Wikipedia:Peer review/November 2005

• Not sure I'm a tech-head writer, however I am a Mac OS X software programmer, which sure explains partly why I made this article. Thanks for the very positive feedback, and thanks for your copy-edit, that was some serious reworking you did there. Wow to you too! :) I haven't found any factual errors yet, I'm still reading through all your edits. Well, as I stated before, I don't think the images are copyright violations because they are fairuse (reasons stated on the images), I can always recreate those diagrams in Word or OmniGraffle or another app that can make diagrams. I'll answer your personal request on your User talk page. Thanks again for the encouragement and help! — Wackymacs 18:56, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

archive archive 2

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

I don't really have any good suggestions other than to think about a complete re-write from scratch. It appears to me that the IAU hasn't really decided on the criteria for selecting border-line cases yet. Here's some references that are marginally relevant:

• http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1993CeMDA..57..247L — a paper that only a mathematician could love. It has some interesting aspects about the shapes of planets over time.
• http://www.imcce.fr/~hestro/papers/hestroA04.pdf — discusses equilibrium shapes of binary asteroids. Could weak rubble piles meet the criteria for hydrostatic equilibrium?
• http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1984Ap&SS.103..379H — discusses hydrostatic equilibrium in the case of asteroids.

Sorry I couldn't be more helpful. — RJH (talk) 23:37, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is a great article and I don't think there is a reason why this should not be featured. But if there is, tell me. HereToHelp 19:35, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The biggest problem is that there are no references. This will have to be remedied before it can become a FA. There are a few sections that are too short, such as "Geography" and several in the history section. Geography should be expanded, and the history section rearranged into only three or four sub-sections. It also needs more and better pictures. The skyline image is nice, but forced into the corner of the intro it is much too small. Most sections should have an image. You could have a picture of the town hall in the government section, and image of the Skyway in the transportation section, for instance. The article also need some copyediting. - SimonP 19:48, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• I did some rearranging and copyediting. Nevertheless, there is a lot of lists which should be converted to prose. The history should be summarized with its current form moved into a sub-article. Famous Jacksonville natives should also go into a sub-article. As for references, is the "further readings" section references for this article? If so, rename the section as such (though more references could help). Pentawing 21:09, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Another problem that I am running into is the use of "travel brochure" language, notably in the culture section. This should be kept to a minimum if not eliminated completely. Pentawing 00:03, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Okay! Travel Brochure...you mean POVish in a positive way? Got it. I'll try to do my best with the other suggestions. Keep 'em coming! HereToHelp 01:23, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

"Travel brochure" as in (for example) "this event has everything for everyone of all ages." Instead of embellishing information with such language, just state the facts. However, since such language is in the eyes of the beholder, you should get another person to check the wording to make such there are no problems. Pentawing 05:14, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the clarifacation. But you're right—another person helping me would be useful. Any volunteers? HereToHelp 12:06, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• The further reading section could also use some work. I'll help out when I can.--Cuchullain 03:44, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• I'll help out too. --Revolución (talk) 16:04, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I live here in Jacksonville, but I agree this article needs a lot of work. I think one of the main problems is the lack of pictures. I have tried to search for historical pictures for Jacksonville before, but I have not had much success. I did find a picture circa 1920s of downtown but it was deleted by some copyright fanatic who didn't even bother to tell me they wanted to delete it. --Revolución (talk) 16:04, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

We really have improved this article in the last 48 hours. I think the biggest problem now is references, which I'll work on tommorow—it's almost 10:30 where I am. HereToHelp (talk) 02:23, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Nice work with the clean-up. However, there are still some things that could be modified, including:

1. Information on cityscape (what is the city like? Modern buildings or classical? Spread out or compact? Mostly industrial or parklike?)
2. Economy needs more work, in particular the type of tourism and business (these terms are very broad. Without specifics, one could assume Jacksonville's business is just banking).

If you want an example to follow, I would suggest the featured city articles Louisville, Kentucky, and Cleveland, Ohio. Pentawing 21:07, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I stumbled across this article while looking through Genetic engineering. We need information about the chronological flow, comprehensiveness of the footnotes, sources, and references. We also need information on the biographical and methodological considerations:

• Should the article's flow be strictly chronological, more chronological than it is now, or less ...
• Should certain other sections or contents be moved out to daughter articles ...
• We need to know how this article compares with respect to the Margaret Thatcher and Noam Chomsky articles ...

We are putting it on the peer review roster for due diligence purposes, before placement on the FAC list. Absolutely all manner of comments from anyone and everyone are welcome. Saravask 06:22, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure where should the comments go. Right here in this same page, or here: Featured article candidates/Hugo Chávez. Please clarify. I certainly will comment. --Anagnorisis 03:04, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies for the confusion, Anagnorisis. This article will not be put up for FAC for several days (until a peer review or two are completed). Just put your comments here. I removed the confusing and inappropriate FAC template that I stupidly put up from the talk page. Thanks. Saravask 08:06, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The article is comprehensive, but there are several formatting issues that will need to be addressed.

1. The lead is too long- aim for 3 paragraphs that summarise the content of the article
2. I think that the internal links to sections within the article make the text harder to read. I have not seen a system like this used in any featured article.
3. All html links used as references should be listed in the references, please don't pipe links to external websites use a footnote instead.
4. The text in the election results tables is too small to comfortably read.
5. Please include some summary text in the cabinet and critisisms sections so that these sections are not empty.
6. For all fair use images, plesase replace with the {{Non-free fair use in}} template and provide a fair use rationale, see Wikipedia:Image description page for instructions. (This seems to have been done for some, but not all fair use images).

--nixie 05:20, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comments. Now that I see it, you are absolutely right about the excessively long leads. I first saw the internal links in the Christopher Colombus article, but yes, it is not featured, and they will be removed. The references section will be built up with the HTML links. I will look into the images. Thanks again. The Cabinet and Criticisms sections will include summary-style overviews, like you pointed out. Thanks again. And if there are any articles anyone would like me to comment on, I'd be happy to return the favor. Saravask 07:36, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Nixie, I just removed two paragraphs from the lead, thus making it have the three paragraphs that you wanted. I also commented out all the internal links, and they will probably be worked into wikilinks or deleted outright. I am now going to switch the image descriptions. Thanks for your good ideas and policies. Saravask 08:04, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I just increased the font size in all the election box templates. Thanks for the suggestion. Saravask 08:15, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Saravask, the changes have improved the readability of the article significantly. Let me know when you put the last two summary sections in and I will have another read through and copyedit.--nixie 23:08, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I've put in the short summary sections that you requested. I also fixed, clarifed rationale for, or removed all problem and unsourced images. I'm now starting to convert all piped links into proper ref/note format. Thanks again. Saravask 23:58, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The article is quite massive at 62kb, are there any summrary sections that could be further summarised? I think presidency, human rights and foreign policy are potentially good candidates for getting the article to a more managable size.--nixie 00:09, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. you are correct. It seems that the average FA article size is around 50 kilobytes (the Albert Einstein article is only 48 kb) Today, I'll shorten the sections you pointed out above. Saravask 00:16, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I just shortened the "Foreign Policy" section by half. More of the suggested summarizations are in progress ... Saravask 00:30, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This article has undergone a first peer review here. All comments and concerns in that peer review were quickly acted upon, except for concerns on article size (despite significant shortenings and summarizations). Peer review information is needed on the comprehensiveness of the article, and what material in the article should be shortened or summarized. Contributors are attempting to make the Hugo Chávez article the only FA that discusses a Latino leader, and only the second FA about an indigenous native heritage leader (after Louis Riel). Information comparing this article to the Riel piece (in terms of scope, depth, comprehensiveness, and structural outlay) would be most appreciated. All comments will recieve a response and will be acted upon quickly (within half a day at most). Thank you. Saravask 01:53, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Spell out the first incident of "MVR", not the second. Spell out "MVR" in the infobox since that is the first thing most people see and most will not know what MVR means. Is the infobox about Hugo Chavez or the office of the president? "Born into a poor family and later earning a record of distinguished military service," is a tense shift (born = past, earning = present). The notes are really hard to keep track of, they can't be numbered? What is the purpose of having them in alphabetical order? What is the deal with references #49?I didn't see any mention of the municipal elections in footnotes 3 or 4 (if this is correct place them after the recall election). What is "situated at the core" supposed to mean? CTV (tell us what that is, don't let the reader get distracted by another article)? The "early 21st century." statement is stretching it, let the historians 20 years from now make that call. In Military Career section: "Throughout his career, Chávez has been heavily decorated.[7]" links to a spanish website, please provide an english reference. Why does the Military Career section spend more time discussing baseball and literature than his military-related activities and decorations? In the Coup of 1992: what is "MBR-200"? Did Chavez lose the election then Chavez go to jail or the opposite? Why do some of the images have a box around the captions? What is CNE? The "1999 – 2002" section is really long. It breaks up the pace of the article. In "2002 – 2004" remind me what "PDVSA and its revenues" is at its first instance, not third. In "2004 – present", I don't understand this sentence "In a nation that once boasted an 80% government-defined poverty rate, where 2% of the populace owns 60% of the land, and where before Chávez a vanishingly low proportion of the $30 billion annual oil revenues are used for social programs." Also, the "military ties with the U.S. Chávez's Venezuela" is there a period in there? The "Foreign policy" section/paragraph is pretty weak. So is the "Cabinet" section/paragraph. In the "Chávez and the Media" section please refernce the "Chávez is mentally ill and that he harbors a "sexual obsession with Castro" bit. He hosts a TV show???? If that is true (no reference) put it in the intro paragraph because that is unique and will make people read further. What is a "homologue"? The "Personal life" can be expanded: when was he divorced? Children birth dates? I'd like to see some analysis between his personal life and his public life. --maclean25 09:38, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This is an article I brought up from a mere dicdef to the more or less complete article that stands today. My intention with this peer review is not so much try to bring the article to Featured status but rather see if the subject is understandable by a non-chemist. Since I think the article is rather technical and the prose may be a bit dry, it would be great if more people read it and came up with suggestions to make it more readable. And some copyediting wouldn't be bad either. Your help is much appreciated :-D -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ | Esperanza 21:25, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Great work! I am probably not the person to ensure readability for a non-chemist, but I will see what I can do in the way of copy-editing. Physchim62 07:02, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for the additions! -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ | Esperanza 08:55, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• The addition of a third metal changes the phase diagram of the alloy to that of a ternary alloy. What makes the phase diagram of a ternary allow interesting? Does it change the allow to a ternary alloy, or just the phase diagram? Is there another term which can be used in place of phase diagram? As a non-chemist, a phase diagram sounds like a graphical representation of a physical phenomenon. What is the name of that phenomenon? Pburka 15:21, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • The name of the phenomenon is phase equilibrium. I don't like that sentence either: how about "The addition of a third metal changes the stability of some of the different phases." It is difficult to avoid the technical term phase, but I will have a think about it. Physchim62 17:26, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• It would be good if the Applications section included a practical example the average reader could relate to. Is the reduction of benzene to cyclohexane such an example? Can this be related to the production of something non-chemists would use everyday? Pburka 15:39, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• I like the use of the hazardous materials images in the Safety section. The first and third paragraphs have images. Can an image be added for the second paragraph? Pburka 15:43, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for the feedback. I noted your comments and will make the necessary changes. "Phase diagram" has a precise meaning and I can't think of other terms to replace it, although I agree that a bit of an explanation would be warranted. The cyclohexane example is intended to be common application, see the change now in the article. For the safety section, there is no safety label for 'irritant' as far as I know. -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ | Esperanza 15:47, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is a symbol for irritant, it is exactly the same as the symbol for harmful which is on the third paragraph, see European chemical hazard symbol. Nickel is not officially classified as an irritant, although nickel allergies are well known: the reason is partly technical, and partly political... Physchim62 16:37, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Ah! Yes, my thoughts exactly (I should have known that :-) -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ | Esperanza 17:11, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• It may be of interest to note that Raney's choice of an alloy with 50% nickel-silicon content was fortuitous and without any real scientific basis. However, this is the preferred alloy composition for production of Raney nickel catalysts currently in use. This confuses me. Is it supposed to say nickle-aluminium? Pburka 15:51, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• • It actually refers to both Al and Si. I've fixed that now since only the Al ratio is truly relevant for that paragraph. -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ | Esperanza 16:13, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• You asked for input from a non-chemist. I haven't had a chemistry lesson since I was 13 years of age and took no science subjects past age 15. Therefore "Alloy composition is very important because the quenching process produces a number of different Ni/Al phases that have different leaching properties." was the first point at which I got utterly lost. Having said that I see no advantage in turning the article into something I would understand. Were you to accomplish such an onerous task (which would require explanation of all difficult terms involved in the article with reasons why I should care) it's still unlikely that the information would be of any use to me and - in its new form - would no longer be of any use to those it could have been. If it were the basic chemistry article I were looking at then, yes, I feel I should have my hand held. But with a substance I would not - as a layman - have any cause to encounter, then I can cope with being baffled. --bodnotbod 17:39, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Another suggestion, if you'll excuse me barging in from WP:Chem: how about introducing a nice chemical infobox {{chembox}} for presenting some info? And pictures? And some crystallography? It sounds like a metal, so can you construct anything with it, or is it only the famous catalyst? Just wondering, trying to be helpful. Wim van Dorst 23:02, 25 October 2005 (UTC).[reply]

