Wikipedia:Peer review/October 2005

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

---

I've done a fair amount of work on this article lately, but I believe it needs some more eyes. Especially those who don't know a great deal about the subject, to let me know whether the wording needs improvement, or additional explanations need to be added.

I know the fair use pictures are a problem, and I am working on replacing them.

I've tried to show the camera's historical importance without going over the line into POV, and would appreciate any suggestions as to how best to achieve that. —Morven 06:41, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Not bad, good work. All I can think of is a separate external links and see also section. Photos might be OK because they have tags and a source, and a good reason as to why they are fair use. — Wackymacs 14:37, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I'd still rather have wholly free images, though. Of course, the true solution to that problem is for me to buy a T90, which I plan to, but even at nineteen years old they ain't cheap. In the interim, maybe someone on the Canon FD mailing list will be able to help out.

See alsos: probably would be a good idea to link to the contemporary competition at that point. Need to research what other makers were producing at the time. External links: There are a couple of things in the references that I haven't (yet) actually used for the article, such as the online repair manual. Would it be better to have them seperately listed? —Morven 14:59, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I would put the links you're not using as references into an External links section. Keep it up, you could try putting it up as a FAC after this peer review. — Wackymacs 15:49, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Moved those links to a "External links" section. I've also put an invite on the Canon FD mailing list to see if any experts can spot anything amiss with it. —Morven 00:40, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Going to try it on FAC. —Morven 15:09, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I've been thinking of putting this article on here in preparation for an eventual FAC nomination for a while, and today's good news about Daniel Craig seemed like as good an excuse as any to highlight this production, one of his major roles. I realise that the fact that this is almost entirely a one-person effort from me is currently something of a weakness, so any suggestions fresh eyes could bring would be extremely welcome. Angmering 16:07, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good. Several short paragraphs, and a one-sentence at the end of "Production & broadcast" - other then that structure is good. (Oh yeah, isn't there an official website for this thing? External links looks bare). Ryan Norton ^{T | @ | C} 21:51, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'll go through and try and tidy up the short paragraphs. As for external links - nope, 1996 was too early for there to have been a BBC site for it, and there isn't even an entry on Screenonline for it. Frighteningly, this very article may be the biggest resource and reference point there is on the web for the show. Angmering 22:37, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This is a second peer review for this article. First peer review may be seen here: Mandan archived peer review. I believe this article is finally complete with the exception of fixing red links (which I plan to do in the next few days). I'm hoping to nominate this article to FAC soon. Is there anything else that needs to be done? TIA! *Exeunt* Ganymead ^Dialogue? 08:08, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Please consider delinking the plain years, decades and centuries as per WP guidelines. It looks pretty good, but needs a light copyedit. Tony 08:23, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• The article looks good to me. You might consider a mention of the 1970 film, "A Man Called Horse", which features an Okipa ceremony. (I'm not sure that the film description page has the correct tribe listed.) — RJH 16:23, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'll start unlinking things as soon as I have time. As for A Man Called Horse it is quite interesting you should bring the movie up as my mother just mentioned it recently as I was telling her about the Okipa ceremony. I'll see what I can find on the film. Thanks! *Exeunt* Ganymead ^Dialogue? 03:16, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I think that this is pretty close to featured list status, but I need some suggestions on how to improve it further. I also hope that this isn't the first time people become aware that tropical cyclones hit California.

I assure you that I will keep on top of updates regarding Otis. Miss Madeline | Talk to Madeline 22:07, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• needs a picture at the top of the page, next to TOC
• the list is not very encyclopedic, maybe have a few sections of prose discussing the most important ones and why they were important (level of damage caused, unusual features etc). the list itself should possibly be down, below the preparedness section (or moved to another page).
• tropical cyclone preparedness section is grammatically poorly written. also "it would be pruduent": is there a plan or isnt there?
• "See Also" should be "See also"
• See also articles should begin with capital letter
• Notes should be one line per note
• "External Links" should be "External links"

My updates.

• I am looking for a picture. I was once looking at a photo or Nora's remnants over the US, but I can't remember where I saw it. If anyone knows where it is, please tell me or put it in the article.
• I added a few more sentences to some of the list entries. I don't understand what you mean by the list being unencyclopedic. Please clarify. I intend for this article to be a featured list.
• I added more info on coordination on different agencies regarding possible effects of Nora and Linda.
• Done
• Done
• Someone else put the notes on one line each
• Done

Miss Madeline | Talk to Madeline 22:05, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Niz 22:35, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I echo what Niz said, in addition:

1. the lead is too short (WP:LEAD)
2. Paragraphs too short (every single one of them, pretty much)

Take care! Ryan Norton ^{T | @ | C} 04:37, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• I expanded the lead section.
• I don't understand your problem with short paragraphs. Please clarify. I intend for this article to be a featured list.

Miss Madeline | Talk to Madeline 22:05, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks - I'm unfamiliar with featured lists, but at any rate the paragraph thing shouldn't be too tough to do once it becomes a featured list candidate :). Ryan Norton ^{T | @ | C} 14:28, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This was the Texan Collaboration of the Month in August, and it was improved from a stub into a good basic article by Katefan0, SaltyPig and other users. I've taken up from there and largely increased the article contents, and I'd like to hear your thoughts about it. Thanks! - Shauri Yes babe? hey hot stuff! ;-) 00:24, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• I think it's excellent. If it were nominated on FAC, I would vote for it. Great job. You've put a lot of good work into it. RADICALBENDER★ 22:39, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Why did you delete the following sentence from the article, containing a link to a discussion by the well-known and respected folklorist Americo Paredes on the official Smithsonian Institution website? -- From the early 20th century, Mexicans and Mexican-Americans called Rangers by the unaffectionate nickname "Los Rinches". AnonMoos 04:28, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

In whole truth, I didn't actually delete it as such. In fact, I didn't even notice that sentence existed. All the current contents were ellaborated by myself at a Temp page, taking as model the text of the article as of its September 8th version; that is, before you posted it. When I pasted my finished version, your contribution was unintentionally removed. Now that you bring it to my attention, I'll add that information into the article, albeit not as an isolated and unrelated sentence as you originally added it but integrated within its context.

Nevertheless, I want to point out that the issue of the turbulent relation between Mexicans, Tejanos and the Rangers has been widely addressed already, especially at the Early 20th century section. I suggest that you read the article thorougly, and you'll see that it doesn't exactly praise their role in said events. Therefore, it's not like I'm trying to remove sensitive information nor whitewash the Rangers' image, like your post at the Talk Page ("POV? Los Rinches") seems to suggest. Thanks for your contribution! - Shauri Yes babe? 12:25, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Then it should have been part of your editing procedure to take into account edits made between Sept. 8th and 18th -- when the article not only didn't bear any warning against editing it, but in fact actively solicited users to edit it to bring it up to "featured Texas article" status. AnonMoos 18:36, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I do not think that this is the place for a minor edit complaint. I would rather expect you to just fix the mistake. Assume good faith.--Wiglaf 20:03, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I refrained from re-editing the article to include it, because I wasn't sure on what grounds it had been removed in the first place, and so wasn't sure that it wouldn't have been promptly removed again (triggering a revert war). However, it all seems to be satisfactorily resolved now... AnonMoos 22:23, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

No argument about that. In fact I did take them into account, but unfortunately yours got through accidentally, mostly due to an unfortunate event with an editor who removed part of the text in a somewhat odd event. My bad a thousand times - I apollogize, and I intend to re-add your contribution asap. Are we at peace, Moos? And by the way, what's your opinion about the article itself? See any way it can be improved? Hugs, Shauri Yes babe? 19:57, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• What a finished article. I am very impressed with it. I have made some minor edits and removed some quotation marks where I felt that italics were enough (in one case I reinserted them, though). When it comes to FAC, I'll vote for it.--Wiglaf 18:45, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it still needs a bit of work :) (not reviewing content) :

1. Lead may need to be three paragraphs for an article this size
2. "Creation and early days" - A few paragraphs are a little on the short side, but not too bad
3. "The Mexican–American War" - last paragraph too short and probably needs to be wikified
4. "Modernization and present day" - some paragraphs too short and there's a one sentence paragraph at the end there
5. "High-profile busts" - one sentence paragraph in intro
6. "John Wesley Hardin" - too short in comparison to other sections
7. "Rangers' badges and uniforms" - some paragraphs too short
8. "Notable Texas Rangers" - something other than "notable" would be nice here
9. "External links" - couple links could use better descriptions

Take care! Ryan Norton ^{T | @ | C} 21:40, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

As I told you the other day at your Talk page, Ryan, thank you so very much for the input. I've addressed all your suggestions as thoroughly as possible. Thx again! Shauri smile! 17:01, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, it's been a while since I've gotten something up to the review level, and I think it's time with this one. The goal is to get this up to featured status, so I'm looking for any further suggestions beyond filling in the red links and adding more information on the structure preservation efforts in Paterson. Thanks. slambo 17:33, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It looks pretty good to me. Perhaps an excessive use of bold font and some duplicate links, but otherwise it looks good to go. Thanks. — RJH 15:09, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I've cut back the bolding to just the lead section and reduced some of the repeated links. slambo 11:03, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

With no further comments after a week, I'm moving this up to WP:FAC. slambo 13:50, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Good images, meaty, well-referenced. I'm putting it up for FA soon. ANyone here note anything I might have missed? Borisblue 01:35, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• The article is not comprehensive. It does not mention Newton's effect on the thinkers who would later usher in The Enlightenment. This should be included in the section on Newton's legacy. I'm going to dig around my old papers from uni to see if I've got any usable material to add on that score. But the article won't be complete without it. —thames 02:22, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I disagree most emphatically. First, I must say that the article struck me as very well-written, splendidly cross-referenced, and complete. Naturally, one could dig up a 300-page biography from somewhere and cut-and-paste it in, but an encyclopedia is not a library. Secondly, the ""thinkers of the Enlightenment" were a sorry bunch of fairly trivial-minded religious fanatics (believing as they did, to the detriment of any and all other ideas, in the non-existence of God), while Newton was, of course, among other things, a sound thinker and a well-mannered Christian and, occasionally, a sharp dresser.--Impressionist October 6, 2005
    • The point is moot, as I've already added some material on his influence on religious thinkers and enlightenment philosophes. It is appropriate and necessary to discuss the influence of a thinker's ideas, no matter if his or her influence had unintended effects. Nietzsche's article, for example, would not be complete without a discussion of his legacy amongst the Nazis, even though he was anti-government and not anti-Semetic. Newton's influence is relevant, pertinent, and necessary for completeness. —thames 13:56, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • That, I'm afraid, is ... uh ... relative. Kind of. May be a NPOV problem. Nietzsche's influence on the Nazis was, as you yourself mention, minimal. They just talked about him a whole lot. His influence on Jack London was much greater, and in my book, Mr. London is far more important than the Nazis, and who's to say I'm wrong (for, look you, telling me I'm wrong about this WOULD BE, in fact, a NPOV problem). Also, let us not forget that Nietzsche's so-called philosophy was based almost entirely on the Third Act of Wagner's "Ziegfried," and Wagner himself very eloquently objected to Nietzsche's using his, Wagner's, important artistic creation for his own, Nietzsche's, lowly (in Wagner's opinion, which ran contrary to our NPOV rule) purposes. Incidentally, the Nazis are also said to have been "influenced" by Wagner. Yeah, right. In fact, I can see how Brunhilde's philosophy and that of Goebbels are virtually identical. However, if you chose to call those philosophes Newton's ungrateful and despicable parasites and ran for President in the next election, I'd probably vote for you. Not probably: definitely. That's a promise.--Impressionist October 7, 2005
        • I have no idea what you just said. —thames 15:50, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
          • I'll make it real simple. Has Newton influenced your outlook in any way? If so, put yourself in the article. As well as everyone on this page, including myself. And anyone who has had sex with a fat person knows that movement, force, and mass are interrelated. Put them in too. Expectantly, Impressionist October 7, 2005
            • That's a strawman argument. Enlightenment philosophers are notable, whereas I'm not. His influence on them is notable. His influence on me is not. —thames 22:19, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
              • Define notable Impressionist October 8, 2005

Comments added after PR complete

• • • • • • • • • Get a life Impressionist --Kstern999 16:45, August 19, 2006 (UTC)

I'm looking to start making some of the articles I've worked on into Featured Articles. I'm starting with this one as I believe it has fair notability and is quite comprehensive. Two things I currently see that could use some work would be a more comprehensive intro with more detail of the island as it is today and a possible minor rework of the history section. Any ideas of how I could go about this and are there any other items I should work on? Should I get more in depth about specific buildings or would that be "encyclopedic"? Thanks. Zhatt 23:19, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• It can use more images. Try getting one from under Granville Street Bridge that captures that feeling of entering Granville Island (as a pedestrian) with the bridge overhead and giant concrete pillars there and the mix of cars and people everywhere. Another historical photo would be good, too, something that illustrates the blight that afflicted the area before re-development. Also, since it is a geographical place it requires a map.

The introduction really downplays Granville Island's notability. It is perhaps the most successful re-development project in Canadian history. The intro can be re-worked by creating a section the post-redevelopment phase and focusing the intro on a more concise summary of the island in general (including its history). The section on post-redevelopment Granville Island should focus (theme-wise) on this innocuous statement: "The island is very popular with tourists and locals alike." This is why Granville has not turned into a tourist trap. Actually, a better question is WHY hasn't it become a tourist trap. Most other re-development quickly become tourist traps or (horrible disasters). Please note that Granville Island was an urban renewal project by CMHC. You may be able to find some documents from them. This is what they have on their website: [1] [2] [3] [4] [5]

--maclean25 04:00, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• For starters, you would need to have a two maps (inset the best option); one showing the detailed view of the place and the other the location of the place is Canada. (The former will suffice though).
• Then you need to have more references. Too few.
• Would prefer that the area of the place be mention right there in the lead. It should also be mentioned why it is called a "peninsula" in the lead too. Work around the word reclaimation in a short sentence.
• glassblowing studio, a printmaking shop, the B.C. Potter's Guild, a luthier, Please do not format inline links this way. Please remove these links. If one of them is notable, wikify the text and create an article.
• Use the non-breaking space &nbsp between a number and its unit. eg. 760,000 m³ = 760,000 m³
• Image:Granville Island 1922.jpg is given to be copyrighted; under US law pre-1923 works are PD (if not renewed). Please check the licence.
• ==Culture=; =Transport=; =Demographics=; =Geography=; =Climate= missing. =Nichalp «Talk»= 04:40, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot. I guess I have a ton to work on. I guess this isn't going to be a featured article for a while. As for the picture, it's from the Vancovuer archives, and I'm not sure if somehow they hold the copyright. I guess I'm going to have to ask them. Thanks again. Zhatt 05:16, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Previous Peer Review:Wikipedia:Peer review/James Bond/archive1

This wasn't promoted as FAC, James Bond is one of the most popular articles, and needs some improvement. SpecialWindler 12:35, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, APR _t 23:58, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not only do I have a personal connection with the city and therefore would like to see it someday as a Featured Article, I think it is well-written and rather thorough, especially on its culture, which is a part that many city articles seem to lack. It also lists a few sources, but I know that a large number of sources seem to be preferred for FACs, so if you could list improvements that that might need, that'd be great. Although I am not a major contributor to the article (very minor edits here and there) I feel that a peer review might show what needs to be improved should it be nominated for FA-status.

Also, if anyone can help claify what copyright the map would fall under, that would be greatly appreciated. I've been asking around but I haven't really gotten a concrete answer.

-Nameneko 05:50, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Some references urgently required, e.g., 'Although the Sendai area was inhabited as early as 20,000 years ago'. The text at the top is bumped up against the map. Spell out '1' and '8'. What is a 'designated' city? Avoid 'found at' and 'found in' more than once or twice. Some of the English is unidiomatic, and the whole article needs a thorough copy edit. Some of the sections are too short, as is the article as a whole. There's not enough comparison with other cities/parts of Japan. Tony 14:00, 17 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for the input The '20,000 years ago' part is implied later on briefly:

[...] Tomizawa Site Museum, which is built directly above a 20,000-year-old stone age excavation site

I don't know how well that would work, but I'll look into the Japanese article to see how they reference it and work on translating at the same time. I'll try to search for sources sometime in the future. I've added a link for the "designated city" portion, replaced 1 and 8 with their respective words, and will find and replace the "found" phrases in the near future. I noticed that the sections really grouped together various things into one or two paragraphs. What I plan to do is get more information from the ja.wikipedia article and then find sources to back the information up. I get most of what you mean, but the only thing I'd like clarification for is comparisons with other Japanese cities. What kind of comparisons would be helpful? Cultural? Demographic? Economic?

-Nameneko 18:47, 17 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I too have personal relationship as I lived there for a year while studying abroad. Truly an amazing city. SO amazing I want to live there permanently. Anyway I added some information about the University. But what I find most concerning is that there are no images of demographical data and such. When I go to a geographic page, that kind of data is what I want to know. I want to know where the people are. What variation of house prizes there are in different areas. What kind of jobs one can get there and so on. Seriously needs to be added. Lord Metroid 20:30, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have been trying to edit this article for several months, yet it seems to keep growing without purpose, especially now that some Wikipedians have voted in a "policy" that means that street names that are never used in their English form are used in their English form because of the belief that the average Wikipedian is stupid. This leads to every guide book I've ever seen referring to "rue St-Laurent", as well as most English-speaking residents, however the article speaks of "Saint Lawrence Street".

The article grows and I'd like to know where and what to trim. Please help! Páll ^{(Die pienk olifant)} 04:51, 14 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• All sections have lots of content, you'll have to trim the sections using wikipedia:Summary style. =Nichalp «Talk»= 08:08, 14 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• One area that is much too long is "Merger and demerger." I would suggest moving it in its entirety to History of Montreal. Some sections should also be turned from lists to prose, for instance compare the education sections in Toronto and Montreal. The sports section needs a similar rewrite, with the lists perhaps moved to a subpage. One thing I am quite surprised by is the lack of a culture section. - SimonP 04:45, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• The Roads section seems to uneven. The first half discusses the road network and traffic patterns, whereas the second half discusses naming conventions and language differences. I suggest splitting these sections with more appropriate titles. Integrate the 'road network/traffic pattern' section with mass transit discussion. --maclean25 06:38, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Trim and rationalise on the clause level ('festivals and events'—aren't festivals events?) as well as on a larger scale (table of sports venues?). The opening has some overly short paragraphs, and includes inappropriate information for an introductory section (secondary schools? Keep it to an overview that will prepare the reader for the greater level of detail in subsequent sections). Tony 13:44, 17 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I have been working on this article for a while, and would like suggestions for further improvements (with the goal of getting this article featured). Pentawing 01:01, 14 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Good work on this, it is getting pretty close to FA status. One problem is that there are a whole bunch of uncited statistics, especially in the first paragraph of the Academics section, and in the Libraries and museums section. The images also have some problems. Image:UMichAngellHall.JPG, Image:UMichArtMuseum.JPG, and Image:MichiganDiagFall2004.jpg are all much too dark, and it is hard to make out any detail. These could be artificially brightened, but ideally they should be replaced by pictures taken when the structures are not in the shade. Image:Michiganstadiumgame.jpg is claimed as fairuse, but gives no justification. I personally doubt this image can validly be used under fairuse. The stack of templates at the bottom is also unsightly. This is a project wide issue, but having three templates with wholly different formatting is quite ugly. Consider creating a specialized template that merges the three together, such as how {{UK ties2}} recently replaced the plethora of boxes at United Kingdom. Alternatively you could alter the three to one standard design, which could also help several other pages. - SimonP 05:07, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am going to take some pictures around campus in the next few days, as well as finding sources to back up (or modify) the statistics. Pentawing 22:37, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• The prose needs a thorough copy edit before nomination as a FAC. To pluck out a few examples from the first three sentences:
  • Remove 'located'.
  • 'primary' could be replaced by a better word.
  • The distinction between 'research' and 'public academic' institution is unclear; why 'leading' and 'top' in the same sentence—reword so you don't need two very similar epithets; same with 'world's' and 'worldwide'.
  • Merge the first two paragraphs.
  • Remove the repetitive 'school' within the parentheses.
  • 'consistently vs 'perennially'—this is the same problem; you aim for slight variety where that need points to poor wording in the first place.
  • 'some of' --> 'among'.
  • What is considered to be a 'Public Ivy', and what is that, anyway?
  • Avoid 'also' unless absolutely necessary.

Also, consider citing hectares as an equivalent for acres (certainly not thousands of square metres). Please consider finding a collaborator who might sift through the whole article thus. Tony 13:39, 17 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

What do you think?

