Wikipedia:Peer review/February 2006

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, 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 (~~~~).

---

Many people have worked hard on getting the facts of this article correct. It has also recently been improved a lot by the medicine collaboration of the week. It would be nice to get some feedback especially from people with a non-medical background. Hope to get some good feedback and maybe this could be a FAC soon. --Bob 00:39, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• I think there are too many lists in this article, and especially in sections like "Prevention of sexual transmission of HIV" the bulleted items should be converted to prose. And could an inline citation be added for "Alternative theories"? AndyZ 23:24, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Noted and taken care of. Thankyou --Bob 01:15, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It looks pretty good. Nice job! Here's a few comments:

• There appears to be a lot of redundancy with the HIV article. Can that be properly resolved? Otherwise discrepancies are liable to develop.
• The word epidemic should be linked.
• The estimate that "AIDS has killed more than 25 million people" should include a date stamp, so the reader knows when that was true. (Also so it can be updated later.)
• The red links should be addressed.
• The origin of the Red Ribbon symbol needs to be explained, or at least a link provided.
• Down in the "Symptoms and Complications", in a number of cases the bulleted diseases are listed in bold face, and are immediately followed by the same disease name with a link. Please fix this redundancy.
• Something I don't think I see addressed in the article are some common falacies regarding AIDS. I.e. in the nature of rumors and propaganda. A number of people treat those as factual, so it would be nice to see some coverage from a neutral perspective.

Thanks. :) — RJH 16:29, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Noted. Reply point by point:

• • This has been minimized, but when HIV and AIDS are intrinsically linked, there will be some repitition. This has been reduced to transmission, epidemiology and treatment. No discrepancies are obvious for the moment.
  • Done.
  • There are now no red links in the article.
  • Red Ribbon has been linked to and that article improved.
  • This has been rectified.
  • This is taken care of in the Alternative theories section with a link to the AIDS reappraisal and Common misconceptions about HIV and AIDS articles.

Thanks for the input. --Bob 18:40, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Great, thanks. — RJH 00:21, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

and sex

We've recently expanded this article greatly. The writers at Wikipedia:WikiProject Tropical cyclones have agreed this is a good article, so we're putting it up for peer review before a possible featured article candidacy. Any activity is appreciated, whether it's on content or on technical details. — jdorje (talk) 05:44, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Haven't read thoroughly, but the Impact section overwhelms the Table of content. there is also a one-sentence section in there, which you'llwant to rework: one paragraph sections alone aretypically frowned upon. Also, youmight want to remove the frames in Image:Floydfranklin.jpg and Image:Floyd Tar River Flooding.jpg, but that is a purely personal gripe I have with these types of pictures. Circeus 21:08, 10 February 2006 (UTC) Also, for images that needs longer explanation or color charts, you might want to look into the great pseudo frames at Saffron. Circeus 21:22, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good points. I removed the subsections from the North Carolina section, and added a "key" for the flood map graphic. — jdorje (talk) 04:26, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Now the North Carolina is overloaded with pictures lol (and that's even ignoring the larger frame given to image:Floyd_flood_map.jpg, which I reworked a bit). Is it possibleto redistribute them through the article, or make a gallery? Circeus 17:07, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's better, yes. I'd still consider either a) selecting only one of the two flood map or b) moving one to another section, if only because Image:Floyd Rocky Mount flooding.gif, while a great animation, does not scale well at all, and putting it at a bigger size there would be overkill. Circeus 17:54, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• See Wikipedia:Guide_to_layout#Standardized_appendices for the preferred order of appendices and Wikipedia:Cite sources/example style for the preferred citation of references. Two things that may not make it through FAC is the "Trivia" section (either it's important and should be included into the body or it's trivial and should be omitted) and the "Retirement" section (not sure if that is a sentence, paragraph or section but the statement is not compelling prose. --maclean25 22:05, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• • I changed the order of appendices, and used {{web reference}} and {{news reference}} for the citations. The "retirement" section is standard for retired storms and generally quite short, but we've expanded it to be a little longer. Not sure what to do about the trivia...it is indeed trivial, and may not be worth keeping. — jdorje (talk) 03:52, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• It is generally frowned upon to put trivia in featured articles. Wasn't that section called "Erroneously Attributed Satellite Image" or something at an earlier date? Perhaps it could be renamed. Miss Madeline | Talk to Madeline 17:50, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• • Renaming it doesn't make it any less trivia. As interesting as it is, it is definitely a trivial bit of information, and it doesn't belong in any of the "notable" sections (storm history/preparations/impact/aftermath). — jdorje (talk) 20:06, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Remove the trivia section. It's not notable and unencyclopedic. -- §HurricaneERIC§^Damagesarchive 21:42, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have been working on this page for the last few days (week?) now in order to get it ready for featured article status, I am requesting a peer review in the hopes that the comments will allow me to fix what problems I do not see at this moment before I submit it for featured article candidacy. The Filmaker 00:11, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• One thing first off, according to what should not be linked, years without full dates should not be linked, like 1984.AndyZ 00:18, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Done and done, funny, I was thinking the exact opposite. The Filmaker 00:30, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Couple points
  • I see at least two movie titles not italicized.
  • The second paragraph of the lead ought to be cited, and the lead needs some work -- it should be a summary of the rest of the article, and could be expanded by a paragraph.
  • Why refer to him as "Daniel"? It's most normal to use the last name.
  • "Living in Greenwich, he naturally found himself among some tough South London kids. Being Irish, Jewish and posh, he was often bullied by local children his age" -- perhaps if I was British, I'd understand it. What does "posh" mean in this context?
  • "While his disdain grew" -- it took me a minute to realize what "disdain" referred to. Make this more clear?
  • The paragraph beginning "His acting continued along with his unruly behavior" needs some work. Is there another source you can use to confirm this? The wording makes it look like we're trying not to reveal the name of the painkiller. The first sentence is just badly-worded. Which authorities locked him? (People in the community at large aren't generally institutionalized just for hallucinating, at least in the US -- was he brought to a hospital for some reason) Is locking people in a room with a nurse to detox normal in the UK? I work in mental health in the US and that seems odd to me (why waste a nurse for hours to watch somebody detoxing in a locked room?). The last sentence I have a problem with because the paragraph implies that he was locked up from hallucinating from the painkillers, and then acted sane to be released -- presumably this means after the painkillers and hallucinations wore off, so why would he have needed to act sane? Anyway, this paragraph's problems might not be solveable based on available sources, but I wanted to bring it to your attention.
  • "Eleven years after his film debut" -- seems odd to say that he started his "serious" film career with a bit part
  • Did he really break two ribs from being hunched over? That seems doubtful for a frail elderly person, much less a presumably healthy young man.
  • Why was he "forced" to take antibiotics? My first interpretation was that he refused because it wasn't in character, but my guess is that he was "forced" because the pneumonia got worse. Is that right? I think antibiotics are generally prescribed for any pneumonia, regardless of the severity, so I'm not sure about that.
• Just a couple things I wanted to point out, Tuf-Kat 05:54, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• I've fixed most of the points you've made:
  • I fixed the movie titles.
  • Expanded and cited the second paragraph.
  • Changed all of the "Daniel's" to "Day-Lewis'".
  • I am not from the UK, but I did look up the word "posh" which means fashionable, stylish, among other things. I thought about changing it, but I decided against it since it did embody what needed to be said, and still, it is a word.
  • I've made the "disdain" quote more clear.
  • As for the "painkillers" paragraph. This paragraph was probably the biggest issue, wasn't it? It's actually a more or less copy from the Tiscali UK Bio (which I cited). So this is all of the information I have. I do not know who arrested him or what painkillers were used. I have however modified the paragraph slightly and given it two more citations for the purposes of clarity, i.e. "locked with a nurse" to "nurse supervision" as well as "sane man" to "sane and sober man". I believe that the authorities that he was an addict. And he later had to convince him that he was not insane (as a lot of drug users are) in addition to not being an addict.
  • By "he would enter the film business seriously in a bit part" meaning that he was entering the film industry with serious intention as opposed to his role in Sunday, Bloody Sunday which was simply out of leisure.
  • I'm also somewhat fuzzy on him breaking two ribs in the course of filming My Left Foot. I haven't had the opportunity to see the new DVD that has recently been released. But the information is from the film's IMDB trivia page (which I almost cited), but since the site is referencing the actual DVD's documentary, I think it's worthy of being considered more than speculation or rumor.
  • Yes, he was forced take antibiotics because he would not break character and refused to take them. I've made that more clear.

Hopefully I've cleared it up as best I can.The Filmaker 00:51, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding "posh" - I have wikified the reference in the article, which I hope counters the criticism of its use. The posh article itself could do with some work, however, as it struggles to properly capture the (British) sense in which it is used here. --Estarriol ^talk 15:20, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've been working on this one for a while, and it draws on all the major sources, ancient and modern, that deal with the subject. Thrasybulus is almost completely forgotten today, which is unfortunate, since he strikes me as a really interesting figure. I'd like to get this to FA, and I'm interested to hear what people think it needs. --Robth^Talk 22:25, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• The article is good, however the first paragraph of "Personal life and early career" badly needs citations if it aspires to be featured. For instance, what are the sources and passages for "His father was named Lycus", "he was a native of the deme of Steiria in Athens", "his daughter married a grandson of the notable nobleman Nicias" and "he held the office of trierarch" and "in the third century his son was able to pay a substantial fine of 10 talents"? - Calgacus 16:18, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Right now, the note at the bottom of the section reads "All otherwise unsourced information in this section is from R. J. Buck, Thrasybulus and the Athenian Democracy"--in other words, same source for all those statements, and others in the section, so I didn't want to clutter it with footnotes. Does this fly, or do I need to scatter a lot more footnotes in there? --Robth^Talk 17:41, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • The article would be of better quality if the historical sources are referenced for bits of information like this, rather than just the modern author. - Calgacus 17:44, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I've added references for the three statements where I know the source; the ones about his children probably come from some obscure fourth century orator, so I'll have to head to the library to look them up. I'll put them in when I have them. --Robth^Talk 19:44, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I've now added a cite to Demosthenes for the statement about the ten talent fine, but I haven't added one for the one about his daughter, the reason being that no ancient source explicitly makes that statement; Demosthenes refers to Thrasybulus the younger being the uncle of one Nicestratus, who is known from other sources to be a descendant of Nicias--I've left it cited to Buck, since he's the one who pieces all this together. --Robth^Talk 02:00, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

According to the WikiProphet, it is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than to write a good NPOV article on Islam. However, I have tried and rewritten the article from scratch, so any errors in it are mine and mine alone. It covers a decisive battle fought by Muhammad in 624. I would love feedback on it, so I can eventually nominate it for a Featured Article. (Currently there are none on Islam) Palm_Dogg 00:03, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

---

An important article, on a topic not known to most people in my part of the world. Should help counter systematic bias. Already well written, but balance seems off for a truly great featured article. I have several suggestion below.

Most of references and quotes seem to be taken from historical source material. Although good quotes, and excellently footnoted, is their independant archaeological evidence for this battle? I assume not, lost in the sands of time, but clarify. I do not doubt the battle took place, but the specific names involved and numbers seem too exact for a historical (not religious) article. Example, are the Muslim graves recorded and countable?

For casualties and prisoners, the article quotes Ibn Ishaq and Al-Bukhari, basically two historical Muslim scholars. Are there surviving written records from the loosing Quraish side? Wendell 04:02, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Here are big comments.

• First paragraph should be a summary of the key points of the article. In this first paragraph, the battle details are too detailed. Suggest summarize first paragraph and transition to the more important second paragragh; why this battle is so important.
  • The second sentence of the article, It was fought on Friday, March 17 624 CE (17 Ramadhan 2 AH), although a few sources place it in 623 seems out of place and too detailed. Important for elsewhere in the article, not the first paragraph.
  • How about this re-write: The Battle of Badr (Arabic بدر) was a key battle in the early days of Islam between Muhammad and his pagan opponents in Mecca. Prior to Badr, the Muslims and Meccans had fought several smaller skirmishes, but this was the first large-scale battle. Muhammad was leading a raiding party against a Quraish caravan when the much larger Qurayshi army surprised him. Retreating to a strong defensive position, Muhammad's well-discplined men managed to shatter the Meccan lines, killing several important Meccan leaders, including Muhammad's chief opponent Amr ibn Hisham.
• Background section is obviously key....
  • First paragraph is great. Terrain, climate, population, tribes, religious diversity, all get their needed discussion.
  • But why two paragraphs on the life of Muhammad? Muhammad was born in Mecca... and Muhammad claimed... There is already a link to the main Muhammad article. They are good paragraphs, but needed for this article?
  • Consider a direct jump the last sentence: In 622 C.E., Muhammad and his followers were forced to flee Mecca to the neighboring city of Medina due to...... This migration is called the Hijra and marked the beginning of Muhammad's reign as a secular chief, in addition to religious leader.

If this becomes a featured article, many-many people with no background in Islam, Mecca, Medina, or Muhammad will read it. Thus consistent terminology is critical. Even after several read thoughs, I was confused by some shifting terms.

• Article uses the different spellings of Quraish vs Quraysh and Quraishi vs Qurayshi
• A section title is "The Ghazawāt", which is never explained. Two sentences later, a link to ghazw appears. Same root-words, same meaning? Can something be expanded?
• What is the Badr? Name of an area? town? building? area wells? oasis? The use of the term implies Badr is a roadside inn with a series of wells. Correct?
  • Article says, army was approaching the wells at Badr and Badr was a traditional caravanserai, which was a roadside inn where caravans could rest and recover from the day's journey.
  • Later Article says, Badr was the name of a series of wells located on a small slope on the eastern side of the valley of Yalyal.
• The simple battle box, and my summary of the article says the battle was between Muslims of Medina and Quraish of Mecca. However consistent terms seem to shift. Is this to avoid repeating the same phrase, or reflects a subtle difference I failed to see?
• From the first paragraph, many different phrases are used, which to a causual reader will imply there are 3 or 4 sides to this conflict.
  • Muslims and Meccans had fought
  • Muhammad was leading a raiding party against a Quraish caravan..and...Qurayshi army.
  • The Quraysh army... launched an assault on the Muslim ranks
  • Muhammad's men ....shatter(ed) the Meccan lines
• Just to drive home the point, is the Quraysh army the same as the Meccan Army? The terms are used interchangably in the article.
• See the major section header.... The Muslim plan vs the The Meccan Plan
  • Should it be the Muslim Plan vs the Quraishi Plan or Medina Plan vs Meccan Plan ?
• The article has two uses of Quraishi Muslims to refer to a sub-set of people. I am confused by the term Quraishi Muslims. Is this an aspect of a civil war and brother against brother, or a typo?
  • Three of the Ansar emerged....only wanted to fight the Muslim Quraish'
• In the middle of the article, the Aftermath, Casualties and Prisoners section, the term Meccan Quraish is used for the first and only time. I am lost, why now call out Meccan Quraish? Did I miss some discussion of non-Meccan Quraish?
  • the Muslims took a number of Meccan Quraish prisoner.

Article says At this point, both armies began firing arrows at each other. Muhammad gave orders for the Muslims to employ their ranged weapons, and only engage the Quraish when they advanced. I truely do not understand what the sentence is trying to say, nor the tactics. Both sides were firing arrows (a ranged weapon). Then Muhammad ordered for his troops to emply ranged weapons (which they already were). Does engage in this sentence mean hand-to-hand melee combat? Wendell 04:23, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

---

• Wow. Most of your points are valid, so I'll try and fix them. Briefly: Many of the Muslims (Including Muhammad) WERE Quraishi. In addition, there were a group of non-Quraishi Muslims called the Ansar. Finally, there were a group of nominal Muslims in Medina (Usually called "The Hypocrites") who thankfully did not play much of a role at Badr. Long story short this can be EXTREMELY confusing, so I'll try and clarify. I also didn't want to use the word "pagan" when describing the Quraishi Meccans, since that was a term only attributed to them by the Muslims. The battle was in many respects part of a civil war, which I will try and flesh out. In terms of Quraishi records, to my knowledge there are none. Badr is in Saudi Arabia, which is not exactly hospitable to archeologists, especially ones who want to dig up the bones of Muslim martyrs. Palm_Dogg 04:30, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

---

• (grrr...edit conflict)
• The dates given: March 17 624 CE (17 Ramadhan 2 AH) should be wikilinked to explain what "CE", "Ramadhan" and "AH" are, especially since they are not set up to auto-date format.
• For the infobox
  • The image caption says "(Minus Muhammad" should be "(minus Muhammad"
  • Dewiki "624", it adds little to the article
  • "The Muslim Conquests" is a redirect to "Islamic conquests" - should be fixed.
  • The Islamic conquests page itself is confusing in this context, as it states that they "began with the death of Muhammad" which makes it odd that the Battle of Badr is considered part of them.
• Hijaz is probably better as Hejaz
• "(Present-day Saudi Arabia" should be "(present day Saudi Arabia"
• "by name in the Quran." - the quran is the scripture muslims abide by. The quran is the guidance for mankind. The quran was revealed to the prophet muhammad(pbuh) by Angel Gabriel, by the permission of Allah
• Muhammad section:
  • A bit long, as this is about a battle, and we already link to the main Muhammad article.
  • Unwiki lone years
  • The highway image seems very out of place here. Maybe replace with the "battlefield today" image below?
• Good use of images throughout
• The "Islam" infobox appears very low on the page - maybe move it up or simply remove completely, as there is already a different infobox at the top.
• The legend inside the "Map of the battle" image is too small to read easily. Consider enlarging it or removing it from the image.
• Wiki non-common terms where they first appear, such as "hadith" and "caliph" (although this seems to be the exception)
• Dewiki common terms not vital to the article, especially in the opening section. I might unwiki "defense" and "fresh water"
• "(Which is similar to" - same as above, watch the uppercase inside the opening parens. Uppercase is only needed to start a sentence or for proper nouns.
• Image caption "The cover of a contemporary Muslim discussion on the battle" needs rewriting.
• In the "Badr in history" section, bullets are used, but they don't always mix well with left-aligned images. Consider moving the image to the other side of the page here.
• Excellent footnotes and references.
• "Casualties and Prisoners" should be "Casualties and prisoners"
• Add "Islamic conquests" to "See also".
• (Listed in Alphabetical Order) should be de-capitalized.
• "In keeping with the film" makes no sense when talking about the film
• That's all for now. Very nice job. Turnstep 04:39, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

---

Looks like the broader issues of content have been adressed at some length above (and this is rather outside of my area of interest); I'll briefly comment on some (minor) technical issues that are likely to come up in a FAC nom:

• Category:Islamic battles needs a renaming to match the campaignbox (e.g. to Category:Battles of the Islamic conquests). This is rather outside the scope of the article, but it would be nice to take care of anyway.
• The "See also" section should be kept minimal, in favor of working the links directly into the text. In particular, anything that is linked in the body of the article should not be listed there.
• The succession box at the bottom is somewhat questionable. Was his life devoid of any events between Badr and Uhud?
• When the Quran is cited in a footnote, the translation used should be indicated.

Hope that helps! —Kirill Lokshin 04:47, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

---

OK, I've tried to do most of your suggestions. Wendell, does that footnote at the beginning clarify everything? Palm_Dogg 07:16, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This looks really good. I anticipate supporting it on FAC after the above points are resolved.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 22:49, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I copyedited through the whole article. My last edit was to change the structure slightly, into a "Background," "Battle" (with subsections), "Aftermath/Implications," "Modern Cultural References" format. I hope you find the last change helpful; I'm confident the copyediting made a difference and the introduction is a bit more comprehensive now. Kaisershatner 17:14, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I love your changes. Many thanks! Palm_Dogg 17:34, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Looking for feedback on whether this is ready for FAC. — Johan the Ghost _seance 18:04, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The article looks good, the popular section is a bit too short to be worth while, does the Cape appear anywhere else, books, journals of notable explorers, film etc?--nixie 23:26, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the feedback; I'll look into that, that's a good point. — Johan the Ghost _seance 23:28, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A quick scan of the web didn't show anything up except the ESPN show, and I can't think of anything; so I dunno what to do, it is a bit of a tiny section, but where else to put it? On the other hand, your idea of searching for books turned up the contents of the Further reading section, so thanks for that! — Johan the Ghost _seance 00:04, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You could turn the further reading section into prose and inculde it in the popular culture section, which would go something like The Cape has been the subject of numerous literary works, non-fictional accounts include books X,Y and Z; fictional accounts include A,B and C.

There are probably some documentaries about the place too, but I'm not sure how you'd find them, imdb says there is a movie called Cabo de hornos but doesn't provide a description.

The has a summary style section about the subnational entity that is on the Cape, it might be worth adding something similar here, especially if you can speak Spanish to traslate the article.--nixie 00:22, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I'll think about those ideas. I found that movie too, but like you I couldn't find any info about it. Unfortunately, I don't speak Spanish, but I'll look into that. Cheers! — Johan the Ghost _seance 13:12, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again for the ideas — we now have a "Political" section! — Johan the Ghost _seance 14:03, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And a greatly expanded "Culture" section! — Johan the Ghost _seance 16:21, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Great work, there is a bit too much unnecessary bolding, really the only thing that should be bold is the article name in the lead. The images could also be increased in size, I normally use 200 - 240px. I also think a brief explanation of why ozone depletion is a problem should be addded, it won't be ob vious to some readers.--nixie 10:49, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks again for your great feedback. You're right about the bolding; I've kept it for just major introduced terms, like Isla Hornos, which could be search terms that would lead people here — seem reasonable? I've added more about the ozone hole as per your suggestion. As for thumbnails, I used to set sizes for them, but was informed that it's best to leave them off. Each user can set a default thumbnail size in his/her preferences (look under "Files"), and setting a size in the article overrides this, which is not really justifiable. (I make the lead image big as the one exception.) — Johan the Ghost _seance 12:15, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• I think that it's probably ready to go to FAC.--nixie 00:07, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Think you're right; I was just holding off 'cos I was travelling for a couple of days. Thanks again for the help. — Johan the Ghost _seance 10:40, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I belive that the 16mm article needs more infomation then is all ready there and should aim to please people in the industy and lay folk alike. Kylehamilton 14:24, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You might take a look at the order in which the paragraphs are arranged. The third paragraph ("Double-sprocket 16 mm film...") appears to have been inserted between the second and the fourth, resulting in the 4th paragraph lead-in making no sense. Inserting a couple of section headers might help the overall organization as well. The article does need to have some references added with in-line tags (C.f. Template talk:Ref), but otherwise it looks like good work. Thanks. — RJH 22:39, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I just decided to get some opinion on this article. the conflict itself was pretty limited so the article probably might not be as lengthy as other war-related ones, but it still looks concise enough. After all I don't find that a FA should only be of a minimum length and brevity is a good thing IMO. Anyway the images are mostly PD and I have ensured that all issues concerning the factual accuracy and neutrality have been properly addressed. I would appreciate any help provided in improving this article and hopefully lead to a FA status. Thanx. Idleguy 07:24, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Overall, the article looks quite good! A few suggestions you may want to consider:

1. The footnotes need to be properly numbered, and any external links in the body of the article should be given their own notes. As it stands, if the article is printed, there is no way to determine what the numbers refer to.
2. A number of the links in the "See also" section are already given in the text, and should be eliminated if possible. This section should, in general, be of minimal size.
3. The "Further reading" section should either be merged with the "References" section, if these works were used in preparing the article; or, alternately, moved to the very end.
4. The "Kargil War in the arts" section should have a few sentences for each item, to avoid the appearance of a trivia list.
5. Some of the sections, "Protection of National Highway No. 1" in particular, seem a little short. I don't know if any more tactical information about the combat operations involved is available; but short sections tend to be a common cause of objections on FAC.

Many of these points are specifically oriented towards getting the article through FAC; there's no urgent need to rework it if that's not your intention. Hope that helps! —Kirill Lokshin 17:50, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Good article, have watched it develop from when it was a POV disaster zone.

1. Further reading section should probably come after the references section.
2. Anything with an ISBN number should be listed.

--Stbalbach 08:06, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm yet to get into details, but have one first question, Was the war officially declared? To the best of my knowledge, it was not officially declared (unlike the other Indo-Pakistani wars). So this fact needs to be mentioned in the article explicitly. I'll read the article in detail later and hope to comment some more. Thanks. --Ragib 08:59, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

True, it wasn't officially declared as a war by anyone but "Kargil War" seems to be the more popular usage, especially so after the end of the conflict. I am planning to add that piece somewhere in the article, that a "war-like state" only existed as per the Indian PM. tx. Idleguy 09:11, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See also Vietnam War for how the editors handled the "unofficial war" issue.--Stbalbach 16:03, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The external links in main article body should be transformed into proper notes/references before any FAC process.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 00:56, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What if most of the external links were not used as sources (either major or minor) for the article? The BBC link for instance is one where the information in that news story wasn't used to add anything to the topic but was added to show the impact on civilians, however minor they might be. Another one links to a picture gallery. Basically they are just external links and have had nothing in developing the contents of the article. Tx Idleguy 04:04, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Those kinds of explanations are great could be part of the footnote.. it would add a whole new dimension, a guidence to further reading. --Stbalbach 18:23, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There seems to be a lot of issues with this article.

1. This article definately has an Indian bias towards it and can be written in a more neutral tone. I suggest a collaborative effort with Pakistan-based editors.
2. Brochure-type language in =Location=
3. Who discovered the inflitrators? Shephards did (and they were never given any recognition)
4. Mention how India used the media to its advantage.
5. Captain Vikram Batra's heroics is absent.
6. Mention why India suffered so many casualties
7. Mention why India used fighter planes instead of helicopter gunships. (There was a controversy over this)
8. Explain why India did not indulge in hot pursuit
9. Mention the heights: 5,000 m +
10. Mention the temperatures: 4C at night.
11. 500 casualties seems too low.
12. I heard reports of Israeli aircrafts being flown into Sri Lanka to supply India with air power in the case of a war. Please verify.
13. There were some transcripts between the Pak army chief and the Chinese. Extracts could be added.
14. The pilot was FLight Lieutenant Natchiketa. IIRC
15. A few days after the war some jehadi elements wanted to cross the LoC. A massive pileup was planned but they were barred by the Pak army from crossing.

=Nichalp «Talk»= 17:36, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review Nichalp. After requesting the peer review I found out that there was still a lot of details to be added in the war portion and have been editing it since. Unfortunately few, if any, editors from Pakistan have turned up to objectively edit this though asking them directly should help.

Some clarifications are not provided though it is assumed. For instance the "hot pursuit" was not taken up because India did not want to violate the LOC (that India did not want to violate the LOC is mentioned in the article) but this was only implied in meaning and I'll try to fit in the rationale in the article.

Natchiketa was the original pilot after whom Ahuja went after. But the pilot whose body was mutilated was indeed ajay ahuja, and it was this incident that caused a stir. So it is indeed Ahuja's dead body.

I've mentioned the use of media and will soon be adding the impact it had in tilting world opiniong as u said.

Your point no. 6 and no. 11 are contradictory. plz elaborate.

India has an almost clandestine defence relationship with Israel which is almost hard to link but I'll look in that as well as providing more links to transcripts and other valid pointers given to improve this. Thanks Idleguy 03:45, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

FYI I believe the transcript was between Musharraf and Mohd Aziz when they were in China and not with Chinese officials. That transcript is included in a sublink in the external link in the india today site. But for the sake of easy access I'll include it in the main. Idleguy 04:19, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Natchiketa was the original pilot after whom Ahuja went after: Yeah, he was the first to be shot down, I just wanted you to add his name. IIRC, India's fatalities were somewhere around 1,000. have you crosschecked the figures? =Nichalp «Talk»= 04:50, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Probably I'll link the details on the indian arial assault in Operation Safed Sagar and include the naems of the pilots etc. in that article. The casualties list admittedly is a bit tough to be 100% sure of with many claims etc on both sides and I've included the official stats. The 1,000 casulties figure is correct when counting the injured and the dead and I'll make the appropriate changes. Idleguy 07:25, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As a quick note, the caption to the main photo appears to be inaccurate - unless it is being used in the direct fire role against Pakistani soldiers at the same altitude (which isn't likely as this would typically represent a miss-use of towed medium artillery), the Indian artillery gun appears to be in a travel configuration, at least while being photographed. --Nick Dowling 11:14, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kemps should be nominated because of the great card game it is! Seriously, i have a load of info and edited the page. I've checked it over myself for mistakes. Albeit the work done to it i think there may be a few kinks to sort out. Kemps is a forgotten card game and i think a good way to 'renew' its existance would be to feature it on wikipedia's main page. Nominaladversary 22:28, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Most importantly - needs to cite some reliable sources. CDC (talk) 23:22, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The page is hard to comprehend so I tidied up some sections, clarifying meaning based on personal game-playing experience. - Golgotha

citing sources is really hard...i learned the game from a friend...but i'll see if i can find some other sites with kemps Nominaladversary 22:43, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Could this be nominated now? There is a cleanup sign for the article and I'm not sure what's the problem. Nominaladversary 19:44, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's an important show in the history of British comedy, and it would be nice to get it featured, but I'd first like to see what could be improved. smurrayinchester^{(User), (Talk)} 13:22, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Many problems need to be tackled before this article becomes featured:

No spoiler warning.

Done.

Fawlty Towers influence should be changed to influence from Fawlty Towers, since it discusses influence from the broadcast, not to it.

Done.

No references.

No inline citations.

I've added some, but a lot seem to be the same couple of sources (IMDb and BBC). Is this OK?

It's ok, as long as the things that need to be referenced are referenced.

The lead should contain general information about the article's topic, and the plot should be given its own section and heavily expanded and worked on in order to allow readers with no knowledge of the subject to easily understand what is going on.

Many weak, 1-sentence paragraphs clutter the article.

AndyZ 20:32, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• I'll take a proper look tomorrow, but I notice immediately that several of the links to episodes lead to articles unrelated; the film 'Touch of Class' and the film 'The Anniversary' etc - should be fixed. --Loopy ^e 05:07, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This collaborative article have been listed for peer review to further improve the article after nearly an entire year of contribution by several Singaporean Wikipedians. Need checks on conventions used. Slivester 06:49, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Too many headings and broken links. Other than that it looks very good! - G^t 05:56, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Alright pal, thats one point: Broken links and oversaturated with headings.  ;) Slivestré ¦ Pfrt ¦ PAve ¦ Dcn ¦ Cntn ¦ Ei ¦ 08:08, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

For a battle that essentially determined the size of the United States and Mexico, and led to the United States/Mexican War, this article needs rewriting, and then broken down into sections, such as Events leading to the Texas War of Independance; The Alamo and Goliad; The Long March; The Battle; The Aftermath; (years as an indenpendant country, what annexation by the US provoked in Mexico). Just thoughts. Once again, this is an article that after the millitary coordinator elections, needs attending to. old windy bear 13:19, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Your rundown of the article's current problems appears to be essentially correct, missing only the complete lack of references. Based on your comments it appears that you are looking for people to assist in researching and writing the article instead of just for comments on how the article may be improved. This is a task that Wikipedia:Peer review was not built for. I would recommend that you take this request to Wikipedia:Texan Collaboration of the Month instead, as the Texas contingent of Wikipedia is the group most likely to assist you in this effort. Other places that may also be able to help are Wikipedia:Pages needing attention, Wikipedia:Requests for expansion, Wikipedia:Mexico Collaboration, Wikipedia:U.S. Wikipedians' notice board/USCOTW, and Wikipedia:Article Improvement Drive. Good luck in your efforts to find people interested in working on this topic. --Allen3 ^talk 15:23, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• And of course a reference section (inline references preferably) is needed.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 21:05, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The series of articles we have on the Mongol Empire are simply not good enough to reflect a power that was the largest continuous land empire in recorded history, and that killed one quarter of the world's population in 50 years. After the Military Coordinator elections, I believe this is one area that needs immediate attention, and rewriting.old windy bear 13:15, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You are quite right. There are also several related articles which could do with a copy-edit. The Minister of War ^(Peace) 14:36, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This probably isn't the right place for this- Peer review is mainly for articles which are near-FA standard, not for ones which require wholesale revision. Since this article comes with a clean-up tag, I think it's the latter. Mark¹ 15:19, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, peer review is peer review, so let me give you my opinion: decide whether this article is about a former state or history of a certain country, and format it accordingly. Consider the difference between People's Republic of Poland and History of Poland (1945-1989) (FA). Good examples of the former states are FAs on Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth and Indo-Greek Kingdom. At that moment this article is a cross between history and a state - this needs fixing.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 21:03, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Previous peer review at Wikipedia:Peer review/Lost (TV series)/archive1

The article has improved significantly since its previous review seven months ago. With an aim towards reaching FA quality, several editors have suggested it was time to request additional peer insight. Now that the second season of the show has concluded, the article has stablised, and has no serious content disputes. It is now very well-sourced, more than comparable to other TV series articles which have reached Featured status, e.g.:

• Doctor_Who
• The_West_Wing_(TV_series)
• The_Office_(US_TV_series)
• Arrested_Development.

As a long-time editor on the article, I'll be presumptive and say that we would welcome any suggestions for further improvements or additions which can be made. --Leflyman^Talk 08:22, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Just some comments (Slof 00:55, 7 July 2006 (UTC)):[reply]

• My comments interspersed--Leflyman^Talk 07:55, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• • If you notice the "Awards" and "Characters" section of those listed featured articles, they are attempted differently than that of Lost's sections. This article simply has a list of nominations and wins; this seems to ruin the flow of the overall article. Basically, convert the list, or most of it (similar to Arrested Development's section), into paragraphs. The "Cast and characters" section (which should become just "Characters" with a "Casting" subsection) should also do pretty much the same.

• The list of awards has been compressed into a shortened paragraph, which now follows Ratings. It could actually be expanded slightly, now that the new Emmy nominations have come out, but I'll leave that to the discretion of other editors. I've not yet looked at converting the cast section into prose; I'm hesitant to tackle it, as Lost features such a exceptionally large cast, and I'm not as familiar with how the series was cast as perhaps some others.

• • Per lead section guidelines, the lead section should contain more paragraphs. For a show of high universal caliber like Lost (or at least the size of the Lost article demonstrates that), there can definitely be more to the lead section than as of now.

• The "background" section has been combined with the initial paragraph, as they naturally flowed into each other.

• • There are two citations needed that, well, need citing.

• Not any more :) The unverifiable one has been removed, and the other cited; a new one has shown up, which I hope the editor who added it will provide a source for.

• • "The streaming of Lost episodes via ABC's website is currently only available to viewers in the United States"
    "In issue #6 of Marvel's current The Thing series..."
    "The Canadian punk/rock group Moneen features a song on their new album The Red Tree ..."
    -- These phrases do not heed Wikipedia's Manual of Style in that they contain words ("currently", "current", "new") signifying an unspecific time. The words in the first and third phrases can simply be deleted, although I am not knowledgeable about the time stance on the second statement.
  • Moreover, the extensive use of "new" needs to be deprecated.

• I've removed or altered the relative-time specific words in the above; however some uses of "new" are unavoidable, such as in "fellow new series", "new television distribution methods", "new episodes".

• • Put a space between these two sentences: "The trial, expected to last from May to June 2006, has caused a stir among network affiliates who fear being cut out of advertising revenue.The streaming of Lost episodes via ABC's website is currently only available to viewers in the United States."

• Done.

• • For the "In the news" subsection in "Lost in popular culture":
    • When did Numbers air? At least, state what year it premiered, depending on...

• Done.

• • • Did this happen after the U.S. airing, the U.K., etc.?
    • "many people" is non-NPOV.

• How many qualify as "many"? Actually, I think the original wording was "numerous" but that sounded like a bit of a pun.

• • • The reference for "by October, thousands had tried them for the multi-state Powerball lottery" does not support the statement made and renders "thousands" a hyperbolic number.