I thought of adding an infobox but decided against it because the only data I would be able to fill in would be density and solubility. I haven't even seen a consistent CAS number assigned to it (either the nickel or nickel aluminide numbers are quoted). I agree on the need for a picture, but I'm currently away from the lab and won't be able to get one till December. I'll look into crystallographic data since I remember seeing some powder XRDs of commercial Raney nickel in an article (single-crystal XRD is not possible, however). Finally, the article only refers to the catalyst; an article on the metal itself should go to nickel aluminide, which, if I remember correctly, is used to reinforce some steels or something like that and has substantially different properties because of its non-porous structure. -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ | Esperanza 12:31, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, I don't think a chembox is really warrented here as it is more of a material than a chemical. Physchim62 12:40, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Seattle is today's featured article, and I think it's time Portland makes the jump as well. Before I suggest it though, I'd like to see what critical concerns can be generated about the article in its current state. Sarge Baldy 00:30, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• There are some improvements that I could suggest after looking through the article, which includes the following:

1. External links should only be in the external links section.
2. There are a number of single sentence paragraphs. Stylistically, this is discouraged.
3. Image:Portland downtown.jpg and Image:Portland rose.jpg do not have copyright tags or have questionable copyrights. You should instead use images with GFDL-compatible licenses. Image:Portland rose.jpg should also be replaced with an image that shows Portland in general (could you get a picture of a rose garden in the city? An image of only a single rose could be located anyway in the world). Pentawing 22:31, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I've dealt with #1, which was a problem (some of the external links were even used in the place of working internal ones). #2 is more of an issue, with some of the single sentences really not fitting with anything else, although I'll look at expanding them when I get a chance. I agree that more and better photos are necessary. I've been meaning to get there and take some, but haven't had an opportunity to as yet. Thanks for the input. Sarge Baldy 23:52, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I should have spotted this earlier, but this article is missing an economy section. Also, the article should be kept below 40 kB (36 to 38 kB to be safe); there are some users who object to large article sizes. If the article starts going over the 40 kB limit, you should start eliminating unnecessary information (e.g. information that concentrates exclusively on an institution rather than its relationship to the city) or moving some sections to sub-articles. One such section that comes to mind is "Portland's five sections", which you could summarize and move the details to a sub-article. Pentawing 06:01, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• I haven't looked too closely, yet, but I wanted to note this before I forgot. This paragraph needs some work:

"The Portland metropolitan area is located within the Willamette Valley, which follows the Willamette River and the I-5 Corridor. The valley consists of suburban municipalities sprawled around patches of farmland farther south. The further north you travel, towards Portland, the thicker the population density becomes. The vast majority of Oregon's population lives in the Willamette Valley. Interstate 5 bisects the valley and a significant number of commuters travel the I-5 Corridor daily."

1. (Minor point) Stylisticaly, might as well remove I-5 Corridor from the first sentence, since it's covered in the last.
2. The Willamette valley is mostly farmland, isn't it?
3. Describing the population density of the valley as increasing as you go north is oversimplified at best. Eugene, Oregon, at the south end of the valley, is Oregon's second-largest metropolitan area. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 03:48, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Some of the sections seem a bit thin, and there doesn't seem to be many images of the city and its landmarks. James Pinnell 16:28, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• I think overall it is a decent article but not one that especially jumps out at me as great. Something I dislike about articles of this nature is that they read a bit much like a cross between the CIA World Factbook and run-of-mill guidebooks. Youth subcultures are a huge part of Portland and recognised in novels such as After Nirvana and the popular media. Under the heading of "people" you might include some aspects of Portland's subcultures rather than repeat basic census information. If the article is made more interesting, I could see it becoming a feature, certainly.--Mike 21:55, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This article has come a long way from what it used to be. Some advice on what to add, expand upon, remove, change, etc. would be appreciated. If possible, I'd like to elevate this page to featured article status. -- gakon⁵ (talk) 21:40, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Any references? This is a requirement for FA. Pentawing 06:26, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Well, my main reference was the game itself (considering this is an article on a video game), although some bits and peices of articles were drawn from walkthrus and FAQs. So.. I should link to those text files? -- gakon⁵ (talk)

• No, that'd be illegal. You need references to back up claims, such as sales figures, quotes from developers, etc. - A Link to the Past (talk) 03:08, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Well, actually, I haven't quoted any developers, written up anything on sales figures (as it didn't sell nearly as many copies as a DS game like Nintendogs) or made any claims that need backing up, unless I'm missing something. Would a write-up on the game's developemt history be in order or something? Although looking through things such as Gamespot updates on this game, nothing terribly interesting happened before the game launched; not on the scale of something such as Counter-Strike: Condition Zero, whose developers traded off the development of the game three or four times. -- gakon⁵ (talk)

1. May need a two paragraph lead (WP:LEAD)
2. Several subsections too short - systemic through the article Merged Versus and Link mode into Multiplayer;
3. "Game Modes" opens with a one-sentence paragraph. Two or three more sentances, need more?
4. "Demo mode" a little short.... Merged into Game modes > Combat mode
5. "New commanding officers" - too list heavy, get rid of these and just write it out :)
6. "New units" - again, write out this list stuff Merged into Gameplay > Units
7. You do need sales figures etc. here in order for it to be comprehensive (one of the FA criteria)

Ryan Norton ^{T | @ | C} 21:39, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

At last! Someone replies! I've been trying to count the exact number of words in this article, but I was guessing this would need a two-paragraph lead. I'm also working on condesning the number of sections, particularly under Gameplay; Game Modes will have some sections merged (eg Link and Versus mode into Multiplayer). Do you have any advice on what subheaders under Gameplay are good to keep or remove? I myself didn't put them in there, but they're probably making the TOC larger then it needs to be. The Units section, I'm going to link to the just-created Units in Advance Wars, and provide an overview of what kind of units are available, as well as making notes on the new ones, going along with Wikipedia:Summary Style. The Demo section I can probably integrate into Game Modes > Combat mode. And, lastly, I'll find some sales figures, although I don't have much of a clue where to go, and this game probably wasn't too much of a record-breaker. I'll look around. -- gakon⁵ (talk)

Resolved issues strike-thru'd. - g⁵

Alright, I'm working on reducing the number of subheadings still, so I gots some questions:

• Should Units and Commanding Officers be out into their own sections, or stay under Gameplay?

• I'm going to translate New Commanding Officers into a paragraph and then maybe stick it in Gameplay > Commanding Offers. If I do that, it should be large enough to graduate from subsubheader to just subheader (two equals signs), no?

• War Room and Survival are the smallest Game Mode sections. Should they be stuck into Other Modes?

• Or, as an alternative, I could just put everything under Other Modes except Campaign and Combat mode, and probably Multiplayer too.