For what must be such a large and wide-ranging subject it seems a little on the short side to me. I know nothing about French politics so I can't make specific content suggestions, but on a basic Wikipedia level the complete lack of a references section also counts against it for the moment. Also, there's no lead section above the contents box, which should always be the case – the piece needs a decent introduction / overview. Angmering 11:56, 17 September 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]

Seems well written & very comprehensive, I think it could possibly be a featured article, but I'd like feedback. Djbrianuk 23:31, 6 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Please, pretty please, do not give this article featured status. Please? This is an article about an attention-seeking scumbag. I have known his children for my entire life. He has stated over and over again that he will say any horrific thing for attention. Feature status is attention. Why feed the trolls? Please don't do this. Rick Boatright 00:49, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• • For the record I happen to think Phelps 'is a first class nut', however the subject matter is irrelevant as to whether or not an article is awarded featured status. I'm asking for peer review to gauge whether a featured nomination is likely to succeed for this article on it's own merits as a neutral encyclopidic article on yes, a particulary horrible specimen of humanity. Djbrianuk 01:53, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• It is a common and dangerous trap to think that ignoring Phelps is the answer to your problems. Does Phelps like attention? Yes. So do many serial killers. Should we ignore them? If you've known his family for as long as you claim, you should know what dangerous people they are. The more people that know about something dangerous, the better. 70.243.38.28 01:39, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • The answer to evil speech is more speech. A lesson we've learned in Topeka through a lesson taught us by this man. I know that. I don't have to like it. Rick Boatright 00:04, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

What would you suggest as an improvement? Some people have proposed a discussion of taxation, but I think that this would deserve another article (it's a complex topic). I'd like this article to make it to FA status.

• seriously lacking in references; try to make it clear, for each section, where the information has come from. Consider using footnotes or invisible references as an effective way to format this information Mozzerati 21:22, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are a number of "related links" sections pointing to appropriate legal texts. Do you suggest that they should be noted "references"?
  • Added a reference section.

• At last, a reasonably clear, comprehensive account of the highest structures of French administration. Ask most French people, and you realise that they have a very fuzzy knowledge of it all.
  • The text needs a thorough copy edit before nomination as a FAC, although it's not too bad.
    • {{sofixit}} :-)
  • A few weaknesses in logic (which should be a strength for matters French!); e.g., why bring in the run-off voting system when making the point that direct election bestows great legitimacy on the President? It's direct election, not the mechanics of declaring a majority or winning vote, that make it legitimate, surely.
  • No. The runoff voting system forces people to get a majority of the votes (either at the first round or the second round). Thus, they can claim to have been elected by a majority in all cases. (If the candidate having the most votes won at the first round, candidates would be elected by a plurality of votes, say 20%, and it could least to nasty situations like two left wing candidates getting 30 + 30 and a right-winger getting 40, and the right-winger getting elected. The elected right-winger would then lack legitimity, since 60% of the people, presumably, would have preferred at least some kind of left-winger.) In any case, the argument is regularly cited when discussing the system. David.Monniaux 21:33, 17 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Images? One of the current or or a former President? The building and/or interior of the National Assembly?

Good idea. I have imported various images. David.Monniaux 21:33, 17 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• • Given the status of the French system, along with the British system, as a parent for a number of other systems, including that of the US, you might consider either a section comparing the division of powers between the branches in these systems, or even a table doing the same thing. Many readers will engage more with the topic if they see a clearly set out comparison with their own system.Might be a lot of trouble though, so it's only a suggestion. Tony 01:30, 17 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I don't feel quite up to doing such a comparison work, because it would be fraught with inaccuracies concerning systems I'm not 100% familiar with. I could write some diagram about checks and balances of the French system. David.Monniaux 21:33, 17 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Let me know before you nominate it and I'll run through it (unless I'm work-stressed at the time). Tony 08:38, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I understood what you were getting at with the run-off thing, but most readers won't get it. Either make direct election of the president the point (as opposed to election by the parliament), or explain further what a 'run off' is and why you've chosen it to make your point. (comprising, if necessary, a second election ?two weeks after the first to generate a 50%+ vote for whoever becomes the president). Perhaps my idea of a table was impractical; some mention of the influence of the system on others would be welcome. Tony 00:43, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This article was WP:COTW last week, and I want to continue the momentum toward featured article. I know it still needs more depth, though, so I would welcome suggestions from experienced Wikipedians.Mamawrites 20:46, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Three basic improvements that will need to be made are: a longer lead, more references, and proper copyright tags on all the images. - SimonP 23:51, September 12, 2005 (UTC)
• the etymology section overwhelms the rest of the article and there is a marked Western and contemporary bias -Acjelen 01:17, 13 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• There's some really good information here, but lots of problems, too. The prose needs thorough copy editing, and rewriting in places; the opening is a particular problem:

'A girl is a female human child, as contrasted with a boy (a male child). When a female person is a "girl" varies in different societies; however, in most cultures it is typically applied to a female child from birth until the late teens.'

As contrasted with an adult female too, so better not to capsize the flow here. 'When' should be 'The age beyond which females are no longer considered to be girls'. Remove 'person'. Why is 'however' used when not contradicting the previous statement? What does 'it' refer to (this should always be crystal clear)? Remove 'child' as redundant.

Phew, that's a lot of change for one and a half lines. Then my eyes stray down to the next sentence: 'living girls'? What, as opposed to dead ones?

Please find one or more collaborators to help.

Apart from the prose, the other problem is that it's far too short and in many respects lacks depth. Please provide much more on gender roles, and why not merge usage with this section. (We don't want it to overtly look like a dictionary, anyway.) So many of your statements require MUCH more support (not that I disagree with them—it's a matter of gaining authority and comprehensivity, and pursuing fascinating leads.)

• It's stubby, I'm afraid—the whole thing. Maybe the scope needs to be more tightly delineated; this topic is an encyclopedia in itself.

Tony 01:29, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I would like this article to be as good as possible so that it can be nominated for a featured article at some point. Wikipedianinthehouse 23:28, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• The most important thing is to get a references section. Several items will also need footnotes, such as the statistics in the Fan Demographics section. Several sections, such as NEXTEL Cup, Historic moments, and Video games, are too short, and should either be expanded or merged into others. The article as a whole also has a somewhat overly positive tone. More images would also be good, though it is obviously difficult to obtain good ones. - SimonP 01:49, 17 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • One recommendation for images - especially for public domain ones - is to check the U.S. military web sites. All of the branches sponsor a NASCAR team in one capacity or another and all of them have public domain photos from races on their sites (this trick also worked for college football). There are also some images in varying states of "fair use" on individual driver articles. RADICALBENDER★ 22:15, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This article seems quite good, pretty unique to Wikipedia, complete, and well-written. It has no pictures, though. I hope to get it featured, so I'm looking for any problems that might show up. Thanks in advance! JesseW, the juggling janitor 19:11, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

• Wow. That is a LONG article. interesting though. If you want pictures, you could try representations of the characters in the jokes. -Vermoskitten 04:40, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, it is long. That's one reason I think it could be featured. Thanks for the suggestion about pictures of characters. JesseW, the juggling janitor 06:16, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

• This article is really just a long list of different jokes, sorted by type. A better title for the article would be 'List of Russian jokes'. I would expected this article to contain a historical background on Russian humour, compared with other countries and maybe also a comparison of different regions in this vast country. Also, length has nothing to do with an article's potential in being featured. -- Cugel 08:04, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for the historical background, comparision with other countries, and regional variations suggestions. As for length, it is one of the factors in FAC, although hardly one of the important ones. I appreciate the suggestions. JesseW, the juggling janitor 21:22, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

See old review at Wikipedia:Peer review/Autism rights movement/archive1

There was a peer review a few months ago for this article while I was absent from Wikipedia. One of the issues brought up in that peer review is that the article makes a number of very broad statements. I wrote the majority of the article, and part of the reason of broad statements is that I wrote much of it when I was a newbie, and did not know as much about WP policy back then. I would like to reword the broad statements but am not entirely sure about how to do it. For example, let me take the statement:

... they prefer to be referred to as "autistics" or "autistic people" instead of "people with autism" or "people who have autism", because "person with autism" implies that autism is something that can be removed from the person.

There is a reference [6] where Jim Sinclair makes that assertion, and another one [7] where Autistics.Org claims that most autistic people support that assertion, and a New York Times article [8] that states that Michelle Dawson supports the assertion. Would it be sufficient if I changed instances of "some people believe" by stating specifically who makes the assertions? Would that deal with the problem of broad statements? Some possible suggestions I have for rewording the example I gave are:

• Some autistic people prefer to be referred to as "autistics" or "autistic people" instead of "people with autism" or "people who have autism", because "person with autism" implies that autism is something that can be removed from the person.
• Some autistic people, such as Jim Sinclar, Michelle Dawson, and the people at Autistics.Org prefer to be referred to as "autistics" or "autistic people" instead of "people with autism" or "people who have autism", because "person with autism" implies that autism is something that can be removed from the person.
• Some autistic people, such as Jim Sinclar, Michelle Dawson prefer to be referred to as "autistics" or "autistic people" instead of "people with autism" or "people who have autism", because "person with autism" implies that autism is something that can be removed from the person. Autistics.Org claims that most autistic people hold this position.

Q0 00:03, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I want to know if the referencing system of the article is sufficient. Most of it is referenced with inline links. Q0 00:15, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Q0 - I started the last peer review (and have worked a good deal on the article myself). Anyway, this article still suffers from various issues. I think you are getting there though :). One thing that needs help are the instances of weasal words, esp. "Opposition to an alleged insulting view of autism", for example. Another is the length - I've did this several times in the past, and really instead of seperate articles it needs to be a bit more pithy and the paragraphs need to be compacted for flow, as short paragraphs will kill you at FAC time.

Also, statements like

"In January 2006 ASWC formed a democratic advocacy movement for parents and individuals with any form of autism. Based upon ideals of free speech, it provides a forum to debate issues without censorship of points of view that are disagreed upon. The forum is constructed to be accepting of all viewpoints respectfully. Its principal owner is Nathan Young from Fortuna, California."

Could get intrepreted as an ad for the group - try to stick to what it really did and why it is important.

Finally, as you mention the referencing system probably should use the new ref system we have - you can take a look at basically any of the recent featured articles or others like Microsoft to get an idea of how to use it - basically if you were to use a link it is like <ref>{{cite web|url=mysite.com|title=something important}}</ref> and then in your references section at the buttom just put <references/>. Additionly, the broad statements as you mention probably don't help much - in the above example you gave a better way would be to do something like:

• Jim Sinclar, Michelle Dawson and some other autistics prefer to be referred to as "autistics" or "autistic people" as they believe terms such as "person with autism" imply that they could be cured of their autism.

Also, in terms with excess text an example of what to cull is just from above - "Autistics.Org claims that most autistic people hold this position" - as it is just a website claiming something and really unless they have evidence to back it up it shouldn't even be mentioned, plus even if you do do that then you'll need to explain why the difference between the two terms is such a monumental deal.

Hope that helps

Just another star in the night ^{T | @ | C} 21:47, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think statements that Autistics.Org makes a claim should be in the article since the movement is a large part Internet based, so websites should be considered a noteworthy part of the movement. Q0 01:57, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

One more note to avoid FAC troubles - if a list can be written out in prose do so - try to keep to one or zero lists Just another star in the night ^{T | @ | C} 22:57, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As an example of the sort of stuff I'm talking about, see this diff. This article has a ways to go though because a bit more POV has crept in since the last peer review. Just another star in the night ^{T | @ | C} 01:03, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your feedback RN. I agree with you about the weasle words and I would like to fix those. As for too many sections being lists: I think the list in the "responses to criticisms" section would work better as paragraphs. I think the "Individuals" section works better as a list, but wouldn't mind changing it to prose and I am open to combining it with the "Websites" section. I still think the best way to deal with the size of the article is to move detail into new articles because that will accomodate people wanting small, medium, and large amounts of information. Right now, people wanting small amounts of information can read the introductory section and people wanting large amounts of information can read the whole article, but people wanting a medium amount of information are not accomodated. I hope that by moving some sections into new articles, I can accomodate people wanting small, medium, and large amount of information. In addition, I think the "controversy" section (especially the "criticism" subsection) is incomplete and will continue grow. Therefore, I think moving detail to new articles is the best way to deal with the size of the article. Q0 02:48, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This article looks very close to FA status, but still needs a bit of work. --AllyUnion (talk) 06:32, 6 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Well I saw your request sitting there patiently, waiting for someone to look at it. I happily obliged. Well... My personal opinion is: The opening paragraph "Chinese art is art....etc", needs major reworking as it is both irrelevant in some places & confusing on the whole. It should either be deleted all together or start with a brief overview of the timeline of Chinese art or something similar. The content is very broad & covers a wide range of Chinese art. Some areas, such as performing Chinese arts, need a bit more depth & research to delve deeper into the subject. Some internal links need creating so that every red link is blue. I would also suggest some horizontal bars to separate the performing arts, sculpture, painting etc, areas more clearly. Although it may be a problem, I would like to see a couple more pictures towards the beginning, just to spice it up. But other than that, you could add a simple timeline to the begininning (E.G: ???? BC- This painter was born. ???? BC- This guy created this piece of art. ???? BC- This artist died. ???? BC- This city reached a golden age. ???? AD- This event influenced Chinese art.). I think the article is very well done, but with these & possibly a few more tweeks & adjustments, it will be a FA in no time. Good work. Spawn Man 14:36, 9 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Couple of problems with the images. Requests for larger images are a common question asked in the wikipedia mailbox, since our software autoscales you should always use the larges images possible. Generally I like to see images at least 1200 pixels in their largest axis, and preferably larger. All of the images are too small. Also, all of the images look like they are copyvio or at least of questionable status. Further, I would prefer to see some more images in a featured article on a subject related to art. In an article about art, I would consider image quality to be critical and would oppose this facinating article as a result. --Gmaxwell 04:04, 13 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• For an article on art, we need many more good quality images. At least one otr two per dynasty/period. Check http://commons.wikimedia.orgview_html.php?sq=Envato&lang=en&q=Category:Art_of_China ≈ jossi ≈ 23:29, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This extensive article shows the historical development of this Park in South London. It has been enriched by comtemporary photographs. A good example of a local history with a national dimension.

Reviewers should consider the usual elements, and whether an international audience would interested in an open space in South London that measures a few blocks in each direction today. LoopZilla 08:28:14, 2005-09-04 (UTC)

NOTE: I know the principle authors personally LoopZilla 08:31:39, 2005-09-04 (UTC)

• It has potential, but an important aspect of a features article is brilliant prose, so the article would need to be trasformed from a list in to prose. Also it is very important to cite the references that have been used to write the article.--nixie 11:47, 4 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Can a principle author reply to criticism? Here goes anyway... Surely Wikipedia of all places should be able to accept the classic format of a 'time line' The text of a timeline had to be as concise as possible. Szczels 16:16, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Parks are a important part of the development of London, so I'm sure it's a valid topic (internationally speaking). Apart from the fact that the article needs to be prose-ified and given a reference section. I believe it would benefit from an image in the lead which shows its location within London on a map. - 131.211.210.12 11:55, 8 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• I also know the principal authors and in July stood in at short notice for one of them to lead a guided tour of the Park as part of the Lambeth Riverside Festival. The date sequence is a perfectly good way of introducing the history given all the links, including the full prose text of the previously published pamphlet. Given the history is on-going this article will be any case be updated and any additional information, like that I found when preparing for the walk, can also be added. The importance of this article about a Park both in Britain and internationally is that it illustrates a continual problem over social and political control of open spaces and activities that seem to threaten the establishment or that conflicts with other users. See the Public Space section of my website www.seancreighton.co.uk.

• A timeline does not meet the criteria of a featured article.--nixie 13:55, 8 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

OK. Maybe a re-write then? LoopZilla 16:16:36, 2005-09-08 (UTC)

• What are the advantages of being featured that could offset the considerable work in a complete rewrite / restructure? Szczels 16:31, 9 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• The article could really use a nice map of the area, preferably in SVG format (if you put in a raster one I'll just whine about it not being SVG :) ). Requests for larger images are a common question asked in the wikipedia mailbox, since our software autoscales you should always use the larges images possible. Generally I like to see images at least 1200 pixels in their largest axis, and preferably larger.

All of the photos on the article were scaled before uploading and are too small for good rendition in print. Considering the number and that they are all free, the editors of this article still get my applause.. but since it seems the photos were by wikipedians, we really should request they upload larger images. I think the listy nature of the article isn't very encyclopedic, but at the same time I think it's approiate for the sort of material covered... Why should we pad our trivia with lots of prose? :) Some in-article citations would be good. And Um, could we consider another name for the first external "cum diary" because US readers will read it as a short U and wonder if it's some kind of odd vandalism. --Gmaxwell 04:20, 13 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• I think it's too chatty and bits are irrelevent. We don't need people referred to by their first name, nor the date of the release of Nelson Mandela. We don't need all the recent local politics either - will any remember Ecadorian volleyball in 18 months time? Does the Job Centre Plus really need a photo? It reads like a local history pamphlet. The history is lost amongst lots of trivia. The photos can be replaced by anyone as the site is totally accessible. Secretlondon 00:32, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• You are missing the points Secret London - there is no trivia every entry has been carefully thought about esp. the Ecuadorian Vollaeyball. Szczels 21:19, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder if this article is comprehensive enough. David.Monniaux 10:12, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This is a very good article, certainly the best discussion of this subject I have seen in English. It would be good to have more on the effects of the law. How many students have switched to private schools?

Difficult to know, since students may switch to private schools for a wide variety of reasons.

What effect has the law had on the perception of France in the Muslim world?

Have been there polls conducted on this issue? I heard there were protests in some Muslim countries, but were they the sign of a grassroot feeling?

How have Sikh immigration rates been affected?

There is, as far as I know, a very small proportion of Indians in the general population, and as far as I know very few Sikhs. This sounds very difficult to gauge.

The article also mentions that "70 conciliation procedures were started," but never explains the nature of these measures. I have also read that Belgium is considering copying the law, which might be mentioned. - SimonP 13:24, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Conciliation procedures probably consist in the kid and family being called before the head of the school and possibly other officials, with some frank discussion about the issue.

(Some of the discussion about costs moved to talk page.)

OK, top to bottom:

1. One sentence is not a paragraph! Try to have two medium-size paragraphs for your intro
2. Consider turning the list at the end of "The law" intro prose
3. "Background" - less, longer paragraphs.
4. "The creation of the law" - less, longer paragraphs.
5. "Interpretation" - less, longer paragraphs. In addition, the list here should probably be turning into prose.
6. "Public reaction" -

   Use ref/note or something for that embedded link

   Needs less,longer paragraphs

   Again, you should probably turn the list here into prose

7. "Enforcement" - compared to other sections this is really short. Most likely needs lengthening
8. "See also" - could benifit from organization - see Autism#See also

Hope that helps - take care!!! Ryan Norton ^{T | @ | C} 15:11, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Previous peer review - Ian Moody 20:57, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This article is in the process of becoming a featured article. Are there any edits that should be justified? Is there anything that is missing? —Hollow Wilerding 21:30, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Some more referneces, my dear Hollow. Try and retrieve one for the masks, since I'm sure there will be whiners come nomination time. --DrippingInk 01:43, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks DrippingInk. Any other users have... well, any other suggestions? —Hollow Wilerding 02:17, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

A couple:

• "The gameplay for The Legend of Zelda: Majora's Mask involves the dynamic Fixed 3d environment that appears in The Legend of Zelda: Ocarina of Time, but is structured differently." Fixed 3D means real-time 3D characters against prerendered backgrounds; Ocarina of Time used it for some in-town scenes, but (according to the Fixed 3D article) Majora's mask didn't use it at all. I think this sentence is trying to say that the two games use the same main graphical engine, basically.
• Need a much more explicit discussion of what was the major departure from Zelda gameplay: the @%#%! time limit. Arg! (Me, I play videogames to relax, I don't need a BIG TICKING CLOCK (or giant creepy moon) hanging over my head every second. OK, end of rant.) —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 03:37, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

OK, some more:

• The lead mentions that it is "darker" than Ocarina; in fact one of the notable things about Majora's Mask was that it was the darkest of the whole Zelda series, I think. The stylistic aspects that leant this darkness should be discussed.
• The "Songs" section belongs on GameFAQs, not here. A mention that various spells are cast by playing the Ocarina should be enough.

—Bunchofgrapes (talk) 03:41, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• I have addressed the majority of your comments. Are there any other users who would like to include their input? —Hollow Wilerding 14:42, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comments (I mistakenly posted these to the archived page, since your comment was added there):

• Needs more on development and similarities/differences compared to Ocarina of Time.
• The gameplay section is extremely dense and doesn't actually describe the gameplay; it describes assorted details of the gameplay. My impression of the "Masks" and "Transformations" sections is that everything they say combined that is essential could be described adequately in two paragraphs. Worse, there's almost nothing on the three-day time system, which is the most important aspect of MM's gameplay! There should be a separate section that treats it in-depth.
• Use more and better images to illustrate key aspects of the gameplay, and show more interesting locations. Write more useful image captions. Take the "Link in his Deku form." image for example -- sure, that is Link in his Deku form... and that is interesting how? "An image of Link's ocarina." is even worse.
• Cut the list of songs; this isn't a walkthrough.
• Two random quotes don't make a "reviews" section. Further, reviews are not enough; broader influence should be covered as well. Fredrik | tc 21:59, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• I believe that there are plenty of relations to Ocarina; this is an article about Majora's Mask, and we don't want to compare everything to its predecessor.
• I will cut the descriptions of the songs into a list of the songs Link can learn, and it will look more original.
• Three reviews certainly don't make a reviews section. That is why I'm still searching for adequate websites.
• The images are supposed to exemplify Link in his many forms — although not even having an image of Link himself is questionable.

