to improve the article. Gmatsuda 09:22, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

More reviewers please!

[edit]

For anyone interested, we could use more peer reviews of this article. Thanks in advance for your time! Gmatsuda 06:23, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Machinae Supremacy

[edit]

I've been working on this article for a while now, and appart from a few more sources and details in the history I'm unsure how to go about improving it further. Any feedback how how I might get the aricle up to GA status would be most welcome.Rehevkor 14:46, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Automated Peer Review

[edit]

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

  •  Done. Removed dates and I believe any other links are already in context. Rehevkor
  •  Done. Trimed down as much as I could. Rehevkor
    • While additive terms like “also”, “in addition”, “additionally”, “moreover”, and “furthermore” may sometimes be useful, overusing them when they aren't necessary can instead detract from the brilliancy of the article. This article has 11 additive terms, a bit too much.
  •  Done. Got rid of most.. I think. Rehevkor

You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, Davnel03 20:55, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Parapsychology

[edit]

previous PR

Automated Peer Review

[edit]

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

You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, Davnel03 11:56, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've made the relevant changes per these suggestions. I would appreciate if someone could overlook the article some more to make sure they have all been made and point out any other problems they see with it so that they can quickly be changed. Thanks. Wikidudeman (talk) 03:36, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

2007 Fiesta Bowl

[edit]

Looking to get this article up to GA quality. Any tips would be appreciated.↔NMajdan•talk 19:29, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Automated Peer Review

[edit]

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

  • The lead of this article may be too long, or may contain too many paragraphs. Please follow guidelines at WP:LEAD; be aware that the lead should adequately summarize the article.[?]
  • If there is not a free use image in the top right corner of the article, please try to find and include one.[?]
  • Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (headings), headings generally do not start with articles ('the', 'a(n)'). For example, if there was a section called ==The Biography==, it should be changed to ==Biography==.[?]
  • Please reorder/rename the last few sections to follow guidelines at Wikipedia:Guide to layout.[?]
  • There are a few occurrences of weasel words in this article- please observe WP:AWT. Certain phrases should specify exactly who supports, considers, believes, etc., such a view.
    • it has been
    • might be weasel words, and should be provided with proper citations (if they already do, or are not weasel terms, please strike this comment).[?]
  • The script has spotted the following contractions: wouldn't, couldn't, if these are outside of quotations, they should be expanded.
  • Please ensure that the article has gone through a thorough copyediting so that it exemplifies some of Wikipedia's best work. See also User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 1a.[?]

You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, ↔NMajdan•talk 19:29, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wafulz

[edit]
  • The article is full of weasel words, and the writing does not hold the appropriate tone. For example: "Oklahoma was the designated home team and was favored by 7½ points, but in a classic battle, the Broncos won in overtime, 43-42" should be "Oklahoma was the designated home team and was favored by 7½ points, but the Broncos won in overtime, 43-42"
  • The majority of the third sentence is not needed. Just tell us relevant facts- we don't need to know everything about the Fiesta Bowl to find out who is playing. We have Fiesta Bowl for that.
  • The lead is too short. See WP:LEAD.
  • Avoid phrases like "many felt" and "some say". These are weasel words again.
  • Try to write it more like an encyclopedia article and less like a news feature.
  • Does the new stadium needs its own section?
  • "Game legacy" should be replaced with "Game summary." It should really be shorted- it's not supposed to be a full play-by-play
  • Rename the section "OT" to "Overtime". Non-sports fans may not understand what's going on.
  • Get rid of personal commentary like "She seemed surprised, but enthusiastically accepted". Just say she accepted.
  • Remove most of the "Instant classic" section. This is speculation and opinion, which is not allowed
  • "Final game facts" is not necessary. Redundant material should be removed, and other material should be merged into the rest of the article.
  • The "Reaction" section has too many quotes. Try and summarize opinions.
  • Image:TFB Logo Brand tag2.gif needs a fair use rationale.

This article has a ways to go before being a good article. Be sure to read the good article criteria.-Wafulz 22:30, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

James W. Holsinger

[edit]

The editors of this page have worked tirelessly to shorten, remove POV, remove OR, and fix references. I would like to have the page peer reviewed to move it from a B-Class to a GA-Class or A-Class article.--Maryrebecca 21:47, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Automated review

[edit]

(Doesn't seem to have picked up much. DrKiernan 09:25, 23 July 2007 (UTC)) The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program, and might not be applicable for the article in question.[reply]

You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, DrKiernan 09:25, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

All dates and years are properly linked per the Manual of Style -- full dates linked, years without context, not linked. We linked "As of 2007" per "Wikipedia:As of".--Maryrebecca 18:33, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Review by User:Brad

[edit]

Nice work! Some problems:

  • "Holsinger's nomination became controversial due to, according to his critics, anti-gay bias in his work in the United Methodist Church." This would be better positioned immediately after the sentence about his nomination, rather than having a summary of his career in between.
  • "Nomination controversy" would be better named "Committee hearing" or similar; nominees for high-level positions rarely sail through hearings unscathed and losing "controversy" would invite editors to write a more balanced account of the hearings.
  • The subsections of "Public health stances" might work better as a single section. "Readiness of Public Health Service Commissioned Corps", "Sex education" and "Morning after pill" are just one sentence each. Again, combining them would encourage expansion.
  • The language overall is unvaried ("Holsinger this", "Holsinger that"), and I think that's just down to the primary article editors (from the edit history it looks like you and User:Therefore have been the most prolific editors of the article) settling on their own language and it needing some fresh eyes to brush up good work to great work; consider listing the article at the league of copyeditors for extra help. Brad 11:01, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Invasive species

[edit]

Does this article meet the scientific understanding of invasive species? It seems to be extensively cited with plenty of examples. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast 05:23, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Automated Peer Review

[edit]

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

  • Please expand the lead to conform with guidelines at Wikipedia:Lead. The article should have an appropriate number of paragraphs as is shown on WP:LEAD, and should adequately summarize the article.[?]
  • Consider adding more links to the article; per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (links) and Wikipedia:Build the web, create links to relevant articles.[?]
  • There may be an applicable infobox for this article. For example, see Template:Infobox Biography, Template:Infobox School, or Template:Infobox City.[?] (Note that there might not be an applicable infobox; remember that these suggestions are not generated manually)
  • Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (numbers), there should be a non-breaking space - &nbsp; between a number and the unit of measurement. For example, instead of 50 miles, use 50 miles, which when you are editing the page, should look like: 50&nbsp;miles.[?]
  • Per Wikipedia:Context and Wikipedia:Build the web, years with full dates should be linked; for example, link January 15, 2006.[?]
  • Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (headings), headings generally do not start with articles ('the', 'a(n)'). For example, if there was a section called ==The Biography==, it should be changed to ==Biography==.[?]
  • Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (headings), headings generally should not repeat the title of the article. For example, if the article was Ferdinand Magellan, instead of using the heading ==Magellan's journey==, use ==Journey==.[?]
  • Per WP:WIAFA, this article's table of contents (ToC) may be too long- consider shrinking it down by merging short sections or using a proper system of daughter pages as per Wikipedia:Summary style.[?]
  • This article may need to undergo summary style, where a series of appropriate subpages are used. For example, if the article is United States, than an appropriate subpage would be History of the United States, such that a summary of the subpage exists on the mother article, while the subpage goes into more detail.[?]
  • Watch for redundancies that make the article too wordy instead of being crisp and concise. (You may wish to try Tony1's redundancy exercises.)
    • Vague terms of size often are unnecessary and redundant - “some”, “a variety/number/majority of”, “several”, “a few”, “many”, “any”, and “all”. For example, “All pigs are pink, so we thought of a number of ways to turn them green.”
  • As done in WP:FOOTNOTE, footnotes usually are located right after a punctuation mark (as recommended by the CMS, but not mandatory), such that there is no space in between. For example, the sun is larger than the moon [2]. is usually written as the sun is larger than the moon.[2][?]
  • Please ensure that the article has gone through a thorough copyediting so that it exemplifies some of Wikipedia's best work. See also User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 1a.[?]

You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, Davnel03 13:24, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comments on work done

[edit]

2nd Automated Peer Review

[edit]

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

  • Consider adding more links to the article; per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (links) and Wikipedia:Build the web, create links to relevant articles.[?]
  • There may be an applicable infobox for this article. For example, see Template:Infobox Biography, Template:Infobox School, or Template:Infobox City.[?] (Note that there might not be an applicable infobox; remember that these suggestions are not generated manually)
  • Per Wikipedia:Context and Wikipedia:Build the web, years with full dates should be linked; for example, link January 15, 2006.[?]
  • Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (headings), headings generally do not start with articles ('the', 'a(n)'). For example, if there was a section called ==The Biography==, it should be changed to ==Biography==.[?]
  • Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (headings), headings generally should not repeat the title of the article. For example, if the article was Ferdinand Magellan, instead of using the heading ==Magellan's journey==, use ==Journey==.[?]
  • Per WP:WIAFA, this article's table of contents (ToC) may be too long- consider shrinking it down by merging short sections or using a proper system of daughter pages as per Wikipedia:Summary style.[?]
  • This article may need to undergo summary style, where a series of appropriate subpages are used. For example, if the article is United States, than an appropriate subpage would be History of the United States, such that a summary of the subpage exists on the mother article, while the subpage goes into more detail.[?]
  • There are a few occurrences of weasel words in this article- please observe WP:AWT. Certain phrases should specify exactly who supports, considers, believes, etc., such a view.
    • it has been
    • might be weasel words, and should be provided with proper citations (if they already do, or are not weasel terms, please strike this comment).[?]
  • Watch for redundancies that make the article too wordy instead of being crisp and concise. (You may wish to try Tony1's redundancy exercises.)
    • Vague terms of size often are unnecessary and redundant - “some”, “a variety/number/majority of”, “several”, “a few”, “many”, “any”, and “all”. For example, “All pigs are pink, so we thought of a number of ways to turn them green.”
  • As done in WP:FOOTNOTE, footnotes usually are located right after a punctuation mark (as recommended by the CMS, but not mandatory), such that there is no space in between. For example, the sun is larger than the moon [2]. is usually written as the sun is larger than the moon.[2][?]
  • Please ensure that the article has gone through a thorough copyediting so that it exemplifies some of Wikipedia's best work. See also User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 1a.[?]

You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, Davnel03 12:15, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Craigflower Manor and Schoolhouse

[edit]

I recently created this article, and on the advice of a friend, I have decided to take it to Peer Review with an eye to eventually making it a good article. I'm generally looking for comments about what you think the strengths, and weaknesses of this article are, and what might be some serious stumbling blocks in any good-article nomination. --Haemo 07:00, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Automated Peer Review

[edit]

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

You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, Davnel03 20:48, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, well, I struck the length one, since I'm not going for featured article status on this one, but it is as comprehensive as I think is reasonable. I also checked the infoboxes, and it doesn't looks like there are any. I also copyedited it, but could always use more eyes. --Haemo 00:25, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

2nd Automated Peer Review

[edit]

Let's see if the Peer Review tool has picked anything else up...

You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, Davnel03 12:01, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, it looks like the first APR was pretty accurate. There isn't an infobox, though, AFAIK. --Haemo 02:33, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Waitoreke

[edit]

I would like to see this page become a FA. However, it is short and I would like to see comments made about what part of this article needs expansion and how this article could be approved Zalgt 18:35, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Automated Peer Review

[edit]

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

You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, Davnel03 11:45, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jeffree Star

[edit]

I would like to see what other users think of the effort of several users have made in improving this article over the past few months. It would be nice to see this as a good article someday, and progressed into a featured article. This has been on AFD and deletion review several times due to Jeffree Star not being notable yet, but it seems now that he has a fanbase and notability outside of MySpace and Buzznet.--milk the cows (Talk) 17:34, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Automated Peer Review

[edit]

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

You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, Davnel03 11:43, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Shanda Sharer murder case

[edit]

Hello, what would be needed to get this article up to featured status? Would one reference source be sufficent?; I realize that the sentencing section should be expanded. ۝ ۞ ░ 07:08, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Automated Peer Review

[edit]

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

You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, Davnel03 11:57, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Midnightdreary

[edit]

This isn't a full peer review, but might help get things started.

  1. Sources (!!) - First, sources are a definite problem here. There is only one full reference and it's in the middle of the list. Maybe list that separately under "References," then add a separate subsection for "Footnotes." There are also no citations at all for the "Sentencing" section. More important, though, this article desperately needs multiple sources. For the length of the article and the number of citations, I'd recommend at least 6 different independent, credible sources (books, articles, web sites, etc). See WP:CITE for ideas.
  2. Introduction - The introduction should literally introduce the entirety of the article, summarizing all the content that is to come. It should be 10 times as long as it is right now, at least.
  3. Tone- The article, I think, also occasionally falls into an inappropriate tone. Look at the "Investigation" part for example. "All morning" is not encyclopedic, and "hysterical" may not be objective. It seems a little too conversational, but that might be just me.
  4. "Aftermath?" - I also wonder about the "Aftermath" section. I was expecting some kind of impact on the persons involved or something, not a brief mention of a couple books (with no critical comparison to the true events they relate). A better section heading, perhaps?
  5. Long Sentences - As a final suggestion, re-read the whole article for sentences that are a bit too long (reading aloud usually helps identify them).

I hope this gives a place to start! --Midnightdreary 22:49, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Buffalo, New York

[edit]

This should be an easy one. Compare to the following FA articles of comparable US cities:

Feedback please.--SallyForth123 05:25, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Automated Peer Review

[edit]
  • Per Wikipedia:Context and Wikipedia:Build the web, years with full dates should be linked; for example, link January 15, 2006.[?]
  • Please reorder/rename the last few sections to follow guidelines at Wikipedia:Guide to layout.[?]
  • Per WP:WIAFA, this article's table of contents (ToC) may be too long- consider shrinking it down by merging short sections or using a proper system of daughter pages as per Wikipedia:Summary style.[?]
  • This article may need to undergo summary style, where a series of appropriate subpages are used. For example, if the article is United States, than an appropriate subpage would be History of the United States, such that a summary of the subpage exists on the mother article, while the subpage goes into more detail.[?]
  • Watch for redundancies that make the article too wordy instead of being crisp and concise. (You may wish to try Tony1's redundancy exercises.)
    • While additive terms like “also”, “in addition”, “additionally”, “moreover”, and “furthermore” may sometimes be useful, overusing them when they aren't necessary can instead detract from the brilliancy of the article. This article has 40 additive terms, a bit too much.
    • Vague terms of size often are unnecessary and redundant - “some”, “a variety/number/majority of”, “several”, “a few”, “many”, “any”, and “all”. For example, “All pigs are pink, so we thought of a number of ways to turn them green.”
  • Please ensure that the article has gone through a thorough copyediting so that it exemplifies some of Wikipedia's best work. See also User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 1a.[?]

You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, SallyForth123 05:30, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Review by Shalom

[edit]

I read and edited about half of the article. You can isolate my edits by checking the overall diff in the article history. I added several "citation needed" tags and some hidden messages in the source code to advise certain changes. In particular, I am concerned about the list of films set in Buffalo because it might be a WP:TRIVIA section. Shalom Hello 19:48, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Star Wars Episode VI: Return of the Jedi

[edit]

Final film in the series that needs to be brought up to FA status. Just looking for any improvements that people can see it needs from it's current state? The Filmaker 21:23, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Refrence are few and far between, there are NONE in "Plot"; it'll never get to GA with that, let alone FA. Dalejenkins 05:55, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • You don't seem to understand how references are put down. The plot section does not require references because the reference is the work itself. To my knowledge, everything in the article is cited. Also, it is already a GA. The Filmaker 14:21, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think the critical reception needs expanding: Pauline Kael gave a negative review, but we need the primary source rather than my Empire magazine quoting her. Alientraveller 14:42, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

2006 Oklahoma Sooners football team

[edit]

First PR

This thing was reviewed before it was selected as a GA. Now I'm curious what needs to be done to get it FA. Any advice would be appreciated.↔NMajdan•talk 22:14, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Automated Peer Review

[edit]

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

You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, Davnel03 11:53, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cold Feet (series 5)

[edit]

This is the first article on an individual series/season I've written and I'm just keen to see what the general mood is of it before I create articles for the other four series. I've compared it with similarly-structured articles and basically cannibalised the official companion and documentaries on the series to get production information. I dispensed with Template: Episode list as it didn't look good with only four episodes in the list (plus the longer summaries due to longer running time made the "short summary" field moot). Brad 11:17, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Automated Peer Review

[edit]

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

  • Please expand the lead to conform with guidelines at Wikipedia:Lead. The article should have an appropriate number of paragraphs as is shown on WP:LEAD, and should adequately summarize the article.[?]
  • If there is not a free use image in the top right corner of the article, please try to find and include one.[?]
  • Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (numbers), there should be a non-breaking space - &nbsp; between a number and the unit of measurement. For example, instead of 6ft, use 6 ft, which when you are editing the page, should look like: 6&nbsp;ft.[?]
  • The script has spotted the following contractions: doesn't, if these are outside of quotations, they should be expanded.
  • Please ensure that the article has gone through a thorough copyediting so that it exemplifies some of Wikipedia's best work. See also User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 1a.[?]

You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, Davnel03 12:07, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've fixed the contractions, though I can't see any units of measurement that need a nbsp (unless % counts). The article is currently under 15,000 characters so the one-paragraph lead should be OK for now. Brad 15:45, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Slave Community

[edit]

This is an article about an influential history book on slavery in the United States that I've been working on for about a week and a half. Any suggestions to prepare this article for FAC are welcome. Dmoon1 09:03, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Joey Barton

[edit]

The article has undergone a major overhaul recently, with a lot of text and references being added. As far as I can see, it goes by the Manual of Style, at least more than it did before. I have been told it could have now reached A class on the quality scale and with this in mind I would hope to see it peer reviewed with a view to achieving featured article candidacy.

Any comments would be gratefully appreciated. Sir-Nobby 21:59, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mattythewhite

[edit]

Excellent from what I've read so far. Just a few things:

  • At the start of the "Senior career" section, it starts straight away with him making his first appearence for the club. It jumps straight from him being a schoolboy to being a professional footballer in the Premier League - theres no explanation for his becoming a footballer. Did he come through the youth ranks, was he spotted by a scout etc?
Info added on Everton academy, YTS contract at Man City, his wage and commute.
  • References should be placed after punctuation.
Done.
  • Endashes (see WP:DASH) should be used for seasons and scorelines.
Done.
  • Perhaps cutting down in the "External links" section. See WP:EL.
I think 5 is a good amount and they are all necessary.

Thats all really. From what I can tell, this article can go all the way. Mattythewhite 20:22, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the comments Matty. I'll start making those improvements now. Sir-Nobby 13:33, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just another thing. There appears to be some proseline in the text, e.g. sentences starting with "On January 1, 1900" for example. Best to incorporate the date elsewhere. Mattythewhite 21:10, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK thanks. Do you think you could help with that if you get a chance? Sir-Nobby 21:36, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Mattythewhite 21:28, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As has been stated in the article, Barton has played for the England under-21's. There is nothing of this in the infobox, but I think I've got his stats for them on playerhistory. Seems as if he's made 2 appearances with 0 goals for them.

Whilst looking for his U21 stats on theFA website I found a link that said he had scored in a match v Portugal, so 2 (0) can't be his stats. Thanks for looking anyway. It might be a case of having to read through reports on U21 matches that are on the FA's website since Barton was called up, and counting which ones he took part in and how many he scored. Sir-Nobby 11:02, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And would this be sufficient as a reference for the 2003-04 Young player of the year award, or is it just an unofficial internet poll? Mattythewhite 22:01, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There's nothing that suggests it is unofficial and I know that SWP won the POTY that season as well so it gives the right information. A lot of club's settle these awards by letting people vote online and the website looks reliable, so I think it can be used as a reference. Good find, Matty. Sir-Nobby 11:02, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
For an unofficial site its pretty reliable, but as I have an official club source I'll replace it with that. The MCFC player of the year awards are decided by a byzantine system in which supporters club branches have the largest say. Oldelpaso 09:01, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

By the look of it, Image:Joey Barton freekick.JPG can't be used as the copyright given on flickr does't allow it to be used freely. See this. Mattythewhite 22:51, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bole2

[edit]

Haven't read the whole article yet but so far I have only found a few minor things.

  • No controversy section?
Controversial incidents that were in some way related to his football career (Tandy, training ground, Dabo fights) are in the Career section, controversies with no relation to football (breaking pedestrian's leg, fight with taxi driver) are in Outside of Football section.
Yes I wasn't saying that they weren't mention. I'm say that they should be in a controversy section. Buc 06:03, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I know you weren't saying they weren't worth a mention. I explained why they are in the sections they are in.
  • "Outside of football" section would be better named "Off the pitch activity"
I have decided to stay with "Outside of football" as this is what Gilberto Silva's section that gives the same info has been named.
It's possible the Gilberto Silva section does in fact talk about him "Outside of football" (wouldn't know, haven't read it), but this "Outside of football" section clearly doesn't. Buc 06:03, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think it does. Everything mentioned in this section is Barton's involvement with non-footballing events. It includes the same info as Gilberto Silva's section - participation in charities, social life etc. That can be described as outside of football.
  • Ref #44, 49, 50, 53, 57, 60, 65 and 68 not dated.
Done
  • Odd that such a young player has a "Senior career" section and no "Early career" section
Not sure where exactly to seperate his early career with senior career. If anything he is probably still in his early career, maybe just moving in to senior...
  • More about his playing career in the lead.
I think the most significant moments in his playing career have been mentioned.
  • Added some citation tag where I think they are needed
Citations added/wording changed where needed.
  • Very sudden start to the "Senior career" section. What team is he playing for?
Made clear what team he is playing for. More info on his time in the academy/reserves would be useful if any can be found, although I don't think any more is desperately needed.
  • A few POV issues such as "rash tackle", "impressive form" and "altercation effectively ended Barton's time", there could be more.
Changed 'rash tackle' to 'hacking' - as described by the BBC in the reference. His form led to an England call-up so I think it's safe to refer to it as impressive - it impressed enough for him to get called-up. The Dabo incident did effectively end his Man City career - he was suspended from playing for the rest of the season and then made available for transfer a few weeks after the incident.
  • "Barton has since been bailed until July." is written in the present tence.
Changed to "Barton has been bailed until August", as it was extended. Reference added.
Still present tence. Buc 06:03, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Because he is still on bail. I will change it when the bail finishes.
  • No Honours section, but then again I don't think he's won anything.
No, not yet atleast.

This looks like a very impressive article (as much as I hate the subject). But it might be a idea to wait for a bit before nominating it comdidering he's just changed clubs. Or at the very least nominate for GA status first. Buc 15:01, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the comments Buc. Sir-Nobby 21:46, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Rambling Man

[edit]

Hi, late once again to the party, but some comments, hopefully some of them useful...

  • Do we really need to qualify that he's a football (soccer) player? First time I've seen this - I've always just piped that with footballer so at least the wikilink is right and it reads nicely.
Agreed that it reads better as 'footballer', but the Gilberto Silva lead describes him as a 'football (soccer) player' so I would guess that's what was decided as the best description, probably because 'footballer' could refer to many different sports. Sir-Nobby 11:38, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I believe "soccer" is used in the Gilberto Silva article because he is Brazilian and therefore may be referred to as a "soccer" player. I think you would be fine pipe linking on an article on Barton. Dave101→talk  14:58, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not keen on "Man City", would stick with either City or the whole thing.
Done. The club is now consistently referred to as 'City' throughout the article (apart from when it's necessary to refer to them by their full name). Sir-Nobby 11:36, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • "...his time in the first team expanding over a period of five years..." - not sure what this is really getting at, is it that he became more of a regular in the team over that time? It's not clear.
Changed to "...his time in the first team gradually increased in regularity over a period of five years..." Is this clearer? Sir-Nobby 11:36, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Update the "correct as of" in the infobox.
Updated. Sir-Nobby 11:36, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • A tiny bit lineprose in the Early life section, avoid the one-sentence paragraphs.
Moved sentences to the one-sentence paragraph. Sir-Nobby 11:36, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move ref [1] next to Huyton to end of sentence to comply with WP:CITE.
Done. Sir-Nobby 11:40, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • "He use to travel ..." used to?
Changed to "used to travel". Sir-Nobby 11:40, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Euro qualifiers" - expand and/or wikilink to assist the non-expert understand this.
Expanded to 2004 European Championship qualifiers with link added. Sir-Nobby 11:45, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • "rash tackle" - a bit POV, either find a decent citation which you can quote or tone it more neutrally.
Changed to "Barton sparked a ten-man brawl in a friendly match against Doncaster Rovers on 25 July 2004 after "hacking" an oppostion player." Hacking is how the BBC described it in the citation. Sir-Nobby 11:53, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not mandated (or at least I don't believe it is) but I prefer citations in numerical order so [18][9] could be [9][18].
Done. You're right, it does look tidier. Sir-Nobby 11:58, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Sir-Nobby 12:04, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Such as a typical box-to-box player..." - difficult reading.
Agreed, that bit does need re-wording but I'm not sure how. Any suggestions? Sir-Nobby 12:53, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Sir-Nobby 12:04, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Outside of football" section is lineprose - it needs to be flowed better, and move refs [68] and [19] in that section per WP:CITE.
Moved refs. I think I'm going to need help with the prose in this article. Sir-Nobby 12:08, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good level of citation, the prose needs some work before I'd consider FA, but this is most definitely GA + quality. Good work. The Rambling Man 07:00, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the input RM. I think the main thing that needs attention now is the prose. It would be good if someone could help with that. Sir-Nobby 15:44, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oldelpaso

[edit]

I'll go through more thoroughly when I get the opportunity, but a few things I noticed from a quick scan:

  • There are one or two references which do not appear to be from reliable sources, such as the refernces to "footballers are idiots" blog and soccerfiesta.net. References to red-tops such as the Sun and the People should be used sparingly.
I have replaced the blog with a more reliable source (Sky Sports), but the only other sources that support the claim he has dated Amanda Harrington are in Spanish. Can these still be used? Sir-Nobby 16:35, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Depends on the nature of the source. If its from something like Marca that's fine, but if its the Spanish equivalent of Popbitch then no. While sources in English are preferred, there's no issue with using another language if that information is unavailable in English. Oldelpaso 10:36, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've found this, which looks like a bit more of reliable source to me. What do you think? Sir-Nobby 12:27, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not keen on the blockquotes, but that's probably personal preference.
I think it is just down to preference. They contain useful information so I think they should be kept. The first one gives the reader a pretty good idea about what it was like growing up in Huyton, the second one was a public appeal for his brother to come forward to the police Sir-Nobby 16:35, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • There's a big difference between 10 GCSEs A-C and 10 GCSEs A-G. If, as is likely, it cannot be determined which is the case here, it might be better to remove it.
Fair point (that there is a difference), but it's better to have at least some mention of his qualifications than none at all. If any info on what his GCSE grades were can be found it would be helpful, but if not then I don't see the point in removing it all together. Sir-Nobby 16:35, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Parts of his on-field career could be fleshed out some more. I'll see what I can get from my MCFC books & programmes.
Thanks Sir-Nobby 16:35, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Style of play section describes a more attacking Joey Barton than the one I know - he started as an out and out defensive midfielder; goals are a more recent addition to his game. His passing is not generally regarded as one of his strengths - the reference given is not a glowing assessment of his passing ability, I'd read the context as "there's more to his game than tackling". His goalscoring could do with some explanation - while he was top scorer for City last season, it was in a season where the club broke records for low scoring. It is also worth mentioning that in the past couple of seasons he took penalties and set-pieces for Manchester City. Again, I'll look at my reference material and see what I can find. Oldelpaso 19:22, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Admittedly I haven't seen him play much, so I was just really going by information given in the references. I think it might still be worth mentioning that he has finished top scorer before, even if City's scoring rates were particularly low that season. Sir-Nobby 16:35, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The thing to be vigilant about when writing a section like this is to avoid weasel words. Its easy to slip into phrasing like "some say", "many fans" and the like. Oldelpaso 10:36, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I'm not entirely sure if there are any weasel words in this article. Could you help? Sir-Nobby 12:27, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • After taking another look, the main issue I see beyond those already mentioned is one of prose standard (1a on the featured article criteria). Take the sentence He became a first player for City and his time in the first team gradually increased in regularity over a period of five years, which saw him make over 150 appearances for the club in total. from the lead: aside from the obvious omitted "team" at the start, we have
    • "his time in the first team gradually increased in regularity over a period of five years" - I know what this is trying to say - an attempt to state that the rate at which he made first team appearances increased - but it comes across as rather clunky, and needs rephrasing.
    • "which saw him make" is somewhat passive, simply stating "making over 150 appearances" is clearer and simpler.
    • the words "in total" are redundant, the meaning of the sentence is the same without them.

I know that copyediting your own prose can be difficult, often the most challenging part of getting an article to FA. You might find Tony1's advice useful in this regard. If you need any help in this area, don't hesitate to ask. Oldelpaso 10:36, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes it looks like the prose is the main thing that needs to be improved. I think I'll leave it to others as it probably goes beyond my writing skills. Thanks for the help, it's much appreciated. Sir-Nobby 12:27, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Presbyterian Ladies' College, Sydney

[edit]

I requested that this page be peer reviewed in June and received some great suggestions. I've taken these on board and made changes and was hoping that someone could have a look and see if it is worthy of GA status yet and/or make any further suggestions. Thanks in advance! Loopla 16:27, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Peer review/Presbyterian Ladies' College, Sydney/archive1

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

You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, DrKiernan 14:21, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comments of Twenty Years

[edit]
  • First off, fix the infobox. May i recommend Template:Aust school private.
  • The principals degrees need not be listed in the infobox, this is about the school, not the principals life achievements. Remove all "qualifications" (except Dr. etc) from the chairman and chaplain sections aswell.
  • References should not be used in the lead, unless there are extra-ordinary claims made. As such - 7&8 can go.
  • The lead need not contain the information about the principal. Concise - remember.
  • (from History - para 1) 7th of January, 1888 should be wikilinked and changed to January 7, 1888.
  • The quote of the student is possibly a bit too far, and takes up WAY too much room
  • The school prayer could be a copyvio?
  • College Motto section should be deleted, or at best - merged with another section.
  • College Crest is prob a bit too far, who really cares about the crest, if its so important, chuck it into the history of the article
  • School hymn is prob a copy vio and also unencyclopedic.
  • College tartan should be merged with uniform.
  • School badge should be merged with uniform
  • Too much info in the House System. See Aquinas College, Perth it deals with that section well.
  • Facilities....BORING. Does an encyclopedia really care about the Transition House at PLC Sydney? NO! So delete it.
  • The list of sports/bands/ensembles is completely useless, and no-one cares about it. Scotch College, Perth handles it well.
  • Im bored of this, and this will remain incomplete. Someone read WP:AQC and re-do the article. I am onto it.
  • It has been a pleasure. Twenty Years 12:18, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Impalement arts

[edit]

The article has developed over five months and has now reached a stage where it seems quite stable. I've pretty much exhausted sources that are easily available to me so I'm not likely to be adding a lot of extra content unless friends give me significant new material. I feel the history section is a bit thin: sadly that reflects difficulty in finding high quality historical source material about this aspect of circus arts. The main reason for seeking peer review is that I've done the great majority of the work on this piece and I feel I need for independent opinions to ensure I take a balanced approach to any further development. Also, it has no classification at the moment and I would ideally like to have it properly classified.Circusandmagicfan 17:56, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Have added links where it seems appropriate. Will re-check but am wary of over linking.
  • If there is not a free use image in the top right corner of the article, please try to find and include one.[?]
Images have been a big problem. Those that I have available seem to have failed Wiki's license criteria. I'm seeking new images from people who work in the field.
Hopefully now addressed thanks to a performer who supplied me with one of his publicity images and agreed that it be released on free licence.Circusandmagicfan (talk) 10:47, 23 May 2008 (UTC)Circusandmagicfan[reply]
No applicable infobox.
Last few sections conform to guidelines (ie. "See also", "Notes and references", "Further reading", "External links").
  • There are a few occurrences of weasel words in this article- please observe WP:AWT. Certain phrases should specify exactly who supports, considers, believes, etc., such a view.
    • it has been
    • might be weasel words, and should be provided with proper citations (if they already do, or are not weasel terms, please this comment).[?]
All instances of such words should hopefully be covered.
  • Watch for redundancies that make the article too wordy instead of being crisp and concise. (You may wish to try Tony1's redundancy exercises.)
    • Vague terms of size often are unnecessary and redundant - “some”, “a variety/number/majority of”, “several”, “a few”, “many”, “any”, and “all”. For example, “All pigs are pink, so we thought of a number of ways to turn them green.”
  • As done in WP:FOOTNOTE, footnotes usually are located right after a punctuation mark (as recommended by the CMS, but not mandatory), such that there is no space in between. For example, the sun is larger than the moon [2]. is usually written as the sun is larger than the moon.[2][?]
  • Please ensure that the article has gone through a thorough copyediting so that it exemplifies some of Wikipedia's best work. See also User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 1a.[?]