• Powerball is played in 27 states (and Washington, DC). The 840 figure in the first source is a count of five of the participating states. I added an additional reference with quotes from more states.

• • The "on television" and "on print" subsections should have references for each of its statements; this should not be too stressing as the "references" are technically in the statements theirselves.

• I'm not sure I agree here with the need to have a citation for every single statement, as including a particular broadcast date or issue number, is the reference in and of itself. Having said that, I did add a reference to the Thing #6. This article already has significantly more footnote references (57 at last count) than nearly any other similar one. (Compare to Doctor Who with 16, or West Wing (TV series) with 32.)

• • Per WP:MOS#Headings, headings generally should not repeat the title of the article.
  • The category "Lost" should probably be higher in the category list, should it not?
  • "Lost's pilot episode was the most expensive in the network's history, reportedly costing between $10 and $14 million." --Put "USD" into the price part of the sentence.

• Done.

• • Per WP:WIAFA, this article's table of contents seems too long. In my opinion, I suggest editors should make a "Themes and other characteristics" section or similiar (like Arrested Development's page) and place the items from "Episode structure", "Thematic motifs" and "Mythology" into the section; "Filming location" might also be able to enter the section, but it can stay put probably. Also consider changing the "Thematic motifs" title into "Symbolism", "Use of symbology", etc. However, you can also use summary style to create subpages for "Thematic motifs" and "Mythology" (these two seem to be more than begging for it), then create a succinct paragraph or two for the sections on the original Lost article.

• I'm not so sure the TOC is actually "too long" -- as stated at WP:WIAFA, an article should have "a substantial but not overwhelming table of contents", which I believe this TOC to be. I'm partial to "Thematic motifs" as a heading, since that term more accurately describes the usage of such elements in the story -- plus, the section does not describe "symbolism" and would teeter even further into Original Research, if it were reoriented to "explain" what the supposed symbols might be. The language there is carefully construed to try to be as neutral to making claims as possible. A subpage for the Thematic Motifs might not be a bad idea; however a fear of many long-term editors would be that (like so many of Lost's sub-pages) a purely "theoretic" article would become an even greater magnet for fancruft -- we already have to regularly prune the latest speculative injections by well-meaning fans. (See the extensive discussions at Talk:Lost (TV series).

• • A few references need inline citations.
  • Remember that the Nielsen Ratings used are not spot on (far from it). For the most part, the article notes that, except for "Lost's second season premiere was even stronger: pulling over 23 million viewers, setting a series record." A better reference might be able to clarify this statement.

• I'm with you on the Nielsen's not being an accurate measure, however, it's the one that is accepted by the industry and media, and is the basis of advertising revenue-- until someone can figure out a better/more exact method of counting viewership, the Nielsen numbers are the ones we have to go by.

• • "Discredited theories" needs to be deprecated or placed into "Mythology".

• It was included to recognize that Lost generates a great deal of speculation. Initially, some editors attempted to include examples of fan theories, which we removed as (obviously) original research. The section is a compromise to provided sources debunking some of the more outlandish theories, which were specifically brought up by the series' creative team.

• • The placement of the sections hurt its flow. My suggestion (which also takes the previous comments into account) is to go for: Background, Characters, Season synopses, Filming location, Distribution, Music, Themes and other characteristics, Ratings, Awards, Licensed merchandise, In other media, In popular culture, References and External links.

• I moved the sections to improve the flow, specifically because some fans are afraid of "spoilers" (which includes cast lists). Hence, the first section is information about the series, as a whole: it's creation, ratings, locations, etc. This is followed with information about the story: characters, themes, mythology. The Popular culture, merchandising, etc. are left for the end, as it is more in keeping with "trivia" (which it might be noted this article does not include a separate section for.)

• Thank you, those are all great comments; I have some minor disagreements with some of the suggestions, but I'll leave that to other editors for input.--Leflyman^Talk 01:46, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for adhering to most of my comments and suggestions and I can understand your disagreements--that's fine, I'm not a stickler. Slof 22:06, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, Andy _t 00:37, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would be grateful for comments on this page which has had a lot of work done on it, in particular to remove the peacock words which made it sound like a "tourist brochure" and to sort out a consistent use of English and Scientific names for fish, birds etc. A couple of people have suggested it should be put forward for a featured article but I'd really appreciate your comments first.Rod 14:13, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The introduction is a bit short, generally they should be two or three paragraphs summarising the main points of the article. There are external links spread throughout the page that should probably be at the end. Unless everything in the article is based on those two books in the bibliography, you should cite sources (WP:CITE). Joe D (t) 14:25, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Some ideas:

• create a section covering the ecological interest of the lake, and place all info on that subject there
• create a heading for "leisure use" and then make all the various section headings (birdwatching, fishing etc) subheading of that
• go to English Nature's Nature on the Map site, where you can find the SSSI citation sheet - this will give you lots of info, particularly on the lake's biodiversity, which could be added
• The CVLBirding website also has lots of good info on the lake's wildlife which you could plunder
• Eliminate redlinks - a stub article on Ernest Greenfield is better than nothing at all
• I personally like OS grid refs cited as close to the start of the article as poss - see Cheddar Reservoir for a suggested style.

More as & when I think of them SP-KP 19:00, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the useful comments. I've expanded the introductory paagraph a bit - do you think this is enough? I've improved the grid ref as suggested & put it in the into. I'm not sure about an ecology section & a leisure use section as surely information on fishing will be relevant in both sections. I will go & find the SSSI sheet & take another look at CVLBirding. Thanks again & keep em coming Rod 20:29, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Some more ideas:

• You could include a list of the location names at the lake e.g. bays, islands etc. CVL Birding has a guide to these, I think
• A list of rare vagrant birds recorded over the years would be of interest - CVL Birding can help with that too
• There is a Chew Conservation Committee and a Chew Biodiversity Action Plan. Bristol Water should be able to provide more info about these
• The publication Natural History of the Chew Valley By Rowland Janes has lots of good info about the lake (local libraries will have a copy)
• Maybe something about public transport routes which pass by the lake?

SP-KP 20:26, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've tried to do many of the edits suggested including rearranging the sections etc. I've also asked other with local knowledge to help. I've asked for permission to use a map which shows the differnt areas, bird hides etc. I've also tried to do an info box table thing + map showing the location but it's not very good (my first attempt at this) could anyone help?Rod 00:03, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Great work. One thing to note - if permission is given regarding the map, make sure that permission-giver understands the nature of Wikipedia's licensing, otherwise the image could be deleted by admins. User:Jimfbleak can tell you about this subject. SP-KP 00:18, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK, having taken a better look at the page it seems there is very little about the construction, and that paragraphs that are about the construction are actually more about things like the prior archaeological surveys. Should mention things like compulsory purchases and who actually built it (the picture suggests it was Bristol Waterboard Co.). Is the dam concrete, earth or both? Joe D (t) 03:14, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Following your comments about construction, I've gone back to the books & added the construction company, compulsory purchases (act of parliament), & concrete & clay construction - hope it all makes sense Rod 20:25, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's exactly the sort of thing I was thinking of, thanks. Joe D (t) 00:57, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think this article needs a local map to illustrate the areas of the lake, where bird hides, bridges, access points are etc. I have sent requests to the owners of the maps at: [1] and [2] to ask if these could be used but had no response. I don't have the knowledge/software to do this & wondered if anyone else could help? Rod 11:11, 30 January 2006 (UTC) If this page is going to be Deleted, please move discussions to the Battle of the Thousand Islands talk page. Thanks! Mike McGregor (Can) 16:38, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I Just finished up the main body of this article on a relitivly small engagemet of the French and Indian War. I'm hopeing a peer review will bring some suggestions on how the article can be improved and hopfully bring some more info on the subject. I'd like to see more info on some of the personalities that don't have they're own page to link to, and some more detail on how the battle developed...Mike McGregor (Can) 18:13, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The article looks good to me. I have made some minor formatting corrections. Maybe it could be expanded with the importance of this battle within the war. JoaoRicardo^talk 16:21, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Update to inline citations would be needed before FAC. Some external links and more pictures would be nice (a map!). And while nice, it is rather short.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 00:55, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A map would go a long way towards providing a better sense as to where are of the landmarks referenced in the article are located. Though it is not in itself something that will keep the article from becoming Featured, there are plenty of "red links", which is particularly frustrating since many of them refer to places and there's no links or map to reference them against. The article is also on the short side; suggest adding more info as to the events and preparation that led to the battle, more info on the context of this battle in general to the Battles of the French and Indian War (some possible ideas: was this the only naval engagement? why was this battle so one-sided? are there any interesting archeological studies of the battle area and did they find anything new?) You might also want to investigate some additional online sources of info to flesh out the article further. Good job though! Captmondo 15:06, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There's a map by Puochot that i've seen in a couple of books that would be useful if i could find an electronic copy. Thomas Davies apparently also has a map detailing Amherst's route: [3] does any one know how I would go about getting a scaned electronic copy of this? is it free? it would be Public Domain correct?Mike McGregor (Can) 16:11, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Since the map was created in the late 1700s, it should fall under the rules of Public Domain, which is basically the end of the author's life plus 70-100 years, depending on the country of origin. Getting a scan of it is another thing entirely—though you might want to see if it appears in one of the historical map listings you can find under External References under Map. And though I can't currently track it down, I believe there is a place somewhere on Wikipedia where you can request others to make a relevant map for you. Hope that helps a bit! Captmondo 16:20, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

---

I think this is a very good article. I am not familar with warfare in this era. Giving some historical warfare context section would help modern readers, but I do not have a good suggestion and that topic needs its own article. You can see my specific questions Wendell 20:10, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• The seige last 5 days, from 19/20 August til 24 August. How could a small fort with wooden stockades, five cannons and 200 soldiers hold out for 5 days, against 50+ British guns? Especially when British "hot shot" started fires within the fort? Bravey? Strong defensive position?
• Where there any ground engagements (assaults) from 20 august til 25 August? I gather no, since the British casualties are so small.
• If 375 out of 400 French forces were killed or wounded, why did the seige not end until Pouchot ran out of ammunition for his guns and asked for terms?
• Where any men within rifle range? (Again a map would help) What is the relative range of rifles vs guns in this era?

The fort would have been in range of cannon fire but the "rifles" (actually muskets) had an effective range of just 100 or 200 meters. A small fort could take a pounding from cannon and hold out (a) because the cannon were relatively small field pieces being dragged by an army operating in a wilderness area and from small boats and (b) because the wooden palisades of this type of fort could easily be fixed in lulls in the bombardment. Lafarge Dodger 22:48, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Self-nomination What I believe is a thorough article on a now-defunct institution, the McLaughlin Planetarium in Toronto. Extensive references (done in the new Wikipedia style) plus an annotated image of the planetarium projector model that was used, and "before" and "after" images. ;-) I have covered off all that I can find about this planetarium in my researches. Comments welcome! Captmondo 04:51, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• I think this is a very impressive article, and it is fortunate that someone has taken the time to put this on Wikipedia, given that this building may not be with us much longer (and its use as a planetarium has already started to fade from our collective memory). I went ahead and made a few minor edits (typos, punctuation, etc.) rather than listing them here. My only substantive comment is that I find the footnotes to be very intrusive and distracting -- I would prefer that numbers, rather than words, be used to indicate footnotes in the body of the article. But that's just my own personal view, and others may disagree. Otherwise, great article. Skeezix1000 17:43, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• • I understand what you are saying with regard to the new footnote formatting. But I gather that this is one of the preferred formats these days, a good example that just made Feature Article status is the article on Paul Kane. I gather the "old" numbered format is still valid, but wanted to keep up to date and switched to this style. I may be wrong and it may be overkill in this case, but we'll see what happens when I push it in the future as a Feature Article Candidate. Thanks for the feedback, and personally, am glad that there is now some decent reference on what was once a notable Toronto landmark. Cheers! Captmondo 19:20, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Nice article. Just three points:
  1. There are several ways of doing references. Numbered references are one possibility, symbolic references (like you used, and like I used on Paul Kane) are another, and the new built-in <ref> mechanism is yet another way of doing it. (See m:Cite/Cite.php.) Which method is used is largely a matter of taste, although numbered references without using <ref> require manual maintenance of the numbered list at the end to make sure the numbers match up with the in-text numbers.
  2. I think the extended discussion of the projector belongs to its own article, maybe at Planetarium projector. As far as I can see, it's a standard planetarium projector as used in many other planetariums world-wide. If it is in some ways a special projector, that should be pointed out.
  3. Was it really from the "Kombinat VEB Carl Zeiss Jena"? If so, it was from Jena, East Germany, not West Germany. (The "Kombinat" is a dead giveaway, you find that only with east-German companies. Also the "VEB" ("VolksEigener Betrieb")). See also [4].
• Lupo 10:01, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Lupo for the critique. The company name is correct, so I must have been mistaken in attributing it to a West German firm. What you say makes some sense though, as the image of that same model of projector that I used for illustrative purposes is from a planetarium from a formerly East Bloc country. The projector was not in itself unique, but it was (so I gather) one of the better ones of its generation, and modern planetaria use a different technology, much less reliant on mechanics. But I take your point, and will move some of more technical details to a new Planetarium projector entry as you suggest. (Incidentally, I found in my general researches on the McLaughlin Planetarium, this article, which would seem to be a good starting point in terms of general background information on this subject). And as for the references, I think I will keep them as is, since it is not wrong/broken. Thank you for your comments—much appreciated! Captmondo 18:33, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Done! The Planetarium projector is basically an extended stub, but will work on that and build it up over the next little while. I have found sufficient references to build that article into something (hopefully) of comparable quality to this one. Captmondo 19:34, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I am requesting WP:PR for this article not so much in an attempt for FAC, but because I feel it needs more focused NPOV input both from those within and without the topic area (scientific theory and experimentation, especially on controversial subjects). The article seems to be in a stable (though abrogated) state for now, but earnest disputes continue. - Keith D. Tyler ¶ 18:43, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes it is quite short. Her biographical background is quite terse; there is nothing about her family or background influences she might have had that led her to this practice. I think that by presenting both points of view, the debate concerning her test could be expanded without damaging the neutrality. Is she still continuing her readings while attending the university? Thanks. — RJH 16:00, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• I currently find it neutral. However, the article can be significantly expanded and as that happens POVs will emerge. Here are two other csicop articles [5] and [6] to help that expansion out. --maclean25 08:56, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am not nominating this for a FA per se. I'm just interested if it will hold up to a broader perspective. JaKaL! 19:55, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Is this a generic name for an object, or is it a product produced by a specific company? If the latter, this needs to be made clear, and it will need to cite some outside sources, not produced by that company, that discuss the product. CDC (talk) 23:24, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is the name for a specific product. I am searching for outside sources from the Departments of Transportations that are using this unit currently. Once I have found this information, I will edit the article and post to this page. Would it be best to internally cite the documents, or is it sufficient to attach them in the links? I have edited the article to (hopefully) resolve the first issue mentioned. Please let me know if there's more that needs to be done to resolve the ambiguity. JaKaL! 14:14, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That helps, thanks. On sources: If this is a notable product, it has probably been reviewed in a trade publication read by traffic managers or engineers. A large academic or public library would have such a thing. Cite reviews specifically, if they say anything interesting. This is critical; without this kind of external review, the article reads like the datasheet or technical marketing materials produced by the product's maker. On that note, the bulleted points in the Performance and Power Supply sections probably aren't necessary; a few key points from them could be included in paragraph form, but I don't think it's necessary to say what kind of batteries this thing uses.

To be honest, in my opinion the most useful way to cover this topic for our readers would be to include it as part of a larger discussion of this type of traffic counter, or traffic counters in general. There are probably other similar devices, with only relatively small technical variations. I notice that traffic counter is a red link right now. CDC (talk) 18:10, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• To make the article more encyclopedic, tell the reader about its origins (when/why/where it was developed), and more about the data output (screenshot of results graphs, what have the results used for - in real life, not theory). Also, CDC makes some excellent suggestions above. It appears the article was written from info obtained from the external links listed in the article, in which case those are "References". "External links" simply list further suggested readings. --maclean25 20:32, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This article is really detailed for such an obscure topic. I haven't contributed to the article at all, at least content-wise. I just happened to stumble upon it wandering through the Wikipedia. It has references, pictures with acceptable copyright status, and all the requirements to be a Featured Article, with one problem- the article's main (and probably sole) editor, appears to be a German speaker, and therefore the article needs a thorough copy-edit and grammar check, which I unfortunately do not have time to do myself. I am fairly fluent in German, so I can finish translating the picture description pages, which are left in untranslated German, but the English grammar copy-edit is beyond the slim time I have available. Please help! This is an awesome article and could realistically be an FA within a month. RyanGerbil10 22:55, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Not to bad, I enjoyed reading the article. One thing I did notice though: Image:Finnmark coa.png has no source information. This concerns me because it is listed as copyrighted. Unless a source for the image can be provided the picture will end up deleted sooner or later, and may prevent the article from acheiving featured status. TomStar81 05:52, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • As it turns out, the coat of arms did have acceptable copyright status, the picture was simply using an outdated copyright tag. I have updated to copyright tag to one of acceptable legal status. RyanGerbil10 03:34, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is a self-nomination. About two weeks ago, a newbie to Wikipedia nominated this for featured article prior to any peer reviews, references, etc., and the article rightly failed. (A bit of that discussion can be found here [[7]]). As Collins is my favorite singer, I didn't like having that fail mark appear at the top of the talk page and spent the weekend fixing it up, listening to the suggestions made during the original nomination, adding references and deleting questionable material. As such, I would like to submit it for peer review.

The original article had no references and over half the page was a long list of albums, band members, etc. (See here [[8]] for the article at time of the original nomination). Now that it is clean and referenced, I would appreciate any suggestions on how to improve the article further. As well, I would like another pair of eyes to review it for any spelling/grammar mistakes as well as to ensure NPOV.

Thanks in advance.

--Ataricodfish 16:51, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I also enjoy Phil Collins. I like what you;ve done to the article--its really an article now. When i first viewed the page the picture was surprising. I think that the info on the page could be ordered differently, like start out with Child Hood, which you did, but then put all of his music career in one place, rather than jumping around. I think that it should be cleaned up a bit, its filled with a bunch of paragraphs. Furtheremore, there is a gap between his childhood and music career, might wanna fill it in. Other than that great job on the article! I'll see if i can fix any grammar, spelling. Nominaladversary 23:02, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nominal, thanks so much for the suggestions. I was torn with how to set up the music section, and had kept with the original theme of Intro, Genesis, Solo, but I see your point with making it chronological. Do you think it would work best if the category was "Music" and put into years, i.e. 1970-75, 1975-1980, etc.? That probably would work, as I've seen it done on other pages, and I might try some samples of that. I played with the whole childhood thing, and if you compare prior edits, you can see I've moved his time in the band Flaming Youth all over the place trying to find a more appropriate location. I might switch childhood to "Childhood and Early Career", considering he was 18-19 in Flaming Youth and 19-20 when he joined Genesis. Finally, I removed the South Park information you mentioned on the Talk: Phil Collins page. I didn't like it either, and was waiting for someone to comment before I deleted it. Thanks again for your suggestions! I'll play with the article some more to make it more chronological. --Ataricodfish 03:27, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nominal, I tried playing with the years idea, and it doesn't work well. As Collins never left Genesis, it's difficult to make both chronological (it's not like John Lennon and The Beatles, or just about any other music group whose lead singer has a solo career, where there are two distinct periods of time). However, I have dissolved the "Other Projects" section into the rest of the article, so that part doesn't jump around any more (That had gone from 1969 to 1996 in a few paragraphs, but now it flows better).--Ataricodfish 07:34, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• According to the criteria I've come up with here, this article fails:

Lead: 2, 4

Comprehensiveness: 3, 4

Sales: 2 (something outside US/UK?)

Pictures: 1, 2

Audio: 1, 2, 3, 4

References: 1, 3, 4

Discography: Appears to meet them all, though consider adding at least some singles (maybe Top Ten only)

Format/Style: 4 (basically good, but needs copyedit, further reading section ought to be a list, consider doing something about "urban legend" section)

• Tuf-Kat 21:49, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tuf, Thank you for your review. This list has been most helpful. I will try to note my changes here, and request your advice in regards to pictures.

LEAD: I considerably expanded the lead to include major awards, brief history, etc., while keeping it within 5 paragraphs. I haven't changed the photo yet, which I will address below.

Looks good.

Cool, thank you.

COMPREHENSIVENESS: I think I have a great deal in the article except for the critical/praise section. Critics seem to hate him, yet he still wins awards. It's a paradox which I don't know if I could write without a musical background and without showing point of view.

Try searching for reviews and such that characterize his style (negatively and positively). Consider consolidating a number of opinions, cited to those who believe them, and putting them in a section or two near the top. The section can include style, influences, critical reception and the like.

I will begin some work on this, finding reviews in Rolling Stone, etc. This will take a little more work, and will update as I move along with this.

SALES: I found a press release, and referenced this, as to his total solo sales. The discography, in an older edition, originally included unsourced sales information which contradicted the article, so I got rid of it all. I did find RIAA information for the single sales and sourced that in the discography.

Looks adequate now, though he's mainstream enough, you ought to at least make a good effort to find some more countries' charts to represent. Canada, Australia, Germany, Japan, etc -- not a requirement, but worth looking at.

I'm going to put this on the backburner for now, as I am satisfied with how the page currently looks for sales information, but I hope to add other countries as I obtain the information.

PICTURES: I'm confused with what to do here. I had pictures and someone took them off recently citing me with copyright violations. However, I used official promotional photographs from Collins official website and provided more copyright information than the photos that were left on. Although I can understand that the childhood picture might have questionable copyright (although its one of the few photos his biography does not supply copyright information) and won't argue that, I don't understand why [[9]] and [[10]] were taken off since they're marked as promotional on the website and, especially the first photo, is used regularly on Allmusic.com, Billboard.com, etc. without references. I would like to use [[11]] and, if the BBC photo can't be used, then one of the other promotional photographs on the site. I obtained the promotional photos from [official site], and they're marked promotional. I properly sourced the photographs, which I learned from similiar photographs on The Beatles featured article; [[12]] & [[13]] are two examples. Am I doing something wrong using promotional photographs and providing the source?

I really don't know much about the details of copyright law, but as I understand it, "promo photo" as a fair use justification only applies to photos that actually come from a press kit. In any case, Collins is famous enough that it might be possible to find a fansite with a photo or two the webmaster would be willing to freely license. If he's ever performed at a USO show or other wise for the American military, you can try a .gov or .mil search and maybe find a public domain photo. The photos you've got now are probably justifiable as fair use, but they need a rationale, specific to their use on the article Phil Collins, explaining why they qualify as fair use.

Hmm, that probably won't work. I don't believe Collins ever performed for the US military/gov't (at least, my search couldn't find anything), and some photos I found on British .gov sites have copyright notices and links to the holders on them, so they're no good. As for contacting a webmaster for photos, that won't work well, either. I used to run a website, and I obtained my photos by going to the official websites and obtaining promo ones, much like I did here before being marked for copyright violation. I might use photographs from the albums themselves as a temp solution until another solution can be found.

Still no luck obtaining photographs. I'm currently writing to both the official website and the record label to see if I could obtain any official photographs for the site. Hopefully, in the meantime, someone else could upload a photograph which falls within standards.--Ataricodfish 21:29, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

AUDIO: I'm trying to avoid personally adding audio to the site, after all those RIAA lawsuits across the US. But I agree that Audio would be a nice addition.

Well, I wouldn't support it as a FA without some sound samples, but maybe someone else would be willing to upload them if you make the rest of the article excellent.

Reviewing the Wiki policy, and having seen 30 second samples on tons of websites, I have uploaded 30 second samples which I believe would be appropriate into the main article. The songs range from his first as lead singer of Genesis through his most recent solo single, five songs in total, modeled after the format in the Marilyn Manson featured article. I believe the audio requirement should be satisfied now.--Ataricodfish 21:07, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

REFERENCES: I've cleaned this section up MAJORLY. The references are now in order and were modeled after the references on the site you provided [[14]].

Try making a separate "references" section with each source listed once, and then a distinct notes section for page numbers and the like. A couple print sources that are not biographies would be very nice as well, such as general treatments of rock or pop or British music or whathaveyou -- I might be able to help with that.

I will work on this next.

DISCOGRAPHY: I was confused with this comment, as you said I should add singles information, but this was already there. I have recently added RIAA cert information for the singles, also.

The singles are in Phil Collins discography, but since he's a pop artist whose most famous recordings are probably more singles than albums, there ought to be some kind of list of his most well-known songs in the Phil Collins article. I suggest just those singles which charted in the Top Ten or something similar (aim for about a dozen or so of his most famous songs, selected along an objective criterion).

Ah, I understand now. I have put Collins UK and US #1 songs on the main page. The problem with Top 10, 20, 40, etc. is that Collins had a large number of hit singles, and I'm trying to avoid the "list" feel which the article previously had.

FORMAT/STYLE: I changed the "further reading" section to a list, as recommended, and cleaned up the "urban legend" section a little bit. I'm doing proofreading here and there as I find it, but I think my eyes have begun to grow used to my writing and I'll probably need more independent eyes.

The "Other Projects" section makes the layout confusing, since it jumps around. I suggesting integrating into it into a single biography section. And I really think the whole urban legend section should be merged into the article on the song, and a link with a sentence or two description in this article. The "Band" suggestion ought not be a list, I think, since there's a separate article anyway. Either write a couple paragraphs about his bandmates have changed over time, and how that has affected his sound, or just work a link somewhere into the lead. On copyediting, see the specific suggestions on the Featured Music Project page, I note some passive voice ("Collins was asked by", "songs have largely been forgotten"), movies not in quotes, sentences overly long ("Still, it appeared that Collins’ grasp on the pop charts had begun to weaken"). Try looking at each sentence and trying to make each one more concise. Tuf-Kat 06:31, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I got rid of much of the passive voice in my most recent review, and tried eliminating redundent words (I saw I used "also" a lot), so I think the article is much "tighter" now. I moved the "Other Projects" into other sections, as Nominal above also commented on this, and deleted the "Urban Legend" part as much of it overlapped the In the Air Tonight article. The format is much better now, and once the comprehensive part is completed, I think the article will be ready.--Ataricodfish 06:55, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again so much for the review, and I hope you could answer my questions in regards to the pictures! --Ataricodfish 05:44, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fremantle Prison is a world heritage site with an extensive and interesting history. The article has been edited by a prison tour guide currently employed at the prison and has benefited by the many great facts and images donated by this Wikipedia editor with lots of personal knowledge of the site. Many other editors have also contributed their knowledge to bring this article to where it stands today. Any feedback on how we may improve this article in an attempt to gain featured status is welcome. -- Longhair 08:17, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Lead should be longer. AndyZ 20:52, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• I am glad a tour guide helped with this. First-hand knowledge of a subject really adds a special level of understanding that you just cannot get from reading books. Here are some specific comments:
  • I would like to know more about its origin.
  • what does "transportation ceased" mean? Does this refer to the transferring of prisoners from Britain to Fremantle?
  • "The water was of very good quality..." is an opinion so it needs a reference.
  • Avoid empty sections like "History" and "Prison operation".
  • A floor layout plan would be nice.
  • The "1900s" and "Prison art" are weak, they could use some discussion/details.
  • Here are some resources that may help with further writing: Section A.2.2.2, [15] and [16]. I suspect there would be many books in an Austrailian library that could help immensely. --maclean25 08:39, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good, but it's "too short". Try to expand it - double the current size would be nice.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 02:10, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A controversial subject related to Scientology. Following a recent rewrite, the article is looking much healthier and much better referenced, with 80 footnotes (!). I'd like to get it up to Featured Article status in due course. It would be very helpful if anyone could take a look and see whether there are any issues that need to be addressed. -- ChrisO 23:55, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It looks pretty good to me; thorough and reasonably balanced. But I was a little unpleasantly surprised to see Campbell, Williamson and Van Vogt mixed up with that stuff. — RJH 23:44, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just revised and added to this article. Still have a ways to go; just looking for comments. Thank you. Fergananim 01:36, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The bit about how his name should be pronounced doesn't need its own section - I'd use either a sentence in the intro or a footnote for this. I prefer it when years aren't wikified but don't think there's any policy on this. File:Yemen flag large.png CTOAGN (talk) 15:42, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've had another look at the article and don't think it's ready for PR; it doesn't meet the "nearly FA standard" criterion at the top of the page. It could do with some sources for "...should be written and pronounced as Rury" and "...believed to..." (both times). At the moment it reads more like a story than an encyclopaedia article: phrases like "...treated so gingerly..." and "not believed to have had any issue" seem a bit weird to me, unless they're common phrases in Ireland in which case by all means keep them in. File:Yemen flag large.png CTOAGN (talk) 15:59, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This article is pretty comprehensive I think but I'd like to get another pair of eyes here. Asdfwiki 00:36, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• It really does look like some wikification needs to take place; needs more wiki-links. AndyZ 01:09, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• I did some copyediting and added some comments to various parts when I had questions after reading the article. Seems like an interesting game! Scott Ritchie 07:05, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My fellow writers at Wikipedia:WikiProject Tropical cyclones have agreed this is a good article, and suggested that it be put up for peer review before a possible featured article candidacy. I consider it to be extremely complete for an event this long ago, but I'd appreciate any feedback, particularly on issues I might not have noticed. Jdorje 03:04, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Lead could be improved and increased in length slightly. AndyZ 23:01, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• • Done. Jdorje 00:05, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a particularly great article, but it has been improving incrementally for some while—getting better organized, more fully referenced, etc. The talk page tells a history of obscure quarrels and opaque debates (which, if you're familiar with Pynchon himself, may seem oddly fitting). Right now, I'd just like to attract a few fresh brains and see if a new perspective or two could be helpful.

Be seeing you. Anville 21:12, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• I would suggest improving and increasing the size of the lead, given the size of the article. AndyZ 23:02, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good point. I'll get to it, in my copious free time. (-; Anville 20:23, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm rather fond of this article about an interesting figure in Indonesian anti-colonial history. I'll be interested in suggestions - any parts that need more (or less) context in order to be understandable? Suggestions for improving the prose? Thanks! CDC (talk) 23:44, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• It is a good article. Some potential points of improvement could include:
  • making the narrative details more balanced in terms of level of detail. Many of the early sections are very broad in scope while some of the middle sections give details of the subject's experiences.
  • A couple more images would be nice.
  • More context of his autobiography would be good, like how it has been interpreted and used by scholars or how long it took him to write.
  • "the death toll from sickness and starvation was very high." might need a reference.
  • To make the headings parallel switch "From Jail to Jail" to "Autobiography"...so it goes "Biography", "Political beliefs", "Autobiography" . --maclean25 22:07, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your suggestions! They're much appreciated, especially the note about the uneven levels of detail; a similar thing had occurred to me, so if someone else noticed it, maybe I should fix that.. Images are tough - there's just not much out there. I've been considering a map giving an overview of the key locations of his life, as a way of illustrating his wanderings. CDC (talk) 23:09, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've been working on expanding this article for the past week or so, and would like comments on it. I'm thinking of nominating it as a FAC sometime in the future. Scott⁵¹¹⁴ 19:12, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• If you are thinking about nominating if for FAC, then the following at least should be done:
  • Expansion of lead
  • Expansion of history: has anything else significant happened at the turnpike?
  • Use inline citations to cite the distances used
  • Provide some of the km #s for some of the mile #s (this is done for most, but is missing for some)
  • I would suggest changing external link to external links even though there is only 1; but it is just a matter of preference for now
  • Needs still to be made more thorough AndyZ 20:52, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• The primary problem the article would face with an FAC nomination at this time is questions about the completeness. This is admittedly a subjective measure but the article currently looks to be somewhat skimpy. Some things that that could be added to the article to help are the posted speed limits on the turnpike, where are rest spots located, and do they provide any types of facilities (restrooms, gas stations, ...). What type of construction wass used on the Turnpike (Is is an asphalt surface or concrete)? Are there any points of interest such as historical markers or turnouts with scenic views along the turnpike? The article should also provide some information on the Kansas Turnpike Authority such as the number of employees, is it part of the state government or a seperate entity, and the names of senior executives. Good luck on your efforts to bring this up to Featured Article status. --Allen3 ^talk 23:43, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• As pointed out above, the article can be more comprehensive. In addition to the suggestions above I would like to add these potential aspects:
  • maps (this is possibly the way to describe a road - the location map in Kansas is a good start but it needs a legend and a north arrow).
  • For the "History" section, who built it in 22 months? private sector? Who paid for it? feds, state, or private money?
  • For "Tolls", how do they know how far each car has driven?
  • Also, the "Exit list" table is rather large, it might be best to put that last so the sections that follow do not get missed. --maclean25 19:44, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is on PR for an unprecedented 3rd time (1 | 2). Since the last PR, it has undergone substantial change, not in the content, but in the style of writing and summary. Please give your comments on how it can be imrpoved. --May the Force be with you! Shreshth91^{(review me!)} 15:36, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• The most glaring thing I see is that the whole section "Critical analysis" has no citation at all except a silly one to the Jessica Lal case. Unless you cite it, it is incredibly POV. In general, I see a dearth of citations. You have obviously taken the effort to get all this stuff from somewhere. Why not cite the source? — Ravikiran 17:32, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You wouldn't say there was a dearth of citations on the rest of the page now would you? I'll be look ing into the critical analysis section soon.--May the Force be with you! Shreshth91^{(review me!)} 15:42, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Done! --May the Force be with you! Shreshth91^{(review me!)} 11:08, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nice, well written article that I think is headed for FA status. McNeight 03:19, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please this is sooo not ready for peer review yet ... i've got a massive (like a 75kb+ larger version) article revamp in the works currently.  ALKIVAR™ 10:10, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not in mainspace you mean?--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 02:09, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm doing it on my personal wikiserver ... I will do a cut and paste move to wikipedia when i'm done with it :)  ALKIVAR™ 22:39, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

---

What is the status of this article? Is it the correct version to review? Wendell 03:54, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I guess we can review this version... i can copy any improvements over to my version and relist for peer review once my integrated rewrite is done.  ALKIVAR™ 22:03, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Previous peer review: Wikipedia:Peer review/Animania/archive1

It's been a while since the last peer review, the article has undergone a little change since then, I've added one image (still yet to trawl through the photos taken this year to see if there's anything usable), and I'd like to see this article moved as close to Good Article (at least) as possible. Besides the lack of images, the only main concern was a lack of pages linking in, and unfortunately without spamming I'm not sure how many articles I could validly add a link in.

In particular, I'd like to know which GA criterion the article currently passes, and which it fails (I appreciate that there's a lack of reliable sources, although I wouldn't mind being told where I might look for more). Confusing Manifestation 01:06, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Ruhrfisch 02:41, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This article is already pretty good, but it has no references, and also needs some cleanup and a few redlinks fixed/removed. --Janke | Talk 18:12, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It looks pretty good, but could use some appropriate references using {{ref}}/{{note}} tags. Some comments:

• I see the article carries history commentary throughout the text rather than having a separate history section. But in this case I think it works.
• The "scales and gauges" could do with an explanation of how the guage naming scheme came to be. Also the use of guages throughout the text precedes the actual explanation. Maybe you could move the "scales and gauges" section near the top and put the long table under its own section?
• The sentence, "Some older scale models reach very high prices", in the general description, is out dangling on its own. It could use some expansion and maybe a percentage comparison. (Plus a reference.)
• Finally I'm tempted to suggest moving the list of manufacturers near the end to its own page, but I'm not 100% on that. I do think they could do with some brief comments about the guages and trains they support, or some such thing.