Thank you for your comments! Are there any others? —Hollow Wilerding 15:33, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The peer review has been closed; excellent feedback, Wikipedians! —Hollow Wilerding 02:22, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Planning on elevating to featured article status, so I need some advice on what to add, delete or change. - A Link to the Past (talk) 23:56, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• This is probably the best one so far. HOWEVER: next to no screenshots. Bad! Very bad! Also, a brief list of significant weapons should be added (yes, I know there is a link to a comprehensive article, but the ocarina and sword are so important that they should at least get a mention on the main article). And I'm a bit chary of the attention given to bugs and speculation. Like the others, historical context would be appreciated, but ther than that, good work. --Maru (talk) 02:54, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Very weaselly With its innovative gameplay, it is widely considered as one of the greatest video games of all time in both game console and PC games combined and is the highest rated game by game critics of all time. Many people even consider it to be the best game ever created. This needs to be cited. This was actually the game that I hated so much that it turned me off gaming for the rest of my life. I haven't purchased a video or computer game since, because this one was so bad I couldn't stand it. (don't really remember why, except that there was an obnoxious faerie that didn't do anything but block the screen) The whole "success" section lacks references, which is lamentable (was it really that popular? I rather assumed everyone hated it as much as I did)... as a matter of fact, the whole article lacks any references at all, which are a prerequisite for FACs. Tuf-Kat 04:24, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Are you nuts? OOT was insanely popular. We're talking Halo level here. But I don't really know where one would find references for that. --Maru (talk) 04:31, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I guess I don't hang out with the right crowd. (I hate Halo too, but at least I know people who like it) Surely people have written about the success of OOT, and one could always document sales figures as a start. No doubt reviews have been published, presumably positive. --Tuf-Kat 04:36, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I think sales figures are already in there. Or else I've started hallucinating "5 million +" figures... --Maru (talk) 04:43, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It says that, but there's no references section, so as far as I know, it's completely made up. (I'm not saying it is, but that's the point of having references) And that's not enough to support "without question one of the most successful video games of all time" -- it doesn't even claim how it ranks in sales, much less establish that it qualifies as "without question one of the most successful". It doesn't provide so much a single reference for "Critically the game was widely commended as a seamless transition from 2-D to 3-D". Just for the sake of argument, I don't believe it one bit -- provide some sources so I can be proved wrong. Tuf-Kat 04:47, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Computer and video games that have been considered the greatest ever has references for OOT's popularity, for starters. -- grm_wnr Esc 08:58, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Planning on elevating to featured article status, so I need some advice on what to add, delete or change. - A Link to the Past (talk) 23:56, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• This is better than the first Zelda's article. I really felt like I had an idea as to what the game actually was. But a screenshot of the overworld, some more links and references, and some historical context would be nice. Did it have any effect on the console wars? Did Miyamoto take any flack for it? How involved was he? Plus the Talk: page is still messy. PS: the introduction has some strange-sounding locutions. You might want to scrutinize that. --Maru (talk) 02:27, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It's been a few years since the last peer review, and i feel that we may be well on our way to FA, and was hoping for some more tipsDurinsBane87 19:14, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, APR _t 21:39, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Few comments:

• It's short on references, there are whole paragraphs and sections without cites.
• Is there no more information on the development and reception. At the moment, it seems very focused on the gameplay and is predominantly in-universe.
• There are a few stubby sections and paragraphs. Try to link it together to encourage a better flow.
• For featured-quality, the images could do with more detailed fair use rationales.

It's good, but still needs some work. Trebor 23:22, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• The gameplay section should probably be consolidated. It doesn't need to be sectioned off. It could probably also benefit with citations from the game manual or a player's guide.
• The development section needs a good deal of expansion. Explain the process of developing this particular game, like how the story was written. Listing the developers isn't enough.
• Check old gaming magazines for reviews, the reception section is empty.
• Try and weed out details that are trivial. This is a general encyclopedia artical, not a fan's guide.
• As suggested above, more sources and citations, and detail those fair use rationales for the specific use. Jay32183 20:34, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• An additional note: complete dates should always link to the year in general for user preference purposes. Only link to year in video games when the year stands on its own. Jay32183 23:13, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Planning on elevating to featured article status, so I need some advice on what to add, delete or change. - A Link to the Past (talk) 01:04, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• A few gripes here. First: far too screenshots. What's up with that? Don't be afraid to borrow from the Bosses page (but even that needs in-game action shots). Also: Trading Sequence? WTF? This is not Gamefaqs.com. This article also has even less context than the previous two. Wasn't this really popular? I vaguely recall EGM rating it the #1 game of all time, or something like that. Didn't it inspire anything (possibly Boktai)? --Maru (talk) 02:37, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nah, EGM's #1 games in the past have been Tetris and Super Metroid. Link's Awakening might've been high, but even then I think The Legend of Zelda: Ocarina of Time and The Legend of Zelda: Majora's Mask were higher. --Shadow Hog 15:26, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Nah, it went like this: The Legend of Zelda: A Link to the Past > The Legend of Zelda: Majora's Mask > The Legend of Zelda: Ocarina of Time > The Legend of Zelda > The Legend of Zelda: Link's Awakening. - A Link to the Past (talk) 18:02, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • They liked Majora better than Ocarina? I'm kinda surprised. But actually I was talking not about the ratings, but an issue they ran a year or two ago, "The Top 100 games of all time". No 1. was some Zelda game which I thought was Link's Awakening. --Maru (talk) 19:58, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • And, incidentally, that's the very thing we're talking about, too. Tetris or Super Metroid took the top slots, not Zelda. --Shadow Hog 21:54, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
          • Nope. The top five was #1. Super Metroid, #2. Tetris, #3. The Legend of Zelda: A Link to the Past, #4. Castlevania: Symphony of the Night and #5. Super Mario 64.

I've been working very hard on this article for a few days, adding lots of missing information, improving the leading paragraph, and adding photos and a see also section. Its quite comprehensive, but I think it still needs improvement. I'd love to get this article to FA status, this company created the world's first pocket calculator, first sub-£100 personal computer and first portable TV, and created some of the smallest radios ever. What do you think? Wackymacs 10:25, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Only had time for a fairly quick read, but it looks good. A couple of things though (well, alright, a few): I'd like to see more on how the C5 destroyed the company, seeing as they were doing so well before then, and a lot more stuff on what the company have been doing since 1986 - are they currently owned by Amstrad? Does Sir Clive have any involvement with them at all? How did they end up selling bicycles etc and are they doing well at it? Current turnover and number of employees? I realise the company has been nothing like as notable since '86 but it'd be interesting to find out more about what they've been up to since then. CTOAGN 12:41, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Duh. Just noticed the introduction mentions that C5 Clive is still there. A bit more about what percentage of the company he now owns would be good though. CTOAGN 12:45, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks for the useful comments so far. Clive Sinclair himself probably owns most of the company, since it's scale today is most likely nothing like it was in the 80s. Amstrad only ever bought their products, not the company itself, Amstrad don't make personal computers anymore (and never really did make good use of Sinclair's great products). The Sinclair Zike bicycle sort of went the way of the C5, I believe. I'll see what I can add to the article based on your comments. — Wackymacs 13:13, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Planning on elevating to featured article status, so I need some advice on what to add, delete or change. - A Link to the Past (talk) 00:18, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, I'd completely forgotten about this game, but I remember playing it all the time. The article needs a better lead section. There are some problems -- There are also three types of crystals. Yellow crystals give tips and reveal points of the story. These have not been listed here. -- except you just did, I know that's not what you meant, but that's what it says, also it says there are three crystals and then describes four. There's at least one sentence in second person (Your character has two basic moves). This article says a lot about what happens during the game, but doesn't mention sales, reviews, legacy (are there any other games with evolution as a central theme?). Also, there's no references section. Are there any external links that would be relevant? Forums or strategy guides or anything? Tuf-Kat 04:16, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, when I expanded this article into full, I took a lot from a walkthrough that I wrote for a friend of mine years ago... I should really go over it with a fine-toothed comb... I think that would clear up a lot of the quality and consistency issues... as for other things, I think we should add more screen captures and place them on the left side, or the middle, or just not on the right side... as for other things... I'm not sure, I'll have to think about it... although I think it'd be great to get an underdog on the front page. Canadian Paul 04:06, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Adena Culture is interesting. Please read this! Please help out on this US history/Archaeolgy stub. It's not enough yet, and this is an interesting topic. It's my pet article and I would like some help with it. Assistance please! - Vermoskitten 04:30, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• The article is little more than a stub right now. Research the topic and expand it, then post it for peer review. BrianSmithson 12:00, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I have created a page on British comic book hero Steel Claw and another page on the 1961 movie The Steel Claw (to avoid confusion). Plase send me your comments. --Cyril Thomas 08:57, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid there are several problems with this piece. For a start, the lead section is far too short - it should be a decent summary of what the article is all about. Also, many of the individual sections of the piece are also far too short to justify their inclusion - the sections on Steel Claw around the world, for example, should probably be merged into one piece of text rather than under the several little headings they are now. I'm also very unsure about the inclusion of the 'gallery' at the bottom - as I understand it, the fair use provision justifies using images if they're important illustration to accompany an article, which the earlier pictures in the text probably are but the gallery isn't, so ought to be removed. And the complete lack of references doesn't help much, either. I'm sorry if I sound overly harsh - what you've got here is a decent start at an article, but it's got a long way to go yet, I'm afraid. Angmering 11:56, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This superhero makes an appearance as an Easter egg in a game called One Must Fall: 2097 by EpiK Megagames. Serapion 8:20, 20 September 2005 (PST)

---

• To Angmering - Thanks for the review and I agree with you. The gallery images are scanned and the tags are right. I should rewrite the intro though and I am working on it after I update I will send you the link. Thanks
• To Serapion - Thanks, that would make another item for trivia.

--Cyril Thomas 14:55, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Planning on elevating to featured article status, so I need some advice on what to add, delete or change. - A Link to the Past (talk) 23:54, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The former peer review took place here and was unsuccessful. I plan on promoting this article to a featured article, so please inform me of anything that could be added, removed, improved upon, etc. Thanks! —Eternal Equinox | talk 14:55, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously, the article needs a good copyedit and more wikilinks. Once that's taken care of, my main concern is that after story and gameplay, the article's basically a big list. The story needs work too, it's a very detailed description of the opening, then ends with "Oh yeah, then Mario finds eight partners and gets the stars". --Pagrashtak 15:53, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also, you could add more images (maybe an image of every major character). About the story line, if you have the player's guide, that would probably be a big help. Bcem2 17:43, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I do own a copy of the player's guide, actually. Kind of amusing, isn't that? —Eternal Equinox | talk 18:08, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Eternal, although the article is well written, I find that a common criticism I have about this and other video game related articles is that they read more like a strategy guide introduction (list of characters, summary of story, etc.) and less like an encylopedia entry. As a form of entertainment, I feel that video games should be held to the same standards of an article for a musical artist, song, movie, etc. That means there should be outside research into:

• Critical reviews -- As a "sequel" to the beloved Mario RPG, I know there was initial hestitation in the change to 2D paper cutouts as the characters.
• Sales -- Did it sell well? What was its competition? Sales figures or rankings should be available.
• Influences -- Why did the designer make this game? And why change to paper figures when the format in Mario RPG was so popular? Was it influenced by anything previous, as its graphic style seems pretty unique? Perhaps some quotes from Nintendo or the designers should be included to show their thoughts on the game.
• Awards -- Did the game win any awards?

Again, it is well written, but as it stands now, it is more of a game overview and less about the game history, i.e. sales, creation, etc.

I hope you found this helpful. I don't want to sound critical -- I love my video games as much as the next geek, and would enjoy seeing more video games on the front page. Best of luck with the article. --Ataricodfish 19:52, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! —Eternal Equinox | talk 21:37, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• References and inline citations are a must if your aim is FA. Also, the "characters" part of article is full of sections way too short. One paragraph sections are bad. You can remove the headers and just bold the character's name. More pictures would be nice, though not a requirement for FA. It shouldn't be difficult to get screen captures or promomaterial to illustrate. Circeus 17:24, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• What Ataricodfish and Circeus wrote above are essential. What I offer is an idea: if the character are not filling sub-sections well, consider creating a table for them, like this with an image, their name, some notes, and color-coding according to villian/hero or someother criteria. --maclean25 05:07, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Planning on elevating to featured article status, so I need some advice on what to add, delete or change. - A Link to the Past (talk) 00:14, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Planning on elevating to featured article status, so I need some advice on what to add, delete or change. - A Link to the Past (talk) 00:13, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Planning on elevating to featured article status, so I need some advice on what to add, delete or change. - A Link to the Past (talk) 00:13, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Planning on elevating to featured article status, so I need some advice on what to add, delete or change. - A Link to the Past (talk) 00:13, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Planning on elevating to featured article status, so I need some advice on what to add, delete or change. - A Link to the Past (talk) 23:55, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Standard complaint of not enough screenshots. Didn't Wind Waker have a revamped, complex branching combat system of some sort? The organization of sections seems somewhat strange- the plot coming after cel shading? The gameplay section seems lacking on new gameplay mechanics like sailing. --Maru (talk) 04:37, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Archived peer review

Acheived GA status a few months ago, and I'm hoping to maybe elevate to FA status in the future. Cheers, Highway ^{Rainbow Sneakers} 20:33, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• If you're going for featured status, you have got to find better sources. The nintendo instruction booklet and the nintendo.com refs are probably okay, but PeachParadise.com is a personal website, and the Nintendoland.com article is just pathetic. To quote from the lead paragraph: "...in Super Mario Brother 2 she proved that she could take care of her problems herself and was if you ask me, the best character of choose. In Super Marsio RPG she joins Mario and the other in their fight against the mysterious Smithys and ..." and beyond the grammar and spelling, actually contains false info (see "Quote #1 at the bottom"; it was not supposed to be Peach saying "our Princess is in another castle"). And Gamefaqs can be submitted by anyone, so they aren't reliable either (also, you can't link to them, which is annoying). I know that online resources are limited, so I don't envy you trying to fix this. I'm sure that Nintendo Power issues would contain some good references, though, but they might be kind of hard to dig up. An extensive library would have them, but I bet a lot of libraries wouldn't have subscriptions... Mangojuice^talk 00:17, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I like in the UK. ¬_¬ Highway ^{Rainbow Sneakers} 00:27, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, Andy _t 01:10, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I feel the need to point out 14 uses of the word "also." Nifboy 05:16, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I started this article and would like to see it get to featured status. It's about a quite important type of object in star formation, but it's a bit short-looking at the moment. I could put in plenty more information but am worried I'll be getting over-technical so seek opinions from others on what more this article needs. Worldtraveller 17:53, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

OK - here we go! (not reviewing on content)

1. Caption on opening image is nonsensical and should be rewrote for the layman
2. Intro needs two solid paragraphs, not 3 of mixed length :) Ryan Norton ^{T | @ | C} 19:26, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
3. "Discovery and history of observations" - paragraphs too short
4. "Numbers and distribution" - too short. Also, the image caption here is better than the first, but I'd consider rewording this a bit too
5. "Proper motions and variability" - all paragraphs too short End paragraph too short
6. "Physical conditions" - almost all paragraphs too short and a one sentence paragraph
7. "Multiplicity" - too short
8. "References" - I believe the MoS says that references should be bulleted, not numbered (i could be wrong on this)
9. "External links" - better description - WHERE is link pointing to? The actual description itself isn't too bad!

Take care! Ryan Norton ^{T | @ | C} 19:26, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much! That's very helpful. I've worked on the caption and intro, expanded discovery and history section a bit and rearranged numbers and distribution a bit. Multiplicity still needs work, and I will probably actually merge it into a section on the stars that drive HH objects. I'll sort the references properly once I've added a few more. As for external links, I'm not quite sure what you're after here? Do you mean you want to see the actual web address as well as a description of it?

Thanks again - Worldtraveller 23:51, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

For the external link thing instead of just having something like

A catalogue of HH objects

You should describe WHERE the link goes to, like

• A catalogue of HH objects at the University of Colorado

or

• Casa.colorado.edu - 'A catalogue of HH objects'

or

• University of Colorado - 'A catalogue of HH objects'

Ryan Norton ^{T | @ | C} 04:31, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

With apologies for a slight delay, I've now worked on addressing the various comments. Multiplicity has now been converted into a larger section on the source stars. Does the article make sense to the layman? Is it coherent and is it at all interesting? Thanks! Worldtraveller 11:48, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I revised my things above - the intro is quite good (structure-wise) so the two vs. three paragraph thing probably isn't too bad here. Anyway, I did read this and it's fairly interesting but I have to click a whole bunch of wikilinks (nebula, interstellar medium) to find out what's going on. Maybe for the layman give a quickie in parenthases for terms like that. Otherwise, it looks good sans a short paragraph at the end there in "Proper motions and variability". Ryan Norton ^{T | @ | C} 15:17, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

One more thing - "Characteristics" may want an intro. Pretty minor though in the scheme of things and it would probably be a quick two-sentence intro. Ryan Norton ^{T | @ | C} 15:30, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not so sure I can really make that short paragraph any longer without unnecessary padding. Will have a think about that. Have altered the structure to remove the need for a characteristics intro (i think), and make the TOC look nicer as well. Altered the text to make the meaning of nebula and interstellar medium clearer, hopefully - just let me know any other terms that need explaining and I'll add that. Thanks! Worldtraveller 15:49, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Planning on elevating to featured article status, so I need some advice on what to add, delete or change. - A Link to the Past (talk) 00:14, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Needs references. Needs to approach the subject matter from a different angle, I think. The game-by-game breakdown is not the best approach for fictional-character articles; compare how Bugs Bunny looks now to how it was a year earlier, and you'll see what I mean. Also refer to Lakitu for an article that gives an overview of a character without dwelling too much on a play-by-play of all the character's game appearances. But you knew that already, Link. Why the mass peer reviews for articles that are clearly not near-FA quality? BrianSmithson 19:02, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • You know that when I started working on Lakitu, Katamari Damacy, Henry Fonda and Wario, none of them were close to FA quality? - A Link to the Past (talk) 20:58, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I didn't say that you couldn't get an article to FA quality (though you should be careful about taking too much credit for any of the pages you mentioned; they all have had many editors). But according to the peer review rules, an article is supposed to be near FA quality to be listed on this page. BrianSmithson 23:17, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Planning on elevating to featured article status, so I need some advice on what to add, delete or change. - A Link to the Past (talk) 23:56, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• This is pretty well-written, barring a few eccentricities (such as "clasps"). But there are a couple things that could use improving: the Talk: is messy, and not nearly as good as the article, and some people will look at the talk; and the desciption of the actual in-game activites seem lacking. Now that I've read it, I am curious: what bosses are there? What sorts of puzzles? Is there any more to the story? Do beloved characters appear? What do they do? Where does the game fit in the larger Zelda universe? etc. --Maru (talk) 02:14, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• (1) Needs some analysis of the critical reaction to the game, at the time and today. (2) No reference section. (No references even). The first point probably applies to many of these articles. The second may apply to many of the others as well. Christopher Parham (talk) 05:36, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• This article is a start, but it needs much work before it achieves FA status. The most important thing I see is that it includes no more information than someone might find by surfing the internet for a few minutes. This game is hugely popular and highly influential; the literature on it is out there. Someone needs to gather up some books on video game history (there are many) and add important details like what the climate was like at Nintendo at the time, where the idea came from, what influences are found in the game, how Nintendo marketed the game, what the reaction was like in both Japan and America, etc. If someone went to a research library and added information from other academic disciplines, it'd be icing on the cake (Japanese cultural studies, popular culture studies, new media, women's studies, etc.) By the way, this goes for the other video games you've listed here for peer review, as well. BrianSmithson 11:56, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Lack of any sources, speculative statements along the lines of "Some people say that...", and general lack of anything actually academically useful in this article makes this a prime candidate for something more than just an npov or cleanup. Its not the nature of the subject that makes the article prone to lack of neutrality, but the fact that basically all of the "information" given consists entirely of opinions without qualifications. Besides giving a loose definition of misandry, this article almost wholly lacks anything academically valuable at all, except perhaps insight into the opinions of the people who bothered to contribute to the article.