You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, DrKiernan 14:36, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Responses noted.Circusandmagicfan 18:27, 31 July 2007 (UTC)Circusandmagicfan[reply]

Water supply and sanitation in Indonesia

[edit]

Any peer review comments on the article are welcome. The article is already relatively comprehensive and I am looking for comments so that the article could be further improved to be considered a good article by Wikipedia standards.--Mschiffler 04:45, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ferrari P4/5

[edit]

I want to get it to featured but it seems a bit short (only 9.6kb). Specific things I would like feedback on are: is the wording too POV? I wrote it but I think it sounds a bit too much like an advertisement in some bits, is there anything missing and is it too short? All comments are welcome, really attack the article, it can only help me improve it. James086Talk | Email 10:16, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Automated Peer Review

[edit]

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

You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, Davnel03 11:59, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

4u1e's comments
  • Suggest that Glickenhaus be introduced at his first appearance in the lead (i.e. film director and stock exchange magnate James Glickenhaus (according to his article, anyway!)), and again at first appearance in main text.
  • I know it can be difficult in a short article, but there shouldn't really be material in the lead that doesn't appear in the main body of the article. At present the cost of the project, its debut at Pebble Beach and Glickenhaus's quote on value for money only appear in the lead.
  • Would be good to have a fuller description of the origins of the project. The current wording of the article suggests Glickenhaus approached Pininfarina, but a couple of the referenced articles say it was Pininfarina who approached Glickenhaus (see the first Q&A here and about halfway down the first page here). More background could be given on the reported reasons for this - CarandDriver.com suggests that Pininfarina needed to show that they could still 'do' Ferraris after the 612.
  • Perhaps a little more background on what the original P series Ferraris were, to help explain Glickenhaus' fondness for them?
  • The first para of development mentions "the 1967 Ferrari 330 P4 which he also delivered to Pininfarina." I couldn't find any mention of Glickenhaus having sent his P4 to Pininfarina in either of the refs given (1 & 6). Are you sure about this? (Update - it does appear in ref 7 though).
  • The first para of development doesn't really expand on the evolution of the project. Judging by this page a little more could be said about the project's evolution from a purely retro P4-alike (Glickenhaus' original vision) to Pinifarina's 'moving away from the past' vision.
  • In the same section, would Ken Okuyama's comment be better expressed as a direct quote?
  • "The car shares the same Vehicle Identification Number as the Enzo it was derived from" Shouldn't this be "The car retains its original Vehicle Identification Number"? You can't share a VIN, that's the whole point!
  • Reference 5 (www.ferrarip45.com) seems to have gone down. If so can you find an archived version at the Wayback machine, or find another reference?
  • The 'Interior' section says that "the seats' fabric and colour was designed by his daughter", information which was drawn from ref 5 (see previous point). The Autoblog Q&A says only that his daughter chose the red leather for the seats. Is this a case of the true story getting embellished? Suggest try to find other corroborating sources.
  • Niggling point from an engineer: The body is described as Carbon Fibre. I know this is common usage, but I'd far prefer to see it correctly identified as Carbon Fibre Composite. A body made of carbon fibre would be rather floppy!
  • The article says the car "shares its shape with the Ferrari 330 P4". Is that overstating it a bit? Obviously very strongly influenced by, but not actually a clone of.
  • The Engine section describes a "a Dino F140 mounted at 65°". I would expect to see this as "a 65° Dino F140" - since the current wording could be confused with the angle of the engine relative to the chassis, which I assume is not what is meant. (see Brabham BT55 for a car whose engine was mounted at an angle within the chassis). The engine section could also specify that the engine is in a V configuration.
  • The chassis section is a bit weak: It's mostly about the transmission, which I would normally group with the engine, rather than the chassis. I'm not that familiar with the Enzo, but I assume from this project that it has a composite tub with composite panels mounted on the exterior to form the outer body shape? If so, this could be described. What is the suspension layout? Shouldn't we say that the car is mid-engined in the text as well as in the infobox? Is there material from the Ferrari Enzo article that can be cannibalised here?
  • Would it be possible, or useful :), to have a section on 'critical reception' or similar? The press look to have been generally very positive about the project - have there been any negative pieces on the car?
  • Why not include a picture of a suitable original P series Ferrari (and maybe an Enzo?) for comparison with this car?
  • This page suggests that Pininfarina see this line of business as something they want to expand. Perhaps that could be written up as part of the significance (or potential significance, I suppose) of the car.
  • Would it be worthwhile including some mention of other cars that have been based on the Enzo, included Pininfarina's other project, the Maserati Birdcage 75th? That might give some wider context as well.
  • If you're ultimately looking to FA status, can you find any hardcopy references? There won't be any books yet I guess, but what about magazine articles?

Hope this is useful. I'll keep an eye on this page for a bit, but feel free to contact me if any of this is cryptic, or plain wrong! Cheers. 4u1e 11:55, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Murray William James Bourchier

[edit]

The article has been substantially rewritten expanded since initially assessed as Start class. Suggestions for improvement would be appreciated. Dbromage 05:46, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Review by Canadian Paul

[edit]

Here are my suggestions:

  • The lead should be expanded per WP:LEAD. Specifically, it should mention what exactly was notable about him. At the very least, it should include something along the lines of "Bourchier was the Deputy Premier of Victoria from 1935 – 1936" so that it at least differentiates him from any old politician.
  • The early life section needs to be directly referenced and could use a lot more information. What was his home life like? What were his parents like? What were his siblings like? How did his early life influence his later career choices/actions? What were his financial circumstances? What were his parent's education levels (this makes a difference - if he was educated was this what was expected of him or did he go out on his own?) What kind of work did he do at Woodland Park and how did it effect his future life? Perhaps the answers to all of these specific questions are not available, but those are the type of questions I would ask if I wanted to know about Bourchier.
  • As a side note, red links in the Infobox should be de-linked. They can be red linked somewhere in the article if you believe that there is a possibility of an article.
  • The World War I section is interesting, but the big block quotes break up the information and make it difficult to connect from one idea to the other. I'm not sure exactly what you might want to do about that, but it's just my observation.
  • Anything that can be expanded upon in the post-war section would be great. What did he do on the farm while was there? (Farming, I'm assuming, but you can do lots of different jobs on a farm too). Any details about interesting things that happened during his military posts and why he was promoted through the ranks would be useful too (again, subject to the constraint of available information). This section should also have in-line citations.
  • The Political Career section should be expanded to include his political actions and decisions and should be fully cited and referenced.
  • You may want to merge the Personal Life and Early Life sections together to create one large "Personal Life" section. Also, citations and references will be needed.
  • The trivia section should be incorporated into the Early/Personal Life section and the In Popular Culture section should be have a mention in the Political Career section after mention of his death. For both of these, citations and references will be required.

Hope this helps! Cheers, CP 18:58, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Automated review

[edit]

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

You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, DrKiernan 07:15, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

2007 Canadian Grand Prix

[edit]

Might make this a FAC once this PR is over. Buc 08:22, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE: The user never listed it on the main PR page, so I am doing it now. Davnel03 16:25, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hurst-Euless-Bedford Independent School District

[edit]

This article is about a public school district in Texas, USA. The article achieved GA on July 11, 2007 but didn't elicit any suggestions for continued improvement in the process. It appears to be the first school district to become GA or higher, so it may serve as an example for future improvement of other school district articles. I'm aiming for FA status (who isn't!) and would especially appreciate any constructive criticism towards that goal. Thanks! --Hebisddave 15:27, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, DrKiernan 14:17, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In the same order as above:
  1. ("Consider adding more links...") More wikilinks added, focusing on words that seemed likely to be less familiar to readers not fluent in English or familiar with local/national culture.
  2. ("If there is not a free use image in the top right corner...") Currently the image is a logo posted with a fair use rational. I've contemplated trying to replace it with a photograph, but I'm not sure what it should depict. In the central administration building, there is a large wood cutout of the logo—would a photograph of that (with the photographer releasing the image as creative commons/PD) be any better than the current logo? That is, would the image still require the fair use rational?
  3. ("...years with full dates should be linked...") Got it.
  4. ("...avoid using special characters (ex: &+{}[]) in headings.") Got it.
  5. ("Please reorder/rename the last few sections...") In the linked document, there is the statement: "It is okay to change the sequence of these appendices, but the Notes and References sections should be next to each other." Unless someone can clarify that the MoS page is incorrect and the bot is correct, I'd prefer the current order.
  6. ("...this article's table of contents (ToC) may be too long...") I downgraded a few section headings to bolded text. I'm reluctant to do this to more headings because shortening the ToC will cause the infobox to push an image down the page. (I would gladly follow a second opinion to continue shortening the ToC).
  7. ("...a thorough copyediting...") I did more copy-editing and found several redundant and ambiguous wordings. I'd like to do more of this before actually putting in a FAC and may appeal to the League of Copy Editors for some extra pairs of eyes if no one responds to this Peer Review.
Thanks for running and posting the automatic check! :) --Hebisddave 16:27, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Archimedes

[edit]

Archimedes is currently rated as a good article, but could become a featured article. Please leave any comments here.--Ianmacm 08:56, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I'll look into this. --Ianmacm 15:43, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Done. --Ianmacm 21:30, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. — RJH (talk) 20:26, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

  • Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (numbers), there should be a non-breaking space - &nbsp; between a number and the unit of measurement. For example, instead of 100 feet, use 100 feet, which when you are editing the page, should look like: 100&nbsp;feet.[?]
  • Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (headings), headings generally do not start with articles ('the', 'a(n)'). For example, if there was a section called ==The Biography==, it should be changed to ==Biography==.[?]
  • Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (headings), headings generally should not repeat the title of the article. For example, if the article was Ferdinand Magellan, instead of using the heading ==Magellan's journey==, use ==Journey==.[?]
  • As done in WP:FOOTNOTE, footnotes usually are located right after a punctuation mark (as recommended by the CMS, but not mandatory), such that there is no space in between. For example, the sun is larger than the moon [2]. is usually written as the sun is larger than the moon.[2][?]
  • Please ensure that the article has gone through a thorough copyediting so that it exemplifies some of Wikipedia's best work. See also User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 1a.[?]

You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, DrKiernan 14:30, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Zits (comic strip)

[edit]

My ultimate goal for this article is to eventually get it to FA status. For now, I'm concerned with just getting it to GA status. I'm open to any suggestions. I would just like to note, however, that there are not many websites dedicated to this subject and, short of interviewing the creators, I'm limited in my sources of information. In fact, most citations come directly from the strip itself. I appreciate any help. Thank you. -- VegitaU 19:07, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

  • Please expand the lead to conform with guidelines at Wikipedia:Lead. The article should have an appropriate number of paragraphs as is shown on WP:LEAD, and should adequately summarize the article.[?]
  • Per Wikipedia:Context and Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates), months and days of the week generally should not be linked. Years, decades, and centuries can be linked if they provide context for the article.[?]
  • Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (numbers), there should be a non-breaking space - &nbsp; between a number and the unit of measurement. For example, instead of 800 miles, use 800 miles, which when you are editing the page, should look like: 800&nbsp;miles.[?]
  • Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (headings), headings generally do not start with articles ('the', 'a(n)'). For example, if there was a section called ==The Biography==, it should be changed to ==Biography==.[?]
  • Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (headings), headings generally should not repeat the title of the article. For example, if the article was Ferdinand Magellan, instead of using the heading ==Magellan's journey==, use ==Journey==.[?]
  • There are a few occurrences of weasel words in this article- please observe WP:AWT. Certain phrases should specify exactly who supports, considers, believes, etc., such a view.
    • is considered
    • might be weasel words, and should be provided with proper citations (if they already do, or are not weasel terms, please strike this comment).[?]
  • The script has spotted the following contractions: doesn't, doesn't, wasn't, Don't, Don't, if these are outside of quotations, they should be expanded.
  • As done in WP:FOOTNOTE, footnotes usually are located right after a punctuation mark (as recommended by the CMS, but not mandatory), such that there is no space in between. For example, the sun is larger than the moon [2]. is usually written as the sun is larger than the moon.[2][?]
  • Please ensure that the article has gone through a thorough copyediting so that it exemplifies some of Wikipedia's best work. See also User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 1a.[?]

You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, DrKiernan 14:29, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator response: The lead is what I'm most concerned about here. I'm not exactly sure how to expand it and still keep it within the guideline standards. The article is not overly long or complex, so the lead has not become overly long or complex. As for weasel words, I've reviewed the article, but I haven't found anything unreferenced that could be considered a weasel word; though I'm leaving the recommendation open if another editor does find something. Contractions have been taken care of. As for references, I have typically posted footnotes at the end of the sentence, but I have also cited several within a phrase to identify the exact article I want to reference. -- VegitaU 21:59, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I would recommend considering a slightly different approach in the intro, because while ... say 80% of the strip is about Jeremy as you cite in the 2nd lead, I would also consider that there's a good deal of "generation gap" humor that it's not so much Jeremy in the troubled position, but instead it's his parents that don't understand their son (eg, the one with Walt trying to figure out how to respond to "respect knuckles" with Jeremy after changing the lightbulb).
Other notes beyond what the automated script gave:
  • I think it may be better just to use the book references directly instead of Amazon links (just don't include page numbers) in the "Related books". Also, I think you can rename this section to just "Books" (see FoxTrot) and possibly make this into a table to include type and publication dates. (Maybe include just ONE image of a book to support this section, but do not use an image for each book, as that's discouraged due to fair use issues).
  • Speaking of fair use, can you find a single image of the main cast instead of separate pictures? I don't think you're bordering on any significant problem here, but having several non-free images is becoming more discouraged if a single image is possible. I don't know if this can be done, however, I don't ever recall of such.
  • Consider replacing the infobox image with one that includes the Sunday/book cover logo; as this image in the infobox is for quick identification, I'm not sure if the current picture is best.
  • You may want to include a "style" section, if you can find such references to support it. eg comment on lack of aging, that there's continuity, etc. Again, this may be hard to produce viable information for.
  • Consider the article as a whole and what would happen if the character lists were moved to another article -- I'm not suggesting that you do this move, but right now as the page stands, if this was done, there's not a lot to talk about. That's why I think a "style" section would do wonders. Best I can tell, no other comic strips have achieved a GA status, but looking through ones such as FoxTrot, Pearls Before Swine, Garfield, and Get Fuzzy basically suggest that this would be a useful addition.
--Masem 21:22, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Héctor Lavoe

[edit]

This article has been my main focus as an editor for the last month, with some hard work the article reached Good Article status some days ago. However I want this page to be at the level the person featured in it was, and that is the top, so I bring this page to the consideration of the comunity so you can judge the page and offer suggestions to get it to Featured Article level. I will attend the suggestion presented here in my time available and I'm sure other members of WikiProject Puerto Rico will be more than happy to attend them in case I was absent, thanks for your time. -凶 01:48, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

  • The lead of this article may be too long, or may contain too many paragraphs. Please follow guidelines at WP:LEAD; be aware that the lead should adequately summarize the article.[?]
  • Per Wikipedia:Context and Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates), months and days of the week generally should not be linked. Years, decades, and centuries can be linked if they provide context for the article.[?]
  • If there is not a free use image in the top right corner of the article, please try to find and include one.[?]
  • If this article is about a person, please add {{persondata|PLEASE SEE [[WP:PDATA]]!}} along with the required parameters to the article - see Wikipedia:Persondata for more information.[?]
  • Per Wikipedia:Context and Wikipedia:Build the web, years with full dates should be linked; for example, link January 15, 2006.[?]
  • As per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates), dates shouldn't use th; for example, instead of using January 30th was a great day, use January 30 was a great day.[?]
  • Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (headings), headings generally do not start with articles ('the', 'a(n)'). For example, if there was a section called ==The Biography==, it should be changed to ==Biography==.[?]
  • Please make the spelling of English words consistent with either American or British spelling, depending upon the subject of the article. Examples include: honor (A) (British: honour), meter (A) (British: metre), isation (B) (American: ization), traveled (A) (British: travelled), any more (B) (American: anymore).
  • Watch for redundancies that make the article too wordy instead of being crisp and concise. (You may wish to try Tony1's redundancy exercises.)
    • Vague terms of size often are unnecessary and redundant - “some”, “a variety/number/majority of”, “several”, “a few”, “many”, “any”, and “all”. For example, “All pigs are pink, so we thought of a number of ways to turn them green.”
  • The script has spotted the following contractions: didn't, if these are outside of quotations, they should be expanded.
  • Please ensure that the article has gone through a thorough copyediting so that it exemplifies some of Wikipedia's best work. See also User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 1a.[?]

You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, DrKiernan 14:36, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • I don't think the mayority of the automated points fit this article, I have been working with the language and sourcing on it.

-凶 00:46, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

2006 Duke University lacrosse case

[edit]

Now that the case is closed and the dust has settled, it may be time to get some peer review on this year-long scandal. It got tons of coverage and now the initial district attorney in the case has been disbarred. Makes for interesting reading. Extensive references. Some peer review should get it to Good Article status in a jiffy. --SallyForth123 23:31, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Come on, folks. This is at least as important as the Virginia Tech massacre because it has to do with the proper execution of law. Feedback please.--SallyForth123 23:12, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Jude

[edit]
Intro: The introduction should be longer for an article of this size, and should be "a concise overview of the article, establishing context, summarizing the most important points, and explaining why the subject is interesting or notable".(see WP:LEAD)
Timeline of Events:
  • I would suggest that the information be organized into main sections the events at the house, and the events afterwards, with subheadings as needed.
  • Why is it relevant that Mangum was "a single mother"?
  • In the sentance ".... and had already engaged in sexual intercourse..." get rid of the word "already"; it's unnecessary.
  • At the House section begins with "The house had recently been purchased by Duke University". Which house? The article doesn't explain what house, or why the players were there, or given any background information, except on Mangum.
  • "They contacted Allure and requested two white strippers..." Now is probably when you should mention the womens' races, rather than in the previous paragraph.
  • "Evans... was worried that the police would show up and cite him for another noise violation, and he told other players to leave his house." Cite him for another noise violation? The article never mentions a first one. Also, replace the first "and" with "to", and the second "and" with "so".
  • Minute-by-minute list of events: Not sure that it's really necessary; IMO it should be summarized in the article, not listed out.
DNA tests and Arrests and indictments:
  • might be better if they went under an "Investigation" section.
Credibility of the accuser:
  • The entire section is more or less an attack on Mangum's credibility. It violates WP:NPOV. Obviously, you have a point of view; otherwise you wouldn't be working on this article. But the article itself has to be neutral.
Whoa, I wrote none of that section. I just leave that stuff in to avoid fights. Call me a wimp.--SallyForth123 03:54, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I shouldn't have assumed that. If you plan to nominate the article for GA status, though, that section will have to be changed. --Jude. 14:53, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have time to review the rest of the article in-depth right now. But general suggestions:
  • The response to the case definitely needs a lot more coverage. The focus should be on the effects of the case, and the signficance of it, not just on the events themselves.
The media coverage was factored out to its own article. See the "Reactions to the scandal".
The "Reactions to the scandal" article should be summarized in that section of the Duke Lacrosse Case.
  • The group of 88 is only mentioned in passing. Needs more coverage.
  • The response to the case by civil rights leaders is not mentioned at all.
  • Why is the "Developments in the case" section after "Aftermath".
  • See also: Presumption of Innocence is a POV push.
It's clear that a lot of work has been put into this article, but it still needs a lot of work on comprehensivity and neutral point of view. If you want me to review the rest of it in depth, I'll do that. Cheers, Jude. 00:39, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Other notes: The information about Mangum's history at the escort service, and her consumption of alcohol, drugs, etc. should probably be later in the article. It's relevant to the evidence from the rape kit, and to the fact that the guard at the supermarket thought she might be under the influence. When it starts the section, it's out of context, and shows bias.--Jude. 15:26, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Automated review

[edit]

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

You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, DrKiernan 14:59, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Calendar of saints (Anglican Church of Southern Africa)

[edit]

I had e-mailed the office of the Anglican Church of Southern Africa regarding possibly getting some information to create an article like this. They went one step further than I had thought (or even dreamed) they would do and created the article themselves. I'm guessing that this article is probably already as complete as possible, considering who it was who wrote the article in the first place. Having said that, I would be very gratified if anyone could give me some feedback regarding what additional steps would need to be taken to possibly get this article up to GA or FA standards. Thank you. John Carter 15:39, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • There isn't nearly enough prose for a FA, and having everything based on a single source isn't a good idea. Featured list perhaps? —Angr 17:44, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Question: Even if, as seems to be the case here, that source is, as it were, the organization who created the document which the article refers to? I'm not trying to be snide or anything like that, I honestly don't know. And, as that wasn't a possibility that occurred to me, if anyone has any suggetions of how to bring this page up to featured list status, those suggestions would be more than welcome as well. And thank you to Angr for the response. John Carter 17:56, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • This calendar is an 'in-house' document ... so nothing regarding further sources I'm afraid. A significant portion of it is common across the Anglican Communion. Following on from the inital e-mail received and then in discovering the List page, I had assumed that the calendar for each province was merely being sought, and that a general introductory article about liturgical calenders would exist separately from the provincial calendars themselves - hence the lack of prose. I took a peek at the (few) existing calendars and kept to a similar format. Dunnock 14:01, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Put the info in tables like we have over at List of Archbishops of Canterbury. That would make it look more featured list. -- SECisek 19:03, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • It seems to me an encyclopedia article should contain more information than would be found simply by looking in the South African Prayer Book itself. Otherwise, we have merely duplicated what the prayer book already says. An encyclopedia article should have some background (How did this list come into being? Were there arguments about what to include or leave out? How has it changed over the years? Was it affected by the politics of Apartheid before 1994, and has it been affected by the end of Apartheid since then?), some comparison (How does Southern Africa's calendar of saints differ from that of the Church of England, from which it is presumably derived, and why?), that sort of thing. And that will require more sources than the prayer book itself. —Angr 07:33, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Great Festival section is a direct copy ... I will conflate that. The remainder is a bringing together and an organising of the calendar rules. The two acknowledged quotes are direct from the preface, the remainder is a re-writing (and some reorganising). I looked at the Canterbury list, and that seems cumbersome ... I followed the format of the other calendars for consistency. I will follow up with the Liturgical Committee as to the rationale/inclusion of the Southern African commemorations ... although it is the bishops who would have debated and decided - and there is a 30 year moratorium on their minutes! I appreciate the interest and the suggestions, this is all rather new to me! Dunnock 14:01, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Automated Peer Review

[edit]

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

You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, Davnel03 13:29, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sveriges Television

[edit]

I've given this article some work, but I don't think it reaches GA quality yet. I know there are some thin sections and typos, but I'd like to know if there is anything else that should be added or if there are any general thoughts. Väsk 15:57, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As you said yourself, the article consist of thin sections which almost make it feel "listy". Images are not too good, I could probably take a shot of their new fancy waterfront building in Gothenburg and add it to the article. Few footnotes, todays wikistandards almost require +50 notes to make it a GA. --Krm500 18:30, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've looked at the BBC article (which is similar and has GA status) and it also gives a "listy" impression. My problem is that I have trouble finding out how I should approach this listyness and what subjects may need more explaining. As for the number of notes, it would be helpful if someone could point out what needs references. I agree that some images are of low quality. It may also be slightly overcrowded with images in some areas. Väsk 19:44, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Automated Peer Review

[edit]

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

  • Per Wikipedia:Context and Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates), months and days of the week generally should not be linked. Years, decades, and centuries can be linked if they provide context for the article.[?]
  • When writing standard abbreviations, the abbreviations should not have a 's' to demark plurality (for example, change kms to km and lbs to lb).
  • Per Wikipedia:Context and Wikipedia:Build the web, years with full dates should be linked; for example, link January 15, 2006.[?]
  • There are a few sections that are too short and that should be either expanded or merged.
  • There are a few occurrences of weasel words in this article- please observe WP:AWT. Certain phrases should specify exactly who supports, considers, believes, etc., such a view.
    • is considered
    • might be weasel words, and should be provided with proper citations (if they already do, or are not weasel terms, please strike this comment).[?]
  • Watch for redundancies that make the article too wordy instead of being crisp and concise. (You may wish to try Tony1's redundancy exercises.)
    • While additive terms like “also”, “in addition”, “additionally”, “moreover”, and “furthermore” may sometimes be useful, overusing them when they aren't necessary can instead detract from the brilliancy of the article. This article has 14 additive terms, a bit too much.
    • Vague terms of size often are unnecessary and redundant - “some”, “a variety/number/majority of”, “several”, “a few”, “many”, “any”, and “all”. For example, “All pigs are pink, so we thought of a number of ways to turn them green.”
  • The script has spotted the following contractions: aren't, if these are outside of quotations, they should be expanded.
  • As done in WP:FOOTNOTE, footnotes usually are located right after a punctuation mark (as recommended by the CMS, but not mandatory), such that there is no space in between. For example, the sun is larger than the moon [2]. is usually written as the sun is larger than the moon.[2][?]
  • Please ensure that the article has gone through a thorough copyediting so that it exemplifies some of Wikipedia's best work. See also User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 1a.[?]

You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, Davnel03 20:43, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of Sydney FC players

[edit]

I've been working on this and I am hoping to get it to FL status. Thoughy I'd best bring it up for peer review to see what else needs doing. Needs more references for Notable players and more context but more ideas greatly appreciated! Mattythewhite 13:22, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Three comments that I see:
  • You use "The Roar" in the lead without explaining what it is (though I can find out through wikilinks) - I'd recommended just noting what that is in the lead. I didn't see anything else like that on a readthrough, but just doublecheck that.
  •  Done Replaced the Roar with Sydney - the Roar refers to Queensland Roar (wrong team!), which was there as I have based this off their list and never realised about changing it. Mattythewhite 16:54, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Any possible way of getting an image of the whole team from one of the seasons in this? Since it's a "list of players" and not focusing on one, I think it would make more sense than to have a single image, though trying to get a not-non-free one might be a bit more difficult.
  • The "Notable players" section stands out as being the weakest part; I don't know if it's necessary to list them out as you do with a bulleted list. Consider: can this be made into a prose line, dropping the records and just standing each player's name (wikilinked and a reference next to it), and leaving it be like that? If those records along with the players are that notable, maybe it might be worthwhile to make a table, with the name, record information, and then a very very brief blurb about that person (ideally from your sources) as to why he's notable.
Looks good otherwise. --Masem 15:50, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Automated Peer Review

[edit]

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

You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, Davnel03 20:53, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Abortion

[edit]

Specifically, I believe the first paragraph, of the definition of the article needs to be address by a wider audience. The previous consensus reached was between a relatively limited number of users for such a controversial topic.

The central issue that surrounds the revived debate is that the word "death" has an unnecessary emotional undertone which is not needed to define the procedure, while also unduly slanting the article from a purely objective point of view. While several other side issues have also come to light, such as removal of the word "Mother" or "Child" from the article, I am requesting this peer review specifically to address the concern of the wording for the definition of what abortion is. The apparent points of view surfacing in the revived debate are thus:

  1. A consensus was already reached, leave the definition alone.
  2. A consensus was reached between a small group of editors, and because of the smaller size reflected a disproportionately large representation of one group over another.

This can be seen in the initial straw poll that was taken: [7]

In the poll a 3 to 1 majority of options reflected the use of the word "death" as opposed to "terminated" even though it was a central theme of the discussion. Note: 2 of the options (8 & 9) in the poll were not included, and 1 option was lumped in with referring to death because it uses "preventing a live birth" which directly infers death.

The discussion is taking place on an archive page here:

http://en.wikipedia.orgview_html.php?sq=Envato&lang=en&q=Talk:Abortion/First_paragraph#Neutrality_of_the_first_paragraph

Toastysoul 22:17, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Malformed: This peer review is malformed, and is not linked on the article talk page. I attempted to link it to the talk page, but was unable to find the secret code; it needs to be moved/renamed to the standard. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:32, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Age of Mythology

[edit]

User:Giggy asked for this to go through the featured article process again, but he enlisted me for help. Anyways, from looking at the article, I believe it is nicely done and well cited. However, I do not work on gaming articles much, so I don't know what either I or Giggy needs to do in order to make this FA material. Thanks in advance. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 08:20, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Spebi's review

Great article, whoever has worked on it has obviously put in a great deal of time to perfect it.

In no particular order:

  • Soundtrack: I recommend sourcing the track listing, as I can see that it might become a target for random text or false soundtrack titles. Also in that section, there are a couple of unsourced quotes that need to be sourced: try googling the quote, wrapped in quotation marks, and you should receive really good sources.
  • Gameplay: Try adding more information to the image captions. Instead of just "The Age of Mythology scenario editor.", use "The Age of Mythology scenario editor: visible are (list advanced features not included in Age of Empires), (some other statement that tells readers that the scenario editor is much more complex than the one in AOE).", or similar.
  • Reception: Section is very well sourced, however, I see a few issues here and there: "Website users rated the game 8.2 out of 10", with ref 34 attached to it, seems a bit, ugh. Who are these "website users"? What else did they say about the game other than just a rating of 8.2 out of 10? It also seems a bit odd, just hanging on the end of the paragraph... just noticed, it is included again earlier in the same paragraph, with the same ref 34 added on the end. Also, alot of the refs are either before the full-stop, or between two full-stops (how does that work out?), and some of the statements have no full-stop at all. I recommend fixing up some of the prose in that section, mainly, joining sentences that could sound better joined, and not separate.
  • Buildings: try and join up these paragraphs (which are actually just 1 or 2 sentences, then a line break), to make that section look a bit more presentable.
  • If you are interested in citing some of those other detailed areas in the game that can't be cited using online material, you may want to purchase the official AOM guide released by Microsoft (I'm sure there is one), or that book that comes with AOM when you buy it, or another reliable game-guide that isn't online.
    Would a walkthrough I wrote for the game count? I vaguely recall seeing such things in other articles, but this could be a COI issue... Giggy UCP 08:57, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Uh, well since you wrote it, it doesn't really pass as verifiable, as it is a self-published source. You'd have to check up on this with someone else, I'm afraid. Sebi [talk] 09:50, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I found the official track list and added a citation for it. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 04:20, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 22 is cited 3 times, yet it is completely blank.
    Oops, fixed. Giggy UCP 08:57, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Four months after its release, Age of Mythology went platinum, selling over 1,000,000 units." – pretty big claim, and yet I see no ref tag next to it. I'm pretty sure that it is correct, I've seen it either in the article already (sourced) or somewhere online, but it needs to have that [#] tag next to it.

Sebi [talk] 08:46, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mathias Rüegg

[edit]

This is my first request for a peer review. I think the article has grown beyond the bot "stub" rating, and would like suggestions on where to go from here. It is the first musician bio I have written, and I would like to see it reach GA status if possible. Rob C. alias Alarob 23:07, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe a picture and some references/sources? DrKiernan 06:52, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'd echo the need for sources, and I'd also suggest that you try and gather some critical sources that talk about his style of music and/or his cultural impact on music in his field. CaveatLectorTalk 07:07, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the suggestions. I've tracked down two Downbeat articles with more biograhical info, and some articles in German and French jazz magazines. (Could use some help with the French.) Can't find a non-copyright photo. Do WP editors ever approach the article subject for a pic? -- Rob C. alias Alarob 16:35, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Serpin

[edit]

Have pretty much added everything that I think is generally important in regards to serpins.

I have responded to everything that has been requested so far.

I'm keen to get some feedback on current quality, some ideas for additional sections that could be added and hopefully move this article towards FA status.