Thanks. — RJH

Self-nom, at the urging of others. Ultimate plan is to head for Wikipedia:Featured list status, but could do with some input before I head thatwaywards. The Tom 22:15, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The article is too short. Most of the page is taken up by the massive table. The title of the article is spelled wrong...:-P. It could do with a strong input by other.Nominaladversary 22:37, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nice table. You could perhaps link the many word found for some of the countries to the relevant 'Politics of' for that country (or list of parties page for that country if it exists). For example: Politics_of_Armenia#Political parties and leaders CheekyMonkey 13:05, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Big table. Look at it with different screen resolutions and browser text sizes. It does not fit on the screen in some settings (including mine). Width must be set to 100% or <600px. Also, expand the intro to discuss what being a pancontinental organisation means to a political party. What is the point of being pancontinental? Advantages/disadvantages? Also, references are a requirement for featured status. Perhaps a simple link to each party's website will be adequate. If the references get too long try formatting it as a paralell list like Kerala#References. --maclean25 10:22, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• This is very informative, but the table is just way too large. I would suggest this data needs to be broken down by region, and displayed in a series of tables with countries along the top side and the pancontinental organizations running on the left side.--Pharos 13:05, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • That breaks the left-right effect, and eliminates the ability of someone to quickly scan to see what the "equivalent" party is between country x and country y The Tom 16:27, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm refiling a peer review for this article. We started a sort of cleanup drive a few months ago in order to improve it, and the article has really come a long way. Many editors have done a lot of work on it. I'd like some response to how well the article shapes up, and what needs to be fixed (I'm already looking into the {{fact}} parts). Thanks. The ikiroid (talk·desk·Advise me) 22:25, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Remove the "For a treatment of the English language using the IPA..." paragraph from the lead. It's irrelevant to a general article on the International Phonetic Alphabet.
  • Done. It's mentioned in the nav template anyway. The ikiroid (talk·desk·Advise me) 18:18, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• History section is too short. I think it should also adress a few of the most important revisions, for example the 1989 one. Also, the most recent addition (labiodental flap) could be mentioned (it is only alluded to in some footnotes).
  • I added more info to this. It was a little sloppy, but the section was quickly cleaned up by User:Skal and a few others. The ikiroid (talk·desk·Advise me) 18:18, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• I think this article would also need to cover the policy governing changes and additions to the IPA. It is my understanding that linguists can propose new symbols (on the basis of their own research), and that these proposals subsequently are voted on by the IPA Council. However, any details are unknown to me, and it would be nice if this article covered this procedure.
• The section on Educational initiatives seems very vague to me. 'There is some interest' -- where? 'The rationales for such projects' -- it would be better to specifically name some of them. Also, there are some well-known projects based on rationales 1 and 2 (for example the UCLA Archive), but I would be curious to know a project based on the 3rd rationale given ('universal language acquisition').
  • This section was mostly written by a single editor, I'll find them and request references. The ikiroid (talk·desk·Advise me) 18:18, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• The statement "The labiodental nasal [ɱ] is not known to exist as a phoneme in any language." is rightly marked with {{fact}}; in fact, I think Constance Kutsch-Lojenga has argued for its existence in some central African languages she worked on; I'll try to find a reference for that.
  • I'm hiding it with <!--these things--> until we can reference it. The ikiroid (talk·desk·Advise me) 18:18, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• The section on "Unicode and tonal symbols" seems out of place to me. I would expect it in one of our articles on Unicode, but not in our most general article on the IPA. It's too specific.
  • These were originally footnotes, but they were so large that I made them into a seperate section. Perhaps we'll begin migrated a good deal of this info to the correct article. The ikiroid (talk·desk·Advise me) 18:18, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• In "Other phonetic notation" (shouldn't that be notations?), it might also be good to mention a few well-known historical phonetic alphabets, such as Lepsius' Standard Alphabet and Westermann's Africa Alphabet.
  • I am going to create a subsection of "See Also" which shows other phonetic systems. The ikiroid (talk·desk·Advise me) 22:09, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• I must say don't really like the See also's for Dutch and English, especially because both currently are requested to be merged into their respective "X phonology" articles. Besides, why only these two languages?
  • Well, I'm keeping them there until they become merged or whatever happens. IMHO, there should be a few of these articles on different languages. The ikiroid (talk·desk·Advise me) 22:09, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• That'll be all for now. — mark ✎ 08:37, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comments. I can't speak to the content, but the structure needs some improvement. Per WP:LEAD the lead should be 3-4 full paragraphs summarizing the most important facets of the topic. The prose overall is very choppy. Part of this is from the short paragraphs that should either be expanded into a full idea, merged with related material, or removed. Some of the problem is also from having so many lists. Convert lists and bullet points to prose wherever possible — I don't really see any that couldn't be done, the charts already summarize the material that isn't ideal to be in prose. - Taxman ^Talk 14:49, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  User:Ikiroid had asked me for more detail on what the lead should cover, and I'm not sure I can help more specifically. That would have to be handled by those that know the subject well to prioritize what's most important to cover and to summarize the article. The current lead does seem to do that pretty well to me at least. The biggest thing left I can see, as I mentioned above is the flow of the prose throughout the article needs to be improved. - Taxman ^Talk 03:55, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  One thing I think should be added to the lead is a sentence or two on the history, since the lead should function as a short summary of the article per WP:LEAD. — mark ✎ 13:40, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

• Per WP:CONTEXT and WP:MOSDATE, 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 WP:MOSNUM, when doing conversions, please use standard abbreviations: for example, miles -> mi, kilometers squared -> km², and pounds -> lb.
• Please reorder/rename the last few sections to follow guidelines at WP:GTL.
• Please alphabetize the interlanguage links.^[1]
• Per WP:WIAFA, this article's table of contents (ToC) maybe too long- consider shrinking it down by merging short sections or using a proper system of daughter pages as per WP:SS.^[2]
• 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. For example,
  • it has been
  • correctly
  • might be weasel words, and should be provided with proper citations (if they already do, or are not weasel terms, please strike this comment).^[3]
• 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 inbetween. 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 the it exemplifies some of Wikipedia's best work. See also User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 2a. ^[4]

You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, Ruhrfisch 14:21, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• P.S. The footnotes can be found here for now. Ruhrfisch 14:51, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about the poem that is used current by Mexico as their national anthem. This was a fairly decent article, but I added some things to it, added recordings, and trimmed the lyrics down. However, I do ask that before I sent this to FAC, if the following can be checked:

• Accuracy of the article
• Freely licensed photos of anything that will relate to this article, especially for the composer of the musics and lyrics
• Copyright check for the sound files (three in total)

There was a very nice annon who did a grammar check on the article, so the prose looks good, IMHO. Any other suggestions are welcome. Zach ^{(Smack Back) Fair use policy} 07:34, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• It looks alright on a cursory glance. I'll get to the nitpicking later once I get a bit more time. -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ 19:20, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Alright. I've always been wondering if the story of Bocanegra and his girlfriend is actually true. It seems that the period of time he was locked up varies depending upon who's telling the story (I've personally heard accounts giving different times, such as one week). However I have to admit I don't know much else about that particular incident. Also, I'm quite certain the anthem as been shortened at least more than once. IIRC the official version changed during the Revolution and once more when the "Ley sobre el Escudo..." was published although the specifics elude me right now. In any case I'll see what I can do on the references department. I'll query some databases and see what comes up. Stay tuned! -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ 21:29, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There are a few external links (one of which is dead) in the text that should be converted to footnotes. Looks good, though. Gflores ^Talk 05:58, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Which link is dead? User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire) Fair use policy} 06:17, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In the Lyrics competition section. The first external link there is broken. Also, there shouldn't be any such links within the text, only footnotes. Gflores ^Talk 18:35, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, removed. I will try to find another link that states that the contest deadline was 20 days. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire) Fair use policy} 00:12, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Most of this article was written by me and M.C. Brown Shoes. I'd like to get some input about what could be improved in the article, and whether it is comprehensible for someone not as familiar with the band. I guess it is too short to become FA (the band only was around for 9 nine months really), but I'd still like to get this article as good as possible, so pretty much any suggestion is welcome. This article was previously peer reviewed (archived here) in September 2005. --Fritz Saalfeld (Talk) 11:57, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

All articles are eligible for FA status, and this looks like a pretty good one.

Featured Music Project criteria

Lead - looks good, but consider expanding just a bit

Comprehensiveness - looks good, but consider adding more on musical style

Sales - looks good, but consider adding some chart data to the discography section, such as the peak US position

Pictures - 1, 2, 3, 4 (free pics would be good, if possible, and the first pic (in the box) is of very questionable utility -- what does it illustrate? all fair use pics need a fair use rationale specifically aimed at this article)

Audio - looks good, though I suggest adding one or two more (I know they only released one album, but it might be useful to show some variety in their style) and integrating the sample somewhere in the article, rather than a stubby little section

References - 4 (may not be possible, but consider trying to find one or more print sources, especially a scholarly, broad-focused work)

Discography - looks good, but there's no need to have subsections for such a small discography

Format/Style - 2, 3 (why include the fansites in external links?; as noted, remove the subsections of discography and integrate audio sample into article, remove the parenthetical "sees" (e.g. "See critical reception of Maybe You've Been Brainwashed Too for more details"))

Overall, I think it's very well done. With the suggested tweaks to format/style and rationales for images, I think this would be ready for FAC. Tuf-Kat 17:41, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot for your suggestions. As far as the sample goes, a link to it is also included in the article when the part is mentioned, is there another way to incorporate it better? And the fansites are included because the official homepage doesn't have much content (it's basically just a dead forum), while the fansites have lyrics, discographies, galleries, some audio, etc.

I hadn't any luck before trying to find any free images, or mentioning of the band in scholarly work, but I'll try to take care of the rest. Thanks again, and any other suggestions are still welcome. --Fritz Saalfeld (Talk) 21:00, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I guess I didn't see that. A sample from another track or two might still be nice, however. Tuf-Kat 04:49, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, I'll add that with some more about their musical style. --Fritz Saalfeld (Talk) 13:11, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This article was a WP:FAID winner last week, and has been improved. I'm planning to nominate it for FA status. Please comment. Conscious 09:59, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This article has been improved beyond all recognition in recent months, and is one of the better sports articles on Wiki. I remember adding the Debut of National Teams in one day, and now it's a part of a much larger, much more comprehensive section. With only a few more content it could be as close to perfect as Wiki could get.. Good luck to everyone on this doktorb | words 10:12, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

1. "In the Olympic games of 1924 and 1928, Uruguay won the football gold medal, in what was considered a proto-world cup." Considered by whom? Avoid weasel words. according to http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/h2g2/A565148 the

Also this article http://ezinearticles .com/?FIFA-World-Cup---A-History-1930-to-1958&id=234631

1. "Unofficially, FIFA recognized Uruguay as World Champion." Source?

I cannot find it right now, but I remember several books and newspapers printed before 1970. In 1970 was that the people begin to talk about Brazil as tri-champion and the previous tetra-championship of Uruguay (1924,1928,1930 & 1950) was forgotten. Also the same article http://ezinearticles .com/?FIFA-World-Cup---A-History-1930-to-1958&id=234631 applies

1. "and up until two months before the start of the competition no team from that continent had promised to send a team." Source?
2. "In the final, Uruguay beat Argentina 4-2 in front of a crowd of 93,000 people in Montevideo, to become the first nation to win a World Cup." Source for the number of people?
3. "For each tournament, FIFA decides the number of spots awarded to each of the continental zones beforehand, based on the relative strength of the confederations' teams (and, some may argue, political considerations)" Who argues that? NOOOOO. Wroong. It's based on marketing. South America has 3 world champions and only 4 places...
4. "However, FIFA stated that in future final tournaments will be hosted by a single nation." Source?
5. "The decision to award the 2006 World Cup to Germany was controversial, as it was widely expected that the tournament would take place in South Africa." Who expected it? Give some source that lots of people expected this (like some newspaper saying "Lots of people expected that...") and then atribute the opinion to the source. Don't express opinions in the article.
6. "However, FIFA has also hinted that continental rotation may not be used beyond 2014." Source?
7. Maybe the History section could be expanded a bit. How about notable incidents or problemas that happened along the World Cups?

JoaoRicardo^talk 03:36, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reworded #1 and added reference, removed #2 and referenced #3 and #4. Oldelpaso 21:13, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Removed #5, reworded and sourced #6. Conscious 06:31, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Removed #8. Conscious 11:18, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You're right, JoaoRicardo. Some of these statements should be supported by references, the rest just removed. Speaking about incidents, do you mean something like the Hand of God goal? Conscious 09:27, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Conscious, that may be included, although it wasn't exactly what I was thinking. I don't know which facts to suggest because I know nothing about soccer and the world cup, but maybe reviewing the specific articles for each world cup wields something interesting. JoaoRicardo^talk 12:20, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I just did that. Some things that caught my eye.

1. Political influence in World Cups: Mussolini in Italy 1934, the Football War of 1970 fought by military dictatorships,
2. Football World Cup 1938 says there was an outrage by South Americans country upon the Cup being held in France, because they believed it would alternate between Europe and South America. It might be interesting to include this and discuss the predominance of these two continents in the tournament.
3. How was the decision to cancel the 1942 and 1946 Cups made? Was there pressure from the countries hit by the war? Was there pressure from other countries outside the war to organize the Cups anyway?
4. How did media coverage on the event changed during this time?
5. Changes in the way the competition is organized, qualifying criteria, semifinals, quarterfinals, rules etc. Eg: Football World Cup 1958 says "substitute players were not allowed at the time"; match between Austria and in West Germany in Football World Cup 1982 in which they simply made the goals necessary and then "just kicked the ball around aimlessly", which led to a subsequent change in which "the final two games in each group were played simultaneously"
6. I know this is a tricky one, but is there any consensus as to which are the best and the worst editions of the World Cup?

JoaoRicardo^talk 13:28, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

By the same numbering:

1. I agree, a subsection could be included.
2. I believe there was something on it in the previous revisions... "Successful national teams" deals with Europe vs. South America to some extent.
3. and
4. I'm not sure if much can be found, but worth trying.
5. That's just how football was changing. Accidents like Austria vs. West Germany happen until now, btw ("Nordic Victory", Denmark vs. Sweden at Euro 2004)
6. Never heard of things like this.

Thank you for your help with an outside view, JoaoRicardo, especially as you say you "can't stand sports". (That doesn't mean we're finished.) Conscious 09:00, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I feel like an image should be added in the lead. Also, the sections seem out of place. The results table seems out of place. I think it'd be better if all the article text (media coverage, selection of hosts) be higher up and then the results table and records. Something like that. Gflores ^Talk 03:04, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Before FAC, it might be better to have a good editor copyedit this once again to polish the language.

>> In the Olympic games of 1924 and 1928, Uruguay won the football gold medal, in the first intercontinental football competitions[1]. These victories led the FIFA to choose Uruguay as the home of the first FIFA sanctioned World Cup.

I believe another reason was that Uruguay was celebrating the centenary of their independance at the time. Can you check whether your sources consider it important enough to be worth a mention ?

>> The World Cup is now a truly global event, with as many as 197 nations entering qualification for the 2006 edition.

197 nations is mentioned twice in the article. The repeat may be avoided. Tintin Talk 01:29, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is an article for a little-known disorder that until the Internet came along, it was difficult to even find information about. I'm concerned about proper referencing and linking to sources, and the overrall organizational layout of the article. I've tried to cover all areas thoroughly, and to check spelling and grammar, but would appreciate a review of the writing in general. MamaGeek Joy 19:27, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Articles should be change to References. I think the External links (if you used them) should be merged into the references also if used. AndyZ 01:30, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • done MamaGeek Joy 13:17, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Just looking at it quickly, I would love to see the list of "Underlying Causes of Hypotonia" to be divided into to type: Bacterial infections, viral infections, congenital diseases, neurological disorders, etc. Also, all the subheds should be in sentence case (Swift Brown Fox >> Swift brown fox). Good luck! jengod 04:07, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• I find the writing to be very good. I, a non-expert, was able to understand it. Some specific comments:
  • To take the referencing to the next level incorporate footnotes into the article using this system: m:Cite/Cite.php (see Chetwynd, British Columbia as an example of how this system works.
  • The footnotes should remove the external links used in the article body.
  • In the headings only capitalize the first word (for example "Developmental Delay" → "Developmental delay".
  • Why the quote in "Diagnosis"? cannot this be said in our (Wikipedia's) own words (of with a footnote)? --maclean25 09:20, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you that the article needs lots of help. At first glance, it reads like it was written by people not very clear about the difference between a disease and a clinical manifestation or presenting complaint, nor easily able to distinguish hypotonia itself from other frequently associated neurological problems. There are a few glaring problems:

1. In several paragraphs, beginning with the paragraph below the TOC, it looks like hypertonic is mistakenly used for hypotonic. I gave up editing in this paragraph because I got less and less confident that I understood the intended points, and it began to seem in need of more than just honing the precision of the words.
2. There is a section in which it is claimed that strength and tone should be clearly distinguished, though in other parts of the article it is implied that especially in infantile hypotonia the two aspects of function are often indistinguishable or lumped together for clinical purposes as "hypotonia". To the extent that "the floppy baby" is a common vivid synonym for unsolved infantile hypotonia, it contradicts the claims of the other paragraphs.
3. The irritating misuse of symptom for objective manifestation occurs throughout the article.
4. Still plenty of typos and basic spelling and usage errors.

You might post a request for content help among the editors who would consider this an ordinary and well-known topic with an extensive knowledge base and research literature going back a century (rather than a "little-known disorder until the internet"-- this surprised me-- whole books on the topic were written before the internet was imagined). I tried to clear up some confusions in the early paragraphs but we have a number of editors with real neurological expertise at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Clinical_medicine. alteripse 19:14, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I tidied up the lead a bit. Scott Ritchie 03:07, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Resubmission. First peer review request, failed FAC, to-do list at Talk:Bjørnøya. The points from FAC have mostly been adressed, but the article should get some copyediting before it can be resubmitted to FAC. Thanks. Kosebamse 08:51, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again! :-) Very nice article. I don't think it needs copyediting; at least I didn't stumble upon anything; it reads smoothly. Some people will probably mention a lack of inline references; maybe you could add a few, especially in the "environmental problems" section (the Bellona criticism seems to link with the "Buch Cato" reference (is that the author's name?), and the last sentence to the Gwynn et. al. reference). The "Geography" section could be renamed to "Geography and climate" since half of it is about the climate... Other than that, my only gripe is that there are too many images! I would suggest creating a page commons:Bjørnøya containing a gallery of all the images (including those that are not shown in the article), put a {{Commons}} template in the external links section, and use less images from "Geography" onwards. Really a pity that no:Bilde:Bjornoya2.jpg appears to have a "non-commercial only" license... (well, I don't really understand Norwegian, but that's what I gather from that text). If we could get a GFDL release of that or an equivalent map, it would make an ideal head image for that "Geography" section. I just noticed that you had linked a map in "External links". That map seems to be from here. They state there that "the maps may be used as a source of information, or they can be re-used in publications, web pages or presentations." I suggest you contact Stein Tronstad and try to clarify whether we may use this map under a free license (GFDL, Copyrighted free use, PD, or some such). I think we might have a fair chance that they indeed agree to this, maybe even for other of their maps. Lupo 10:54, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Forgot two minor points on Image:Bjornoya map.png: can you remove the black border (it somehow reminds me of an obituary notice), and how about coloring the island in red? At thumbnail size, the island is all but invisible to me. Although the text is still readable, I had to actually visit the image description page to see where the island was. Lupo 11:02, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the feedback.

• Inline references: I would prefer not to. I am a little annoyed about that obsession with inline references that dominates FAC nowadays. That type of references is a scientific practice which I don't enjoy seeing here, because it suggests a credibility that many of our sources simply don't have. But if that request comes up on FAC, well then I'll stick them in to please the critics.
• Images: have removed a number of them. Would move them all to commons if I knew how to do it. (Anybody?)
• Section header: thanks for the suggestion, have renamed it
• Map: will try to contact them and get a permission
• Location map: that's already the third version now. Problem is, it's a small island with lots of water around it, so necessarily the island will be a little difficult ot locate.

Thanks again, Kosebamse 19:13, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Issues that may come up in the FAC may include:
  • Images: try to alternate between left and right justified images, IE (medium text size, 1024x768 screen resolution) leaves a big white space after the "History" heading because there are two images in a row.
  • One-sentence paragraph: "The polar night..." sentence just sounds like a piece of trivia thrown into some otherwise well-written prose. Try finding a place for it in an existing paragraph or maybe expand (ie. timezone, etc.). Other possible topics for this section can include type of rock, location & composition of mines/minerals.
  • One-paragraph sections: "Flora and fauna" can be expanded to two paragraphs (one for animals, one vegetation), bring back a image of the flowers (the article could use something other than a drab, gray image of rocks), consider merging "Environmental problems" and "Flora and fauna" and re-naming "Ecology and environment" (without sub-headings).
  • Trivia: "Miscellaneous" may need to be integrated in the article to qualify for "brilliant prose".
  • In-line citations: as mentioned above. Especially for "Bellona has criticised the Norwegian government for...". --maclean25 19:36, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Article about a top division football (soccer) club from England. I've been making gradual improvements to this article for about as long as I've been wikiing, and would appreciate any comments, particularly from non-football fans. It could probably do with a few fresh pairs of eyeballs for copyediting too. For comparison, Arsenal F.C. and IFK Göteborg are FAs about football clubs. I realise the article could do with a photo of the team in action, and I'm looking into it. Oldelpaso 15:57, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good writing I think, and good references/notes, so my list is just minor bits here and there:

• Intro - Decide if Manchester City is singular or plural - both 'is' and 'play' are used (only took notice in intro). Links to and short descriptions of the leagues and cups won for people not familiar with English football. Current player names listed doesn't give any info, unless comparing the many foreign players to the "English triumvirate" of old (perhaps not that relevant compared to most other Premiership clubs, though)?
• History - Needs subsection headers. Explanation/mention that the Second Division was the 2nd league - I know it's obvious but it could be confused for the current Football League Two. What is the Revie Plan? The sentence "first ever European trophy winners to be relegated to the third tier of English football" is confusing whether it is "third tier" or "english" that is the focus, move "English" forward in the sentence. FA Premier League needs to be mentioned in the history section, preferably a paragraph on the new league system in 1992 and in which division/league that left Man City. Minor details on the stadiums moved to "Stadium" section; i.e Commonwealth Games 2002 (duplicate info), and that it is on a lease contract. From "Their rise was rapid; from being [...]" and the rest of that paragraph could be moved to intro to explain the general situation of the club in the past 5 years or so. Move the QPR goal situation to its place in history or maybe as a part of the "supporters" section, incorporated into a paragraph on how the club is perceived?
• Misc - Update player squad (or the update date at least), perhaps sort managers like the players - it just seems so long with a straightforward list from 1889 to present. Links to competitions in honours section might be good too, and the new/old format mentioned in honours should be properly explained, perhaps in a footnote (see Arsenal FC).

Finally, the lore around here (Denmark) is that while United might be the popular club on the world market, City is the club of people from Manchester - is there any truth to that, and can any sober sources be found on that subject? Poulsen 18:07, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comments.

• Intro: Hopefully I've caught and changed all the instances of the singular to the plural. I've added links to the competitions, but I think descriptions might be excessive or offtopic. I'll look at adding a couple of sentences in the History section where appropriate. I've jettisoned the bit about current players, you're right in saying it doesn't add anything.
• History: subsections added. I've changed the wording in the second paragraph to hopefully make the level of the Second Division clearer. I created a stub on the Revie Plan and linked it. Changed the word order to first ever European trophy winners to be relegated to English football's third tier, is that an improvement? The Premier League is already mentioned: City were founder members of the Premier League upon its creation in 1992.... Duplication of stadium details removed. I'll have to think a bit more about what to do with the last subsection.
• Misc: I've moved the list of managers to a new article List of Manchester City F.C. managers, and only kept a couple of notable ones, in the syle of the players. The squad and date is now up to date, and the competitions have been linked to. Footnote explaining the division name changes added.

I think there's truth in the statement that City is the club of people form Manchester, but then I'm biased ;-). I'll look for a reasonably NPOV source, but I expect that most sources will be heavily biased one way or the other. Oldelpaso 20:31, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

About the English third tier thing, maybe the sentence "when they became the first English winners of a European trophy to be relegated to the third tier of English(or national) football." The thing is to establish early in the sentence that it is only counting English clubs, not the rest of Europe, hope I'm not too nitpicky.. Come to think twice on the United vs. City thing, maybe I read it in Peter Schmeichel's biography - I'll check it when I get the chance (in couple of days). Poulsen 20:52, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I found a reference to a university report investigating where City and United fans are from at Manchester United F.C. of all places, and incorporated it into the supporters section. Oldelpaso 21:29, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Generally, it's good. A few things:

• Intro is a bit too specific - should be more general rather than mentioning specific players etc., who should be in the History section.
• Needs a bit of copyediting - a little too much use of the passive voice when the active would be better. I've done a quick one for style, will do another one in due course for grammar and wording.
• More on the club's rivalry with Man United? I know Manchester derby exists but surely it warrants more than a single line in this article too.
• No mention of Denis Law and his goal sending down United?
• Having said that, history is just about nudging the limit for an article, so if you're going to add a significant amount I would suggest splitting it off.
• Ballet on Ice - why was it called that?
• Use "crest" (which is the logo in general) as opposed to "badge" (which is the logo when it appears on shirts).
• Wearing the city's coat of arms at Cup Finals - interesting. When did this tradition start/whose idea was it? Qwghlm 20:43, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

After adding suggested parts to the History section I'll transfer it to History of Manchester City F.C. and figure out which bits to keep in the main article, no point delaying the inevitable. Expanding the bit about the coat of arms may require a trip to the library, I'll see if I can find anything. The Ballet on Ice would be best illustrated by a photo, but the chances of finding a copyright free one are close to nil. Oldelpaso 21:29, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Intro:I'd expand this to three paragraphs and have some more on the club's history here. The "known for their loyalty and good humour bit" looks like it could do with a source, but then my bias on this subject is well known :-)

History: It looks better with the subsections, but if you're thinking of putting this onto FAC I'd merge the first two as the people on there like a good whinge about articles with too many subsections. You'll get similar complaints about the Colours and badge section as well, so if you can find a way to expand or merge it it might be worth doing so. The 1999-present section could be better: I don't see why a 9th place finish and an own goal against QPR need mentioning - there must be something more notable to write about? File:Yemen flag large.png CTOAGN (talk) 05:15, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

re the last paragraph of the history section: I want to keep some mention of City's reputation for unpredictability and shooting themselves in the foot, but it doesn't fit easily in either the History or Supporters sections. Oldelpaso 21:35, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Finally got rid of the paragraph by porting a sentence into the supporters section and dumping the rest. Oldelpaso 20:43, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:Oldelpaso, who responded to the American football peer review, has asked me to take a look at this article. I have to point out that when it comes to soccer articles, I don't have the perspective of a typical American. I understand phrases like "four points clear at the top of the table" because I lived in Europe and have read about European soccer on Wikipedia. However, that phrase would not make sense to most Americans. I don't think that's necessarily a problem, because this is not a "basic-level" article like American football should be. There is one Anglicism I might change, though: in the U.S., "silverware" means what you call "cultery." It looks a little funny to see it used to mean "trophies."

I think the article is pretty solid. I have touched up the grammar a bit. I would put the second sentence in the past simple tense. Also, the sentence that begins with "In the 1950s, a City team..." is grammatically confusing. On the plus side, I love the phrase "despite its melancholic theme is belted out with gusto as though it were a heroic anthem."

The last paragraph in the "1999 to present" section is probably misplaced, as it discusses pre-1999 events. I also agree that there should be more info on the rivalry with "Man U." I know, for example, that in Glasgow, soccer allegiances often correspond to religion. Do certain types of people support each of the Manchester teams?

Only two questions came to me in reading the article:

1. Are West Gorton and Ardwick in Manchester?
2. Why was Marsh a "crowd-pleaser" if he wasn't any good?

Mwalcoff 23:58, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Qwghlm and CTOAGN - I've split the History to History of Manchester City F.C., I perhaps now need to condense it some more in the main article, and rewrite 1999-present. I've not found much to expand the colours and crest section yet, though I've not yet had the opportunity to go to the library. Mwalcoff - I've made changes for all the points you raised. Oldelpaso 20:43, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I just wrote an article about this medicine, and I'm really not sure what to do next. Are there any other sections I should write or areas that need expansion? Also, I'd appreciate some non-medical reviewers to comment on its accesibility to lay people. Thank you. — Knowledge Seeker দ 07:13, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• The history section could be expanded. For instance, for which company was Dr. Shetty working for? What were the results of clinical trials? How long did the approval process take? Were any patents issued for this drug? etc.
• In the chemical structure section I'd explain what a thiazide is, since you refer to it quite prominently. The "sulfa" allergy mention should go into toxicity instead.
• The pharmacodynamics is a bit on the short side, and doesn't mention anything about bioaccumulation. Maybe you should consult some of the original literature in order to gather more info on the subject.
• I'd reformat weblink references to at least provide a "last accessed" date. See WP:CITE for more.

The article reads well but in general "feels" a bit short. Unfortunately I'm not the person to ask about "layperson readability" but a general guideline is to define obscure terminology in the article itself. I'll get around at some point in doing a high-res structure for the article. The current one looks a bit blurry, IMO. Good luck! -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ 11:29, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your thoughtful review! I explained about thiazides, moved sulfonamide allergy to toxicity, and put the date accessed on the links. I'll do my best with the history, although history is notoriously difficult—especially for medical topics, where "history" has a special meaning and severly confounds searches. It's not easy to find information about the development of non-major drugs like metolazone. I was actually quite pleased I found out what I did, but I will keep working on it. I'll add some more to the bioaccumulation section as well tomorrow. I agree that the article is a bit short; I just don't know what else to add to it. I can write about its melting point and dosing regimens and so on although I don't think it's that useful—and I don't want to just add "filler". Perhaps I'll try to put the results of various studies in. I'll keep working. — Knowledge Seeker দ 07:57, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you have access through databases of medical literature you could try to search for Dr. Shetty's publications. Also try a search on the US Patent Office website under Shetty's name or the IUPAC name of the drug (NOT the commercial name). That ought to yield something. Most common dosing regimens may not be completely out of place. For additional chemical info I think there's an infobox provided by WikiProject:Drugs for that purpose. -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ 04:42, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This template was created to bring the two series together as they crossed over. Before using it on any page of either of those two series, a review would help determine if the work is good or not.

Lady Aleena | Talk 00:43, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is gigantic, it needs to be smaller. Why do you think combining the two characters into one is useful? MechBrowman 02:09, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If the font gets smaller, then the bold caption and table headings will not work. Also, the smaller the font the less readable it is. The reason for them to be combined into one box is that the movie Freddy vs. Jason bridges the two series together into one. There are two templates (Template:Nightmareseries and Template:Friday the 13th) out there now that, when used together on a page, are just as large in combination as this one. Those templates are currently on two pages, Freddy vs. Jason and Freddy and Jason universe timeline. This one could be used instead. Also, the two current templates are nearly unreadable since the font is so small and the words so crammed together that it is almost a blur. Lady Aleena | Talk 04:25, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not a big fan of large templates that are intended to repeat the same information on multiple pages. This template in particular is so huge that it takes up almost an entire page. I don't think this is a good trend. Sorry. — RJH 15:55, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• A load of shit. Way too big in size and is going to take too much of the page size. You need to condense it more, or create two tempates, one on Jason one on Freddy, and put both templates where both are relevant or just one or the other for articles that only really relate to one of them. Just what the fuck were you thinking. Roger Danger Field 16:27, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Your lack of decorum and foul tongue is entirely inappropriate for this forum, knave. Kindly return to the steaming heap from whence you crawled. :-/ — RJH 15:52, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• There is no need for personal attacks, just because I got to the point. My point was by no means a reflection on the person themselves. You might also want to note that this not an internet forum in the traditional sense, but a system of commenting. There is one type of person on the high seas of internet nerdom worse than someone who makes there point in a slightly different manner to everyone else's, and that's a blatant flamer who thinks they hold a non-existent moral high ground. Thank you though sir, I'll attempt to be more diplomatic next time. Roger Danger Field 19:47, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• My apologies then, but I found your employment of expletives a tad distasteful. You also appeared to be directly insulting the contributor with the expression, "Just what the fuck were you thinking." I didn't believe that either was necessary to present your critique. Thank you. — 18:53, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

• Nice idea and as well designed as it could be, but it is too big. The two seperate templates do the job well. The JPS 20:40, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Interesting idea, but the two templates suffice. And I'm not just saying that because I created/updated them. --Myles Long/cDc 20:53, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I get the picture. I will stay away from creating anything in the future as well since it seems that my ideas all seem to be disliked. I will try to get this template deleted. Lady Aleena | Talk 22:45, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This was just unlucky - there are lots of existing articles that could use your help. Roger Danger is a troll so don't worry about his comments. Stay positive, keep an open mind about editing and I'm sure you'll find something that really sparks your interest and which receives a good response from the commmunity. Cedars 00:27, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You're bound to run into objections while toiling in wikipedia, Lady Aleena. There are a lot of opinionated people here. But you shouldn't let that discourage you. Keep trying and I'm sure you efforts will be appreciated. Thanks. — RJH 16:01, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Several editors recommended that this page undergo a peer review before being considered as a featured article. Other than footnotes and links within the body text, there are likely other issues with this page that have escaped the attentions of the authors. McPhail 14:48, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• It is a good solid article. Suggestions for improvements include:
  • Shorten the intro sentence to something easier to read. For example, try splitting it into two sentences. The part mentioning where and when he was born is background info not necessary for the definition.
  • Do not rely on the gerweck.net as a reference, especially when more trustworthy sources say the same thing, like the slam.canoe.ca.
  • Let's just remove the word "every" (and "has" while you're at it) from the sentence "he has also wrestled for every major American promotion, including the..."
  • give a dollar figure for the "200 pesos" for us not familiar with how much that is. I'm not sure how to properly cite pesos - is it $200 MXN - for Canadian dollars it is CAD$200.
  • Work on the transitions in "Career", specifically for "AAA" to "WWF" (how/why did he switch?). Treat "Career" as a narrative of his career.
  • Consider creating a new section entitled "Early life" for his street gang/navy experiences. If possible, please reference his navy experience to an offical us.gov source as I am not entirely convinced of this piece of info.
  • Convert "Finishing and signature moves" and "Managers" to tables and integrate into the text, like Saffron#Chemistry. Also, add years of service to the Managers table
  • I'm not a big fan of lists of quotes. Consider removing them, especially if it is suggested at FAC.
  • Add years for "Championships and accomplishments"
  • What is the difference between "Championships and accomplishments" and "Championship succession"
  • Merge "Trivia" into the article. Trivia violates the FAC requirement for brilliant prose. --maclean25 21:13, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There was a pretty low-traffic peer review of this article before, Wikipedia:Peer review/3D Monster Maze/archive1. Thereafter, it had went through a FAC which failed, and a lot of modifications have been done to address the concerns raised. In the current state, one of the original FAC objectors is happy about the article enough to say it has "much potential" on the FAC if resubmitted again. Since there are still some issues I am unsure of (note also that I am not a native English speaker), I would be happy to have your help. Please be sure to read the article talk page, not just the article itself, before commenting/helping. --BACbKA 10:40, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I made some minor copyediting in the article. Here are some comments:

1. Statements about the game being "one of the most fondly remembered games on the retrogaming scene" and such cannot be stated as fact. There is no way to verify that a game is "fondly remembered". It is best to atribute this opinion to someone else in the article ("John Doe says that this is one of the most..."), providing this someone is notable enough, or provide other means of asserting the game's popularity (maybe availabilty of websites or of ROMs downloads?).
2. Those lines IN CAPITAL LETTERS in the Gaming section JUST LOOK INELEGANT. ;-) Even if the text was in all-caps in the game, I think it's OK to change it here.
3. The paragraph about first-person shooter vs. first-person adventure is a bit tricky. I don't think the article should label one source as incorrect in the way it does. It's better to find some notable source that says that this is a FPA and ascribe the opinion to this source, otherwise it may be labeled as original research.
4. The "Impact" section is a bit out of place. It's mainly about other games, and when it does talk about 3D Monster Maze it's in the form of peacock statements, other than the FPA vs. FPS issue addressed above.
5. The "Critical acclaim" section has too many quotes. It's better to choose a significant one to appear fully, and summarize the others.
6. All those references to BASIC need to be adjusted to the layman (like me). JoaoRicardo^talk 15:42, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your comments.