Advice appreciated. -- gakon⁵ (talk)

This article, which has almost all been written by User:Sam Vimes will be completed at the end of the month, when the last detail can finally be written. I think it'd then be suitable for featured article status, but would welcome constructive comments on anything else that should be done before it goes to WP:FAC, jguk 16:33, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• I'd object if it was put on FAC anytime before January. =Nichalp «Talk»= 11:12, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Why? Have you seen International cricket in 2005-06? jguk 12:50, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I doubt this will pass muster on FAC; too many tables. Great FLC candidate though. --Spangineer^es (háblame) 03:18, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• It would be useful if you put dates for the start / stop of the cricket season, as defined in the article, and mention more prominantly the 2005-06 article. Bluap 13:43, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Will do - I'll expand the lead paragraph a bit, too. Sam Vimes 14:01, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

One of my longer articles, a lot of info already in place. I'm not sure wether all the formatting and wording is correct. Could this be a featured article? Mstroeck 12:30, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Great job!
• It's nice to wiki family, genus, species, etc. the first time used
• Anything interesting in the etymology of the word?
• Why are there so many different genera? What differentiates them/why are some split into species?
• Not everyone knows how large a cassowary is. Perhaps a more concrete estimation of size?
• Explain the Australian megafauna the first time you introduce it
• There are a lot of red links! InvictaHOG 00:45, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the feedback, InvictaHOG! I had a go at all your points except for the red links (that's going to be a lot of work) and the question about taxonomy (frankly, I don't know...). I'll try to find that out and start writing the missing articles or at least create some useful stubs. Mstroeck 19:20, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Just for the record, I have begun to create articles for the red links. Cuddie Springs is already online and almost done, just needs referencing. I have rudimentary articles for almost all the others as well, but haven't put them online yet. However, I'll be on vacation for the nex 4 days, so I probably won't be able to answer to any comments. Mstroeck 13:55, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Aussie Rules rocks, and the Swans rock even harder. If the Arsenal FC can get their article into FA status, then we Swannies ought to try for it too. Take a shot... J L C Leung 10:59, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It needs a references section and an improvement to the lead paragraph, two lead paragraphs would do better for this article. It also seems to be lacking context, and I can see a lot of red links. A lot of the article is taken up by a large table listing Honor Roll. The history section is missing quite a bit of info, what happened in the 20s, 40s, 50s, 60s, 70s ? In the third paragraph of the History section, in the first line, it says On 31 July 1985, for what was thought to be $6.3 million, Dr Geoffrey Edelsten "bought" the Swans... Can you clarify the amount, and why is bought in apostrophes? Did he buy it or do something else? — Wackymacs 14:43, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I put a lot of work into this article a good few months back. I'm quite happy with it, but a needs a little bit of something else. I'm posting for peer review because I would like to get some ideas of how to polish this one until it is very, very shiny! --Gareth Hughes 11:58, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

A few ideas (some of them quite minor):

1. The lead should be expanded to be a summary of the major points from the rest of the article.
2. The discussion of variations of his name should be merged into the lead, or possibly moved to a footnote if it is too long. Technical details of spelling are probably not the best thing to open the article with.
3. The infobox should probably be moved up to the top of the article (unless there's some standard for saints that suggests a different usage).
4. The quotes might be intergrated into the prose.

Overall, though, the article looks quite nice. Kirill Lokshin 18:19, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your thoughts, Kyrill. I've taken out the name section, and added it and some summary into the lead section. I've added a couple of photographs of Ephrem's church in Nisibis. The WikiProject Saints suggests the seperation of veneration from life in articles on saints (quite understandably!), and suggests that the infobox goes in that later section. I'll keep working away at it. Let me know if you have any other suggestions. --Gareth Hughes 23:07, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

1. Lead seems short for the article, but its not too bad
2. "Life" - last paragraph too short
3. "Writings" - Paragraphs 3,4,5 too short and 6 is even a one-sentence paragraph
4. "Veneration as a saint" - Paragraphs 3,4,5 too short
5. " Quotations" - these should only be here if you REALLY need them - otherwise they should be on wikiquote

Ryan Norton ^{T | @ | C} 21:43, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Ryan. I've attached the last paragraph of Life onto the end of the previous one. However, it seems a bit abrupt to me, so I might rewrite the demise. The short paragraphs in Writings are begging to be expanded really. I've combined two more short paras in Veneration, but I think I can write some more on his place in the Syriac churches and in the wider world, and as seperate paragraphs. The quotations could be worked into the article somewhere. Is there anything in particular that you would like to see in this article? --Gareth Hughes 22:45, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Gareth, I have a couple of problems with the section "Life". The first is that the focus appears to be more on the world of Ephrem than on Ephrem: a sentence tells us "It was a time of great religious and political tension" -- yet there is no explanation what this tension was, nor how it affected Ephrem. For example, did the Diocletian persecution touch Ephrem's life or his community? I know that it was far more savage in the eastern part of the Empire than in the western.

The following paragraphs have the smae problem. I had to read them twice to realize that Ephrem was mentioned in them; their emphasis seems to be on the ongoing war. (BTW, the link to Constantius should be to Constantius II.)

Also, I don't get a sense for the person after reading this article: there is little if anything to distinguish him from the dozens of other churchmen of the period. If you could find something to give him a bit of personality -- a physical description, an anecdote of his life, or a discussion of his writings -- that would make this a strong candidate for FAC. -- llywrch 19:22, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for this. I can see exactly what you mean: the Life section focuses more on the political history during Ephrem's life than his actual life. The problem I have is that the more vivid accounts of Ephrem's life are late and unreliable. I have mentioned them in the Veneration section instead, where I felt that they shed more light on how people have felt about Ephrem rather than his actual life. The Life section is drawn from the internal evidence of Ephrem's genuine works with a strong current of local contemporary history. I think the solution would be to include more from Ephrem's own works and less history. The Diocletian persecution, Shapur's sieges and the deportation of the Christians to the west are themes in Ephrem's hymnody, and must have had a profound effect on his life. I could make this more vivid in the account. The reliable anecdotes and descriptions are all of others: Ephrem doesn't write much about himself. --Gareth Hughes 14:00, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This article is obviously far from FA status, and its in obvious need of expansion, but I don't know what to add to it. Not long ago I cleaned up this article, added some photos, and it doesn't look bad, it just needs more content. Any suggestions? — Wackymacs 13:19, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The first paragraph is a bit clunky - too much use of the work "retail", instead of "sell". Move the US-specific paragraph to a separate section, alongside the UK one. Perhaps have a separate section on discount department stores. Move the country-specific section out of "History". Explain why the Hudson Bay Company wouldn't be considered a department store nowadays. Bluap 13:33, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks for the quick response, I have moved the US info to a new section as a subsection of a "Countries" section. I have added a reason for the statement made about Hudson Bay Company. I made a slight change to the lead paragraph. I'm not too sure what to write about discount department stores, I can't seem to find much about them around the Internet. — Wackymacs 15:06, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• I've written a short section about discount department stores. — Wackymacs 15:39, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Dept. stores were high class places in the 1950s. Conspicuous consumption was rampant and appearances (symbols of wealth) meant a lot. Departments stores were built like palaces and offered extensive high class services. There would be elevator and bathroom attendants, men in tuxedos playing the piano in the make-up section and jazz in the dining room. Their target audience for their serices was married women (they had facilities to take care of the children while the women shopped). However, a lot of their advertising and outward appearance was oriented towards men. The dept. stores wanted the man to know his wife was well taken care of (and safe from the poor people in the city) while he was at work. However, as affluent people left the city for the suburbs, the businesses followed. Rents in the city declined and cheaper (lower-class) stores moved in. Many women became trapped in their suburban homes, others entered the workforce themselves. The dept. stores adapted by going into suburban malls ... and so forth.

I'd help out more but I won't get my school notes back for a few months (Jan?). The topic has a lot of overlap with women's studies and urban history. It really needs a trip to the library. There are many academic journal articles on the subject. Try these sources:

• Women
• 1920s
• Pre- and post-1950s trends in canada and austraila
• Bourgeois Utopias: Visions of Suburbia by Robert Fishman (why is that link red?)
• Cities and Buildings by Robert Fishman ---maclean25 06:08, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• • As a comment to what maclean25 wrote above: Please remember that the suburbanization of the middle class is mainly an American phenomenon. The situation is different in various European cities; I don't want to generalize as I have my own systemic bias, but please just keep this in mind when researching and writing. Uppland 11:06, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I could not find anything to add. Neither was anyone else actively working on the article. Maybe it would be possible to add something on the history of such devices, but could not find anything on that one either. So I'm looking for anything which would make the article more complete or assure its quality so it could some day reach featured article status. --Easyas12c 16:47, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Aside from history and a nice picture, I think you said everything I would have wanted to know about a smotherbox. InvictaHOG 00:34, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Could you be more specific on the picture. An in-use photograph? Also, feel free to write a request of such picture at Wikipedia:Requested_pictures. --Easyas12c 23:25, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Yeah, history and perhaps demographics. I now know what one is, but how many people use them? Just in the U.S., or elsewhere? Were they "invented", or have they been around a long time? Have they been mentioned in any mainstream (or other) media sources? The picture depicts a lesbian couple - is this predominantly (no subtle pun intended) a gay thing? – Quadell ^{(talk) (bounties)} 16:01, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • So, we need a smotherbox-history expert. I think that the most common setting is woman on top and man at bottom, and I have personally never seen a man on top, but it might just be me. Where do you find reliable statistics on use of smotherboxes? --Easyas12c 23:46, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Looks good to me. I just fixed the link to breath control play as it was pointing to breath control, an article about meditation. --Craig 02:43, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

One of the most important and interesting Canadian elections in recent years. I've been working on this article recently, trying to bring it up to FA level. It almost certainly needs some copyediting. It would also be great to get some image of campaigning, but getting free ones would be difficult. - SimonP 03:02, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• I'd be warying of using nicknames like "Tory". Few people outside Canada, and non-experts inside Canada, will know what that is. Although, I do like how the term covers both the PCs and John Tory. Are there references for the polling numbers? You don't have to answer this but, where are the references used in the article? The article is dominated by the campaign narrative, perhaps add some explanation of how the vote is set up (first past the post), voter turnout, and other more technical matters. The finance section needs a table (especially where comparing numbers). Otherwise, nice narrative, great national results table (the small text makes it easy to go through). However, the results table is probably the most pertinent topic of the article, why hide it at the bottom? --maclean25 04:18, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Those are some SWEET tables Simon! Anyway, it does need a bit of work in places.

1. For one thing the lead would probably be better off as two paragraphs and it needs to be a bit longer.
2. In "Background" the first paragraph is too short - try merging it with something.
3. "Campaign" - There are quite a few shortish paragraphs here.
4. "Issues" - last paragraph too short... expand or merge :)
5. Well, and there are several short paragraphs here and there...
6. In general could benifit from a couple more images
7. External links? Just kidding - I don't think this one really needs any :).

Moreover just needs another pass or two for structure... Ryan Norton ^{T | @ | C} 22:26, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• You should check your use of commas carefully. I've fixed one instance of a misplaced comma, but there are many more, and I'm getting too much Wikipedia lag to have time to edit them all. RSpeer 05:30, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Very minor, but the two diagrams of the seat distributions (Image:Elec1988.PNG and Image:Elec1993.PNG) aren't quite consistent. The Liberals seem to have gotten a bit pinker in 1993, and one images is slightly larger than the other. Pburka 03:25, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This is an excellent article. Here are some things that can be improved, in my opinion:

1. You should reference sources for poll numbers, Campbell's quotes, analyses of voter behavior and analyses by political scientists.
2. In the sentence, These factors combined to make Mulroney the least popular leader since opinion polling began in the 1940s, does "leader" mean "prime minister?"
3. For the benefit of non-Canadians, you should explain the five-year rule that required Campbell to call the election.
4. At what date were the PCs close in the polls to the Liberals?
5. Who does "they" refer to in this sentence: They failed to get literature distributed to the local campaigns, forcing each candidate to print their own and preventing any unified message.
6. How could the 1993 campaign have taken place during the "late 1980s recession?" The article on that recession says it ended in 1991.
7. As this is not a scholarly journal, you should explain who "Jackson and Jackson" are and use their full names in the text.
8. I would consider seriously trimming the minor-party section. I think only the National Party is noteworthy. Mwalcoff 02:59, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I think it has a shot at making it to Featured Status, but here's what I see needing to happen before we get there.