Cheers

Jcwhizz 06:07, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Automated Peer Review

[edit]

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

  • Consider adding more links to the article; per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (links) and Wikipedia:Build the web, create links to relevant articles.[?]
  • Per Wikipedia:Context and Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates), months and days of the week generally should not be linked. Years, decades, and centuries can be linked if they provide context for the article.[?]
  • There may be an applicable infobox for this article. For example, see Template:Infobox Biography, Template:Infobox School, or Template:Infobox City.[?] (Note that there might not be an applicable infobox; remember that these suggestions are not generated manually)
  • Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (headings), headings generally should not repeat the title of the article. For example, if the article was Ferdinand Magellan, instead of using the heading ==Magellan's journey==, use ==Journey==.[?]
  • This article may need to undergo summary style, where a series of appropriate subpages are used. For example, if the article is United States, than an appropriate subpage would be History of the United States, such that a summary of the subpage exists on the mother article, while the subpage goes into more detail.[?]
  • Please make the spelling of English words consistent with either American or British spelling, depending upon the subject of the article. Examples include: behavior (A) (British: behaviour), behaviour (B) (American: behavior), recognise (B) (American: recognize), ization (A) (British: isation), isation (B) (American: ization), catalyze (A) (British: catalyse), hydrolyse (B) (American: hydrolyze), modeling (A) (British: modelling), modelling (B) (American: modeling), signalling (B) (American: signaling), mold (A) (British: mould).
  • As done in WP:FOOTNOTE, footnotes usually are located right after a punctuation mark (as recommended by the CMS, but not mandatory), such that there is no space in between. For example, the sun is larger than the moon [2]. is usually written as the sun is larger than the moon.[2][?]
  • Please ensure that the article has gone through a thorough copyediting so that it exemplifies some of Wikipedia's best work. See also User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 1a.[?]

You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, Davnel03 13:35, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Iowa Hawkeyes football from 1889 to 1899

[edit]

I have been working on this article for a couple weeks now in hopes of potentially getting it up to good article status. For the most part, it has been solely edited by me, so anything you can do to improve it would be much appreciated. I have tried my best to keep it as unbiased as possible so hopefully that will not be a problem. Thanks in advance! DanThaMan17 00:10, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Automated Peer Review

[edit]

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

You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, Davnel03 13:36, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think you need the schedule sub-header sections. The sections are so small anyways, just use a table description with "|+ Schedule" at the top of the table (if you can) and it will produce the same result. Labeling the table might not even be needed either. MECU≈talk 18:12, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
How exactly do I do that? Also, do you think it needs more sources? DanThaMan17 20:31, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Legoland Windsor

[edit]

Having just spent a lot of time and having put huge amounts of effort into this article, I'd really appreciate any feedback, especially relating to getting the article a GA or even FA assessment. Is it worth either of those? If not, how could I get it to GA, or better yet FA status? Cheers! TheIslander 23:07, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It does need some work, here are some suggestions. I'm looking at other articles like Disneyland and Cedar Point as examples of other articles that involve theme parks:
  • I think the first section should be "History", which should include some of the present ownership information that you currently have in the header. Note that this should be prose, and you probably can reduce it down to more notable events (eg the Queen visiting); I think most of what you have there now falls under more mundane details. Note how the Cedar Point article has a section for Retired Attractions, which may be what you want to do here and move those you have stricken through to this section.
  • Don't need to duplicate the area list at the top as you are going to go through it.
  • I would put the eateries within each area instead of dedicating a separate section
  • The notation for "busiest attractions" is easy to miss, and who is defining the "busiest"? (I assume its the guide book). You may make more sense to say, as a lead into describing the park, that "X, Y, and Z are noted as the busiest attractions by the park guide." and not use your bolded approach.
  • Again, the stricken entries, I'd moved to a "Retired" section.
  • You shouldn't put a reference in a section header, move it into the first sentence if you need to call it out.
  • Try to be consistent in your descriptions of each attraction. I would move anything "This opened in 200x" to after the ride/attraction description where you have them, possibly with what attraction they replaced.
  • I would not be afraid to re-use your guidebook references more to support a lot of the park description and events.
  • Make sure that your references are following appropriate Citation guidelines.
You're not too far away from a GA candidate. I think the hardest part is the history section, I think you've got the details, but you want to make that more prose. The rest is mostly in organization. --Masem 13:51, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much for your time ;). There are certainly some points you've made that I agree with: I know the references at the moment are not quite formatted correctly, need to work on them; the 'retired rides' section is an interesting idea; suggesting that the history section should be first is an interesting point. Thanks for your help! TheIslander 14:25, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In general the article seems very listy. Meaning that all sections are more or less lists and should be converted to prose. The lead section also needs to be expanded per WP:LEAD. Also I believe there is a mistake in the lead. Legoland is actually 100% owned by Merlin entertainments. Merlin however is 70% owned by Blackstone and 30% by Lego. --Peter Andersen 21:44, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm. To be honest, I disagree that it's too 'listy'. It includes all the relevant information, and it really isn't an article that lends itself to prose. Still, I take on your comments. Also, for your information, Merlin isn't 30% owned by Lego - it's correct in the article, in that Legoland is 70% Merlin / 30% Lego, and Merlin is 100% Blackstone. After ll, Lego don't own the Tussaud's attractions at all, but Merlin do. Thanks for your input - much appreciated. TheIslander 21:48, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The history section should at least be converted to prose. Regarding the ownership issue. I still believe that my statement is closer to the truth than yours. In the press release following the Legoland acquisition it says: "Blackstone and management will take a 70% share in the new Merlin Entertainments Group, while the LEGO Group will hold 30%." (I added the italic) And in the press release following the Tussaud acquisition it says: "DIC will receive £1,028 million cash and retain a 20% stake in the combined company, investing alongside majority owner Blackstone and LEGO Holding/KIRKBI Groups." (I added the italic) --Peter Andersen 10:15, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm still not 100% sure, but I'm certainly going to look into it more closely now. Thanks ;). TheIslander 14:08, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Automated Peer Review

[edit]

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

  • Please expand the lead to conform with guidelines at Wikipedia:Lead. The article should have an appropriate number of paragraphs as is shown on WP:LEAD, and should adequately summarize the article.[?]
  • Per Wikipedia:Context and Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates), months and days of the week generally should not be linked. Years, decades, and centuries can be linked if they provide context for the article.[?]
  • Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (numbers), there should be a non-breaking space - &nbsp; between a number and the unit of measurement. For example, instead of 16 metres, use 16 metres, which when you are editing the page, should look like: 16&nbsp;metres.[?]
  • As per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates), dates shouldn't use th; for example, instead of using January 30th was a great day, use January 30 was a great day.[?]
  • Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (headings), headings generally do not start with articles ('the', 'a(n)'). For example, if there was a section called ==The Biography==, it should be changed to ==Biography==.[?]
  • Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (headings), headings generally should not repeat the title of the article. For example, if the article was Ferdinand Magellan, instead of using the heading ==Magellan's journey==, use ==Journey==.[?]
  • Per WP:WIAFA, this article's table of contents (ToC) may be too long- consider shrinking it down by merging short sections or using a proper system of daughter pages as per Wikipedia:Summary style.[?]
  • Watch for redundancies that make the article too wordy instead of being crisp and concise. (You may wish to try Tony1's redundancy exercises.)
    • Vague terms of size often are unnecessary and redundant - “some”, “a variety/number/majority of”, “several”, “a few”, “many”, “any”, and “all”. For example, “All pigs are pink, so we thought of a number of ways to turn them green.”
  • As done in WP:FOOTNOTE, footnotes usually are located right after a punctuation mark (as recommended by the CMS, but not mandatory), such that there is no space in between. For example, the sun is larger than the moon [2]. is usually written as the sun is larger than the moon.[2][?]
  • Please ensure that the article has gone through a thorough copyediting so that it exemplifies some of Wikipedia's best work. See also User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 1a.[?]

You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, Davnel03 13:40, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much Davnel03 - some interesting points there. TheIslander 14:08, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Toyota Aurion

[edit]

Please tell me what problems this article has, other than the citations.SenatorsTalk | Contribs 23:02, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Automated Peer Review

[edit]

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

  • Please expand the lead to conform with guidelines at Wikipedia:Lead. The article should have an appropriate number of paragraphs as is shown on WP:LEAD, and should adequately summarize the article.[?]
  • Consider adding more links to the article; per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (links) and Wikipedia:Build the web, create links to relevant articles.[?]
  • Per Wikipedia:Context and Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates), months and days of the week generally should not be linked. Years, decades, and centuries can be linked if they provide context for the article.[?]
  • Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (numbers), there should be a non-breaking space - &nbsp; between a number and the unit of measurement. For example, instead of 383Nm, use 383 Nm, which when you are editing the page, should look like: 383&nbsp;Nm.[?]
  • Per Wikipedia:Context and Wikipedia:Build the web, years with full dates should be linked; for example, link January 15, 2006.[?]
  • There are a few occurrences of weasel words in this article- please observe WP:AWT. Certain phrases should specify exactly who supports, considers, believes, etc., such a view.
    • it has been
    • might be weasel words, and should be provided with proper citations (if they already do, or are not weasel terms, please strike this comment).[?]
  • Watch for redundancies that make the article too wordy instead of being crisp and concise. (You may wish to try Tony1's redundancy exercises.)
    • While additive terms like “also”, “in addition”, “additionally”, “moreover”, and “furthermore” may sometimes be useful, overusing them when they aren't necessary can instead detract from the brilliancy of the article. This article has 11 additive terms, a bit too much.
  • The script has spotted the following contractions: Can't, if these are outside of quotations, they should be expanded.
  • Please ensure that the article has gone through a thorough copyediting so that it exemplifies some of Wikipedia's best work. See also User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 1a.[?]

You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, Davnel03 13:26, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Highway 6 (Ontario)

[edit]

Over the past few weeks, I have been working on this article, expanding it to its current state. Please review this article with the "Good Article" criteria, and based on the improvements that this article have made during the course of this several weeks.

Follow this link to compare the two versions (July 7 VS June 9) of Highway 6:

[8]

Any comments, please reply here below, or notify me via User talk:Smcafirst/Requests. Thanks a lot!

 Smcafirst | Chat  at 13:21, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The map is wrong, as Highway 6 goes much closer to Hamilton, Ontario. -- Earl Andrew - talk 04:01, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The map is based on the MapArt Road Atlas for Southern Ontario, and with its new alignment (Highway 6 By-Pass), it does not go close to Hamilton anymore, instead, it travels by the southern boundary of the Hamilton/John C. Munro International Airport, and through Ancaster, eventually meeting up with Highway 403.
Please do give more comments.
 Smcafirst | Chat  at 15:00, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That's still closer to Hamilton than your map indicates. -- Earl Andrew - talk 21:00, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • [9] is not a reliable source; you'll need to use maps, newspaper articles, highway department records, or other reliable sources for the history. The history may also be able to be expanded: is there any pre-provincial highway history, like turnpike roads (if those existed in Ontario)? Was there actually an "official opening" in 1920? In the case of most numbered highways, the numbers were simply applied to an existing road. Is there a reason the article is at "Highway 6 (Ontario)" but the bolded text reads "Ontario provincial highway 6" and the infobox reads "Ontario Highway 6"? The prose could also use a little work, with one-line paragraphs, sentence fragments ("High travel speeds in the five-lane section, and typical flow varies between 100 km/h (65 mph) and 120 km/h (75 mph)."), awkward wording ("In Guelph, the road travels full length on Hanlon Parkway, a 4-lane, divided highway."), and statements that cannot be referenced to maps and thus need independent references ("There is an election promise to upgrade this 13 km to a 400-series Highway and rename it Highway 410."). The neologism "multiplex" should be avoided, in favor of whatever the MTO uses (if they do use something), or "overlap" or "concurrency" if they don't. --NE2 22:30, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've changed your wording that "Eventually, it arrives in Espanola (Baldwin)". Baldwin is a separate municipality north of Espanola; they aren't the same thing, and Espanola is not the highway's terminus. The map should also be corrected in one of two ways: either add a very short stub of red line north of Espanola leading to a new dot labelled as "McKerrow", or just relabel the Espanola dot as McKerrow. If you do the former, then move the Espanola dot down a bit; as you have it right now, the dot is straddling the line that actually defines the northern town limits of Espanola. Bearcat 02:19, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I created the map, and I decided McKerrow wasn't big enough for a dot. The dot for Espanola is big enough that it covers the terminus on the map. As for NE2's comments, I think Cameron's website is a reliable source, he has put a lot of research into creating that website. -- Earl Andrew - talk 04:22, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
But Espanola isn't the terminus, so as it stands the map is objectively wrong. Wikipedia has to be accurate — we can't just do "eh, that's close enough". Bearcat 21:06, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Semi automated peer review

[edit]

some folks appreciate these, some don't, here it is: use it or don't.

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

  • Please expand the lead to conform with guidelines at Wikipedia:Lead. The article should have an appropriate number of paragraphs as is shown on WP:LEAD, and should adequately summarize the article.[?]
  • Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (numbers), there should be a non-breaking space - &nbsp; between a number and the unit of measurement. For example, instead of 17 kilometres, use 17 kilometres, which when you are editing the page, should look like: 17&nbsp;kilometres.[?]
  • Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (numbers), when doing conversions, please use standard abbreviations: for example, miles -> mi, kilometers squared -> km2, and pounds -> lb.[?]
  • As per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (headings), please do not link words in headings.[?]
  • As done in WP:FOOTNOTE, footnotes usually are located right after a punctuation mark (as recommended by the CMS, but not mandatory), such that there is no space in between. For example, the sun is larger than the moon [2]. is usually written as the sun is larger than the moon.[2][?]
  • Please ensure that the article has gone through a thorough copyediting so that it exemplifies some of Wikipedia's best work. See also User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 1a.[?]

You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, SriMesh | talk 03:01, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Query

[edit]
  • The article covers answers to the questions where, when and what very well. The answer to how is started to be answered in the history section, but probably would not suffice for any civic engineering design concept or construction queries. However, I am mainly wondering why, why does this road exist in the first place and why is there the highest AADT (Annual Average Daily Traffic) in 2002 ? Is it tourism, folks going to and fro from work, is there a huge economic venture there, is the ferry going somewhere cool to work, or visit. Where do all these vehicles come from and where do they go and why are there so many cars there or are they semis? How big are these cities, are they all interconnected at this place, or is there country side betwixt them, is just the enormous size of the cities what produces the volume of traffic, are they commuters?
  • GA review (see here for criteria)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose): b (MoS):
  2. It is factually accurate' and '?verifiable.
    a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    a (fair representation): b (all significant views):
  5. It is stable. For a subject which had controversy in the media, it has been very well written.
  6. It contains images, where possible, to illustrate the topic.
    a (tagged and captioned): b lack of images (does not in itself exclude GA): c (non-free images have fair use rationales):
  7. Overall:
    a Pass/Fail:

If I was to rate it IMHO, then a few more references should be cited to verify the placenames along the route as facts, and just a double check to ensure all new info has a citation. There is a query about broad in coverage just in regards to the query about why this route is so gosh darn popular. What is going on in this neck of the woods for all these peoples. Kind Regards, and good work! SriMesh | talk 03:26, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bill Clinton

[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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 [10]. 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 [11], 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Perhaps stub Roger Clinton Sr. to avoid red links early in the article. Paxse 08:25, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
  •  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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

If you want to get this article to FA status, you should nominate it for the Core Topics Collaboration of the Week. Laleenatalk to me contributions to Wikipedia 12:37, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Where's Lazlo?

[edit]

Would like to get this rated. Given the limited context of the article, I doubt it would make GA (but you never know!), but I'd still like to improve this to a higher level. Any comments, suggestions, whatever. Thanks Yngvarr 12:09, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

  • Please expand the lead to conform with guidelines at Wikipedia:Lead. The article should have an appropriate number of paragraphs as is shown on WP:LEAD, and should adequately summarize the article.[?]

 Done I've expanded the lead as best as I currently can.

 Done Added a few more links

 Done Added some screenshots

  • If there is not a free use image in the top right corner of the article, please try to find and include one.[?]

 Done Added a screenshot of the title card

You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, DrKiernan 14:39, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dragon Quest VI: Maboroshi no Daichi

[edit]

I've done a lot with this article and think it could be a good article, but Ill take a second opinion and Id love any suggestions. Any comments would be appreciated! Evaunit666 03:55, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, DrKiernan 14:57, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Great help. Thanks! Evaunit666 04:52, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fall Out Boy

[edit]

I do GAC and GA/R reviews all the time. Even the occasional FA and peer review, but I am terrible at reviewing articles I've put a great deal of work into. I can't see my own mistakes. So I'd just like a good review. GA is my goal. Lara♥Love 05:26, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Review by User:CaveatLector

[edit]

I think this article is fantastic and a good model for how to construct and source articles on bands and musicians. I would only suggest a few things.

  1. De-wikifi the dates, they crowd the article with blue, imo. Against guideline.
  2. Try to find sources for the first two subsections of the 'history' section.  Done
  3. I'm not sure why you split up the history section as you did. Are these periods critically recognized? The division of the History section compares to other band articles.
  4. On that note, change the name of the last subsection from 'Continuing prosperity' to 'Continuing success'. 'Prosperity' sounds a little too POVy.

I'd say you should go ahead and put it up for a GA review after handling the more glaring of these issues. :) CaveatLectorTalk 07:13, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your review. I'd like to comment on a few points:
  1. Dates should always be wikified for user preferences.[1]
  2. I thought I'd found references for those sections. Either they've been removed or that was during the time that I lost internet for like 2 days and forgot where I left off. I'll get those again.
  3. I acutally didn't split up the history, that's the work of another editor, but I think it's good in that it distinguishes a time line. Additionally, most band articles split up the history in such a manner (that I've seen, anyway).
  4. Prosperity is a synonym for success. I forget what that section used to be titled, but I think everyone agreed that the current title was the best wording. I'm not saying you're wrong about it, I think I'd just like a second opinion to determine if it is, in fact, too POVish. Lara♥Love 17:23, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-automatic review by User:AndyZ

[edit]

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

You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, DrKiernan 07:52, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've began addressing issues. Lara♥Love 17:23, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kingdom Hearts II

[edit]

This article is a current FAC. I've halted it for this review. Once this review is finished, the FAC nomination will restart. Any comments to improve this will be very much appreciated. Greg Jones II 23:59, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Some comments:
  • I'd include a seealso template in Gameplay to point back to the same section in KH1 since you're building off that article already.
  • Gameplay needs more cited refs; a line like "The differences are less pronounced than the last game" is edging on WP:NPOV and though while I agree its true, this statement needs that type of attribution. Same with "In response to criticism, the "Gummi Ship" feature was re-imagined to be "more enjoyable."".
  • Maybe a Gummi ship screenshot, since it's really only the unique part of play not already covered by the other shots?
  • The settings and characters section of the plot have the seealsos with lots of references in there, but lacking these on the main page. It may help to reference some of the statements in at least the leads of these sections.
  • VA section, I wonder if it would help to indicate which language the VAs were in (I'm thinking that it's not obvious which version Ming-Na is in if you're not familiar with the source material). Maybe including (JP) or (NA) after each actor. I would also include another seealso to the Characters page here, since it looks like all the VAs per character are covered there.
Otherwise, I see nothing else apparently bad about the article - it's well rounded, sourced (for the most part), and is as good as the FF7 article (usually one I look back to for comparison as it's been FA'd already, and what looks like you borrowed much of for the article ordering in KH2). --Masem 13:24, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've tried to address most of your concerns. For the VA section, I'll do that later since I think I can rewrite it to avoid such confusion in the first place. Also, point of pride, I personally would use the FF8 article as the best example (the FF7 article is kind of bloated and the story section has had some serious revision since FAC). Axem Titanium 04:23, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Automated Peer Review

[edit]

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

You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, Davnel03 13:38, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Flyer22

[edit]

Well, this is a very well-written article, I see no problems with the prose and as I read through this article, I was definitely hooked, more so than I am in reading some other articles. For instance, the Gameplay section is beautifully summarized, and the specifics of a new feature introduced in this game titled the Reaction Command, which are special enemy-specific attacks, pops out as intriguing and well-noted.

The Plot section is just right, not too lengthy, not too detailed, just enough to hold a reader's attention but not to overwhelm a reader with information. But I get the feeling from reading this article's plot, that even if its plot was longer than what it is, in the tone that this article presents its plot, it still wouldn't tire out the reader to where they want to look at another section of the article not too long after having landed in its plot section. All in all, this article is one of Wikipedia's best. Definitely deserves to be a featured article here on Wikipedia. Flyer22 07:22, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Uranus

[edit]

I dread to ask, what is needed before this article can get an FA nom? Serendipodous 10:13, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • The composition section makes no mention of ammonia, which may form part of the lower cloud layers and be dissolved in the liquid water layer.[12] Otherwise the article seemed fine to me, with perhaps a few minor tweaks needed here and there. — RJH (talk) 20:00, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Automated Peer Review

[edit]

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

  • The lead of this article may be too long, or may contain too many paragraphs. Please follow guidelines at WP:LEAD; be aware that the lead should adequately summarize the article.[?]

 Done Well, I've condensed two paragraphs. Serendipodous 17:53, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • The lead is for summarizing the rest of the article, and should not introduce new topics not discussed in the rest of the article, as per WP:LEAD. Please ensure that the lead adequately summarizes the article.[?]

 Done I've removed some info and placed it in visibility. Serendipodous 17:53, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Serendipodous 17:53, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (numbers), there should be a non-breaking space - &nbsp; between a number and the unit of measurement. For example, instead of 500 kilometers, use 500 kilometers, which when you are editing the page, should look like: 500&nbsp;kilometers.[?]

 Done At least as far as I can tell. Serendipodous 17:53, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Serendipodous 17:53, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Serendipodous 18:03, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's a quote. Serendipodous 17:53, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • There are a few occurrences of weasel words in this article- please observe WP:AWT. Certain phrases should specify exactly who supports, considers, believes, etc., such a view.
    • it has been
    • might be weasel words, and should be provided with proper citations (if they already do, or are not weasel terms, please strike this comment).[?]

I'm not sure where they are. Serendipodous 18:26, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Please make the spelling of English words consistent with either American or British spelling, depending upon the subject of the article. Examples include: honour (B) (American: honor), meter (A) (British: metre), recognise (B) (American: recognize), ization (A) (British: isation), analyze (A) (British: analyse), travelled (B) (American: traveled), grey (B) (American: gray).

 Done Took a while. Serendipodous 18:24, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, Davnel03 13:31, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

2nd Automated Peer Review

[edit]

Well done for managing to cover the above. I did the automated peer review again, and these are the results that come back:

  • The lead of this article may be too long, or may contain too many paragraphs. Please follow guidelines at WP:LEAD; be aware that the lead should adequately summarize the article.[?]

I can't make the lead any shorter without removing paragraphs. Serendipodous 11:28, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • The lead is for summarizing the rest of the article, and should not introduce new topics not discussed in the rest of the article, as per WP:LEAD. Please ensure that the lead adequately summarizes the article.[?]

There is no information in the lead that isn't mentioned somewhere else in the article. Serendipodous 11:28, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (numbers), there should be a non-breaking space - &nbsp; between a number and the unit of measurement. For example, instead of 720 kilometres, use 720 kilometres, which when you are editing the page, should look like: 720&nbsp;kilometres.[?]

It would help if the program could tell me where they are. Serendipodous 11:28, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Where are the unstandard abbreviations? Serendipodous 11:28, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I can tell, all the years with full dates are linked. Serendipodous 11:28, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's in a quote. Shouldn't this program ignore sections in quotes? Serendipodous 11:28, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • There are a few occurrences of weasel words in this article- please observe WP:AWT. Certain phrases should specify exactly who supports, considers, believes, etc., such a view.
    • it has been
    • might be weasel words, and should be provided with proper citations (if they already do, or are not weasel terms, please strike this comment).[?]

Again, please tell me where they are, and I'll get rid of them. Serendipodous 11:28, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Please make the spelling of English words consistent with either American or British spelling, depending upon the subject of the article. Examples include: honour (B) (American: honor), meter (A) (British: metre), metre (B) (American: meter), recognise (B) (American: recognize), ization (A) (British: isation), analyze (A) (British: analyse), travelled (B) (American: traveled), grey (B) (American: gray).

I have gone through this article four times with a British spell checker and there are no US English flags. Serendipodous 11:28, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • As done in WP:FOOTNOTE, footnotes usually are located right after a punctuation mark (as recommended by the CMS, but not mandatory), such that there is no space in between. For example, the sun is larger than the moon [2]. is usually written as the sun is larger than the moon.[2][?]

I've gone through the article and I can't find any examples of that. EDIT: Found an extra full stop. Serendipodous 11:33, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hope this helps you further better the article. Thanks, Davnel03 20:57, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Edmund Herring

[edit]

I've never tried this before, so bear with me... Hawkeye7 22:19, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Everybody wants that. Done.

Review by karanacs

[edit]

Overall, this is an excellent article. I see a few things that need to be corrected, and then I think you should nominate the article for GA or FA status.

  • The lead needs to be expanded. It should be at least 2 or 3 paragraphs.
Everybody wants that. Done.
  • Don't wikilink single years, like 1912, unless there is a good reason. Full dates, like 2 August, 1922, should still be linked.
done
  • It's not necessary to wikilink the ranks every time you list them. Wikilink the first time a rank is mentioned, and then not after that.
done
  • Once you have established who a person is (General Douglas MacArthur), any subsequent references to that person should be only their last name (MacArthur) and not their title and last name (General MacArthur) unless the title has changed.
done
  • Need a citation for these quotes: ""People who throw stones at Americans," Herring said, "should stop and think where we would have been in 1942 without the Americans." Such remarks earned him a rebuke from the then acting State Opposition Leader, Mr Frank Wilkes, as "untactful" for a representative of the Crown"
done
  • Don't have external links (Fifty Australians) in the body of the article.
done
  • Citations should be properly formatted. See cite templates
  • The quote should go to wikiquote and shouldn't be in this article unless it can be incorporated into the text.
done

Karanacs 18:14, 31 July 2007 (UTC) Hawkeye7 04:28, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pettit Memorial Chapel

[edit]

Looking for feedback before I nominate this article for Good article. Any edits and/or comments would be most helpful. If you respond, let me know if you have an article up for review and I will return the favor. Thanks in advance, I look forward to your suggestions. IvoShandor 13:27, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In addition, this a Frank Lloyd Wright designed building. The article probably needs a good copy edit, which I will be doing but any help along those lines is always appreciated, a second set of eyes goes a long way. IvoShandor 13:29, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Have you tried asking for feedback at Wikipedia:WikiProject Architecture and adding their template to the talkpage? DrKiernan 16:17, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I did once you posted that but still nothing. I am sure I can figure it out on my own if need be. IvoShandor 09:21, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cumberland School of Law

[edit]

General (or specific) ideas on areas for improvement would be greatly appreciated Sweetmoose6 01:45, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Automated review

[edit]

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

You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, DrKiernan 16:08, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Review by karanacs

[edit]
  • Make sure that all measurements are displayed in both metric and standard forms (I use {{convert}}
  • This sentence does not read well "The Center's location is convenient because of the proximity of the UAB medical centers and since Birmingham is noted as one of the current major emerging biotechnology markets with more than 90 biotech-related businesses in Alabama"
  • The history section should not be discussing the history of legal education in America. You should not need the first paragraph that describes the book you used as a reference.
  • Pre-Civil War section --
    • Need a citation at the end of a the quote.
    • The last sentence of the first paragraph is not clear, probably because the paragraph references both Cumb. School of Law and Cumb. University. You will need to speficy which Cumberland you are discussing.
    • The first two sentences of the first paragraph flow well. The last two don't flow well within the paragraph.
    • I don't think you need to include the second paragraph. Pull out the information about it being one of the top 3 law schools in 1859 and incorporate that into one of the following paragraphs.
  • This sentence does not belong at this point in the article. It would be a great sentence for the lead, or for later in the history section: "After the Civil War, this treatise method, the legal formalism of the school's approach and Nathan Green Jr.'s unwillingness to make changes, are all considered to be reasons for Cumberland's drift out of the mainstream."
  • Wikilink full dates.
  • You should probably wikilink to the Confederate Army and Union Army, as non-Americans might not know about the northern and southern states.
  • This sentence is clunky: "The destruction of the campus and the devestation of war had impoverished the school and it was almost fifteen years before it saw students enter from outside the South when a student from Illinois and a member of the Choctaw Nation enrolled at Cumberland. "
  • Need a citation for this sentence: "Today the law school is well known for its emphasis on Trial Advocacy and is building a biotechnology emphasis through its Center for Biotechnology, Law and Ethics."
  • The Reconstruction heading is not appropriate for this entire section. Reconstruction did not last until 1960. You can either rename it Post-Civil War or split it into two sections.
  • I don't see how the quotation from Cordell Hull fits into the paragraphs surrounding it.
  • The Institution section seems to be repeating facts from elsewhere in the article. It does not need a summary of the history section. The first paragraph of this section, with the quote from Carroll, seems applicable; I'd remove the rest of the section.
  • Need citations for the last two sentences of Life at Cumberland section.
  • Remove the sentence "See below for a list of publications, etc."
  • There are too many one-sentence paragraphs in Life at Cumberland section.
  • Remove the information about the Lucille Stewart Beeson law library (at least the Today, stuff) from the history section because it is in its own section later.
  • I would remove the lists of Student organizations and publications. If possible, make these into prose paragraphs with information about some of the listed activities. If you can do that, it should probably go into the Life at Cumberland section.
  • Many reviewers severely dislike Trivia sections (which is what your Miscellany is), and that could hurt you if you try for GA or FA. These are good facts, and I think you can incorporate them into the article (although I notice that some of them already are). Your notable alumni section should not include a list, but instead several paragraphs. You will have to pick and choose which ones you include because there are so many.
  • External links should be in an External links section, not in See Also.
  • References need to be properly formatted. See WP:citet for the citation templates.

Good luck! Karanacs 17:59, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Transformers (film)

[edit]

It's awesome that this article is GA before it's even out in the UK and I can see it. Any suggestions for this recent film? Copyedits? Clarifications? Alientraveller 20:07, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by LordHarris

[edit]
  • Good work and ive got just a few points. Firstly in the lead, Cullen voiced Optimus in the 1980s cartoon, and returned by fan demand. I think this needs a reference to support. I assume its: Todd Gilchrist. "Exclusive: Peter Cullen Interview", IGN, 2007-06-08, the same reference for him slipping on an old pair of shoes but I think you should cite the fan demand.
  • The following sentance seems a bit disjointed: To save money, Michael Bay cut his fee by 30%, chose to shoot in the United States with a crew he was familiar with,[46] doing more camera set-ups per day than usual[3] for an eighty-three day shooting schedule.[32] Couldnt this be two sentances? Starting a new sentance after the 46 reference. So for example To save money, Michael Bay cut his fee by 30% and chose to shoot in the United States with a crew he was familiar with. During the shoot he did more camera set-ups per day, than usual[3], for an eighty-three day shooting schedule.[32]
  • Again with the following sentance: He practically made the film in computer animatics as a close guide for the five editors during the speedy shoot What do you mean by practically, either he made all of it or part of it? LordHarris 12:09, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Last two points are fixed. Alientraveller 20:25, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Erik

[edit]

The content looks great to me. I spy mostly copy-editing issues that need to be fixed.

  • "Transformers is a 2007 live action film based on the Transformers franchise, directed by Michael Bay and executive produced by Steven Spielberg." Re-word so it doesn't sound like that Bay and Spielberg weren't responsible for the franchise, but for the film.
  • "It stars Shia LaBeouf as Sam Witwicky..." The film or the franchise? (Probably both, but in this case, "film" should be mentioned.)
  • "...map to the Allspark, the center of the war between the heroic Autobots and the evil Decepticons." This makes Allspark sound like a place where the war takes place. Can some more detail be provided to indicate that it's an object?
  • "Though not a fan, Bay was convinced by Spielberg to direct..." Specify what Bay wasn't a fan of, even though it may seem obvious to us. It may not be familiar to new readers.
  • "Bay had support from General Motors and the United States military during filming, keeping the budget under $150 million." Re-word to have an action verb, such as, "General Motors and the United States military lent their support to Bay during filming..." (The action verb would be lent; it's a technique of writing to keep the reader engaged.)
  • Under Cast's Shia entry: "...maturing into a soldier." Is this really accurate wording? It could be interpreted as literal, which wasn't the case.
  • "...and has a criminal record as she refused to turn him to the authorities." Put "she" in between "and has", and write "him" as "her father" to make sure "him" is not confused with Sam.
  • "Simmons is leading a team..." rewrite as "Simmons leads a team..." for consistency's sake.
  • "Both she and her husband act as comic relief." This seems unnecessary, considering that a lot of characters were goofy, like Simmons.