• Wikipedia:Peer review is not for articles that need serious work, but there are places you can direct your request. See the first paragraph on this page for some of them. BrianSmithson 23:04, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This article recently failed a FAC. I have taken care of the things people objected to in that nomination and would like to know what needs to be done in order for it to become a FA. --Maitch 15:37, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, AZ _t 00:51, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I'm going to be hard on this one because you want it to be an FA and said that it failed already. So here are some comments:

• Second paragraph feels flighty.
• Third paragrph 1st sentence, needs to be reworked. Simplify and include use a specific date rather than "to date."
• This is way too long for a FA. The recommended length is 30KB, but I think they really are around 40-50... this is 63KB. Go over the article and scrutinize the entire thing cutting it down by about 18KB! It's a pain in the butt, but will be worth the effort. What sections are necessary? Which ones can you get rid of? The article seems to try to be all things to all people. You're going to need to decide what the purpose is and focus on that and use other articles to cover what you don't get to here. I cut out about 10K from my article on military brats
• The TOC is also pretty long and intimidating. I would be surprised if 20% of the people reviewing this for FA read the whole thing---even if they are fans!
• Movie section needs to be completely reworked. Looks like it was written before the Movie was finalized.
• No offense, but the writing style is repetitive. It feels as if the sentence structure is the same throughout the article... for example, the Merchandise section:
  • Many episodes of the show have been released on DVD and VHS over the years
  • Many posters involving Simpsons characters are available for purchase
  • Many characters are available to buy in figurine form
• The Merchandise section would be a section that I would consider making into a separate article and expanding.

My biggest criticism of the article is that it is all over the place. Tighten this article up...Balloonman 09:37, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the comments. I will try and work with it. I would like to add that there are FA's at over 90 KB, but I agree that it is not as tightly written as possible and the main problem is the "Merchandise" section. Most of it on the other hand is already summarized with a lot of information moved to subarticles. The movie is not finalized and is scheduled to be released 27 July 2007. I take no offense on writing styles or anything else. This article is a product of a lot of people making minor edits. I'm trying to shape it up to a complete article. --Maitch 15:33, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed a lot of the 'merchandise' section. The editing may seem a bit bold, but it had to be done.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Atlantis Hawk (talk • contribs)

You removed the entire thing plus several other sections. It was reverted by another user and I think he made the right move. Being bold doesn't mean that you have to delete everything that isn't perfect. --Maitch 20:48, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

An interesting article on a world-wide phenomenon - over 200 years 95% of the world has changed from using local traditional measurement to using the common SI system. Even in the two countries that haven't changed - the UK and US - many industries and most universities use mostly or only SI. This article has just had a major layout change and trim, and it would be great to get some feedback on it. Thanks Seabhcán 08:14, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Lead ought to summarise the article. Otherwise a good article, clear and to the point without all that POV and FUD the anti-metrification people tend to use in their argumentation... hope it stays that way in the future too =) WegianWarrior 09:16, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for comment. Can you elaborate on what you think should be included in the summary/lead? Seabhcán 10:35, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

my basic approach when writing an article is to try to sum up each paragraph in the article as a sentence in the lead and work from there - basicly, the lead should be a 'mini version' of the article. See Wikipedia:Lead section for more hints and tips, and good luck. WegianWarrior 11:52, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I expanded it a bit. What do you think? Seabhcán 12:06, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Looks much better - I'll keep my eyes on this one and make more comments if anythign else comes to mind. =) WegianWarrior 17:27, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It looks good, but there are a few thing that could be covered in more detail. I would like to see more on how the transition to metric is carried out. How expensive is it? How long are dual non-metric/metric signs and labels generally in use? How much time after government imposed adoption does it take for the population to embrace metric in their day to day lives? It would also be good to see something on semi-metricated countries. In Canada for instance, the government greatly reduced the push towards metrication only a few years after it began and today we have a mix of systems. The weather report invariably gives the temperature in Celsius, and Fahrenheit is only ever used by the pre-metric elderly when discussing the weather. However ovens and cooking temperatures are almost always measured in Fahrenheit, and Canadians almost invariably use Fahrenheit for cooking. It would be great to have some discussion of which countries are like this, and about how this situation comes about. Also Image:Max100km.jpg is small, unverified, and kind of ugly. It should be relatively easy to replace. - SimonP 14:06, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that it would be interesting to have a section on semi-metric, but the data would be hard to find. It would also only really apply to Canada and Ireland, and possibly Australia, New Zealand (maybe Japan?) Most other countries have been metric so long that the previous system is unknown. I used to live in Russia which has been metric since 1924. No-one, not even old people, have heard of a verst. Even books from the 19th century have since been republished and now say 'kilometer'. What can we replace Image:Max100km.jpg with? Seabhcán 14:20, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Having lived in both Australian and New Zealand- there are no semi-metirc cases that I can think of, everything important (or manufactured in the last 15-20 years - like ovens, speedometers etc.) is metric.--nixie 03:11, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

There is one area of semimetrification in Australia: beer. In Japan, floor sizes are often given in tsubo & sake is sold in traditional volumes though labelled in metric. Jimp 11Oct05

I've uploaded a new image for the lead. Its of a dual measurement Speedometer. Seabhcán 14:32, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

As mentioned in the article, the UK is also "semi-metric". The situation with weather reports and ovens is essentialy the same as the current status in Canada as mentioned by SimonP. Road speed limits are one of the few examples of a still purely non-metric system that I can think of. CheekyMonkey 15:20, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. I added some stuff on this to a new section on the "Conversion process". Seabhcán 16:06, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The new material is very good. I did a quick search, and there seems to be a fair bit written in this area. To become a FA the article will need references, so it might be worthwhile to drop by your university library and see what they have on the subject. Mine has titles like How to Plan Metric Conversion, Managing Metrication in Business and Industry, Canada Goes Metric, and Vestiges of Pre-Metric Weights and Measures Persisting in Metric-System Europe, 1926-1927. - SimonP 20:17, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• You'd need references for your work. This should not be linked: Wikipedia:Measurements Debate. =Nichalp «Talk»= 14:28, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm nominating this article for peer review, because I would like to know what other Wikipedians think about my contributions. I took one of my best and most complete articles, did some last minute adjustments and now opened it for peer review. --SoothingR 14:41, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I've made a number of copy edits and expanded and reordered the article. Most significantly, the article has been moved to Those We Don't Speak Of to accurately reflect the name as used in the film.--Lordkinbote 20:56, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

A comprehensive article on the history Ireland's third City. The information is based on fairly rare publications by local historians, and it took me some time to collect. I'd love some ideas on what else might be included, are there any gaps in the story? Seabhcán 22:18, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

An interesting article, though I can't address any potential gaps as I have no background on Limerick (though I will be visiting in January and am very interested in the history!). It seems to tie in pretty well with all of the related pages. Are there any images that would enhance the article from a historical perspective?--Lordkinbote 23:51, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I think images or maps would add to the article, but I'm not sure what. I'd love a photo of the Treaty Stone - but I don't live in Limerick anymore and so can't take it myself - can someone help with that? I'd also like to have a PD map of the city, showing the original settlement, Irishtown, newtown perry, etc, perhaps with developments cronologically colour-coded. Seabhcán 07:55, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Bloody excellent! Hopefully it will incite more of us to try the same on our own regional capitals. Bal o dia ar on obair! More, please! 83.70.154.81 01:34, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Seabhcán 07:55, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Has anything of note happened in the city since the 1980s, since that's where the article currently ends?--nixie 00:34, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Short answer: no! Well, NIHE became the university of Limerick in 1992. Except for things like new roads, bridges, buildings, etc being built, thats about it, actually. I've just added a word about Limerick Institute of Technology and a general bit about development, and something on the 1996 novel Angela's Ashes. Can't think of anything else. Seabhcán 09:05, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

OK - here we go!

1. Needs a two-paragraph intro for an article this size - see WP:LEAD
2. "Celtic Tiger" - paragraphs are decent but see if you can make 3 paragraphs instead of the currrent 5
3. External links - A couple would be nice

Not too shabby. Take care! Ryan Norton ^{T | @ | C} 09:42, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

2 & 3 done. Will work on 1 later. Thanks for advice. Seabhcán 10:06, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

How is the city goverened (it isn't mentioned in the Limerick article) and if/how it has changed over time could be an intersting addition.--nixie 10:45, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The central part of the city is governed by Limerick City Council and the suburbs are governed by Limerick County Council (an unusual situation, due to resistance to redraw city boundaries) Its an interesting subject but more approapiate to the Limerick article. I don't know about how this system has changed with time, and this information will be hard to find until Dr Matthew Potter publishes his "THE CHANGING FACES OF LIMERICK CORPORATION/CITY COUNCIL 1197-2004." book sometime next year. Seabhcán 11:00, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Planning on elevating to featured article status, so I need some advice on what to add, delete or change. - A Link to the Past (talk) 01:04, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

All the bases have been covered Plot-wise, but there is very, very little on the unique battle system, and even less on the Bros. Attacks performed outside of the fights. -- gakon⁵ (talk)

This article discusses an interesting, unusual, and controversial program of the U.S. Navy, which received some sensational (and probably wildly inaccurate) media coverage recently following Hurricane Katrina. As such, I think it would make an interesting feature article; so, let's see if it's up to standard! — Johantheghost 15:08, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Great article - I'd support it --PopUpPirate 09:16, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The article needs a clear reference section added, it should include all the sources used to write the article- html links in the text should also be fully described in this section so that if the source website goes down or the page is moved- then there is still a record on Wikipedia of what the refernce was.--nixie 15:25, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the comment, nixie. I was trying to figure out the best way to do the whole reference thing... anyway, I've had a go, and the page now has a real ref section. Comments? — Johantheghost 17:35, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Looks great. The capitalisation of animal names should be consistent, since were dealing with mammals a common name should be Bluenose Dolphin and a group of species lowercase is ok (I adjusted the lists so you an see what I'm talking about), you'll notice that many of the links to names in the article now go though a redirect due to capitalisation differences. Have you come across any information on how good the animals are at their jobs, I thought I read an article earlier in the year about how the gulf dolphins weren't doing well - I'd be an interesting addition if you can find the information. --nixie 01:50, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again for the comments. I've fixed (I think) the capitalization, and I found a reference about the claimed effectiveness of their mine-clearance work — good idea, that. I couldn't find that negative story, though. (There was one dolphin that ran off, but it came back again.) Anyhow, I think the article pretty much rocks now — thanks to everyone who's been commenting and tweaking it recently — what do you think? — Johantheghost 11:49, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Your comments are most welcome, help us make this article a WP:FAC. Thank you. ≈ jossi ≈ 22:20, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Referencing is haphazard. Example: the first paragraph in "Among Muslim nations and groups after 1948" mentions statements by political leaders and sales figures, but doesn't reference them. In the next section "Egypt" the first two (long) quotes are referenced thoroughly, but then there is no link to find out more information about Fares Bela Gewad. Iran begins vaguely, but then improves. "Other contemporary appearances" needs citation, and fact-checking. Alarmingly, a criminal neo-Nazi group in Greece Hrisi Avgi, is described as the minority party (which is actually PASOC). That error, which I plan to fix after writing this, but it destroyed the credibility the history section had built up for me. Jkelly 02:51, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This important subject should be suitable for inclusion on the main page. Currently it is not: the article has no appeal beyond a highly mathematically-inclined audience, it is poorly organized, and it is factually vague. ‣ᓛᖁᑐ 18:34, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• 'Spacetime' title should have an n dash, as should all the instances in the article that are hyphenated: 'space–time', not 'space-time'.Tony 14:06, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The article was refused for FA for lack of references and lack of a criticism section illustrating the controversies surrounding N. Sarkozy. I think I've remedied both. What do you think? David.Monniaux 07:42, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It's looking good! I think some sections ramble a bit — the text could maybe be "tightened up" a little, and maybe could be split up more. And I'm not sure we need so much background on his family? I'm also a little concerned that there's too much implied criticism outside of the criticism section — eg. use of scare quotes in "he called for a "fairer" taxation system". But overall good, and a nice insight into French politics for this Brit. ;-) I've done a little copyediting (for English grammar etc.), and extracted the in-line references to the bottom "references" section. Hope that helps. — Johantheghost 12:11, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is how to present claims. If we say "he called for a fairer taxation system" this seems to endorse the POV that the current system is unfair and that Sarkozy's system would be fairer. "Fairer" conveys the point that we're using his expression.

OK, good point! — Johantheghost 15:56, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The bit about the family was prompted by the recurrent interventions of Wikipedians (Israelis, apparently) who had decided that Sarkozy was Jewish and would not stop reasserting that fact on the page. So somebody had to dig up his bio to show that, whether according to Jewish law or religious options, he is not a Jew. In addition, many people argue that Sarkozy's upbringing and family problems have contributed to his character (yes, that borders on psychoanalysis). David.Monniaux 14:53, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

OK, there's obviously some background here I wasn't aware of; seems like you're on top of it. As I said, I think it's basically looking good. — Johantheghost 15:56, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi David! I am really happy you improved the criticism section. That's much better now. Time will tell whether this is NPOV but from my feeling I guess it is. The quotation section should be suppressed or improved. I would prefer improved! I too have the feeling the biography part should be reduced a bit. I think the most important points about him are his style, his political achievements, the criticisms and his ambition to be president: the rest could be reduced a lot. I think the English is not ready yet and you should wait a while till a native speaker copyedit it carefully. Vb 09:44, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Any area still unclear? How would it fare for FAC status? David.Monniaux 10:04, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This is a difficult one. Short articles are always tricky - I have no clue whether its comprehensive, so hopefully someone can comment on that. In general though I think it needs a bit of restructuring - every section needs to have the prose tightened (I.E. less and longer paragraphs) and nearly every section is waaaayy to list heavy - use writing instead of lists. That's why I say it needs a restructure - you should structure it so that either you can turn that list of council members in "Membership" into writing or keep a tidy list at the end of the article. Ryan Norton ^{T | @ | C} 15:02, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

An important, and also quite complex issue which I am trying to bring up to FA quality. Most of the sources I used focused on the United States, and I hope the article isn't too Amerocentric. It's also not ideal that the best images we have of people voting were produced by the American military for propaganda purposes. The article also likely needs some copyediting. - SimonP 18:57, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Some controversial claims need to be cited to a source; e.g. "It has long been the consensus view among political scientists, and the general public, that high voter turnouts are desirable." (more or less repeated in the lead) Christopher Parham (talk) 00:03, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • A sentence like this will also have to detail what it means by "long" and what it means by "desirable." Christopher Parham (talk) 15:04, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I think there may be a typo in the graph on voter turnout. There are two *** footnotes at the bottom, but no **** footnote. I presume the second *** footnote should actually be a ****, but I didn't want to mess with the table myself. —thames 13:48, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• The heading for the Table—'Election turnout in lower house elections from 1960 to 1995 for selected countries'—drop the last three words as redundant; specify that the data are for federal elections for the several federal systems; three or four asterisks for the US?

Reference citations required where you say 'political scientists say ... ' etc.

Distinguish between percentage and percentage point: I think you mean the latter at the top. Tony 13:59, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Structure is a lot better then most articles I see come through here - great job! The only thing I can say is that the list in "Decreasing Turnout" should be turned into prose. Ryan Norton ^{T | @ | C} 14:54, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, drawing off the previous two peer reviews (found here and here) plus the FAC nomination (found here), along with the article itself, I have been able to deduce the following problems:

1. The article is too short for feature article
2. More in-article information may be needed on:
   • The Archies
   • Gorillaz -- especially along the lines of how they came to be
   • Crazy Frog
3. The extent of the 'animated' qualifier for a virtual band -- should it include puppetry?
4. A breakdown of the dynamics behind a virtual band is extremely necessary
5. Language issues must be attended to
6. Required images -- I've done a little along this line, but should there be more?
7. The Net-based virtual band (final paragraph of the intro before History now in a separate section) -- this seems, to me, to distract from the point of the actual article (the animated virtual band); should it be moved into a separate article?
8. Some issues concerning article content, these two being the standout ones:
   • Did the Archies 'open the door' for other virtual bands?
   • The opening statement needs to be reworked as well
9. Plus some extra sources required -- The Gorilaz's Takedown DVD is a great place to start, if anyone has it

Granted, this is more a request for contribution, but if anyone has any more problems with the article, then please say so here. --JB Adder | Talk 20:53, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Hi; response to your request on my talk page.
  • I'm not enamoured of the idea of footnotes other than for sources; if it's important put it inline or in a separate article. If it isn't get rid of it. In this case, the person's name should be inline and the place where it was said as a source, I think.
  • I reformatted the references to use templates. This is much easier to type and cope with. If you don't like the particular system I chose, there are others.
  • Please cover economic aspects; who profits; how do costs differ from normal bands? I've heard that most bands make their money in concert. How does this affect virtual bands?
  • something about the (presumably session?) musicians behind the bands?

I'm hunting for photos, but other than that, I think this article is pretty good. Does anyone have any suggestions? Tuf-Kat 19:48, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

OK. Just some general problems:

1. Too many red links!!!
2. First paragraph of intro could use some lengthening
3. "Music history" - paragraphs in lead too short
4. "Folk music" - second paragraph a little short
5. "Popular music" - second paragraph a little short
6. Maybe see about moving that image someplace....
7. Could use some external links

Hope that helps, take care! Ryan Norton ^{T | @ | C} 15:19, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Planning on elevating to featured article status, so I need some advice on what to add, delete or change. - A Link to the Past (talk) 00:13, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

A few things I noticed: The times don't make sense - 1000 AD is not quite "the Present time", is it? And "Dark Ages" usually refers to the middle ages as well, so if that is a quote from the game, it should be in ""s. That is explained later, but confusing at the beginning. The bit about Chrono perishing makes little sense, especially under the heading of the device - obviously, person and device are different things. They should be treated as such. And what are "overworld-map random battles"? Actually, the whole gameplay section is not particularly clear for anybody who is not a gamer and/or has not played this or at least similar games. How can a robot from 2300AD become dormant in 1999?

Just what I noticed from reading through the article. -- AlexR 08:58, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

My $0.02:

• I would avoid using the "of xyz game fame" phrasing and simply mention the name of the games those people worked at before.
• In general the tone of the article should be more formal. I know this may be hard to achieve, but sentences such as Chrono Trigger is about a group of adventurers who travel across time to save the planet's future. strike me as being too familiar.
• Optional events due to forking of the storyline should be described as such before they are detailed.
• "overworld map" = "world map". Avoid unnecessary wordiness.
• I agree with AlexR on how clear some sections of this article are for someone who hasn't played the game.
• List your references at the end of the article.

-- Rune Welsh ταλκ 21:12, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comments requested on this article that I was asked to write by the chap who began most of the carnivorous plants articles. I did make an effort: a poor librarian in Bristol was practically bent double under the pile of books I requested from the basement. After I couldn't find suitable public domain photos I waded into numerous ponds in search of samples, and I even sketched a couple of diagrams myself where the article seemed to warrant them. For those not intimately acquainted with literature on carnivorous plants, please take my word for it that references 1, 2, 4, and 5 are acknowledged leading authorities on this subject. Genuine advice sought on how to bring this to FA standard, if the subject is of sufficient intrinsic interest to get it there. I've an idea it needs more, but I've reached the limit of what value I can add without outside suggestions. Many thanks to anyone who offers their opinion, ~ Veledan • Talk ^{+ new} 01:01, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Great article on an interesting topic- the content is all there, but it could use some work in the organization.

1. Taxobox would probably be better with a more general pic that gives an impression of the whole plant, like Image:Uk pond bladderwort.jpg
2. The lead is too long- try and cut it back to three paragraphs that adequately summaries the topic. For example the etymology details in the lead could be moved to the description part of the article.
3. This template was suggested for plants - which is not perfect or universally applicable, but I think the description should come before the distribution details.
4. The article doens't explicitly mention how they reproduce.
5. Some people don't like numbered figures, you may want to get rid of the numbers and make sure the figure has a good descriptive caption and is described adequately in the text
6. Do the plants have any value to humans, are they edible or have they been investigated for medicinal properties? Are they an inportant food source in aquatic ecosystems?
7. There was a recent phylogenetic study, which might be of interest for expanding the species section, the ref is PLANT SYSTEMATICS AND EVOLUTION 250 (1-2): 39-67 JAN 2005; if you'd like the pdf email me. Similarly there was a recent article about digestive enzymes NEW PHYTOLOGIST 159 (3): 669-675 SEP 2003

Hope that give you some ideas.--nixie 02:12, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Wow thanks for being so specific and for giving me so many pointers! I have to admit I wasn't even aware of the existence of that template. Numbers 1-5 I can work on this morning, number 6 will see me back in the library and number 7 - I'll mail you right away :-). Again, many thanks ~ Veledan • Talk ^{+ new} 05:56, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Follow-on question: although I'm going to try to find out for sure later, I already suspect the answer to number 6 is no, no, no and no. I can see the article needs to answer the questions, but how to flesh it out and reference negative statements? So far no studies appear to have been conducted... (shudder) ~ Veledan • Talk ^{+ new} 06:04, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• If the anwser to 6 is no, no, no, just leave them out.--nixie 09:42, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

OK -

1. Many paragraphs too short
2. Intro should be 3 good size paragraphs rather than 7 medium-size ones
3. "This is a strange genus:" - POV.... "unlike some others" would be more nuetral for example
4. "Physical description" - no section intro
5. "Trapping mechanism" - no section intro
6. "Species" - too short
7. "Image (Fig.2)" - first sentence of caption should try to sum up what it is rather than explain it

I echo everything nixie said too. Good work - looong article for such an obscure thing! Kudos! Ryan Norton ^{T | @ | C} 08:34, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I now have a workplan :-)
Thanks to you both; these are the pointers I was hoping for in coming here. As promised, I spent this afternoon in the library and I'm about to start work again. I'll implement everything suggested as best I can. First, a couple of specific points I wanted to mention:

• Nixie:

1. A pity the pond pic I took isn't better but it's too late in the year for me to get another. UK bladderworts are now just rotting brown strings with turions on the end :-/

4. Glad you pointed me in this direction. It turns out that bladderwort flowering habits are as weird and inconsistent as anything else about them. I look forward to adding the details.