• 2 or 3 more pictures, at least one of a school.
• Alot more info on the schools(will look into the Wikiproject on Schools with this)
• Maybe a few more subarticles
• Perhaps another section (Parks? Local Landmarks? Famous People?)
• A little more on politics, due to the New Hampshire Primary situation.

What do you all think? Karmafist 00:17, 30 October 2005 (UTC) First Peer Review can be found here[reply]

• References is one thing (not only because it is a requirement for FA, but also to allow others to verify the article's content). The lists in the education section should be turned into prose. A minor thing I have a problem with is the table of state representatives. I think it is better just to mention how many districts there are since representatives change with each election. Climate and a map of Nashua in New Hampshire can also help. Pentawing 04:48, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Another thing I noticed is the large use of historical images. I would prefer more images of Nashua as it appears today. Pentawing 20:39, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

After glancing at the article here's what I see that is needed:

• The intro should be at least 2-3 good-sized paragraphs in length.
• The history section needs expansion. A city with as much history as Nashua has should have a longer section. There should be mention of Native Americans in the area as well.
• The geography section also needs expansion. Discuss the lay of the land, is it hilly? Flat? Some of this information can be taken from the geography section of the article on the state of New Hampshire.
• There should be a section on cultural activites in the city. Include music, theatre, literature, any details of that nature.
• Of the seven images, only two are recent images. There should be many more recent photos. By no means get rid of the older photos, they are great, just show the city as it is now. In addition, vary the size of the photos so they all aren't so small.

You have a great foundation to build a featured article! Bon chance! *Exeunt* Ganymead ^Dialogue? 23:07, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Seems to meet the criteria for a featured article. Just putting it in peer review for due diligence before the FAC list. David Bergan 19:19, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Some of the sections and subsections are very small. Right or wrong, I got several objects about that when I put something up for FAC. -- SCZenz 07:12, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This needs a few improvements:

• A longer lead section (at least two healthy paragraphs, briefly covering the contents of the article)
• One and two sentence paragraphs should be expanded or merged
• Table of contents is too large—short sections (only one short paragraph) should be expanded or merged
• In-line citations are needed (see format at an article I'm working on, gas tungsten arc welding)
• External links need to be reduced to about 4-6 extremely relevant (and preferably noncommercial) links, and links referenced in the article need to be put under references. --Spangineer^es (háblame) 03:14, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Great article, very comprehensive. I have taken the liberty of changing the layout of the article, combining some section, and turning all those third level headings into bullet points. Seabhcán 09:06, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with all the points made by Spangineer. Some other things need tidying up there are lots of unconnected sentences that should be incorporated into paragraphs. The Facts and trivia section is odd, surely the facts should be incorporated with the rest of the factual information and the trivials details included in a section called lightning in popular culture or something similar.--nixie 06:02, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Having scrawled a large part of this article in its current form while I was bored at high school an awful long time ago, I find myself wondering 'gee, I wonder if this could be a featured article someday'. And the answer, as I read the thing, is probably 'no' but I can't figure out what's wrong with it. So I figured I'd ask the community. Lord Bob 17:04, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It's a very good start. Some suggestions:

• Sections headings are needed, with a brief summary of the battle at the beginning, as well as a statement of its importance.
• A "background" section or paragraph is needed, letting readers know the overall strategic situation before the battle.
• A map would be nice, though of course good public domain ones are hard to come by unless you make one yourself, which is time consuming, though not difficult.
• Both references are by Canadian authors. Some American scholarly input would be good.
• A book came out recently, supposedly the first full-length one about this battle (A Very Brilliant Affair: The Battle of Queenstown Heights, 1812). It really ought to be a part of this article.
• Missing are various details, such as General Alexander Smyth (not mentioned) refusing to cooperate in the operation as requested by Stephen Van Rensselaer III, and Rensselaer's resignation after the battle.

Keep at it! --Kevin Myers | on Wheels! 17:57, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Lord Bob. :) What Kevin said. I'd also suggest mentioning (perhaps with a photo or two?) the Queenston Heights park & the current Brock monument, and the history of the prior monument. The latter was at one time the tallest structure in the Empire, and one of the very few targets of a bombing in Ontario. But I'm not NPOV on this, having sat on General Brock's stone cold shoulder while a student at Brock U. :) Good luck with the FA campaign! Cheers, Madmagic 20:00, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Better than very good start. I would like to echo Kevin Myers' comments. I think it is pretty important to have a beginning paragraph which briefly describes the battle, its outcome and significance. A map would be nice, especially indicating the many places in the Niagara peninsula that may not be familiar to most reader. Good job, well on its way to being a featured article. Luigizanasi 18:07, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you all for your terrific input. I haven't been able to track down a public domain map yet, and I might end up drawing my own if it comes to it. Plus, I still haven't grabbed any American sources (it's the weekend and I'm not keen on zipping in to the University library to dig some up, so I used what I have). However, I did just expand on the background and the aftermath of the battle, as well as add a few section headings in there. So it's a start. Lord Bob 20:38, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Here is a public domain image, if you want to use it. Also, if you'd like to draw a map, the following three (probably copyrighted) maps should help you: 1, 2, and 3. – Quadell ^{(talk) (bounties)} 21:43, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I wrote this a few weeks ago as part of the Women in the Australian Senate project, and have tried to get people to look over it so far to little avail. Any feedback would be appreciated; though a picture is out of the question due to Australian copyright issues. Ambi 11:05, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• A picture is not necessary for an article to become featured, however References are. The article is missing a references section. It seems to be written quite well and it is quite long as well. — Wackymacs 11:46, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• A very good article only spoiled by the utter lack of references or indeed any external links save to her official website. Regarding a picture, do you simply mean that we can't do fair use with Australian-sourced pictures, or is there some other law restricting it even if we got a Wikipedian to stalk her with a camera? —Morven 15:25, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • What sort of external links were you thinking of? We simply can't do fair use with Australian-sourced pictures is the problem with images; one way we've got around this is for a Wikipedian to stalk people with a camera, but this is hard for someone who is largely out of public life these days. Ambi 17:37, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well the biggest concern is references/external links, but a picture sure would be nice. Why can we not do fair-use with Australian pictures? I'm sure there are plenty of Australian source pictures on Wikipedia that are fair-use. Can you not get permission from the website that has the picture of her? — Wackymacs 18:46, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • What sort of external links were you looking for? (I know references need doing, but that's always a bit difficult the way I write articles (from a couple of hundred newspaper articles)). The problem is that Australian law doesn't recognise fair use, which puts us in a whole messy grey area that we haven't yet worked out a response to. Getting permission may have been possible, but getting that released under GFDL would be particularly difficult. Ambi 18:59, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • External links such as a link to a biography on another website, or a photo on another website, etc. External links are usual for users who wish to read more and read stuff on other websites too. — Wackymacs 20:03, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Official images of Australian senators are copyright the Australian government, but fair use still applies in the U.S. (where Wikipedia's file servers are). There's no legal reason not to have use the official photo, so long as fair use requirements are met. Also, here's a news article about her. – Quadell ^{(talk) (bounties)} 21:33, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I wrote this article a couple of months ago. Upon re-reading it, I believe it is a pretty good piece of work that could also serve as a template for other Canadian provincial/territorial geography articles which are either missing or incomplete. I just added a bit more stuff including references.Any comments and suggestions would be welcome. I have one which I am unable to fulfill: I believe the list of mountain ranges would benefit from a map, but I don't have the appropriate software to make one; assistance would be appreciated here. Luigizanasi 18:00, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• The first sentence, "The Yukon Territory is in the northwestern corner of Canada." doesn't capture the essence of the article. Outside this article (this is a complaint about Wikipedia, not this article), more work needs to be done on developing the features of geography. The FA list shows that most of the work has been done on places and the Geography/Geology of foo and not on the geographic features/divisions like Boreal Cordillera Ecozone. Anyways back the PR, check the wikilinks; "Yukon" and "Whitehorse" only need be wikilinked once, or few times if you want. Definately needs some maps or illustrations of the section topic. See the FA Geography of India as an example.

--maclean25 19:20, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It just struck me that this is one of the few pages on Wikipedia that can ever be considered to be 'finished', as the only edits that can ever be made to it will be corrections if there are any errors... additions do not need to be considered.

Hence I thought that I would maybe try nominating it for featured article status at some point, but would appreciate opinions of others beforehand; both on the page itself, and whether one could consider it suitable to be featured. --Neo 15:19, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know what the feeling for "List of..." pages at FA is, first off. Maybe see if there are others and if not save yourself nom'ing. Lists are lists--not that they can't also be well done! Thus, some points on the article:

• Make the first sentence more generic: "The UK election, contested on x date, saw a Labour party victory with x seats etc. A total of x parties ran, with a significant number of..."
• Clarify "national fourth parties." I know there are three major parties and thus can deduce the meaning but that won't be the case with others.
• Unpack "the impact of minor parties should not be underestimated." Perhaps: "minor parties had a decisive effect on policy debates etc."
• Finally re-structure last paragraph. "Parties are grouped based on the three sub-national components of the United Kingdom (maybe better than simply "nation"). The listings in the group proceed with..." Also, alphabetical is last but where, say, four parties have the same number of candidates they aren't necessarily in alphabetical order. Marskell 23:52, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Try nominating this at WP:FLC -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ | Esperanza 10:06, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Nice article. Just one thing - you say 'There are well over 500 seats in England and Wales'. Perhaps it would be better just to give the actual figure, as in 'There are x seats in England and Wales'. - TomScrace 01:49, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Article has recently been improved a lot by the medicine collaboration of the week. Would be nice to get some feedback especially from people with a non-medical background. The article has had a peer review before that has been archived here. Hope to get some good feedback and maybe this could be a FAC soon. --WS 23:37, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Hi. :) This is a comprehensive article that was, for the most part, easy for a person with a non-medical background to read. I felt that the exception was the section called Causes of pneumonia; I can't decide if it's all the Latin phrases with no explanation, or the density of the links that's causing me a problem. I am thinking that making that section into an annotated list, or perhaps changing up the prose a bit to make it less link-heavy and with a bit more contextual information, would be helpful.