1. The "fondly remembered" refers specifically to the referred material (reviews and the references). I'll try to reword it in the way you suggest.
2. The capital letters probably will be fine indeed to re-format in another font, maybe just emphasis. I still think they should be caps in the image annotation (accessibility etc.), what do you think?
   Following Maclean's comments and changes below, I would like to stick to the caps still, until more people feel the same as you do on this issue. The ugliness is precisely the part of the experience of the old game, along with the very low resolution of the graphics. --BACbKA 12:27, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
3. As for the FPA/FPS business, I am a bit uneasy about what is going on here myself. Basically, the whole categorization business on Wikipedia is sometimes original research, because for various issues (like this one), the inclusion criteria is blurred (to say nothing of the "who's considered Jewish" question)... I have seen personally no source classifying 3DMAZE as an FPA, but the editor who had added the FPA thing clearly was referring to the FPA definition used on Wikipedia (whether that one is original research or not is another story).
4. Thank you for that peacock link, I didn't remember javing read it. Do you think the "landmark" is such a term? I thought it is a pretty neutral one, but one that does giving the credit to 3DMAZE for being an epochal event in the history of the computer games. The mission of the section is to do that mention, and do it with enough historical context. Do you think it's redundant altogether? If not, do you have a good idea how to re-word it? (Please note that I'm not a native speaker, and as such may not perceive enough "peacockishness" in the terms used etc.)
5. Regarding the critical acclaim I don't have in mind something distinctly better yet, but I'll try to move along the lines you've suggested.
6. I'll try to put more BASIC context in as well.

Thanks again! --BACbKA 20:46, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• This is on its way to becoming a featured article. It just needs some cleaning up of the writing (which I will help with) and some refining of the discussion, specifically with the "Impact" and "Gameplay" sections. Perhaps this paper can help. I disagree with JoaoRicardo's recommendation against CAPS - I would side with keeping them as printed as they are quotes - but if they tell you otherwise at WP:FAC do what they say. Also, the "critical acclaim" section may need to be re-formatted to something be more neutral. I realize this is more of a historical curiousity than a commercial product, but the article needs to distinguish between its commercial hype and its neutral critiques. --maclean25 19:19, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have edited the 3D Monster Maze article. Please review the change and revert whatever you do not agree with. Several comments/questions:
    • I did not believe the spoiler template was necessary as there was no surprise plot twists. It is a pretty simple plot.
    • I'm confused on how the game can end. When you are eaten, game over right? Does it go on forever if you are not eaten? what is that bit about the appeals? Are there different levels?
    • In the "Impact" section please provide a reference for the first paragraph for the "had a significant impact..." or "made it a landmark game in the history..."
    • For the second paragraph in that section, specifically relate these other games to Monster Maze. --maclean25 06:47, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Maclean,

thank you very much for your edits. The language sounds much more encyclopedic following your edits. While you suggest to revert whatever I disagree with, I would like to hear your opinion on the points I had slight reservations about. Sorry for not answering right away, I have been a bit busy outside wikipedia last week.

• The spoiler is there as per the Wikipedia:WikiProject_Computer_and_video_games#Style recommendation. I do agree with you that there excitement from anticipation of the game doesn't diminish when reading it; the only place with "surprise" factor might be the sudden self-reset in the "appeal accepted" case. I'm not putting it back, unless they ask me to.
• The only reason I had the scrolling game legend (ROLL UP, ROLL UP, SEE THE AMAZING TYRANNOSAURUS REX KING OF THE DINOSAURS IN HIS LAIR. PERFECTLY PRESERVED IN SILICON SINCE PREHISTORIC TIMES,HE IS BROUGHT TO YOU...) repeated in the image annotation was accessibility reasons. I think that accessibility is an important thing in an encyclopaedia, although I agree with you that the text gets perhaps a bit too much weight. Maybe here is a good place to downgrade the caps and leave it as is? On the other hand, I have just added the text to the image page; so whoever really is in desperate need of the text might find it there. Thus, it would be possible to leave it your way, or, maybe, you have a good idea how to leave a small hint (tagged with some accessibility-related markup, which would diminish the text under the regular stylesheets??) that the image page has the full text?
• With respect to your game end confusion, I am sorry to not having expressed myself correctly. You would have to start again if eaten (with 0 score), unless you appeal and have the appeal accepted. If you exit, you have to continue in the next maze with accumulating score. You're welcome to exact the text accordingly; I thought it's clear already.
• Regarding the impact/landmark first sentence, I was basing it on the 2nd and 3rd references from the Refs section (SU25 and SU18). Do you feel that it should be reworded as in "the 1st 3D game... according, for example, to (ref1) (ref2)"? I've got the references annotated accordingly in the references section and referenced elsewhere in the article (the same claim has already been referenced in the lead section); I was afraid to overreference to the same thing. Maybe, I should move the references from the lead section over to the other sections?
• {{Main|History of computer and video games}} was my attempt to relate 3DMAZE to these other games. I had a feeling that this section does a good job of putting it into the historical context. I noticed that some of the game description articles are more about gameplay and technology, but I find the history perspective quite encyclopaedic as well, and hence had it in. Would you mind me just putting it back as an answer to your request to relate the games?

Also, could you please look at the talk page? I would especially like a native speaker's opinion on the 2nd-person language issue raised there.

Thank you very much again for your help, BACbKA 12:25, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. I've put back the Main... into the Impact section, and also reworded the 1st sentence a bit, so as not to imply any additional significance of the impact beyond precisely what's written and referenced. --BACbKA 12:22, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would appreciate your comments on how to improve this article, in particular to enhance the formating of the pictures, if there is too much or too little information in any of the sections and if anyone has any suggestion for further pictures to be included (particularly for the Between the Wars section) Thank youNickhk 14:43, 1 February 2006 (UTC)Nickhk[reply]

Great work on transforming this article! The intro' needs to be at least two paragraphs, and I'd like to see more detail on his early life and his time as a captive. Also, Brevet Lieutenant-Colonel of the Cheshire Regiment in 1959? Was he actually serving in the Cheshire Regiment, or was that an honorary position? It does need clarification. And perhaps some mention should be made of Brig. Alfred James MacGregor Percival, assuming he's a relative, who was honorary colonel of the Cheshire Regiment from 1992 to 1999. Also, the article does need inline citations. Again, great work! SoLando (Talk) 17:30, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I believe Brig. Alfred James MacGregor Percival, known as James, is the son (source my father in law who is in the army!). I am also a little confused by the "brevet" appointment as I have only really heard it used in relation to temporary postings in the first world war. I will see what I can find; I'll also look for more info on the early years and and captivity but i cant find much on these so if anyone has any sources pleae let me know Nickhk

I can confirm Brig AG Mac Percival was his son, having served with him. The Brevet title has me confused. I understood it was given to a select band of Lt Cols who had been marked out for future accelerated promotion.

A minor stylistic peeve, too many sentences start with "Percival was...", "Percival became..." etc. A bit more variation would be good. -- Миборовский ^{U|T|C|M|E|Chugoku Banzai!} 23:50, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A small request: might you be able to try out {{Infobox Military Person}} on this article? The feedback from using it on something more developed would be quite helpful towards fixing any remaining issues with it. —Kirill Lokshin 16:40, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This article has been significantly worked on over the years, and has seen several peer reviews and a few FACs in the past. I think it's closer than it's ever been, now that there's far more references and all of the image problems have been cleared up. I just generally want an overall analysis of the article to see just how close to FA status it is. There's still some sections that need referencing, and I plan to look for references soon. Unfortunately, two major contributors in the past (User:JonMoore and User:Cool Hand Luke) haven't been around for a while as far as I know, so some of the content they contributed will be hard to find references for. Anyway, I just want to see how close to FA status this is, since I feel it's just so close!

Most recent peer review: Wikipedia:Peer review/Salt Lake City, Utah/archive4 bob rulz 11:22, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, AZ _t 01:28, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

From the brief look I took:

• We could improve the flow of the geography section. As it stands, there are a few short and/or irrelevant sentences which need to be expanded, clarified, and/or merged.
  • We should really state how often the lake stink phenomenon occurs, if possible. Cities closer to the lake probably enjoy the smell constantly, but in my experience Salt Lake City (more accurately, the suburb I live in) experiences this problem relatively infrequently, perhaps a few times a year. Currently, as well as before my edits, it sounds as if the city has an unpleasant odor all the time. I found a source.
• The lake effect has a major impact on the climate,[17] and should be mentioned in the climate section. Right now it is only briefly touched upon in the sports and recreation section. Of course we have discussed this before, but I just wanted to mention that this info would be useful in this article as well as Great Salt Lake, I am not trying to nag by any means. :) Oops, I was using Firefox's Find feature, but I was not searching for the hyphenated lake-effect, so I missed that in the climate section.
• I'll add a few citation-needed tags as necessary, and try to dig up some sources, but for now I'll just ask that sources be added for the population numbers in the lead. --Lethargy 12:28, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Is there still something missing from the article? --Easyas12c 22:56, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• How about a clearly marked link to the documentation, early on (not in "external links") in a paragraph about how to install, and another paragraph about how to operate? --James S. 10:56, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Would that not be a thing for Wikibooks or the Bo2k team to do? --Easyas12c 18:49, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• As a short article is perfectly fine, but I think it would benefits a lot from expansion:
  • The box says "trojan horse", and I remember some criticism for this reason; something about it may be added
    • I don't understand the mention actually at all because bo2k can be the army placed inside a Trojan horse, but it definitely has nothing to do with the horse. --Easyas12c 18:49, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is no detail about how the system works: is the network protocol the same as BackOffice? Does the computer to be controlled need any special setting or installed software?
    • Thanks. This will make a good addition. Such things might be missing without us notifying because we splitted from back orifice article lately. --Easyas12c 18:49, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Differences with the other system in the box at the end of the article?
    • Should this be a separate comparison article? --Easyas12c 18:49, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The last sentence of the lead says "As of 2005, there is still an active development community of BO2k."; the word "still" gives the idea that developing it is active but not so much as it used to be; if this is true, it is worth mentioning.
    • I'll remove still for now. It is hard to estimate the efficiency of a development team from outside. --Easyas12c 18:49, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

- Liberatore(T) 14:59, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As for the trojan horse, my point is that, as mentioned in the Back Orifice article, some people have related this program with trojan horses. It may be good to 1. say that some people believe that, 2. tell the reader that BO is not a trojan horse by itself but can be used for that, and 3. other programs can be used for that. However, since this is already said in BO article, this one may just contain a mention and a reference to the other article.

As for the comparison, that depends on how much these systems differ (which I have no idea about, personally). As a start, the features of BO2k that are not present or underdeveloped or uncommon in other system may be mentioned here. - Liberatore(T) 10:38, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This article is a former collaboration of the week and has been improved tremendously from its original state. My fellow contributors and I would like suggestions on any further work needed before nominating it to become a featured article. Any feedback you can offer would be appreciated. Kafziel 13:46, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• The lead needs to be increased in size. References and further reading need to be split, and inline citations need to be provided, generally in the form of Wikipedia:Footnotes. I would also suggest changing some of the lists to prose, since it is a heavy argument that appears very commonly on WP:FAC. AndyZ 02:16, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've added a little bit to the intro, changed the title of the references section to remove "and further reading", and changed the format of the "outcomes of invasion" section from list to prose, to match the other related sections. I've never used footnotes on Wikipedia before so I'm not sure yet how to do that, but I will look into it and fix that as soon as possible. Thanks for your input! Kafziel 13:56, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Looking at Wikipedia:Citing sources, there seems to be some controversy over the use of footnotes. For the most part, it seems that the only acceptable use is if the footnote leads to further text; since these references are Harvard style, with no text except the basic source information, it seems that footnotes are not desirable. I could be misreading the policy, though. If anyone can clarify this, please feel free to jump in. Thanks! Kafziel 16:45, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Since the introduction asserts that "Invasions are usually associated with a major armed struggle or war", the text should give a couple of examples where that is not the case. Would this, for example, mean an incident such as the 1956 Hungarian Revolt? The "Major historical invasions" section could be converted into a table. For example:

Date	Invasion
722 BCE	Assyrian invasion of the Kingdom of Israel
Hammurabi, during the course of conquering much of what is now known as the Middle East, defeated the Kingdom of Israel and sent its inhabitants into exile. (Van De Mieroop, 2005) This presaged future Greek and Roman conquest and, later, the Crusades. To this day, the region remains contested.

Otherwise, apart from the lack of inline citations, it should look pretty good. Thanks. — 15:56, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

That table looks good. I just tried to get the whole section formatted that way, but I don't really know HTML and I couldn't get it to work nicely. Hopefully someone else can do that. Looks much better than bullet points. I'm going to keep playing with it to see if I can figure out what you did there.

As for the examples of non-war invasions... well, I can't think of any. I'm going to wait a while to see if the editor who used that verbiage wants to clarify it before I remove it altogether.

Thanks for your suggestions. Kafziel 16:08, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I took that as an ascent and went ahead with a reformat into a table form. You can always revert if that is unacceptible. :) — RJH 22:17, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That looks great! Thanks for the help! It would have taken me at least a day or two to figure out how to format that properly. No word yet about the "non-war-related" invasions, so I'm going to go ahead and take that out for now, too. Thanks again! Kafziel 01:42, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Just want to let everyone that I put notes into the page. I tried to follow the same way they were done on WW2 but if you know that it's wrong be bold and fix it for me. Oh and if it is wrong let me know on my talk so I can do it right next time. I'm also going to put this on the invasion talk page.RENTA^{FOR LET?} 02:08, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I went through this process because it was suggest to me, however, I'm looking more for a peer review than a possible nomination, although if it was nominated that would be great as well. Nonetheless, I want to politely ask if those that have time can review the article and correct any grammar and spelling mistakes, as well as accuracy. Thank you for your time; I truly appreciate it. JonCatalan 03:29, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've done a light copyedit and spell check of the article. It looks good, though it strikes me as being a bit wordy (since this is my own writing style, it is hard for me to edit it effectively! ;-) There are plenty of assertions that really ought to be backed up by proper footnoting; the references are good but not extensive, if I were you I would also look to any available reputable online sources as well. A few other largely minor points:

1. Is the General von Richthofen you mention at one point Wolfram von Richthofen? If so, please Wikilink.
2. I couldn't understand what you were trying to say in this line "The same arguments applied by Geoffrey P. Megargee in his book, Inside Hitler's High Command, which were directed to Germany's generals can be used in Soviet memoirs describing the battle." I tried to understand it in the context of that paragraph, but either I am dim or some additional context is needed or its meaning needs further clarification. There were a few other sentences like this in the article, which is why I think a more ruthless editor than myself is required. ;-)
3. I don't have the book, but I find it interesting that the photos that you use are available for use at the express wish of the author. This will come under closer scrutiny if you decide to make this a Feature article candidate, so you may need to bolster this further by adding more info to the images with regards attribution. You might also want to see if there are Red Army photos available online, as they would be free to use.
4. Many former battlefields have become the source of archeological digs of late. Has any been conducted of this particular battlefield (and if so, did it turn up any new information?)
5. I note from doing a casual search on Google that this battle is the source of a board game. For completeness sake this ought to be mentioned.

Hope that helps. Keep up the great work! Captmondo 16:32, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Response:' Yes, you are correct, and I will link to Wolfram von Richthofen's article immediately, as well as provide the full name. As for the reference to Megargee, I should probably just reword the entire sentence and take out the reference to his name. As for the images, you are absolutely correct, and I'll have to work that out. As for anything online, a lot of links refer either to the Third Battle of Kharkov, or have the two mixed up - that board game is an example. It explains the Second Battle of Kharkov as what is normally regarded as the third (Manstein's recapture of the city in 1943). As for the rest, I'll get to work immediately, and I really appreciate it. Thank you for helping me out! JonCatalan 22:27, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

---

Love the article and the subject. Wish I knew more and could help write not edit (nit-pick). These are just comments. Wendell 04:59, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki stuff

1. Is there a wiki-link to Winter Counteroffensive? Perhaps a sub-section of the Battle of Moscow
2. Article says seven local offensives. Any wiki-links?
3. Article links to razputitsa. Is that the same as Rasputitsa?
4. Article discusses Operation Blue and Battle of Stalingrad differently, but wiki-links them to same article.
5. Article says Most military historians have implied that the Soviet Army of 1942 was not prepared to conduct major offensive was not prepared to conduct major offensive operations against the well-trained German Army. Obviously needs a cite
6. Article includes a picture includes a T-34, with the statement "Not at Karkov." Why include it?

Big comments:

1. First time I really read this article and tried to understand the battle. I knew Kharkov was a great victory for Germany, but did not know the details. Spent some time on this article, know alot more. But the article needs work.
2. I got really confused about progression of the battle in days. I think the article skips around time. Would suggest sub-sections for each day or group of days. See Operation Market Garden
3. North vs South aspects of the battle. Needs clarity, see notes below.
4. Encirclements. Were the Soviets trying to encircle Kharkov, and were in turn encircled? Is it ever said so clearly? Why else did the Soviets have a North and South attack?
5. Beevor puts Soviet losses in terms of prisoners as 240,000 .... around 207,000, both killed and captured How do these numbers compare to the committed Soviet forces?
6. Conclusion section addresses the big picture. Perhaps add an Aftermath section to address unit condition, size/shape of front, time to re-fit, or something.
7. Last sentence of opening paragraph: 2nd Kharkov opened the path for the eventual operations which led to the Battle of Stalingrad and Operation Blue 2nd Kharkov ended 28 May, Operation Blue started 28 June, Just a month later. Sentence seems to imply something different, longer time delays, additional operations, or something.

Sentence by sentence breakdowns.

1. Article says Although Timoshenko had limited success at Smolensk a year earlier, his attempts would ultimately lead to the disaster which Smolensk is now known to be. Battle of Smolensk (1941) says nothing of the sort, but discusses a hard fought action.
2. Is it fair or POV to compare the Soviet's one of seven local engagements which became a campaign around Kharkov versus Germany's massive effort to reinforce...the major area of operations for the German strategic summer campaign of the year. Based upon these phrases alone, it is clear that the Soviet's efforts were doomed. Worthwhile discussing? Why did the Germans not do better? Or am I missing something, and the article needs expansion?
3. Article says The Soviet forces faced massive resistance from the opposing German defenses, which was slowly knocked out by concentrated air raids and artillery strikes, along with coordinated ground assaults against fortified positions. Who was knocked out, Soviet forces or German defenses?
4. The attack started 12 May: lets keep track of the days, and South vs North
   1. The first two paragraphs seem to discuss the North Soviet attack. I did not know that until the third paragraph starting talking about the South Soviet attack.
   2. Soviets inched forward ... By day's end (12 May) the greatest penetration by Soviet forces was ten kilometers. Is this a statement of fact, or evidence of a poor attack? Its important later, when the Germans crush and move 10km forward.
   3. The day also saw.....the release of three German infantry divisions and a single Panzer division for use in the defense of Kharkov. Bock had warned Paulus not to counter-attack ....although this was later reconsidered when the Soviets broke through the Volchansk area.
      1. I have lost the logical connection. Did all this happen on Day One?
      2. Was Kharkov threaten by a 10km advance? Is the break thru at Volchansk consistent with 10km?
      3. Or is the article skipping around days? Why is Volchansk never mentioned again?
   4. The first 72 hours (12 May thru 14 May?) saw a battering of the German Sixth Army, with 16 battalions destroyed. Paulus called for a series of holding actions, although the Germans still preformed localized counter-attacks. By 14 May Stavka's army had made impressive gains while German actions in certain areas had taken their toll, and several shaken Soviet divisions were forced to withdraw from their attacks. Only Soviet tanks, held in reserve, were able to put a stop to the German counter-attacks, with much loss of life.
      1. Now I am really confused. The first 72 hours ... seemed to have jumped forward in time.
      2. Paulus called for holding actions, although Germans still executed local counter-attacks. Only Soviet reserve tanks were able to stop the German counter-attacks. Are these German counter attacks the localized ones of the previous sentence, or the one Bock warned Paulus about in the last paragraph.
   5. On 14 May the Germans continued to pound Soviet positions in the north, exploiting the gains they had made on 13 May
      1. Skipping back in time....
      2. What gains did the German make on 13 May? Did they move forward, or just destroy attacking Soviet forces?
   6. By the end of the day (14 May, I guess from 4 sentences ago) the 28th Army could no longer operate in an offensive manner against German positions. So the Soviets were still attacking until then? What were the German gains on 13 May?
   7. Aided greatly from air support, Kleist was able to crush Soviet positions and advanced up to ten kilometers in the first day of the attack. Same 10km advance, but this sounds positive, while the 10km Soviet day one advance sounded negative. Any reason? POV? differences in terrain?
   8. By the end of 24 May the Russian forces had been successfully surrounded by German formations Which Russian forces? The original discussion of Six Armies under two Fronts? Some sub-set?

Response: I linked to the winter counteroffensive, as suggested. Any wiki-links to the local offensives will have to come later, when I have more times to search around for them. The rasputitsa link fixed, and Stalingrad is considered part of Operation Blue, but in all actuality Operation Blue did not envision an investment of Stalingrad under weeks after the operation began. The only reason they link to the same article is because there is discussion on the merging of the two, and most historians consider Stalingrad as Blue because it was, without a doubt, the largest sector of the offensive. As for the sentence in question, I fixed it up a bit because referencing to a multitude of books, at least IMHO, would not be effective, so I offered some justification. As for pictures, frankly, I don't have enough pictures; the two I have relevent to the battle I fear I will have to take off and ask them to get deleted, because there will be copyright issues; so the faster those pictures are replaced the better; unless, I'm wrong. There aren't many photographs of the battle that are open, and I so the only thing I can do is put up images of slightly relevent topics, although they were not directly in Kharkov at the time...unless, there's a better idea, which there most likely is.

Now, for the big comments. An encirclement would certainly be a welcomed thought for the Soviets, but the pincering of an area doesn't necessarilly imply that the original expected outcome was a full fledge encirclement, although many times it does end as such. But taking an enemy on on both flanks is a sound idea, as opposed to only one, where the enemy can simply move reinforces from the opposite location; in other words, it's an alternate to hitting piecemeal, IMO. As for the casualties, I don't know if comparison to the men originally introduced into the battle would help the issue; Beevor has been accused of POV in his books, at least where anti-communism is concerned, while Glantz is reknown for his use of Soviet archives, although there are a lot who doubt his figures as well - unfortunately, them two are the only sources I have that have pin pointed casualties enough to be of any service; although I certainly do have other sources, they don't go into too much depth. Finally, the German counter-attack on the 17th did introduce a final German push into the Izium salient, which would eventually open the path for Operation Blue; undoubtfully, the loss of so much personnel in May was a major reason why the Germans found it so easy to rip through the Soviet frontlines upong the launching of Operation Blue, and that's what I tried to imply. As for organizing the artile a bit better, I'll work on that - give me the weekend to finish it all up.

Now, for the sentence by sentence breakdown; I don't know where the author got those numbers. According to The German Army, by Matthew Cooper, and most other sources I have, the Germans claimed around 100,000 dead by the end of 1941, which seems different from the 250,000 claimed by the artile at Smolensk. Although not all of those were implied dead - rather casualties - you could only assume that at least 1/3 of those were deaths, which certainly seems to high. As far as I'm concerned Smolensk was a debacle for the Red Army, where they faced the crushing of their defense of Moscow. In fact, it's argued by more than one author that Moscow would have fallen had the Germans not stopped and instead sent their strength north and south [to Leningrad and Kiev, respectively]. I would certainly not doubt that strength of Soviet resistance, but I don't think the fact that they had suffered a major defeat can ever be forgotten. Nonetheless, I will change the wording a bit.

Well yes, in retrospect it is obvious that the Soviets were doomed. The Russians thought that the major offensive would occur against Moscow, as opposed to Stalingrad or the Caucasus, and so naming the battle as a local counteroffensive for the Soviets and a major effort for the Germans is not really a POV issue, as far as I see. It's just different perspective from two different sides; I don't think the Soviets ever envisioned that the 6th Army would be so reinforced. Nor did Timoshenko, as outlined by the article, even know about Operation Frederikus, which was ironically, the German operation to destroy the very salient he attacked out of. In other words, the Germans were prepared to strike for an opening blow against the Soviets, which would straighten the front for the eventual launching of Blue; the Soviets did not see their operation as the preamble of what would lead into a major summer offensive, AFAIK.

German defenses were knocked out; sorry for that terrible mistake. Was is now changed to were.

This next sentence quoted refers to the fighting. As far as written sources put it, the German resistance was brutal, as opposed to Soviet resistance on the 17th of May. I can reword the sentence and attribute less POV, which is what I think you're implying. Well actually, now that I look at it, it seems you took it out of context. The "inched foward" refers to Soviet movement of second echelon troops, not to offensive movements. In fact, this is what the entire quote should be, "The fighting was so fierce that the Soviets inched forward their second echelon formations, preparing to throw them into combat as well. Fighting was particularly atrocious near the Russian village of Nepokrytaia, where the Germans launched three local counterattacks. By day's end the greatest penetration by Soviet forces was ten kilometers." I don't see any POV issues over the penetration ranges; it simply states the greatest penetration of Soviet forces; whether the penetration was good or bad can be considered irrelevent; what is relevent is that they has suffered so many casualties, and were facing so much resistance, that they thought the slow movement of their reserves was necessary.

For the next sentence, I think it was use of two sources, which may use different names. I'll have to take tomorrow after class, and this weekend, to work around and edit that, as well as reordering the sequence of battle, and perhaps making more subsections for the battle.

For the next sentence, "The first 72 hours saw a battering of the German Sixth Army, with 16 battalions destroyed," is the topic sentence. The rest of the paragraph explains the sequence of battle for the next 72 hours. The counter-attacks stopped refer to the localized counter-attacks, which I guess I need to establish, although I assumed that it would be understood since the sentence comes right after the sentence which explains the localized counter-attacks. But, I'll change it.

For point #5, I changed the sentence around a bit. I admit, I re-read it and was confused myself. I think I meant the localized-offensives and upon rereading it that's what makes the most sence, so I reworded it a bit to make more sense, although I figure that it'll make even more sense once I finish any reorganization of the article. Point #6 I think deals with the same, so I hope that answered that question as well. As for point #7 I think I answered that before. I said the greatest Soviet advance was 10kms deep, and then this was later illustrated as a spectacular gain,; "By 14 May Stavka's army had made impressive gains", although now that I read it, even that's confusing...so I just reworded that as well.

And finally, point #8. Yes, the Russian forces sorrounded refer to Russian forces that had partaken in the offensive and were in the salient at that time. I guess I have to underscore that as well.

So, you can't begin to believe how much this criticism helped, and by the end of this weekend I hope to have worked out the major problems outlined by your review. If anybody has any information on pictures, I would love to hear it. But, if I can ask that all further review can be held until I finish with the reorganization to avoid flooding this with commentary while I work on the article. I'll leave a message here when I'm finished. Again, thank you a lot!

- JonCatalan 00:31, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I corrected several links for Russian generals, corrected Ewald von Kleist's name and link. The action has been broken into several subsections. I tried to use my judgement as to where the action changed from one side to another. I rather like how it's turned out. Cheers, Guapovia 16:59, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

1. 1. Thanks a lot; you don't understand how much work you saved me! It looks rather good, and again, thank you! JonCatalan 21:47, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This has come on quite well in the 7 months since the last peer review and my last edit. What do you think - should I take it to FAC? The usual "inline reference" merchants will have a field day, I suppose: anything else? -- ALoan (Talk) 13:11, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

---

Some comments and questions. Overall a good article. I realize that not every point can be address or expanded, some of these topics may be out of scope or require data that simply does not exist. Wendell 19:44, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Requests for article clarity:

• The Grand Cross was actually instituted in 1813 along with the Iron Cross, this needs to be addressed.
• Suggest article cleary state if this award is only for the Army or could be awarded to Navy / Air force personel? Some WWII examples show the higher classes award to all branches of the Military. Was this always true? Only for higher classes? The article says the 1813, 1870, and 1914 series had a Grand Cross was intended for senior Generals of the German Army which confuses the issue. Also, the article says Iron Cross was also used as the symbol of the German Army
• Can the article clarify the exact criteria to receive the iron cross? Has it changed over time? The WWII section says awarded for bravery in battle as well as other military contributions to a battlefield environment. Does that apply to all the years of its use? The noncombatant version and War Merit Cros also confuse the issue. Could staff officers win the award with excellent planning?
• The lead paragraph discusses no military decoration to honor or bravery has been issued since 1945; which partially addresses the award criteria in a reverse manner.
• Is there signifance to its very simple design, unadorned, and is made from relatively cheap and common materials.'? Strictly as a guess, was that all that was possible in 1813, but it started a tradition?
• Could German non-Prussians receive the award in the 1813, 1870 and 1914 series?
• Any information on how the 1813, 1870 and 1914 series were worn?
• From the article, Following the end of the Second World War, the government of West Germany permitted its military veterans to wear it, although German law prohibits the wearing of an Iron Cross with a swastika. In 1957 the German government issued new Iron Crosses to World War II veterans, altered to display an Oak Leaf Cluster (similar to the Iron Crosses of 1813, 1870 and 1914) in place of the swastika. I gather all WWII Iron Crosses had the swastika , so I assume between 1945 and 1957, no one could wear or display their award. I am missing something?
  • Just a suggestion, I do not know if it would work. Consolidate the discussion and list of famous award holders. This section could also be expanded to counter balance the Hilter and Goering examples, with more typical examples (panzer aces, etc).
• To clarify the statements that apply to all awards of the series, I suggest a Traditions section. This section could contain (if appriopiate):

1. Award criteria requested above
2. Historical connection between German Military and crosses already in the article (Teutonic Knights, Frederick the Great, etc).
3. The section on Entitlements
4. The discussion of Iron Cross as a symbol of the German Army (with some exceptions)
5. The simple design aspect

Potential topics for a Featured Article:

• How were the awardees selected? Nominated by commander? Nominated for a single specific action, or what? Decided by who or what?
• Could it be award posthumously? Was this common?
• In WWII, could SS personal receive the award? What about Waffen-SS ?
• Does any information exist on the number awarded in the 1813 or 1870 series?
• Five million were issued in WWI. What percentage of the Military got one? Was it a common award?
• In WWII, 2.6 million were issued. Why the decrease? I assume WWII had more people in the Military, so the percentage award dropped. Any signifiance?
• Any stats on the number of living recieptants in 1945? How many replacement awards were issued to living veterns in 1957?
• What is the post war tradition of the award?

1. In Germany, is it legal to buy, sell, wear or display the award by someone not the awardee? Are un-official replica's common?
2. There were at least 7 million manufactured for WWI and WWII. Is there a collectors market? In general, did allied soliders treat them as trophies (horrible but sometimes common in war) and bring captured ones back to their homeland?
3. Any common traditions: awardee buried with the medal? passed down from father to son?

Article expansion suggestions:

• The 1813, 1870, and 1914 series had 2 common grades, and the Grand Cross of the Iron Cross. The WW2 series had 2 common grades and many advanced grades. Any significance worth discussing (besides vanity)?
• Any year-by-year information exist for the numbers awarded in WWI and WWII? Could any trends be established? Was it more awarded when Germany was winning or on the offensive?
• Any East front vs West front award numbers available (for either WWI or WWII)?
• Any famous (or infamous) units have unusually high percentage awarded?
• I assume the Iron Cross was only issued for the wars specifically listed. What about other colonial actions that might have occurred in the 1880s thru WWI? Why not authorized?

---

Gosh - a lot to think about. Thanks for your excellent feedback. -- ALoan (Talk) 11:56, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dunno, seems a bit overkill, all that. If the article becomes that extensive, some of it should be broken into separate articles, no? Guapovia 16:31, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well-sourced article that I've worked a lot on over the last several months; considering FAC and placing on peer review to see where it needs improvement as part of that process. AUTiger ʃ ^talk/_work 19:19, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• It needs inline citations, generally in the form of Wikipedia:Footnotes. AndyZ 22:50, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Some suggestions: Sayeth 20:49, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The orginal article was contributed all at once by an anonymous editor. Google select phrases from this contribution and other large anon edits to check for plagarism.
  • The article tips very close to pro-aquarium boosterism POV. There should at least be some mention of dissenting opinion. Criticism has been leveled at the aquarium on the following topics: 1) long-term viability of an aquarium, 2)Ethics of keeping baluga whales/whale sharks in captivity 3)proximity to the Chattanooga Aquarium. I personally disagree with these criticisms, but you might want to address them before some vandal does.
  • Revise some POV and non-encyclopedic wording: "dramatically", "star", "close to home"
• Consider adding more on the political process behind the creation of the aquarium, the controversy over what some have characterized as Bernie Marcus's take-it-or-leave-it approach, and the city's hopes of a broader boost for Atlanta. There should really be a detailed paragraph at least on each of the sections of the aquarium. You might also work a bit toward a more logical and ordered presentation of the topics if that's possible.--Pharos 12:44, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the feedback.

• Footnotes appear to just be a proposed policy; as far as I can tell, the current reference section is generally acceptable.
• The original article is not plaigarized, at least not from a source that is online and indexed by Google. I have cleaned up some of the encylopedic wording. I will try to find some criticism regarding the long-term viablity and closeness to Chattanooga, but as I recall, that was mostly about a city-driven aquarium prior to Marcus' donation of the aquarium as a private donor/funder. I'm loath to single the GA out for criticism on the belugas and whale sharks since that is something that applies generally to all aquaria (same sort of critics that oppose zoos and all animals in captivity) though a line or two and link to an article on that controversy is probably in order.
• As to a 'take it or leave it approach', I also do not recall that being a major controversy or even critism of Marcus. Will work on expanding the exhibit descriptions and the city's hopes. I'm not sure what section order would be more logical that the current version which seems to lead with those things most important about an aquairum (collection, exhibits, etc) and then progresses to other interesting facts.