6. Mostly going to be left out. You wouldn't believe what detailed studies have been done on these plants (actually, you probably would, considering the two studies you sent me :-)). For example: their seeds have been tracked across oceans, presumably carried on the feet of birds. But nothing re the above categories has been mentioned. I will check CITES listings etc as a final bid before beginning the writing though.

7. Thanks for these studies. You have access to a pretty impressive information store!

• Ryan:

3. Thanks for picking that up. I'll look at my sources again and choose between neutralising it or substituting an attributed paraphrase. I've come back from today's library visit with some great quotes, including one or two from Darwin himself.

- When you say 'loong article' do you mean too long? It may get a little longer in restructuring, though condensing paragraphs where I can will counter the effect a bit.

Is it OK for me to come back and say and invite more comments when I'm done? It may take me a day or two to restructure the article because I'm away for the weekend and will only have occasional computer access.

Cheers again, ~ Veledan • Talk ^{+ new} 17:22, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Of course :) - these things typically last for two weeks to a month depending on when we respond :). Ryan Norton ^{T | @ | C} 18:32, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm delisting this for now even though I'm only half way through making the amendments to the page because I'm on a more or less unavoidable wikibreak (new job, new bosses to impress) and have very little energy left for editing. Thanks to you guys for your help, and I will finish the work when I feel capable. ~ Veledan • Talk ^{+ new} 17:12, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The native Clevelander in me would love to see his hometown become a FA. I'm sure there's something missing that is needed before I nominate it, but I think it's pretty close. Help! --PacknCanes 06:53, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

OK - here we go (not reviewing content)!

1. For an article this large you'll need at least TWO good paragraphs for a lead (WP:LEAD), maybe even three
2. minor quibble - in the infobox the official website is aligned center and the font is an odd size... maybe that's something to take up with the infobox people though.
3. "History" - I'd shoot for three nice long paragraphs here instead of the current five.... but that's fairly minor and should be way down on your list of things to do :)
4. "Geography" - Needs to be much longer. What is "Neighborhoods" doing as a subheading of "Geography"? That doesn't make any sense unless you are going to give the geography of the neighborhoods! Also, "Neighborhoods" Needs an actual text introduction of some kind, and that list should be turned into text or at the very least list-tabled so that it reduces vertical space
5. "Demographics" - First off, the image here has a nice caption and editorial, but the image description should probably go before the editorial in the caption. Also, with a bit of finagling you could probably get two nice long paragraphs here instead of the current five - but that's pretty minor on the list.
6. "Industry and Economy" - EXCELLENT! This is what ALL sections should look like! Use it as your compass!
7. "Sports" - one sentence paragraph - that needs to be fixed. Last paragraph is too short.
8. "Arts and Culture" - second and third paragraph too short - combine if possible. I'd reccomend killing all subsubsections here (I.E. subsections of "Performing Arts") since they are rather short paragraphs and you could probably merge them together for much better flow. I can't really see an argument that justifies listifying the stuff in "Other Theaters" and "Theatrical companies" - probably turn those into text. In addition, don't give BOTH an external link and a wikilink - just give the wikilink and make sure the linked wikipage has the external link. Anyway, this is probably going to take a bit of work structure wise.... I'd try to maybe change the sections here a bit - see if you can get two nice long subsections.
9. "Politics" - more issues with lists, and there should be a section intro here... there are several ways you could do this:
   1. Kill the list altogether and add another paragraph of content here
   2. Delistify the list (probably not the best option)
   3. Add a lead-in to the noted politicians thing. There is still the option of making the politics section longer... surely there has to be some other controversy worth mentioning?
10. "Transportation" - expand or kill the subsections. With a bit of trickery you should be able to combine the highways with the mass transit paragraph, thus leading to a nice two-paragraph section
11. "Education" - get rid of the subsections here and provide some context for the elementry school part OR make a section intro and expand those sebsections...
12. "Media" - lists are probably ok here, but first you'll need a section intro here, then -
    1. " Television" - try merging the last paragraph with the first here for a longer intro here
    2. ""Radio stations" - needs context/intro - a little bit about why the radio stations there are unique or something would really help also. I'd really consider using a table for FM and AM here.
    3. "Print" - try to fit another paragraph in there if you can
13. "Additional sites of interest" - I'd just move all those to see also with list headings. If not you're going to need some text there... and the title changed :).
14. "References" - Hmmm. Are you sure everything in the article is backed up by references? It doesn't seem like it to me with just one reference and all....
15. "See also" - why is there a red link here? That's a first for me...
16. "External links" Pretty good - "Maps and aerial photos" needs a description of WHERE it points to though.

WHEEEEEW! Don't get discouraged! Take Care! Ryan Norton ^{T | @ | C} 09:25, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comments and actions based on Ryan's list:

• "History" - I'm not sure why it should be three paragraphs instead of five. I think it could use more content, which would make it longer yet. At what point should it be split off into its own article?
• "Sports" - I merged the one-sentence paragraph with the short one that follows. The topic is about two amateur hockey teams in Cleveland. I feel that the subject matter is too obscure for the article but want to get the thoughts of others.
• "Arts and Culture" - Doing something about the other theater and theater companies list is a good idea. If we turn each one into a wikilink, though, doesn't that imply that the theater or company deserves its own article? While some of them do have articles some seem a bit obscure for that.
• "Transportation" - I combined the first two sentences about the RTA. I'm not sure what the benefit of making mass transit and highways a paragraph each in one section would be, though.
• "Education" - I don't see the elementary school part that Ryan refers to.
• "References" - The reference was one I added a long time ago when I was trying to cite my sources. It referred to people born in Cleveland but the pointers to the reference are long gone and the reference isn't useful anymore. I removed the section, although it should probably be brought back with good references.
• "See Also" - There are actually puzzling red links throughout the article. I don't know why they are there either.
• "External Links" - the "Maps and aerial photos" section is a standard one that was inserted into every city article. I would leave it as is.

--Beirne 15:13, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Lemme ask this: do your own two (or in my case, four) eyes count as a source? I can validate probably 95% of what's in this article from personal experience. --PacknCanes 12:44, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

First off, you guys and gals can look at Ann_Arbor,_Michigan for a good article of this type (notice that there are no lists :) - not saying thats what you need to do here but there is still a bit much here). Also, I'm not 100% sure how much needs to be referenced here, but I'd use ann arbor as a compass - always reference claims and such (the george washington quote seems like a good thing to reference, for example)

1. For history I meant it should try to make the paragraphs slightly longer by combining them, but its pretty minor though comparatively
2. As for sports I'd try to keep it to the major sports in the city
3. "Arts and Culture" - it seems as though half of them already have articles - if some of them don't need seperate articles here I'd just give an external link for them
4. "Transportation" - indeed, it isn't too bad. There still is a one-sentence paragraph there though...
5. "Education" - whoops - I saw "Cleveland Municipal School District" and thought elementry school for some reason... anyway that's what I was referring too.
6. "External links" - indeed, that's probably ok then

Ryan Norton ^{T | @ | C} 14:57, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I went through the article and started to clean up some wording and layout format. Some problems:

1. Too many lists. I suggest you move them to separate sub-articles.
2. Little or no references. If you wish to have this article featured, it must be referenced.
3. There are some areas where the wording is over the top (travel brochure language). Try to avoid this.
4. You may want to include information on the local government structure.
5. Image:Cleveskyline.jpg and Image:Jacobs field3.jpg are listed as copyrighted under fair use. However, there is no specific justification for fair use. Image:Arcade.jpg has no clear copyright tags.

Feel free to ask if you have any more questions. Pentawing 05:08, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed on the lists. I've thought about moving them elsewhere (or simply deleting them altogether), but didn't want to rock the boat too much. Regarding references, I repeat what I said earlier: yes, there are some things that do need references, but a lot of this stuff I can verify from personal experience. I don't think we should be in the business of finding references for something that the author knows is true simply to have a reference, but that's just me, I guess. Image:Arcade.jpg has no tag, but the description of that image says that it's a work of the Library of Congress and therefore considered public domain; should I just tag it and move on? The other two images look like personal photographs that (for whatever reason) were not released into the public domain, so should I just PM those users and get permission to use the photos? Thanks for the review. I'm actually in Cleveland now so I can't do a ton of editing, but when I get back home on Monday I'll really start making an effort to clean this article up. --PacknCanes 16:39, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Concerning the images, they must be explicitly tagged with appropriate justifications if necessary. The reason is that there is a lot of issues concerning copyrights (which is clearly demonstrated with P2P programs and the RIAA suing anyone whom they suspect of infringing on their copyrights). Clarifying the copyright status of images and other media would help to address those issues (another user, Carnildo, would object to any articles whose images have no appropriate tags and justifications, and he is very active in rooting out such articles in FAC). You could contact the people who uploaded the images and ask about their source and copyright status, or you could try to take a picture yourself of those same locations and upload the images under GFDL (or compatible licenses). As for references, this is to address the concern of verifiability. Though you may believe that the information you contributed is correct, the same does not apply to someone who isn't as familiar with Cleveland as you are (and given the nature of Wikipedia where anyone can edit, uncited information can easily be questioned). By noting what references you used (or listing an outside source of information), a person not familiar with Cleveland can be assured that the information in the article is not falsified. References can also help paranoid readers by giving them something to turn to if they doubt the truthfulness of the article. As I mentioned before, an article that does not have a list of references can never be featured.

Anyways, I moved the list of media to a sub-article and did some more formatting cleanups. Pentawing 21:29, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, lots of thing you'd need to do. I've not read the above replies, so if there's any duplication, my apologies.

• First, you'd need to cut the page size, 42kb is on the higher side. reduce it to <30kb for now.
• Secondly, you'd better refer to how Ann Arbor is written, its the only US city article I've ever supported.
• 60 miles. Two things you'd have to do here. 1) metric equivalents are a must. 2) Use a non breaking space (&nbsp; between a number and unit ie 60&nbsp;miles, which renders it as 60 miles. Use this for all units.
• Collect all those inline links as footnotes. See some already featured articles for this.
• the history section should not start with a panorama. Embed it later on in the text.
• Take a look at the structure of Ann Arbor. The ToC looks lopsided here.
• Government and politics is more of a list. Make into prose and see AA again.
• you'll need to cut down on those lists under =culture=
• References absent. Cant have a FA without references.

I'll review indepth later. =Nichalp «Talk»= 18:12, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

OK, did a bunch of copyediting today. It's still too long, and I'll work on getting the size down fairly soon, but I think we're on our way. Comments have helped immensely, and others are welcome. Thanks for all your help, folks. --PacknCanes 18:54, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Out of curiosity, why did you choose to axe the "Sites of Interest" section? I've always been fond of that section. - EurekaLott 19:36, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It seemed, at least to me, to be a repository of stuff that didn't really fit anywhere else. I was looking for ways to cut down on the size of the article, and a catch-all of links was just one thing that caught my eye. I don't mind putting it back in, but it's just more stuff that we'll have to cut out later. --PacknCanes 19:51, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I understand how the section could easily be considered a laundry-list of links, but some notable landmarks, like the Arcade, the West Side Market, Lakeview Cemetery, and Glenn Research Center were only listed in that section. If we're going to do away with it, then they need to be accounted for elsewhere in the article. - EurekaLott 20:13, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Fine by me. I'll edit these into the article as best I can...feel free to move them around if necessary. --PacknCanes 20:35, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Another day, another dollar, another 4 KB cut... :) Size is now down to 36 KB, and I'm not sure how much further down we can take it without sacrificing some important material. Anything else that I should look at before I take this over to become a featured article nom? Thanks folks -- PacknCanes 18:21, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The length is probably about right now, however there is one thing that is missing - a description of the climate which should be slotted into geography somewhere.--nixie 01:52, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, you're right. I knew I was forgetting something there, because that section just seemed too short but I wasn't sure what else to put there...I'll get to that tomorrow. Also need some more work on the pictures; I may just junk the picture of Jacobs Field because I can't verify its copyright status. The other pictures, I think, are good, and I found a halfway decent skyline picture on a government website...gotta love those! :) Other than that, I think it's about ready to go. Probably by the end of the week. PacknCanes 03:25, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep in mind most US States do not release the work of their employees into the public domain, you'd be best to look for free images in the Wikimedia Commons like this one Image:Cuyahoga river and downtown cleveland.jpg, or on Flickr - anything on Flickr with a creative commons licence that does not exclude commercial use is fine for Wikipedia. If you need something to base the climate details on see the section I wrote in Canberra.--nixie 04:04, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The one that I found was actually taken by an EPA employee (I'm assuming; it's on their website) so it's public domain as a US federal gov't work. I LOVE that picture you linked, though...I think I'll go edit that in right now. Thanks for finding it! PacknCanes 04:17, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wow! Its looking good guys! Keep up the great work! Ryan Norton ^{T | @ | C} 02:06, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Ryan...your list basically served as my "to-do" list, so I'm feeling a lot more confident about it now. PacknCanes 03:25, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed that the article lists Cleveland as being first listed as an All America City in 1949, which was the first year of being listed. 1) Should it be mentioned that it won this distinction 5 times? and 2) Should the sentence be changed to reflect that it was an inaugral year All America City? Thanks. bagsc 16 March 2006

I'm looking for suggestions on how to improve this article. I hope it gets to featured article status but I need to know what the major things to be worked on are. --Revolución (talk) 22:53, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

OK, from top to bottom (keep in mind I'm only commenting on FA criteria and likely opposes, not on POV copyediting etc.):

1. You're going to need a three paragraph intro for a article that huge - see WP:LEAD
2. Infobox - "International affiliation" - just keep it at "none" - make a FOOTNOTE if you must, otherwise it extends the infobox too much
3. "Issue positions, principles, and values" - turn that list into prose - there's no need for it there...
4. "Factions of the Democratic Party" - again, no need for a list here
5. "Symbols" - compress the paragraphs together for easier reading
6. "History" - personal peeve is that the first image is a little big.... maybe trim down the size if you can. Not a big deal though.
7. "1980s-2000s" - this is like three times the size of the other subsections - split it up. Also try to trim the size of this in general if you can... if not its not a big deal.
8. "Prominent figures of the Democratic Party" - these lists are huge.... maybe seperate articles are in order
9. "State affiliates" - maybe merge this with "A note on style" or something.... its pretty small
10. "See also" - needs to be organized. See Autism#See also for a good example.
11. "References" - speaking of which there's like [Ref10] etc. in 1980's history. Subheaders here are annoying here also. Consider ref/note combo. You don't have to use that though.
12. "External links" - could use more decription of what they are

Hope that helps! Ryan Norton ^{T | @ | C} 23:13, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! --Revolución (talk) 01:56, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This is good work on an inherently controversial subject. I agree with Ryan's comments, especially on using fewer bulleted lists. Might I also suggest that you move the history to a separate History of the United States Democratic Party, and replace it with a three or four paragraph summary. The current article is somewhat overwhelmed by the history section, and it means that there is too little room to discuss the party today. For instance, there is only a fairly short paragraph on the structure, organization, and funding of the party. I would also like to see more on who supports the party. What regional, socioeconomic, and racial groups are more likely to support the Democrats? The article also need some footnotes. The external link in the lead should be replaced by one, and the quotes in the Issues section should be sourced. - SimonP 15:05, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I have done many of the things Ryan recommended, but I'm still open to more comments. --Revolución (talk) 22:28, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

"Factions" are described twice, once under headings and once in a long bulleted list. The second list strikes me as more of a list of idealogical groups in the Democratic Party, rather than a list of factions. However, there are factions in this list too (African-Americans, Yellow Dog Demos). I suggest calling the second list "Idealogical Organizations in the Democratic Party" and limiting it to actual organizations, not groups or factions. Griot 15:39, 17 October 2005 (UTC)Griot[reply]

I would remove or rewrite this comment: "The most common hypothesis for why the Democrats lost was that the Republicans ran in opposition to gay rights and used state ballot initiatives against same-sex marriage to attract more so-called "values voters" to the polls." Its politically loaded, partial and listing Michael Moore's Stupid White Men as a reference is hardly giving this portion of the analysis the impartiality it needs to have. I would shore up the part about the Dems losing because they failed to distinguish themselves or deliver a concrete message- much more plausible explanations. I would say it is safer to mention this as one possible scenario, but hardly should it be considered "the most common hypothesis". Its basically saying that Democrats lost the 2004 election because most of the country is homophobic...that's borderline ad hominem.

This sentence "The Democratic Party traces its origins to the Democratic-Republican Party, founded by Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, and other influential opponents of the Federalists in 1792." is misleading as both parties (modern day Republicans and Democrats) have a claim on the original ideals espoused by Thomas Jefferson and James Madison. I would either add that the Republican party traces it's roots to that party as well or simply delete it. It is well documented and widely accepted that Jefferson was an adversary of an energetic and expansive government, and an advocate of greater power allocated to the states. Both of these ideologies are alive and well in the conservative wing of the Republican Party.--Incisive83 (talk) 16:33, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to get feedback, and suggestions to improve this article Tintin 00:29, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like a very thorough and well-researched article - as evidenced by the references, which are well used. I know little about the subject, but this is the sort of article I'd want if I needed to read up on him. The language could do with brushing up in places, which I'm happy to help with (I'm a member of Wikiproject Cricket too). I would also say that the images are quite grainy - but I don't know where the FAC voters would stand on that. But on the whole, it's an impressive piece of work.

Good luck! --HighHopes ^{(T)⋅(+)⋅(C)⋅(E)} 20:09, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the comments. Feel free to improve the language. The resolution of the images were reduced to avoid copyvios.

It was in 1984/85 that I started following cricket, which is the reason for the long sections on that season and my admiration for Shastri :-) Tintin 20:52, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I should have added - I personally think part of the problem with some of the language is that some of it is journalistic rather than encyclopedic (I've had edits reverted before for this very reason). I'll go through it tomorrow (Saturday). --HighHopes ^{(T)⋅(+)⋅(C)⋅(E)} 23:18, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• I briefly went through it and here are my preliminary findings:
  • As HighHopes says, it needs to be copyeditied into the encyclopedic tone.
  • The inline links and notes are both mixed up. Use only notes.
  • Those images should have a caption
  • Didn't Shastri have a tiff with Azhar?
  • I believe that during the India-Pak match in 1997, (It was May; celebrating the Golden Jubiliee of India's independence), RS was felicitated for something. I'm not too sure.
  • There should be no subheadings under =Facts and Figures==
  • Merge ==Epilogue== under another heading. Its too small.
  • There's very little info on his commentating career.
  • Audio?
  • All names should be introduced: Dilip Vengsarkar --> Indian batsman Dilip Vengsarkar; Shane Warne ---> Australian leg spin bowler Shane Warne
• I'll deep review after it is copyedited. =Nichalp «Talk»= 14:16, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Replies
• The inline links and notes are both mixed up. Use only notes.
• Those images should have a caption
• There should be no subheadings under =Facts and Figures==

Done

• Merge ==Epilogue== under another heading. Its too small.

Merged with Last days in cricket

• All names should be introduced: Dilip Vengsarkar --> Indian batsman Dilip Vengsarkar; Shane Warne ---> Australian leg spin bowler Shane Warne

Done as far as possible. In some cases the identity of the cricketer is obvious from the context.

• Audio?

Added in Notes. Did some looking around and there seems to be no decent way to add voice samples.

• Didn't Shastri have a tiff with Azhar?
• I believe that during the India-Pak match in 1997, (It was May; celebrating the Golden Jubiliee of India's independence), RS was felicitated for something. I'm not too sure.

Shastri was supposed to be unhappy under the captaincy of Azhar and I have seen this documented (probably in Raju Bharatan's article mentioned in the references). For the other one too I have magazines from that time. But at the moment I don't have access to my sources and it will be a few more weeks before I can investigate them. I'll add a note a in your talk page when I am able to find something.

• There's very little info on his commentating career.

Hmmmm... Any suggestions on what to add ? I can only think about a reference to Shaz and Waz :-)

• As HighHopes says, it needs to be copyeditied into the encyclopedic tone.

This one really worries me. I got the same feedback from someone else for my other long article. Can you please cite some examples. (Hopefully HighHopes will also do something about this)

Thanks, Tintin 23:26, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Some more:

• I wonder if ALoan would be willing to cpedt this article.
• Convert all hyphens (-) to dashes (–). Use &ndash;

Done

• metric equivalents are needed.