One other set of comments I will offer have nothing to do with the prose itself; it's the pictures. They're well-chosen and generally quite clear. I would say that it would create some more visual interest on the page to not have them all on the right side. And this last bit is especially nit-picky, but -- the first diagram is very clear, but to read it, I had to navigate away from the main page because some of the text was too small to read at that resolution, and it took a bit for the bigger one to load. When one is on a slow Internet connection or at a public terminal, waiting for the larger version of that picture to load up may cause some users to log off altogether.

I hope this didn't come off as too negative; I am relatively new to peer review. :) Feel free to comment on my talk page for any other questions/concerns. --Jacqui ^★ 05:08, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Don't apologize! Thank you for the input; if there were no criticisms, then the article would not get any better. I've worked on the layout - I had never experimented with the left side of the page, so you ended up opening a whole new world for me! The lead image is only 65kb, so I think it's more of a wikipedia loading issue. I went back to see if I could make all the words large enough on the original image and I think it would be too crowded, unfortunately. As for the causes of pneumonia, I am a bit unhappy with it as well. With over 100 microorganisms we could put there, choosing the important themes and some notable exceptions has been difficult. I'll give it another shot, though. Thanks again! InvictaHOG 15:02, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I've expanded the causes section a little. It can't ever be clear of Latin/Greek, but hopefully it reads a little better now with some explanation! InvictaHOG 16:42, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• It looks quite good with the slight exception of the Pathophysiology section that has the odd bulleted-sections format, which is at variance with the format of the remainder. I didn't see anything in the article addressing the issue of reoccurance, which supposedly significantly increases your odds of acquiring pneumonia again once you've had it. Did I miss that somewhere? If not, could you cover that topic? Thanks. — RJH 14:57, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I converted the bullets into subheadings. I also added a sentence under Epidemiology addressing recurrence. Typically occurs because of an underlying predisposition to pneumonia. Let me know if you think that it deserves more mention - it's really more a matter of an underlying problem increasing risk InvictaHOG 15:10, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This would be a good topic for an FA. My notes:

• FACs are always hit hard for any and all one-sentence paragraphs (two isn't good either) and one- or two-paragraph sections or subsections. It always hurts a little to see the "cleanly organized outline" sink into the background, but merging the sections and replacing the subheadings, where needed, with text does usually make an article read better.
• I personally was surprised at the shortness of the "treatment" section. Particularly the very brief mention of mechanical ventilization. Eh, maybe it's just a personal bias: my wife was hospitalized with pneumonia at the beginning of the year and was kept under, on ventilation, for 10 days. Still, maybe there is something more that could be said.
• I'd lose the "See also" section and rely on those links being in the text. It can actually be a little POV-ish deciding what class of related topics are the important ones that make it into that list.
• I'd rename ==References== to ==Notes== and ==General references== to ==References==; at least, I think that's more typical. Maybe in medical articles it's not, though. Look around, see how recently featured articles do it, and try for consistency.
• The article needs some in-depth copyediting, fixing grammar and flow throughout.

—Bunchofgrapes (talk) 04:33, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the input! I've ditched the see also and started to copyedit. The multiple sclerosis article we just finished used the references heading and it's certainly more in keeping with medical literature. I'll see if I can find better examples, though. I'm working on the section thing. I can certainly rearrange the complications and classification sections. What do you think about the pathophysiolgy section? I think it's fine with different sections because of the links to individual article. As for treatment, you're tempting us! We expect to expand the ventilator-associated pneumonia in the future to better cover the topic. At this point, there's so much more to be said about treatment that it's probably best to leave just the most common situations in. Luckily, pneumonia requiring ventilator support is quite rare. Not that it mattered to your wife, I understand... InvictaHOG 16:42, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome! Regarding the pathophysiology section: I think if a topic is extensive enough to have a separate article on it (and be linked in the "Main article: foobar" fashion), then it should merit a few paragraphs in a parent article like this. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 21:48, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I just finished an article on ventilator-associated pneumonia - probably not as applicable to your wife, but an important part of the pneumonia set of articles nonetheless! InvictaHOG 03:55, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, definitely. There was always worry of a reinfection. Didn't happen, but I still don't recommend long-term ventilation as a hobby :-) —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 04:02, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

My thoughts:

• Initial description as a disease characterized by fluid in the alveoli sounds a bit odd to my ears. I am used to thinking of pneumonia as and inflamation or infection of the small airways and alveoli, which can lead to fluid accumulation.
• Some sections seem to assume bacerial pneumonia with only passing reference to viral eiologies.
• There is a paragraph about treatment under the heading "hospital acquired pneumonias" which seems out of place.
• Aspiration pneumonia is a common problem in hospitalized patients, but it is only mentioned in passing in the article.
• Epidemiology section could perhaps consolidate information on common etiologies/organisms versus age, hospital status, etc.

Osmodiar 07:03, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the feedback! I've started making some changes, moving treatment out of the hospital-acquired section, etc. I added inflammation to the initial line - most definitions hinge on consolidation of the air spaces. Since it's due to inflammation in every case I can think of, seems reasonable to add it in. All in all, pneumonia is a horrible term to cover. There's a multitude of vastly different disease states which share the name. We tried to focus on the most common types. So, we mostly speak about bacterial pneumonia. If there's any particular place we could expand on the other types, let us know! As for aspiration, all infectious pneumonia is caused by aspiration (except for IVDU, etc). In a way, the important thing is the host and his/her flora. We chose not to cover aspiration pneumonitis because, frankly, it's a different disease entity. I'll work on the epidemiology section. Thanks for your help; check back and let us know how we do! InvictaHOG 08:12, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

• See several missing citations which are mentioned on the talk page and in the main article. Wrad 22:05, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

• Excellent: I've looked through that, great work - all improvements.AndyJones 07:46, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

2) Same with first paragraph of Early Life.

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

• Surprised that you take this view: until recently the article said that the plays demonstrated they were written by an actor and you changed it to say they demonstrated they were written by "a man of the theatre". [And for the benefit of others reading this comment, that is because Smatprt holds the view that another author wrote the plays.] What I'm getting at is that you personally are one of the few people who finds this kind of statement contentious therefore it's odd that you are arguing it may not need citing. (I'm not trying to imply hypocrisy or anything, don't get me wrong, I'm just pointing out the reason why citations for this sort of thing can be important.) AndyJones 07:46, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually - I changed that line with little thought of the authorship. Yes, Shakespeare (whoever he was) was an actor, but he was more than that - author, director (Hamelt's notes),devisor of props and costumes & sets (midsummer - rustic converstions), song writer (numerous), etc. I simply thought "man of the theater" was more all encompassing, and given the Tempest quote that appears in the article (and now appears opposite this info), I thought the statement would not need a citation. I thought is was an example of a non-controversial statment. If you disagree, no prob. And I completely understand and support the need for sources - just wish there was a way to source these articles without so much clutter. It's the readablility issue that Alabamaboy raised (which I also agree with). Yes, maybe the techies can ultimately figure this out.Smatprt 14:10, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes, and just to be clear I do agree that the "man of the theatre" edit was a good one. AndyJones 16:08, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

• Agreed but don't worry: will be short-term. AndyJones 07:46, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

• I have the same problem with this. And is is Henry IV really an "early play"? What about the really early plays? This is the kind of thing that could be easily fixed by attributing to someone. AndyJones 07:46, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • PS, the issue was discussed on the talk page: See Talk:William Shakespeare/Archive 2#Stylistic classification. AndyJones 07:52, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

• I figured out how to do this one myself, and didn't think it controversial, so I did it. If anyone objects, feel free to move it back.Smatprt 05:46, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

• Agree. That seems wrong to me, too. AndyJones 07:46, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

• I agree. I was going to suggest that it be broken out, myself. AndyJones 07:46, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Lead:

•  DoneIn general, the lead does not meet the requirements of WP:LEAD - it is not a standalone summary of the article.

• He is widely regarded as the greatest writer of the English language and the world's preeminent dramatist. - Modern Shakespeare scholars really don't say things like this anymore (except perhaps for Harold Bloom) - I noticed that your sources are other encyclopedias for this, something we try not to do. To claim that anyone is the "world's greatest writer" in any genre is simply unsupportable. Let's take the rhetoric down a notch, shall we?

• • I thought it was taken down a notch, "world's greatest writer" is very different from "world's preeminent dramatist". Where does wikipedia discourage citing encyclopedias? Wrad 20:23, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • WP:ATT emphasizes that articles should use secondary sources. Encyclopedias are tertiary sources are not the most trustworthy regarding the subject at hand. Also, I have a problem with "world's" - I do not believe that it is agreed that Shakespeare is the world's best playwright. Some people have argued that he is the best playwright within the Western tradition, although, like I said, serious academics no longer make this claim. Awadewit | talk 21:05, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• his work has been adulated by eminent figures through the centuries - very awkward passive

By the way, 7 figures quoted in wikisource does not lend credibility to this claim.

• • Why not? I would think two would support the plural, "figures", although shakily. Seven seems fine. Besides, this is in the lead, and doesn't need to be cited if supported in the article, which it is, very thoroughly. Wrad 20:23, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • From WP:LEAD: The lead should be capable of standing alone as a concise overview of the article, establishing context, summarizing the most important points, explaining why the subject is interesting or notable, and briefly describing its notable controversies, if there are any. The emphasis given to material in the lead should roughly reflect its importance to the topic according to reliable, published sources. The lead should not "tease" the reader by hinting at but not explaining important facts that will appear later in the article. It should contain up to four paragraphs, should be carefully sourced as appropriate, and should be written in a clear, accessible style so as to invite a reading of the full article. - The implication of the statement "eminent figures through the centuries" is certainly more than two. I can come up with a list of seven such quotes for almost any writer - does that make them as "great" as Shakespeare? That is the problem with these sorts of statements. Awadewit | talk 21:05, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Still don't see the point, how does the fact that the statment applies to other writers make it any less true for Shakespeare? Also, How exactly does that quote show that this statement doesn't belong? Wrad 21:21, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• You wanted proof that statements in the lead needed to be cited - I gave that to you.
• Why are we saying that Shakespeare's works have been praised throughout several centuries? We could say this about any writer. It is therefore a meaningless statement unless you say who has made the statements or how many people have made them. It is just too vague. I believe that what you mean to say is that many other writers who are considered great have lauded Shakespeare, but this is a difficult statement to prove. A secondary source would be better since everyone will disagree on the "many" needed to establish such a statement and an assemblage of quotes actually qualifies as original research. Awadewit | talk 21:42, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Many FA articles do not have any sources in the lead, for the very reasons I listed, and this continues to be trend in many current FAC's that seems to be accepted. Also, such a statement is not meaningless in my mind because it places him "among" the greatest writers for which that statement could be true. (Sorry if I sound really contentious here, but I am genuinely confused. I have made the "cite the lead" argument in several FAC articles and been shot down every time. I've never seen any such argument stand in an FAC discussion, and I've seen many, but the guideline seems to point otherwise. Perhaps this is a discussion to bring up on the guidelines' talk page or something.) Wrad 22:13, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Well, I have seen FAs use citations in the lead; since the guideline suggests it and we should use citations for statements likely to be challenged, such as this one. I urge you to find a citation or remove it. A list of quotations is actually original research, which cannot be included in a wikipedia article. If you want to prove that Shakespeare was adored by many writers after him, find a reputable secondary source that says so. Awadewit | talk 02:38, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• He is one of the few playwrights considered to have excelled in both tragedy and comedy. - Please remove this sentence until you have a citation. It seems a particularly problematic statement, given that later in the article, you do not break his plays down into tragedies and comedies.