Thanks again. AUTiger ʃ ^talk/_work 03:40, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This article was recently peer reviewed by the CVG project. I feel that this article has shown some improvement over the past month, but it could still use some work. I would like to know what needs to be fixed, expanded, improved, deleted, edited, and so on. I am hoping that us editors can get this article featured in the not-so-distant future. Anything and everything would be appreciated. Deckiller 00:30, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The current formatting of the "Story" section is a bit awkward. Just think of someone who knows nothing of this game series (like me) reading the article for the first time. Every time he finds a new concept, he has to go to the List of terms and come back here. This is not practical. It is much better to have these concepts explained in the plot, remove all the wikilinks, and have a single link at the bottom of the article to the list of terms. The section "series controversy" needs more sources, and could also be expanded. I would also like to see a section on the impact this video game had on audiences and game critics. (But with sources, please; no "it is widely regarded as" ;-))JoaoRicardo^talk 15:11, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes; originally, when the page was split, the cricicism and impact was included but that, along with 5-6 good citations, was lost from the main section during the split. I'll get on with it ASAP. BTW, I've been trying to keep on top of the cruft being added, including evil weasel words ^_^ Deckiller 19:49, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jimbo Wales has requested that we improve this article in return for the good will of the congressman's staff posting his official bio to the talk page instead of editing the article directly. I spent a few hours on it, and I've taken it as far as I can. --James S. 10:37, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• I know I need a {{succession box}} or two (U.S. House and S.C. State Senate), but I've never done one of those, so please do if you know how. Thanks, Markles! --James S. 17:23, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• I've cleaned up most of the links, and made a few very minor changes. The addition of the new quotes are a good touch. The first sub-heading title is a little long. More facts about his voting record and tendencies might be nice. Also, any important legislation he has [co]authored. Turnstep 01:08, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That is a good idea. I did add links to his voting record, issue positions, and interest group ratings. His web page has a link to "LEGISLATION I have Sponsored and Co-Sponsored" which contains a bunch of press releases announcing many statments, a handful of commemorative resolutions, and announcements of seven bills. I guess I'll add those in. --James S. 01:55, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Done, plus I added a link to his only co-sponsored passed law which wasn't local, commemorative, or an appropriation. --James S. 04:02, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This article has come a long way and has a lot of detail on all past series of Australian Big Brother. I'm submitting it for peer review in an effort to fill the gaps on content and seek any other advice and suggestions on overall article appearance. Thanks. -- Longhair 04:57, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It seems a bit untidy, but I can't say how it is untidy. It may be a bit big - I'm wondering if subarticles could be a possibility. Andjam 00:54, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Do you think this needs anything else besides inline references to be ready for FAC?--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 22:36, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• It's quite graphics-intensive and some of the images take an unfortunate amount of time to load. Is that because the images are quite large, but get scaled down in this view? The one picture I wanted to see isn't there: an illustrative diagram displaying the various parts of the spacecraft listed in the "Instrumentation" section. (The kind you would often see in an encyclopedia article, for example.) The various external links could be replaced with reference tags, with the actual external links down at the bottom. Otherwise it looks quite good. Thanks. — RJH 18:45, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So here's the deal: I had this requested for a peer review before, the article looks pretty good - aside from the need for citations. This really is a request, but please consider this a recruitment as well! Are you good with military history? Please help edit - I have had some external factors inhibiting me from editing that article like I should have! Please see the first archive here. εγκυκλοπαίδεια* 20:01, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Good article. A couple of things. You should try to avoid wikilinking words in section headers (like 20th century) and don't overlink too much. I found 19th century and United States linked over 5 times. It's unnecessary. It's a good article overall, though. :) Gflores ^Talk 22:14, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• You need to format references better. Reference style is not external link style. Renata 17:38, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Needs a historiography section. Fifelfoo 09:11, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

From here

Please peer review this article. It was nominated for FA but many users suggest it be peer reviewed before it is nominated for FA. So please peer review this article as it seems to have many problems. Thank you Street walker 08:50, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Featured Music Project evaluation
  • Lead - 2 (needs more info in lead)
  • Comprehensiveness - 2, 4 (needs critical reception, major trim of non-major fact)
  • Sales - looks good
  • Pictures - 1, 2 (needs fair use rationales, more free pics would be nice)
  • Audio - 1, 2, 3, 4
  • References - 1, 4 (reference formatting, needs some kind of print/scholarly sources)
  • Discography - looks good
  • Format and style - 2, 3, 4 (songs in quotes, albums (and films) in italics, external links seem excessive, needs content under "Biography", copyedit/major trim)
• Tuf-Kat 02:09, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Street walker 07:01, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Anything else?Street walker 08:49, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've tried to clean this article up as much as I can, but I really think that it could use some more work. A plot overview should be added, as well as a few other things. Add and correct as much as you can to make this a good article. (Ibaranoff24 04:58, 25 January 2006 (UTC))[reply]

• It's good with what it has, but really the plot description is entirely too short. The plot section should be at least several paragraphs, and preferably in some depth with critical analysis. Also the page needs inline references. Thanks. — RJH 16:37, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This article has come a long way since I first got at it and I feel that I've worked on it to the point where need help seeing its faults and how it can be improved. I would like this to eventually become Featured. A few more pictures would be nice. ==Impact== is not yet satisfactory either. Should there be a list of photographs taken by him? POV is also a concern. How does it read? The article's just not getting enough traffic (what else should link to it?). This needs more eyes. -- Rmrfstar 00:36, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• "Other reading" should be changed to "Further reading". AndyZ 22:59, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks. That has been changed. -- Rmrfstar 10:33, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Is this ready for FAC? -- Rmrfstar 11:11, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is the second Adelaide suburb to be edited to such a standard. Help would be appreciated through copyediting, link suggestion and general feedback. Examples of earlier suburb featured articles: Waterfall Gully, South Australia (nominated and worked on by myself) and Yarralumla, Australian Capital Territory.

Thankyou. - G^t 05:49, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Brilliant as always. I can't fault the individual sections at all, but it seems like there's something small missing compared to Waterfall Gully. I think it's that - were it not for the "residents" section, one could almost be mistaken for thinking there were no residents in Mount Osmond. I think where Waterfall Gully explained quite well what the community was like, Mount Osmond seems in a way to be, whilst explaining everything else beautifully, missing the people somehow. Am I making any sense? Ambi 13:13, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• I'll go for a walk tomorrow and take some photos of some Mount Osmond homes and find a way to fit them into the article - the community is just like the rest of Burnside: secluded, conservative and wealthy (similar to Norfolk Island in being an 'isolated self-governing state within a state' as one Adelaide columist put it last weekend). - G^t 13:56, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• It's that vibe which you got across really well in Waterfall Gully, but which just isn't quite there here. I'm not sure quite how you'd go about it, but I'm sure you'll come up with something - you usually do. Ambi 20:02, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• I have been active in writing articles on towns, too. Here are links to my two FACs to draw lessons from: Dawson Creek and Chetwynd. I got "reminded" there to put info on schools and media into the article. I've also got dinged for not using enough maps (I find locational/red-dot maps and street network maps to be the most useful). In addition, the election boxes could be expanded (they currently only show the booth percentages for that area, how about relating it to the electoral district? number of voters? voter turnout rate?) Most importantly the box requires a year - don't assume the reader knows which election it is referring to that they know what year the last election was in (and, no, many readers will not read the text but only glance at the colourful box). I noticed there is no mention of a local government (outside the infobox). Isn't there a mayor and council that govern/administer the area? A simple telephone call to the government office can answer where the drinking water comes from and where the sewage goes. --maclean25 19:04, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• There are no schools in the suburb, the City of Burnside is mentioned twice as the Local Government Area (both in the infobox and the introduction). The suburb itself has no representation apart from the Burnside Council. It really is quite small. I did correct the politics section though, to show which election year. - G^t 01:09, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Ambi, would you mind taking another look? I've swapped around some stuff/added some new images... I think all she really needs now is a copyedit/map. - G^t 02:03, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• The suburbs that surround it only need to be in the table and not in the intro as well. It looks good otherwise. Maybe the picture in the table could be tweaked a little as well and a street/reserves map would be good (altough hard to find). ...maelgwntalk 01:28, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Thankyou for the comments! I was looking into a map but have little experience/knowledge in dealing with vector imaage programs (to create one). If someone else wishes to, that'd be great. michael ^talk 11:50, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Very detailed article and of course would like to further improve it. -- Wikipedical 07:02, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not specifically my area of expertise but the article seems rather more glowing than I'd expect. Jackson has faced considerable criticism recently for Indian Removal and the spoils system, and even during his time over the National Bank, but those sections seem to spend single sentences on this aspect. A documentation of a more critical POV needs to be incorporated into the article as well. There's not much in the way of the "polarizing figure" that the intro promises. Also, wording like "the irate redcoat slashed" and "the ripe old age of" is much too coloquial and charged, and should be rooted out. The notes section should be moved to the bottom, above References. "Physical characteristics and health" should go nearer the top (bottom is couterintuitive) and be cleaned up; much of it appears trivial to me. The intro could stand for expansion, as well. Hope this is helpful Dmcdevit·t 08:26, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

At first glance, it seems to me that this article is in great need of re-organization. The entire "Presidency" category seems to be a large lump of tidbits that need to be expanded upon (and some, like the bit about the 1824 election, also need to be re-categorized). I'd like to see more information on what Jackson did in terms of policy during his presidency, instead of a series of events. Perhaps the "Presidency" section should be split into a section for important events and a section for policies.

The "Physical Characteristics and Health" section should definitely be at the beginning of the article, not the bottom.

• Changed. -- Wikipedical 23:46, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think this article needs to be re-categorized desperately; after that happens, it shouldn't be too hard to see the gaps in the article. --DMurphy 20:57, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• I like the idea of splitting the page into "first term" and "second term," but right now there's no second term section. Also, the 1824 stuff should be in the section above the First Term section. And the article really does have some holes in it - nothing at all on the Petticoat Affair other than a link to it in the Later Life section, and also very little about The Hermitage. I'd like to see some info on his physical characteristics that's actually confirmed by another source too. --DMurphy 14:39, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've been trying to seperate the middle chunk of the article into both terms, but this will take some time. It's in process. -- Wikipedical 04:10, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've written most of this article, with the intention of getting it up to featured article level. I'd like an idea of how far it still has to go & what'd be needed. AllanHainey 12:27, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• The article is well laid out and you should't have too much work to do for FAC; but you will need to add inline citations, in particular quotes should be properly referenced so they could be verified by the reader, see Yagan for an exaple of how to do this. Most biographies have a legacy section, which could discuss how Murdochs contributions held up over time and how he is remembered today.--nixie 23:43, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I'll try to add references to the quotes when I have some spare time. For the inline citations is it just the quotes that need to be referenced, if not what does? For the legacy bit I didn't bother with it initially as he's mostly forgotten today but I'll see if I can cobble something together. AllanHainey 08:10, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mostly just the quotes, but if there is anything in the article that is clearly controvertial then a specific reference should be provided for that.--nixie 10:51, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How about some more pics of the inventions, gears, turbines, etc. Should be simple to insert one of the Clermont. Also, you shouldn't "blockquote" or offset the short quotations, usually less than a paragraph can be cited this way, "in my opinion, but I think there's probably something in the WP:MOS about it." If you're citing an entire paragraph, that's when to set it off from the rest of the text. Kaisershatner 14:56, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean "the Clermont"? do you know where there are any pictures which I could use, as I'm unable to scan anything in from a biography, even if the copyright expired, as I don't have a scanner. AllanHainey 16:14, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would love to see this become a featured article. I have an inkling it is getting close. What needs to be done to get it all the way?  Run!  21:41, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Add inline citations. TomStar81 03:48, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Lots, I think, but it's a very good start. 1) We need to document typical reviews of the various games and how well the games sold (if such info is available). 2) The "Weapons and tools" section needs to be bigger. Worms is, more or less, about the funky and wacky and surreal tools and weapons. Obviously, we don't need to document them all (that's what the subarticles there for), but I think it could be easily be expanded by 100-200% and not be too crufty. 3) The sounds, particularly the cute Worm phrases, are a big component of the game, and deserve a mention. 4) Worms: Director's Cut featured some unique and fun features; we should mention them. 5) These days FAC requires inline citations. 6) Wasn't Hogs of War (or something like that) a clone? If so, we should mention it. 7) We could email Andy Davidson and ask for a self-portrait ;-) — Matt Crypto 07:56, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cool, thanks guys :)  Run!  08:44, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Righto. Well it wasn't hard finding more things to say about the Weapons, so that section is much more comprehensive now. There's now an audio section which might need expanding, though I can't find a lot to say about the sound really. I know a friend who's obsessed with Worms:DC so I shall extract some information about that from him :). I'm plodding on with the inline citations, so there'll be more to come. I'm researching Hogs of War so that I can say something about that (fortunately, there's a wiki article on it). And I'm currently trying to get in contact with Team17 about their sales statistics for Worms. There was nothing on the site, but there might be soon.  Run!  15:30, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is an understatement to say that this article is poorly written: filled with gramatical errors, uncited material and run-on sentences. But the subject matter is treated atrociously, and the examples very poorly, if at all, give any elucidation to the topic. There is almost nothing at all to distinguish it from Historical revisionism. I have removed some material, as you can see on the article's talk page, but this article makes a lot of accusations, and they need to be checked for validity. There may be a legitimate topic here (that's not my opinion), but this article is a rant that leaves a reader much more confused than when they went in. --DanielCD 21:21, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Try Wikipedia:Pages needing attention. This page is for nearly Featured-standard articles. Thanks. — RJH 15:25, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK, m'i bad. --DanielCD 19:48, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My introductory paragraph here may have been a little exaggerated, as it often can seem when one comes to an article that needs work and has people in conflict. I will try some other methods to try to get a little fresh air into it though. Thanks. --DanielCD 16:13, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Is this FA status? --Dangherous 16:50, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It might not be quite ready. The lead section seems a little too short. For FA standards it needs to be a really good overview of Welsh. I'm sure more can be said about the status of Welsh, and perhaps different sub-sections about laws and usage could be made. Although the original author must have thought the language's status is important, it might be better to move this section down the page, so that we get to grips with the language itself first. The history and development section seems way too short to do justice to Welsh. You may want separate paragraphs, even sub-sections, for each stage of the language, and fully outline the literature and setting of the language in each period. A timeline would be a great addition to this section (I added something similar to Aramaic). Otherwise, da iawn! --Gareth Hughes 17:13, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's good. It'll need references before being ready to become featured though. I also think a section on the use of welsh in culture would be good. I know Super Furry Animals had an (international) hit with Mwng which was all Welsh. What literature is written in Welsh? Other things like that. The history section is a bit short. In addition to what Gareth said it could also cover the history of the use of Welsh as well as its development - when did it become an official language of Wales and so on. The later section on education could also possibly be merged into the history. Pob lwc (I hope that means what I think it means...) --Cherry blossom tree 16:55, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I actually like the numeral table very much, but if it could be condensed and floated, it'd be much better IMHO. At worst, it could be split. Circeus 21:37, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Generally informative, but the numerals table, for example, might as well be removed since it's already explained in prose (including the phonological notes). The "Welsh in..."-sections are also questionable. More prose, fewer lists and ditch the trivia, to put it simply. / Peter ^Isotalo 16:13, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a nitpicker of the highest order:

• Lead should be two or three kinda meaty paragraphs long. Potential paper versions of Wikipedia will probably contain only leads, so it should be a standalone summary. See Wikipedia:Lead for guidelines.
• Status
  • I'm with Gareth here: putting at least the history section before the current status would make more sense.
  • Paragraphs at the start of this section are short and choppy.
  • The "Welsh is very much a living language." sentence is misplaced; it should go before the stuff about how many speak it as a first language.
  • This section jumps around between where it is used and how advocacy and government policy has affected usage. I'd group everything together by those two topics to make it more coherent.
  • Pictures should be rearranged: having pictures on both the right and left nearby can lead to bad formatting for lower resolution users. Also, the way it pushes the "History" section heading over is kinda unattractive.
• History
  • I'd list the periods in the first paragraph before going into detail on them. Either that or section the periods off and expand each.
  • Avoid using links as a way to avoid defining something that's perhaps obscure to the reader. For instance, "...used by the famous Welsh poet Dafydd ap Gwilym" is preferable to just "...used by Dafydd ap Gwilym."
  • Somewhere a link would be helpful is for the "non-conformist churches". I'm a German American, so I'm totally ignorant about this.
• Grammar
  • I wouldn't get rid of all the tables unless a Welsh grammar was spun off, but more text has to accompany the tables. Look at the text to table ratio in the FAs Laal language#Grammar and Portuguese language#Grammar. Both of the FAs Russian language and Tamil language have spun off their grammar sections and just left summaries.
• Dialects
  • Needs support from linguistics sources.
• Welsh in education - This is the third time this is talked about. Consolidate.
• Welsh in the economy
  • The first two paragraphs say the same thing.
  • The bilingual paragraphs are incredibly choppy and repetitive.
• Welsh in warfare - Surely there's a better place for this information.
• See also - Some of these, such as List of Welsh principal areas by percentage Welsh language and Welsh Language Board, belong in the body of the article. Welsh Bible could be linked to from the History section, too.
• External links - You have enough to break them up thematically

References will be a must for FA, and I'm with Cherry blossom tree that Welsh in popular culture would be a good addition so long as it's more than just a list. Well, I promised nitpicking, and hopefully I delivered. — Laura Scudder ☎ 23:42, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have just completely rewritten and expanded the article based on the newly published biography by James Hansen. Looking for some more outside input as to where the article goes into too much depth or covers details that are obscure and unneeded in a Wikipedia biography. I haven't quite finished the footnoting and still want to cover the world tour he went on just after Apollo 11. Evil Monkey - Hello 02:55, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• It's great; don't trim anything. I think you picked some great topics, including the human aspects. Wikipedia isn't paper. --James S. 04:31, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• The Armstrong on film section seems a bit thin. Mabye this and the urban myths sections could be merged together into a Armstrong in popular culture section - which could also mention biographies, other notable appearances in the media (imbd) and his role in advertising (I know I'm thinking of Buzz, but has Armstrong also done infomercials or other endorsements?). The section on Apollo 11 could probably be written in more of a summary style and a {{main}} link included to the Apollo 11 article. Otherwise the article is looking pretty good.--nixie 04:37, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Wikipedia isn't paper, but the Apollo 11 article should have most of the details mentioned in the corresponding section of this article. I think it might be possible to reduce the section by a couple paragraphs—the paragraph beginning "The objective of Apollo 11" and the following two paragraphs could be summarized to focus more on Armstrong himself and less on the mission. And if more can be written in the television/film section, that'd be helpful. The text could use some general tightening of the language—phrases like "The reason why Neil Armstrong would go down in history as the first person on the Moon probably came from a meeting in March 1969 between Deke Slayton, Bob Gilruth, George Low, and Chris Kraft" can be whacked down to "In a March 1969 meeting, Deke Slayton, Bob Gilruth, George Low, and Chris Kraft probably determined that Neil Armstrong would be the first person on the moon." (reduction of 8 words or ~20%, and more could be removed by combining sentences, etc.). Other than that though, very nice work. We need more good biography articles. --Spangineer (háblame) 03:26, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks for the comments. I've merged the urban myths and TV sections to create a "popular culture" section as suggested. Also I've added a paragraph about his biography by Hansen. As for the prose, I am the first to admit that it sucks at times. Although I agree that Wikipedia is not paper, I understand that no one wants a 20,000 word biography article :-) Evil Monkey - Hello 21:58, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Imporant 20th century evolutionary biologist, is the article understandable for non scientists?--nixie 23:14, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I made some changes to section titles, wikilinks, and added a few pics. I thought your prose was understandable. Kaisershatner 14:53, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks.--nixie 00:19, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This article has improved a lot in the last month, most notably with the inclusion of a lot of relevant images, very detailed references for almost all the facts quoted, and standard sections as per country pages. The language has also been NPOVized to a great extent. So, I think we can move this into FAC, but before that, I'd like to hear other people's opninions in avenues for improvement. Thanks. --Ragib 05:22, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The only remaining point, IMO, is reducing size from 49kb to lower 40s, which is a reasonable figure for articles on nations. Rama's Arrow 05:28, 13 March 2006 (UTC) -> Done , size now 46KB, which should be ok --Ragib 03:16, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

With all respect, given the high level of referencing in this article, this advice is rather arbitrary and/or infeasible — as long as the article stays on topic and summary style is used, arbitrary length cutoffs shouldn't matter (FAC objections based on such cutoffs have been repeatedly over-ruled by the FAC Director — see Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Chetwynd, British Columbia for just one great example). Also, note that this article is 37kb when only the "References" and "External links" sections are cut out — this is much less than the 44kb Australia. Saravask 23:47, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also, please check that there is no glaring difference between the account of the Bangladesh Liberation War/genocide in the Pakistan article and this one - Pakistan is also prepping for FAC. Rama's Arrow 05:42, 13 March 2006 (UTC) ->Actually, Pakistan's page describes it in one sentence in the history section and the text in this article is just an elaboration. Since Bangladeshi history starts at this point, an elaborated treatment of the war in a whole paragraph is needed, and done here in a crisp, brief manner.--Ragib 03:16, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The name of Bangladesh in the Bengali script sounds like bangladashe (the Bengali script is a perpetual problem). Also, the map in the infobox is not correct.The green patch depicting Bangladesh in the infobox map appears to have skewed to the left.

The portion where the highest point in Bangladesh is described (in Geography and Climate section) appears somewhat confusing, it takes time to make out what the writer is trying to say.--Dwaipayanc 05:51, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Bangla script problem is actually a client side issue ... it happens with all indic scripts. Actually, this is correctly rendered in a unicode enabled browser. I assume that you are looking into it from Firefox/XP. In any case, to view unicode Bangla text correctly, that indic text support needs to be enabled in Windows XP. The text renders correctly in IE, and also Linux/Firefox and other browsers.

I agree that the highest point is debated. Keokeradong was always thought to be so, but a satellite survey about 2 years ago showed that's not correct. But whatever that is, I agree that the text should reflect that clearly. Thanks for the observation. --Ragib 06:09, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree abt the genocide part, there is need to be careful there. Also, a previous review mentioned the lack of attention given to Ershad, which still remains a problem.--ppm 05:59, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The cultural section needs a lot of work. Some of the prose is South Asian English, not English English, and some of the sentences are clumsy. Frex, "Contemporary Bangladesh keeps producing a substantial amount of litearture of all forms." That makes literature sound like the jute harvest. It would be better to say something about the number of newspapers, magazines, and books published, literacy, readership, and perhaps to mention the names of some well-known contemporary writers. Is there an article on Bengali literature?

The history section contains a lurid sentence which runs something like "Rape of Bangladesh was one of the worst genoicides in history, as bad as the genoicide in Cambodia" and there's a link to an emotional website. It was horrible, inexcusable, vile ... I hadn't realized that it was so terrible ... and I shudder to think that the perpetrators are still living at their ease. Still, it wasn't as bad as Cambodia, where Pol Pot managed to kill 25% of the population. The West Pakistanis didn't manage that in Bangladesh. Now perhaps "bad" is measured by population numbers, but that's a clumsy scale to use ... wiping out 100% of an Amazon tribe of 1000 people would seem "less bad" than killing 2000 people out of a population of 10,000,000. Perhaps you should leave out the judgements about more or less bad and just present the facts ... that's horrifying enough.

I'm sure that there are more nits to pick, but those were the biggest problems I saw. Zora 06:04, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There is an article on Bangla literature, which last time I checked was a copy of the relevant portion in the entry Bangla. In general, increasing culture makes the article longer, specially when we are already missing art and architecture there. Maybe we should shorten history?--ppm 06:10, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• The article needs to be written in summary form and you would need to trim about ~5 kb of content.
• Article needs a copyedit (->Does it still need it? we've tried to go through every error, so how is it now?--Ragib 03:16, 6 April 2006 (UTC))[reply]
• Please don't compare the country with another (Greece). It needs to be a summary of the article. (Done--Ragib 03:16, 6 April 2006 (UTC))[reply]
• Remove the time magazine cover. It's not a free image. (Done--Ragib 03:16, 6 April 2006 (UTC))[reply]
• Merge politics with government. (Done--Ragib 03:16, 6 April 2006 (UTC))[reply]
• Please avoid squeezing text between two images.
• The Education section can be removed

I'll review in detail after the article is summarised and copyedited. Regards, =Nichalp «Talk»= 06:14, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

At the bottom of the article is a table on Holidays which virtually replicates the page on Public holidays in Bangladesh. One of the two tables should be removed - probably the one on the main article - and the information merged into the last paragraph of the Culture section which mentions Eid. Green Giant 06:58, 13 March 2006 (UTC) (Done--Ragib 03:16, 6 April 2006 (UTC))[reply]

Thanks, I've removed the holiday section. Most of the holidays are mentioned in the Culture section. --Ragib 02:51, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just something I noticed right away were three links in the middle of the history section that need to be converted into references or something. Looking at the page in the printable version makes the section look ugly with the URLs present in the paragraph as opposed to at the bottom like the references. Pepsidrinka 04:11, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for pointing that out, I've changed them to refs/notes format. I couldn't notice them in the normal view ... the printable view suggestion is great indeed. Thanks. --Ragib 08:07, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Another thing about the references; try keeping a consistent pattern with regards to the punctuation. I don't know if there is correct format, but have the references preceding the punctuations (e.g., commas and periods) or have them after them. Right now, some of the references come after a period and others come before a comma, it just looks un-professional. Pepsidrinka 04:20, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nice article. Good amount of content. Two quick points now, I'll add more later.

1. The article needs a copyedit to bring a better tone and style. For example, the second paragraph in the lead, just uses the words "east" and "west" to refer to East Pakistan and West Pakistan respectively. It has phrases like "ruled by the west" that need clarification. (Done--Ragib 03:16, 6 April 2006 (UTC))[reply]
2. Image:PakSurrender.jpg has a non-existent template as a license. -- Sundar ^{\talk \contribs} 10:39, 23 March 2006 (UTC) (Replaced. --Ragib 03:16, 6 April 2006 (UTC))[reply]

A page representing the highest wiki-tradition, a truly encyclopedic page, The page has all the ingredients to migrate to the status of a featured page. It is really heartening to note that as of now the page has no redlinks, as such the user shall have the luxury to dig deep into the contents covered in this page. I am re- reading the page very carefully, and shall surely come back with more comments, if required. --Bhadani 08:05, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The only red link in Bangladesh now in Khanjan.I don't know what is that. Please try to make it blue! And as you guys have already discussed in the Bangladesh talk page, the article would be splendid with some more photos, especially on the cultural aspect. A photo of a rice field with farmers is so much representative of our mental picture of gram bangla (the rural Bengal). Have you thought about adding something on Transport/ communication in Bangladesh? The picture of that long bridge over Jamuna will be excellent.Bye.--Dwaipayanc 19:29, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I think the "Education" section should stay. Also, given the quality of this article right now, it should be put up at FAC immediately, so that more critique would be available. Other than that, minor issues: "$" should be converted to "USD" or "US$", non-breaking spaces ( ) and – need to be used consistently. This looks great — good luck. Saravask 23:47, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely agree with Saravask. Bangladesh should be put up at FAC ASAP.The article is great. If you see this FA you will see so many red links and a lack of photos.Compared to that and other FA like This Charming Man, Bangladesh is already superior, though potentially more controversial especially in the history section.Putting up for FAC will attract more critique than this peer review and faults, if any, can be mended quickly. Please go for FAC. Bye.--Dwaipayanc 09:07, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note watch Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Pakistan for a bit. Any problems/comments noted there will automatically be useful for this article. Rama's Arrow 17:49, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Everything looks good except the subdivisions section. The problem is the main article links break up the prose and make for very short, choppy sentences. Consider merging that section with politics too. - Taxman ^Talk 21:29, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi - I've just created "BangladeshTopics." Please help to customize and improve it. Rama's Arrow 17:03, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I'm updating it. --Ragib 02:49, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How is the article right now? I've commented in bold replies to most of the points raised above, so please take a look and let me know. Thanks. --Ragib 03:16, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Looks great. You have my vote at the FAC. It could help with a mild copyedit. I'll try doing some if I find time. On random inspection, I found two things that need fixing.

• Excessive use of possessive case marker with the word Bangladesh. Consider using the of form, as in economic engine of Bangladesh, wherever possible. Done--ppm 20:29, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Is the alluvial soil prone to flood and drought? Or does it make the terrain prone to them? Please clarify. Reworded --ppm 20:29, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'll put any other issues at the article's talk page or here. -- Sundar ^{\talk \contribs} 04:48, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks ppm. -- Sundar ^{\talk \contribs} 06:18, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Is the "10 million" figure for the refugees who fled to India not disputed? Rama's Arrow 19:37, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There are citations from the US State department, provided in the article Bangladesh Liberation War, I can copy that here. Thanks. --Ragib 20:05, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I added a reference for this statement. It's not widely disputed anyway (as opossed to numbers killed), numbers vary only from 8-10 million--ppm 03:21, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I'd like to see something about the disputes over illegal immigration from Bangladesh into India in the article - there are large numbers of Bangladeshis in India, legal and illegal, and also many going to Pakistan. Rama's Arrow 19:37, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think that can be summarized in one sentence in the main article, I will work on that. --Ragib 20:05, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, but the article India does not have anything on this issue. If it's not an important enough topic in the India article, why is it crucial here?--ppm 02:15, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If there are an estimated 10 - 15 million Bangladeshis in India as a result of systematic illegal immigration, obviously its something relevant and important to Bangladesh. India has some lines on its expatriate community, but the illegal immigration problem from Bangladesh is not characteristic to India (while it is to Bangladesh, as these people are its citizens). Please note that 15 million would make roughly 10% of the present population, so I think you can't really ignore this. Rama's Arrow 15:43, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If someone would add a line about this in India, I definitely would not mind coz its important. Rama's Arrow 15:45, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'll see if I can find a reference. In any case, we must be careful not to depict other South Asian countries in India's terms.--ppm 03:56, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

okay i added a sentence in demographics covering this, along with more important immigration/refugee problems that concern Bangladesh--ppm 22:46, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've made some major edits to the page including copyediting. A few red links are introduced, it should be made blue, 1 citation needed, and the highest point mentioned. I've removed the =Education= section as per the Wikiproject countries which does not list it. I've also merged =sports= under culture and pruned away victories over Pakistan etc. The only thing remaining is the =History= section. Up till this point in 1966, its president Sheikh Mujibur Rahman was jailed and in 1969 was released after unprecedented popular uprising. the section is well summarised, but after that it becomes too detailed. Regards, =Nichalp «Talk»= 13:06, 9 April 2006 (UTC) (citation and highest point provided--ppm 05:54, 10 April 2006 (UTC))[reply]

The first map, which was previously quite deformed as Dwaipayanc noted, is now fixed. I think (unfortunately, in a somewhat biased way) that this is now ready for FAC. One particularly good thing about this article is that it's throughly fact-checked and footnotes are used extensively. Sheehan (Talk) 08:46, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am resending this article for peer review as it has greatly improved since the start of the last peer review and I would like more comments on how this article could be improved. Tarret 18:35, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• The "uses" section mentions that mangoes are messy to eat several times. Perhaps once is plenty. Joyous | Talk 16:10, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A mango fork will help. - Samsara _contrib ^talk 18:34, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How about a picture of how to properly cut and eat a mango? Cut it in half, cut cross sections of about 1/2" cubes into each half, down to the skin, invert the skin, and the cubes pop right up for eating. Sandy 19:29, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• The Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations is usually a good source. Consider using part 1, part 2, and to part 5. --maclean25 03:44, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• North and South America are both mentioned under North America ? South America -- where the mango is a diet staple in many countries -- seems to be somewhat overlooked in the article, which focuses on Asia. I'm also wondering if there's any place to include a disclaimer paragraph about the current Multi-Level Marketing "scam" for a product called mangosteen, which is *not* related to mangos? (Reference quackwatch.org ?) How can an article about mangos be complete without a reference to the saying "mango bajito," meaning low-hanging fruit, easy for the picking? <smile> Sandy 19:26, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not unreasonable that it should concentrate on Asia, as that's where mangos come from. South America (and other places they're grown, like Africa and Australia) certainly need to be mentioned, but as secondary developments, rather than primary. Never heard of "mango bajito," before, what is it? (and why the comma?? should it not be just "mango bajito"?) - MPF 00:08, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You're correct about the wayward comma. Mango bajito is a Spanish saying for anything easy to pick up, including (but not limited to) the lesser desirable images conjured up by that saying. It translates literally to low-hanging mango (i.e.; easy to pick). Once you've seen a tree full of ripe mangos, feeding entire communities with whatever they can pick off the lower branches, it makes complete sense. Sandy 00:20, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The topic is not very broad and diverse, but I am hoping to expand on it. Any suggestions, comments? —Eternal Equinox | talk 00:28, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• The cultural significance of the equinoxes? Festivals? Alignment of Stonehenge? Mark^{your words} 12:38, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• I agree with Mark above that a reader would expect to find the cultural significance of the equinox here. References are required per Wikipedia:Verifiability and m:Cite/Cite.php is excellent for incorporating footnotes. Consider using a table or illustrated list for the "March equinox" and "September equinox" sections since they consist of similar sentences repeated a dozen times (see Wikipedia:Featured lists for ideas. --maclean25 22:09, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• I think Stonehenge is associated with the solstices rather than the equinoxes. Some phenomena I do associate with equinoxes, however:

the dating of Passover and hence Easter (which is mentioned on Jewish holiday, although I can't find it on the Passover page). Actually, the vernal equinox page lists a lot about calendars, first of the year, and so on, so perhaps you don't want them in equinox too -- Iran and Israel also seem to organise daylight saving by equinox dates too.

not sure, but possibly very high tides? (see spring tides, but it doesn't mention equinoxes, so perhaps I am wrong).

equinoctial gales. Seem slightly disputed by a BBC weather feature but then see also Saxby Gale (which is really interesting and which I never knew -- wow)

There are some startling "one night a year, all these thousands of members of this species do this same thing at the same time" stories about the animal world. Are any of those connected to equinoxes? (I really should have paid more attention to David Attenborough :))

When did astronomers first observe and describe the equinoxes? For how many thousands of years have humans watched for them, confident that they would occur?

Not sure how useful any of these are, but some thoughts, at least. --Telsa (^(t)(c)) 19:18, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Self Nomination. I think that this article is very comprehensive and well written. The majority is a translation from the German featured article and I have added inline citations. If anyone has any suggestions about how to improve this article, I would be obliged to improve it. Trebor27trebor 15:31, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't given the article a thorough reading, but all of the German-style quotemarks need to be changed to English-style. Andrew Levine 17:27, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a wikipedia policy on this? I suppose it may be easier to read as there are French, German and English style quotation marks in the article, but I don't want to change them just for the sake of it.

No, there is no Wikipedia policy there; it is simply against the rules of English punctuation. English-language text, even when quoting something written in French or German, invariably uses English quote marks (just as French uses its own guillemets for quoting English text). A typical anglophone reader will come across what appear to him to be upside-down quote marks or arrow-shapes and wonder what the heck is going on. Andrew Levine 04:33, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK, understood. I'll just change it now. Trebor27trebor 19:37, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Looking for ideas for improvement and suggestions about what needs smoothing out. I know we're missing data, but do you notice anything besides that? jengod 04:04, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• There's a huge empty box between the introduction and the table. Also, the intro says that the point is to compare elections since the advent of TV, which makes the rest of the table look like pointless trivia. It's not pointless trivia, surely? Mark^{your words} 12:14, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Gap removed and intro revised. Better? Thank you so much for commenting! jengod 21:58, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• The colours used in the table to denote "Taller candidate won" and "Shorter candidate won" appear almost identical on my laptop's monitor. Could one of the colours be switched to something with more contrast? --NormanEinstein 16:14, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • i agree with the color complaint. also, i did not see the legend in the article at first. can something be done to make it more visible. and as a side suggestion, maybe a special marking nex to the tallest and shortest president to hold office. --ZeWrestler ^Talk 19:03, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Color changed for "shorter candidate wins" to a pink, which hopefully will contrast better. Added two grafs pointing out the extremes for Presidents and runners-up. Thanks again! jengod 20:18, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Actually, I would shy away from the red/blue colours as this implies Republican/Democrat. Also, the article requires a "Reference" section to tell us where did all these height figures come from. --maclean25 17:13, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hopefully more "neutral" colors dropped in (yellow, green and beige). The references are a bigger problem I'm planning to postpone until the overall quality of the list is up to speed. ;) jengod 21:10, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• On the subject of references, the article asserts there is a "frequently-stated "rule"" about heights. If there is, it should be easy to cite an example or examples of this urgan legend or whatever being mentioned. Kaisershatner 20:08, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Two examples of statements about presidential heights added. jengod 21:10, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A fairly expansive article on a prominent Cold War icon. Would appreciate feedback on improving it to FA quality. - Emt147 ^Burninate! 04:35, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! Nice work. For openers, I would move the long list of nicknames out of the intro, maybe keeping one or two. The status of the plane as a record-breakers is notable and should be mentioned in the intro (something like, "Immediately upon being put into service, the F4 shattered the world records for..."). Also, sections with only one subsection look awkward. Better if you can subdivide each section into two or more subs, IMO. Kaisershatner 20:00, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also, if you're looking for FA status, inline citations are pretty much required. Kaisershatner 20:02, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the feedback! I'll work on implementing those changes. In-line refs are a bit hard to do because there are so many books on the subject. Donald Lake's "Spirit in the Skies" is a good synthesis of the information that I cited for anyone wanting to read more on the type. I'd loathe to have all inline refs point to the Lake book because it would appear that the article is written from it which is not the case. - Emt147 ^Burninate! 20:24, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I'm nominating Canada for a peer review. It's a fairly good article, also noted by the good article status which it has received. I wanted to expand on it, but I decided the best way to expand would be to first find out what the thoughts of other Wikipedians are. Not just for myself, but for others so that we can collaborate and get it to FA status. I was using the United States article as a comparison, and one MAJOR section I noticed was Economy. To sum up, the section finishes before it starts. Another rather strange section is History, and Quebec sovereignty movement within it in particular. The former seems a bit brief, while the latter looks out of place.