His height of 6' 3 is eqvt to 1.91m. Trying to whether his height in metres is mentioned somewhere.

• Commentary: Add the TV ntws he worked for. Shaz and Waz

Added S&W. He was an employee of WorldTel but this is a hazy area.

• ...Context is concerned: Not all people follow cricket, so its best to introduce the players' nationality and cricketing speciality.
• You can spice up the page by making colourful statistics charts. See Economy of India for some chart ideas.
• Those image captions should be modified to: Ravi Shastri on the cover of Sportstar etc. As its fair use.

Done

=Nichalp «Talk»= 07:27, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Note to Nichalp - I'll fix all these in the course of a few days. At the moment, I don't have a connection at home; I am new at where I work, so can't appear to be browsing around too much in the first few days. Sorry about this. Tintin 11:56, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Tintin, I've started the copy edit (up to Champ of Champs) but will resume it later. What I would suggest in the mean time is that you trim the article - there were quite a few references to what other players did during cricket matches, which I personally don't think belong in an article that is already 7KB over the suggested limit. I took some of these out - see the changes on the articles history - and would say that removing further sentences that go off on a tangent would greatly improve the article. About half-way through the article, it says that Shastri was now 23 years old - while the detail is commendable, it maybe a bit too much for some.

I would also comment that an awful lot is made of Shastri's record-setting - occassionally there is too much of this and it sometimes reads like a celebration of Shastri than an encyclopedia entry on him. I'm guilty of exactly the same myself - if I'm a fan of the subject I'm reading/writing about, it's so easy not to notice things that verge on POV.

Good luck! --HighHopes ^{(T)⋅(+)⋅(C)⋅(E)⋅(P)} 16:06, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Will do the trimming. Tintin 16:09, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

A nice article with some minor problems with the language - more specifically the choice of section titles like "always the bridesmaid" etc., Also, the word order appears to be heavily influenced by Indian languages (many of us including me suffer this). One noticeable issue needing remedy is the use of "Shastri" and the pronoun "he" in an almost random fashion. I would prefer that the name is used at regular intervals, preferably in the first sentence of a paragraph and the pronoun being used everywhere else. I've tried to copyedit the lead and the first section, but do not have the time to do the same for other sections. Might work on this on Monday, if needed. -- Sundar ^{\talk \contribs} 08:24, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Here are the reasons for the nomination:

• This article has been around for a while, edited quite a few times and seems to be NPOV enough but I would like to be certain of that.
• Number of speakers: that's a difficult number to ascertain, and anyone who has looked at the Esperanto page will know that they have the same problem. With Ido it's actually a bit harder because there is the added difference between the speaking population vs. the number of supporters. Esperanto being a 2nd language by nature makes the majority of them curious about foreign languages and a lot of them know Ido to a certain extent but choose not to support it, being the smaller movement.
• Curious as to whether further articles should be made for the red links on the template, or just removed. Music is almost nonexistent, but an article could be made about literature if need be.
• If there is are sections needed in the article I would like to know. It looks complete to me but it would always be possible to add on more content. Is there enough/too much on the history, on the language itself? Should there be anything on Louis Couturat for example and how he died in 1914, or is that a bit off-topic?
• The positive reason of course for an eventual nomination is that Ido is the 2nd-largest constructed language Wikipedia with almost 100 years of history and yet few people know much about it.
• Lastly, are four images enough for a featured article or should there be a few more?

Mithridates 16:57, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there!

• For one thing, the lead is waaay too short - see WP:LEAD
• Where are the references? I may have missed them but there doesn't appear to be many there....

Ryan Norton ^{T | @ | C} 22:57, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

That's a good point. I lengthened the lead into two full-sized paragraghs and I'll see what I can find for references when I wake up fully (morning here in Korea). Is there a way to get the Ido symbol into the language template, say at the top? I would like to have both of them in full view right from the start. Mithridates 01:47, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Oh wait, I just put the symbol on the left and it seems to look pretty good. Mithridates 01:54, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Update: Some helpful person has fixed the template so that the symbol appears inside on the top. Nice. Mithridates 08:01, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Aye, I did that, but now Ido has it's own template which should be a module of the {{language}} template. If anyone is reading this that is an active part of that template editing, can you fix this? I'm really not sure how modules work. Phil.andy.graves 16:50, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Great size lead!!! Now for the references :) Ryan Norton ^{T | @ | C} 08:14, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I know a few people in the community that are better at providing references so I'm going to leave it to them - work to do later if the article is to be nominated. How many is a good number?

One other thing I'm still having a problem with and what no amount of references will help with is the number of speakers. There are a number of methods to show the relative population to Esperanto, but they don't know how many speakers exist either so the best guess for Ido is just 'over a thousand supporters plus all the Esperantists who decided to learn it out of curiosity'. Mithridates 02:40, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Italic 174.247.235.235 (talk) 05:43, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, wikipedians. I'd like to ask for peer review of this article on the controversial early ISP service MindVox. I was a big contributor, and someone came along and did some really terrific work on expanding and detailing it. A huge amount of misinformation exists about the service (a lot of it repeated in major publications) and it would be a great coup if wikipedia could be the definitive source for information. The article has a huge and extensive number of citations for its sources (47 at last count.) Please help! Sdedeo 00:07, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The article should say clearly in the first sentence what MindVox is. I was confused until I looked back at your above peerreview request. Seabhcán 11:40, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Woah, weird, I totally didn't even see that. Thanks, will fix! Sdedeo 13:06, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

A quick cursory glance, will have more later -

1. the text in the external links section should be sameplace else and instead the links should be described one by one.
2. Embedded links are bad for FA - use ref/note or something :)
3. Paragraphs too short and there are one-sentence paragraphs
4. Intro should probably be just slightly longer, like a sentence or two

Looks good! Take care! Ryan Norton ^{T | @ | C} 23:08, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers, Ryan! These are very helpful pointers. Sdedeo 10:57, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It has been over fourteen months since we made the request above. Ryan' and Seabhcan's comments were very helpful, but it would be helpful to receive more feedback on this article since it is sort of the "baby" of a few of us. Many thanks! Sdedeo (tips) 01:23, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Um it's kinda vital that you use <ref></ref> tags instead of plain external links. It'll take a little while but it's vital in order to take the article to the next level. Seegoon 17:14, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK. Yeah, I've noticed that more and more articles have them now. Sdedeo (tips) 17:56, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder if this is clear for non-French-speaking people.

OK - here we go!

1. You need two paragraphs for an intro, see WP:LEAD
2. Grammer needs work
3. One-sentence paragraphs
4. Paragraphs too short
5. "Madame, Mademoiselle, Monsieur" - could use a better title, plus you may not need the list there
6. "Origins" - would be better to explain rather than the list here
7. External link or two - probably hard to find so certainly not neccesary

Thanks, take care! Ryan Norton ^{T | @ | C} 09:50, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

More references; give us some idea of how usage has evolved; how does French usage of names/titles reflect French cultural/social/political values? How is it distinctive in relation to selected other languages? Is there regional variation, within France and in non-metropolitan speech communities, such as Quebec, Belgium, Switzerland? Has the Academie Francais had a role? More images? Tony 13:22, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Previous peer review. Well, the article has been expanded drastically and many parts have been rewritten. I believe the concerns from the previous peer review about the criticisms section have been addressed, and I even added in the velvet sweatshop mention for good measure (even though its not in the common criticisms article!). I'm sending it FAC after this - so if you have a comment do not hesitate to chime in! Its time for Microsoft to become a featured article! Ryan Norton ^{T | @ | C} 22:29, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This is a good article, and its neutrality defies the "encyclopedia that Slashdot built" moniker. There is still some room for improvement. The article is somewhat too focused on Microsoft products, and does not have enough on Microsoft as a business. In what countries does it operate? There is a photo of a German campus, but no indication of where its 57,000 employees are based. There also is nothing about the recent dividend payment, which was extremely notable in the business community. Other than a bit about its IPO, Microsoft's stock price is not mentioned. What is its corporate structure?

Formatting wise the article is quite good. Trivia sections are generally to be avoided, and it would be best if the facts listed there were merged elsewhere in the article. It would also be good if the history sections could have more descriptive section titles. The article could also use better images. Image:On Microsoft Campus.jpg, for one, seems to mainly be a photo of a park bench. - SimonP 17:16, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Needs improvement. Here are some examples of why the text needs to be sifted through thoroughly and thoughtfully:

• 'Microsoft has gone through several stages throughout their history. During 1975 they were just an idea' ... This might be closer to the mark: 'Microsoft has evolved through several stages since its establishment in ... (why singular and plural mixed?).
• Opening sentence: cite worldwide annual sales of .... as well, when saying it's the largest software company.
• 'headquartered' is clumsy, and 'widely-used' is incorrect.
• 'ubiquitous' internal codes?
• Uneven level of detail in the lead, which should be a smooth overview that prepares us for the greater level of detail below.
• 'people have criticized', 'some describe'—be more specific, or say 'it has been widely described'
• link all full dates for the autoformat function, but please consider delinking low-value years and decades (only some are linked now anyway). See Wikipedia:Make_only_links_relevant_to_the_context.

It will get there, but needs LOTS of work still. Tony 13:49, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Object subject matter is still too evil to be made an FA. Borisblue 01:32, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

On a serious note, i'm surprised you didn't send it for vote the last time. I disagree with Tony, I think it definitely will pass if voted on now.

• All I can say is that the FAC process is rigorous. The article needs a separate run-through in detail before submission. Tony 05:37, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comments guys! I've already talked to Simon. Tony - a couple people I know have went over this and submitted fixes since then, and they also seem to disagree with the "LOTS of work still" comment, although I do admit your help is quite good on this (and I might agree with you about the lead too). I still need to add some of Simon's stuff from above, so I'll let everyone know when I'm done with that (and some other things like the lead etc.):). Thanks for the encouragement Borisblue! Ryan Norton ^{T | @ | C} 05:45, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

OK GUYS - I added a bunch of stuff - including stock info, corporate structure info, user culture info, and a section heading to corporate affairs. I also reworked the business culture part, moved out some stuff from the trivia section and merged it with the article, and took care of a few of tony's suggestions. I'm still unsure about the intro though - most people I've talked to say it's fine, but Tony seems to disagree. Perhaps you could highlight which parts are covered too much and too little? Anyway, so how does the article look overall guys? I think its VERY close to FA status :). Ryan Norton ^{T | @ | C} 21:44, 9 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, can't look until end of week. Tony 01:42, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hey - don't worry about it - this thing has nearly twenty days left on it :) Ryan Norton ^{T | @ | C} 02:04, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Just to let everyone know that I rewrote the intro quite a bit, somewhat to address Tony's concerns but also for my own flow pickiness. Ryan Norton ^{T | @ | C} 06:07, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

OK - originally I was going to wait until this thing ended but I had time to do a word-by-word copyedit, and at this point there's literally nothing else I can think of. So thanks to everyone for their comments :). Ryan Norton ^{T | @ | C} 12:53, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I want to get some more eyes on this page to help it along toward FAC, right now I've been the only significant editor. Any ideas, thoughts, or criticisms would be welcomed. Christopher Parham (talk) 00:20, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

OK - here we go(not reviewing content)!

• First off, this needs a be layed out differently in general. I.E. I see 3 short sections, 1 medium-sized one, and two long ones. You should try to keep them either close to the same size, or at least get rid of the short ones.

1. Second paragraph in the intro needs about one more sentence
2. "Publication" first paragraph too short, second one is on the short side too
3. "The question" too short
4. "Publius's argument" The subsection there is kind of interesting.... I'd try to add another subsection in there or just axe the current one. In addition, esp. if you do the latter, you could help yourself by combining some paragraphs here, but its not too bad at all.
5. "Counterarguments of the time" - probably just "Counterarguments" would be fine here. Also, the reading here is kind of stop and go... but the two longish blockquotes here is going to make this difficult. It's ok as is, but I'd consider playing around with the text here to see if you can squeeze a bit more text from the middle of the section before and after the blockquotes where the short text is.
6. "Analysis" - again, blockquote makes this tricky, but try getting some more text in before the blockquote if you can
7. "Application" - this one looks pretty good!
8. "Notes" NOOO! With the well layed-out references I wasn't expecting this. Always have a description for the links, ESPECIALLY if you're going to cite them!
9. "External links" - usual complaint about not describing where the link goes to (in this case the University of Chicago if I gather correctly).

Ryan Norton ^{T | @ | C} 04:19, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I recently got this article up to GA-status and now am planning on improving it to FA-status. Any comments on how to go about this would be appreciated. NF24^{(radio me!}_{Editor review)} 20:19, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style. If you would find such a review helpful, please click here. Thanks, APR _t 12:55, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I created this article today and I would like others to check it over for NPOV. From my research, I feel pretty confident that the company does not meet their claims. Since I have gotten close to the subject, I want other editors to check that the article remains balanced. Thanks, Johntex\^talk 23:06, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• The three bulleted points in the "Baby Gender Mentor test" section shouldn't be just cut-and-pasted from Acu-gen's materials; rewrite their claims in other, more encyclopedic words that doesn't sound like advertising. No need for bullets. Similarly, the quotes and testimonials make it read like a news article, not an encyclopedia article. Summarize the positions; I'd use quotes only if the exact phrasing the speaker used is important or unique. Don't use contractions, like I've been using here.. heh. More details about how the test works, not from the company's advertising materials, might be good if available. CDC (talk) 05:34, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

OK, here we go!

1. "Acu-gen Biolab, Inc is a small biotech company" - "small" in this context is POV... be specific!
2. Grammer needs a bit of work
3. " The company gives no evidence of proof for its claims" - Very POV
4. "Baby Gender Mentor test" - Full of PR-speak - should not have a list and should be explained in neutral language. Needs to be much longer
5. "Criticism of the test and Acu-gen" - paragraphs too short
6. " some parents may" - may-->might
7. Explain "vanishing twin"
8. "Until Acu-Gen releases its data, there's no way to know the test's reliability, said Sandra Carson, a professor of obstetrics and gynecology at Baylor College of Medicine who specializes in sex selection. "Until that's out, I think it shouldn't be on the market," she said. Washington Post

   Paragraph is written like a news article - should be paraphrased in a NPOV. Inline link should be ref/noted or similar

9. Other sources have testimonials from women who have received successful predictions from the test. "I would recommend the Baby Gender Mentor test to my friends and family," says one customer of The Pregnancy Store.

   No need for the quote, and the link should be ref/noted or similar

Take care! Ryan Norton ^{T | @ | C} 09:59, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Thank you both for your great advice! I will try to implement these changes. BTW, how do I do "ref/noted" links - is there a how-to page on making those type of notes? Thanks again, Johntex\^talk 14:00, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Check out Wikipedia:Footnote3. CDC (talk) 17:35, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

A good company article should talk about things like corporate structure, funding sources, marketing, market share, manufacturing, corporate policies, corporate vision and corporate strategy as well as include the Infobox_Company template. This article doesn't talk about any of those things and I have a feeling that's not really the direction you want to take the article. So rather than call the article Acu-gen move it to something like Baby Gender Mentor (the product's trademark) and just talk about the product. Also be careful in your writing, Acu-Gen always writes its name with a capital "G" and for that reason so should you. Leaving a redirect from Acu-gen to this new page is fine though. Cedars 09:27, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Planning on elevating to featured article status, so I need some advice on what to add, delete or change. - A Link to the Past (talk) 00:13, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Overall it looks fine, at least with regard to its subject matter. In a number of places, however, it relies a little too much on familiarity with the games. For example, just who are Rick, Kine and Coo? Also are there any references you can add? Thanks. — RJH 19:07, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I did a lot of work getting this article filled out. It could still use some more citations, but I would say it's making it's way to featured article status and would like input. --Chinasaur 22:02, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I think you need a list of references. The way I see it, the notes section is used to highlight and/or clarify a specific point, which you have done, whereas a references section just lists all your sources clearly and concisely. Otherwise looking good so far.--Xiphon 08:23, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I'll see what I can do. May not be able to fill things in until the weekend. Thanks! --Chinasaur

I think you have a good article there! However, I think it needs a lead section. The section that's there is too big and technical, and contains material that's not expanded later on; the lead is supposed to be a summary of information that's explained in more detail in the article proper WP:LEAD. Maybe that section could be split up, too.

Looks to me like the Notes section is actually a list of References - I'm thinking you could rename that section. There's a bug in the formatting of the notes list, which I think is actually in the gutenberg template...? But overall, this article shows the work that's gone into it -- well done! --Johantheghost 15:53, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I've collected the information to make this quite a nice article, particularly a lot of good stuff collected from doi:10.1139/Z02-031. Once I find time to put this in and clean things up I think I will put in a featured article request. --Chinasaur 12:30, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I stumbled upon this completely by accident, and was surprised how good it is. This might even be close to a FA, but I'm running it through here first. Anything wrong with it? -- grm_wnr Esc 21:55, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

WHOA. Nice. Still has some issues though:

1. Probably needs a two paragraph intro - first paragraph is almost too big.
2. "Terminology" - last paragraph has only one sentence
3. "Mix tapes vs. compilations" - decent. Try compressing the paragraphs a bit more.
4. "Legal issues" - may need expansion
5. "Aesthetics" - one sentence paragraph and another paragraph that's too short
6. "Types of mix tapes" - I wouldn't use a list here and instead another paragraph
7. "Media references to mix tapes" - the lists look good but I think they need to be restructured. How is the hard question. I'd think about this for a while :)
8. "Mix tapes in global culture" - paragraphs are too short. Too short in general.
9. "External links" - need better descriptions on these

Take care! Ryan Norton ^{T | @ | C} 22:14, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I like this article and will probably attempt some edits on it myself when I next get the chance. Some issues I would like to see addressed -

• In the lede, maybe I don't know my history of pop music all that well, but I wasn't aware there was a "pre-" and "post-Beatles" era when it comes to album arrangements.. could this be clarified with more context, or should it be removed as irrelevent? Also, how typically are mix tapes pop music? The article (and my experience) suggests that they are not limited to that style.
• Does someone have a stack of old mix tapes they could get us a picture of? (I have some mix cds I can take a shot or two of if nothing else, but tapes look more interesting.) The picture of the blank cd is not all that good quality and fails to fully illustrate the subject.
• The last sentence in the "History" section is fragmented and redundant, and can be removed.
• The start to Snoop Dogg's career does not seem directly relevant to this article to me. The continued contemporary use of underground mixtapes by DJs such as DJ Kayslay et al, as mentioned on the Talk page, would be worth further mention, however.
• As mentioned above, "types of mix tapes" shouldn't be in a list format, as it is admittedly not trying to be all-encompassing.
• One suggested link to the Legal issues section: Home taping is killing music! This section seems like it could be expanded, or further linked to issues surrounding music piracy, downloading, etc.
• In the references: Mix Tape was supposed to come out in December 2004, has it? Can anyone get a hold of a copy to see if it contains additional material worth adding to the article?

There are also some wording and writing style changes that I'll take a closer look at when I'm editing the article, rather than nit-picking them here. MC MasterChef 09:30, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Not once do the words "hip hop" appear in the article; it doesn't even mention the wudepread distribution of mixtapes within the hip-hop scene, or mixtape DJs suc has DJ Clue, DJ Kayslay, etc. --FuriousFreddy 06:01, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Is it clear? What is missing? David.Monniaux 08:39, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Clear? It's a beautiful piece of legal writing and will make a fine feature article. I don't really see anything to change. This is the sort of thing that motivates me to work more on my own legal articles . . . here and else-where. Good job.--Mike 00:52, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed there were many bulleted lists. Do you think it's a problem? David.Monniaux 08:33, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• No. These lists do not bother me. Again, I think it's very nicely done. My only concern is that the topic is broad enough in appeal to merit being a feature article. Will non-lawyers want to read about this?--Mike 06:42, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This is a long and detailed article about a subject in theosophy, and mainly the hard work of a single editor. It may benefit from an in-depth review. ‣ᓛᖁᑐ 02:40, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The article lacks references, and in many instances reads as an essay and WP:NOR. As it stands, the article deserves a Cleanup tag. ≈ jossi ≈ 23:23, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I second Jossi's concerns. Let me give an example. There's a discussion of Leary's model in the article which definitely sounds like original research. Has anyone else, ever, made that comparison? If so, did they come to the conclusions presented in the article? If so, cite them. Otherwise, it's not verifiable. Best of luck. Jkelly 04:30, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I agree about the original research. The concept of different levels of spiritual attainment/existence is a valid topic: it's a recurring theme in various religious contexts. But there are a number of pages that tackle this already - for instance, Subtle body, Septenary (Theosophy) and Plane (cosmology) - from an objective and comparative basis. Spiritual density, however, seems to be expounding a largely unsupported personal take on the subject. Tearlach 13:37, 9 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I've wrestled with and expanded this page to a point where I think it covers most of the topic in a sensible way. I'd like to see it as an FA someday. Bunchofgrapes (talk) 03:36, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations, I like this article a lot. I hope you don't mind if I make a few comments, and, if I can, help out.