 Done statement adjusted. Wrad 18:46, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Shakespeare is the most quoted writer in the history of the English-speaking world - I don't understand the "in the history of" part

 Done fixed. Wrad 20:41, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

•  DoneMany have speculated about his sexuality, religious affiliation, and the authorship of his works. - This sentence is just hanging off the last paragraph of the lead.

Probably best fixed after making the changes suggested below. Wrad 20:53, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

I did not realize that there had been edit wars (I am sorry to hear that). I am still concerned about the "Speculations" section as a whole. Please note its size in relation to other sections (it is larger than many). When reading this page I asked myself "What information would you include in an undergraduate Shakespeare course?" Interestingly, much is missing from sections on Shakespeare's writings (more on themes and style, for example) and much is included (such as "Speculations") that many academics would not bother to mention. I feel that this page privileges some rather sensationalized or arcane disputes instead of focusing on the basics of Shakespeare's life and works. I realize how difficult that this page must be to write (everyone has their pet theory about Shakespeare), but perhaps the best solution is to consult books like the Cambridge Companion to Shakespeare and use its bibliography. Such books provide "standard" readings and "standard" historical narratives, meaning the most accepted readings and narratives. Their bibliographies would also provide the editors with the most important Shakespearean criticism. (Then maybe we won't have people referencing obscure websites.) Awadewit | talk 23:38, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• • I agree that we need much more on themes and style. These sections do seem underwritten and do make the "speculations" look rather large by comparison. I will add for the record that I believe the Shakespeare Authorship question is a topic that merits research and scholarship and I do beleive it is achknowledged by many recognized researchers. Several colleges are now offering courses that are devoted to (or at least cover) the topic, and a number of international research conferences are presented each year.Smatprt 00:22, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I also agree that his style, etc. could be developed, but I don't know if the article is as unbalanced as you say. In my undergrad classes, we don't really study the biographical Shakespeare, because it's not a biography class. This, on the other hand, is largely a Biographical article (as well as a literary one). If I were to take a biographical history class on Shakespeare, rather than an English class, it would probably mention more about the speculations and less about his style and works. It's all how you look at it. Wrad 02:42, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm sorry, I should have made my assumptions clearer - I meant a class that was using some sort of historical framework. Not all Shakespeare classes do that (some are psychoanalytic, some are feminist, etc.), I will grant you that. But any class that does use a historical framework for discussing Shakespeare's work will mention his biography. (I'm not really sure what a "biographical history class" would be - that is a strange phrase.) Awadewit | talk 03:12, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • On the point of "Shakespeare authorship," one should probably consider several factors before including much about it in the article. It is difficult to know what Shakespeare wrote at all because we don't have manuscripts for the plays (I know less about the poetry) - we only have second-hand and third-hand copies based on pirated publications and collections of actors' parts and other miscellaneous. The three different versions of Hamlet's "to be, or not to be" soliloquy is an excellent large version of this problem and the "too, too solid flesh" vs. "too, too soiled flesh" line is a good small example. Which version is Shakespeare's? No one knows anymore and there may never have been one, true Shakespearean text, as the plays altered from performance to performance. As far as I know, no reputable Shakespeare scholars take any of the "Earl of Oxford" kinds of theories seriously (I studied with at least two of the leading Shakespearean scholars as an undergraduate who said in no uncertain terms that these theories were crap, but perhaps these theories have suddenly gained traction? I know some popular books have been published on the topic, but that is not the same thing.). Most scholars are more interested in the kinds of problems I quoted above. I am curious what scholars Smatprt could point to support his/her argument. Also, just because there are conferences on a topic does not make it legitimate. There are conferences dedicated to creationism - that is not evidence of its acceptance by the mainstream scientific community; not all conferences have the same status within the academic community. Again, I would like to know what conferences. Awadewit | talk 03:12, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Major content and prose suggestions:

•  DoneThe last paragraph of "Plays" should be organized more coherently - it does not follow in a logical order.
• Please describe Shakespeare's "Other poems" a bit - their topics, their major themes, etc.
  • Agree. Wrad 20:30, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
•  DoneIn the "Style" section, you chart Shakespeare's changing use of iambic pentamenter. I am sure that scholars have speculated on why he did this. Could you provide some of that information here?
  • I added more info on "why" Shakespeare used iambic pentameter. Does that help?--Romeo in love 19:36, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• In the "Style" section, you note Shakespeare's use of soliloquies - why did he use soliloquies? What rhetorical effect did they achieve? Again, scholars have written stacks on Shakespeare's soliloquies - something could be inserted here to explain them. This paragraph merely defines them.
  •  Done I added a paragraph about this.--Romeo in love 16:52, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Shakespeare's writing (especially his plays) also feature extensive wordplay, in which double entendres and clever rhetorical flourishes are repeatedly used. - I would either expand on this one-sentence paragraph or delete it.
• The "Influences" section (except for "Later influences") seems like it all belongs under "Plays" because it describes Shakespeare's development as a dramatist and his literary debts. Also, this section should be shortened so that it corresponds to the length of the others.

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

• I found the "Later influence" section largely useless - it just listed names and the second paragraph was particularly incoherent. It needs to clearly state that Shakespeare and other writers could experiment with the language specifically because it was not yet standardized. (English did not become standardized until the 18th century - see John Barrell's An Equal Wide Survey). Moreover, if it is revised, it should be placed in the "Legacy" section - that is the more appropriate location.
  • This section has changed a lot, could you look at it again? Wrad 18:16, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• The "Religion" section is much too long compared to the other sections, given its relevance (or, really, irrelevance). I would suggest that it be condensed into a single paragraph and the rest spun off into a separate article.

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

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

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

• I would also add the bit about Shakespeare's will and the "second best bed." It is famous and funny.
  • I think that might be best placed in the Shakespeare's life article, rather than here. Wrad 20:30, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • But it is one of the few verifiable facts that we have about Shakespeare, thus I would argue that it should go in the "biography" section of this article. Since so much of Shakespeare biography is speculation, I believe that we should include every solid fact that we can in the main Shakespeare article. Awadewit | talk 20:51, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Much of his biography is based on solid evidence (mostly records), but the intricacies and little details are the stuff of speculation. The "second best bed" part is trivia; it's charming but not particularly important. It is usually raised in debates about authorship. RedRabbit1983 07:06, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • It is interesting and right now the biography lacks interest - this tidbit spices it up. Awadewit | talk 14:31, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • Fair enough. Without the little details his biography seems too much like patchwork. RedRabbit1983 15:28, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Minor content suggestions:

• Please check the "Black Plague" link in "Early life" - there might be a better page. That one focuses on the Black Death in the Middle Ages.
  •  Done Wrad 18:50, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• You might consider putting [sic] after the quotations that contain early modern spellings so that later editors don't change them (I've had this problem on other pages).
• Every paragraph of "London and theatrical career" starts "By [year]" - a little variety in style would be appreciated. In fact, many sentences within the paragraphs themselves start this way as well.
  • I prefer parallelism to elegant variation. RedRabbit1983 07:12, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • This is not parallelism. It is repetition. It is poor writing. Awadewit | talk 14:31, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I am not defending the quality of the writing; that is for others to judge. However, the device is parallelism — a form of repetition. It is exemplified by the King James Bible. There, if the forms were varied, the parallelisms would collapse. Every example of parallelism has a repeated form. I think the problem is structure, not repetition of "By". It could be changed to, for example, "By... In... X years later... By... In... etc." but the result would be ostentatious and unnecessary.
        • I know what parallelism is. I have to fix it in my students' writing all of the time. It is not only the KJV that uses it for emphasis, by the way. The problem is when parallelism becomes repetition. When I read that section, I thought to myself, "wow, that writer was really at a loss for sentence structures." I did not think to myself, "what a nice use of parallel sentence structure - it really highlights an important point." The form (here parallel structure) should be used to highlight particular content. In this case, there is no reason to have any parallelism - the content does not merit it. It is merely repetitious. Awadewit | talk 15:42, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• The First Folio of his works divided these plays into tragedies, histories and comedies. - This sentence should probably mention that Shakespeare himself did not publish the First Folio.
  •  Done Good point.
• You might mention Boydell's Shakespeare Gallery and Garrick's Shakespeare Jubilee - these are usually used as markers of Shakespeare's "arrival" - it helps to prove Shakespeare's popularity. There are pretty pictures associated with them as well.
• Neoclassicism (the view that dramatic works should be judged by principles established by Aristotle) damaged Shakespeare's reputation until the Romantic era - This is unclear because the section suggests that it was during the 18th century (with Rowe's, Pope's and Johnson's editions), which was the time of neoclassicism, that Shakespeare became popular. Please clarify that there were opposing Shakespeare "camps" at this time.
• Could the "See also: Timeline" be moved to the top of the "Reputation" section?