I'll need to stop here 'cause I need to go somewhere, but I hope you can get an idea of what similar changes can be made to the article based on my suggestions. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 19:13, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cool, done, but I felt the Mikaela description was ok. Alientraveller 20:14, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

More observations:

  • "TV series voice actor Frank Welker auditioned, but was rejected as..." -- rewrite as, "TV series voice actor Frank Welker had auditioned, but he was rejected because..."
  • "Welker voiced Megatron..." → "Instead, Welker voiced Megatron..."
  • "In 2002, Hasbro began developing its properties..." Rewrite to briefly mention that Hasbro is a toy company, as not everyone will know of its background.
  • "...when the U.S. invaded Iraq..." How about mentioning the year of the invasion for the sake of long-term chronology, to compare to the film's production?
  • "Tom DeSanto joined the project as..." Replace as with because.
  • Is Generation 1 supposed to be in italics? The article doesn't seem to indicate that, but it's italicized here.
  • "...deciding to focus on the Creation Matrix." In what way? For the premise of the film?
  • "DeSanto chose a human point-of-view in his treatment to engage the audience,[24] in various storylines resembling a disaster film, as Murphy wanted it to feel realistic.[7]" This is kind of choppy. How about something like, "DeSanto chose a human point-of-view in his treatment to engage the audience.[24] Various storylines were included to resemble a disaster film because Murphy wanted the film to feel realistic.[7]"
  • "After they were rejected..." → "After the producers were rejected..." (Since we started a new paragraph, the subject should be re-identified.)
  • "DeSanto met with Mike DeLuca" → "DeSanto met with producer Mike DeLuca" -- identify new figures briefly if possible to an unfamiliar reader. Spielberg should be fine, though, as he has a lot of positions and his direct role is identified as an executive producer in the next sentence.
  • "...had the Ark spaceship." Replace had with an action verb, such as included or featured.
  • "Roberto Orci and Alex Kurtzman" → "Screenwriters Roberto Orci and Alex Kurtzman"
  • "...were hired in February to start over." Write to be more clear, such as to start a new script.
  • "Spielberg pitched it to them as about 'a boy and his car'..." → "Spielberg suggested to the writers an approach about 'a boy and his car'..." Just to clarify the "it" and "them"
  • "Optimus Prime, Megatron, Bumblebee and Starscream were included in all their scripts,[29] but Sam and Mikaela were the focus of the first draft,[33] and the Transformers had no dialogue." This is a run-on sentence, there's two separations -- "and" and "but". Try to break it down into several sentences.
  • "...the writers felt that even if it could look ridiculous..." → "the writers felt that even if the Transformers speaking could look ridiculous..." Identify the "it" since it's a bit far from the "dialogue" mention now.
  • "...made him curious, and visiting Hasbro made him gain a new respect..." → "...made Bay curious, and upon visiting Hasbro, the director gained a new respect..." Just more subject identification.
  • "Bay also wanted it to feel..." → "Bay also wanted the film to feel..."
  • "...naturally, and make..." Remove the comma.
  • "Orci cut the Ark..." → "Orci removed the Ark from the script..."
  • "...to travel',[37] and Arcee..." End sentence after "travel", start new with Arcee. Also suggest identifying Arcee, like "The female Transformer Arcee..."
  • "...with the soldiers based on G.I. Joe." → "based the soldiers on G.I. Joe." (action verb)
  • "...the Autobot Prowl..." Maybe a brief identification of Prowl, such as "...the law enforcement-based Autobot Prowl..."?
  • "Designs began in June 2005..." What designs? Mention that it's of the Transformers, since a lot of components can be designed in a film -- storyboards, costume, et cetera.
  • "...three-dimensional,[35] as well as reflect their alien origins." → "three-dimensional[35] and to reflect their alien origins."
  • "...stays the same size, which explains their choice..." Write stayed and explained, since we're writing from out-of-universe here.
  • "...truck form was rejected as it would..." → "...truck form was rejected because it would..."
  • "Don Murphy wanted to retain Bumblebee's Volkswagen Beetle form,[44] but Bay rejected it to avoid comparisons with Herbie the Love Bug,[45] and chose the Chevrolet Camaro instead, which he described as having a friendly quality.[6]" Another run-on sentence with "but" and "and". Try to break into two sentences.
  • "Bumblebee is a 1977 Yellow Chevy Camaro..." Should be past tense since it's OOU, and say "was based on", perhaps.
  • You mention "morphing" twice in Design, I noticed, and you might want to briefly explain that to readers unfamiliar with how Transformers morphed in the cartoons.
  • "The official names were confirmed in August 2006,[40] although Bay himself was not fully aware of these official names,[46] and this led to Brawl being referred to as Devastator, his on-set name.[49]" While this isn't a run-on sentence, it's a bit long and could be broken into two.
  • "During post-production, fans expressed concern over Megatron's head design, so a last-minute tweak was done to satisfy them." Can it be specified what the issue with the head design was, and how it was fixed?
  • "...cut his fee by 30%" How about directing salary?
  • "...with a crew he was familiar with..." Redundant "with". Try, "...with a familiar crew..."
  • "...at that time." → "...at the time."
  • "Such co-operation..." → "The cooperation..." (Is co-operation UK spelling? It's cooperation in the US.)
  • "A pre-shoot took place on April 19, 2006, before principal photography began on April 22..." → "A pre-shoot took place on April 19, 2006, and principal photography began on April 22..." Using "before" seems unnecessary, it's a pre-shoot.
  • "...making them the first film crew to shoot there since 9/11." → "...making the film crew the first to shoot there since 9/11." Just shuffle the words to avoid "them" before you actually identify who.
  • "...it finally finished..." → "...it concluded..." Using "finally" makes it sound like they had issues staying on schedule or something.
  • "...with Michael Bay and Steven Spielberg conceived..." → "...and Michael Bay and Steven Spielberg provided..."
  • "Three versions of each car were created by General Motors..." Just to clarify, are we talking about all the Transformers vehicles, all the Autobot vehicles, or all the Autobot vehicles classified as a car? It hasn't been said in the article what cars GM provided besides the Pontiac Solistice (The Cast section doesn't really mention which ones are from GM, either).

Man, I'm gonna take a break now... haha. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 19:25, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The last step is beyond me, I'll let you edit that. So there's a lot of shuffling due to this copyedit, especially since citations don't tell me the whole story. But that's what the DVD's for I guess. Alientraveller 20:04, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Omaha Claim Club

[edit]

Any suggestions appreciated - I'm looking to nominate the article for WP:FA, and need to know what it needs to get there. Thanks. – Freechild (BoomCha) 10:14, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I read the first one-third of the article. A few pointers:
  • Avoid using brackets in quotes. In the first sentence, if the original said, "to encourage", quote it verbatim and introduce with the words <in order "to encourage...">.
  • Try to write a longer, more substantial lead section. Featured articles often have a lead section of two to three developed paragraphs.
  • In the sentence that says what happened in 1834, you made a mistake in the grammar. The sentence fragment needs to be fixed and clarified.
  • Last but not least: your link to claim club is red. Do you have information on the general phenomenon, or was the Omaha Claim Club unique? The answer would provide context for people who live outside your hometown. Shalom Hello 05:08, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Automated review

[edit]

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

You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, DrKiernan 13:56, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Smallville (season 1)

[edit]
  • I recently reformatted the entire page, and added a load of real world information. I'm looking for some help sprucing up the wording, developing the flow better, etc. It's hard to notice things when you've been working so close to a specific project, and it's something you follow outside of Wikipedia. You get into the problem of not recognizing things that others might not understand from reading the article, that you would normally get because you follow the show.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 15:01, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Anyone?  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 15:04, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • The episode numbers are formatted like so: "1 - 101", how come? What's all the 101, 102, etc, about? Matthew 13:19, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Aren't they listed that way on the DVD inserts? I can't remember off the top of my head, and I can't verify it until I get home, but I could have sworn that they are listed as 101, 102, 102 (hundreds being the season and the ones being the episode number) in either the booklet that comes with the DVD or when you're are in the DVD menu screen. The single numbers to the left are the "count". They carry over to each succeeding season.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 13:23, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • I don't know, personally, as I haven't got the DVD. If they're listed like that, though, then that's good enough for me. Matthew 13:28, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • I will send myself an email so that I don't forget and check it when I get home. If they aren't listed there, then they can be removed. They aren't detrimental to have, but it's kind of nice to have some kind of production code. I'll check and make sure though.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 13:33, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm my lunch break--I checked the booklet and the DVD, didn't see them identify episodes as anything other than titles. I checked TV Guide and the CW neither use that. It may have been something Kryptonsite used, so since that has no bearing on what is actually used I removed it. I'll remove it from the others when I return to work.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 18:59, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

  • Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (numbers), there should be a non-breaking space - &nbsp; between a number and the unit of measurement. For example, instead of 50ft, use 50 ft, which when you are editing the page, should look like: 50&nbsp;ft.[?]
  • Watch for redundancies that make the article too wordy instead of being crisp and concise. (You may wish to try Tony1's redundancy exercises.)
    • Vague terms of size often are unnecessary and redundant - “some”, “a variety/number/majority of”, “several”, “a few”, “many”, “any”, and “all”. For example, “All pigs are pink, so we thought of a number of ways to turn them green.”
  • Avoid using contractions like (outside of quotations): ISN'T, doesn't, doesn't, doesn't.

You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, DrKiernan 10:50, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I attempted to clean up the concerns. I fixed the measurement space issue, and the contractions. I tried to reword things to fix the redundancies and vague terms, but someone else might need to go through with a fresh pair of eyes and catch any I missed.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 13:41, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Firstly, I think the lead is a little too long. You could probably lose some of the special effects info from the second paragraph. Secondly, what's going on with the DVD cover in the infobox? Infoboxes tend to have images which represent the subject of the article; surely a DVD cover represents a DVD rather than the season itself? Brad 10:31, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'll check out the lead and see what I can do. As for the image, television shows don't typically get official posters released for them, so the DVD cover art tends to be the closest thing to an image that represents the season as you can come by.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 11:25, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Couldn't Image:Smallville poster1.jpg do the job? Brad 12:04, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • That was a teaser for the pilot, not the season. They didn't order a full season till after episode 2. Plus, where would the conformity be with the rest of the season articles.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 12:13, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • If season posters for all could be found, that would be great, but the WB and currently the CW haven't really issued any. They use to issue episode posters for some episodes (I know Season 5 got a lot of episode posters), but not a lot for the season as a whole. That's why general consensus has always been to stick to the DVD cover art, as all seasons, and shows for that matter, get that treatment. And technically, a poster is nothing more than cover art, and a DVD box set cover art for season X is illustrating what the studio feels represents that season (or whoever they hired to come up with the design).  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 12:15, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I trimmed the second paragraph some.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 12:30, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dream Theater

[edit]

This failed as a GA article, so let's see how we can improve it. One thing was it mentioned citations. The problem is many of the places where citations are needed are not listed on the web, a lot are in liner notes of Ytse Jam albums, since that's where MUCH of the history of DT has been listed. I also edited all the one sentance paragraphs and combined them into others.Splent 01:28, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • The DTFAQ.com links are dead, you should find an archived version of these links, I've found this DT FAQ it might be helpful too.
  • I don't think that the The Awards and certificates section's "(Source: search for "Dream Theater".)" part is an acceptable reference, you should do the search and place the result page as a reference.
The problem with this is the riaa website is not set up where you can accurately link a search page. The site comes up as http://www.riaa.com/goldandplatinumdata.php?table=SEARCH_RESULTS. I ended up just linking to the RIAA main page.Splent 01:14, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The references are really needed, there are looong parts, numerous paragraphs without any reference, and because of this the article is far from GA, you should Google those liner notes, maybe they're on a fan site or something. If you can't find them or wouldn't like to spend time with finding them you can refer to the liner notes, read how to reference liner notes. Gocsa 09:43, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the suggestions, I'm currently adding some more citations in regards to some of the facts in the article.Splent 01:12, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

  • Per Wikipedia:Context and Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates), months and days of the week generally should not be linked. Years, decades, and centuries can be linked if they provide context for the article.[?]
  • Per Wikipedia:Context and Wikipedia:Build the web, years with full dates should be linked; for example, link January 15, 2006.[?]
  • As per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates), dates shouldn't use th; for example, instead of using January 30th was a great day, use January 30 was a great day.[?]
  • Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (headings), headings generally should not repeat the title of the article. For example, if the article was Ferdinand Magellan, instead of using the heading ==Magellan's journey==, use ==Journey==.[?]
  • Per WP:WIAFA, this article's table of contents (ToC) may be too long- consider shrinking it down by merging short sections.[?]
  • There are a few occurrences of weasel words in this article- please observe WP:AWT. Certain phrases should specify exactly who supports, considers, believes, etc., such a view.
    • some people sa
    • might be weasel words, and should be provided with proper citations (if they already do, or are not weasel terms, please strike this comment).[?]
  • Watch for redundancies that make the article too wordy instead of being crisp and concise. (You may wish to try Tony1's redundancy exercises.)
    • Vague terms of size often are unnecessary and redundant - “some”, “a variety/number/majority of”, “several”, “a few”, “many”, “any”, and “all”. For example, “All pigs are pink, so we thought of a number of ways to turn them green.”
  • The script has spotted the following contractions: didn't, if these are outside of quotations, they should be expanded.
  • As done in WP:FOOTNOTE, footnotes usually are located right after a punctuation mark (as recommended by the CMS, but not mandatory), such that there is no space in between. For example, the sun is larger than the moon [2]. is usually written as the sun is larger than the moon.[2][?]
  • Please ensure that the article has gone through a thorough copyediting so that it exemplifies some of Wikipedia's best work. See also User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 1a.[?]

You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, DrKiernan 14:12, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Will Powers

[edit]

I'm looking to see if the article meets standards of objectivity. I based my initial edit on the AllMusic Guide biography, but it seems like the subject of the article has altered the article and added an ad into the links. I certainly don't want to challenge the actual subject of the article, but it does seem a little odd. R. Kevin Doyle 01:11, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In my opinion, the new version of the article is absolutely not encyclopedia worthy. Per Wikipedia policy, a person should not be editing an article about themselves without first gaining consensus from the group of editors. If I were you, I'd revert the changes. As long as your original article was well sourced using inline citations, you are following the rules about living people. Karanacs 15:56, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the feedback. I am concerned that this will turn into an edit war. That said, I will only revert it when I have time to properly cite my sources. Thank you again. R. Kevin Doyle 11:10, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with you both: it's unobjective and odd. DrKiernan 14:10, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Callisto (moon)

[edit]

I expanded and referenced this article and it needs peer review before FA nomination. I would appreciate any comments but some language clean up is necessary. Ruslik 13:56, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that language cleanup is needed. In the intro, technical terms (such as spectral signatures, jovian subnebular, slow subsolidus convection) are used, but not wikilinked. They should either be linked or (preferably, I think) simplified, especially as an introduction should provide an accessible overview. The term callistoan is used in the intro, but only explained under "Discovery and naming", and jovian is not explained at all, which might confuse readers unfamiliar with the term. Also, for the article in general, I think contractions should be avoided, especially because they contract so sharply with the scientific tone. Technical terms throughout the article need to be wikilinked. If that's what you meant by the language cleanup that is necessary, sorry for repeating what you already knew. Other than that, the content seems very good, though I'm hardly an expert in astronomy. --Jude. 23:13, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for comments and clean up. I removed many technical terms from the lead and added wikilinks. You comments are specially useful because you are not an expert in astronomy. You can really tell me if this text can be understood by a member of the public. Experts know too much and can't.Ruslik 12:24, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

  • Per Wikipedia:Context and Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates), months and days of the week generally should not be linked. Years, decades, and centuries can be linked if they provide context for the article.[?]
  • Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (numbers), there should be a non-breaking space - &nbsp; between a number and the unit of measurement. For example, instead of 138 km, use 138 km, which when you are editing the page, should look like: 138&nbsp;km.[?]
  • Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (numbers), please spell out source units of measurements in text; for example, the Moon is 380,000 kilometres (240,000 mi) from Earth.[?] Specifically, an example is 200 km.
  • Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (headings), headings generally should not repeat the title of the article. For example, if the article was Ferdinand Magellan, instead of using the heading ==Magellan's journey==, use ==Journey==.[?]
  • The script has spotted the following contractions: can't, hasn't, if these are outside of quotations, they should be expanded.
  • As done in WP:FOOTNOTE, footnotes usually are located right after a punctuation mark (as recommended by the CMS, but not mandatory), such that there is no space in between. For example, the sun is larger than the moon [2]. is usually written as the sun is larger than the moon.[2][?]
  • Please ensure that the article has gone through a thorough copyediting so that it exemplifies some of Wikipedia's best work. See also User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 1a.[?]

You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, DrKiernan 14:16, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thierry Henry

[edit]

Hope to make this a FAC after this PR. Buc 17:08, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mattythewhite

[edit]
  • Date of birth should be in brackets.
  • The first parapragh of "Early career" includes only one paragraph. It'll need a lot more.
  • I'm not too sure on him being referedd to as "the young player" or the "13 year old" - reads like a newspaper.
  • More endashes are needed for seasons.
  • The reference after "This combined with his pace" needs moving to the end of the sentence - but the claim the whole sentence makes needs a reference itself.
  • Reference should be used for statistics. And for Honours, theres a lot of them!
    • Will try to look for reliable sources because soccernet only provides for up till 1999 I think. As for your comment on Honours, do you mean the list is too long or the list is unreferenced? Chensiyuan 00:52, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Its in a very good state. Not too far off a FAC now. Mattythewhite 20:40, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yasser Arafat

[edit]

I have worked hard on expanding the article and the references. I removed several not necessarily relevant external links from the article page and used citation templates for all but two references. They could use a touch of more editing.

I think the Illness and Death needs reviewing and the Aftermath section to an extent.

With minor adjustments, I believ this article could reach FA status Al Ameer son 00:27, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Automated review

[edit]

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

  • Please expand the lead to conform with guidelines at Wikipedia:Lead. The article should have an appropriate number of paragraphs as is shown on WP:LEAD, and should adequately summarize the article.[?]
  • Per Wikipedia:Context and Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates), months and days of the week generally should not be linked. Years, decades, and centuries can be linked if they provide context for the article.[?]
  • Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (numbers), there should be a non-breaking space - &nbsp; between a number and the unit of measurement. For example, instead of 30 miles, use 30 miles, which when you are editing the page, should look like: 30&nbsp;miles.[?]
  • Per Wikipedia:Context and Wikipedia:Build the web, years with full dates should be linked; for example, link January 15, 2006.[?]
  • This article may need to undergo summary style, where a series of appropriate subpages are used. For example, if the article is United States, than an appropriate subpage would be History of the United States, such that a summary of the subpage exists on the mother article, while the subpage goes into more detail.[?]
  • There are a few occurrences of weasel words in this article- please observe WP:AWT. Certain phrases should specify exactly who supports, considers, believes, etc., such a view.
    • it has been
    • allege
    • might be weasel words, and should be provided with proper citations (if they already do, or are not weasel terms, please strike this comment).[?]
  • Watch for redundancies that make the article too wordy instead of being crisp and concise. (You may wish to try Tony1's redundancy exercises.)
    • Vague terms of size often are unnecessary and redundant - “some”, “a variety/number/majority of”, “several”, “a few”, “many”, “any”, and “all”. For example, “All pigs are pink, so we thought of a number of ways to turn them green.”
  • As done in WP:FOOTNOTE, footnotes usually are located right after a punctuation mark (as recommended by the CMS, but not mandatory), such that there is no space in between. For example, the sun is larger than the moon [2]. is usually written as the sun is larger than the moon.[2][?]
  • Please ensure that the article has gone through a thorough copyediting so that it exemplifies some of Wikipedia's best work. See also User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 1a.[?]

You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, DrKiernan 09:26, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Review by Psychless

[edit]

If you're going for FA some things are going to need fixing. The main problem is referencing. In many paragraphs you only reference quotes; every sentence needs to be cited if you're going for FA. That's not to say you need a little number after every sentence though of course, they carry over multiple sentences as long as they're in the same paragraph. This is what needs to be fixed:

  • Early life
    • First paragraph: First two sentences: the citation needs to come after punctuation. The second sentence is also worded strangely.
    • Second paragraph: When did he attend the the University of King Fuad II? And when was the university renamed, for those of us who don't want to click the link?
  • Formation of Fatah
    • Last sentence of first paragraph needs referencing.
    • Second paragraph needs referencing.
    • Fourth and fifth paragraphs need referencing.
  • Jordan
    • Last sentence of first paragraph needs referencing.
    • Second paragraph needs referencing.
  • Lebanon
    • This section needs to follow the referencing rules. If the cite is only for the quote make sure you include a cite for the rest of the paragraph, before that have a different cite and after it at the end of the paragraph.

The rest of the article needs to referenced like described above, especially the Political survival, marginalization and controversy section which is completely unreferenced. I would be happy to go through and place a citation needed tag in all the places I believe need referencing if you wish. You might look over my article Serranus Clinton Hastings to understand what I think is proper referencing. I hoped this helped, Psychless 15:17, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

the sentences:

In a move widely criticized, even by a member of his own negotiating team and cabinet, Nabil Amr, Arafat rejected Barak's offer and refused to make a counter-offer. However negotiations continued at the Taba summit in January 2001. This time Ehud Barak pulled out of the talks to campaign in the Israeli elections. Throughout 2001 the al-Aqsa Intifada, or Second Palestinian Intifada grew in intensity and following the election of Ariel Sharon, the peace process took a steep downfall. Ariel Sharon, Israel's Prime Minister confined Arafat to his Mukataa headquarters in Ramallah, while George W. Bush, president of the United States, claimed that Arafat was "an obstacle to the peace". The European Union, on the other hand, opposed these tough policies.

Have major POV violations. "negotiations continued at the Taba summit " - does not mention that this was after the start the the intifada. "This time Ehud Barak pulled out of the talks to campaign in the Israeli elections." - is not true at all. "the peace process took a steep downfall" - implies that Sharon hurt peace process by fighting terror, not that Arafat hurt the peace process by starting terror. Jon513 14:26, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Review by Scartol

[edit]

Yasser_Arafat#Formation_of_Fatah

With regard to the last two paragraphs: Was Arafat involved in the bomb leading up to – or the Israeli attack on – as-Samu? If not, that ¶ should probably be shortened. (We need background on major events, but not too much.) On the other hand, discussion about the War itself should have more info (if available) on Arafat's role in the conflict. We see that he won popular support, but it would be good to get more detail on how he did it.

Please note that I'm also including {{fact}} tags where appropriate; I think we need to be super-careful about documenting every tiny thing in an article about such a controversial person. (Please remove these once the documentation has been added.) – Scartol · Talk 00:15, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Arafat I assume, was involved in the attack especially since at the time he could manage a still young Fatah's activities and especially since he led many of them (not this one however). Nonetheless I did shorten that segment somewhat and expanded Arafat's role in the conflict and his various promotions in chronological order and all with referencing. --Al Ameer son 18:00, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good revisions. In the final paragraph of this section, it's not clear who the "him" refers to – also, I took a stab at what I thought you meant by "he was deferred by him as the leader of the Palestinians." If I chose the wrong word ("deferred" doesn't make sense to me), just change it to something else. – Scartol · Talk 21:30, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yasser_Arafat#Battle_of_Karameh

Re this sentence: As Israel's forces intensified their campaign, the Jordanian Army became involved, causing the Israelis to retreat in order to avoid a full-scaled war. DO we have evidence that this is why they withdrew? It's probably safe to assume it's the reason, but I'd be a lot more comfortable with a footnote on it. – Scartol · Talk 21:36, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Done --Al Ameer son 22:55, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

By the end of the battle 150 Palestinian militants and perhaps civilians were killed as well as 20 Jordanian soldiers and 29 Israeli soldiers. Please cite this. Also, I – like most people reading about the Israeli/Palestinian conflict – get very nervous when we read things like "perhaps civilians". Let's stick to verifiable facts. If there's a quote from a book which suggests that maybe civilians were killed, quote or cite it. Otherwise, leave it out. You can imagine the furor this will cause if someone thinks it's your own opinion. – Scartol · Talk 21:39, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No civilians is not mentioned and I removed it from the text. --Al Ameer son 22:55, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've consulted another editor about whether we can use the cover of Time under the fair use rationale. I think we probably can, which is good – that block of text could use an image. Looks like it's not a good idea. I'm getting negative vibes. – Scartol · Talk 21:50, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I added it to the article a while ago but could not keep it there because of some rule about magazine covers. --Al Ameer son 22:55, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yasser_Arafat#Black_September_and_official_recognition

I shortened the title of the subhead (it's best to keep these as brief as possible). Re the Ten Point Program: It's necessary to give some more background here. Had certain Palestinian territory been liberated? If so, what territory is being addressed? Or were they addressing future claims and/or conflicts? – Scartol · Talk 22:43, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The liberated territories thats spoken of of is the territories captured by Arab forces in 1948. I addressed that in the article. This is the reason more militant factions opposed it because of their belief in a complete "liberation" of Palestine. --Al Ameer son 22:55, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Israel and the United States claimed that Arafat was in ultimate control over these organizations, and therefore had not abandoned terrorism. This implies that Arafat had previously endorsed terrorism. Does this refer to Dawson's field? If so, it's good to use that word in that section, so this part won't be a surprise. It might also be good to indicate that he was trying to indicate a disapproval of terrorist tactics (if that was the case). – Scartol · Talk 22:47, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I addressed that also in the Jordan section. --Al Ameer son 22:55, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yasser_Arafat#Fatah_involvement_in_Lebanese_Civil_War

Re the paragraph beginning with: The Civil War's first phase ended for Arafat with the siege and fall of the refugee camp of Tel al-Zaatar. Could this be merged into the preceding paragraphs? It interrupts the flow of the chronology. – Scartol · Talk 15:31, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes it could and it has. --Al Ameer son 22:55, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yasser_Arafat#Tunisia

Fatah forces in the West Bank led by Abu Jihad were essential for continuing the civil unrest for the duration. How long did the Intifada last? Please specify here. – Scartol · Talk 15:53, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It lasted until 1993 which I just added to the text. I also did some text location switching to keep everything in chronological order. --Al Ameer son 22:55, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yasser_Arafat#1993_Oslo_Accords

…a gradual disengagement of Israeli settlements in those areas. Can we use a better word than "disengagement"? Were the settlements supposed to be removed? Or was Israel supposed to stop adding new ones? Or was some other procedure called for? "Disengagement" is a bit unclear. – Scartol · Talk 17:03, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It was both the ending of settlement building and eventual settlement removal. It has been addressed. --Al Ameer son 22:55, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yasser_Arafat#Palestinian_elections_and_other_peace_agreements

We should have some more information in this section about what the PLO (and other Palestinian organizations) was/were doing in the mid-late 1990s, and how involved Arafat was. – Scartol · Talk 17:32, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This will take some reading into his biography and Carter's book on the conflict. Once I find the information on that I will add to it. --Al Ameer son 22:55, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Arafat rejected Barak's offer and refused to make a counter-offer. Explain what Arafat's rationale was. – Scartol · Talk 17:38, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This also will take some reading into. --Al Ameer son 22:55, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yasser_Arafat#Political_survival.2C_marginalization_and_controversy

Arafat's ability to adapt to new tactical and political situations, was perhaps exemplified by the rise of the Hamas… "Exemplified" is an unclear word here. Maybe "tested"? – Scartol · Talk 17:46, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I used the word tested. --Al Ameer son 22:55, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Arafat's ability to adapt to new tactical and political situations was perhaps exemplified by the rise of the Hamas and Palestinian Islamic Jihad organizations, Islamist groups espousing rejectionist opposition to Israel's existence. Have I categorized these correctly? If I'm wrong in assessing Hamas and PIJ as fundamentally opposed to the existence of Israel, please make the needed change. – Scartol · Talk 18:33, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Overall I addressed most of the issues you have brought up including clarification and reference tags. I removed some uncited and at the same time unimportant info from the article. However if you believe that it should be reinstated then go ahead and we shall hunt for references. Some issues mostly in the elections and peace agreements section will be addressed from the biography and Carter's book --Al Ameer son 22:55, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Excellent. I won't be able to do any more work on this today, but I should be able to keep going tomorrow. Cheers! – Scartol · Talk 21:46, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thats fine, my recent editing probably needs some copyediting though. --Al Ameer son 22:55, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Persistent attempts by the Israeli government to identify another Palestinian leader… This sentence needs some context. It's probably clear to some readers why Israel wanted to find an alternative to Arafat, but it's important to spell it out, with citation of official Israeli sources if possible.
Also, at the end of that paragraph: Marwan Barghouti emerged as a possible replacement during the al-Aqsa Intifada, but Israel had him arrested and sentenced to five life terms. The end of the sentence should read: "…five life sentences for his involvement in (describe alleged crimes)." With a citation, of course. – Scartol · Talk 15:36, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Arafat was finally allowed to leave his compound… This feels like it's coming out of nowhere, since the various paragraphs above it are more general about Arafat's influence and dynamic approach. I would suggest first (in the previous section) giving the date that Sharon ordered Arafat's confinement. (In that paragraph, we should also see the reasons -- or at least the stated reasons -- for the order.) Then, at the start of the "Political survival" section, say something like: "Sharon's confinement order was an unusually harsh move against one of the most famous Palestinians in the world." This will give the reader a foothold on the general discussion, and lead more easily into the part where he was allowed to leave. – Scartol · Talk 15:40, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The most frequent criticism of Arafat by the Western and Israeli media was that he was corrupt to the detriment of the Palestinian people. Really? It's not the affiliation with organizations using terror tactics? I'm not being rhetorical – I really don't know. – Scartol · Talk 15:47, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yasser_Arafat#Financial dealings

An investigation by the European Union into claims that EU funds were misused… Can we get a year for that investigation? – Scartol · Talk 16:08, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Claims by unnamed sources in the PA Finance Ministry stated that Arafat's wife… Can we get a year for this? – Scartol · Talk 16:46, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yasser_Arafat#Illness_and_death

However, a straightforward linear response to the death of Arafat, involved in controversy, conflict and the struggle for national identity as he had been, was unlikely. This is extremely unclear. I assume it means that various organizations were unlikely to mourn in a strict traditional way? It's probably just best to give details on what they did. – Scartol · Talk 17:10, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yasser_Arafat#Aftermath

I also wanted to mention the renaming of the Aftermath section. I don't really think its an appropriate name for the section since it doesn't really state anything thats his legacy. It mostly concentrates on the aftermath of his death such as his refused autopsy, medical files, his death certificate and burial. At the end of the article it mentions the politicians who took positions in the PNA. Maybe we could make this section a subsection in the Illness and death section and make a separate one for his legacy. We could also remove or seriously cut-down the last portion of the section that addresses the new PNA, seeing that it is unnecessary and irrelevant to Arafat since he did not assign their positions. Cheers --Al Ameer son 22:55, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To be honest, I sort of changed it without reading it carefully, since most bio pages usually use Legacy instead. But I'll let you take the lead on this – your setup sounds fine. Go ahead and change it to whatever you think is best. I'll look over your new edits and keep moving ahead tomorrow. – Scartol · Talk 02:15, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I feel the need to focus on the phrasing: "…Islamist groups espousing rejectionist opposition to Israel…" Are these groups opposed to certain Israeli policies, or to the existence of Israel itself? Seems like an important distinction which should be made in this article. (The article does a good job of distinguishing between the evolving position of Arafat, Fatah and the PLO -- we should do the same for other organizations.) – Scartol · Talk 15:24, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

General Comments

We don't need a link every time Israel or Fatah are mentioned. WP:MOS-L has guidelines about how to use wikilinks effectively. – Scartol · Talk 15:29, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If I ever put a {{fact}} tag in a spot that is later covered by a footnote at the end of a paragraph, just delete it (and maybe make a note here or on the talk page). – Scartol · Talk 17:17, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The information in "Personal life" should be integrated into the article. The part about his wedding, for instance, should be worked into the "Tunisia" section. You can put the info about his daughter and adopted children (best to arrange these chronologically) in the same section. I'd put the speculations about possible homosexuality in the section about his death, especially since they often revolve around the rumors of him having AIDS. Also, the two books mentioned don't have page numbers. Controversial claims like that really need specific references. – Scartol · Talk 17:28, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I've made it through each section. Once you're able to make these changes (or explain why they should be left as they are or whatever), I'll give it another pass. Thanks again for your diligence and hard work on it. – Scartol · Talk 17:47, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have integrated the Personal life section into the rest of the article. As for the page numbers, I'm not sure what you mean? There are page numbers in the references, are you saying the exact page number? The fact tags for the most part are in the right spot and are not backed by other references. So we will need to hunt for them. I will go over the references once more to be sure. --Al Ameer son 20:11, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've fully referenced the Financial dealings section of the article and added some references to the Illness and death and Aftermath sections. --Al Ameer son 19:21, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I also wanted to bring up using some sort of protective lock on the article to prevent its constant vandalism as you an see in the article's history. --Al Ameer son 19:21, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Scartol's second pass

[edit]

Okay, I'll go through again and make (hopefully many fewer) comments. I'm not very far into it yet, but I'm very impressed by the improvements you've made so far. Well done!