1. The end of the lead section has a sentence on the etymology of cheese that looks a bit suspect. It looks like an oversimplified statement of the development of Indo-European languages. Just for starters, West Germanic is a language group, and one can only really point to a reconstructed proto-West-Germanic word (which would traditionally be marked with an asterisk, *kasjus). I'll do a little more research and find a better wording.
2. The history section is good, but I'm sure it could be longer. I think something like this just needs a lot of research.
3. The section on cultural attitudes is very important. Kudos for having it!
4. I would really like to see a types of cheese section before the nutrition section. Although some types are mentioned elsewhere, it would be good to get the big picture on the cheese world.

I hope this is helpful. --Gareth Hughes 11:17, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It certainly is, and thanks. I hadn't looked into the etymology at all, I admit... I very much like your idea to have a types of cheese section. I'll get that done in the next day or two and see if I can find more information for the history section as well. (And of course I joyfully welcome any and all help you might give to the page.) Bunchofgrapes (talk) 15:14, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I started a "Types of cheese" section... Still needs completion. Thanks for the great etymology paragraph! I took the liberty of moving it into a subsection under History, which seemed appropriate given the nature of the material. Bunchofgrapes (talk) 23:04, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Cheese#Types of cheese mostly done now, although I think perhaps I should add Processed cheese too. Bunchofgrapes (talk) 03:44, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• What's a "bunchofgrapes" doing editing an article on Cheese? Sounds funny. Anyway, looks good, but I'd like to see a longer history section as well. Also, the quotes, if they're not there already should really be moved to Wikiquote with the Wikiquote link in the external links section. The image you have in that section at the moment, would fit fine at the start of the Cheese making section. Perhaps you can add a section about major cheese related stuff in pop culture? A few more references wouldn't hurt either. I hope my comments are of some help to you. Good luck with the article and feel free to contact me when it's up as a FAC. - Mgm|^(talk) 18:23, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, grapes... wine... cheese... it all fits. I have always despised the quotes section, but wasn't sure what to do about it. (Also, right now, it's a mixture of quotes and pop-cultural expressions and usages, really.) Are you suggesting eliminating all the "quotes" (moving them to Wikiquote if not there already) and expanding the pop-culture-y stuff? Bunchofgrapes (talk) 20:27, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• You could keep "Cheesy", "The Big Cheese" and "Say Cheese" amongst others and create a section about cheese in the English language, but real hard quotes should be moved to Wikiquote. Is canned cheese mentioned somewhere? Pop culture would mention important roles for cheese in film, television, literature and art. I'm not sure which of the current things in the quotes section falls under that, but anything pop cultury can indeed be used to expand a bit. - Mgm|^(talk) 22:05, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • What on earth (I ask fearfully) is canned cheese? Bunchofgrapes (talk) 03:44, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Either cheese in cans similar to how corned beef is packaged or some cream cheese in a spray can. - Mgm|^(talk) 07:45, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

---

I think I've incorporated every bit of advice given so far, except for fishing for film, television, literature and art cheese roles. (Which except for the Monty Python Cheese sketch, I'm a little at a loss for.) There is now a separate "Cheese in language" section, with the etymological info and paragraphs on slang usage. (Go cheeseheads!) The History section has a bit more to it and is subsectioned out now; I've added more to the Cultural attitudes section as well. (And of course I added "Types of cheese", which now includes Processed Cheese and Easy Cheese, a canned "aerosol" cheese.) The list of quotes is gone, and between Wayward and myself there's been a lot of copyediting since the article went up for peer review.

I'd really appreciate any reviews of the new material, or any further critiques at all. Bunchofgrapes (talk) 05:02, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• I think this is an excellent article. Well done! Cedars 09:59, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I have put this up for a peer review because I think it is a good start for FA status. I would love any feedback you have to make this article better. Spawn Man 04:05, 21 September 2005 (UTC) Take your time...[reply]

• It looks a decent start, but I actually thing this page could be merged with the First Battle of the Marne, as a preliminary to the main battle. Nearly half of the Great Retreat page appears to be concerned with the actual Marne battle itself. (The Marne Battle page is in need of serious expansion, due to its importance.) If not merged, then the marne part of the page should be covered by the First Battle of the Marne, and the actual retreat portion expanded. I think "1st army" should be "1st Army"; "River Marne" should be linked to Marne River rather than Marne. Since there were Belgian, British, French, and German forces involved along this part of the flank, it is important to distinguish to which army you are referring. For example, II Corps should be British II Corps. Finally this page needs linking in to Western Front (World War I). It is also in need of references and ref. tags. Thanks. :) — RJH 18:42, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Bob. The Great Retreat is probably going to stay put, mainly because it is a campaign page, rather than a battle page, (Maubeuge, the Marne, Le Cateau etc, are all part of the Retreat to the Marne Campaign. The Retreat to the Marne campaign link led to the Great Retreat article title. I will definitely take your advice on the other stuff though. Thanks for the feedback. Spawn Man 03:26, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Peer review/Sesame Street/archive2

Wikipedia:Peer review/Sesame Street/archive3

What's the article need now? I think I've addressed the concerns from the previous PRs. -- Zanimum 17:50, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program. They may or may not be accurate for the article in question (due to possible errors/uniqueness of articles). If the following suggestions are completely incorrect about the article, please drop a note on my talk page.

Per WP:CONTEXT and WP:MOSDATE, months and days of the week generally should not be linked (Don't link September or Tuesday unless there is really good reason to). Years, decades, and centuries can be linked if they provide context for the article.

See below. -- Zanimum 18:55, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:WIAFA, Images should have concise captions.

While I agree, concise captions don't allow me to prove enough supporting information to claim fair use. Ideas? -- Zanimum 18:55, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:MOSNUM, there should be a no-break space -   between a number and the unit of measurement. For example, instead of 18mm, use 18 mm, which when you are editing the page, should look like: 18&nbsp;mm.

I don't see any measurements. -- Zanimum 18:54, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:MOS#Headings, headings generally do not start with the word "The". For example, ==The Biography== would be changed to ==Biography==.

Would look to odd with just "Humans" as a category. -- Zanimum 18:54, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Generally, trivia sections are looked down upon; please either remove the trivia section or incorporate any important facts into the rest of the article.

Done, painfully. -- Zanimum 18:52, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:WIAFA, this article's table of contents (ToC) maybe too long- consider shrinking it down by merging short sections or using a proper system of daughter pages as per WP:SS.

This is already a summarised version. -- Zanimum 18:52, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There are a few occurrences of weasel words in this article- please observe WP:AWT. Certain phrases should specify exactly who supports, considers, believes, etc., such a view.

Fixed any that weren't cited. -- Zanimum 18:52, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This article can use copyediting to ensure that the it exemplifies some of Wikipedia's best work.

You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions (and the javascript checklist; see the last paragraph in the lead) for further ideas.

Thanks, Andy _t 22:26, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As said above, this article needs attention to dates. This can be done quickly, simply copy the entire contents of User:Bobblewik/monobook.js to your own monobook. Then follow the instructions in your monobook to clear the cache (i.e. press Ctrl-Shift-R in Firefox, or Ctrl-F5 in IE) before it will work. This will give you a 'Dates' tab. Hope that helps. bobblewik 17:54, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What exactly about dates? I'm not at a computer right now where I can modify my Monobook. The date links all seem fine. I don't link to any months or days of the week. -- Zanimum 19:21, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There are unnecessary links to solitary years. If you update your monobook as described and press the 'Dates' tab, you will see the proposed edit. Feel free to try it and accept or reject the edit. bobblewik 18:01, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've been working on this article on a fairly obscure period of history for several months, and I'd appreciate any advice on what else I could do to improve it before nominating it for FA status. Kirill Lokshin 18:00, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

A map would be nice Fornadan (t) 22:58, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I've added a map from an old historical atlas that I think illustrates the major locations fairly well. It's not particularly elegant, but it's the only one I could find that is even close to the period in question. Is this what you had in mind? Kirill Lokshin 00:26, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to see this list reach featured list status. If you do review this, please remember that these criteria, not the regular featured article criteria, apply. Thanks, Taco Deposit | Talk-o to Taco 23:27, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Overall the list looks pretty good. My main concern is determining how complete the list is? Do you have any sources you can cite to help indicate that the list includes all eponymous adjectives included in some well known reference such as the OED or Merriam-Webster dictionary? Without some type of references section it will be very difficult to satisfy section 2 of the criteria. --Allen3 ^talk 23:49, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, I don't know how that would work. I can certainly look some of these words up in the OED and then cite it in a references section. But I don't know how I would be able to confirm that tht list contains all eponymous adjectives in the OED. The OED is pretty big. Taco Deposit | Talk-o to Taco 12:32, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• I don't know how far this can be featured. Are you certain that all eponymous adjectives in the English dictionary are listed here? If not, it cannot be a featured list. =Nichalp «Talk»= 04:57, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

User:Zzzzzzus and other editors worked a lot around this article. We believe is colorful, original and will provide a window into a different culture that many never know existed. It is also a part of Argentine folk and one us "porteños" are very proud of. We'd be delighted to hear constructive criticism, especially since none of the contributors has English as our native tongue.

--Sebastian Kessel ^Talk 17:32, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

To start with, there are colectivos all around Argentina, not just in BA. Ejrrjs | What? 20:57, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

True, although they don't share the same folk characteristics. Feel free to edit to accomodate this statements. --Sebastian Kessel ^Talk 21:00, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thats not true. El Colectivo is just like the futbol (or almost everything in Argentina), something Metropolitano, unitarist. To think in other way is erroneous (and ridiculous). The real federalism of Argentina (a coincidence) started with Menem in 1990 (when the blurring of the colectivo tradition). Again the example of La Fiesta De Todos, Argentina played in Rosario, but all the histories are in the buildings of Buenos Aires... not "all around". That populism of the Proceso dictated this time that Argentina is: Buenos Aires, Futbol, Malvinas, Peron, etc... Yo can go to discuss that to Videla and the Military Forces of those years... But its not recommendable.--Zzzzzzus 15:21, 4 October 2005 (UTC)zzzzzzus[reply]

I have a hard time believing that "futbol" is "unitarist"... You keep on citing a single movie but you forget that almost every Argentine city has colectivos and soccer teams.

To prove my point, I invite you to look at the stats in the Argentina national football team. How many players were born in Buenos Aires? You'll see that only a small percentage...

--Sebastian Kessel ^Talk 15:52, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Santiago regresa al paradero, el colectivo que toma es un Chevrolet y tiene la radio encendida, in Mario Vargas Llosa, Conversación en La Catedral (1969), ISBN 8420484164

This is Lima circa 1955. Further descriptions indicate that it is the same kind of public transportation than the original colectivo porteño. Perhaps some Peruvian wikipedian could help on this one. Ejrrjs | What? 21:14, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Chevrolet its only one kind of van-buses, before the arrival of Mercedes Benz. --Zzzzzzus 13:39, 4 October 2005 (UTC)zzzzzzus[reply]

previous PR

I think this article is getting pretty close to featured article status, and I'd like to encourage a new look at it. I spent a fair amount of time this summer piecing together a coherent narrative of the election from the timeline articles and so on. Other contributors built a state-by-state results table that's a fantastic example of how to present complicated data in a way that tells a story of its own. -- RobLa 00:42, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

A lot of great things about this article. However, there could be more sources for some statements -- e.g., "Edwards' late stage momentum, as well as his departure from the negative campaigning which characterized other leading candidates, carried him into a surprising second place finish in Iowa..." Who suggested that (I do remember it was the CW at the time, of course.) The "implicit" Carter endorsement of Dean was very controversial, indeed, I think the Dean people said Carter had endorsed, but then Carter later said he wasn't going to endorse anyone (a bit of embarassment for the Dean campaign.) Also missing the "Dean scream" moment post-Iowa. What else, hmmm, there seems to be little mention of the televised debates, could possibly be expanded. Great table! Despite my criticisms, this is a terrific article. Sdedeo 01:13, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the speedy feedback. Comments:

• Re: Edwards. This section was copied from the John Edwards article, and is probably the spot in the article which needs a little tighter integration, but I haven't figured out exactly how I'd want to change it. Regarding the lack of negative campaigning, I found an NY Times article which should be a good source: [9]. I'll work it into the bibliography. Please look out for others you think need a citation.
• Re: I don't remember that level of controversy around the Carter quasi-endorsement, and I was paying pretty close attention back then. The campaign itself didn't spin it that way: [10]
• Re: "the scream". I debated whether or not to include this. I fought pretty hard to make sure it was included in the Howard Dean article, which bordered on breaking out into an edit war. But, of course, that was when Dean was still nominally a contender, so it hopefully won't be as controversial now. In this article, I don't think it deserves more than a sentence or two, if that, and it's hard to explain in less than that. I'll give it a shot, though.

Again, thanks for the feedback -- RobLa 01:46, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Re: Carter. I just remember overhearing an NPR interview with Trippi talking about that being a bit of a screwup, but I think you're right, it's definitely not a major thing. A great thing about the article is that it stays focused on just providing a timeline and large-scale overview.
• Good luck sourcing! I'll take a look later to see if I can find anything else. I don't think events need to be sourced, but opinions often do.
• Dean scream. To me it seems like a big deal; to put it another way, at the time, it seemed to many outside observers to seal his fate; at least it definitely gave legs to a lot of things that were only under the surface before. I remember "dialing for Dean" for a few later primaries, and that came up a lot. Perhaps you could find a newspaper article from just after that talks about it?

Best of luck. Sdedeo 08:17, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• I definitely recomment including the Dean Scream. Fairly or unfairly, it eliminated him as a viable choice for many voters. Johntex\^talk 23:18, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I included it, and addressed all of the other specific feedback. There's probably still some citation work that needs to be done, but I'm not planning on doing that right away. -- RobLa 07:43, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• OK - here we go!

1. First sentence is a one sentence paragraph! That's a no-no :).
2. For an article of this length you need a good two solid paragraphs. Right now you've got two ultra-short paragraphs and a medium-sized one
3. "Candidates enter the race" - needs a better title. Too many paragraphs that are too short
4. "Nomination race overshadowed by Iraq War" - POV title. Paragraphs here are OK size but could be better
5. In general you need longer and less paragraphs
6. "Candidates" - too list-heavy, needs an intro and context
7. "Vice Presidential candidates" - maybe this should be a subsection. too list-heavy and could use a better intro or something
8. "State-by-state results" - One sentence paragraph. Also, that table is fantastic, but it's also HUGE - anything you can do to trim the size without losing info is good
9. "External links" - "Footnotes" should be a seperate section. Also, you should probably use lists instead of subsections there

Hope that helps, take care! Ryan Norton ^{T | @ | C} 09:39, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the feedback, Ryan. Comments:

• Re: introduction. I beefed this up and reworded a bit, hopefully addressing the issue.
• Re: Paragraph length in general. This article says a little bit about a lot of topics, because that's the nature of this particular subject. That's naturally going to lead to smaller paragraphs. We could say more about those subjects, but then we'd have to cut subjects, which I don't want to do. For example, the Dean Scream should be the first thing to go if we need to edit out whole paragraphs.
• Re: "Candidates enter the race" title - will change to "The race begins" or something like that
• Re: "Nomination race overshadowed by Iraq War" title - can change to "Iraq War", I suppose. I don't really think that there's a NPOV problem with the current title, though. It does state a point of view, but it's quite neutral and innocuous, I would think. I'm not going to put up a big fight for it, though.
• Re: candidates list. will provide intro. Needs to stay as a list or table - converting to prose would lose information. That said, it admittedly needs organizing work.
• Re: VP candidates. My inclination would be to nuke this altogether, perhaps including a bit of prose above.
• Re: State-by-state results: I really don't see any good way of altering this table.
• Re: external links/footnotes - fixed

I'm probably going to putter around here and there on this article for a little while, as I've got some other projects I've got to finish up on. If no one else gets around to finishing up work for FA status, I'll eventually get around to it. Thanks for the input -- RobLa 07:11, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

As for the paragraph length in general it's not too bad anymore. I'd still try to combine them any chance I got though. It doesn't look too bad though - great work! Ryan Norton ^{T | @ | C} 15:02, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

VDH is one of America's premier public intellectuals and has played an important role in explaining neo-conservative idea's to the public. He has had several meetings with high level officials in the US Government, as well as appointments to various academic think tanks. He's written several books some of which are featured in the Amazon.com top 1000.

Overall I'd like to see this article reach FAC status and so it would be nice to have some fresh people take a look at it. Klonimus 02:40, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

OK - here we go (Not reviewing content)!

1. Intro WAAAAY too short - you need a SOLID paragraph there.
2. First section too short
3. "carnage & culture" some paragraphs are a LITTLE short, but maybe nothing that would get you a FA oppose...
4. "Stances" - consider a rename. Also, consider killing the subsections and making a REAL section out of this puppy - there's not all that much content to warrant 4 seperate subsections without expansion
5. "Works" - consider detailing some of his best works here, along with an intro to that list there
6. "External links" - don't use real subsections here - it stuffs the TOC, use double lists instead

Take care! Ryan Norton ^{T | @ | C} 04:05, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

A few remarks:

1. Yes, I'd like to see it a little longer for that really encyclopedic FA feel...
2. Needs a copyright-free picture
3. Judging from the talk page, some of Hanson's views are rather more controversial than one might gather from the article. Could we hear more about these, and perhaps some good sourced opposing viewpoints - maybe follow up those external links.
4. I'd like to see more about VDH's work as a classical scholar - is it generally regarded as good, and by whom? If not, what's wrong with it?

Keithlard 04:29, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You could have a look at the Brynmawr Classical Review (http://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/bmcr/by_authorH.html) which has reviews of 5 or 6 of his classics books including some blood-on-the-walls exchanges. I read it years back, but there's something in there about him as a farmer which seemed a little scary.

I wonder about the stances section of the entry. Hanson (maybe not call him Dr. in the text, especially just doing it once) is a controversial figure who makes a number of people very angry. Maybe there needs to be room for their response to him (e.g. the classicists are to blame bit). Good luck.... Flounderer 14:16, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I have been following the progression of this page for a few months now, in addition to editing it under an anonymous IP. This page covers the plot of the game in good detail, as well as being stylishly written; assuming, as it is mentioned, that the player follows the plot to successful completion.

On a personal note, this game is a classic to me, and I'm sure it is to a fair number of others on Wikipedia as well. In conclusion, I hope that this page will eventually reach featured status, if it is deemed acceptable. Viewer 11:25, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

good article! my issues:

• unwikilink the red links, they dont need articles
• some more pictures would be good, maybe one of them a screenshot (yes i know its a text adventure)
• The pgraph starting "Also in the fictional year..." doesnt fit in with the rest of the pgraph. It describes the game milieu but what is the politics behind it? what is meretzky saying by making greece anti-american?
• there is v. little on the gameplay elements - how does the game make you role-play, and make the story progress? is there a scoring mechanism? how is the parser compared to other infocom if?
• would be nice to see some excerpts from magazine reviews from the time of release? was it universally acclaimed? were there any detractors? did it win any awards?
• "not a commercial success" - expand this
• references!

otherwise fine! Niz 19:08, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Please note, critique of this article should follow the standards set at Wikipedia:Featured lists.

I have worked on this list for a long time, and was wondering, barring the profusion of redlinks (I hope to correct this in the next few days), what can I do to make this list better? It is very much a dynamic list (as radio stations seem to come and go quickly here) so the information is not always static. Any suggestions to get this up to FL standards? [[User:JonMoore|— —JonMoore 20:24, 29 May 2006 (UTC)]] 04:06, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

What about historical media...newspapers, magazines, etc. that may not exist now? Just a suggestion. Ganymead 17:25, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Peer review/Dungeons & Dragons/archive1

This article has been twice nominated for FAC and failed twice, including once just after a previous peer review (Oct 2005). Much has been done on the article over the last 16 months since the last failure and I consider the article is close to being nominated again for Featured Article. I am currently working through the article adding more inline citations, mostly to the current references, however there are already a large number of inline citations. I am particularly looking for feedback on making the article "Well written, means that the prose is compelling, even brilliant.", but any feedback on Featured article criteria or the article generally is appreciated. -Waza 11:38, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's a decent article, but it still needs editing throughout the article to address grammatical issues. The start of this sentence seems awkward to me: "Also much of, in some versions all of, the action takes place..." The lead section, p2/s1, should mention non-violent interactions with other denizens of the settings (rather than just between the PCs). The notes section has inconsistent citation format, and there are some in-line links that would be better as citations. Thanks. — RJH (talk) 16:56, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the feedback and edits. I will try an address these sugestions soon. Can I please ask for clarification on what exactly you are refering to with "notes section has inconsistent citation format".

The sources both in the references and footnotes use Wikipedia:Citation templates except in a few cases where the unusal format is required to references the peculiarities of a game as it varies from standard reference types. General sources which apply to the article as a whole or are refered to numerous times are in the references section, specific sources applicable to one or two points only are in the notes. The footnotes are all one of three types:

1. A reference by author and data to one of the general sources in the References section, with page number and section heading or quote where relevant.
2. A full citaion in the same format as those in the references section.
3. An explanatory note of the text footnoted, often including info in the style of type (1) or (2) inline with the explanatory text to reference the explanatory text.