 Done Wrad 20:54, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Are the "Shakespeare on Screen" and "Parodies" necessary under the Bibliography? Shakespeare was never presumed to have written them, after all. I believe they should be placed in a "See also" section.
  • Currently under debate. Probably should be moved. Wrad 20:30, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    •  Done Wrad 18:14, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Specific prose suggestions:

• As christenings were performed within 3 days of birth, tradition has settled on 23 April, Saint Georges day,[14] as his birthday. - too many little clauses
  • Two is too many? I agree that it is awkward.
  • Rewritten it.  Done
• popular enough for the new king, James I (1603) - unclear what 1603 is referring to unless you already know
  • I extended the parenthesis.  Done
• Shakespeare's writing shows him indeed to be a man of the theatre, with many phrases, words, and references to the stage. - This is an interesting statement - I would definitely need a cite for this. While I don't doubt that Shakespeare was involved in the theater, deducing that from his writings is an interesting move and highly problematic. Was Vladimir Nabokov a pedophile, then? See the problem? I wonder if scholars make this move so easily - they might qualify it.
  • Heh. Good point. I think the writer meant that Shakespeare described his craft in detail through his writings, although not directly.
  • I revised it.  Done
• There is a tradition that Shakespeare, in addition to writing many of the plays his company performed, and being concerned as part-owner of the company with business and financial details, continued to act in various parts, such as the ghost of Hamlet's father, Adam in As You Like It, and the Chorus in Henry V. - wordy and full of clauses
  • I removed the cluttering pharses.  Done
• A monument on the wall nearest his grave, probably placed by his family,[26] features a bust showing Shakespeare posed in the act of writing. - wordy
  • Revised it.  Done
• They have been translated into every major living language,[27] and are continually performed all over the world. - Language is repeated verbatim from the lead.
  • I'm not sure what to do with this.
• Like many of his contemporaries, Shakespeare based many of his plays on the works of other playwrights and reworked earlier stories and historical material. - repetition of the word "many"; in general, a redundant sentence
  • Don't agree it is redundant. It is general statement followed by a specific one. I removed one "many" and revised the sentence slightly.
    • How about "Like many of his contemporaries, Shakespeare based many of his plays on the works of other playwrights and earlier historical material." The "stories" part is vague. Awadewit | talk 02:38, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Stories include poems and other stories. Shakespeare's Troilus and Cressida, for instance, was partly based on Chaucer's Troilus and Criseyde, and Chaucer wasn't a playwright. I'm open to suggestions but I don't know how to make it more specific. RedRabbit1983 06:38, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • A poem is not a story. This sentence doesn't have to list all of his sources, just give an idea of them. "Stories" is simply too vague. No reader who doesn't already to what you are referring is going to understanding that phrase. Awadewit | talk 14:33, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • A narrative poem is, but I see your point. RedRabbit1983 15:28, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• For plays on historical subjects, Shakespeare relied heavily on two principal texts: Plutarch's Parallel Lives (from the 1579 English translation by Sir Thomas North[28]) for most of his history plays, and the 1587 edition of Raphael Holinshed's The Chronicles of England, Scotland, and Ireland (which provided material for Macbeth and King Lear) for his English history plays. - very awkwardly worded
  • I made the sentence simpler and moved part of it to the following sentence.  Done
• Shakespeare's plays tend to be placed into three main stylistic groups - by scholars? who does this?
  • By scholars, I think. I didn't contribute this, so I don't know what the source is.
• The late romances have redemptive plotlines with ambiguous endings and magic and other fantastical elements. - too many "and's"
  • One fewer now.  Done
• However, the borders between these genres are never clear. - These are not "genres" - the earlier sentence called them "stylistic groups." That is very different.
  • True. Duly amended.  Done
• The lack of an authoritative print version of his plays during his lifetime accounts for part of the textual problem, the difficulty of identifying which plays he wrote, and for the different textual versions of some of his plays. - awkwardly worded - first phrase doesn't seem parallel with the others
  • I created a subordinate clause and simplified the sentence.  Done
• Shakespeare served his dramatic apprenticeship at the height of the Elizabethan period, in the years following the defeat of the Spanish Armada - "dramatic apprenticeship" is a lovely phrase, but I wonder if it is too poetic for wikipedia
• Shakespeare served his dramatic apprenticeship at the height of the Elizabethan period, in the years following the defeat of the Spanish Armada; he retired at the height of the Jacobean period, not long before the start of the Thirty Years' War. - Remind the reader of the dates.
• His style changed not only in accord with his own tastes and developing mastery, but also in accord with the tastes of the audiences for whom he wrote. - "in accordance"?; also, give us a hint of what the change was
  • I fixed "accord".
• Shakespeare wrote a large proportion of his plays and poems with a rhythm known as iambic pentameter - do we really need the rhythm bit?
  • Not at all. I got rid of it.  Done
• To end many scenes in his plays he used a rhyming couplet—two rhyming lines of poetry—to heighten expectation of what is to follow. - redundant
  • I removed the fluff.  Done I might come back to this article later. Thanks for the review. RedRabbit1983 01:10, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Shakespeare's works have been a major influence on subsequent theatre and literature. - should be more restricted
• The second paragraph of "Influences" has inconsistent verb tenses.
  • This section has changed a lot, could you look at it again? Wrad 18:16, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• In the twentieth century, a professional field of study known as "English" developed, - I am not quite sure why "English" is in scare quotes here - would it not be better to say "the discipline of English literature developed" (for that is what it is called)
• In the twentieth century, a professional field of study known as "English" developed,[79] so among academics, Shakespeare was subjected to critical methods such as structuralism, poststructuralism and semiotics, and was analysed from feminist and Marxist perspectives. - very awkward

• • I'll leave those sentences alone. If you have any more suggestions, don't hesitate to add them. RedRabbit1983 06:48, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

This has been pointed out and is in the process of being fixed. Wrad 20:43, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

Since I wrote most of this section, I'll address your concerns. Won't get a chance for a day or two, though. Most of your comments are fine with me, but the rewrite of that English language section doesn't quite work for me b/c it removes too much relevant and referenced info. How about if we combine the two versions into a new baby? --Alabamaboy 20:51, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds fine to me. The last paragraph, in its present form, just doesn't follow in a logically coherent manner. I tried to rewrite it so that it could be sourced from your sources and added the necessary source for what you probably don't have. Awadewit | talk 21:35, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've made most of these changes. However, the more I think some of the changes you want in this section, the more I think that's too much detail for the main article. Perhaps a subarticle should be spun off just on Shakespeare's Influence. let me know what you think of the new version.--Alabamaboy 19:08, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Check out the section again b/c I was still revising as I wrote the previous comment. I think I addressed most of your concerns. What I didn't add was a detailed explanation of how Shakespeare influenced those novelists. That's too much detail, I think. Also, it's not that Dickens is Shakespearean, but that Dickens acknowledged a massive debt to Shakespeare. Same with Faulkner and others.--Alabamaboy 19:34, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The question is what is the debt? What is the influence? Shakespeare achieved many things with his plays and poetry - from the new version, I still don't know which of those things influenced later writers. The second paragraph still makes too many unsubstantiated claims. Citations are not enough - you need to give the reader some evidence to prove your point. Awadewit | talk 20:25, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Particular points:

• His plays combine popular appeal with complex characterisation and poetic grandeur with philosophical depth.

The sentence invites a miscue.

Not sure what you mean by miscue, but I don't like that sentence either. I'm not sure how to fix it, though. Wrad 02:40, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The miscue is: "His plays combine popular appeal with complex characterisation and poetic grandeur..."

A short term solution would simply be: "His plays combine popular appeal, complex characterisation, poetic grandeur, and philosophical depth". But, I don't like the sentence either: it attempts too much and comes over like a blurb.

How about: "His plays combine popular appeal and complex characterisation; poetic grandeur and philosophical depth." Wrad 03:15, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A semicolon doesn't work for me there; it needs to be followed by a full sentence form (as in the sentence I am writing now). The trouble is that the original parts don't match: "popular appeal" is antithetical to "complex characterisation", but "poetic grandeur" does not have a similar relationship to "philosophical depth". So no attempt to set these four qualities off in pairs will work. qp10qp 04:09, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There's another potential miscue here: Stories of various genres were enacted for audiences consisting of both the wealthy and educated and the poor and illiterate. The miscue is: "audiences consisting of both the wealthy and educated..." I've advocated removing that whole passage (see below).

• Two Noble Kinsmen and Pericles are listed under both apocrypha and comedies. I would list them under comedies, noting that they were only partly written by Shakespeare. The number of scholars who would dispute that description is too few to justify a listing under apocrypha as well, in my opinion. In any case, the double listing looks confusing, in my opinion. Whatever the decision, Henry VIII needs to be listed comparably (with a note that it was partly written by Shakespeare).

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

• There is a tradition that Shakespeare also continued to act in various parts of his plays, such as the ghost of Hamlet's father, Adam in As You Like It, and the Chorus in Henry V.

"There is a tradition" seems to me too bald. If the tradition has no basis in fact, that should be stated, as it was for the "lost years" traditions; if there is any evidence or notable scholarly theory, for example, for Shakespeare playing the ghost (which I doubt), then it should be noted. Fact and fiction, and fact and tradition, should be scrupulously separated when it comes to Shakespeare's biography, and even traditions should be sourced.  Done Wrad 02:45, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

• • I'm tempted to just delete this line. Wrad 02:45, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• By 1596 Shakespeare had moved to the parish of St. Helen's, Bishopsgate...He appears to have moved across the River Thames to Southwark sometime around 1599. By 1604, he had moved north of the river, lodging just north of St Paul's Cathedral with a Huguenot family named Mountjoy.

I think this all needs to be made clearer. Not everyone knows which side of the river was which. The first sentence here assumes that Shakespeare had lived somewhere else in London before he moved to Bishopsgate, but I can find no mention that in the article, so it lacks an antecedent.

• He was married to Anne Hathaway until his death and was survived by her and their two daughters, Susanna and Judith. Although Susanna married Dr John Hall, there are no direct descendants of Shakespeare alive today.

This seems odd. Why mention Susanna's marriage and not Judith's? And why not mention their children, if we are talking about descendants? I believe Judith's children died very young (including one called Shakespeare Quiney) and Susanna's daughter Elizabeth Hall in about 1670. I'm not saying this information is actually needed, but the sentence should be logical and consistent, I think.

• • Sounds good. Do you have a source for that I could use? Wrad 02:55, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For death of Judith's children, Schoenbaum, 296; for death of Elizabeth Hall in 1670 and extinction of Shakespeare's line, Schoenbaum, 319. 1988 edition. ISBN 0195051610.

 DoneI added this. Any idea who Judith married? Wrad 03:43, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas Quiney. qp10qp 04:26, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

• There's considerable analysis of the different versions of King Lear, for some reason. I suspect there's too much for this general page; perhaps that could be covered in a sentence or two, with one or two added about Macbeth, just as problematic a text, though in different ways (missing scenes, added Hecate scenes, corruption).

• In a Shakesperean sonnet, poets often divide its 14 lines into 3 quatrains, followed by a closing couplet.

The text has jumped from Shakespeare's sonnets written by Shakespeare to Shakespearian sonnets written by others. A transition and explanation is needed, I think; better still, this stray little paragraph could be cut, with no loss, in my opinion, to the article.

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

• In "Other poems", should it be noted that Shakespeare wrote Venus and Adonis and The Rape of Lucrece at times when the theatres were closed owing to plague?