There are definitely other areas to be improved or added, and that's where you peer reviewers come in. It's a pretty good article thus far. It's already reached FA on a couple of international Wikis, so why not in the English version?

So what do you think? how can we improve this article? ♠ SG →Talk 04:28, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Less one-paragraph sentences. Some of these can definitely be stitched into proper paragraphs.
• LOTS of statements that need citation, e.g "Many Canadian citizens see Canadian culture as based on the policy of multiculturalism, while others see it as based on a predominantly British and French core, with American and new immigrant influences and modifications."
• Something needs to be done with "The Canadian government currently supports universal health care, same-sex marriage, and decriminalization of marijuana." Are we talking about the Harper government here? I don't think they favor marijuana decriminalization or same-sex marriage (though they mostly accept the latter as settled by the Supreme Court, a lot of the Conservatives oppose it on principle).
• Some pictures I'd expect to see in the article: the Château Frontenac (I like this one), something of Toronto, a photo illustrating official bilingualism (like a French/English sign), and something with wildlife (caribou would be good). Andrew Levine 04:49, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Excellent points. I think with that input alone the article can be improved immensely. Thanks! ♠ SG →Talk 20:41, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I just got the main article on Michigan State University featured. I would now like to get this daughter article in shape to be a Featured Article. Please let me know what you think. — Lovelac7 07:04, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Remember that some users only have 800x600 screens, so reduce the size of those panorama images and the sizes of images that are near each other (especially in the "Coed College" section but also the last two images and table in "Land Grant Pioneer"). The lead should also be expanded to at least two well-developed paragraphs summarizing the article. All that said, again, good work. --Spangineer (háblame) 16:53, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I turned my monitor down to 800x600 and rearranged the images. I've rewritten the lead section to include two paragraphs. Thanks for your comments, Spangineer. — Lovelac7 04:55, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Lovelac7, glad to hear you're going to help work your magic on the MSU history page. I’m here to help. I've taken it upon myself punch up some of the footnoting to keep the NPOV dogs from yelping. Most notable, is FN#10 re the State Board of Ag Report. I know the quote is absolutely correct because I copied it to a Word page, but lost the copy. The only Q is re the exact name of the Board's report -- I'm pretty sure I'm close, the name I have is consistent with similar reports I've tracked through GOOGLE -- and I guessed the age based on the year quoted and the founding date of the Board of Ag (1961). I'm traveling to E. Lansing this week and will get the exact name and page number. So by early next week, I'll tighten that up. BTW, I like the sepia tone.Pulley12 05:37, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for all of your help, Pulley12, especially with the references. Lovelac7 14:23, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• By the by, Lovelac7, re your Marshall Hall photo, 2 things: 1) somehow “The Spartan" (Statue) is in front of this photo, and 2) the shot you have is actually the side of the building and not the front (you’ll note, there’s no entrance in your photo).Pulley12 05:44, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I fixed the caption. I must of had a picture of Sparty in that image box before. As for the side view of Marshall Hall, the building is very hard to photograph from the front, since there is a tree right in the way. I do have a front shot if you think that'd be better. Lovelac7 14:23, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• To all interested Wikipedians: I am moving next week and so I will have limited access to a computer. If you have any comments, let me know below, and I'll work on them when I get settled. Then we'll take this article to FAC. Lovelac7 03:36, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• I removed my comments regarding the limiting of (1st president) Joseph R. Williams' influence in the original college (i.e. he didn't, per se, hire faculty). That is, b/c of a follow-up visit to the campus archives, it's hard to limit exactly how influential he was -- his fingerprints were all over the early college. So that it appears, he even had influence over hiring of early faculty (as some sources hint) although he didn't actually do so... so I'm leaving well enough alone. I think the article's fine as is, right now, on that score, unless Lovelac7, or anyone else, has suggested changes on that score Pulley12 08:50, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think that this article is written to quite a good standard, but was wondering if there is anyway it can be expanded. Some areas may also need clarification, but I am not sure which sections or to what degree. This page is also subject to vandalism due to its slightly controversial nature, and any suggestions on how to minimise that aspect, if it can be minimised, would be appreciated. Allthesestars 09:56, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The article is missing biographical information on Edward. As it stands now, it is an article on the TV show, and not on John Edward. The section "Criticisms" reproduces content from other articles, such as cold reading and hot reading. It is better to just indicate these articles and then focus on criticism directly towards Edward, and not towards psychichs in general. And inline citations should be used. It is not clear what is the source for Schwartz's test; show it in the article itself, preferably through inline citation. Ditto for that alleged documentary on him. The section on the disclaimer should be sourced; it should say who has favored this or that opinion, otherwise those are weasel words. JoaoRicardo^talk 21:56, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The article will need some considerable work. Besides agreeing with the above regarding the missing biographical information, the article consists of several small paragraphs which should be expanded, combined, or eliminated. As well, I personally am not a fan of celebrity's having "in the media" sections, as persumably, it's a celebrity's job to appear in the media. However, I do not know if there's an official policy regarding this. As of now, over 2/3 of the article involves criticisms of Edward or media parodies, which might create some NPOV issues since the article appears on first read against him. I hope that helps you, and best of luck with the writing! --Ataricodfish 06:20, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

When I first came to this page I was disappointed, so I rewrote it from scratch and I've got it to this state so far. I know the Gameplay section is woeful and needs much improvement - but what else can be added? Any suggestions would be appreciated, thanks! — Wackymacs 18:03, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Straight away the images are lacking fair use rationale. LordViD 21:45, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• The synopsis section is a bit too short to be viable, expand or merge into the lead/gameplay sections. Without going into the realms of original research, how is it similar to games that came before or after it. Some more info on how it was recieved by gamers (rahter than educators) wouldn't hurt, did it win any awards? The tone of the gameplay is a bit too familiar, the language needs to be tightened so it sounds a bit less like something you'd read on gamefaqs.--nixie 10:44, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • LordViD, Fair use rationales have been added to the images. nixie, I am slowly rewriting the Gameplay paragraph and will try and expand the Synopsis section. I'll try and find out if the game won any awards, because I think it did. Thanks for the comments so far. — Wackymacs 16:47, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Quick observation; the first sentence reads "Capitalism is a capitalism"...This is a very awkward phrase; perhaps you could omit the second capitalism, which is redundant. LordViD 19:05, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Changed. — Wackymacs 19:48, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Great, thanks. More stuff;

1. In the infobox, the "Everyone" rating is obtained from which company? the ESRB? could this be clarified in the infobox please.
2. The lead section is lacking; a brief paragraph about gameplay in the lead would be helpful.
3. While we're on the subject of the lead section, I think it's pretty messy; the statements about Capitalism Plus should be merged with the statements about Capitalsm II at the end to make something like this;
   "It [Capitalism] spawned a more advanced release entitled Capitalism Plus and a sequel called Capitalism II in 2001, which is frequently used for educational purposes at colleges for students studying business...". It just seems odd to me to bombard the reader with information about Capitalism Plus in the first paragraph when they came to read about Capitalism.
4. Linking years and dates is inconsistent throughout the article; somne dates are linked but others are not.

More to come later :) LordViD 20:46, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've done most of this — I still need to add the gameplay bit to the lead, I'm not sure how of to word it. — Wackymacs 08:54, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Good job with bringing the article to life, but more work will be needed. Since you asked, here are some suggestions:
• Sales Figures / Competition: Was the game a commercial success? What similiar games did it compete for shelf space with? You mention it being one of the first business and economics simulation games, but were there critical comparisions to games like SimCity or Civilization?
• Motivation / Influences: Why did Trevor Chan design the game? Was he influenced by anything already on the market? Were there any later games which were influenced by this one?
• I would also recommend adding a picture of the game itself. You have the scenario screen, but nothing that shows the "meat and potatos" of the game.
• Finally, although I know you are just starting, I would be careful of putting too many opinions in the article which are unsourced. An example, "Competitive AI is good ... The game's interface is daunting to first time players. There's just no way around it." -- This reads too much like your opinion, as someone else might have thought the AI was horrible or the interface was simplistic. If many critics mentioned the cumbersome interface, etc., then it should be sourced.
• Overall, though, I wish you the best with putting this article together. I'm a geek for these types of games, and would be interested to learn more. --Ataricodfish 07:17, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This article has expanded and grown a lot since I first joined Wikipedia, but it requires focus so that it could get to the the quality exhibited by University of Michigan and Michigan State University. I would like to see this too become a featured article. R'son-W 05:44, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• It needs references and inline citations to become featured. AndyZ 02:08, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Good article, but like AndyZ said above, it needs references and inline citations to become a featured article. Dustimagic *\o/* ^{(talk/contribs)} *\o/* 18:59, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• The box on the right should be converted to an infobox. The bulk of the article is a list of all the schools. Is this really encyclopedic? How about you just include each college followed by some prose that explains the history of that college, anything that makes it notable, etc... Jtrost 23:22, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Before nominating it for featured status, have a look at what stopped other university articles from being featured (here and here) and make sure this article does not bring the same objections. --maclean25 22:45, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed that the editors of this article have worked hard on it. I'm looking for opinions from other Wikipedia editors and readers. Do you think it is fac quality? If not, what can be done to improve its quality? Anything else you might be interested in reading about the Eurasian race, but is not mentioned in the article? User:Carie 22:29, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Where it was disputed that Shannon Elsabeth and Paula Abdul were not Eurasian, THIS IS FALSE! Middle easterners ARE Asians as well. Anyone disagreeing this can also exclude people of mixed European and Indian descent. Most Northern Indians are Caucasoid in race and the mixed offspring of them and a European is quite distinct from a mixed white and East Asian. `Asian' in society in the US often refers to East Asian. If you include Indians, you've got to include Middle-Easterners. Paul58.164.88.20 01:53, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not really close to FA quality in my view, but here are some suggestions. inline citations. The word "nowadays" is colloquial, change to "In modern usage," or something similar. I would add something about the history of the term to the intro, which mentions when the word was first used but without a citation (maybe the Oxford English Dictionary would have a date it was first used?). I would look at articles about ethnic groups through list of ethnic groups and try to get a feeling for a good structure for this article. One problem you may have or that should be addressed is that "Eurasian" is a fairly mixed/heterogenous group so I doubt there is much of a "cultural" identity for this ethnic/racial division. Kaisershatner 17:27, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is a former featured article. It was removed because. It has received a bit of work lately. It seems to me most reasons for removal have been removed. I'm not sure if it's a featured article candidate like this but the topic is important enough ;-) to make it one. So some comments please. Some of the work was done by myself so I suppose this is a self-nomination. Piet 13:15, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Article needs some referencing. primarily within the text, using ref/note style or similar [18]. Look out for spacing between subheadings and text to ensure uniformity. Can the the history be expanded as well? I agree that it's a worthwhile article and it has decent imagery but maybe nice if at least one of the interior of a brewery. The beer culture section can all be combined or each section expanded.--MONGO 13:27, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• This is going to be a great article, but it does need a thorough overhaul. People are still working on it and there is plenty of work to do. I would love Beer to be a featured article, but not in its current state. SilkTork 13:31, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Legendary engineer, I've started to 'reference' everything with the aim of getting it featured soon, comments very much appreciated before I back-reference the lot and submit for FAC. Thanks. --PopUpPirate 00:40, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• On its way to FA, but needs some work in a few places.
  • Certain concepts or issues need to be explained more fully:
    1. The Thames Tunnel: who commissioned it, how has it been used (this is in the picture caption but should be in the article text).
    2. Did he marry? Have children? If so, talk about it; if not, say he did not.
    3. A little more on the his bridges wouldn't hurt; right now two of them are just mentioned. Years of construction would be good as well.
    4. Explain exactly how the atmospheric railway worked. I assume the train was drawn by means of a sliding stopper of some sort in the vacuum pipe, but explanation would be very useful.
  • The "Legacy" section reads like a list. Smoothing that out would be nice.
  • The panoramic picture of the two bridges is just confusing. It would be nice to have a good picture of one of those bridges, but in its current state, it's so distorted and confusing as to be useless.
  • At several points you make judgements on his work, of the "greatest" or "significant" sort; this will draw fire on FAC; instead, just say "X says it is a significant" etc.
  • Saved this for last because its the biggest. Footnotes, footnotes, footnotes! It sounds from your blurb above like you're starting to add them, but I just wanted to drive the point home: for FAC, do not leave yourself open to easy criticism; ideally, every judgement or little known fact should be specifically footnoted, there should be maybe one footnote per section indicating what source is the primary basis for that section.

Good work so far; keep it up! Robth^Talk 01:42, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Part of the efforts made towards consolidating the Bangalore article, thereby making it more readable was to ultimately push the article for Featured Article nomination. Peer Reviews are deemed essential in channelling feedback and contributions from other Wikipedia contributors. Overall, I think the article is as concise as it could get without running into the risk of not painting an accurate portrait of the city. Some of the main areas I think that still need improvement are citations and references — many statistical and factual assertions within the article do not have in-line citations, as of yet. Spellcheck and grammatical errors need to be addressed, I feel. Rewording may also be required for some sections of the article where a logical flow of ideas around a central theme dosen't appear to be occuring. Please review Talk:Bangalore ("To-do List") for a list of issues that have been addressed and for any open issues.

Many of the previously over-expanded sections that made for uninteresting reading (History, Economics, Culture) have been moved to separate, independent articles. I invite you to please provide your thoughts and insight on improving the quality of this article, as we move towards pushing the article for a Featured Article nomination. Thanks. AreJay 17:06, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well you've already identified some of the things it needs, so get to work! :) Why are you telling us? Peer review is not terribly successful at attracting contributors to an article but can be good for finding out what you need to do to get an article to featured quality level if you're interested in doing the work. The article is fairly well balanced in its coverage, which is something many candidates lack. It's largest problem next to needing more reliable sources is the short paragraphs leading to choppy flow of the prose. A featured article really shouldn't have any need for one or two sentence paragraphs. See User:Taxman/Featured article advice for some more. - Taxman ^Talk 19:32, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comments — that's a great point...a lot of the paragraphs are one to two sentences long..I will work on seeing how I can incorporate them into other paragraphs. What are your thoughts on the length of the article..it's 34 kb...would that put the article at a disadvantage while we're trying to push it to FA status? Also, I included included some information on the work that needs to be done just as a heads-up of what I'm working on right now, and not neccessarilly as a request for user contributions (although, while I'm on it, I would love, and could sure use any help I can get with the article! :-) ). AreJay 00:52, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

34kb is about right, though if you find other material you need to add, you'll have to summarize and move out some of what is there now to make room. Basically it's prioritizing properly what's most important to cover, and leaving the rest to subarticles, ala Wikipedia:Summary style. - Taxman ^Talk 16:08, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi - AreJay and other editors have done a very good job thus far. I recommend the following next reforms:

(1) The lead should be more circumspect - brief history, geography, culture and economics. The present is not good enough, and should not be broken down into 2-3 lines.

(2) Paras within sections are too frequent. Need to have larger paras to embody consistency and fluency.

(3) check out Malwa, Geography of India and Chennai peer reviews for some subtle but good tips on India-geography FAs.

Aside from this, its a beautiful piece of work. All the best! Rama's Arrow 07:46, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The article is really good and I hope that it would be an FA soon. Following are my comments. After content changes are completed, I'll come in for copyediting.

• The link density is excessive in some sections. Consider removing all repeating links.
• A map showing the city layout should be added.
• Italicise the likes of The Times of India etc., per WP:MOS
• Make the lead more comprehensive. You can look at Kerala for this.
• Desirable: Economy section can have a table showing some vital stats. Ask User:Pamri for his opinion.
• Transport section can talk about the proposed metro and can have a main article also.
• Add a section on flora and fauna, if possible.

-- Sundar ^{\talk \contribs} 10:05, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Forgot to mention earlier about my concern about the absence of "time-independence" in the article; first, the lead should not have "in the last decade" etc., and second, the current concerns should be reworded and refactored to make it time-independent. See this edit to get an idea. -- Sundar ^{\talk \contribs} 13:45, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

For fauna, consider visiting the Bannerghatta park to get some good pics. I'll do if I find some time for that. -- Sundar ^{\talk \contribs} 07:20, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Apart from the comments already made, these are a few of my observations. I believe that an article should be interesting apart from being comprehensive. I think this article can be improved further to reflect that. The role of Mysore Kingdom in the industrialisation of Bangalore, esp. the role of Mokshagundam Visvesvarayya and Mirza Ismail need to be touched upon. Also, a reading of the history section gives the wrong impression that Bangalore was ruled by Britain alone, and not along with Mysore kingdom. This needs to be addressed. Facts should be presented in a more interesting manner. e. g. Instead of saying Wipro and Infy, 2 of the top 3 IT firms are headquartered in B'lore, it cd be stated that out of the top 10 IT firms , X no. have offices in Bangalore (or) more than 40% of World's SEI-CMM level 5 companies are in Bangalore etc. - I am just giving an example, the actual no.s may be somewhat different. Also, I believe the largest no. of engineering colleges were in Coimbatore. After the acts of Andhra Pradesh government in 1999-2001, maximum no. of engineering colleges are believed to be in Hyderabad-Secunderabad. I think we would need to quote from references like "Network City: Planning the Information Society in Bangalore – James Heitzman; Oxford University Press, New Delhi, 2004, pp.368, Price: Rs.795/- (Hardbound)" to address WP:V concerns. Also, institutes of national eminence such as the ISEC and the fact that many MNC subsidiaries are located in Bangalore needs prominent mention. Comparisons between Bangalore's cosmopolitanism vis-a-vis rest of Karnataka's rural economy, thus leading to tensions between urban bureaucracy and rural polity need at least a passing mention. Interesting work, overall, I would say. --Gurubrahma 13:05, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Rama's Arrow, Sundar, and Gurubrahma for your insightful comments...some excellent points have been raised — I will start working on them later today. Please keep your comments and suggestions flowing! Thanks. AreJay 15:24, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Great work Arejay! Some tips/notes:

• Please double check the licenses of the images and remove all non-free images, like Image:Bangalore DoubleRd.jpg for instance. (BTW, the license summary on that image is wrong: Copyright is assumed for all published works unless there are exceptions in the law for that.) I am not sure we need a para on current concerns, since it would make the article too unstable. It could be linked from see also and the relevant bits moved around to other sections.

Be careful when you upload images from flickr. Image:Bangalore Mosque.jpg is tagged as {{cc-by-2.5}}, but the source shows the license as Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 2.0, which is a non-free license.

It would also be great, if you can upload the images directly to commons.

• Please use {{inotes}} for inline citation and ref/note or similar system for footnotes. I had already used inotes for the history section, so check that out for an example. Its much cleaner that way.

But please do not add URL's directly to the paras.

More or less, its good, except for some copy-editing & rechecking of facts/references. --Pamri • Talk 15:21, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In re some of the recommendations from Pamri and Sundar vis-a-vis "time-independence" issues, the Current Concerns section needs to be moved to related sections within the article. Sundar, I had an opportunity to review the link showing some of your time-independence edits to the Chennai article, and it looks like portions of that section were moved to the most relevent sections of the article. I am not too sure, but I hope this is an accrurate interpretation of your suggestions. For the Bangalore article, this would mean moving the discussion about infrastructure possibly to the Economy and/or culture section and moving the discussion about the airport to the Transport section.

Pamri, thank you for your comments on the images. I am researching alternatives to those images, as I write this. Thanks again, and please continue to QA the article and make your suggestions! AreJay 20:11, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, your interpretation is right, AreJay. All the best. -- Sundar ^{\talk \contribs} 05:28, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Potential improvements can come from citing the website references in accordance with Wikipedia:Cite sources/example style. Consider switching the reference style to the m:Cite/Cite.php style which is much easier for keeping track of them (see Hugo Chávez for an example of how this system works). Also, consider adding a map showing the street layout and the positioning of the rivers (or other waterbodies) in relation to the city. --maclean25 06:19, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the suggestions. I like the way <references> works. It allows for multiple citations and automatically numbers and organizes your references. I think I will incorporate this style into the article as I start to cleanup the references section. I have always been partial to the MLA-style and will use that when formatting my citations. Thanks for your suggestions! AreJay 23:03, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, AreJay, the article looks really good to me! I especially like the layout and picture choice in the economics section. Just a few suggestions, which I think a few other people may have already touched on.

• The introduction seems a bit overlong to me and could be condensed. I would also actually unlink some of the wikilinks because they are a bit dense.
• In the transport section, the word "indegenious" is used. I looked it up in the OED and couldn't find it, but I've been unable to find things in that dictionary before. Was this word intended?
• I looked at some of the other articles on the Indian cities WikiProject that have been featured, such as the article on Mumbai. In that article, climate is given its own entirely separate section. I would either combine the climate subsection in this article with the rest of the geography section and remove the subsection distinction, or put climate under a heading of its own. This is just for aesthetic reasons.
• On the whole, the article is pretty long. Is there any way the entire thing could be somehow condensed? It seems to me that a few of the facts in the article could be either removed or put into a table of some sort; for example, in the geography section, I'd put some of the details about elevation, average rainfall, etc. in some sort of table off to the side.
• On that note, I think some of the sentences could also be combined to give the article less of a choppy feel. Instead of several short factual sentences following one right after another, I would attempt to tell the story of the city somehow, using the facts as important details centered on a particular theme. I'm sorry, I realize that's kind of vague advice; still I hope this helps somehow. I agree with what Taxman said above about the flow of the article.

I hope the article gets featured soon! Mgummess 04:56, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comments. Some of the other contributors and I have been involved in a cleanup/consolidation effort to reduce the "choppiness" of the article. Also, the article length now stands at 36k which I'm beginning to feel now is as condensed as I can probably get it, without running the risk of eliminating critical pieces to the Bangalore article. Please let me know your thoughts on the article as it stands now, as we continue to cleanup and hopefully, push this for a FA nomination pretty soon. Thanks! AreJay 16:56, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi AreJay - this is a fantastic effort! Presently the quality of this article exceeds Mumbai and Chennai - two other city FAs. The 36kb size is darn good - high-content FAs many-a-times stand 40-50kb. Just for safety's sake, I think you should raise the number of in-line citations from 22 to around 27-30, by more extensively citing facts about politics, the economy, demographics and current concerns. For example - there is a para about a man whose biography is not present on Wikipedia, but who had a big influence on Bangalore's education system. I think this and others like it should be cited. Good luck! Rama's Arrow 04:04, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've read through the page again, and I must say I like all the improvements. The article is much easier to read and keeps my interest throughout. I only have two suggestions for minor edits.

• I'm not sure about the choice of the word "indigenous" in the section on transport; I've just never heard the word used in that context. I haven't made this edit, since it's more than just a grammatical correction, but I would suggest the following modification: ". . . to test and develop its own concept designs for new, experimental aircraft." I assume that's the meaning you want indigenous to have, but as I mentioned, I've never heard the word used in that way, and it might be confusing to someone else.
• I would include the date of Kempe Gowda's construction of the mud fort again under the history heading. I intended to add it myself, but didn't because I realized after scrolling up to the top of the page that the introduction actually leaves the actual date in ambiguity.

Once again, these are just incredibly picky suggestions for minor edits. Overall, I think the article flows very smoothly now and sounds great. It has a great chance of making featured in my opinion. Mgummess 04:46, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Finally someone's decided to get this article moving. :)

1. Lead should be rewritten and specific details removed.
2. Coordinates should be added in the lead
3. Use non breaking spaces (&nbsp;) between a unit and the number
4. Unbold and wikify Mysore Plateau
5. Rest of India has steppe type climate?? Plz verify
6. Wikify all proper nouns throughout the article
7. ...Tamil Nadu. prefix the first instance of the state with the word "neighbouring state of"
8. Use the word Chennai (formerly Madras) for the first instance of the the use of the city name.
9. Post 1961 hardly anything on the city is mentioned. Plz expand.
10. Mention Banglaore Urban district in geography
11. I had earlier added Banglore's extreme temperatures with a ref. Please check the history and include it.
12. Bangalore City officials table should be made narrower.
13. 'has come under fire from the non enc. tone
14. S$ 288 million (Rs. 1,300 crore) Indian currency should be given the first preference.
15. Udayan, Chalukya, Kurla Express), Chennai (Madras Mail, Brindavan Express), Kolkata (Yeshvanthpur-Howrah Express) : specific trains not needed.

=Nichalp «Talk»= 18:31, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Nichalp, I have addressed most of your recommendations. Can you please clarify whether I should wikify repeated proper nouns throughout the article as well as proper nouns that do not have corresponding articles in Wikipedia? I just feel that red wiki links are not aesthetically pleasing. Can you comment? Thanks! AreJay 16:17, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The editors of this recently created article are requesting peer review to ensure the article meets WP:MOS. The information provided in the article is well referenced we believe and our hope is to have the article become a Wikipedia:Featured article in the near future. Any and all suggestions to help us make this article better are welcome.--MONGO 10:11, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

For the most part this looks pretty good. Some comments:

• Glacial retreat is not a universal phenomenon. The glaciers have been expanding in the Scandinavian countries and Iceland. I think it is important to mention this for balance purposes. (Plus it demonstrates that climate change can have unexpected and even counter-intuitive consequences.)
• Some of the paragraphs are overly long. (Such as in the introduction.) You might want to split up the largest paragraphs to make reading a little less tiresome.
• You'll probably get dinged about avoiding bulleted lists.
• I noticed your references are all just external links. However links can go away. So, where possible, I suggest entering your cited references in the standard reference format. I.e. giving the author(s), article name, year, and publication source.

Thanks! — RJH 16:13, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the observations. Should we change the external links as summarized to demonstrate the publication, autheor etc, or do you think we simply need to located the actual printed versions of this referencing. Much of the web based information is also in printed form in almost the identical format, especially the USGS stuff s this should be no big deal. I agree the article needs some trimming. Looking the article over, there was mention of the glaciers in Norway expanding, but this is currently not the case as it appears that this expansion was due to a temporary increase in snowfall rates which have now returned to normal. I'll look into the iceland information. Appreciate your assistance.--MONGO 19:36, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• For an example on how to format the references see Wikipedia:Cite sources/example style. You may find the m:Cite/Cite.php style of keeping track of references more useful (see Hugo Chávez for an example of how this system works). Other comments:
  • Make opening sentence a definition of the topic that provides context. See Wikipedia:Guide_to_writing_better_articles#Lead_section.
  • "...the most important topic in the field of glaciology." is a bold statement. If it stays it will need to be backed up with a reference. See Wikipedia:Guide_to_writing_better_articles#Avoid peacock and weasel terms
  • "How many of our glaciers are now in disequilibrium?" - Avoid asking questions, just present the facts.
  • The space between "Europe" and "Alps" is currently blank. That space can be used for providing an overview of glaciers in Europe (in general). Same goes for "Data sources" and "Terminus location" (in general: does kinds of data are useful, why is that important and what is done with the data?)
  • At WP:FAC you will likely be asked to make imperial conversions of the metric data.
  • For the lists, see Wikipedia:Embedded list and Help:List#Purpose of lists.
  • The order of "references", "see also", etc sections are listed here Wikipedia:Section#Appendix sections. However, "see also" sections are discouraged at WP:FAC on the basis that if it is important enough to list at the end it should be important enough to mention in the body of text (making the duplicate link unnecessary).

--maclean25 21:06, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed ponits one and two...worked on providing a short intor as mention by your point three above. You're also right that the measurements need to be both metric and standard, in that order as this is an international article and metric is used more commonly on the international scene. I'll remove the see also and check the order of ending references and additional reading...appreciate your imput as I had overlooked these points.--MONGO 03:19, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• I hate footnote-type refs. But thats just my opinion... if they are there, why are refs done as "sentence.[ref]" rather than "sentence [ref]."?
• "Glaciers respond to climate change in an attempt to achieve equilibrium" is teleological.
• "If a glacier cannot achieve a point of equilibrium through retreat..." - what isn't made clear here (not sure where to say it) is that as the glacier retreats (uphill; to a colder region) it becomes stabalised, since melt decreases
• "in Italy all 69 observed glaciers were in retreat" contradicts "In the Italian Alps the percentage of retreating glaciers has increased from 34% in 1980 to 96% in 1999"
• Norway: should probably ref the importance of the glaciers/snowpack for hydropower?

William M. Connolley 23:08, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Point one...I put the period first for, I dunno..I thought that the reference was after the statement. I'm not fond of the re/not style either, but was told by numerous editors recently on one of the articles I worked on that this was the preferred style over html links. Point two...does indicate intelligence of glaciers...and that needs to be changed. Point three, glaciers may become stabilized, but only if there is a continuing supply of snow and cold to support stabilization. The process of stabilization may slow or abate, but none of the evidence seems to indicate that this abatement is anywhere in the near future. I'll try and work that into the article. Point four, is contradictory a bit and it needs to be corrected. Point five is a revelation and deserves mention....thanks for the imput and your contributions.--MONGO 03:19, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• The Mount St. Helens glacier is also expanding, although that seems to have more to do with local geologic factors. Durova 03:00, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mt. St. Helens lost most of it's glaciers after the 1980 eruption and the interior glacier now in the crater is a brand new one since then. The recent activity in the crater from volcanism has seriously deformed and in many ways actualy reduced the size of htis glacier in the past year. It deserves mention though for sure.--MONGO 03:23, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have worked hard on this article (with others of course) to get it to its current standard. I would appreciate the views of a wider audience regarding its quality, deficiencies and suitability for FAC. Thank you Mark83 00:22, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• The lead needs to be expanded, considering the size of the article. Also, knowing the major arguments on WP:FAC, some of the lists should be converted to prose. AndyZ 02:17, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify, to convert a list into prose is to change a list in bulleted form into prose, or just regular paragraph writing. For example:

No foreign person, or persons acting together, may hold more than 15% of the company's shares.

The majority of the board must be British citizens.

The CEO and Chairman must be British.

should be converted into regular paragraph form. Criteria 2(a) states: "(a) "well written" means that the prose is compelling, even brilliant". AndyZ 00:31, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• The structure of the article gets bogged down with corporate facts, I'd suggest a restructure along the lines of :

   * 1 History
         o 1.1 Formation
   * 2 Products
         o 2.1 Air
         o 2.2 Land
         o 2.3 Sea
   * 3 Recent Events (ie Major events since merger)
               + 1.3.1 Eurosystems
         o 1.2 Merger undertakings
   * 3 Corporate Information
         o 3.1 Major events since merger
         o 3.2 Future of Airbus shareholding
         o 3.3 Bribery allegations
         o 3.4 Financial information
         o 3.5 Corporate governance
         o 3.6 Organisation
         o 3.7 Joint ventures etc.
   * 4 See also
   * 5 References
   * 6 External links

Which would put the focus back on what the company does rather than its politics, leaving room for expansion of what BAE actually does. Would love it as Featured one day soon. --PopUpPirate 00:46, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have been working on this article a lot recently, adding references and removing POV. I also wrote the entire Pepsi section of this article. I am trying to get this to featured status, so any feedback would be excellent. — Wackymacs 16:20, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Let's see... (going in order of appearance in the article)

• What's the deal with the first picture? A better caption would be nice but the image page has nothing. A free use picture would be really nice.
• Expand the first section. tell me more about this second wife.
• The info on spending more for TV spots is unclear. More to make them, or show them on TV more?
• Was Pepsi really choseno ver Coke all the time? Explain that there was (obviously) some bias there.
• Why is one quote written in normal font and then another is in italics?
• Why did Scully license parts of the GUI to Microsoft? That sentance is in the middle of nowhere.
• "Unkillable" sounds a little odd. So does " 'Me too' efforts". Could you find some other way to say that?
• There are some questionable links. Perhaps you should remove the [[ ]] around things like "brand" and "investor".
• Is he still at OpenPeak?
• More refernces and data never hurt. It just somehow feels short (compared to the Macintosh, it is!) That will get you some votes in the campaign for featured status.