Please let me finish with this overview before responding. I may go back and change things as I progress. Thanks!

Lead

The lead should be longer and more closely mimic the overall structure of the article. I'll have a go at it once I re-read the article. I've rewritten the lead, to make it match the contours of the article. I tried to leave as much of the previous writing intact as I could, but I needed to remove some bits. Feel free to add citations if necessary and/or revert changes.

Formation of Fatah

  • The magazine's name is listed as Filastununa, Nida al-Hayat. Is the comma part of the magazine's name? If not, it should be removed.
The Arabic text is not given in the book, only its translation which I just added. I removed the comma anyway. --Al Ameer son 22:24, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • During the 1962–1966 period, Arafat and his closest companions immigrated to Syria, a country sharing a border with Israel which had recently seceded from a union with Nasser's Egypt. This is unclear; did Syria secede from the union, or Israel? (I assume Syria, but I want to be sure. If it is Syria, the comma before "a country" should be a spaced en dash – like this – and another should appear between "Israel" and "which".)
Done. --Al Ameer son 22:24, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fatah involvement in Lebanese Civil War

  • The sentence: PLO attacks against Israel also grew dramatically during the 1970s. could use some follow-up. I'm worried that some editors will accuse the article of going easy on details of the PLO's attacks. Let's give one or two sentences of specifics. What cities were attacked? etc.
Coastal Road Massacre, probably needs copyediting. --Al Ameer son 22:24, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Political survival, marginalization and controversy

  • Marwan Barghouti emerged as a possible replacement during the al-Aqsa Intifada, but Israel had him arrested and sentenced to five life terms. As I think I said before, we could use some context. What was he sentenced for? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Scartol (talk • contribs) 18:25, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Done, once again this also probably needs copyediting. --Al Ameer son 22:24, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Illness and Death

  • One observer described it as "a very painful scene.… I stuck in "One observer" because the text started in the middle of this sentence. Didn't we have a name with this quote before? – Scartol · Talk 18:32, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Tamimi was the observer who is mentioned in the preceding passage in the section. --Al Ameer son 22:24, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

General comments

At some point, it would be good to go through and check the repetition of wikilinks – each country, for example, should be linked once at its first appearance, and only afterwards if it's very essential for the context. (I expect the various instances of extra linking came about because various editors added bits and pieces along the way.)

I'd be more comfortable if we had page numbers with more of the books (especially the ones alleging homosexual activity). – Scartol · Talk 19:29, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, I don't have page numbers for the book because I don't have the book. If I ever see it in a library I'll take note but until then I have no solution for it. --Al Ameer son 22:24, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

More to come. It looks like my work here is done. You've really done an outstanding job in fleshing out many sections and providing references for every little thing in the article.

A second (oops – I mean fifteenth) opinion?

One thought I've had while working on this is that it would be useful to have someone involved in WikiProject Israel review the article. When I read it (as someone who both supports the right of Israel to exist but is also stridently opposed to the occupation of the West Bank, not to mention critical of violations by both Israelis and Palestinians of human rights and international law), this page is impressively NPOV right now; you've done a superb job of juggling the many perspectives, and providing sources for everything in sight.

Still, I can foresee a situation where charges of WP:NPOV are raised in the FAC process, by folks who have a very thorough knowledge of the history involved and may be opposed to seeing any article on Arafat raised to FA status. Getting the opinion of someone at WP:Israel to ensure a very strict adherence to NPOV (as difficult as it may be for an article like this) is a good way to head that sort of thing off at the pass.

That's a wonderful idea, I think I already have two or three popular members of that project to overlook the article. --Al Ameer son 22:24, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again for all your hard work, and please let me know if you have any further questions or concerns. (I may not be able to check here with great frequency, so it's a good idea to drop me a line on my talk page.) Please also let me know when the article is nominated again at WP:FAC. I look forward to seeing it progress. – Scartol · Talk 00:15, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much. You have brought the article to a much higher level and now I see an enormous difference between the article now and the previous times I brought it up for FA status. The only requests I have is to copyedit my few recent additions to your suggestions. Also, I would like your opinion on whether we should replace the image of the PFLP flag with the image of patrol of PFLP fighters in Jordan in 1969. The link is here: [13] Thank you again and of course I'll let you know when the article is renominated (which I hope is very soon). --Al Ameer son 22:24, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I like the idea of using a picture of people instead of flags, but I wondered if we might be inviting NPOV accusations. I'm probably being paranoid, but I thought maybe if we have a picture of PFLP soldiers, we'd need one of IDF troops, etc etc. I'll let you make the call on this one – listen to your heart. =) I'll have a look at your recent additions. I'm glad I could help out. Cheers. – Scartol · Talk 23:16, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think we need a picture of IDF soldiers since they are not of much concern in the civil strife between the PLO and Jordan and their forces were not deployed on any front. Also, the PFLP is a member group of the PLO organization which Arafat was responsible for. I think a pic of the IDF could be of good use in the section(s) dealing with the fighting between the Palestinians and Israel. --Al Ameer son 19:47, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can we get a citation (or two) for the newly-added bits about the Ben Gurion Airport incidents and the other info in that paragraph?
Done and I have added more background. needs copyediting --Al Ameer son 19:47, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've tweaked some wording; please check and make sure it's still factually accurate (I'm thinking of the bus hijacking especially).
Changed it so it would included passing vehicles that were targeted. --Al Ameer son 19:47, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just an FYI: "charged with the allegations of killing twenty-six people" is redundant. Issuing a charge is the same thing as alleging it. I changed it.
Do you think we should expand the Lebanse civil war section to included battles and massacres between Fatah and the Christian, Shiite, and pro-Syria PLO forces. --Al Ameer son 19:47, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Quick peer review

[edit]

Here is a short, informal peer review of the article. The previous reviewer has done a lot so I've just brought up some minor issues.

  • Birth & Childhood -> Birth and childhood
  • Jerusalem is first linked in the Name section. It is first mentioned in the Birth & Childhood section and therefore, should be linked there instead.
  • Citations in first paragraph of name section are redundant, only one, at the end, is needed.
  • "However, Arafat did not use the Abdel Rahman part of his name either, and it too was dropped." If you say he didn't use it, does saying he dropped it add anything to the meaning?
  • The last sentence of the first paragraph of the Formation of Fatah section is not cited.
  • Citations in paragraphs 5, 6, and 7 in section Formation of Fatah are redundant. You just need one at the end of the paragraph.
  • Same as above with paragraph 1 in section Battle of Karameh
  • And paragraphs 1, 3 and 5 in Jordan section
  • Last sentence of paragraph 2 of Jordan section is not cited
  • Terrorist attacks in 1970s and official recognition section needs a little work on citations. Make sure every sentence is cited.
  • Last two sentences of second paragraph of Fatah involvement in Lebanese Civil War section are not cited
  • redundant citations in paragraph 2 of Tunisia section.
  • most of paragraph 4 in Tunisia section is uncited
  • the last sentence of paragraph 4 and the last in paragraph 6 are uncited.
  • Second paragraph of Financial Dealings section is uncited.
  • Add a citation so you can removed the citation needed tag.
  • Last sentence of paragraph 1 and last of paragraph 2 in Illness and death section need citations.
  • Citation needed tag on last paragraph in Illness and death section

Psychless 23:20, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

All except one citation needed tag at illness and death section has been done. In the process I also divided the Formation of Fatah into two more sections and renamed the Tunisia section Tunisia and the First Intifada. You can read over these sections and agree or disagree that they correspond with the text.
I added more info on the Lebanese Civil War (needs copyediting) to include massacres and battles between Arafat's forces and the government. Also to clarify some portions of the text.
Also I think it would be a good idea to make a subsection in the Aftermath section called Reactions. What are your opinions on that. --Al Ameer son 01:45, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fist of the North Star

[edit]

I'm trying to improve this article as much as possible to bring it to GA (or even FA) standards. Most of it has been a solo work. I've added a notes and references sections (which was missing before), actual citations from the creators, references to its reception in Japan, ISBN numbers and publishing dates of the original Jump Comics volumes (which could branch off to a separate page, since there are so many different reprints of the series). I've also removed the "References in other works" section (as well as a previous Trivia section), which I believed didn't add anything to the article. I'm still not completely sastified enough though and I want some suggestions. For example, should I use a cover from the Jump Comics edition (which is the one at the moment), an English cover or the eBook edition that I was previous using? I also feel the lead section might be too long as well. Jonny2x4 07:18, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, DrKiernan 14:34, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Water supply and sanitation in South Africa

[edit]

Please review this article to see if it conforms with the criteria for a good article.--Mschiffler 16:46, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

  • Consider adding more links to the article; per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (links) and Wikipedia:Build the web, create links to relevant articles.[?]
  • Per Wikipedia:What is a featured article?, Images should have concise captions.[?]
  • There may be an applicable infobox for this article. For example, see Template:Infobox Biography, Template:Infobox School, or Template:Infobox City.[?] (Note that there might not be an applicable infobox; remember that these suggestions are not generated manually)
  • Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (numbers), there should be a non-breaking space - &nbsp; between a number and the unit of measurement. For example, instead of 40 liter, use 40 liter, which when you are editing the page, should look like: 40&nbsp;liter.[?]
  • There are a few occurrences of weasel words in this article- please observe WP:AWT. Certain phrases should specify exactly who supports, considers, believes, etc., such a view.
    • it has been
    • might be weasel words, and should be provided with proper citations (if they already do, or are not weasel terms, please strike this comment).[?]
  • Please make the spelling of English words consistent with either American or British spelling, depending upon the subject of the article. Examples include: neighbor (A) (British: neighbour), meter (A) (British: metre), organize (A) (British: organise), ization (A) (British: isation), isation (B) (American: ization), diarrhoea (B) (American: diarrhea), programme (B) (American: program ).
  • Watch for redundancies that make the article too wordy instead of being crisp and concise. (You may wish to try Tony1's redundancy exercises.)
    • While additive terms like “also”, “in addition”, “additionally”, “moreover”, and “furthermore” may sometimes be useful, overusing them when they aren't necessary can instead detract from the brilliancy of the article. This article has 11 additive terms, a bit too much.
  • As done in WP:FOOTNOTE, footnotes usually are located right after a punctuation mark (as recommended by the CMS, but not mandatory), such that there is no space in between. For example, the sun is larger than the moon [2]. is usually written as the sun is larger than the moon.[2][?]
  • Please ensure that the article has gone through a thorough copyediting so that it exemplifies some of Wikipedia's best work. See also User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 1a.[?]

You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, DrKiernan 14:45, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Do you want me to run the program for all of your peer reviews or not? DrKiernan 14:45, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Water supply and sanitation in Mexico

[edit]

Please review this article to see if it conforms with the criteria for a good article.--Mschiffler 16:18, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • I'd have to say it's a bit iffy.
    • There may be some issues with tone, or at least the various opinions need to be better referenced. For example, "Quality of service also leaves much to be desired" does not have the formal encyclopedic tone I'd expect. It needs some authoritative reference to support that position, such as a government quote. Otherwise an absolute statement would be better.
    • There are also too many brief sections, resulting in an overly-long ToC. Can these either be expanded or consolidated?
    • Can the "Share of household metering" field be given a value?
    • Finally, more references are probably needed.
    I hope this was helpful. Thanks. — RJH (talk) 17:14, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for these useful comments, which all are valid and useful. I can't promise to work on them soon, but the World Bank's Infrastructure Public Expenditure Review has more information that can be used to expand the sections and to provide more references. The one topic on which there is no authoritative information unfortunately is quality of service, especially drinking water quality.--Mschiffler 19:11, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Final Fantasy V

[edit]

This article is looking good and it is almost ready for FA. One of the best game articles and one of the best of Wikipedia IMO. Any comments to improve on this article should be greatly appreciated. Thanks and may the force be with you. Greg Jones II 19:20, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, DrKiernan 14:52, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Final Fantasy II

[edit]

This article is coming together. Certainly one of the best of Wikipedia IMO. I think it will be good for FA. Any comments here should be welcome. Thanks Greg Jones II 19:01, 24 July 2007 (UTC) May the force be with you...[reply]

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

  • The long plot summary section is just a mass of text. Can it be broken down at all, or links added?
  • Watch for redundancies that make the article too wordy instead of being crisp and concise. (You may wish to try Tony1's redundancy exercises.)
    • Vague terms of size often are unnecessary and redundant - “some”, “a variety/number/majority of”, “several”, “a few”, “many”, “any”, and “all”. For example, “All pigs are pink, so we thought of a number of ways to turn them green.”
  • As done in WP:FOOTNOTE, footnotes usually are located right after a punctuation mark (as recommended by the CMS, but not mandatory), such that there is no space in between. For example, the sun is larger than the moon [2]. is usually written as the sun is larger than the moon.[2][?]
  • Please ensure that the article has gone through a thorough copyediting so that it exemplifies some of Wikipedia's best work. See also User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 1a.[?]

You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, DrKiernan 14:50, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Industrial Revolution

[edit]

There has been a lot of work done on the article since March 2006. (I mistakenly said 2007 when first posting.) I recently got involved and shuffled sentences into paragraphs in the introduction and shuffeled around sections to re-structure the overall document. I've also added images. It seems like it reads pretty well and it might be time for another review. I just found this review page, but while it seems like some comments might still apply a lot of them no longer do. (The one specific question I would have would be regarding using the present tense in the sentence ending the first paragraph of the introduction (is v.s. was) -- in that the Industrial Revolution continues to develop and continues to change lives today.) --kop 18:13, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

March 2006 Review

[edit]

Comments most welcome - thanks! --PopUpPirate 10:18, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • History is written by the victorious. I am glad to see that the article gives arguments as presented by historians, and doesn't present their arguments as facts. Yes, there were many potential causes, but which were influential and which coincidental...we don't know, they are just arguments.
  • There is currently a lack of sufficient inline citations. Below are some instances/phrases that might require them (note: some can be simply re-worded to avoid citation):
    • "with some historians seeing the Revolution as..."
    • "...are also cited as factors,"
    • "One question of active interest to historians is..."
    • "Numerous factors have been suggested, including ecology, government, and culture." (either relate this to specific points to come in the text or perhaps provide a general reference)
    • " Benjamin Elman argues that..." (can you point the reader to where he makes this argument?)
    • "Kenneth Pomeranz, in the Great Divergence, argues that..." (currently does not appear in the references)
    • "modern estimates of per capita income..." (whose calculations are these?)
    • "the noted historian Rajni Palme Dutt has been quoted as saying, 'The capital...'" (ref quote)
    • "Some have stressed the importance of natural..."
    • "Another theory is that Great Britain was ..."
    • "...is the origin of the modern engineering industry." (just seems like a bold statement that could get challenged)
  • In "Causes", combine the two sentences about epidemics and larger workforce into one (use a semicolon if you have to) because they are both part of one thought, not two separate thoughts (sentences)
  • Why does "large domestic market" cause get its own paragraph but larger workforce, Agricultural Revolution, Technological innovation and colonial expansion have to share?
  • "...a condition that holds true even into the 21st century.", "...with modern concepts of automatic illegality." (keep the article on topic)
  • The "Lunar society" section appears to be a counter-argument of the "Protestant work ethic" sub-sub-section, rather than a separte theme like Protestantism. Consider merging these two sections.
  • Why does "Protestant work ethic" get a separate section opposed to the other causes listed in "Causes for occurrence in Great Britain"?
  • In the "Innovations" section intro, orient the paragraph to take the reader down from the general to the specific (ie. innovations such as making iron/steel and harnessing water/steam power resulted in inventions such as steam engine and flying shuttles...), and also introduce concepts discuss in the sub-sections like tramission/publication of ideas
  • Avoid those one-sentence paragraphs like "Josiah Wedgwood and Matthew Boulton were other prominent early industrialists.", "One of the earliest reformers of factory conditions was Robert Owen.", "During the Industrial Revolution, these different methods were improved and developed." and "In 1842, Cotton Workers in England staged a widespread strike."
  • I'm not sure the Luddites paragraph in the "Factories" sub-sub-section fits, maybe just keep them in the "Luddites" sub-section
  • In "Mining" please clarify what this sentence is saying: "Coal mining in Britain, particuarly in South Wales is of great age.", also the "Mining" section seems simplistic compared the other sections surrounding it, consider expanding (Innovation)
  • In "Metallurgy" I don't think the summary style is intended for use of articles that are still
  • In "Transportation" consider merging the sub-sub-sections "Navigable rivers", "Coastal sail", and "Canals" into one section about transport along waterways
  • In "Transportation" explain what each element meant to the industrial revolution (how it impacted, further enhanced/degraded 'progress'), rather than a straight explanation of the topic.
  • The introduction of "Social effects" should be more descriptive, and consider replacing the "&" with "and".
  • In "Child labour", "prehistoric times" is over-kill. Replace the external link with a footnote.
  • In "Housing situation" (odd title, maybe consider 'Public Health' or 'Slums' or 'Urban housing', etc.) the Sanitary Report (1842) is quoted without a reference. Btw, that is an excellent choice for a source.
  • Re-visit the "Luddites" section. They were not just a bunch of unemployed machine-smashers, but protester/activists against the new way of life that industrialization creates (ie. the new lower class; the large pool of unskilled labor that capitalists drool over). Smashing machines was a symbolic/rallying-the-troops (and I guess therapeutic) thing.
  • "Other effects" valiantly trys to lump a bunch of other changes to society into a few paragraphs, but it needs better organization. The start a new paragraph at "mass migration of rural families into urban areas" as this is about rural-to-urban migration whereas the previous sentences were discussing international effects. After this it seems like just a bunch of other effects were thrown together. Try to better relate them to one another in order to keep them in the same paragraph (or elaborate one piece into another paragraph - environmental effects like coal consumption might be a good candidate).
  • Consider moving "Marxism" and "Romanticism" into "Intellectual paradigms" (it is plural) and removing the "Criticism" heading.

--maclean25 23:33, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Lead is completly inadequate - it should be significantly expanded. Lose the 'Overview' section, merge everything from it into the lead. Lead is overview, after all. Some sections are stub-sections and should be expanded, ex. 'Intellectual paradigms' (which for some reason has one and only one subsection - aren't there more paradigms?), or 'Luddites'. More inline citations are needed. The article mentions Weber and Marx, but what about Durkheim?--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 02:37, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Automated review

[edit]

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

  • The lead of this article may be too long, or may contain too many paragraphs. Please follow guidelines at WP:LEAD; be aware that the lead should adequately summarize the article.[?]
  • The lead is for summarizing the rest of the article, and should not introduce new topics not discussed in the rest of the article, as per WP:LEAD. Please ensure that the lead adequately summarizes the article.[?]
  • If there is not a free use image in the top right corner of the article, please try to find and include one.[?] I'd move the Watt steam engine top right.
  • There may be an applicable infobox for this article. For example, see Template:Infobox Biography, Template:Infobox School, or Template:Infobox City.[?] (Note that there might not be an applicable infobox; remember that these suggestions are not generated manually)
  • Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (numbers), there should be a non-breaking space - &nbsp; between a number and the unit of measurement. For example, instead of 6 miles, use 6 miles, which when you are editing the page, should look like: 6&nbsp;miles.[?]
  • Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (headings), headings generally should not repeat the title of the article. For example, if the article was Ferdinand Magellan, instead of using the heading ==Magellan's journey==, use ==Journey==.[?]
  • Per WP:WIAFA, this article's table of contents (ToC) may be too long- consider shrinking it down by merging short sections or using a proper system of daughter pages as per Wikipedia:Summary style.[?]
  • There are a few sections that are too short and that should be either expanded or merged.
  • There are a few occurrences of weasel words in this article- please observe WP:AWT. Certain phrases should specify exactly who supports, considers, believes, etc., such a view.
    • arguably
    • is considered
    • might be weasel words, and should be provided with proper citations (if they already do, or are not weasel terms, please strike this comment).[?]
  • Please make the spelling of English words consistent with either American or British spelling, depending upon the subject of the article. Examples include: meter (A) (British: metre), organise (B) (American: organize), ization (A) (British: isation), isation (B) (American: ization), analyze (A) (British: analyse), travelled (B) (American: traveled), sulphur (B) (American: sulfur).
  • Watch for redundancies that make the article too wordy instead of being crisp and concise. (You may wish to try Tony1's redundancy exercises.)
    • Vague terms of size often are unnecessary and redundant - “some”, “a variety/number/majority of”, “several”, “a few”, “many”, “any”, and “all”. For example, “All pigs are pink, so we thought of a number of ways to turn them green.”
  • As done in WP:FOOTNOTE, footnotes usually are located right after a punctuation mark (as recommended by the CMS, but not mandatory), such that there is no space in between. For example, the sun is larger than the moon [2]. is usually written as the sun is larger than the moon.[2][?]
  • Please ensure that the article has gone through a thorough copyediting so that it exemplifies some of Wikipedia's best work. See also User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 1a.[?]

You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, DrKiernan 14:47, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Coffee

[edit]

I've been working on this article, and I'd like to nominate it for GA sometime. It failed two FA nominations (in 2005 and 2006) and one GA nomination (in 2006). Any suggestions for improvement would be appreciated. --Jude. 22:40, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! The article looks nice, and the current structure and sources are useful material if you want to go to GAC. However, the frist objection is that entire sections are blatant copyvios. You can't copy and paste from other websites (or from anywhere); althought you need sources, you have to interpret them in your own words. Then there's the images: While images are good, they might be a little heavy in the article, distracting the reader from the text. Maybe you can try putting a few in the reception section; images in the body of the article should always be informative as to the section they illustrate. Also, as per WP:MOS, captions are preferred in the form of a sentence, as in "a coffee house in damascus"---->"Coffee houses are a popular meeting place in Damascus".
That's about it. Keep at it, and happy editing!--SidiLemine 18:59, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the review! I've cut down on the images, and fixed the captions. Sorry about the copyvios. I didn't copy-and-paste them, but I didn't think to check the information that was already in the article when I started on it. I'll fix that now. Cheers, Jude. 23:19, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

  • There may be an applicable infobox for this article. For example, see Template:Infobox Biography, Template:Infobox School, or Template:Infobox City.[?] (Note that there might not be an applicable infobox; remember that these suggestions are not generated manually)
  • Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (numbers), there should be a non-breaking space - &nbsp; between a number and the unit of measurement. For example, instead of 1 gallons, use 1 gallons, which when you are editing the page, should look like: 1&nbsp;gallons.[?]
  • Per Wikipedia:Context and Wikipedia:Build the web, years with full dates should be linked; for example, link January 15, 2006.[?]
  • Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (headings), headings generally should not repeat the title of the article. For example, if the article was Ferdinand Magellan, instead of using the heading ==Magellan's journey==, use ==Journey==.[?]
  • Watch for redundancies that make the article too wordy instead of being crisp and concise. (You may wish to try Tony1's redundancy exercises.)
    • Vague terms of size often are unnecessary and redundant - “some”, “a variety/number/majority of”, “several”, “a few”, “many”, “any”, and “all”. For example, “All pigs are pink, so we thought of a number of ways to turn them green.”
  • The script has spotted the following contractions: don't, if these are outside of quotations, they should be expanded.
  • As done in WP:FOOTNOTE, footnotes usually are located right after a punctuation mark (as recommended by the CMS, but not mandatory), such that there is no space in between. For example, the sun is larger than the moon [2]. is usually written as the sun is larger than the moon.[2][?]
  • Please ensure that the article has gone through a thorough copyediting so that it exemplifies some of Wikipedia's best work. See also User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 1a.[?]

You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, DrKiernan 14:56, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Georgetown University

[edit]

I'm looking to make this article consistent with other FA-level University articles, such as Cornell University and Duke University. In reaching GA status, the article went through many changes such that I'm not entirely sure where to go from here. Simple thoughts such as "shorten this section," "move this section to another article," "lengthen this section," "use different formatting here," "this section should be higher/lower," and "why isn't there..." are all appreciated! The article is very well sourced, but a few things I know need to be looked at are the Speakers and visitors section, the Athletics section, the Activism section, the lead paragraph, and the image usage. Thank you in advance. Warmest--Patrick 19:19, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • A short (and incomplete) improvement list:
  • 4.)  Done Don’t start a sentence with a number and be careful to follow all other standard (formal) writing practices (e.g. 84% in the Admissions section should be "Eighty-one percent").
  • 5.) I personally think the Student Life section contains too many short sub-sections. I’d seek to combine them, but I don’t think this would be a reason to oppose FA since it’s more personal preference so it’s not imperative.
  • 6.) In the Greek life section, it is stated that Georgetown does not allow fraternities and thus none exist except for service fraternities. This is not true according to my understanding and talking to people that go to Georgetown. While not officially recognized, it should be mentioned that there is an "underground" Greek system. Obviously, this needs to be sourced, but that shouldn’t be hard to find from the campus’ student newspaper. This paragraph just seems misleading to me from what I know (unless my friends have been lying to me!). You don't need to mention the fraternities by name, just mention their existence. I supposed it is possible that they compose such a small segment of the population that they don't merit mentioning.
  • 7.) Definitely get somebody with fresh eyes to do a thorough copyedit of the prose. Haven’t really looked at in detail, but I’m sure there are some errors.
  • 8.) I honestly think the article is a bit short for an article of this magnitude (although it still has the same or more sections). That's an easy problem to fix since I'm sure you have plenty to say about Georgetown. Looking at other university FAs, I think it's considerably shorter although I could be wrong. Looking at the sizes isn't representative because the majority of the size comes from citing sources. Specifically, I'd expand the Athletics and Alumni sections....Again, might just be personal preference.

Overall, I’d say the article is in really good shape. It is sourced copiously and correctly, and all the necessary components for FA status are there. Good luck! -Bluedog423Talk 01:56, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I realize I hadn't thanked you for your suggestions, even though I've already put most of them into action. The article used to be very very long, and much of it has been organized into separate articles, but I do notice it's grown a hefty 20k in the last month alone. I replaced the link on Image:Johncarroll.jpg, but I'm not sure we should use it, I'm just sad to loose it because it's both pretty and it provides the context in the history section. Also alumni recently got a trim. I'll look for better external links, but I'm not sure what should be here, maybe that's something other sites can tell me. Thanks again!--Patrick 15:13, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Automated review

[edit]

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

  • Per Wikipedia:Context and Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates), months and days of the week generally should not be linked. Years, decades, and centuries can be linked if they provide context for the article.[?]
  • If there is not a free use image in the top right corner of the article, please try to find and include one.[?] I don't know whether you want to action this or not, remember it's just an automated program.
  • When writing standard abbreviations, the abbreviations should not have a 's' to demark plurality (for example, change kms to km and lbs to lb).
  • Please reorder/rename the last few sections to follow guidelines at Wikipedia:Guide to layout.[?]
  • Please ensure that the article has gone through a thorough copyediting so that it exemplifies some of Wikipedia's best work. See also User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 1a.[?]

You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, DrKiernan 14:54, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Salvia divinorum

[edit]

I intend to nominate this article as a featured article, so please leave comments about what this article needs to reach FA status. I feel the article is complete but not perfect, so even minor comments would be greatly appreciated. There is an old peer review archived here: Wikipedia:Peer review/Salvia divinorum/archive1 Jolb 18:46, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Space Race

[edit]

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

Lots has happened to the article since 2004, the time of the last peer review. After being demoted from FA status, I'm trying to take it back up there again. I've cleaned it up a bit, but what else needs to happen to it?  MichaelHenley (Page-Talk-Contribs) 13:04, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

*Per Wikipedia:Context and Wikipedia:Build the web, years with full dates should be linked; for example, link January 15, 2006.[?] This is no longer a current Wikipedia standard. The new standard is to leave dates unlinked.--Abebenjoe (talk) 19:14, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (headings), headings generally do not start with articles ('the', 'a(n)'). For example, if there was a section called ==The Biography==, it should be changed to ==Biography==.[?]
  • Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (headings), headings generally should not repeat the title of the article. For example, if the article was Ferdinand Magellan, instead of using the heading ==Magellan's journey==, use ==Journey==.[?]
  • Per WP:WIAFA, this article's table of contents (ToC) may be too long- consider shrinking it down by merging short sections or using a proper system of daughter pages as per Wikipedia:Summary style.[?]
  • There are a few occurrences of weasel words in this article- please observe WP:AWT. Certain phrases should specify exactly who supports, considers, believes, etc., such a view.
  • Watch for redundancies that make the article too wordy instead of being crisp and concise. (You may wish to try Tony1's redundancy exercises.)
    • Vague terms of size often are unnecessary and redundant - “some”, “a variety/number/majority of”, “several”, “a few”, “many”, “any”, and “all”. For example, “All pigs are pink, so we thought of a number of ways to turn them green.”
  • The script has spotted the following contractions: shouldn't, if these are outside of quotations, they should be expanded. This is in a quotation JustinTime55 (talk) 15:47, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • As done in WP:FOOTNOTE, footnotes usually are located right after a punctuation mark (as recommended by the CMS, but not mandatory), such that there is no space in between. For example, the sun is larger than the moon [2]. is usually written as the sun is larger than the moon.[2][?]
  • Please ensure that the article has gone through a thorough copyediting so that it exemplifies some of Wikipedia's best work. See also User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 1a.[?]

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

History of Georgia Tech

[edit]

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

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

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

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

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

Luxurious

[edit]

I feel the article is very well written and want to take it to A Class. So, i request everyone to kindly give some suggestion for the improvement of the article. User:Luxurious.gaurav

 Done Luxurious.gaurav 13:15, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Automated review

[edit]

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

  • Please expand the lead to conform with guidelines at Wikipedia:Lead. The article should have an appropriate number of paragraphs as is shown on WP:LEAD, and should adequately summarize the article.[?]
 Done Luxurious.gaurav 13:15, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • See if possible if there is a free use image that can go on the top right corner of this article.[?]
 Done Luxurious.gaurav 13:15, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • As done in WP:FOOTNOTE, footnotes usually are located right after a punctuation mark (as recommended by the CMS, but not mandatory), such that there is no space in between. For example, the sun is larger than the moon [2]. is usually written as the sun is larger than the moon.[2][?]
 Done Luxurious.gaurav 13:15, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
 Done Luxurious.gaurav 13:15, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, DrKiernan 11:49, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Marcus Trescothick

[edit]

This article has had a peer review archived here, but after a fresh input into the article, another Peer review from either a cricketing or style/prose view would be welcome –MDCollins (talk) 12:33, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

  • Per Wikipedia:Context and Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates), months and days of the week generally should not be linked. Years, decades, and centuries can be linked if they provide context for the article.[?]
    • Removed link to stand-alone year: no context there really.
  • If there is not a free use image in the top right corner of the article, please try to find and include one.[?]
    • In infobox.
  • As per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates), dates shouldn't use th; for example, instead of using January 30th was a great day, use January 30 was a great day.[?]
    • As far as I can see, the 'th' is only added to ordinal numbers (100th Test), and not on dates
  • Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (headings), avoid using special characters (ex: &+{}[]) in headings.
    • Not displayed, only in conjunction with –
  • This article may need to undergo summary style, where a series of appropriate subpages are used. For example, if the article is United States, than an appropriate subpage would be History of the United States, such that a summary of the subpage exists on the mother article, while the subpage goes into more detail.[?]
  • The script has spotted the following contractions: won't, if these are outside of quotations, they should be expanded.
    • One case, inside quotation so can stay.
  • Please ensure that the article has gone through a thorough copyediting so that it exemplifies some of Wikipedia's best work. See also User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 1a.[?]