• • Really? Wow. I had no idea. What's the source? Also, do you have any other facts like that up your sleeve I could add? Wrad 02:57, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The situation is fully explained on pages 9 and 10 of Roland Mushat Frye, Shakespeare, Routledge, 2005. ISBN 0415352894. The theatres were shut for almost two years in 1593 and 1594 because of plague. qp10qp 03:59, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The citation isn't working right, the ISBN turns up empty. Wrad 04:05, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Here it is: ISBN search qp10qp 04:26, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

• During the reign of Queen Elizabeth, "drama became the ideal means to capture and convey the diverse interests of the time." Stories of various genres were enacted for audiences consisting of both the wealthy and educated and the poor and illiterate.

To me, this sounds weak. I would cut it and replace it with a similar point made in a less generalised way. The reference does not read like a proper academic reference (2005, Elizabethan Period (1558–1603), from ProQuest Period Pages, ProQuest). There's so much on Elizabethan drama that it is possible to make the same point with reference to a print source with a named author.

• • This was debated on the talk page, and I hesitate to change it. Apparently, the reference is more reliable than it looks, but I'll let someone closer to the issue decide. Wrad 02:59, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't even know how to find this source - how do you find it? Google didn't do me much good. Can we not link to it so that the rest of us can judge for ourselves? Awadewit | talk 04:27, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Shakespeare served his dramatic apprenticeship at the height of the Elizabethan period, in the years following the defeat of the Spanish Armada; he retired at the height of the Jacobean period, not long before the start of the Thirty Years' War.

Here again, this is generalised and imprecise, in my opinion. What does "dramatic apprenticeship" mean? How do we know he didn't serve his dramatic apprenticeship during the lost years? If it is meant that he wrote his first known plays in the years after the Spanish Armada, then perhaps the article could say just that. However, I would suggest cutting this paragraph as far as the point where style is at last mentioned, since the section is supposed to be about style, not history. Also because there are other things wrong, it seems to me: the word "height" is problematic applied to both the Elizabethan and the Jacobean period here—for a different reason in each case. It's true that the Elizabethan literary flowering was at its height in the last decade and a half of the reign, but, despite the defeat of the Armada, that is not true of the political situation itself: it was during this period that discontent infected the country and criticisms of and challenges to Elizabeth's policies arose: far from being at her height, she was past her sell-by date. In the case of the Jacobean period, it is true that the reign enjoyed both its greatest literary flowering and most of its political successes during its first ten years; but it seems to me questionable, from a semantic point of view, whether a reign can reach its height at its beginning. Finally, I don't see what the Thirty Years' War has to do with anything in this context, since James I kept out of it till his dying day (1625).

•  Done Style: when we do finally get to questions of style in the "Style" section, the treatment seems to me rather tangential and superfical. The fact that Shakespeare used soliloquies, couplets, prose and verse in his plays was a question of form rather than style. And I wouldn't say that his originality lies in using those forms, which were common to all the playwrights of the time. A mere one-sentence paragraph at the end of this section at last addresses style itself by talking of word play and rhetoric, though without developing the point. However, writing a short section on Shakespeare's style is a stiff challenge, I admit.
  • Huh, weird, only reason we added it was because a previous reviewer wanted it. I'm not sure what to do, here. Wrad 03:06, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing wrong with having a style section; it's what goes in it. qp10qp 04:53, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's just it, we already had the section, someone wanted soliloquies and stuff in it. Wrad 05:09, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As it stands, the section says that he used soliloquies and merely describes what they are. But it's the style of the soliloquies that counts. I'm not informed on this matter, but we can be sure that Shakespeare, being a genius, developed soliloquies in original ways; how he did that would reflect his style. I've seen Marlowe and I've seen Shakespeare, and it is very clear that Shakespeare brought the soliloquy on a long way from Marlowe's use of it.qp10qp 05:23, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• He and other dramatists at the time used this form of blank verse for a lot of the dialogue between characters in order to elevate drama to new poetic heights.

Shakespeare and his contemporaries certainly elevated drama to new poetic heights, but was it anything to do with writing dialogue in blank verse? I've just checked the pre-Shakespearian plays Arden of Faversham and Gammer Gurton's Needle, and, as I thought, they used iambic pentameters and verse dialogue too.

• The plays of Shakespeare were also dismissed as rubbish by Leo Tolstoy.

This struck me as a rather crude sentence, and since it is referenced to Orwell's essay Lear, Tolstoy and the Fool, I looked it up. What Orwell actually says is: "As Tolstoy justly complains, much rubbish has been written about Shakespeare as a philosopher, as a psychologist, as a ‘great moral teacher’, and what-not." Rather different. I would therefore remove "as rubbish" from the sentence, because certainly Tolstoy did dismiss Shakespeare in other terms, if not that one.

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

• While none of this evidence proves Shakespeare's own Catholic sympathies, one historian, Clare Asquith, has claimed that those sympathies are detectable in his writing. Stephen Greenblatt makes the case that the "equivocator" arriving at the gate of hell in the Porter's speech in Macbeth refers to the Jesuit Father Henry Garnet after his execution in 1606.

 Done I'm not quite sure how the two sentences above hold together. One would expect an example of Asquith's theory to follow, not a reference to the porter's scene, which in its ridicule of equivocation would suggest the exact opposite of Catholic sympathies ("Here's a farmer that hanged himself on the expectation of plenty...Faith, here's an equivocator, that could swear in both the scales against either scale; who committed treason enough for God's sake, yet could not equivocate to heaven"). Certainly Greenblatt is right in identifying this equivocator with Garnet (mind you, nothing original in that reading); but we need an example from Asquith (I wouldn't really call her a historian) against which to juxtapose it, and a reference to the book in which she says it (Shadowplay). qp10qp 02:05, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• • I agree, but am not familiar with the theories discussed. Can anyone fix this? Wrad 03:06, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I just took out the second sentence (which mentions Garnet). If people want to the detail on all of that, they can go to the main article. Is this ok with people?--Alabamaboy 12:41, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure. Because the best solution would be to contrast the referenced view that Shakespeare was a Catholic with the contrasting referenced view, using a linking sentence. I'll have a poke round to see if I can find something: it needn't take up much space in the article. qp10qp 14:58, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was able to find parts of Asquith's book on Amazon Search Inside, so I have added a short quote from her in a note and have referenced the page. I have removed the description of her as a "historian": she's a diplomat's wife with a pet theory, and the book is cringe-makingly dreadful, in my opinion (for example, she says that Titania's court is Catholic and that Puck is a coded representation of Sir Robert Cecil). qp10qp 22:03, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

This article attracted a flurry of interest when it appeared on the Main Page as part of DYK, & saw a number of improvements -- but since then, it has sat almost untouched. As it now stands, does the article competently cover the topic? Are there any points that obviously need be added? Or has it remained stable for so long because it does a competent job? -- llywrch 03:07, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It seems too short, given a biblography that long. Also, it would be a good idea to make it clear what parts of the article are coming from what sources. --Ryan Delaney ^talk 05:51, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The cinnamon stick image doesnt seem very relevant to the article, at least you could explain in the caption that they were traded there Astrokey44 14:22, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I had some trouble writing this article to make it understandable to a general reader. Because there is extensive discussion of Chinese texts, regions and historical periods, I'm afraid someone without the necessary background knowledge won't be able to follow it. Without any other featured articles in the area to emulate, I could use advice on any aspect. Any suggestions would also be much appreciated.

Since articles on Chinese surnames (see for example Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Owyang) and surnames in general (see Wikipedia:Deletion policy/names and surnames) were subject of some controversy a while ago, I think they need to conform to a high scholarly standard. Hopefully this article can be a model for other articles on Chinese surnames. Eventually I'd like to get this article to featured article standard. Yu Ninjie 21:47, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• excellent article! a Wikipedia:WikiProject Chinese surnames needs to be started to cover all the major Chinese surnames in as much detail as you have done here. A couple minor suggestions: It is not immediately clear in the lead section whether we are discussing Yuan surnames in general (as would be implied from an English-centric pov) or just the most common Yuan surname in Chinese. It would be helpful to add explanations of transliterated names and phrases (e.g. "Qianfu lun" should be followed by a clause explaining what "Qianfu lun" is because someone with no knowledge of Chinese cannot be sure whether this "Qianfu lun" is a person or book, or for that matter, what kind of book). Redundancy is not a problem here as this article is already very dense. A literal translation of the book titles used in the references will be helpful. --Jiang 10:20, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• The introduction was always a big problem. I've gone and simplified it somewhat, leaving the explanation about other surnames in the footnotes. The first two sentences still seem a bit awkward though. What do you think? Your advice about translating book titles was most useful. Since around half of the sources are standard histories or mainstream historical texts, I've just used the commonly accepted translations of their titles. --Yeu Ninje 12:43, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• The other Yuan surnames are deemed "statiscally insignificant". But how "statiscally insignificant"? Where should the cutoff be where we have to considering giving any of these surnames articles? Does the information exist in published form to write lengthy articles on these other surnames? --Jiang 07:58, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• That's a fair enough objection. I went and did a search on google and found a few more surnames pronounced "yuan". Some of them are so obscure that I wouldn't think there'd be more than a few hundred people in the world who held them. According Yuan Yida's 中国姓氏, none of them make the top 100. This is basically what I meant by "statistically insignificant", but that is not to say that they don't have interesting histories. Of the 10 that's there, 2 were well known enough to be documented by Ouyang Xiu in Xin Tang shu (he recorded 103 surnames in total). Some of the more minor "Yuans" no doubt are verifiable through an obscure reference in an early dictionary or something. I'd say that only 元, and possibly 源 are worth mentioning in any detail (both have produced notable historical figures) because the others are just too remote. It seems a bit artificial though, to include them with 袁 since they don't have anything to do with each other other than a common pronunciation. But I guess we have to work with Western concepts here on English Wikipedia. This is what I propose: if there is one surname which is clearly much more populous (i.e. 20+ times more populous than another), then that one should take the lead, with the others as supplementary to the main topic (maybe included in notes or in a subtopic). This would apply to the Yuan (surname) article. Yeu Ninje 09:30, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• I'd hate to see a page be cluttered up simply because the English written language lacks the complexity of Chinese characters. If they're a different surname, then I think they belong on a different page. They're not relevant, not even as a supplementary section. It would seem odd to have the lead section and most of the article discuss one surname and then have an extra section discussing another surname that is unrelated to the lead. There's no precedent for this, but how about using characters in the title for less common variations, e.g. Yuan (元), and adding a dablink at the top? I can't think of a better way to differentiate these in English. --Jiang 09:54, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]