Well, I hope that helps.--HereToHelp (talk • contribs) 22:15, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Much of the article reads like a summary of one book (a biography) which was used as a main reference. It could benefit by further diversifying its sources to fill in gaps and provide different povs. Try this which comes from here. Also, some of the "Ext. links" appear to have been used as refences, so they should be moved to that section. --maclean25 23:27, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• In addition to above points, I'd suggest you try to condense some of the short paragraphs into longer ones. All in all, the narrative doesn't really flow in some places - especially disjointed is the beginning of the "Apple" section, where he Sculley joins Apple and Jobs is fired in the next sentence with no real connection established between the two events. Also, Sculley's long quote on that needs a citation. I'd say there should be a intensive copyedit to consolidate the various factoids, and clean up some style problems like "The Pepsi Challenge was mostly targeted at the Texas market, since Pepsi had a significantly low market share there. The campaign was successful, increasing Pepsi's market share.". Also, for a featured article it's quite short, but I don't notice any glaring omissions either (I'm not a fan of long FAs anyway, but you'll probably see some opposition on length alone). -- grm_wnr Esc 11:59, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This artcile has been granted Good Article status and seems to meet the vast majority of criteria to become a featured artcile. But it would be useful to have some input concerning the section on objections, the length, struture of the artcile or other matters.--Lacatosias 13:08, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• It's 53kb long. You should really try to decrease that. The recomended max article size is 32kb. Jtrost 18:06, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• thanks for the response. On the oher hand, I've seen some articles that are either at or near FA status which are somwhere near 90KB Leon Trotsky and 60 or 70KB in length. But I will try to cut out something. It's difficult to figure out where without cutting back on the substance.--Lacatosias 08:15, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• I don't know. I've cut it down to 50 and I already feel as if I'm cutting into the meat of the article. Any suggestions on what, where and how to cut?? Input from people with a philosophy background would obviously be most welcome here. Don't just write "good article" on my talk page!!--Lacatosias 09:26, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• A long article, as indicated through kb size, is not itself wrong, but is symptomatic of something else that is wrong. In this case, it is my opinion, that there are two articles here: 'Jerry Fodor' and 'Philosophy of Jerry Fodor'. The article presented here is dominated by the results (and some consequences) of the subject's work. An easy solution may be to move this page to Philosophy of Jerry Fodor and in Jerry Fodor provide a biography of the man's life, including where he is from where he studied, his influences, the methodology of how he works/thinks, how his career has progressed, and so on. For the section on his philosophy provide a clear, absolutely dumbed-down summary (so a high school student can understand) with a see this article message. This current article's introduction is only four sentences and they only provide the categories of his philosophies - not what he has argued for or against. --maclean25 19:22, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes, I've aslo come to the conlcusion that the article needs to be split, but I'm not exactly sure how. Your suggestion about separating biography and philosophy is probably along the right lines. The only difficult is that, not being an historical figure but a living and practicing philopher, info about Fodor's actual life and career is limited and hard to obtain (I don't know of any biographies of Jerry Fodor that have been published). I'll have to look more throughly into it.I will look around and see how others have handled contemporary,, living thinkers and see if I can find ideas in this way as well. --Lacatosias 09:25, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• P.S. almost forgot. Thanks for looking over the arctile and taking the time to post an opinion.--Lacatosias 09:28, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Hmmm...What I've done now is essentially just taken the subsections of each of the main sections, e.g. "Fodor on Mental Content", and put them in seperate articles, leaving a summary behind for each section. I will expand the biography as I have found some more info in this respect and the arctile is now below 30KB and can be cut be split up some more if necessary. I would appreciate any inoput in this respect. Have I cut too much? in the wrong places? left things unclear, etc?? --Lacatosias 10:50, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have tried to make all the changes recommended below by ApolloBoy. I have also taken new photos which can be uploaded to the "year to year changes" as was recommended by Maclean25. Please continue offering advice on how to improve this article Evenprime 06:28, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This article is just about ready to become featured in my openion, and peer reviewing it to point out the flaws will just edge it closer! --Karrmann

• Featured? Far from it. For starters, there are a bit too many pictures, and it seems to focus too much on the motorsports aspect of the Storm. Sorry, but I think this article needs some work before it can become a featured article. --ApolloBoy 23:54, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't think so, I re read the atrticle from top to bottom, and I barely found any aspects of motorsports, it focus pretty much on the car. --Karrmann

What do you mean? Look at the sections "Performance", "Reviews" and "Current use"; all of them mention motorsports or racing. All I'm saying is this article needs to cut back on the performance aspects if it's going to become featured. --ApolloBoy 05:37, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wtf? So it has a sentance mentioning performance, so what? --Karrmann

A sentence? If you look more closely, you'll see it has more than just a sentence about performance. --ApolloBoy 02:31, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• If you plan to nominate it for featured status, first compare it to other similarFAs. More importantly compare it to similar failed FAs and avoid those mistakes. Some comments:
  • Unlink "Geo" in the title, it is already linked further down in the sentence (keep the title black in the first sentence).
  • "small car" - this is a minor thing but is there a more specific, less subjective term than "small" that could be used?
  • remove the external links from the body. Keep them all in the "References" and "External links/Further Reading" sections.
  • "1992 to 1993 GSis..." avoid beginning a sentece with a number -> "The 1992 and 1993 GSis..."
  • The bit about drag racing seem awkward. I do not see what the point being made there is.
    • The external links have been turned into references, the sentence rewritten to avoid starting with a number, drag racing comments have been minimized, and all motorsports references have been moved to the performance section. Other users have made the other changes described above. Evenprime 21:17, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Year to year changes" has the potential to be a great illustrative section. Try experimenting with tables and lists formats. --maclean25 17:03, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I have uploaded additional pictures in an effort to make an illustrated guide to different storm variants. I am looking for 1990 Base and wagonback models to take photographs of in order to complete the table. Evenprime 21:17, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Good article that gives a concise overview of the car. Cedars 00:36, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Old peer review: Wikipedia:Peer review/Space Shuttle Challenger disaster/archive1

This article has changed very significantly since the last peer review. It was delisted as a GA, had a major overhaul, and was then promoted again. It has been assessed as an A-class article. I am hoping to get the article to Featured Article status if possible. Any comments would be most welcome. MLilburne 10:32, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The technical detail in this article is fabulous, but the popular impact is grossly understated. The news coverage and public reaction around the world was enormously exaggerated relative to the number of lives lost and the amounts of money involved. Public awareness of the Challenger disaster ranks at least as high as the Chernobyl meltdown and much higher than the Bhopal disaster, which caused far more fatalitites and costs. Challenger has become a reference point in debates about engineering safety, and is discussed in detail in many university engineering programmes and safety training in large companies. It has spawned dozens of books, documentaries, and training videos. This impact on the popular consciousness merits discussion.--Yannick 18:07, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the comment. This is an excellent point, and one which I will certainly address. (Although it will take a bit of time.) In fact, I'm a bit abashed that I missed this side of things. I'm wondering, though, how to structure the article: should there be a differentiation between the impact on popular culture/popular consciousness/discussion of engineering safety? Perhaps they could all be subsections of one overarching section? MLilburne 18:19, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, AZ _t 18:22, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I'll see what I can do. MLilburne 18:27, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I just started reading this, but will do more later. A few little things that the automated review probably already caught (I fixed a few in one section but now have to go):

1. I believe that there is always a space between the time and its "am/pm".
2. The article capitalizes "shuttle" in many places, I think incorrectly. Space shuttle isn't a proper noun so should be lower-case.

--Will.i.am 18:43, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'll make the fixes. Thanks for the comments. More would certainly be welcome. MLilburne 18:51, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I gave this article a more thorough read today. Here's some quick comments, but feel free to ignore them if they're too annoying. I also added a few examples of tiny grammar changes that may help you in copy-editing:

1. the pad technicians could not remove a 'closing fixture' from the orbiter's hatch. -- I'm not really sure why closing fixture is in quotes.

Neither am I. Someone else wrote that paragraph. I'll strike them.

1. the gaseous hydrogen vent arm retracted -- At first I had a hard time understanding what the ven arm was attached to or why it had to be latched back. At the last sentence in that paragraph (the word 'also'), I finally realized that it was on the ground and could actually come back to hit the shuttle. Rewording might make this a little clearer.

Will see if I can clarify

1. All times are given in seconds after launch and correspond to the telemetry time-codes from the closest instrumented event to each described event. -- This was confusing because it came after a few times listed. I think your indication of T=0 (which I don't think I saw when I read it yesterday) does a less obtrusive job of getting across the same thing.
2. The following account of the accident is derived from real time telemetry data and photographic analysis, as well as from transcripts of air-to-ground and mission control voice communications. -- This also seems to come too late. Doesn't this relate to the previous sentences as well?

I'll move both of these sentences to the beginning of the section.

1. At about T+58.788 -- three decimal places on the second is better than about.
2. The breakup of the vehicle began at about T+73.162 seconds, and at 48,000 feet (15 km) in altitude. -- no ", and" necessary.

Both good points.

1. Shortly afterwards, the flight dynamics officer relayed the range safety officer's report that the vehicle had exploded. -- exploded should be changed because in the next paragraph you say "there was no explosion".

Ah well, this is a tricky one. What the flight dynamics officer actually said was "RSO reports the vehicle has exploded." In retrospect we know that was not quite true (or perhaps the RSO meant that he'd exploded the range safety ordnance on the shuttle), but that it what was said at the time. I'll need to clarify that.

1. it added another orbiter, Endeavour, to the space shuttle fleet in order to replace Challenger, and worked with the Department of Defense in order to put more satellites in orbit using expendable launch vehicles rather than the shuttle. - you don't need a comma before "and" unless you have two independent clauses - i.e. sentences that can stand alone. Scrap the comma, or add an it after "and".

Got it.

That was all I found for now, this is a really nice article! Good luck with it!--Will.i.am 22:08, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you again for taking the time to read the article so carefully. It is much appreciated, and the article is certainly the better for it. MLilburne 10:09, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This article has recently been at WP:FAC (see Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Bulbasaur1 and Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Bulbasaur for the super-duper extended nom) and had a peer review (that I delisted pretty sharpish - I was impatient, what can I say?). Since the FACs, it has had a major rewrite ([19]) and I feel that it's really ready to be FAC now. I even got a few opinions from IRC users who know nothing about it and acted upon their comments. --Celestianpower ^háblame 20:58, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Shall I take this lack of response as a "Wow - this is such a pefect article!" or not? --Celestianpower ^háblame 18:19, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I personally would care to see more pictures, but this may just be me. Pictures of:

1. A screenshot of a Bulbasaur in Pokemon Stadium or likewise games

   Hmmm, I don't know how I'd do that one - I don't have the game. I can find one on the internet but legal issues abound where that's concerned. --Celestianpower ^háblame 22:29, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

2. Several more shots of Bulbasaur in the anime, perhaps including Bulbasaur and Melanie, pictures of Bulbasaur in the Johto League Conference, with Squirtle and/or Heracross or that Gloom he fell for in one episode, and Ash and May with their Bulbasaurs together (there was one episode after May got hers where they both had their Bulbasaurs) I would take pictures from Serebii myself and upload them, but for some reason I can't save the pictures off their site, meaning I can't just right click and save pictures to my computer; if you could tell me how to do that I'll upload some myself. Also, I don't know how legal that would be to have more pics!

   Yeah, that might cause a heap of trouble. --Celestianpower ^háblame 22:29, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

3. A stuffed animal Bulbasaur would be cool. They sell some at this store a few blocks from me, and if I'm bored someday soon I could trek down there and take a picture of it, borrowing someone's camera.

   I've got a plastic one I could photograph if I got myself a camera. That'd work. --Celestianpower ^háblame 22:29, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

More references would also be good, especially in the anime section; links to the episode page on Serebii.net would look great. I'll try doing that myself soon (at least, when I don't have a midterm exam in two hours!)

Okay, I'll leave that to you. --Celestianpower ^háblame 22:29, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I know this may be original research, but perhaps a section on how useful Bulbasaur can be in battle (at least, when it evolves into Venusaur). Just how it is immune to Toxic and Leech Seed, is resistant to a good number of types, and has high defense status (perhaps calling it a "Tank"). Personally I would love to see this article be FAC! While I'm not that into Pokemon anymore, I still love Bulbasaur a lot. But I know there are a lot of bashers out there that might not let that happen. This weekend, if I have some time, I'll try to improve this article myself and see what can happen! Good luck. --TheWindshield 18:46, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Lots of people supported last time (it was very close then) and it's had a full rewrite since so it should pass with flying colours. I do agree, those bits could be made a bit more of in the relevant paragraph of the "video games" section, but make sure you don't mention "tank". --Celestianpower ^háblame 22:29, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I think it is a fine article, the day after publication. It may be early, but I am looking to FAC soon. Comments? -- ALoan (Talk) 21:40, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good work! I think you have an excellent start here. I don't know much about the subject area, so I'll just comment a little on the presentation. It's a little short, and a little dense. I'd look to unpack it, which will help to solve both of those problems (anyplace that you have a one- or two-sentence paragraph, it's a good sign that you need to add some explanatory information). Remember that your audience is the general public, which may not be accustomed to so much technical Catholic stuff, so more explanations wouldn't hurt. In that spirit, you'll also want to expand the lead section, I think. Best of luck! -- Visviva 03:22, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nice, well-written text. I second Visviva's opinion above that the theological principles (like the difference between these two kinds of love) should be made more clear, or a source must be provided in which these topics are more thoroughly discussed (like another Wikipedia article). However, I must point out that, no matter how great the article is, it will be very hard to get it through FAC right now. I would wait some months or even some years. An ideal article on this topic should cover not only the encyclic itself, but also the reaction it arose in the catholic people, and maybe even the counter-reaction by the church if applicable. But this is still too recent for that.JoaoRicardo^talk 15:03, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you both for the feedback. Does the current text do a sufficient job of outlining the meaning of the the theological terms? There are links to the relevant articles which discuss the terms (agape, eros, logos, etc) in more detail, and I would not want to have too great an exposition in this article about the encyclical. Someone recently added some "key passages" - I am not entirely sure our article ought to have long quotations: any thoughts? -- ALoan (Talk) 11:24, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This article was peer reviewed in February 2006 (see: Wikipedia:Peer review/Enceladus (moon)/archive1). A number of the requests were answered and since then I have worked to bring the article further into compliance with the standards for a Featured Article. In addition recent results have further helped in filling the article out.

I would like to submit this article as a featured article, however I thought it was wise to have this article go through one more peer review, particularly after these recent major edits, before submitting. So suggestions for work needed to get this article to Featured Article status will be greatly appreciated.

There are two major issues that I would like to acknowledge. First, the article lead does not yet conform to WP:LEAD. Currently, the article lead is one paragraph in length when it should be 3-4. Second, I am a little lost in how best to cite and reference this article. I have both a notes section, containing the numbered citations from the article using the the <ref> element as well a References section, where full citations for journal articles and books used are listed. This does give the appearance that the references are being given twice in these two different sections, Notes and References. This was done after reading the comments of several FACs that failed because the inline citations looked cludgy after including the full citations inline using templates. So the citations inline, displayed in the notes section, are in shortened, Science-journal style, whereas in the references section, full citations using the Cite Journal and Cite Book templates. This reduces the cludge of templated inline citations, but increases article length. So advice on how citations and references should be arranged would be appreciated. --Volcanopele 00:39, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I responsed to Volcanopele's earlier peer review request and all my suggestions were met. I can't honestly think of any further improvements to this article. My only quibble is that the orbit diagram is cluttered with too many overlapping labels, but I'll see if I can fix that myself. Regarding the lead, I think the opening paragraph sums up everything pertinent with admirable brevity and I see no need to expand it into 3 or 4 paragraphs. I think it's time for Volanopele to move on to the next moon... :) The Singing Badger 20:57, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's a pretty good article. Nice work, but I have a few comments:

• Some of the text contains time-sensitive information, such as: "Features discovered by the Cassini mission have not yet received names". These are likely to become obsolete at some point, so could you include a date?
• The "Surface" section includes a brief description of the "title image". This should really be folded into the image caption, as the image may get changed at a later date rendering the text obsolete.
• I also have a minor issue with how some of the terminology is used. The term "viscous relaxation" is used to describe terrain before the meaning has been explained. The highly technical terms "subparallel grouping", "curvilinear groove", "high phase angles" and "solid-state greenhouse models" are never explained. This makes the article targeted for a well-educated scientific audience, rather than just anybody.
• On the first mention of the "E ring", you might briefly add that this is a component of the Saturnian ring system.
• Could you link lithosphere, mass spectrometry, plume, jet, sublimation and magnetospheric?

Thank you! — RJH 18:41, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your comments. In my latest edit, I think I have addressed most of your comments though when I have more time later, I will look for more time sensitive information. In the time being, I have added a link to As of 2006 in the example you pointed out. For many of your other comments, I found a way to just use less technical terminology to get around have to add more text to explain the term. With viscous relaxation, I just deleted the first reference to it so that the new first utterence is right next to the explanation. I have added links to the requested terms, though there was already a mangetosphere link in the previous paragraphic to "magnetospheric". To Singing Badger, I don't have access to a machine that runs Celestia today, so if you can create a better graphic, by all means. I have relatively limited knowledge of the inner workings of that program, so help in improving that graphic would be appreciated.

Again thanks for the comments. --Volcanopele 18:02, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to place my userpage (admittidly not an article) on Peer Review so that it all its bugs can be removed. I would like to see if people think loading times are OK, if the design is OK or if it would put people off editing my userpage, and if it looks good.
Thanks for your time! --Fir0002 21:25, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good work on the page! The layout of it is nice and I had no problem with it loading. I have a high speed internet connection and the page loaded very quickly. Underneath-it-All 00:47, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sweet! I like the layout, and like Underneath-it-All my high speed connection got the page up in no time. One thing that did sorta bug me: the page was a little wider than my moniter setting, but I am not going to complain about it. TomStar81 06:08, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Loading time was fine, as was the left-most 2/3 of the page. The other third falls off the edge of my screen. ;) Mark^{your words} 12:52, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What kind of screen res are you on? I've got a 17" LCD so the screen res is up at 1280x1024, but I find that if you have only 1024x768 and you scroll right (you'll have to cut out the wiki LHS side bar) it fits just perfect. Anyway thanks for everyone's comments, I think I'll be bold and override my old one! --Fir0002 20:57, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm on 1024x768. I can see it if I scroll across, but I don't scroll as a matter of principle. Mark^{your words} 14:36, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My moniter is also set for 1024x768. TomStar81 03:58, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

eeek! Looks bad on 800x600. =Nichalp «Talk»= 12:30, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't everything? ;-) — RJH 18:35, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The article has been written by many including myself over a long period of time. Most importantly, the first sections, Conception (Inspirations and Script) and Casting (Background) as well as the Music section lack references big time. This is because most of the information was noted from interviews and other material from the special edition DVD. So how does one go about to reference that form of media? I can go and search the internet for some sources, but I doubt I would find them all. So is it possible to use a DVD/DVD material/DVD booklet as a reference, if so, how?

Thats the main issue at the moment, but if any could check for things like bias, style etc that would be great. Any help/comment/suggestions would be great. ThanksForever young 17:01, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ask at the talk page of WP:CITE how to go about citing interviews. It's not a highly scholarly source, and wouldn't be appropriate in citing some material, but for the right material about the making of the movie itself, for ex, it would be good to cite the documentary about making the movie. For specific comments, trivia sections are considered very bad form and never fail to get negative reviews in the WP:FAC process if that was your goal. The feeling is the material is either important enough to work properly into the prose, or it's just not important enough to cover at all, or should be moved to a subarticle if need be. Same for pop culture ref. They should either be covered in the article on the topic the reference is from or not at all, unless they are very important in some way and that can be verified. Finally too many short paragraphs. See above. - Taxman ^Talk 19:45, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much. I left a message at Cite and will get onto your suggestions. Forever young 02:33, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Forever, here are a couple suggestions for you;

• Try to shorten sentences. I'm guilty of this one myself, and know personally this gets attacked during the FAC process. For example, "The primary inspiration for the film was discovered by producer Jerry Bruckheimer when he found an article in the May 1983 issue of California magazine which would form the basis of the film" could be shortened to "Producer Jerry Bruckheimer was influenced by a 1983 issue of California magazine" -- it says the same thing in considerably less words. Another example, "Though the Navy hated the film An Officer and a Gentleman, which did not follow any of the criteria that the Navy provided to the Top Gun producers, and which was an embarrassment to the Navy's reputation, the Navy still recognized that it may have aided naval recruitment - an idea which may have been influential in the decision to cooperate with Top Gun producers.", appears to be several sentences without a period and can be broken down.
• You'll need references for all those military recruitment statements. "...and, by no surprise dramatically increased the Air Force..." should delete "by no surprise dramatically", as someone might have been shocked by this. Also, "Unsurprisingly, it boosted the Air Force and Navy's recruitment. This was evident in the fact that the Navy used its success by having recruitment booths in some theaters to lure enthusiastic patrons." Again, it feels like an opinion, and specific numbers might be needed to back this up.
• So essentially, the facts are in the article but it needs a substancial copy edit for grammar, punctuation, and wordiness. Also, I agree with the above about striking the Trivia and Pop Culture sections. They'll never get through a FAC review.
• I hope this helps you. Best of luck with the article! --Ataricodfish 06:39, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much. This is all great. Will get onto asap. Forever young 06:47, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• First, from http://www.dianahacker.com/resdoc/history/bibliography.html, in accordance with the Chicago Manual of Style:
  • Published or broadcast interview
    • Haviv, Ron. Interview by Charlie Rose. The Charlie Rose Show. Public Broadcasting System, February 12, 2001.
  • Video or DVD
    • The Secret of Roan Inish. DVD. Directed by John Sayles. 1993; Culver City, CA: Columbia Tristar Home Video, 2000.
• Alternatively, APA says:
  • Film or Videotape
    • Weir, P.B. (Producer), & Harrison, B.F. (Director). (1992). Levels of consciousness [Videotape]. Boston, MA:Filmways.
  • Interviews
    • Archer, N. (1993). [Interview with Helen Burns, author of Sense and Perception]. Journal of Sensory Studies, 21, 211-216.
• Second, other comments: currently, the article's problems include lack of referencing and awkward phrasing. As mentioned above all quotes need to be referenced. Other statements that should/could be referenced include statements about what others thought (like "originally thinking that the article..." or "the Navy hated the film An Officer and a Gentleman"), what sources said (like "Reports indicate ..." or "...willing to aid the film on three conditions..."), and value-based claims (like "soundtrack is one of the most popular soundtracks to date" or "The cast became notorious in the San Diego area;"). At least one reference in the "Video games" would be nice. Try to get a more diversified reference section (not just common websites like IMDB) Examples of awkward phrases include: "The primary inspiration for the film was discovered by producer Jerry Bruckheimer when he found..." (go with one verb), "...came from none other than Bruce Webber,", "...it seemed as though the whole of Hollywood had hit town at once." (verbous), "Loggins hatched a plan to pick a smaller scene, one that might not be to popular..." (just say he performed a smaller venue), etc. Other suggestions: consider a table for the "Cast" similar to the one in "Awards" and consider a table of the nominations, too. I agree with the above views that the popular culture section should go. I would consider the Hot Shots! movie worthy of keeping, but the 3 second spots on the Simpsons/JAG not worthy of mention. Consider merging it with video games as a "Spin-offs", "Media impacts", or what-have-you section. --maclean25 23:02, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This article is a rather important topic to me, and I've been working on it for a period of several months, however I'm not sure where to go from here other than finding a few more good references and citations. At this point, it needs some new sets of eyes, particularly those not terribly familiar with the topic. Is it understandable to the layman? Does it make sense? Do you have any questions unanswered after reading it? Thanks! Scott Ritchie 06:39, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Very nice, but it is notable that almost all of the diagrams relate to US gerrymandering (perhaps it is most prevalent there?). It may be worth saying that some countries prevent it by having an independent commission to draw up the boundaries (in the UK, the Boundary Commission). -- ALoan (Talk) 12:04, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A couple of brief observations:

• The introduction says the term is derived from the name Elbridge Gerry. The caption to Image:Gerrymander.jpeg says "a salamander, from which the term gerrymander is derived". Which is it?
• The title "Proposed reforms targeting gerrymandering" reads a bit like a newspaper or ticker headline and hence sounds as though it is referring to a particular set of proposals put forward at some (unspecified) time and place. Playing around with different versions, I can't come up with a brief description, but I think it might be worth finding a new title. Reforms which have been proposed to target gerrymandering, changes intended to make gerrymandering.. ugh, this is hard!
• Most of the section about Northern Ireland is dated, but the "particularly famous example" explained right at the start of the section is not. Just to within a decade would probably be enough (although obviously a particular year or term would be lovely).

Hope these help! --Telsa 00:10, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Nice catch on the name - it's actually derived from both. I think the word is portmanteau - I'll try and update it. As for the title, I like your suggestion of "Reforms which have been proposed to target gerrymandering" the most and will put it in. As for the Irish bits, I'll try and find someone knowledgable in Irish history to flesh it out more. Thanks for reading and commenting! Scott Ritchie 08:10, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• One thought on an excellent article: "Among western democracies, only Israel and the Netherlands are free from gerrymandering in the national government, as they employ electoral systems with only one (nationwide) voting district." Maybe replacing "free from" with "not suspetable to" would sound better. As it is, it somewhat pessimistically suggests that all nations with electoral districts participate in gerrymandering. While i personally feel that the statment is probably not incorrect, to make such statements on an FA would require doeznes of specific citations; one for each state. youngamerican (talk) 04:12, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Carved out with the aid of a computer, this congressional district was the product of California's incumbent gerrymandering"---is this a snark at the field of spatial analysis? youngamerican (talk) 04:15, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Thank you for your comments, they were helpful and inspired some changes. As for whether it's a snark at the field of spatial analysis, I can say no as I've never heard of it and I'm not quite sure how it's related. Thanks! Scott Ritchie 09:08, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Sorry about the confusion. Basically, it is the process of using computers (and other means) to analyze space in regard to demographics, statistics, land-use, etc. While sometimes the use of a computer to generate voting districts can be a little impersonal, it also is a good tool to find groupings. It just had a tone that anything using computer spatial analysis would be automatically negaitve. BTW< the article is looking great. youngamerican (talk) 18:21, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Adopting inline citations would be a great boom. And I know that The Economist had quite a few articles about that, so you may want to browse through it online database and gather more citations. The fact that this article cites no scholarly articles/books is a significant drawback.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 17:22, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Myself and a number of other people (mostly, if not entierly, the other people) have been working to make Red vs Blue a featured article. We beleive that the article is currently ready for a peer review, the next step towards nominating it for a featured article, and would appreciate your imput. Thank you. Dr. B 06:35, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• For featured article status, inline citations need to be implemented. AndyZ 21:18, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Are we talking about putting direct quotes into the article, or what?Dr. B 03:54, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sources are cited inline currently with embedded HTML links (and, considering that RvB is an Internet phenomenon, 95% of the information that you'll be able to find on it will be on the Internet in one form or another). Is this style not generally preferred for featured articles? Wikipedia:Citing sources didn't make it clear that one style is superior to the others in general, but I can change things around if one style is in fact considered preferable. -- TKD 10:02, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

On second thought, some material does come from DVD audio commentary, so if that is to be cited inline, we might need to change styles. Of the other styles mentioned in Wikipedia:Citing sources, is there one generally preferred over another? -- TKD 11:33, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I converted all citations to <ref>-style footnotes. -- TKD 12:31, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• It would be cool to see a list of non-BG/Coag maps that are used in RvB, and the context of the episodes that they're used for. KrazyCaley 01:25, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Such a list in the article would probably be difficult to fit in. however, creating a separate page that lists the different maps used and what they were used for is a possibility.Dr. B 03:54, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think we should make a seperate article on it. Just a little sub-section.--Drat (Talk) 04:45, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps even a single table would be enough, since a lot of that information is already in the episode summaries. -- TKD 11:33, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've made a sub-sub-section on the maps, under filming. Maps I'm not sure about are in comments, so they can be filled out and put in properly.--Drat (Talk) 10:50, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• I think some more screenshots are needed, lower in the article, to break things up. Some two-character ones like Grif & Simmons, and Church & Tucker, and perhaps Sheila & Lopez.--Drat (Talk) 13:39, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, we don't want to use too many, as that'd undermine a fair use rationale. We have the main characters. Maybe a screenshot or two from Halo 2. Might fit well near the Filming section. -- TKD 06:18, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What about location establishing shots? I still think maybe one two-character shot, like the first scene, would be neat.--Drat (Talk) 07:38, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

By location-establishing, do you mean showing maps other than Blood Gulch/Coagulation? We could probably do one of those, though I'm not sure that it's essential. I've added two images, one showing Grif and Simmons in the Warthog in episode 6 (to show post-production editing techniques), and one from Halo 2, to illustrate visually the differences from Halo footage. I think that those can easily be justified under fair use. Shots of other characters (especially the minor characters) are probably justifiable in the characters auxiliary article. -- TKD 22:52, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, those ones seem good. Great work. Now, we just need some more feedback from the peers...--Drat (Talk) 03:14, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Feedback request again. How may we improve it?--Drat (Talk) 17:24, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I only just remembered this. We also need people to take a look at the character and episode guide pages. Check the template at the bottom of the RvB page.

• Might it be a good idea to have an episode guide for the Red vs Blue videos that occur outside the main storyline, and possibly to move episodes 28.5 and 45.9 there (along with adding material for the PSAs and such)? I used to think that it wasn't necessary, but since we mention PSAs in the lead, it might be good to list them off somewhere, just for the sake of comprehensiveness -- TKD 07:52, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps make another episode summery page for all PSAs, put a link to the page next to the summeries for each season (At the bottom), and link to it from the infobox?Dr. B 09:47, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm working on a new page. It will be at Red vs Blue episode guide: Specials when I save it.--Drat (Talk) 12:57, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

On behalf of User:Dark Kubrick, who asked me to help him write this: I'm going to try to keep an out-of-universe perspective on this article, but I need help in knowing what sections to add or delete. I'm planning on adding a "Depiction" section, and rewrite the Characteristics part for less cruft and speculation. Debate and Theories will probably go or be merged somehow. Plus I'll add a concept and creation section. Any other topics the article might need to cover? Thanks. Dark Kubrick. 19:22, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To be honest when I read a while ago I found it very informative for something that doesn't exist. But yeah, I think it'd be neat to take the fictional information on it's lifecycle (which fascinates everyone) and condense it into it's own section, and get on with the creature's popularity. Wiki-newbie 19:34, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The featured articles on fictional characters already provide a wonderful (self-explanatory) outline: Appearances, Characteristics, Concept and creation. - Tutmosis 23:28, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kinda obvious...I'm looking for more specific details...--Dark Kubrick 23:40, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Ruhrfisch 02:22, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have again reworked this article and have combined sections together. The last time this article was placed under peer review it received little attention. I hope to renominate it for FA status in the near future. Any feedback would be greatly appreciated. -- Underneath-it-All 03:54, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• It would be helpful to include the same type of family background information that was in the Kylie Minogue article. At first I was left wondering whether they are even related. — RJH (talk) 20:39, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Maybe you should cite this: "Singles "I Begin to Wonder" and "Don't Wanna Lose This Feeling" were also substantial successes on the U.S. dance charts."
• "In February 2006, Minogue made headlines". "In September 2006, Minogue's cover". "In November 2006, Minogue" Be consistent: here you wikilink month and year; in other cases you don't. Per WP:MoS, we wikilink only year-date-month.
• Maybe it would be better to merge "family" with "childhood and beginning". But again this may be my personal preference.

Apart from these minor things, it lloks to me ready for FAC. I do not judge the prose, because I am not a native English speaker, but again I don't see any serious prose deficiencies.--Yannismarou 18:33, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the feedback. I have fixed the date inconsistencies and added a reference for that one sentence. I merged parts of the family section with the childhood and beginning section. -- Underneath-it-All 20:54, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi All - I request your assistance and advice on raising this article to FA status. It would be fabulous to have an article regarding one of the greatest glories of ancient India's civilizations on FA. I've expanded the text data and added pictures, but there is a lot of scope for improvement before it becomes FA class. Jai Sri Rama! Rama's Arrow 21:05, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, looks good upon cursory glance. A few initial notes:

• Use non-breaking space   between numbers and their units (i.e., 665&nbsp;[[candela]]s)
• Use – to separate numerical ranges (i.e., in fiscal year 2000–2001)
• Consider reading through WP:MOS in all its hideous entirety — I know it can be a bore, but it'll get these minor issues cleared up w/ less muss.

More critique later ... Saravask 21:40, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Clarification I know a lot of material has been added from one source, but I've taken care to avoid a blatant copyvio. I'll be making further revisions with your help to incorporate more from other sources. Rama's Arrow 21:53, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• User:Raul654: "rephrasing something does not a copyvio make". Saravask 22:00, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• The article definitely has a potential for FA status if we fix certain things. Following are my comments.
  1. Sentences are too long. Consider breaking them to improve readability. I've made some changes in the lead paragraphs.
  2. Clarify copyright status of Image:Cityplan2.png, Image:Baths (Small)2.png, Image:LowerTown (Small).png, Image:LothalGraves (Small).png, Image:Lothalpot (Small).png, Image:Lothalpot2 (Small).png, Image:Warehouse (Small).png, and Image:Acropolis (Small).png.
  3. Back up claims of thousands of years' antiquity with references. I've added {{fact}} inline in some places.
  4. You can also look at Malwa for things that can be added. Given his experience with Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Malwa, Deeptrivia might help. Also, do get Nichalp's comments. -- Sundar ^{\talk \contribs} 10:33, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

All the concerns of Sundar and Saravask have been addressed. The few dishonorable exceptions include:

(1) the compass-8/12 division of sky note in intro is referenced thru the "science" section.

Rama's Arrow 20:10, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi All - All the images have been put under fairusein|Lothal license. Only one, the painting portrayal on the top of the page is under questionable copyright - I'm afraid it calls for deletion. Thankfully I have a bunch of personally-taken photographs of Lothal that I can upload here by the weekend. Rama's Arrow 19:17, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please get refs from more than one source! All the notes on the text are from one source. Besides that, basic copyediting reqd.--May the Force be with you! Shreshth91($ |-| r 3 $ |-| t |-|) 14:20, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• This looks like a great article already; it should probably be submitted to FAC soon. However, IMHO some sentences need to be broken up in order to make them easier to read. For example:

"Lothal has of one of the world's earliest dockyards, connecting an ancient course of the Sabarmati river on the trade route between Harappan cities in Sindh and the peninsula of Saurashtra when the surrounding Kutch desert was a part of the Arabian Sea."

I'd personally break this up to read:

"Lothal's dockyards — among the world's earliest — were located on an ancient course of the Sabarmati river. This river served as part of a trade route between the Harappan cities in Sindh and the peninsula of Saurashtra, at which time what is now the surrounding Kutch desert consisted of inlets of the Arabian Sea."

Also, everyday concepts like sati should not be capitalized — as a comparison, do we capitalize "marriage" or "suicide" in English? Only capitalize proper nouns like Bharat Ratna. Thanks. — Saravask 18:05, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please consider merging the "Archaeology" and "Excavations" sections — they treat the same material and are each short sections. Saravask 18:17, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There are issues w/ wierd capitalization everywhere (e.g., "City Plan of Lothal" (capitalized "P") and "Acropolis and Lower town" (capitalized "L")). I'm not sure if this is normal in Indian English; nevertheless, please fix per Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Capital letters and Wikipedia:Manual of Style (headings)#Capitalisation. Saravask 18:27, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi - (1) "Archaelogy" is a section talking of Lothal's discovery, associated discoveries in the Gujarat region in terms of Indus valley civilization, and an archaelogical summary of city history. As opposed to that "Excavated City" discusses the sites that a traveler will see in Lothal, of what parts of the city have been excavated, etc. It is better that this section follows the "Charting history" and "Attributes" section, which explains how Lothal people built their place, and that "Archaelogy" be the best first section, leading into a detailed account of history, civilization and the present remains.

(2) I've renamed "Culture" to "Attributes..." becoz culture will often exclude the scientific achievements, economy and industry in its meaning. Also "Excavations is not good" becoz Excavation proper means digging up, nothing else. "Excavated City" is good title to describe the present resurrected remains of Lothal.

Thanks for your help on the grammar. I will introduce fresh re-writes on Monday and Tuesday.

Rama's Arrow 05:56, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK. No problem — thanks for the explanations. I think this is FA material; the fact that most of my comments are on minor issues speaks to this. Hope I'm not nitpicking too much. Since you're the main contributor and have worked hard on this, I have no problems w/ your title naming. Good work. Saravask 06:08, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment — I don't think it matters whether all the footnotes point to one source or not; as long as it adheres to WP:NPOV, WP:WIAFA, WP:MOS, WP:NOR, etc., it shouldn't matter. I'll be glad to support even if no other sources are used. Of course, the images do need to be taken care of before FAC. Saravask 21:53, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Do you know about Google Book Search and Google Scholar? Can get lots of useful info from scholarly sources for new footnotes. Saravask 21:57, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment you would need more references and less of FU images. =Nichalp «Talk»= 10:03, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I will introduce a major round of revisions, fresh information, new images, expansion and re-organization from February 13 to 17, and I believe this article will be ready by February 18. Jai Sri Rama! Rama's Arrow 14:21, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's very well done, so I'll comment on some deeper points. The biggest issue seems to be that the referencing is heavily focused on one source. I'm sure it was the best source you had, but are there any additional current papers/works that shed significant new light on the issue since the 1985 book? The article doesn't mention any differences of scholarly opinion which I know is quite strong for the Indus Valley civilization in general. Perhaps that doesn't significantly affect this topic, but there's got to be some. Is Lothal's importance or reasons for/manner of downfall disputed at all? If you really wanted to take it to the next level some historiographical analysis would be included. Are there any significant criticisms of the ASI's methods/conclusions that would impact the information in the article? Is there any work on Indus Valley topics by Pakistani researchers that differ from the conclusions presented? Another detailed point is the intro to the 'Civilization' section states the people made significant contributions to human civilization in the era. That's a pretty strong statement and implies they made developments that were adopted elsewhere and did not just adopt what had been discovered by others. It also seems to imply or at least leaves open the possibility that the contributions had lasting effects on later civilization(s). Is there evidence to support either of these points? That paragraph could use expansion anyway as it is a bit short at two sentences. So yes I'm a tough critic, but the quality of the work so far leads me to believe you can meet these points too. - Taxman ^Talk 16:41, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

1. Sources: This is the official ASI publication which is being used as primary references. I've looked on E-Britannica and some other books and websites on Indus Valley, but none deal with such consummate detail on the subject: Lothal. I can't find any other source that provides such technical detail and explanations on Lothal. I've incorporated data from secondary sources, but this is very specialized (maps, topographical analysis, script) and minor.
2. Difference of Analysis: I have not included any topic that does not directly concern Lothal. I do not know of any Pakistani work that deals with anything but the broader topics regarding the Indus Valley civilization and the sites in Pakistan; Pakistanis for obvious reasons have never conducted their own research in Lothal. There certainly appears to be no conflict of theories, explanations. There is scholarly debate about how the civilization was wiped out, but there is factual, archaeological evidence provided via the citations in this article that corroborates the details on flood and late Harappan culture regarding Lothal only - I will add the technical details directly after I complete my reply. There is no known critique or counter example of ASI research methods regarding Lothal.
3. Civilization: certain things like the world's earliest-known dock, 8-12 horizon division have been proven to have occured before anybody else. These are appropriately cited. On this basis was the 2-line opener to the section written. There is also a connection with ancient Vedic customs explored. I didn't intend it to be a large intro.
4. Citations: please note that since a lot of info comes from one source, I've often put one citation for a bunch of facts coming from the same page. I can say with confidence that there are no technical details or assertions made here that are not cited. The "Lead"'s facts are cited within the article.