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

Minor points addressed –MDCollins (talk) 15:27, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Manchester

[edit]

Just looking for some advice on what needs to be done now to get the article up to Good article status. Any advice would be much appreciated. └and-rew┘┌talk┐ 18:38, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Automated review

[edit]

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

  • Per Wikipedia:Context and Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates), months and days of the week generally should not be linked. Years, decades, and centuries can be linked if they provide context for the article.[?]
  • Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (numbers), there should be a non-breaking space - &nbsp; between a number and the unit of measurement. For example, instead of 4LB, use 4 LB, which when you are editing the page, should look like: 4&nbsp;LB.[?]
  • Per Wikipedia:Context and Wikipedia:Build the web, years with full dates should be linked; for example, link January 15, 2006.[?]
  • Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (headings), headings generally should not repeat the title of the article. For example, if the article was Ferdinand Magellan, instead of using the heading ==Magellan's journey==, use ==Journey==.[?]
  • Per WP:WIAFA, this article's table of contents (ToC) may be too long- consider shrinking it down by merging short sections or using a proper system of daughter pages as per Wikipedia:Summary style.[?]
  • There are a few occurrences of weasel words in this article- please observe WP:AWT. Certain phrases should specify exactly who supports, considers, believes, etc., such a view.
    • it has been
    • it is claimed
    • might be weasel words, and should be provided with proper citations (if they already do, or are not weasel terms, please strike this comment).[?]
  • As done in WP:FOOTNOTE, footnotes usually are located right after a punctuation mark (as recommended by the CMS, but not mandatory), such that there is no space in between. For example, the sun is larger than the moon [2]. is usually written as the sun is larger than the moon.[2][?]
  • Please provide citations for all of the {{fact}}s.[?]
  • Please ensure that the article has gone through a thorough copyediting so that it exemplifies some of Wikipedia's best work. See also User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 1a.[?]

You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, DrKiernan 10:59, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I understand why you have strings of footnote identifiers (particularly for the second city claim), but these are deprecated by some editors, you might consider formatting them as in this article for example: Intelligent design. DrKiernan 10:59, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Feeder (band)

[edit]

I have been woking on the pointers made in the article over the last few comments and peer reviews, and have come to the current version as seen :).

Is there any pointers I am missing for a Good Article? :).

Marcus Bowen 15:19, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It's not really fair of you to move this back to the top after only a few days. Sir-Nobby 18:18, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Automated review

[edit]

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

You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, DrKiernan 10:52, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Liturgical calendar (Lutheran)

[edit]

Now that the above article has finally made it to GA status (my first one), I'd like to have it peer reviewed with an eye to nominating it for FA status in a month or so. Please provide feedback and, if there are any other subject matter experts out there, please also be sure to comment on content. Thanks in advance. -- jackturner3 13:45, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Some notes: Intro:

  • the intro should be expanded (per WP:LS)

Structure:

  • the information on the Sanctoral Cycle should be expanded.
  • you might want to mention the meanings of the words "temporal" and "sanctoral".

Lesser Festivals:

  • it says "Lesser Festivals have their own collects and a few... have their own proper." What are collects and propers? (there's a wikilink for collect in the next paragraph, but perhaps it should be explained in the article?)
  • the "color of the day" is mentioned. In many denominations, the colors change with the calendar; green for ordinary time, purple for Lent, etc. If this true of Lutheranism, then it should be mentioned in the article.

Commemorations:

  • "...schedule of commemorations within the ELCA"- what is the ECLA?
  • don't use the word "clearly". If it's clear, then the reader should figure it out on their own; they don't need to be told.

Differences from other calendars:

  • Get rid of the red links in "The calendar in North America" section.
  • "...though like its close cousin.." which close cousin?
  • "..aside from an obviously heavy Lutheran emphasis." What is a heavy Lutheran influence? Also, "obviously", like "clearly"- if it's obvious, or clear, then you don't need to tell the reader that it is.

Historic liturgical calendars:

  • the wording is overly complicated: "the Lutheran calendar owes much to the proliferation of commemorations of the medieval calendars", for instance.
  • "growth of numerous (and sometimes, spurious) individuals" is a bit POV. Needs to be referenced, and probably re-worded. Also, change terms "prune" and "correct". The idea of "correcting growth" implies that those who didn't want to "prune" were incorrect in believing that.

In general:

  • Needs some copyediting for prose; FAC require "professional standard" prose.
  • There should be no space before reference numbers. ex: The Lutheran calendar operates in two cycles.[8], not The Lutheran calendar operates in two cycles. [8]
  • Sources are mostly inline cited, but all should be cited inline, and should be under References, rather than Notes.
  • Philip Pfatteicher and his books account for about 30 of your sources. Is he an authority on the subject, or are there other sources that could be used?

Congrats on the GA! I don't know a lot about the Lutheran liturgical calendar, so I can't judge whether it's comprehensive. If there are any similar FA articles on similar subjects, compare this one when working on it. Also, if you haven't already, check against Featured article criteria. Hope this helps. Cheers, Jude. 02:57, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Buck Rogers (song)

[edit]

I have cleaned this page up as the previous version wasn't too much about the song itself, and so have used as a template other well-written articles.

How well am I doing for Good Article status, and what would I need to improve if not? :)

Marcus Bowen 20:38, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gears of War

[edit]

Article just received Good Article status. Looking to see what can be done to improve the article further, hopefully achieving Featured Article status at some point. Thanks in advance. Sdornan 15:16, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Auto review

[edit]

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

  • The lead of this article may be too long, or may contain too many paragraphs. Please follow guidelines at WP:LEAD; be aware that the lead should adequately summarize the article.[?]
  • The lead is for summarizing the rest of the article, and should not introduce new topics not discussed in the rest of the article, as per WP:LEAD. Please ensure that the lead adequately summarizes the article.[?]
  • Per Wikipedia:Context and Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates), months and days of the week generally should not be linked. Years, decades, and centuries can be linked if they provide context for the article.[?]
  • Per Wikipedia:Context and Wikipedia:Build the web, years with full dates should be linked; for example, link January 15, 2006.[?]
  • There are a few occurrences of weasel words in this article- please observe WP:AWT. Certain phrases should specify exactly who supports, considers, believes, etc., such a view.
    • it has been
    • might be weasel words, and should be provided with proper citations (if they already do, or are not weasel terms, please strike this comment).[?]
  • Please ensure that the article has gone through a thorough copyediting so that it exemplifies some of Wikipedia's best work. See also User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 1a.[?]

You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, DrKiernan 11:51, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Auburn High School

[edit]

I'd like to get this article up to FA quality, so it needs a good rigorous scrubbing to get the blemishes out. Particularly, I'd like comments concerning any deviations from the Manual of Style, any NPOV issues, any comprehensiveness/summary style concerns, and any parts that are poorly worded or otherwise need copyediting. Previous discussion on this article, including comments during the article's GA nomination, are on the article's talk page. -- Lissoy 00:48, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Auto review

[edit]

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

You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, DrKiernan 16:45, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've made some of the requested changes:
  • Single years are all unlinked, decades remain linked.
  • All images have concise captions except for the school logo in the infobox, which seems to be standard in FA's.
  • I have replaced the gallery with a table of images, as is used in side-by-side images in the FA El Greco.
  • ToC has been condensed from 34 lines to 23 lines.
  • All spaces between punctuation and footnotes have been removed.
Would you suggest any further changes to meet the autopeer suggestions? I'd welcome any other comments on what needs to be improved in this article to reach FACR. Thanks! -- Lissoy 21:00, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

James Pike

[edit]

I've put a lot of work into this topic, but am not sure what else can be/should be done. I've added some images and cited content over that last few months. Any help would be greatly appreciated.

RFlynn1000 19:34, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Automated review

[edit]

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

  • Please expand the lead to conform with guidelines at Wikipedia:Lead. The article should have an appropriate number of paragraphs as is shown on WP:LEAD, and should adequately summarize the article.[?]
  • Per Wikipedia:Context and Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates), months and days of the week generally should not be linked. Years, decades, and centuries can be linked if they provide context for the article.[?]
  • If this article is about a person, please add {{persondata|PLEASE SEE [[WP:PDATA]]!}} along with the required parameters to the article - see Wikipedia:Persondata for more information.[?]
  • Per Wikipedia:Context and Wikipedia:Build the web, years with full dates should be linked; for example, link January 15, 2006.[?]
  • As per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates), dates shouldn't use th; for example, instead of using January 30th was a great day, use January 30 was a great day.[?]
  • Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (headings), headings generally do not start with articles ('the', 'a(n)'). For example, if there was a section called ==The Biography==, it should be changed to ==Biography==.[?]
  • Watch for redundancies that make the article too wordy instead of being crisp and concise. (You may wish to try Tony1's redundancy exercises.)
    • While additive terms like “also”, “in addition”, “additionally”, “moreover”, and “furthermore” may sometimes be useful, overusing them when they aren't necessary can instead detract from the brilliancy of the article. This article has 9 additive terms, a bit too much.
  • As done in WP:FOOTNOTE, footnotes usually are located right after a punctuation mark (as recommended by the CMS, but not mandatory), such that there is no space in between. For example, the sun is larger than the moon [2]. is usually written as the sun is larger than the moon.[2][?]
  • Please ensure that the article has gone through a thorough copyediting so that it exemplifies some of Wikipedia's best work. See also User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 1a.[?]

You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, DrKiernan 07:55, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bono

[edit]

The article was created on August 27, 2002 by Bernfarr and has since undergone nearly 3,000 edits. My first edit to Bono was made on December 16, 2006 and I've been actively working on it since that time. There have been many great contributions to this article since it has started and it has most definitely come a long way.

I'd be interested in knowing what we could do to get this article to FA status. I've written a couple of the sections, and the bottom line is I'm not that great of a writer :). Any grammatical, flow or simple formatting recommendations would be appreciated. In addition, the "criticism" section has always been a source of heated debate among editors. Any recommendations on how that section could be improved would be appreciated. And of course, I'd like to know any other recommendations the reviewers have for the article that could help it get to FA status.

Thanks, and I look forward to getting to work on it! Chupper 16:53, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, DrKiernan 11:21, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comments DrKiernan! They were helpful. I've made responses to your recommendations above. Chupper 23:43, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Transformation playing card

[edit]

This is my first fully fledged article, and I just wanted to get some feedback about what was good or bad about it so I can improve both it and any future articles I write. -Chunky Rice 19:44, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Raising of school leaving age in the UK

[edit]

I recently put forward this article for GA status (nomination), but it failed on several points. The most obvious one of which was the fact that it's a worldwide topic but it was focused mainly on the UK. I have since renamed the article to its current title, and made a new article using the original title, under Raising of school leaving age to handle the broader aspect of the topic. Although 99% of the content is what I have entered, I would appreciate some input (both in suggestions, or even better, contributions), to hopefully get this up the ladder to GA. There is a wealth of information on the latter section, although it was suggested that is needs tidying up, along with some other sections of the article. Input of any kind would be appreciated. Although not as important as the nominated article, if anyone has any information or suggestions they could add to the Raising of school leaving age article it would be appreciated also. Bungle44 15:53, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your references need to be formatted. See WP:CITE for how. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 22:45, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Automated review

[edit]

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

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

I appreciate you taking some time to process that auto review, but I could have done as much myself. I was hoping that someone would give it the proper once over (as you admit the bot made a statement that was untrue). Bungle44 19:38, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Emergency

[edit]

We have built up the article Emergency from being a DAB page in to a real article, with both unique and summary content from other pages. I'd like to improve it further, but have a bit of a mental block as to where to focus my efforts. If anyone can give direction to help, that would be great, and it might even make FA! Thanks very much Owain.davies 06:19, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Circusandmagicfan

[edit]

Review A major problem with this article is that in some aspects it is too general while in others it has a tendency towards being too specific. Don't get me wrong, I think this is an important subject area and the editors concerned have clearly put some hard work into trying to produce an encyclopaedic article. But perhaps some thought needs to be given to the scope and perhaps even to re-titling in order to clarify the definition of the subject.

The difficulty is that the word "emergency" has many subtle variations in meaning even when one is being specific to the field of disaster and emergency management (which itself has subtle variations depending on country and context - for example the umbrella "Civil Contingencies Planning" is often the term used in government circles in the UK). In government/state contexts the term "emergency" will tend to imply the "Dangers to life/health/property/environment" types of definition mentioned in the article. However in commercial organisations the term emergency will often be found in conjunction with terms such as "Business Continuity Management". This is relevant because the work of business continuity management and the work of government emergency planners overlaps and is increasingly interlinked, however the two fields also have differences. On top of this, there are circumstances in which emergency management might also involve public relations and protection of reputation issues.

Even if it is possible to define the subject in a way that constrains it to government/public-sector activity in coping with "Danger to life/health/property/environment" events, there is still the problem of variations from country to country, which are substantial. I just don't think it is possible to write very much in a generic way. Perhaps the answer is to take a new approach to the initial definition of the subject: don't try to come up with a definitive list of characteristics for disasters and try to avoid being too detailed. Leave the detail for more specific situations and instead go for a general preamble stating that in most countries there are arrangements for dealing with incidents or events which threaten life, health, property, the environment, the economy or security on a large scale. There are also arrangements for dealing with events on an international scale or where international assistance is required. Then sub-divide into international and national sections. Then within the national section you need to sub-divide into examples of specific countries. Although the editors have made an effort to acknowledge the fact that there are variations between countries the article still reads as having a US-centric perspective in places. I acknowledge that there are a significant number of references to information sources from the UK and other countries but the way they are used seems to miss the "big picture" of how planning has moved on from the old-style approach of thinking in isolation about traditionally defined "emergencies". The current approach, in the UK at least, is centred around concepts such as "resilience" (see http://www.ukresilience.info), which involves an integrated effort to plan for a rather broader range of threats than old-style emergency planning in recognition of the fact that there is a lot of commonality in terms of requirements, agencies and resources involved. (I know UK planners liaised closely with people such as OEM in the USA when developing the new approach and that US Homeland Security is also a reflection of this combination of integration and broadening of scope).

I note that there are links to other articles which seem to be intended to go into more detail on topics such as Emergency Management Principles (which in turn link to pieces on more specialised and precisely defined subjects such as CHALET). I'm not sure what the article here adds to those more specific articles. Is this intended to be a central core article for the Disaster management WikiProject? If so what does this achieve that is not covered by Emergency management? If this is to be purely about the definition of "emergency" then isn't that a task for dictionary rather than an encyclopaedia? Perhaps it is necessary to go back to the Disaster management WikiProject and consider how this article fits into the structure. Circusandmagicfan 17:12, 23 July 2007 (UTC)Circusandmagicfan[reply]

Automated review

[edit]

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

  • See if possible if there is a free use image that can go on the top right corner of this article.[?]
  • There may be an applicable infobox for this article. For example, see Template:Infobox Biography, Template:Infobox School, or Template:Infobox City.[?] (Note that there might not be an applicable infobox; remember that these suggestions are not generated manually)
  • Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (headings), headings generally should not repeat the title of the article. For example, if the article was Ferdinand Magellan, instead of using the heading ==Magellan's journey==, use ==Journey==.[?]
  • Watch for redundancies that make the article too wordy instead of being crisp and concise. (You may wish to try Tony1's redundancy exercises.)
    • Vague terms of size often are unnecessary and redundant - “some”, “a variety/number/majority of”, “several”, “a few”, “many”, “any”, and “all”. For example, “All pigs are pink, so we thought of a number of ways to turn them green.”
  • As done in WP:FOOTNOTE, footnotes usually are located right after a punctuation mark (as recommended by the CMS, but not mandatory), such that there is no space in between. For example, the sun is larger than the moon [2]. is usually written as the sun is larger than the moon.[2][?]
  • Please ensure that the article has gone through a thorough copyediting so that it exemplifies some of Wikipedia's best work. See also User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 1a.[?]

You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, DrKiernan 09:15, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Maria: or, The Wrongs of Woman

[edit]

This article is about a novel by Mary Wollstonecraft. I would eventually like to bring it to FA, so please critique accordingly. Awadewit | talk 07:59, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Overall this article is more persuasive than the one immediately below in this list. I'm still not quite satisfied by the effort to distinguish between contemporary reception and modern criticism; this distinction must be maintained. There are also places where, grammatically, the writing could use a little help - for example with commas before "and" in compound sentences, and for that matter, reducing the use of the word "and". :) Shalom Hello 05:28, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Clarification: Are you saying that you cannot tell in both reception sections what material is contemporary with Wollstonecraft and what material is modern? (The "and's" are probably a result of trying to jam too much into one sentence - I'll look for those.) Awadewit | talk 05:34, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by BillC

[edit]

A great article, though I have to confess to not having heard of this book. Some thoughts below:

  • a one-sentence plot summary in the lead might be useful. "The novel deals with the troubled life of its protagonist through a series of hardships", or such.
  • New version: Focusing on the social rather than the individual "wrongs of woman", Wollstonecraft's philosophical and gothic novel uses the story of a woman imprisoned by her husband in an insane asylum to criticize the patriarchal institution of marriage and the legal system that protected it. - Thanks for reminding me of this - I tend to de-emphasize plot in articles I edit. Awadewit | talk 15:57, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • "coupled with the publication of Godwin's scandalous Memoirs of Wollstonecraft" I was momentarily confused by this, since I had slipped past the fact that Godwin was Mary's husband. Perhaps: "coupled with the publication of Memoirs, Godwin's scandalous biography of Wollstonecraft", but it's a minor point.
  • New version: Such themes, coupled with the publication of Godwin's scandalous Memoirs of his relationship with Wollstonecraft, made the novel unpopular at the time. Awadewit | talk 15:57, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Scholars most often read the The Wrongs of Woman as a fictionalized popularization". Does this mean "scholars often interpret"?
  • Yes. My "English-professor-speak" is coming through. New version of last paragraph: Twentieth-century feminist critics have embraced the novel, integrating it into the history of the novel and of feminist discourse. It is therefore most often viewed as a fictionalized popularization of the Rights of Woman, as an extension of Wollstonecraft's feminist arguments in Rights of Woman, and as a pseudo-autobiography. Awadewit | talk 15:57, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Wollstonecraft struggled to write The Wrongs of Woman; while she dashed off A Vindication of the Rights of Men". Perhaps some reordering here, as the semicolon is not immediately obvious, it perhaps appearing that Wollstonecraft was struggling to write The Wrongs of Woman while simultaneously writing A Vindication of the Rights of Men.
Perhaps something like:
Wollstonecraft struggled to write The Wrongs of Woman: she dashed off A Vindication of the Rights of Men (1790), her reply to Edmund Burke's Reflections on the Revolution in France in under a month and A Vindication of the Rights of Woman in six weeks, but she was to work on The Wrongs of Woman for over a year.
  • New version: Wollstonecraft struggled to write The Wrongs of Woman for over a year; in contrast, she had dashed off A Vindication of the Rights of Men (1790), her reply to Edmund Burke's Reflections on the Revolution in France (1790), in under a month and A Vindication of the Rights of Woman (1792) in six weeks. - For some reason, this is a difficult sentence to write. I think that it is because the titles are so long. Awadewit | talk 15:57, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The entry into "Wollstonecraft died in 1797" is a little abrupt and is unexpected. Maybe there is a better way of leading the reader into this from the previous section.
— BillC talk 10:13, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks - this kind of help is greatly appreciated. I'm not surprised that you haven't heard of the novel, by the way. It is usually only found in university classrooms and other such esoteric locations. :) Awadewit | talk 15:57, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nissan R90C

[edit]

This is my first request for Peer Review, so hopefully this works well. I simply seek an advice for improving the style, accuracy, and presentation of the article, as well as any information that might be helpful to add or maybe even remove. Hopefully this can become a GA in the near future. It is also already under nomination for DYK. The359 05:33, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Review by User:Mr. Killigan

[edit]

Hope my suggestions helps you.

  • You should just describe the Nissan R90C in the opening paragraph. You should move information about the two versions elsewhere, perhaps in a new section.
  • The grammer could do better. For example, "Both cars would once again run towards the top of the field" can work better as "Both cars ran again towards the top of the field". You have many of these kinds of sentences in the article.
  • Working on the structure can be good. Theres too many really long sections.
  • You can expand on the development of the car and more of its development history.
  • Use a lot more references. The people at FAC and other reviewers for A-class review etc get picky about citations.
  • One or two more pictures would be nice, like the engine for example.

Great job on providing information in the article. Hope the Nissan R90C gets promoted to GA or A-class soon. Mr. Killigan 00:25, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Street Fighting Man

[edit]

Looking for a comprehensive review of this re-written article. Stan weller 04:16, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Review by User:Wasted Time R

[edit]

Not bad overall, but some problems:

  • The bit about it originally being "Pay Your Dues" is a minor historical point and does not belong in the lead section.
  • What does belong in the lead section is a recap of the song's significance, musically and politically.
  • The RS 500 listing should probably go in the intro as well. Since SFM wasn't a real hit single, you need to convey that is nevertheless one of their major songs.
  • The part of the last paragraph Keith quote in the 'Inspiration' section about how it was recorded, belongs in the 'Recording' section.
  • The 'Release' section says SFM has been a "staple" of live shows since 1969, but the Mick quote in 'Inspiration' says he had to be persuaded to put it on the Voodoo Lounge Tour, which suggests it was a rarity. Need to explain more clearly what tours it was on, what tours it was not.
  • What's a 'shehani'?
  • Bruce Springsteen played it on his Born in the U.S.A. Tour. I'll try to add something about that.
  • Why the 'See also' to Mods and Rockers? Seems like a completely different kind of street fighting.

Wasted Time R 11:01, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Review by User:Mikerussell

[edit]
  • I think the strongest part is the detail about recording and Jagger and Richards ambivalence about the songs meaning. That makes this article unusually good for wikipedia. The long quotes usually don't work well in song articles but if they are offset as I changed, I think they are valid. Personally, I know jack-squat about guitar playing and recording so if I found the comments interesting, even if don't completely understand what a "London Jazz Kit" is; I think others will to.
  • A weaker part is to link it to direct political events. For 2 reasons,
    • Jagger and Richards seem to be very wishy-washy about this- which is most interesting thing in the article. One could ask does it have any "political" meaning. Interesting how Richards in 1971 doesn't want to tie it up as a political song, and obviously 20 years later Jagger is just as luke warm about this. (Dave Marsh's quote is quite a good observation on this.)
    • This might sound stupid, but do people really listen to the lyrics closely, I mean took me a long time before I heard Jagger wanted to "Kill the King". The song just has a visceral power- a punk track before punk, sort of speak. Maybe that is really why it has endured.
  • But the articles main problem is the last three sections (Cover Versions, References to the song and See also) should be scrapped and incorporated elsewhere. In opinion, I would try to order the article as:
    • Inspiration, Recording and Release (include Stones interview and quotes part and put it all together)
    • Critical views: the music critic's comments and maybe the Springsteen mention in the section.
    • The 8 or 9 point form notes and the "Cover Version" sections should be blended into a narrative about the songs Legacy and use in popular culture, but this piddley-diddly sort of crap about the Buffalo Sabres using it should be deleted entirely- who cares but Sabres fans- it can be stuck in the hockey team's article. Someone needs to be ruthless about these sorts of additions, they just make wikipedia look amateurish.
  • I don't agree with 2 points by User:Wasted Time R.
    • "Pay Your Dues" deserves to be where it is in the article, it was recorded and is widely bootlegged.
    • comment about the confusion of it being a staple of the show- Jagger's quote doesn't change the fact it is a staple of live shows, that's a fact, whatever the lead singer's opinion of it is.--Mikerussell 23:54, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Leslie Graves

[edit]

Expected your peer review about the Biography. I hope in a Good Article mark.

Goof 2003 09:49, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Automated review

[edit]

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

  • The lead of this article may be too long, or may contain too many paragraphs. Please follow guidelines at WP:LEAD; be aware that the lead should adequately summarize the article.[?]
  • The lead is for summarizing the rest of the article, and should not introduce new topics not discussed in the rest of the article, as per WP:LEAD. Please ensure that the lead adequately summarizes the article.[?]
  • There may be an applicable infobox for this article. For example, see Template:Infobox Biography, Template:Infobox School, or Template:Infobox City.[?] (Note that there might not be an applicable infobox; remember that these suggestions are not generated manually)
  • If this article is about a person, please add {{persondata|PLEASE SEE [[WP:PDATA]]!}} along with the required parameters to the article - see Wikipedia:Persondata for more information.[?]
  • Per Wikipedia:Context and Wikipedia:Build the web, years with full dates should be linked; for example, link January 15, 2006.[?]
  • This article is a bit too short, and therefore may not be as comprehensive as WP:WIAFA critera 1(b) is looking for. Please see if anything can be expanded upon.[?]
  • As done in WP:FOOTNOTE, footnotes usually are located right after a punctuation mark (as recommended by the CMS, but not mandatory), such that there is no space in between. For example, the sun is larger than the moon [2]. is usually written as the sun is larger than the moon.[2][?]
  • Please ensure that the article has gone through a thorough copyediting so that it exemplifies some of Wikipedia's best work. See also User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 1a.[?]

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

List of Aston Villa F.C. managers

[edit]

There has been a lot of work done to this page by me and Woodym555 and I was wondering what more needs to be to one get this page to a GA or FA and any other information that is needed? Also a rating for both importance and quality would be helpful thank you (Everlast1910 16:14, 26 July 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Mattythewhite

[edit]

I think you should aim at getting it to FL status. GA's and FA's usually want lots of writing.

  • First of all, I think it should be split into two lists. It a bit of mix and match with having captains and managers together.
List of Aston Villa managers and List of Aston Villa captains its been split  Done
  • More references.
I think the one or two ref's on the page even though don't look much hold all the information required, e.g. on the captains page the database has full list of the number of games and goals for each player and the AVFC website has a list of honours thus can work out who was captain at the time! (the database also has a list of who was captain when in the players information section). For the managers soccerbase has a list of all the Villa managers but also Win/Draw/Lose record which then can be worked out for the win%. The one place where we needed a ref - the first non British coach we provided one! Is there anything that you feel needs ref'ing urgently? Thanks (Everlast1910 23:04, 29 July 2007 (UTC))
  • Have the captains into one list.  Done (Everlast1910 22:57, 29 July 2007 (UTC))
  • Perhaps a sortable list could be used, and use sortname for the players names.  Done(Everlast1910 22:15, 29 July 2007 (UTC))
  • And maybe the captains apps/goals could be included.  Done (Everlast1910 22:57, 29 July 2007 (UTC))

Good work. Its very imformative, but needs raising to that next level. Mattythewhite 12:51, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

All the above have been taken care of with explanations for what I have done (if needed) (Everlast1910 23:04, 29 July 2007 (UTC))

GA

[edit]

I have now put both up for GA nomination (Everlast1910 16:16, 30 July 2007 (UTC))

Archiving

[edit]

Now that this page is up for speedy deletion should we not close this review and open up two separate ones if needed. This review will become irrelavent. If not it could certainly be renamed. Woodym555 10:54, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dean Smith

[edit]

I seen it has gone through FAC before and it was failing in several areas. While prose is not my strongest suit, I have dealt with many of the images. Two images are gone, one has been cropped and another one is having its status verified by the uploader. I also don't know what else is needed for the article, since many of the stuff in here I found. I added some citations and that is pretty much it. Any advice is welcome, since this is my first attempt to make a sport article FA. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 09:03, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Automated Peer Review

[edit]

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

  • The lead of this article may be too long, or may contain too many paragraphs. Please follow guidelines at WP:LEAD; be aware that the lead should adequately summarize the article.[?]
  • The lead is for summarizing the rest of the article, and should not introduce new topics not discussed in the rest of the article, as per WP:LEAD. Please ensure that the lead adequately summarizes the article.[?]
  • Per Wikipedia:Context and Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates), months and days of the week generally should not be linked. Years, decades, and centuries can be linked if they provide context for the article.[?]
  • If there is not a free use image in the top right corner of the article, please try to find and include one.[?]
  • Per Wikipedia:Context and Wikipedia:Build the web, years with full dates should be linked; for example, link January 15, 2006.[?]
  • Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (headings), avoid using special characters (ex: &+{}[]) in headings.
  • Please reorder/rename the last few sections to follow guidelines at Wikipedia:Guide to layout.[?]
  • As done in WP:FOOTNOTE, footnotes usually are located right after a punctuation mark (as recommended by the CMS, but not mandatory), such that there is no space in between. For example, the sun is larger than the moon [2]. is usually written as the sun is larger than the moon.[2][?]
  • Please ensure that the article has gone through a thorough copyediting so that it exemplifies some of Wikipedia's best work. See also User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 1a.[?]

You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, Davnel03 13:33, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Development of The Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivion

[edit]

This article, a subsection first split off of the The Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivion article, and later the Development history of The Elder Scrolls series article, passed GA some time ago. I believe I've responded to the comments brought up in the review, and am wondering what I could do to push this article closer to FAC. Any comments would be welcomed and appreciated! Geuiwogbil 01:09, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of introduced fish in Australia

[edit]

Overall I'm fairly happy with this page. I know the lead section needs expanding, any input would be appreciated. Also, what do you think of the picture placement? Abbott75 ☺ 01:09, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • I agree that the pictures would look better all on one side in this case, because the article is a list. I agree that the lead needs a bit more context: what exactly are the "disastrous effects Common carp have had on the Murray River"? (I found out by following the link to Common carp, but some more info in the list would be helpful.) You might also want to link to introduced species and invasive species, either somewhere in the lead section or in a "see also" section. Also, it might be interesting to include the approximate date of introduction, if known, in the list. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 06:04, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

World Community Grid

[edit]

I'd like to get this article to Featured Article status. Any thoughts on what needs to be changed? —Remember the dot (talk) 22:56, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Automated Peer Review

[edit]

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

You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, Davnel03 13:28, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I believe I've addressed all of these issues now. —Remember the dot (talk) 02:37, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

2nd Automated Peer Review

[edit]

Let's see what else needs to be done after the edits...

If I'm to be highly honest, those two points come up on most FA candidates when I do peer-reviews, if I was you, I'd nominate it for FA straight after the peer review! Well done! Davnel03 20:41, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Military history of Gibraltar during World War II

[edit]

I recently created this article and spent quite some time improving it - all feedback is welcome. I would love to see it featured as a good article yet I think that some comments/opinions intended to provide useful information for future decisions and development would really be beneficial. Chris Buttigieg 18:46, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Automated Peer Review

[edit]

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

  • Please expand the lead to conform with guidelines at Wikipedia:Lead. The article should have an appropriate number of paragraphs as is shown on WP:LEAD, and should adequately summarize the article.[?]
  • There may be an applicable infobox for this article. For example, see Template:Infobox Biography, Template:Infobox School, or Template:Infobox City.[?] (Note that there might not be an applicable infobox; remember that these suggestions are not generated manually)
  • Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (numbers), there should be a non-breaking space - &nbsp; between a number and the unit of measurement. For example, instead of 45km, use 45 km, which when you are editing the page, should look like: 45&nbsp;km.[?]
  • Please reorder/rename the last few sections to follow guidelines at Wikipedia:Guide to layout.[?]
  • There are a few sections that are too short and that should be either expanded or merged.
  • As done in WP:FOOTNOTE, footnotes usually are located right after a punctuation mark (as recommended by the CMS, but not mandatory), such that there is no space in between. For example, the sun is larger than the moon [2]. is usually written as the sun is larger than the moon.[2][?]
  • Please ensure that the article has gone through a thorough copyediting so that it exemplifies some of Wikipedia's best work. See also User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 1a.[?]

You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, Davnel03 20:56, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

 Done - apart from the lead; that will take me a bit longer. Chris Buttigieg 09:51, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

2nd Automated Peer Review

[edit]

Let's see if the Peer Review tool brings up any other problems:

Hope this helps. Thanks, Davnel03 11:54, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

 Done -- Chris Buttigieg 15:02, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mary: A Fiction

[edit]

This article is about one of Mary Wollstonecraft's two novels. I would eventually like to take this article to FAC, so rip it apart now, please! Awadewit | talk 07:51, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Sounds like you've been here before! I would recommend that you organize some of the sections differently. Split the "reception" section at the end to two parts: reception of contemporaries, and reception of modern critics and historians (now you have mixed two paragraphs of each). Also, the organization of the "Themes" heading - the major achievement of your article - seems somewhat aimless. I see questions of meta-genre and internal character relationships jumbled together; you probably want to split those into separate headings also. Finally, the lead section needs some work. It's hard for me to say what, but I didn't see a strong correlation between the "thesis" and the "body", in English-teacher-speak. Shalom Hello 05:19, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you - that is very helpful. I too have been concerned about the section organization. The problem is that all of the themes and scholars' discussions of them overlap so much. Might you suggest some more specifics on this front, because it is a problem I have been struggling with in the article. Awadewit | talk 05:30, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Will also do tweaks to the text directly, listing here things that are debatable, or that I can't trivially do myself. --AnonEMouse (squeak) 16:36, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Lead - You've got a citation for inspiration, Rousseau (at least I hope that's what that references!), but not one for the repudiation/laughable, which made me check to make sure it is there later. It is, but maybe you should either ref both or neither in the lead? In fact, I would repeat the rousseau/autodidact business in the Biographical and literary influences section regardless. Not a big deal if you disagree.
      • Actually, the citation is for the "first female genius in literature" bit. That seemed like it might draw queries. I have added the citation for Rousseau and the laughable bit. It seems like the trend is toward citing the lead (I dislike that trend - some leads look like porcupines). Awadewit | talk 17:05, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • This is what I say in the "Influences" section: She also notes that in Emile, Rousseau "chuses [sic] a common capacity to educate—and gives as a reason, that a genius will educate itself" (emphasis Wollstonecraft's). - Do you think I need to be more explicit? Awadewit | talk 17:05, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Plot - Mary's mother becomes increasingly ill as the opening chapters progress - this is half way through the summary, implying this is also halfway through the book. Either move this earlier in the summary (seems appropriate as the first sentences are about Mary's mother), or remove "the opening chapters" from the phrase.
    • she requests that Mary wed Charles, a wealthy man she has never met. - The first "she" refers to mother, does the second refer to Mary? In other words has mother at least met Charles? It's unclear. I recommend replacing the second "she" with either "Mary" or "her mother" (or even "they have"!).
    • While Mary is quite attached to her, Ann is in the grip of an unrequited love and does not reciprocate Mary's feelings. -- the contrast with the unrequited love implies Mary's feelings are more than platonic. Are they intended to be? If not, I'd change the last word to "close friendship" or something.
      • Actually, I see later it is intentionally unclear. Sigh. I still wish it could be improved somehow, but can't suggest how.
        • I'm not really sure how to make it clearer without inserting a POV into the plot summary (which is hard enough as it is). I found writing about this relationship extremely difficult (note the awkward "partners" in the lead - any ideas there?) Also, Charlotte and Werther are not really "lovers", but I couldn't find another word there either - that really needs to be fixed. Our vocabulary for relationships has become very limited, I'm afraid. Awadewit | talk 17:07, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Last about plot summary - why is everyone dying left and right, and of what? Is it an epidemic?
      • Um, is this a rhetorical question? If it is, I apologize for the condescending explanation to follow. The brother dies of a "fever" (that could be many things in today's parlance); the mother "declines" (probably consumption); Ann and Henry both die of "consumption" (I've made this clearer now). Mary's father dies, too, but I didn't think that was a significant plot point. Death is fairly common in eighteenth-century novels, usually from consumption or smallpox. The diseases themselves were major killers at the time and that tends to be reflected in the literature. The children's literature that I study also contains lots of death (even violent death) - much more than we would now considerable acceptable. It's really all quite fascinating, in a morbid sort of way. :) Awadewit | talk 17:07, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Wollstonecraft's portrayal of Fanny in the novel - would be more clear if you said Ann
    • has been called "condescending"; critics have speculated - needs cite to specific critics who called and speculated
    • Didn't anyone comment that the main character shared the author's first name? Or that her later book would be called Maria?
    • Anglo-Irish seems to refer to people in Ireland, not in Bristol - are you sure that's what you wanted?
      • She wrote it in Bristol, where the family was staying, but the family was "Anglo-Irish" (they had an estate there and everything). I will think about how to make this clearer. Awadewit | talk 17:12, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • the text is not yet as revolutionary as - "yet" bothers me; how about "is not as revolutionary as her later"
    • lesbian, as such constructs did not exist in the eighteenth century - not sure what you mean by "construct" here; surely women who were attracted to women existed.
      • I'm sure they did, too, but the idea of a "lesbian" relationship (or homosexuality, for that matter), did not arise until the nineteenth century. Thinking of oneself as "gay" or "straight" is a fairly modern idea. That is what is meant by "construct"; being gay or straight is not a universal category. It was invented in a certain time and place. See Michel Foucault. The same is true for race, by the way; eighteenth-century conceptions of race are quite different than our own. There are numerous stories of people changing "races", for example; race, for them, like gender and sexuality, was a lot more fluid (women could become men, too). It is not until the dawn of real science that this begins to change (for better or worse, it is not clear). Think of the scientific defenses of slavery, for example; that really drives the development of a racial concept of identity. Anyway, how to make this all clearer? Awadewit | talk 17:54, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Ehh. I guess "as the classification of relationships as heterosexual or homosexual did not exist" would be easier to understand, but I'm not sure that can be so. I will accept that people didn't classify themselves as gay or straight or bi, but surely they classified relationships as sexual or not, made a distinction between romantic attraction and friendship. Eros, philia and agape were important medieval distinctions - surely that wasn't somehow forgotten in the eighteenth. --AnonEMouse (squeak) 19:05, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • Yes, definitely, those kinds of words were much more significant. But, I'm not sure that the distinction between "sexual" and "non-sexual" was as firm as you are suggesting (even those Greek words aren't that clear on that matter). It is not that firm now. :) Anyway, see what you think of the new wording. Awadewit | talk 20:09, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Drawing on the emerging eighteenth-century conception of "the genius" - ah. Needs a wikilink or something. See, the modern conception of a genius is someone who is extremely intelligent; Sherlock Holmes, Albert Einstein, even Marie Curie. That doesn't seem to be the main characteristic the heroine of this story, which seems to be more of a feminine rebel, but hardly likely to invent or deduct. --AnonEMouse (squeak) 17:27, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I tried to find a wikilink, but the "genius" page doesn't give a history of the concept (I can link there and hope someday the page improves, obviously). The twentieth-century conception of "genius" (what your definition and your examples allude to) is a bit different from the eighteenth-century concept which eventually morphed into that. I'm not really sure what to do about this problem. All of my sources use the word "genius", as does Wollstonecraft, so I thought it was important to preserve. I hoped by explaining it in some detail that readers would realize it meant something different. How should I improve this explanation? Awadewit | talk 17:54, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • I found this: Genius (literature), which starts out very unpromising, but then gets to exactly the right place in the middle. You're talking about the Romantic concept of "genius" as seer or visionary. and I would recommend using those words (seer or visionary) alongside "genius" in a few places, for example in the lead -- depict a female genius (seer or visionary) -- and then go into more detail in this later section -- to depict a female genius. The eighteenth century concept of genius was ... If you have the energy, it would be a great service to the Wikipedia in general, and even useful to this article, if you went into Genius (literature) and pounded on it until it says less about genius loci, the genius of a place, and more about this. Then you could link to it from these places. Maybe break out the two concepts, Genius loci and Genius=visionary into separate sections, and link to the latter section. --AnonEMouse (squeak) 18:47, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • Actually, that article seems to be mostly by Geogre, who is basically you with a mop and a temper. :-) Given that, please pronounce "pounded on it" as "massaged it gently and lovingly". :-). --AnonEMouse (squeak) 18:51, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • I know Geogre. This is a good link - thanks for finding it. I will add it to the article. I think that subheadings would help the article immensely. "Genius" as in "spirit of place" was extremely important to eighteenth-century literature - more important than "genius" as seer or visionary or prodigy. "Genius" could also mean "spirit of a person" or "essence of a person". I would think that there should be subsections on all of these. I will think about what sources I could use to discuss this. (Notice how in the Rousseau quote genius is tied to the sublime as the article mentions.) Awadewit | talk 20:09, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • I have already tried to define "genius" in the lead as "rational autodidact." Wollstonecraft's notion of genius seems to be a bit different than the Romantic notion; it is more Enlightenment. Awadewit | talk 20:09, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • The images are interesting, but ... of other subjects! Aren't there any illustrations from an early copy of the book itself? (I couldn't find any on Google, of course, so maybe the answer is no.)
    • While looking, I noticed the novel only has 110 pages.[14] That's pretty short, in fact it would fit under Novella. Not that I'm saying you should use that modern term, but you should mention its length, or rather lack thereof somewhere.
    • I also noticed that half the sources call it "Mary, a Fiction" rather than with the colon.for example

Query: Do we think that this is ready for FAC or do we want to work on it some more? Awadewit | talk 13:43, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ready. I read it over again, and you seem to have addressed most of my quibbles. (I still can't get over everyone dying left and right, the body count is staggering - out of half a dozen characters mentioned, only one makes it to the end of the plot summary not on his last legs! On that line, Mary somehow went from having a father and mother to becoming an heiress after the brother dying. What about the father? No, don't tell me, consumption...) Nominate, and I'll try to be there for any technical issues. --AnonEMouse (squeak) 23:51, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Reading older literature is so fascinating precisely because of the differences we note from our own expectations (e.g. death is more commonplace - think Hamlet). (When Mary's brother died, she became the recipient of the family's wealth since there were no other sons). I'll put the article up for nomination tonight. Here's to hoping all goes well. Awadewit | talk 23:59, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Expulsion of non-resident Tamils from Colombo

[edit]

This incident attracted a lot of media attention. Drew a lot of criticism. Also brought a lot of emotion to the diaspora community. As it is a very emotional topic to some I want it to be checked for grammar, WP:RS, WP:NPOV and style. Anything else is also welcome. Thanks in advance Watchdogb 04:15, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Automated review

[edit]

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

You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, DrKiernan 09:14, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review. I have fixed some errors as per the suggestin. Still need more review :) Watchdogb 13:34, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Goldfinger (film)

[edit]

Condsidered by critics and fanatics alike to be one of the best, if not the best, Bond film of all time, this article was recently promoted to GA-status after work by WikiProject James Bond as its Collaboration of the Fortnight. All comments, suggestions, etc. are invited and welcomed. Cliff smith 19:02, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Review by Awadewit

[edit]

The biggest problem with the article is that it is not comprehensive (even in the GA sense). It does not address the themes of the film or the artistry of the film (apart from sound). Moreover, the article does not represent the published work on this film. In fact, it does not use any film scholarship at all. In a quick google scholar search, I found these works that would help the editors begin writing "Themes" and "Cinematic style" sections. These sources' bibliographies should also lead them to even more sources.

  • The lead should be a standalone summary of the article per WP:LEAD (please read carefully). The initial level of detail, I feel, is too high and loses the non-aficianado. A better job could be done alluding to the article's sections as well.
  • The "Plot" section is much too long. Summarize more!
  • The article is arranged, in my opinion, illogically. Shouldn't the plot summary come first in the article? It is odd to have "Production" - "Plot" - "Casting". Isn't "Casting" a part of production? Also, shouldn't the "Soundtrack" come somewhere before the "Reception"?
  • Must we have a cast list so prominently displayed in the middle of the article? Could it be moved to the end - there is really very little information there.
  • The "Reception" section does not address the critical reception of the film at the time. What did film critics in newspapers say about it? How was it reviewed? Also, why do we care what the AFI ranked it? Explain to the reader the importance of these numbers or delete them.
  • The article should be copy edited - there is a lot of repetitious diction and syntax.

With a lot of work put in by a few editors over the next few months, this article can be improved dramatically. Awadewit | talk 10:50, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

General Ignorance

[edit]

I think what is the main area that may need to be improved is reviews of the book. However, I'm not sure which bits of the article truly need improving. ISD 15:12, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Some points:
  1. Is it really a parody? Just because an obvious answer is incorrect that doesn't mean that it isn't still just a general knowledge quiz, just a harder one.
  2. Is it the most famous? Can we have a citation for this if it is.
  3. Make it clear in the intro whether you are talking about the book or the part of the TV show.
  4. Alan Davies' scores before and after one particular round of this surely are more detail than is needed.
  5. Does a round in a quiz show really need an article anyway? I would have thought that the QI article could cover this sufficiently. I would rewrite the article to be about the books as these are sufficiently different to warrant their own article. JMiall₰ 11:00, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've took what you have said into account and have now made the article about the book. The article is now about The Book of General Ignorance.

James Mitchell (actor)

[edit]

I've been sporadically maintaining and updating this article for a couple of years, and have decided to work more seriously on it to bring it up to Good Article status.

Some queries:

  • Further subcategories in the career section? How many?
  • More detailed account of television work?
  • List the de mille, Champion, Loring, Robbins roles in tables, instead of bulleted lists?
  • Would a section on critical responses to Mitchell's dance career be a good idea?
  • Where are further citations desirable?

Lector 17:03, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Automated review

[edit]

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

  • Please expand the lead to conform with guidelines at Wikipedia:Lead. The article should have an appropriate number of paragraphs as is shown on WP:LEAD, and should adequately summarize the article.[?]
  • Per Wikipedia:Context and Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates), months and days of the week generally should not be linked. Years, decades, and centuries can be linked if they provide context for the article.[?]
  • See if possible if there is a free use image that can go on the top right corner of this article.[?] (Surely, the current image is a screenshot and should have a fair use rationale?)
  • Please reorder/rename the last few sections to follow guidelines at Wikipedia:Guide to layout.[?]
  • As done in WP:FOOTNOTE, footnotes usually are located right after a punctuation mark (as recommended by the CMS, but not mandatory), such that there is no space in between. For example, the sun is larger than the moon [2]. is usually written as the sun is larger than the moon.[2][?]
  • Please ensure that the article has gone through a thorough copyediting so that it exemplifies some of Wikipedia's best work. See also User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 1a.[?]

You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, DrKiernan 11:15, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(Surely, the current image is a screenshot and should have a fair use rationale?)

Thanks; but the image, which was apparently inserted by either the subject or someone close to same, is not a screenshot & is identified as public domain by the creator.

Lector 21:44, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You might consider changing the summary description and caption as it says its "from the motion picture, The Turning Point", which implies it is a screenshot. Claiming to be James Mitchell is not sufficient for a free-use claim, you have to prove it. The copyright status of the image is still unclear in my opinion. DrKiernan 08:01, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Having seen the film, I can definitely say that whatever the image is, it isn't a screenshot! :) I'll change the description for now, and will try requesting further clarification from the user who uploaded the shot.

Lector 01:22, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No Doubt discography

[edit]

I'm looking to nominate it to be a featured list. One of the questions I have is that the main difference between this and Gwen Stefani discography is that this one doesn't have a section of unreleased songs. In the work I've done with the No Doubt-related articles, I've only come across the titles of four unreleased songs, all of which were written for the same album. ASCAP, which I used for Stefani's unreleased material, doesn't have any titles that weren't released (though it has a bunch of Suicide Machines songs listed for some reason). Should I add the section with just the four songs, or should I nominate it as is? If there are any other changes that the article needs, suggestions are more than welcome. 17Drew 23:52, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think its better to add those four unreleased songs. It's wikipedia's job to give reliable information. In this case, no more songs can be found. So we should add up what we have. Even if it's four or twenty songs. Unreleased song section is a must. I think four songs is good as many of the unreleased songs were released in Everything in time. User:Luxurious.gaurav

Ceres (dwarf planet)

[edit]

Annyone knows how to improve this article? There doesn't seeem to be much more to say about Ceres, but it is one of the few planets not to be an FA. Thanks if you can helpNergaal 02:50, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]


I think that with a few touch-ups, this could achieve Featured Article status. Any improvements would be appreciated.

Thanks!

Yesiammanu 03:38, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It appeared that a PR entry was generated but it has not been archived, so I'm speculating that the entry was never added to the main peer review page. I'm adding it in now. This page may become very topical in about 7-8 years due to the upcoming Dawn Mission. Comments appreciated. (I'm adding my own below.) — RJH (talk) 17:06, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

RJHall

[edit]

Some comments:

  • The 'Observations' section could use some work. At present it is very terse: little more than a bulleted list. The section could explain why the occultation was notable, and the discoveries made with the recent telescope observations. Please also include some actual information about observation, including magnitude, angular diameter and so forth. (C.f. Jupiter#Observation.) Some of this is in the 'Physical characteristics' section (the second paragraph), so perhaps it could be moved to the more appropriate location in 'Observations'?
  • The 'Asteroid belt' section should really be a link in 'See also', rather than a section.
  • 'Namesakes' is a trivia section. Can this be merged with the text? (E.g. in the 'Name' section.)
  • The 'Symbol' section is too short. It should be merged.
  • There is some bold text in the notes. I think those should be italicized instead.
  • The 'Physical characteristics' section only briefly covers the topic of why this body is round. Could this be explained a little more? Also could the article cover the topic of how Ceres was formed and why it didn't swallow the remaining mass in the belt and form a planet?

Thanks. — RJH (talk) 19:21, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DTGardner

[edit]

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

You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, DTGardner 22:05, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Indonesian National Revolution

[edit]

I did a complete re-write and expansion of this article some months back. I'd like a general review on anything and everything in the article. i know it lacks pictures and I am working on getting a few more maps together. Merbabu 12:39, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Automated review

[edit]

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

You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, DrKiernan 09:08, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Billy Talent

[edit]

I have recently done some major revisions (save for the genre field that anons have edit wars over on a regular basis) to this article. Over the past while, it have been slowly working up for a major overhaul like this, and trying to eliminate some of the proseline that used to plague it. I just want some general comments on the revisions so far, and the overall quality of the article prose and format. Some tips on how to further improve it would be nice too. Thanks! -- Reaper X 05:01, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have made some more edits today, mainly just adding music samples, improving inline citations a bit, and expanding the lead. -- Reaper X 00:23, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have sources indicating who has influenced them? I'd also like to see a little bit more of what they sound like described in the article. Also, throw in some critical notices, particularly about specific albums, if you can find some good ones. A good example of music criticism worked into an article's prose is located at Stereolab. WesleyDodds 01:06, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I did this to include who (er, who didn't) influence them. I'll follow you other points next time I get going on here. -- Reaper X 06:29, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Automated review

[edit]

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

You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, DrKiernan 16:14, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dream Days at the Hotel Existence

[edit]

General review of prose and copyediting required for article. Reference formatting required and consolidation required. --lincalinca 04:38, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Automated review

[edit]

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

  • Per Wikipedia:Context and Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates), months and days of the week generally should not be linked. Years, decades, and centuries can be linked if they provide context for the article.[?]
  • See if possible if there is a free use image that can go on the top right corner of this article.[?]
  • Per Wikipedia:Context and Wikipedia:Build the web, years with full dates should be linked; for example, link January 15, 2006.[?]
  • Watch for redundancies that make the article too wordy instead of being crisp and concise. (You may wish to try Tony1's redundancy exercises.)
    • Vague terms of size often are unnecessary and redundant - “some”, “a variety/number/majority of”, “several”, “a few”, “many”, “any”, and “all”. For example, “All pigs are pink, so we thought of a number of ways to turn them green.”
  • Avoid using contractions like (outside of quotations): Don't, didn't, Can't.
  • As done in WP:FOOTNOTE, footnotes usually are located right after a punctuation mark (as recommended by the CMS, but not mandatory), such that there is no space in between. For example, the sun is larger than the moon [2]. is usually written as the sun is larger than the moon.[2][?]
  • Please ensure that the article has gone through a thorough copyediting so that it exemplifies some of Wikipedia's best work. See also User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 1a.[?]

You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, DrKiernan 16:19, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bleeding Through

[edit]

I have already nominated this as a Good Article , but it failed. After that, I did some correcting on WP:OR and WP:POV issues. I added a lot more reference. I think it's now quite ready, someone could check if the tone is fine now, if it is neutral enough, and if there are enough references. I think the rest is good (images with fair use rationale, etc.) Thanks. Gocsa 18:39, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Automated review

[edit]

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

  • Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (headings), headings generally should not repeat the title of the article. For example, if the article was Ferdinand Magellan, instead of using the heading ==Magellan's journey==, use ==Journey==.[?]
  • Avoid using contractions like (outside of quotations): hasn't.
  • As done in WP:FOOTNOTE, footnotes usually are located right after a punctuation mark (as recommended by the CMS, but not mandatory), such that there is no space in between. For example, the sun is larger than the moon [2]. is usually written as the sun is larger than the moon.[2][?]
  • Please ensure that the article has gone through a thorough copyediting so that it exemplifies some of Wikipedia's best work. See also User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 1a.[?]

You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, DrKiernan 16:23, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Minoan eruption

[edit]

I would like to get feedback on the writing style (we've focused on cleaning it up), references, level of interest, and what can be added and/or improved to get it to FAC. Orangemarlin 01:38, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • I am not very satisfied with the overall arrangement of the article. I wish I could read German because I think examining their version would be useful. I think part of the problem is there is is no real rundown of how the eruption happened. At one point the article mentions there were three phases but it never explains what the phases were or how far apart they happened. I also think the historical accounts that possibly parallel the eruptions should be discussed along with the dating. Right now they end up being very small paragraphs without much context. Watch out for weasel words like It has been proposed that one or more of ten plagues may be attributed to the eruption of Thera, According to several researchers, tsunamis caused by pyroclastic flows and caldera collapse destroyed the navy, Some scientists correlate a volcanic winter from the Minoan eruption with Chinese records, etc. The last thing I would say is that the article has some interesting hints about the history of scholarship in this areas. Several places say "It was onces believed", or "it is now known". I would love to see this article completely tell story of old theories and how they have been discredited or changed over the years.--BirgitteSB 17:49, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've already swiped a few English speaking references from them!!!  :) I too wish I could speak German fluently. However, my skills basically are good enough to order two beers, a pretzel, and requesting directions to the hotel after consuming the first two items in large quantities. There might be some new ones to check out. Thanks.

Although much more recent, you might want to look at how the FA 1980 eruption of Mount St. Helens is organized. One paragraph of the lead section is also not enough to properly summarize the whole article. See WP:LEAD. I also agree with Birgitte's points and feel that a more thorough treatment of the topic is needed (although what is there is pretty darn good already). And no mention of any of the hypothesis that this the inspiration of Plato's tale of Atlantis? In fact, the lead hints at this and many of the references' have titles that include the term. No mention of the Reed Sea (sic) in the Biblical part? Subsectioning and better organization in the ==Dating== and ==Physical effects== sections would be nice. --mav 20:10, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the information. There was a discussion on Atlantis, and we decided to delete it. I'll now have to look back and determine why...it might have had to do with the fact that we didn't want to discuss mythology, but I'm not sure. Yes, I am going to spend some time on improving the lead. And the Mt. St. Helens article is a good place to go, but there's probably a bit more information there. I'll work on this and drop you two notes on the progress. Orangemarlin 23:39, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

History of American football

[edit]

Currently GA status; looking to see what to do to bring it to Featured status. Looking for any help I can get in making the final tweaks needed for an FA. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 04:25, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is an excellent article, Jayron32. I made a few minor wording tweaks. The only thing I noticed that needs to be changed is that there are currently no metric equivalents for the standard measurements. If you add those in I think you will be ready to make a run at FA for this. Good luck! Karanacs 15:51, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I fixed it everywhere except in places where it was a direct quote, such as in the rules standardization section. Would it be appropriate to add metric equivalents even to direct quotes? If so I will add them there as well. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 03:40, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tone cluster

[edit]

I think we can get this to a featured article but the article has reach an impasse. Help with definitions and comments are welcome. Hyacinth 02:49, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's a very nice article. I can offer a few comments ranging from the general to the picky:
  • Is there a place for discussion of music perception as relates to tone clusters? (Dissonance?)
  • Music criticism related to?
  • I see there are external links for listening, but in-wiki samples would be nice. Even fair-use samples would be clearly illustrative and pass the test better than most uses.
  • I find starting a section with a quotation (In early 20th-century classical compositions) a little awkward.
  • "In 1914, Ornstein debuted several of his solo piano compositions, including …, that were the first works to explore the tone cluster in depth ever heard by a substantial audience". This doesn't feel right. Split into two sentences or change to ", which were"?
  • The following phrase is poetic but leaves out a verb, which might be reasonably expected: "—in the second movement, Hawthorne, of the Concord Sonata (ca. 1904–19, publ. 1920, prem. 1928), mammoth piano chords, some gentle, some violent, requiring a wooden bar almost fifteen inches long to play".
  • In the Schoenberg quote, is "near–tone" meant to have an en-dash instead of a hyphen?
  • Would you want a copy of "Cowell's Clusters", Michael Hicks, The Musical Quarterly 1993?
–Outriggr § 00:50, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is this why peer review is under-resourced—because comments go into a void? –Outriggr § 10:23, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps users, such as myself, don't know how to transclude. Hyacinth 22:32, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

U.S. Route 50

[edit]

This is an "umbrella" article for the individual state articles. I would like to know if this is a good amount of detail, and if people think it can be marked as "A class" once I get a reference for the one unreferenced assertion. --NE2 22:19, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good. Please remove the inline reference from the "route description" section heading, and find somewhere else to put it. Anything other than plain text is considered undesirable in section headings. Also, I'd strongly consider moving the history section before the route description, provided that you first list which states are included in the route. Most articles on any major subject begin with a history section, and the history is much more interesting than the route description, which reads like an index. If you haven't done this already, you should seek the counsel of Vishwin60 (talk · contribs), who works in the US roads wikiproject. Shalom Hello 05:41, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Where would you put the reference? I asked for assistance at Wikipedia talk:Citing sources#References in headings? but got none. As for the history I think most people want to find out where the road goes before they find out how it was created. --NE2 15:10, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cretaceous–Tertiary extinction event

[edit]

Several editors and I have just gotten this article to GA status, and we want to start the process to begin an FAR. However, I think a strong scientific review will help us tune the article further. There are several issues I personally would like reviewed:

  1. Does it read clearly to a wide range or viewers?
  2. I'm a little bit concerned that the Cause section is a bit unclear.
  3. Without getting in to huge detail, did we talk about extinctions in sufficient detail?
  4. How are the references?

Orangemarlin 17:12, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Automated Peer Review

[edit]

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

  • Per Wikipedia:Context and Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates), months and days of the week generally should not be linked. Years, decades, and centuries can be linked if they provide context for the article.[?]
  • There may be an applicable infobox for this article. For example, see Template:Infobox Biography, Template:Infobox School, or Template:Infobox City.[?] (Note that there might not be an applicable infobox; remember that these suggestions are not generated manually)
  • Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (numbers), there should be a non-breaking space - &nbsp; between a number and the unit of measurement. For example, instead of 3 metres, use 3 metres, which when you are editing the page, should look like: 3&nbsp;metres.[?]
  • Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (numbers), when doing conversions, please use standard abbreviations: for example, miles -> mi, kilometers squared -> km2, and pounds -> lb.[?]
  • Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (numbers), please spell out source units of measurements in text; for example, the Moon is 380,000 kilometres (240,000 mi) from Earth.[?] Specifically, an example is 9.5 km.
  • As per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates), dates shouldn't use th; for example, instead of using January 30th was a great day, use January 30 was a great day.[?]
  • Per WP:WIAFA, this article's table of contents (ToC) may be too long- consider shrinking it down by merging short sections or using a proper system of daughter pages as per Wikipedia:Summary style.[?]
  • Please make the spelling of English words consistent with either American or British spelling, depending upon the subject of the article. Examples include: meter (A) (British: metre), metre (B) (American: meter), analyze (A) (British: analyse), molt (A) (British: moult), sulfur (A) (British: sulphur), sulphur (B) (American: sulfur).
  • Watch for redundancies that make the article too wordy instead of being crisp and concise. (You may wish to try Tony1's redundancy exercises.)
  • Vague terms of size often are unnecessary and redundant - “some”, “a variety/number/majority of”, “several”, “a few”, “many”, “any”, and “all”. For example, “All pigs are pink, so we thought of a number of ways to turn them green.”
  • Please ensure that the article has gone through a thorough copyediting so that it exemplifies some of Wikipedia's best work. See also User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 1a.[?]

You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, Davnel03 13:25, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Alcohol in the Bible

[edit]

This article has GA status, and I'd like to see it get to FA. If you would, please provide your thoughts on what is needed to improve its quality. (FYI, this article is originally a fork from Christianity and alcohol, which I've also been working on and which was growing overly long.) --Flex (talk/contribs) 19:16, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Konstable

[edit]

In a couple of places your footnotes become extremely cluttered ([8][12][14][33][34][35][36][37][38][39][40][41][42][43] is the longest line of footnotes I have seen in my life!) Also your actual referencing does not always use the WP:CIT templates - I'm not sure if these are used for the Bible, but for other books you should definitely use {{cite book}} for other books. What I would do is rename your current References section to a Notes section to keep all the footnotes. These footnotes would just be in a short format (just giving the author name, publication year and page number for books) and bunching together all the ones that need to be long lists of multiple sources. Then a separate References section to fully detail the individual references using the {{cite book}} and other appropriate templates. What I'm referring to is something like the referencing style used in the Islam or Demosthenes articles.

When referring to "One author has analyzed..." you should really just mention his name - as I'm assuming this is just a citation of his table rather than something that is widely used.

Ideally you should try to provide a See also section, and then perhaps External Links and Further Reading sections.

The image you use on top of the page is the same one used in the closely related article Christianity and alcohol, it is not a big deal but I think it would be better to use different images for these too pages - just to avoid some confusion.

--Konstable 11:49, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the valuable feedback, Konstable! A few questions for clarification:
The long list of footnotes are there to give a variety of sources for a controversial (in a few people's minds, anyway) claim about mainstream opinion on a subject. Are you suggesting that I should remove some of these notes or condense them into a single note (as is the custom in some books, and as is done in most places in Islam)? I didn't see any guidelines on how to handle multiple notes on the same item, and this is the style that is used in some places (e.g., some journal articles and books, as well as Demosthenes and a few places in Islam), though admittedly, I haven't ever seen a list that long either.
As for using the cite templates, which references are you thinking of? I tried to be diligent about using a template on the first reference of every work and then just using the author's name (with the title of the work, if I had more than one work by that person), and I don't see any exceptions to this rule. (Of course, this pattern would change if I convert to a Notes/References format as you suggest.)
As for the additional sections, since WP:GTL says that "See also" links should not be duplications of links from the text, I haven't included any. Do you think I should include something like Islam and alcohol (it's a redirect to a small section of a larger article; better would be Alcohol in the Qur'an, but that doesn't exist)? I didn't provide any ELs or FRs as unassociated resources because I have incorporated as a reference everything that I have found to provide a unique resource (I believe that is the preferred approach, according to WP:EL). --Flex (talk/contribs) 17:09, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for delayed response, got caught up in a couple of other things.
  • In regards to the cite templates: yes you are correct here, my mistake.
  • In regards to the notes: I am suggesting that you use the footnotes as footnotes rather than individual references. So for example in your many interpreters suggest[54][58][61][123] you could replace all that with one footnote in the Notes section which says something more like: see: Henry, Clarke, Rayburn and Seesemann p. 164 (maybe discuss what each one contains if you need/want to) and then in a separate References section below it list the full references for the books of these guys. (Actually some other people at WP:FAC might ask for page numbers for all of them, though not sure how critical this may be).
  • With See also I think is nice to have the section there even if it is very small - if only to invite other people to put links there in the future.--Konstable 09:52, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Savidan

[edit]

If you have an ultimate run at FA in mind, I would suggest that it should be possible to make the tables exhaustive (i.e. no "etc."). With the bible reference resources available online today, this should be possible and may take less time than you think.