I will complete this reply as I make the additions of data requested. Rama's Arrow 17:11, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I believe there are several theories that look at the disappearance of the Indus valley civilisation. Looking at only the flooding theory, seems incomplete, imo. Otherwise this is a good article. btw, I was wondering if lethal and Lothal have the same etymologicl roots ;) ... --Gurubrahma 12:03, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Previous PR here. This was recently the US CotW, which saw some significant improvement. I've been working on it a long time and would like to bring it to FAC. Tuf-Kat 06:58, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Looks great. However, one of the FAC requirements is to adhere to Wikipedia:Summary style which states that the starting point that an article may be considered to be too long is 30KB of prose and that by 50KB of prose being 'too long' is an almost certainty. By my estimation this article has nearly 60KB of prose. This topic does not, IMO, warrant the extra reading time that is reserved for huge topics like WWII and should therefore be condensed to improve readability. All the detail is already in the daughter articles. This article should only present a summary that can be easily read in one sitting and link to daughter articles that expand on the various sub-topics (and so on with the daughter articles). That gives reader a choice about the amount of detail they are exposed to ; many will need a more compact treatment while some will require more detail. We should serve all groups. --mav 22:02, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

50k is NOT too long for a Featured Article (we have many that are larger than that). This article is written in a summary style — it could serve as an exemplary article for demonstrating what summary style is, in my opinion — but the subject is so broad and complicated that even a summary ends up being a little longer than average FA length. And that's just fine. Andrew Levine 15:02, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Summary style is an FA requirement and that page clearly states that anything above 50KB of prose is almost certainly too long. Exceptions are sometimes made for very expansive and important topics. While this topic may be expansive, it is not as important as something such as an article on a world war and thus should not be so long. I'm also only counting prose size ; referencing often makes FAs shot above 80KB when they really only have 40KB of prose. Those type of articles pass FAC all the time. Less is often more when it comes to text - a more on topic and shorter article will have more people read it all the way through than a booklet-sized article. Good writing can pack lots of the most important details in a concise package. Summary style gives readers a choice as to the amount of detail they are exposed to. All reader types win. --mav 23:43, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I notice from the history of the Summary style page that it was you who wrote the "30kb" limit into it in the first place several years ago. Having the advantage of coming to Wikipedia early doesn't make one person's opinion an official policy. Anyway, I wouldn't take for granted that a war that lasted six years is that much more important a subject than a history detailing a span of more than 200 years of artistic development. Certainly every section of the present article is a summary of a larger page. Every section is stripped down to a very basic, bare-bones description, just as Summary Style requires. What exactly is it that you want removed? Do you have concrete suggestions for improving the article? Andrew Levine 01:12, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I know that it is longer than is really ideal, but bigger articles have been featured. I'm going through it now to see how much I can trim, but I don't think very much can be removed. It already covers all of American country music in three paragraphs, for example. The largest single section is "rock, metal and punk", with five paragraphs covering everything from the birth of rock through grunge.

I've managed to trim a couple kb off (I'm not all the way done. Removing all the external links, pics, sounds, and templates, there's about 56k of text (note that include the words that make up all the footnotes, which I have no way of easily removing). Tuf-Kat

Quick comments:

• the "main article" for "Hip hop music"is not properly linked.
• Why are the "further" reading numbered???

Circeus 02:45, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed both. Tuf-Kat

The most I can say right now is that the footnotes should not be coming between the sentences and the punctuation marks, rather they should follow the punctuation. I have already started to make the change. Other than that, it is of the same quality that I have come to expect from the music articles you have shepherded to Featured status. Andrew Levine 04:16, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Though I'm not sure I understand this one sentence: "Notable early '80s subgenres where the overarching term "heavy metal" is occasionally still in use include the faster thrash metal style, pioneered by Anthrax, Megadeth, Metallica and Slayer." Should this be "was still in use"? And why does the sentence begin "subgenres" and then give only one? Andrew Levine 04:24, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also, the "folk music" and "blues and gospel" section have some footnotes (I count five total) using the old {{ref}} templates that were never converted to Cite.php. Andrew Levine 04:36, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comments and kind words. Personally, I prefer the footnote before the period (just seems more tidy to me), but I'm not really bothered by switching them. I've re-worded the thrash metal sentence. I'll have to search the history to find those unconverted footnotes again, but not tonight. Tuf-Kat 03:50, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I fixed all the footnotes. Tuf-Kat 00:02, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ugh, switching those footnotes to cite.php added one k to the overall size... I then did a lot of tweaking, and removed as much as I could without losing important information... and the total size went back down to where it was. Tuf-Kat 00:26, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: I believe the only red link in this article is for Parchman, Mississippi. Any takers? It gets 12000 google hits. Tuf-Kat 04:07, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to be mostly the location of Mississippi State Penitentiary. Circeus 00:11, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've switched the link to the prison, which I'm certain was where that recording came from. Tuf-Kat 00:43, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I tend to think of article length in terms of paragraphs (I think each paragraph averages out to about 1k), because I sometimes use the sentence paragraph technique, especially with expansive topics like this one.

• Lead: 3
• Characteristics: 3
• Folk music: 3
  • Blues and spirituals: 2
  • Other immigrants: 2
• Classical music: 1
  • Early classical music: 4 (to the end of the 19th century)
  • 20th century: 2
• Popular music: 1
  • Early popular song: 4 (secular colonial songs, Civil War, minstrel shows and blackface, Broadway)
  • Blues and gospel: 3 (also ragtime)
  • Jazz: 3
  • Country music: 3
  • R&B and soul: 3 (also funk)
  • Rock, metal and punk: 5
  • Hip hop: 2
  • Other niche styles: 2 (1 para on generic stuff, mentioning Hawaiian, klezmer, etc, 1 para on Latin pop)
• Industry: 3
• Education: 2
• Holidays and festivals: 2

For a grand total of 53 paragraphs, which I don't think is unreasonable for this topic. I considered cutting the institutions section entirely, but decided not to -- it would only drop 2k anyway. Tuf-Kat 00:43, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• I think the text itself is down to about 47-48k (one of the drawbacks to the cite.php system is that it isn't easy to remove footnotes) Tuf-Kat
  • And now, on third thought I removed the music institutions section, which puts it at 45-46k. Tuf-Kat

Why not; I know it needs some work, but let's see some feedback, please :) Deckiller 04:00, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again. :) Here are some comments after a quick glance at the article. You know where to contact me if you have any questions. :) Gflores ^Talk 07:53, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• mention more about injury (shoulder injury)
• college years (struggle for position, was he any good, statistically?)
• wikilink football terms (interceptions, field goal, etc) but no more than once, generally. i did a few.
• quotes from tom brady, sportscasters
• maybe a little pov in debate section. a quote here would be nice.
• maybe a personal life section to incorporate stuff from the other information section (these types of bulleted lists are not liked in FAs). This could have his political views, religion, tv/commercials, etc. P.S. wasn't he like 50 most beautiful men or something like that?
• move SI pic up near his 2005 season section

• His collegiate career must be expanded, with each of hijs seasons as a starter getting the same kind of treatment as his Pro seasons... Also his private life is left out. There is the great story about how his three sisters were all highly sucessful and how that might have played on him, stuff like that needs to be included, otherwise this will be nothing more than a padded NFL.com stats page, Tom Brady is a man, not a football machine... no matter how much he might seem like one. Thethinredline 15:46, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, many thanks for the feedback. I'll try and get on it this week, although the new Star Wars WikiProject is really taking up time. Thanks again! Deckiller 13:49, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

AFAIK everythings in there, it just doesnt seem quite right. --PopUpPirate 00:32, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, that's a good summary. I fixed a smegging disambig, and linked ecumenical (I always wondered what an ecumenical matter was...) Andjam 11:01, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would add a second para to the intro describing the show beyond just the setting, something like "the show followed the life of a colorful priest and his wacky hijinks," for example, and mentioning something notable about it (the section about neologisms is a good candidate). Kaisershatner 17:04, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ta, makes sense, I'll implement --PopUpPirate 20:06, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The article requires references, especially for the "Production details" section. It appears the links in the "Ext. links" section were used to write the article (if so put those in a "References" section). Specifically, look for sources that provide critical reviews, analysis and commentary of the show or source that provide details about how/why the show was created, evolved, and ended. maclean25 19:19, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

References will definitely be needed, will implement later, thanks --PopUpPirate 20:06, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• I agree with Maclean in that I'd perfer to see less of a character summary and more about the success of the show itself. Some quotes from the show's creator or actors about the show would be a start.
• Also, try to avoid opinions, which slip through. "The word's strength is debatable", "...it is a rich irony...", "She must once have been married", "Somewhat controversially, RTÉ initially did not buy the rights to broadcast the show in Ireland, perhaps for fear of offending more conservative viewers" -- examples such as this sound more opinion than fact.
• The article as it reads now is more of a character summary. The character descriptions are lumped together and jump randomly from sentence to sentence, i.e. "Father Ted once described the Great Wall of China as being 'so big it can be seen from anywhere in the world'" appears out of place in Ted’s summary, since it doesn’t go with the sentence before or after and really doesn’t describe Ted. Is that statement because he’s dumb, witty, sarcastic, etc.?
• Finally, the article needs a copy edit, as it's a very wordy article. That means the boring stuff; punctuation, grammar, and wordiness.
• I hope that helps you. As a fan of the show, I wish you the best in your article. --Ataricodfish 06:44, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers, there's a lot of work to do but I intend to make a proper go of it!! --PopUpPirate 20:18, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• There is room for a sentence or two more on the shooting locations. Not sure exactly what should be added, it would just be nice to have more than a quickie listing without some specifics or description. youngamerican (talk) 04:23, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This article has been through a complete overhaul over the past month and I would like any feedback in ways that it can be improved. I would one day like to see it as a featured article. Thanks. Underneath-it-All 23:52, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Featured Music Project criteria
  • Lead - 1, 2, 3, 4 (2-5 paragraphs, summarize everything in the article)
  • Comprehensiveness - 3, 4, (more on musical style and influences, more on critical reception)
  • Sales - looks good, though consider adding more countries
  • Pictures - 1, 2 (lack of free pics is lamentable, need fair use rationales)
  • Audio - 1, 2, 3, 4
  • References - 4 (need something more independent and authoritative, preferably print and scholarly, but at least a magazine article or two, or allmusic or something)
  • Discography - looks good
  • Format and style - 1, 2, 4 (combine discography into one section, "Other Rachel Stevens related articles" should be "see also", and either or both of those links ought to be worked into the article, some stubby paragraphs, "Future In Music" is a major problem, needs copyedit overall)—Preceding unsigned comment added by TUF-KAT (talk • contribs)

An audio sample would be great for the article, but I don't know how to upload one. If anyone can add one to the article it would be much appreciated. Thanks. Underneath-it-All 06:14, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• A photo of the whole jolly s club 7 gang doing whatever they did circa 1999 or so could be helpful. youngamerican (talk) 04:18, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Added picture of the band. I'm not sure what year it is from though. Underneath-it-All 23:05, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Peer review/Trebor27trebor Sanssouci translation

This article have had a lot of enhancements/expansions/corrections lately, a peer review I think is appropriate at this point. _→AzaToth 21:55, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• The article looked pretty good to me, although there's no way I can know for certain how accurate it may be. You could try comparing it to other successful language and linguistic FAs to see if it is missing any important sections. I had a minor nit though: my preference is to use the &mdash; (em dash) HTML tag rather than a hyphen to separate the sentence fragments. Thanks. — RJH 15:37, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• It's currently not NPOV, with a substantial amount of work done by only one user (as pointed out on the talk page). Fred-Chess 00:38, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Has a problem with both (slight) POV and to some extent OR. The article is written as if was intended for linguists: very dense prose with far more IPA and minutiae than is either necessary or useful for an encyclopedic article. The article is also completely lacking any coherent structure. The only general subsection right now is "Features", which is pretty much one of the few headers you're not supposed to use in any article. The rest is about isolated grammatical features that could be covered in just one combined paragraph. It's very nice to see an expansion of Swedish dialects, but it's so far lacking somewhat in quality. / Peter ^Isotalo 21:02, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Not stated clearly what language this is a dialect of. "Scandinavian" is not clear enough. For all I know, It could be a dialect of Danish!

• That's a difficult question, The only language I can find it's a direct dialect of is old norse. _→AzaToth 20:36, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• All Scandinavian dialects are descendants of Old Norse to some extent or another, including the standard national languages. That's what defines all North Germanic languages. In this case, it's spoken in Sweden and is therefore considered a dialect of Swedish. Calling it a separate language is mostly political, though. / Peter ^Isotalo 01:26, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Page should follow roughly the standard layout of a language page.
• All these numbers in the phonetic transciptions are confusing. Are they tone markers? Can they be reasonably removed if the tone is not relevant to the transciption or replaced with accents?
• the map of germanic languages doesn't seem pertinent.
• "Features" text odd. remove italics.
• "other features" should be in text form, not in a list. Also as much as possiblecontrast examples with equivalents in non-dialectal language.

that's all i can see for now Circeus 20:31, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am hoping to one day achieve featured article status for this article. Any and all comments are appreciated. --Myles Long/cDc 17:30, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, a few problems:

1. There must be references.
2. Most of #1985-present "paragraphs" are one sentences.
3. WP:LEAD should be expanded. It's a bit short. Just a slight expansion.
4. A source should be cited for Image:Lubbockhigh.jpg since it's copyrighted.
5. A source should be cited for Image:Lubbockhighlogo.jpg—even if you did just get it from their website.
6. The infobox for the school should be the first thing in the article; the image Lubbockhigh.jpg should be moved downwards.
7. It is generally too small. An overall expansion would be good.

^KILO-_LIMA 19:11, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the comments. I know it still needs work, but I've addressed your comments.

1. I've included references now. Please let me know if these still need work.
2. Still working on this one...
3. Still working here, too...
4. Done. Actually, I replaced this image with another one that is CC licensed and noted its source in the image description.
5. Done.
6. Done.
7. Working on this.

Thanks for the comments. --Myles Long/cDc 20:57, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Hey Myles, your article is a very nice overview of the school, but it doesn't feel complete. It offers a collection of one sentence news tid-bits and then stops, leaving the reader wanting to know more. For example, "the Lubbock High Academic Decathlon team made national news when its victory over J. Frank Dobie High School in the state championship competition was disputed in court [4]." Why was this disbuted? I saw the link to the NPR blurb, but it doesn't answer much, and more detail should be put in the article itself. Another example, "In March 1909, a fire set by students destroyed the building." Was this on purpose? An accident? -- All the facts are there, but these and other facts should be expanded upon. Right now, it's more of a timeline than an article, but after additions are made and sourced, it will become a much better read.
• I hoped this was helpful. Best of luck with the article! --Ataricodfish 06:59, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for your comments. I'll work on expanding it in the near future. --Myles Long 15:23, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Examine some of the other school-related featured article candidates that have failed and learn from their mistakes before nominating: Haileybury College, Harrow School, Sydney Boys High School, Hopkins School --maclean25 08:55, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for the suggestion, I'll look at those soon. I appreciate the help, everyone. --Myles Long 15:23, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Wikipedia:Peer review/Joan of Arc/archive1 December 2005

This recently received "good article" designation with a comment that it was close to FA quality. The December peer review stressed a need for citations. The article now has 50 footnotes, which is more than most biography FAs. What would take it to the next level? Durova 02:53, 10 February 2006 (UTC) 67 footnotes - I've been busy. Durova 06:06, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The intro is too long. See the guidelines at WP:Lead. I'd suggest summarizing the details of her biography a little more. — jdorje (talk) 05:50, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Watch out for dangling prepositions. The historical background section for instance starts out with "This was..." but you have to go look elsewhere (back up to the intro?) to find out what "This" means (what period of history was this anyway?). — jdorje (talk) 05:52, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Try to use a more complicated sentence structure in some places to tie related sentences together. The current writing is very "basic" in that all sentences are very simple. For instance: "By the beginning of 1429 nearly all of the north and some parts of the southwest were under foreign control. The English ruled Paris and the Burgundians ruled Rheims. The latter was important as the traditional site of French coronations." could have a little more "flow" if it were condensed into two or even one sentence. Also this is another "dangler" since "north and some parts of the southwest" is used as a noun but these are really adjectives (does this mean "north and some parts of the southwest of France"?). — jdorje (talk) 05:56, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the input. A fresh set of eyes helps. I'll implement your changes soon. Durova 06:14, 10 February 2006 (UTC) ...changes made. Durova 06:47, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think in terms of facts, sequence, references and illustrations - it has everything. I think all it needs is to be edited so that it acquires a "more complicated sentence structure" as Jdorje commented. I find a good technique for detecting whether the flow is right or not, is to read it out loud. If that's not possible, at the very least read it paragraph by paragraph rather than sentence by sentence, in the same way you would if reading it aloud, rather than skimming through it. Whatever does not flow will become more prominent and easy to spot. I think the whole article would benefit from this approach because the short sentences occur throughout and give it a stilted style, but I don't think the "fix" is big. I think everything is there and just needs to be sewn together. I'm not sure how much time I'll have over the next few days but I'll try to help when I can. cheers. Rossrs 09:39, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I see you've made some of those changes. I find this particular feedback somewhat surprising, but if two editors agree with it I'll yield to the majority. 208.54.14.9 16:38, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to suggest, simply for the sake of being more precise, that the reference to her home village being at Domrémy be modified to read, Domrémy-la-Pucelle. There are actually several other villages in NE France which begin with the name of Domrémy (Domrémy-Landéville, Domrémy-aux-Bois and Domrémy-la-Canne, to name three), though perhaps back in the year 1421, there may have only been one village called Domrémy. Jeanne d'Arc's home can be found in Domrémy-la-Pucelle at 48°26'31.88"N 5°40'28.27"E, using Google Earth's GPS coordinates. Canuck55 (talk) 03:12, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"Possible Motivations" as a sub-section

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

The13thzen 09:30, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

I came across this article by chance, and it looks good to me. It is a central part of a wider project and it seems that some relevant matters (read: political implications of global warming) have deliberately been moved to related pages, but otherwise it looks fairly complete. Stability could be an issue, though. Kosebamse 21:49, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• This article could use a graph showing the trend of the financial costs involved :) --James S. 03:54, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Good, nice article, on a subject that definitely deserves a featured article. I do have a few comments:
  1. Citation style: you've used inline URLs for citations, which is OK according to WP:MOS, but actually causes problems with the printable version of the page, and very much with audio rendering -- the problem is that in those versions of the page, the whole URL gets printed/spoken inline, which disrupts the text to a great degree. I don't think it will make it through FAC like this. Better to use {{ref|foo}} and {{note|foo}}, and a "References" section. Check out Panama Canal for what seems to be the preferred style.
     1. Umm, this has (a lot of) history. Where to start? Maybe [20] here. William M. Connolley 21:50, 31 January 2006 (UTC).[reply]
        1. OK, I see the history. Still, I think the rendering issue is real, and I got dinged trying to get Panama Canal through FAC with just one inline link. Just a heads-up. — Johan the Ghost _seance 23:26, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. The lead section is a little big. Maybe move some of the detail out of there? The IPCC quote, for example.
  3. It's great that there are so many references cited. To make it through FAC, though, you'll need to have a source for just about every significant fact. A couple of possible problem areas are: first paragraph of "Warming of the Earth"; first 2 of "Causes of global warming".
     1. Did the first one; not sure about the causes-of paras; what is unsourced there? The 30 oC is in the GHE article. William M. Connolley 21:57, 31 January 2006 (UTC).[reply]
        1. Maybe it's ok, just liiks like a lot statements with no source (eg. "The climate system varies both through natural, "internal" processes as well as..."). — Johan the Ghost _seance 23:26, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. "Temperature record holds a discussion of the various records" -- unclear -- I would say "see Temperature record for a discussion of the various records".
     1. I've reformulated the section, hopefully it's clea[rn]er now. --Stephan Schulz 23:05, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        1. Great! — Johan the Ghost _seance 23:26, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. "Pre-human global warming": "... that this caused the rate of rock weathering to increase ... As a result of this, carbon dioxide levels dropped back" -- explain how this works.
     1. I've added an explaining sentence...is this enough?--Stephan Schulz 23:05, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        1. Yup, looks good. — Johan the Ghost _seance 23:26, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. "Effects": "the effects may already be being experienced" -- a bit awkward, how about "these factors may already be having an effect" or some such?
  7. "Destabilisation of ocean currents": provide a summary.
     1. SS did this; I've modded his a bit. William M. Connolley 22:02, 31 January 2006 (UTC).[reply]
        1. That's great! — Johan the Ghost _seance 23:26, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

— Johan the Ghost _seance 19:00, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I think citation is an issue. I'm a fan of the <ref></ref> tags so could we simply replace them with that and format as needed? There are apparently some written references that go this way too; we can just format the written references as needed. To me the only thing that bugs me so far is the formalisation issue: too many parentheses, lots of special notation (since this isn't a chemistry article, we don't exactly need so many formulas unless it's an equation). What do you think of me removing or replacing most of the special notation in their word format until absolutely necessary (ie. disambiguating an acronym)? Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (Be eudaimonic!) 11:01, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

For a long time, this article has been at the center of strong POV and factual controversies (one Arbitration I can remember, likely more), so for that reason alone, it's unlikely to ever get featured. Circeus 20:15, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bit of a strange comment - do you mean "there is something wrong with it", or do you mean "people who don't like it are likely to vote it down"? I don't think the latter is worth worrying about. But if you mean the former, what? William M. Connolley 20:22, 10 February 2006 (UTC).[reply]

I'm pointing out that FA must be void of controversies and POV issues, and I'm afraid it'll be difficult to reach that particular goal here. Circeus 20:30, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Then I still don't understand you. I very much doubt that only articles on non-controversial subjects get FA. But... I doubt this matters much. If you can think of areas where the current article is POV, please point them out though. William M. Connolley 20:58, 10 February 2006 (UTC).[reply]

I haven't even read the article. It is, however, a fact that it has been at the center of massive POV wars before, and for that it risks rejection as FAC. Circeus 21:02, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

From What is a featured article: "article is uncontroversial in its neutrality and factual accuracy" and "an article does not change significantly from day to day and is not the subject of ongoing edit wars". Having a global warming article that is truly both uncontroversial and generally avoids edit wars is at least difficult, even if the last several months have been relatively peaceful. Dragons flight 21:08, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I find it surprising that an article about as important a topic as global warming faces such obstacles becoming featured, whereas it is relatively simple to get much less notable articles through. –Joke 02:43, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Notability of the subject isn't one of the featured article criteria. Featured status is about the quality of the article; although of course the subject has to be notable enough to deserve an article in the first place. Also, I would say that the importance of the subject makes it even more important that we make sure that the article is correct, complete, neutral, and well-written. As for it being simple to get less notable articles through, I'd dispute that! I'm sweating pretty hard on getting Cape Horn through right now, and a lot of the current candidates are getting a lot of opposition. — Johan the Ghost _seance 12:46, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• I know this has been done to death, but the frustrating thing I find about using in-line links as references is that I have no idea what is being linked to: URLs can, and frequently do, change (as do, you might say, Wikipedia pages). The advantage is the directness. Is there any easy way to have both the in-line external links and a careful accounting of the references at the bottom of the page? Also, without references of the bottom of the page, the article precludes the grand academic tradition of reading only an article's references. –Joke 02:43, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See Kyoto protocol (most of the food-fight happened there anyway) for a ref style that does that. I think thats called the "Harvard" ref style. What I find very frustrating is that the "cite.php" extension can in theory do both, but only seems to have fotnotes implemented :-( William M. Connolley 18:24, 14 February 2006 (UTC).[reply]

Now nearly, but perhaps not quite, comprehensive in its content. We'd appreciate comments on layout, readability and whether it's understandable to lay people, as well as whether anything's missing. Joe D (t) 03:57, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• This is quite good. Referencing in particular is excellent. I made a number of small changes; feel free to keep or discard those as you see fit. I assume you're heading in the direction of FAC, and I'll make my suggestions accordingly.
  • The biggest thing right now is to explain the significance of certain statements that you make. A number of statements are just sort of made, with no further explanation about them or their meaning. Examples:
    • "This gene point of view also provides a basis for understanding kin selection which was formulated by his friend, Bill Hamilton." Explain how.
    • "In his books Dawkins uses the imagery of the Necker Cube to explain that the gene-centric view is not a scientific revolution, but merely a new way of visualising evolution." An average reader (like myself) will not know what a Necker Cube is--explain at greater length.
    • "In The Selfish Gene, however, Dawkins explains that he is using George C. Williams' definition of gene as "that which segregates and recombines with appreciable frequency,"" this should probably be followed by a "which is to say..." or something to make it clear what that means.
    • "Dawkins has expressed a Malthusian concern over the exponential growth of human population and the issue of overpopulation, though his proposed solutions can be described as typically Humanist." There's a lot of terminology in that statement, and I think it would at the very least be worth explaining what his solutions are.
  • For FAC, you're going to want a slightly longer lead section. Two full paragraphs would be good.
  • Right now, the personal life section is a little short and choppy, as is the career section. It wouldn't hurt to flesh both of those out a little bit.
  • The external links section runs a little long for my taste; not a huge thing, but if some of those could be trimmed it probably wouldn't hurt.

All in all, looks very good. Good work, and good luck! Robth^Talk 06:04, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I think the usage of the neologism "bright" in the intro should be changed, especially since according to the wiki article describing this uncommon usage, Dawkins is one of those promoting the term as described. The intro should rather say who describes Dawkins as "bright" and give more of a context; alternatively this could be discussed in the body of the article rather than in the intro. The reason I think there should be more context is that this definition is not common usage, and the (appropriate) quotation marks don't give enough context to explain what is meant by calling him "bright." Kaisershatner 19:18, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The subject matter of this article seems particularly compelling at the moment, given the current world focus on the issues surrounding the clash of Islam and the west; and the struggle today between Israel and the Palestinians over the 'Holy Land', which in some ways echoes that of the era of Manuel Comnenus and the Crusaders. Over the past couple of months this article has expanded and changed hugely, and I believe it is now at a stage where a little constructive feed-back would go a long way towards helping the article to eventually become a FA. Proof-readers and comments would be much appreciated! Bigdaddy1204 12:28, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! Just getting started with this nice long article. An obvious point to begin with is the introduction should probably be closer to three paragraphs for an article of this length. See Wayne Gretzky for a recent example, or Isaac Newton for one that is a FA. Kaisershatner 17:14, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The intro definitely needs to address his significance among the rules of the Byzantine Empire. Try to answer the question, "Why have an article about this guy." (other than obviously because he was emperor of a huge state). I think the "Character" section is awkward in its placement, but actually might work as the basis for one of your introduction paragraphs. Try moving it directly into the introduction instead of having it as a separate section. Also, is anything known about his early life? Where was he born, what was the Empire like at that time, etc. Kaisershatner 17:18, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also,it will be a lot of work, but inline citations are becoming increasingly required to achieve FA status, although there is somewhat of a debate on this. You might look at the discussions at WP:FAC for an idea of what people have to say about this and other subjects. Kaisershatner 17:20, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your suggestions! I've tried to make all the changes mentioned here, so I was wondering, what's the next step on the way to making this article a FA? :D Bigdaddy1204 21:20, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, it looks better. WP:FAC has a list of criteria you might find helpful before nominating this for FA status. Also, compare with Epaminondas, a FA on a comparable subject, for an idea about footnoting. Kaisershatner 20:07, 14 February 2006 (UTC) Oh, also the lead sentence claims he was the last "great" Byzantine Emperor. From whose POV? (Cite!) Kaisershatner 20:09, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have a problem with seeing ManuelI as the last great Byzantine emperor. In lieu of what he achieved he seems to be unable to focus on any area of his frontier long enough to re build the empire or generally strengthin it. He was at least a competant emperor but is he worthy to be considered a great emperor? He managed to hold the emperor together but then again Myriokephalon occurred and the empire was dealt another death stroke and within serveral decadesof his death the fourth crusade occurred. Yamam

• Firstly, thanks to Kaisershatner for pointing out the article on Epaminondas, I found it very helpful to compare with this article, and was impressed when Epaminondas appeared on the Wikipedia main page.

• Secondly, about the sentence

"Manuel I Comnenus (November 28, 1118 – September 24, 1180), called Megas ("the Great"), was the last of the truly 'great' Byzantine Emperors."

I agree with Yamam that Manuel had the failings mentioned, which were an important feature of his character as in many ways it was these failings which caused the ultimate failure of the Comnenian recovery of the empire. Since the cohesion of the Comnenus family was not going to hold together after his death, in many ways Manuel's reign was a crucial window of opportunity, in which the Byzantine Empire had a chance to recover from Manzikert and achieve lasting greatness again, or if it failed to do so, face another period of decline after Manuel's death.

More specifically, in the opening sentence I wanted to convey his importance as the last Byzantine Emperor to rule over an Empire that was an empire. After Manuel, Byzantium would only linger on as a shadow of its former self, not really large or powerful enough to merit the description of 'empire' at all, except as a description that helps to identify it as the remnant of the greatness that had passed away. But if he should not be called the last of the great emperors, what can we do with that lead sentence, which I think is very important to the article? We need a way of explaining his importance here, without necessarily using the term 'great'. Ideas on this would be very much appreciated! Bigdaddy1204 12:08, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The last significant, important emperor that still managed to project Byzantine power and influence. could be a good way to start. (Yamam 23:12, 17 February 2006 (UTC))[reply]

Can someone tell me how I can fix my footnotes? I'm about to nominate the article for FA but I think this last simple technical issue needs fixing first. Bigdaddy1204 16:25, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This article deals with the May 18, 1927 series of bombings that killed forty-five people, mostly grade school children, in Bath, Michigan. The article itself is part of the Wikipedia:WikiProject Michigan and Featured Article status is being sought. The anniversary date is coming up shortly and I hope this can be ready for Article of the Day status for that date. Thanks for any feedback you can provide. This is the first request for Peer Review. Jtmichcock 03:37, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Outstanding work on a great article. I do have a few questions/suggestions/comments that may or may not be helpful. 1)Maybe add something more about any legislative actions/reactions. Did this action lead to any restrictions on the purchase of explosives? Did mortgage laws change? Was their scrutiny of security in Michigan or American public schools? 2)Was the term "terrorism" used then? If not, what would it have been called? 3) The external links could maybe be subcategorized thematically and maybe a few more could be added, if available.

Thanks for reviewing. 1) Unlike Columbine and Oklahoma City, there was no legislative action other than making the $2,000 donation by the state legislature. The only impact was that pyrotol was eased out of the marketplace but that may have happened anyway because the WWI surplus was running out. The article on Pyrotol notes this. 2)The term "terrorism" was not, to my knowledge, in common use at the time. Ellsworth in his book called Kehoe "the world's worst demon" and you see this expression repeated in other media. That indicates to me that Kehoe was viewed in quasi-religious term more than he would be today in political terms. Kehoe clearly blamed his financial predicament on the property taxes and his aim was to punish those who he believe were wrongly taking his money. As the article notes, he had money and could have paid off the mortgage easily, so in what can only be described as a deranged attitude, he lost all perspective. If Kehoe were alive today, I believe he would be called a terrorist as is discussed on the Talk page of the article -- if for no other reason that calling him a "demon" would not be something that would show up on media news reports. 3) I have added some categories that I hope sorts the links together and have added three links that I previously pared off dealing with Gado's article, the internment details for the victims and a reference to the Michigan Historical markers. Jtmichcock 04:23, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

NB: I have been persuaded that the article should be titled "Bath School disaster" with the lower-case D. I will modify this after the peer review is completed insofar as I am concerned that a Move now could screw up this sub-page. Jtmichcock 05:06, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Put all sources used to write the article in the "References" section: either like Hugo Chávez#Notes or Dawson Creek, British Columbia#Notes and references. Keep the "External links" section for the other sources (those not used, but might be useful further reading). The layout has 3 sections: two with 3 sub-sections each and one with none. Always be considering and re-considering the layout and formatting. In this case I would go with either the use of sub-sections in all sections or none at all in order to make it parallel. Also, some specifics:
  • "...series of bombings of a farm, elementary school and car..." - consider making it a parallel list by dropping the adjective "elementary".
  • I don't think "Andrew Kehoe" is proper use of bolding.
  • "...prior to the events of May 18, 1927." wikilink all full dates per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers)#Date formatting.
  • Nice use of a table.
  • "...$12,000, paying $6,000 in cash and taking out a $6,000 mortgage." currency is not stable, please provide a year. --maclean25 02:37, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the comments. I have made the corrections as requested, except that I want to keep the "day of the disaster" section as the longest section of the article not only for style reasons, but to illustrate the complexity of the plan. The third section (Aftermath) is actually a lede with two subheaders, the first section had the equivilent of "who, what and where" that I think captures the place, person and weapons rather nicely. As to Andrew Kehoe, that name redirects to this page. Because of the redirection, style manual says the name should be bolded so folks understand that they have arrived at the right place and can see the name pop up. Thanks again and let me know what you think of the edits. Jtmichcock 04:02, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• A 'disaster' implies it wasn't a deliberate act - is this really the right name for the article? What about 'Bath School attacks', 'Bath School massacre' (also used as a term in your references), or, even better, 'Bath School bombings'? Don't small-font your note section. Get rid of the list of fatalities - Wikipedia is not a memorial - but make sure the list is in an external link, and note it in the description of that link. Proto||type 15:56, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The newspaper reports, books published and every other source since 1927 has referred to this as the "Bath School disaster." Despite the fact that it might be considered a misnomer, it would be a bit difficult changing the name now since it's never been called anything else. Besides wihich, it was a disaster. As to the list, it isn't a memorial, its the details of the IDs and particulars of the dead. The Columbine listing has a similar charting of dealing with a large number of dead that would not easily fit into the prose of the article. In terms of notes, I can't recall any FAs that aren't showing notes at 80%. It may not be a convention, but it's close. Thanks for your input. Jtmichcock 16:55, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. If that's what it's called, it's what it's called. Really, the Columbine article shouldn't have a list, either. Proto||type 11:32, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I have read the link, but I don't see anything on the linked page mentioning that he had enough assets to pay off the mortgage? Did I miss it, or is that sentence in the article incorrect? --94.195.20.3 (talk) 11:49, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]