I would also suggest that you look into how these hebrew words related to alcohol have fared in various translations of the bible, for example, whether wine metaphors have been replaced with non-alcoholic metaphors.

One last thing. Every element of the table in the biblical references section should be represented in some following subsection (it's ok if two or more similar rows are combined into one subsection). For example, "Use accepted as normal part of culture" seems to be the biggest element of that table but has no accompanying subsection. How did the bible represent it as a normal part of culture? What kind of culture? Etc. Savidan 18:24, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comments, Savidan! (Sorry for the delay in getting back to you. I was taking a short wikibreak.) As far as the exhaustive tables, there are a lot of references that would be listed. That seems to me like the kind of thing that should be included as an external link (cf. WP:EL#What_should_be_linked #3), and indeed, that very information is already available in the lexicons that are linked in those tables. Do you think I need more than this?
Regarding different translations: I want to stick to reliable sources on this point, and I haven't been able to turn up any, except that K. Gentry (among others) claims there is near universal agreement among translators on these words, while prohibitionists such as Gentry's opponent S. Reynolds argue that translators (and entire translation committees) are biased by their "indulgence in alcohol."[15]
I see your point on the table entries. I reproduced that table from the source cited which has a different organization, and while I don't think an entire subsection is necessarily needed for each entry, several of them do bear further explanation. Thanks again! --Flex (talk/contribs) 19:10, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, does it exist somewhere else that can be externally linked to? If so, why not link to the search result with "[linkhere More...]? And if you are only selecting the ones to list in the table, what method are you using to determine are important enough to be listed? Is it objective?
Of course I would never ask you to go beyond what is already published, but I find it hard to believe that there isn't something written about this. There are 100s and 100s of books on how the bible has been altered in translation; you'd probably have to look through the index/use google books.
Like I said, not all of them need further explanation, but if one use is the most common reference to alcohol, that does. Also, have you looked into books like "what would jesus eat" and that whole genre? I believe they would touch on the subject of the article. Savidan 16:39, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the complete list of verses is given in the links to lexicons already provided. I could duplicate the link in the verses column with "More..." or "etc." as the link text. As far as which verses are listed, I thought that I had listed the first verse from each book (which I think is objective but gives a decent sampling of its use across authors and time periods), but now I see that I did that in some places but in others listed the verses referenced by Easton's Bible Dictionary. I'll change them all to the former [Update: this is done.].
I'm still not convinced that this article is the place to examine how wine metaphors have been translated in various editions of the Bible (though, I'll note that the lexigraphy section does list/discuss the variety of meanings the words can take on, and translators generally follow the lexicographers). The more literal translations (e.g., NASB, ESV, KJV, and even NIV) stick to their sources pretty well. For instance, the Psalms use "yayin" metaphorically and literally, but the translation doesn't differ significantly between the literal translations (e.g., the NAS and the NIV) and the less literal ones (e.g., The Message, CEV, NLT, etc.). Moreover, I've read a considerable amount on this subject, but I know of no disagreement other than the accusations of bias by some prohibitionists, as I mentioned above. I know of no published or widely available translation that adopts a prohibitionist position on the matter, and indeed Gentry says in his debate with prohibitionist Reynolds (who was on the NIV translation committee) that the latter "must dispute every major English translation of scripture."[16] This seems to confirm my suspicion that there is not much to discuss here. If you can point me to some sources that say differently, I'll be happy to read them and try to incorporate them.
I have not looked into What Would Jesus Eat? and similar books. I have stuck mainly to academic sources and prominent figures' sermons and popular articles. In looking at two reviews of and the Amazon page for What Would Jesus Eat?, it sounds like the author adopts a fairly standard moderationist position. According to the Kansas Historical Society, Charles Sheldon (d. 1946), the originator of the What Would Jesus Do? ethic, was a fairly standard abstentionist.[17] In short, I feel like these works don't add anything new to what is already stated and sourced in the article. Your thoughts?--Flex (talk/contribs) 14:06, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Happy Land

[edit]

A short, but detailed article, bringing together period newspaper articles, peer-reviewed articles, and one internet source by a noted scholar of W.S. Gilbert expanding on his three-page treatment in one of his books, as well as slight use of the primary source to get a cast list and plot summary put together. I'd like to get this to GA, then FA: What d'ye think needs done? Adam Cuerden talk 18:19, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Automated review

[edit]

(Probably not of much use to you, but here goes!)

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

You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, DrKiernan 09:04, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wisden Trophy

[edit]

Wikipedia:Peer review/Wisden Trophy/archive2

Just got this page to GA and want to put this through another peer review before I nominate this to FAC Monsta666 19:10, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Um, still needs caps for "first Test" and so forth. I should read it more cerfeully soon. And don't compare it to The Ashes simply because it is an FA. The Ashes is in terrible shape and isn't even a B class really. It became FA in the old old days. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 01:35, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ray Emery

[edit]

Just passed GA-status, and the reviewer thought it was on its for FA status. I'd like some input on how the article could be improved even more. --Клоун 14:49, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by LordHarris

[edit]
  • The article looks good but just a few points. Firstly about its comprehensiveness - theres no information on his life outside of hockey. Im aware the article is about a hockey player but it is also a biography, is there no information available about his childhood, possible marriage, parents, school etc?
    • I found a source here that might have some insight (it's already used 6 times in the article). I'll write in a new section today or after my WikiBreak.
  • Secondly I think the following sentance could also be rewritten as its a bit all over the place - "He was suspended for 3 games for a stick swinging attack on Michel Ouellet of the Wilkes-Barre/Scranton Penguins[8], and he had an ugly altercation with Denis Hamel of the Rochester Americans, after a racial slur was said. [8]" Perhaps this could be split into two sentances and the wording changed slightly?
  • Finally think the following sentance also needs clarification: "Emery subsequently played for the Senators in the playoffs as well, losing to Buffalo in 5 games, but acquired his first playoff experience." - shouldnt it be acquiring and this could do with a reference. LordHarris 11:51, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • It should say first NHL playoff experience... but I don't think a ref is that needed there, as it is mentioned further article (a check of the statistics "says it all".

Comments by Z1720

[edit]
  • This article has really improved from the last time I reviewed it. However, it is not up to FA status yet. First, I am confused by these two sentences: "He started playing hockey relatively late, at 17" (found in the lead) and "He originally played defence, but switched to goaltender at nine years old due to a shortage of players in his league" How can he switch positions at nine-years old when he did not start playing until he was 17? This needs to be varified
  • Secondly, what style of goaltender is Emery? Is he stand-up, butterfly, etc.
  • Lastly, these sentences should be re-written, as it is choppy and does not flow: "He has numerous tattoos. They include the initials of his parents, Charlene and Paul, and younger brothers Andrew and Nicholas. He has an African symbol for the number one, his jersey number with the Senators, and his nickname "Razor" written across his chest. He also has a tattoo representing his birth symbol, Libra." Perhaps you can combine the first two sentences, and add a connecting word to the sentence about the African symbol, like "also" or "in addition" Z1720 05:12, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Parâkramabâhu I

[edit]

This article failed a previous FA nomination mainly due to WP:MoS issues, a lot of which were noted in a previous peer review. I went through the article and try to fix as much problems as I could, and would appreciate some input into any further problems in the article or corrections required to the article. Thanks. --snowolfD4 ( talk / @ ) 21:22, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just thought I'll create a list to keep track of the new articles created to explain a few items mentioned on this page. --snowolfD4 ( talk / @ ) 18:10, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jayron32

[edit]
  • Spelling error in the first paragraph of the lead. "beatification". Do you mean he made the capital city a saint? If not, if you meant he made it more "beautiful" then the word is "beautification". If you mean something else, than try a different word. I would have fixed it myself, but I wasn't sure what you meant...
  • There are a few referencing issues, such as:
    • Nevertheless he retained the entirety of Bhaddavati’s dowry for himself, and entered into secret negotiations with Gajabahu’s general Gokanna. Gajabahu eventually grew suspicious of Parakramabahu’s activities, perhaps alerted to the situation by the prince’s bizarre usage of an elephant in heat to further his spy network, and Parakramabahu yet again departed in secreacy, and returned to Dhakkinadesa. Where does this info come from?
    • However some members of Parakramabahu's army disregarded his commands and broken open house doors in Polonnaruwa, plundered goods and stole raiment and ornaments from the people of the city. unreferenced.
    • The pillaging of Polonnaruwa was to have dire consequences for Parakramabahu. Angered by the actions of the forces from Dhakkinadesa, the nobles and allies of Gajabahu - including his general Gokanna - appealed to Manabharana of Ruhuna for assistance. Despite having an alliance with Gajabahu, Manabharana remained neutral in the war up till that point. Then, on the eve of Parakramabahu's victory, he stepped into the conflict and launched an invasion of Rajarata. unreferenced.
    • Check for other places where it is unclear where certain historical facts are referenced.
  • Otherwise, this looks pretty good. I am a terrible copyeditor myself. Have you tried WP:LOCE to see if anyone can take a critical look at the text? Good luck! --Jayron32|talk|contribs 04:36, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm pretty sure he didn't want to give sainthood to the city :) That's something the spell checker didn't catch.
I cited the material you requested from another book that previously wasn't used in the text. I'll try to cite as much as I can from that (and other books I could find) and also expand the article a little from info included in the book that isn't there in the article. That should help cos at the previous FP nomination a few editors questioned the number of unique sources used in the article.
When I'm done with the citations I'll see if anyone at WP:LOCE will go through the article. Thanks for your suggestions Jayron, they are much appreciated.--snowolfD4 ( talk / @ ) 21:41, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wandalstouring

[edit]

Replace the comparisons with descriptions. Wandalstouring 15:29, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Do you mean for example sentences like
..similar to the settlement reached by King Stephen of England around the same time, in which Henry of Anjou, son of his rival the Empress Matilda, is allowed to ascend to the English throne upon his death.
Like Basil II of Byzantium his ultimate weakness may have been that he was too successful... ?
If so I would tend to agree they are best not included in the text. --snowolfD4 ( talk / @ ) 15:42, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I went ahead and removed the two comparisons I found. Thanks for pointing that out Wandalstouring, and any other suggestions? --snowolfD4 ( talk / @ ) 13:37, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
My issues are solved. Wandalstouring 11:05, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Great, thanks for the input. --snowolfD4 ( talk / @ ) 19:22, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

SandyGeorgia

[edit]

Hi Snowolf; I gave it a run-through and made changes per WP:DASH, WP:MSH, WP:UNITS, WP:MOSNUM, WP:GTL and WP:CONTEXT. The first occurrence of relevent terms should be linked, common words shouldn't be linked, and links already in the article shouldn't be repeated in See also. You may need to review the introduction in terms of creating stubs for some of the people and places introduced there, if they are notable. Examples include:

Many editors (like me :-) may not know these terms, people, and places, so they may need links. Redlinks in the lead are a bit unsightly, so you may want to create the stubs.

Continuing on, there are other terms that may need to be linked throughout the body of the article:

  • King Vijayabahu I etcetera ... It's fine to redlink all of these people and places, but stubs are desirable. There are many undefined terms, people and places throughout the article.

If you examine the kinds of edits I made, I may not have gotten everything, I may have missed some hyphens that should be emdashes, and there may be generally more of the same to do. For example, there were some strange uses of single quote marks, there are still common terms that shouldn't be linked, and attention to wikilinking is still needed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:54, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the very extensive edits Sandy. I'll try to go through the article myself and fix some of the link problems. I'm not exactly sure how the dashes work though. The problem with the red links you mention is there isn't anywhere near as much info about Parakramabahu's predecessors as there is about him, but I'll do my best to create stubs. I'll also try making a few articles about some of his constructions, like Gal Vihare, Ruwanveliseya etc.
Only do them if they're notable and deserve an article; otherwise, ignore me :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:50, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, thanks Sandy. I'm going through history books collecting information, and I should be able to create articles for some of the rulers within the next few days. --snowolfD4 ( talk / @ ) 18:04, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Holden Commodore

[edit]

I have nominated this article because it is time to see what this article needs to have to become a good article. Please write you comments on this article below.SenatorsTalk | Contribs 07:13, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Looks okay. Note that Holden VE Commodore was just listed on TFA. You could also nominate the whole group of Holden articles as a featured topic, maybe.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.174.240.210 (talk • contribs) 16:35, July 19, 2007 (UTC)

Francis II, Holy Roman Emperor

[edit]

I've spent several hours over the last few days expanding and referencing this article. It was assessed as B-Class yesterday before added references, some pictures and templates - aiming to give a good overall picture of a significant figure in European history. I'm hoping to get it to Good Article status. Lec CRP1 13:40, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Automated review

[edit]

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

You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, DrKiernan 11:20, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Review by DrKiernan

[edit]

Once again, you've managed to make a substantial improvement in a short space of time!

  • I've amended the footnote placements, but the single years without accompanying dates should be unlinked, according to the Manual of Style.
  • "The federal Diet..." is a short paragraph, can it be expanded or integrated?
  • "Francis was a son..." maybe put this at the start of the early life section, with the birth details?
  • "where many died in the conditions" sounds a little strange, I think I would prefer "where many died" (which I suppose might be misleading as to cause of death) or "where many died in the poor conditions".
  • Personally, I'd move the "Marriages" section to between the "Early life" and "Emperor" sections. Also, note the redlinked years that need to be unlinked.

As you know, one or two sources might not be considered sufficient for a major figure, and the article is shorter at 22 kb than the articles on British rulers, which may indicate room for even further expansion, if you wanted to aim higher than GA. DrKiernan 09:46, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Zita of Bourbon-Parma

[edit]

I've spent an awful lot of time on this over the last few days. I know it only has one source, but then works of depth about Zita of Bourbon-Parma are somewhat lacking. It should get Good Article status, as I don't think anything's missed out.--Lec CRP1 00:25, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Review by Psychless

[edit]

This article still needs a bit of polishing before it's ready for GA in my opinion. Here are my suggestions:

  • This one's the biggie... References need to come after punctuation. Sometimes there is a period, reference, then another period; that should be fixed as well.
  • Date linking... Stand-alone years should not be linked. Dates like July 1776 should not be linked either. However, dates like July 4, 1776 should always be linked.
  • The section: Beliefs about the death of Crown Prince Rudolf needs some referencing.
  • What does "Issue" have to do with children? Also, could the section possibly be turned into prose
  • The ancestors table probably doesn't need the father, father's mother, etc. labels. That's just an opinion though.
  • The references section should be split into a Notes and References section. The notes should have all the citations and the references (could be called Cited works) section should have the book listed. Also, some of the references look like they're duplicates. Just do this: <ref name=whatever>Citation here</ref>. For the duplicate citation replace it with <ref name=whatever/>

If you have any questions on my review just leave a note on my talk page. You've done a great job! Psychless 04:14, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Review by DrKiernan

[edit]

The following suggestions were generated by a real person, and are applicable for the article in question. (Yes, I read the talk page!)

  • You might consider expanding the lead into a summary of the article.
  • "and so rumours of the 'Italian' Zita began to be mutterered" Can you re-phrase or be more specific?
  • Dandelion salad is now considered an unusual delicacy, served in top (or pretentious) restaurants. Are we sure the case wasn't the same then?
  • The "Crown Prince Rudolf" section should be integrated with the text and any unsourced material deleted.
  • Please format the dates in "Issue" section. Psychless, I have asked, elsewhere in the past, whether "Issue" sections should be renamed "Children", but had no response.[18]

Well done – fantastic job at improving the article. DrKiernan 07:34, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hayley Westenra

[edit]

From this peer review I am hoping to get this article up to the level of FA. It is already a GA and I want to know what needs to be improved and added/expanded upon to improve it. Andrew D White (talk) 23:25, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yannismarou

[edit]

Just some trivia:

  • "for Her Majesty The Queen". You link the term "Her Majesty" but not the queen, Elisabeth, herself!
  • "At the Sydney Opera House she received a rare standing ovation.". I would cite that.
  • "On 5 September 2006, Westenra was named as one of the ten outstanding young people in the world by the Junior Chamber International." Citation for that. Is it maybe in the next phrase?
  • "Westenra is known as a vegetarian/pescotarian, and is currently nominated for PETA's 'Sexiest Vegetarian' for 2007.[33][34][35][36]" Two many notes in a row. This is something personally I donot lke, but this may just be subjective. Check how Sandy combines notes in Tourette syndrome.
  • The two last paragraphs of "Beyond her initial success" I think do not follow the story of the rest of the chapter and they look a bit like trivia put there, because there was nowhere else to be placed. But again I do not know if there could be any better structure in this or in a separate chapter.

Very nice indeed! I think this article is on the track to be FA! And I do not see any serious copyright problems with the pictures. Good chance in FAC!--Yannismarou (talk) 14:24, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok I added the source for the standing ovation and the Junior Chamber International. Good thing I still remembered where I got these pieces of information. I guess I missed putting them in. I'll look at the other stuff that you noted. Andrew D White (talk) 22:28, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
So here is a question. Should I leave it how I now have it linked now (Her Majesty linked to majesty and The Queen to Elisabeth) or just to Elisabeth? I looked at the talk page and discovered why we have so many sources on that one sentence. Its because we wanted to make sure that we showed that she is known as a vegetarian/pescotarian. Without all of the sources it seemed that it could seem under sourced to say known. I agree with you the last two pararaphs do seem a bit out of place but alas I have not been able to come up with better placement for them. Maby someone else has a good idea of how to make them flow. Andrew D White (talk) 14:45, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Stellar rotation

[edit]

I'd like to bring this up to good article quality. Please let me know what needs to be improved. Thank you. — RJH (talk) 20:56, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The caption of Image:Achernar.jpg does not label it as a drawing. Readers might mistake it for a photograph.
The article uses the term "centripetal force" when it appears to mean "centrifugal force." Centripetal forces are directed toward the center, but the article uses the term to mean forces that point away from the center.
The sentence "Unless a star is being observed from the direction of a pole, portions of the surface are moving relative to an observer." is misleading, since even for observation from the direction of a pole, there is relative motion (but not the relative motion in the radial direction that gives rise to the nonrelativistic Doppler shift).

Fg2 02:19, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. — RJH (talk) 18:26, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This article lost me a bit so this not the most through review, but there are some things I noticed

  • Parenthetical phrases need to be rewritten. Maybe you need to change the order of some things so these qualifications are not necessary, but I am unsure if that would be wise.
  • The text talks about the direction of the "observer" but the illustration labels this "Earth". I understand this, but the reader should not have to translate terms between the text and the image.
  • The lead only summarizes the first part of the article

Good luck I will try and look over again another and see if I can focus on it better then.--BirgitteSB 20:28, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the review. I'll try to address your concerns. If you could let me know what parts you found unclear I'll attempt to clarify the text. — RJH (talk) 14:47, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

William Cooley

[edit]

Hello! This article has been rated as a B-Class recently, and I would like to know what other editors think could make it GA-class. Thanks!--Legionarius 19:45, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, DrKiernan 11:21, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tsui Po-ko

[edit]

The article was tagged as having little or no context. It has now been completely re-written. I don't think the context is a problem any more, but would benefit from being thoroughly reviewed. The Chinese biography is a lot more comprehensive, probably quite a bit too much detail in my view, bearing in mind a separate article exists on the Tsui Po-ko incident, which covers some of the ground twice. This is a very exceptional case of a police office officer going mentally AWOL, and I hope this could become a featured article. Ohconfucius 08:48, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

  • See if possible if there is a free use image that can go on the top right corner of this article.[?]
  • If this article is about a person, please add {{persondata|PLEASE SEE [[WP:PDATA]]!}} along with the required parameters to the article - see Wikipedia:Persondata for more information.[?]
  • Per Wikipedia:Context and Wikipedia:Build the web, years with full dates should be linked; for example, link January 15, 2006.[?]
  • As done in WP:FOOTNOTE, footnotes usually are located right after a punctuation mark (as recommended by the CMS, but not mandatory), such that there is no space in between. For example, the sun is larger than the moon [2]. is usually written as the sun is larger than the moon.[2][?]
  • Please ensure that the article has gone through a thorough copyediting so that it exemplifies some of Wikipedia's best work. See also User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 1a.[?]

You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, DrKiernan 11:18, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fred Craddock

[edit]

The intent is for this article to become a Good Article, and the contributor(s) to gain skills in bio writing. Joeraybray 06:30, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, DrKiernan 11:05, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Hawes

[edit]

The editor who reviewed (and passed) this article for GA recommended that I make an FA run with it. Since I'm hoping to eventually include this article with GA George W. Johnson (Civil War) and FA candidate Confederate government of Kentucky in a featured topic, taking it from GA to FA would be a great help. Is it FA-quality, or can it be made so with a reasonable amount of effort? What can be done to improve it? Acdixon 13:37, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, DrKiernan 11:07, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Suzuka (manga)

[edit]

I have been working towards getting this article up to GA standards. Any suggestions how to make this article better would be appreciated. (Duane543 00:07, 28 July 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Automated Peer Review

[edit]

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

  • Please expand the lead to conform with guidelines at Wikipedia:Lead. The article should have an appropriate number of paragraphs as is shown on WP:LEAD, and should adequately summarize the article.[?]
I think the lead is decent, but I'm still open to suggestion to make it better. (Duane543 18:36, 30 July 2007 (UTC))[reply]
Only linked full dates per linking to allow readers' date preferences. (Duane543 14:12, 29 July 2007 (UTC))[reply]
  • If there is not a free use image in the top right corner of the article, please try to find and include one.[?]
One in the infobox.(Duane543 14:12, 29 July 2007 (UTC))[reply]
Done. (Duane543 14:12, 29 July 2007 (UTC))[reply]
  • <Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (numbers), there should be a non-breaking space - &nbsp; between a number and the unit of measurement. For example, instead of 100 meter, use 100 meter, which when you are editing the page, should look like: 100&nbsp;meter.[?]
Fixed. (Duane543 14:12, 29 July 2007 (UTC))[reply]

You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, Davnel03 13:37, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

2nd Automated Peer Review

[edit]

After those edits, this is what I get back from the Peer Review this time:

You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, Davnel03 20:35, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Rambling Man

[edit]

Right, my ideas before you go for GA.

  • Wikilink full dates, e.g. 6 July 2005 -> 6 July, 2005
Returned the dates as they were before (Duane543 20:11, 31 July 2007 (UTC))[reply]
  • Don't superscript th as in 24th.
Done (Duane543 20:11, 31 July 2007 (UTC))[reply]
  • Trim external links per WP:EL
Removed 3 external links (Duane543 20:11, 31 July 2007 (UTC))[reply]
  • Not keen on the formatting in the Characters section, looks untidy...
If you are talking about the space between them, it's because I used a break tag so make the images to go in the layout the way I wanted. Also I can't compress the images smaller because they don't look right. (Duane543 20:11, 31 July 2007 (UTC))[reply]

But it's a good article, so not far from being a good article! The Rambling Man 16:46, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dates

[edit]

Per Wikipedia:Context, years with full dates should be linked; for example, link January 15, 2006 (or 15 January2006). Kazu-kun 17:42, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fun Home

[edit]

This article just passed GA, and I was wondering how much work would be required to get it to FA standard. Is it too hagiographic? (I really haven't found any negative reviews of the book. I've added one criticism that occurred in two otherwise positive reviews.) Should there be a section discussing the art the narrative strucutre (which isn't chronolgical, but thematic)? Any and all comments welcome. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 05:55, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • It might be a bit short for an FA, but then again short FAs aren't necessarily a problem if they say all that can reasonably said about a subject. Certainly it seems very well-written and well-referenced. I don't think a lack of negative reviews is a problem if you have done your best to find some — I had a similar problem with the Quatermass articles I have worked on, and many of them made FA status anyway. The only suggestion I could possibly make would be perhaps some material dealing with the influence of the book on other writers and works, but then again as it's such a recent book there might not be much of that around yet. Otherwise, it seems very good. Angmering 08:13, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • A few reviewers, while praising the work overall, commented that Bechdel's extensive use of literary and mythological reference was "forced"[9] or "opaque".[11] - I don't like this specific statement, as it leaves reviewer's opinions open to whatever the reader interpretes. A few can be 3, 5, 10, anything. It's much better to state which reviewer (s) made the comment (s), and which publication (s) they were writing for. LuciferMorgan 20:16, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK — on LuciferMorgan's advice, I'm going to bite the bullet and submit this for FAC. Thanks to both of the editors who replied. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 05:22, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Manchester United F.C. seasons

[edit]

It is my aim to get this article to Featured List standard, and I would like some constructive comments about the content of the page and the amount of referencing on it. Anything about columns I should add to or remove from the table, or how I could expand the Lead section would be much appreciated. - PeeJay 00:55, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have now improved on all of those things. Do you think it matters that I copied the bulk of the prose in the lead paragraph from the Manchester City F.C. seasons article? What other advice could you give me about this article? - PeeJay 00:24, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
For the most part, it doesn't matter as it applies equally to both clubs., but do you know for sure that no complete records prior to 1886 survive? Individual Charity Shield matches probably aren't significant enough to have their own article, so they should be delinked. Oldelpaso 08:21, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I will get in touch with the club's official statisticians to ask about records from before 1886, but I have many books that include Man Utd results, and none of them give any information before that date. As for the Charity Shield matches, I will delink the ones that currently have no article, but I will leave the ones with articles linked. - PeeJay 08:58, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I flagged the "records don't survive" statement with a citation needed template. It's a reasonable and logical conclusion, but nevertheless there should be a definitive source to actually claim "they don't exist". An alternative solution would be to elabourate on the fact that these records are not currently used by credible football statisticians, providing examples. Otherwise the only minor issue I could find was the colouring for a couple of European seasons. Not so much a disagreement on my part, but it's a MoS question that would probably be raised if you did nominate this for featured list. BeL1EveR 16:44, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I deleted the statement about the records not surviving. The guys at StretfordEnd.co.uk linked me to a great book with all of Newton Heath's results from 1878 to 1902 in it, so I'll be getting a hold of that ASAP. As for the colouring issue, I presume you mean the colouring of seasons where the club played in more than one European competition, i.e. 1968-69, 1991-92 and 1999-2000. Those cells were coloured based on the best result from any one of the competitions in that cell, if you see what I mean. - PeeJay 16:53, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I have now acquired a reference book containing a list of results and tables for the period 1878-1902 (the Newton Heath era), and I have added the 1888-89 season to the table to record the club's season in The Combination. I think this Peer Review has served its purpose now, and should be closed. - PeeJay 23:55, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Exosome (RNA degradation machinery)

[edit]

I've been writing this article during the last few days, with the intention to apply for FA status after a short while. I am still working on it at the moment, so the content might change slightly (but not dramatically). As it deals with a scientific topic, I would especially appreciate comments on whether the article is comprehensible and make sense to its readers.

Things taken into account so far:

  • Full inline citation from scientific articles
  • All images are GFDL, except one PD-government image in the gallery
  • No redlinks, I generated reasonable (stub) articles for all links where no article existed and improved some of the already existing closely linked articles.

Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 21:29, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-auto review

[edit]

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

  • Shouldn't there be a free use image in the top right corner of the article?[?]
  • I would avoid including galleries in articles, as per Wikipedia:Galleries, by integrating images with the text.[?]
  • Watch for redundancies that make the article too wordy instead of being crisp and concise. (You may wish to try Tony1's redundancy exercises.)
    • While additive terms like “also”, “in addition”, “additionally”, “moreover”, and “furthermore” may sometimes be useful, overusing them when they aren't necessary can instead detract from the brilliancy of the article. This article has 21 additive terms, a bit too much.
    • Vague terms of size often are unnecessary and redundant - “some”, “a variety/number/majority of”, “several”, “a few”, “many”, “any”, and “all”. For example, “All pigs are pink, so we thought of a number of ways to turn them green.”
  • As done in WP:FOOTNOTE, footnotes usually are located right after a punctuation mark (as recommended by the CMS, but not mandatory), such that there is no space in between. For example, the sun is larger than the moon [2]. is usually written as the sun is larger than the moon.[2][?]
  • Please ensure that the article has gone through a thorough copyediting so that it exemplifies some of Wikipedia's best work. See also User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 1a.[?]

You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, DrKiernan 07:57, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Removed gallery
  • Only GFDL images left
  • Moved suitable images into text
  • Moved one image to the top right corner
  • Removed numerous uses of the word "also"
  • Adjusted prose here and there
--Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 10:33, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Emergency psychiatry

[edit]

Looking to get this article to FA status soon. Any comments on what can be improved to get the level would be appreciated. Thanks, Chupper 14:14, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Chupper. I don't have a full review to offer, but some random comments from a partial read:
  • In Violent behavior I don't quite follow this sentence, or at least would be interested in a citation for it: "In addition, having a high intelligence quotient, high aspirations, or insight into illnesses can also be risk factors for violence."
    •  Done Fixed sentence so it is more clear and added citation.
  • The Anxiety section seems like it should be lower on the page, given its emergent status in comparison with substance abuse, psychosis, etc.
    •  Done Reordered sections.
  • More detail on the practice of emergency psychiatry might be good. What does it mean to "stabilize a patient", for example.
  • Page numbers would be/would have been nice for the textbook citations.
    • This is a good idea, but there were two reasons page numbers were not used. First, the APA style (the reference style used in this article) only uses page numbers where specific quotes are used. Second, the references would have been listed multiple times, with different page numbers. This may have been confusing.
      • There is an accepted wiki style for short book-page citations in a "Notes" section ("^Smith, 200.") and then a full book citation under "References". Anyway, it may be more important in an FA nomination, so that's why I brought it up. (And now that you've referenced my above request to Hillard and Zitek, I would actually have wanted to read that section in the book, but where would I start? :) –Outriggr ♠ 02:03, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Well, I'm sticking to APA format, and its my understanding Wikipedia is alright with that. I do use page numbers in journals, because specific articles are included within a certain area of the journal. However for books, the APA style does not use page numbers except when using a direct quote. Sorry, my professors have "conditioned" me into this strict usage. I have, however, included a quotation for the information you requested. Normally what I do in situations where something is cited (not quoted) using APA style is I grab the book and then look through the table of contents. In this situation the sentence in question is located in the "Violence" section of the Wikipedia article. If you open Emergency Psychiatry and look at the table of contents, you can notice a chapter called "The Potentially Violent Patient". That chapter begins on page 75. After reading just a few pages, you can find the content in question (it is located throughout page 76, but listed directly on page 77 of that book). Chupper 22:15, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • What about mentioning drug treatment in a bit more detail—it's a medicated world.
    • I'm working on entering more information on treatment and medication. I'll notate here when I'm finished.
    •  Done I've entered a decent amount of information about medication in the treatment section. Chupper 00:49, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't understand this sentence: "The initiation of treatments for mood and anxiety disorders are important as patients suffering from anxiety disorders have a high risk of premature death." ("is" important) Premature death from what? Just general mortality?—if so "high" is a strong word here.
    • I'm not sure anybody knows exactly why or exactly from what. I am aware that statistics do show that the risk is elevated above a baseline. The reference documents that. I'll switch the word high to higher so that this is more clear. Chupper 00:49, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's a good general article, and good luck with your eventual FA nomination. –Outriggr § 23:40, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Making this small now if you don't mind!: I'm at two PR responses in a row in which my comments weren't acknowledged. Surely this must be related to that trope, "peer review is dead"? No shrubberies are required, just an ack or even a "that was painfully useless stuff", maybe. –Outriggr § 00:18, 23 August 2007 (UTC) [reply]

Outriggr - as I mentioned on your talk page, your comments are appreciated. Sorry about the massive delay in response. I was hoping to address these issues pretty quickly, but things just got overwhelming for me in life outside Wikipedia. I've already read through your comments, and I will do what I can to address each issue. Of course any other reviews are welcomed as well. I'm thinking I should be able to get to work within the next week or two maximum. Thanks again, Chupper 13:02, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I sure didn't mean that you are obligated to act on these comments, but it's just nice to know they don't disappear into a void—seems a danger on Peer Review. –Outriggr ♠ 23:58, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nisan manisan Cali NATO guys hahaha

  1. ^ 1
  2. ^ 1
  3. ^ 1
  4. ^ 1
  5. ^ 2
  6. ^ 1
  7. ^ 2
  8. ^ a b Cite error: The named reference ref was invoked but never defined (see the help page).