Thanks - Waza 22:03, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to apologise somewhat for above. I have gone through references carefully and noted some inconsistancies. I am continuing to work through them and will also add some discussion on talk page about how unusual references are dealt with. However I would still appreciate any feedback on particular issues with references. - Waza 09:52, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. It looks like my concern was mostly with the some inconsistent date fields, but this is only an issue with footnotes 50, 77 and 85. For your other footnotes, it isn't really necessary to keep the empty assignments in the citation templates: that just adds extra characters to the article size. Thanks. — RJH (talk) 21:03, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The dates in the notes have been presented mostly as how are described in the source themselves. However I was considering if they should be all put in yyyy-mm-dd (ISO 8601) as I have actually done with 77. This is then consistent with the "Retrived on" date as generated by the citation template. As per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers) it is appropriate to use ISO 8601 only in non prose, but most dates in footnotes are not prose, therefore I will change all applicable ones to ISO 8601 and link so they will display as per users date preferences. - Waza 21:57, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about the founder of Brazilian modernist literature, probably second only to Carlos Drummond de Andrade in literary reputation within Brazil. I'd be grateful for any feedback about this article, which I plan to nominate at FAC. The lead has been difficult to write without overstating the case, since Andrade was something of a polymath and very influential in a number of fields. Please note that my Portuguese is somewhere between awful and nonexistent (I know Mário de Andrade's work in translation), so there are some things I would love to be able to add but can't. Any help at all would be appreciated. Thanks. Chick Bowen 20:45, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

A couple of initial observations. 1) the lead could bear expanding to give something more of a summary of his career ans 2) I doubt if any of the images qualify under fair use as they are not really being discussed. It's a real problem trying to find images of 20th century writers, as I know well. Filiocht | The kettle's on 07:25, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Both good points. Fair use: I'm certain that some of them are OK, particularly the poster, which I think is actually PD--the first one is probably the most dubious--but I'm checking up on it. You're right about the lead; I'll work on it tonight. Thanks.

Couple of minor things: (1) I'd like to see the parallel Portuguese-language text of the quoted lines of verse. (2) The Department of Culture of São Paulo -- presumably that's SP state's cultural agency/council. Could we get a gloss on exactly what it is and (perhaps) include the Portuguese name? (3) The article reads well, but ends very abruptly with a heart attack in the midst of a paragraph about critical reaction to his last work. Has the "Meditação..." been translated? Was it a posthumous publication (I can't see in in the list of major works)? If not, how soon before his death? And what on Earth is the tietê he's meditating on -- Tanagra pectoralis, some sort of tropical bird, says my Port. dictionary. Is the title of relevance to the work? Can a summary be offered, or is the poem too "meaningless"? In other words, some expansion on this last work, with a view to putting the heart attack in its own paragraph. Hope this helps; all standard disclaimers apply. –Hajor 14:28, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for all of these--these are great, very useful. (1) Easy enough, will do tonight. (2) Departamento de Cultura e Recreação da Prefeitura Municipal de São Paulo, in full (so the city rather than the state). It no longer exists. I'll put in what little I know. (3). The Tietê River, presumably (named after the bird? Mário would know and care). There's no translation, sadly, which puts me rather at a loss, since my Portuguese is at nursery-rhyme-level if that, and the "Meditação" is an extraordinarily difficult poem. But yes, I'll put in publication history, etc., and I can flesh out why critics think it matters, even if I don't have personal knowledge. Thanks again. Chick Bowen 15:56, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I found a flag for the town of Tietê, SP, which has the bird on it: [11]. Interesting. Chick Bowen 15:56, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting, but it's obvious that you're right with the river. Err.. and as the poem says, "Água do meu Tietê, / Onde me queres levar? / - Rio que entras pela terra / E que me afastas do mar." Learn something new every day with Wikipedia. –Hajor 16:47, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm having some trouble determining when "Meditação" was first published. Neither of the collections published in 1945 and 1946 are available in any library I could reasonably drive to. It was definitely published in the Poesías Completas in 1955. Hmm. More soon on this. Chick Bowen 00:30, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Summary of what I've done since these comments were posted:

• Lead expanded
• All images retagged, with the assistance and comments of Justinc, who is good at this sort of thing. His thoughts can be found at my talk page:
  • Segall painting asserted as fair use on the grounds of the artist's importance in Andrade's avant-garde circle, which is now discussed in the caption in the article. I'm looking for information about the circumstances of the painting itself, and will add that to the article if I can find it.
  • Poster from the Semana de Arte Moderna is considered public domain in the US since it's from before 1923.
  • Self-portrait is asserted to be fair use as important evidence of Andrade's role as a photographer; there is now a discussion of that role in the section titled Macunaíma.
  • Currency is no longer in use and should be all right. We're checking up on that.
• Parallel Portuguese text is now included.
• Last section is expanded to discuss in more detail Department of Culture and "Meditação."

Thanks again for the very useful comments; I think the article is much improved. Chick Bowen 23:08, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The Beatles song off of Revolver that is. Self-nom. This article has already been through peer review and a FAC nomination. It's gone through a lot of structural changes since then, and I definitely think it's up to FAC quality now. Any suggestions? Thanks! --The PNM 22:45, 9 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I like this article a lot; it's very nice. I could come up with only two ideas for improvement:

1. Seems like there's a little internal contradiction about coming up with the name "Father McKenzie"... Paul thinking "Dad's a happy lad" and leafing through the phonebook, and Pete Shotton suggesting the change.

• • Good points -- the contradiction comes because of the two sources -- McCartney, in an interview right after the song, said HE did it, and Shotton, years later, said he did it. I imagine that McCartney is a much more reliable source, especially seeing as how he WROTE the song, and since the interview is from the year he song was released, so I deleted Shotton's claim to make it interally consistent. Thanks for pointing that out! --The PNM 16:31, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

1. The Japanese album cover seems out of place, only because it features the band in a live performance, and we're talking about a song never perfomed live.

• • I'll start looking for some fair use art I could use there instead. I guess it probably does give the wrong impression.--The PNM 16:31, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Bunchofgrapes (talk) 04:00, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• There are quite a few one-sentence paragraphs. Also, there are several short paragraphs, especially in "Releases" Ryan Norton ^{T | @ | C} 06:37, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I got rid of all those one paragraphers and in the releases section make a larger graf (and made it flow better). What do you think about it now? Thanks! --The PNM 16:31, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This has been considerably expanded and cut together from a subsection on the main Doctor Who page, and I intend to send it for FAC in a bit. First, of course, I'd like to get input from non WikiProject Doctor Who people to see if there's anything more we can do with this. It'd be nice to have a Doctor Who FA that is firmly rooted in the real world, so to speak. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 02:38, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The lead needs wome work to better summarise the article. There several long run-on sentences, like this one

This was mostly done because Enterprises' rights agreements with the actors and writers to sell the programmes abroad had expired, and with many broadcasters around the world now switching to colour transmission, it was not deemed worthwhile extending agreements to sell the older black and white material.

So you should go though the article again- or get someone else to copyedit it- to make sure the flow is good and the sentences digestable. Otherwise it's a great article.--nixie 04:05, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

What would you suggest is missing? Does it have FAC potential?

To answer my own question: I think it badly needs references, and a few of the statements (on Marie-Antoinette, or on behaviour during WW2) seem more like opinion than sure facts. David.Monniaux 19:17, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes it has potential, and the biggest job to get it ready will be finding sources to verify things that look a bit shaky. The article doesn't mention the Paris Olympics at all (1900 and 1924), which are a pretty historic events for the cities that hold them. The lead should also be expanded from the sentence it is now into two to three paragraphs that summarise the article.--nixie 05:43, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• It's very selective. Very, VERY selective. Seriously. It has a great number of holes the size of Notre Dame. For instance, it doesn't mention the great flood of 1647, which took place during the Fronde. Not once does it mention the Grand-Opera tradition. Garnier's Opera is nowhere to be found. It zeroes in on the Eiffel Tower in connection with the Belle Epoque, even though the said epoch is associated with the phenomenon known as "Paris, 1900" and is symbolized, apart from the Champs Elysee, by the Sacre Couere Cathedral. There is no mention of the nineteenth century literary movements; no theatre, no Dumas (either one). It says something about the first Revolution, but it does not mention, in connection to it, that it triggered the rapid switch in, not just Paris, but world, architecture - from Baroque to Classicism. Housmann is mentioned. That's a blessing. However, he did not "demolish much of the old city." That's just plain silly. He very carefully selected buildings to be eliminated to make way for his Boulevards. Once in a while, you see in Paris a building, on a boulevard, whose facade does not parallel the sidewalk. That means that Housmann looked very carefully at it, liked the building a whole lot, and decided to spare it. The secret plans listing the buildings scheduled for demolition were sold to private citizens, who would then buy them from the owners for a regular price and, come time for the building to be razed, would re-sell it to the Government for a hell of a lot of money. There is a novel about this by none other than Zola. A circus is just that - a circus. No need to use the word when all you want to say is "plaza" or "roundabout." How about some extensive mention of the Metro? Highly unsatisfactory. Work on it.-- Impressionist 6 October 2005

• I agree that the article needs sources and that it should pay a little more attention to architectural history, but I disagree that an encyclopedia article on the history of a city needs to mention Olympic Games from the early 20th century (when they were much less of an extravaganza than today). I also disagree that an encyclopedia article on the history of a city (as opposed, perhaps, to a full-length book) needs to cover the city's literary figures, especially in the case of Paris, where covering the city's literary history would essentially require a history of French literature. I think it would suffice to state that the city played a central role in French literary history, with a link to the article on that subject. Marco polo 19:30, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have rewritten the article on the entry on the Athenian practice of ostracism which had been puddling along for years with minor edits and uncorrected errors. A lot of classical entries in WP are either reprints of 1911 Britannica entries or need major revision (French and German WP are a long way ahead in this area). (I came back and shortened this request) Any comments?

I know it is calling out for a picture. Flounderer 13:22, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• It looks good to me. About the only addition I could think of would be some type of summary of known ostracisms.[12] The FA folks will probably want the article documented with reference tags. Thanks. :) — RJH 16:22, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that. I'll add the list. I take it ref. tag = footnote. Flounderer 22:37, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• • A pic, as you say, is definitely needed. Great overview otherwise but just a couple of things to suggest:

1. The Procedure section could be split as it tends to veer into comparative comments.
2. Without making it internally redundant, purpose should be mentioned earlier.
3. Their is inconsistency in the use of the full stop(.) particularly in sentences that end with a bracketed comment.
4. A lot of red links. Marskell 16:35, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Great suggestions. I was aware of the veering, but had decided it was more natural to leave it as it was. Will have another look. I'm wondering about the excess of red. Maybe I can set up some moderately plump stubs for them. Thanks Flounderer 22:37, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The obvious suggestion for a pic would be one of ostraka, see if you can track down a museum with some and a wikipedian to take a piture for you. You could also have a picture of historic athens with a related caption like- the populace of Athens voted to ostracise members of their society, mabye a bust of a philosopher or tyrant with a related caption Aristotle wrote the most cited account of ostracism.--nixie 11:57, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks for the suggestions. I'm going to track down an archaeological friend and ask them. Flounderer 15:45, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I've put quite a bit quite some work into expanding this article with details, pictures, and background info. I have been toying with the idea of putting it up for featured article status, but first I need to see if anyone who isn't a physicist can read it. All comments welcome! -- SCZenz 00:55, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I guess I don't fit your target audience for this peer review, but I think the intro should make more clear that the reason those theories can't be tested by previous accelerators is because they couldn't make massive enough particles. Right now the two seem disconnected. Also, right now that sentence seems somehow non-grammatical, or at least awkward.

I think it's good that you've kept it on a low technical level, but I felt that many sections were unduly vague. I also think it would benefit from information on what energies it will reach compared to what energies could probe different theories. It might even be a good idea to put together a chart like I've seen somewhere before which color in ranges of energies that various theories would put certain particles with a big line through where the detector can get.

On the front of vague statements in general, I rather dislike this clause: in order to record all possible information from high-energy collisions.

I also advise against too much jargon, even outside the introduction. For instance, this sentence: Another is the radiation it will be exposed to due to its proximity to the interaction point, requiring that all components be rad-hard could be made significantly clearer by simply expanding rad-hard to radiation hardened, and even better with some small bit about what this means.

There's also some capitalization consistency issues; for instance, the article can't seem to decide whether detector names are capitalized or not. I'll give it a more careful read later. — Laura Scudder | Talk 01:49, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

But one more thing right now: I don't know if you're at CERN now, but some sharper images (or at least the yellow ones brightened in post-processing) would be great. I'm also not sure how much Image:ATLAS CMS HQ.jpg adds to the article right now. For a photo that's really just serving for a size scale it's a rather grey and dull. — Laura Scudder | Talk 02:07, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I've tried to address your comments. Some problems that are hard to solve are:

1. New pictures wouldn't be easy to do even if I were still there, because tours of those areas aren't trivial to get and the conditions are extremely non-photogenic there. Perhaps they can be edited, but I'll leave that to someone better at that stuff than me, if possible.
2. The collaboration itself isn't consistent on detector name capitalization. Any suggestions on what to pick?

Thanks for your comments! -- SCZenz 02:39, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I figured that was the case with the photos. Labs are always difficult to photograph. I'll see if I can find a copy of photoshop around.

I'm undecided on the capitalization. Some are made into acronyms and so that seems to favor capitalization, but Muon Spectrometer seems very wrong. As you can tell, I can be a real nitpicky reviewer sometimes. Hopefully we'll get some non-physics folk in here, too. — Laura Scudder | Talk 03:00, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm inclined to think SCT, TRT, and Pixel Detector are names. Inner Detector might be also. Tile Calorimeter is the name of the hadronic calorimeter, but I think I only use the latter descriptive term (which should be lower case). Presumably electromagnetic calorimeter and muon spectrometer are lower case as well. But does it still seem inconsistent that some detector components have real names, but others don't? -- SCZenz 03:32, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

(October 2005 Jesus peer review located here: archive 1) (April 2006 Jesus peer review located here: archive 2)

We seem to have reached a relative low point in things to be edited. We've recently instituted a newly re-done section on the teachings section, the only citation needed tag seems to concern the Star of Bethleham and something about Jupiter and Saturn being in conjunction I think, and really, it seems most everything else is referenced. So therefore, I think its high time for yet another peer review, Does anyone think this might nearly be an FA? What about A class? The only disputes really left now are some UFO theory on the talk page right now, and occasionally people edit the wording in the excruciatingly discussed introduction and make people unhappy, but other than that, most of the new content proposels constitute adding in good amounts of material which may or may not really be necessary. But hey, if anyone has suggestions about more material, it can't hurt. Homestarmy 20:09, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There's a references section which could all do with in line use. I also think a point the article needs to make is what Jesus was preaching: love most of all. Wiki-newbie 20:27, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, AZ _t 20:53, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• I read through the narrative portion which gave me enough issues to not need to go further.
  • References still need work throughout the narative section. Here is a sample paragraph The Gospel of John describes three different passover feasts over the course of Jesus' ministry. This implies that Jesus preached for a period of three years, although some interpretations of the Synoptic Gospels suggest a span of only one year. The focus of his ministry was toward his closest adherents, the Twelve Apostles, though many of his followers were considered disciples. Jesus led what many believe to have been an apocalyptic following. He preached that the end of the current world would come unexpectedly; as such, he called on his followers to be ever alert and faithful.
    • "some interpretations" and "many believe" need to be properly detailed and referenced. This is a commmon problem throughout the narrative portion of the article.
  • Also the Bible is not being cited properly when it is used as a reference. Especially when you are using direct quotes you need to give the exact edition you are quoting. I also believe you should use the proper citation template whenever you use the Bible as a reference. However beyond even that, it would be better if you could find a more reliable source as to use as a reference. Preferably one that examines several older copies of the Greek manuscripts (which it identifies) in order to write a scholarly opinion focused only on the matter Jesus, rather one that examines unknown versions and translates them with the idea of providing a complete holy book in English. Maybe there is not such a reference, but I would find it surprising.
  • Also I wonder about the scope of what you are trying to do in the narrative. Rather than summarizing the important opinions on various portions Jesus's life (which have daughter articles) and puuting them into the context of why this is important, the article seems to want to account for every discrepency mentioned in the scriptures. This is a problem throughout the narative portion, but a good example is Many scholars hold that the Gospel of John depicts the crucifixion just before the Passover festival on Friday 14 Nisan, called the Quartodeciman, whereas the synoptic gospels (except for Mark 14:2) describe the Last Supper, immediately before Jesus' arrest, as the Passover meal on Friday 15 Nisan; however, a number of scholars hold that the synoptic account is harmonious with the account in John. Try to focus on telling an account of Jesus and if people disagree about things explain why they disagre and what that really means. Avoid making tis portion of the article about the Bible.--Birgitte§β ʈ Talk 19:59, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Much of the narrative part has been refactored somewhat recently, though alot of it was re-arranging sentences and choosing different words and whatnot. Homestarmy 03:51, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • A quick glance shows the same problems I outlined above. I will not waste my time going over an article when the nominator neither responds to my review nor makes significant edits to the article within a week. I think it unacceptable for people to make nominations for Peer Review when they are not prepared to immediately to significant work to the article. To many nominations never get more than the semi-automated review and it a shame for people to waste time on unresponsive nominators.--Birgitte§β ʈ Talk 18:44, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Now that all of my PR flooding is almost gone, I decided to nominate this... I've done some major work, and want to feature it. Any complaints or comments? - A Link to the Past (talk) 05:54, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• I know this is bringing up an ongoing dispute (and it's certainly not personal), but I genuinely feel that this isn't a standalone topic, as the character is a cipher that certainly doesn't transcend the source work. This article is largely a plot summary of Advance Wars and Advance Wars 2, with commentary like "His motives for wanting to control Wars World are unknown."
  Other problems:
  • The portraits have no fair use tag, let alone rationale.
  • The Abilities section seems to suffer the worst from the lack of context found in the Advance Wars and Advance Wars 2 section.
  • The Black Hole Army section seems to be completely unrelated to Sturm. Half of it is about a game he doesn't even appear in.
  • The final sections make factual claims of debatable provenence without sourcing them, like that some people believe he and Von Bolt are the same person, or the ROM hacking bit. - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 06:05, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Uh, this isn't the FAC, this is a matter of improving the article. The article is of enough quality to be its own article. Are we to move Goomba to Mario series enemies because he is rarely ever seen outside of games? And even the cartoons and comics apply to that.
    • Lord Sturm started Black Hole, so Black Hole's actions after his death certainly have relevance to him.
    • Context from those articles? Explain.
    • So, what would be adequate for a source? Would the hackers who did this be a good-enough source, or an article relating to the theory? - A Link to the Past (talk) 06:18, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Goomba appears in dozens of games, often outside his original series. Many of the Goombas have personalities. Lord Sturm's actions appear only in two games, will only ever appear in two games, and he is merely a personality-less "true dark leader". There's not much to say about him, and much of this article, even if this stands alone, belongs in other articles.
      • Well, they're currently CSD candidates. I figured it would be courteous to let you know instead of just deleting them.
      • It's fine to lean on other articles, and let, say, Advance Wars: Dual Strike describe the later actions of Black Hole.
      • It's not clear that all COs have these powers, or that his powers are particularly more powerful than the others.
      • Seems like that the former would be fine, although the latter would be ideal assuming it's from somewhere reputable. - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 06:25, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • I believe you're taking WP:FICT a bit too far; I have spoken with many people on this, and they all feel that WP:FICT has exceptions (such as quality of the writing, length of the article, content and notability). It could be merged, yes, but there's a decent amount of information regarding him that wouldn't apply to plot summaries of the other games.
        • What are currently CSD candidates?
        • Telling people to go to other articles lowers the content and chances of becoming featured. Goomba talks mostly about their various species' appearances in games.
        • Lord Sturm may appear; bigger twists have happened.
        • I'll be sure to specify. - A Link to the Past (talk) 06:53, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, this bulleting system isn't working. Let's split these to threads.

Does it stand alone? - Such information would be what? And how is Sturm notable independent of Advance Wars? - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 07:06, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

His CO Power, his plots, his appearance. There's already an unspoken consensus to not go indepth on the characters in the main articles. But again, the potential to be an article overrules the fact that they are not notable in other source materials. The plot summaries are from his perspective, and can go indepth on the plotting of Sturm rather than what Andy experiences. Captain Olimar survived a VfD, and he is arguably not notable outside of the source material. - A Link to the Past (talk) 07:14, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

His CO Power is notable? His appearance is notable? He's a cloaked figure in a mask, which isn't exactly an uncommon design, and his CO power is just another CO power, in a series with more than a dozen COs now. Looking at the close comments for Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Captain Olimar: "The result of the debate was no consensus, but a merge may be in order. There is a tie vote between "keep" and "merge and/or redirect". Please settle this question on the article's talk page." I don't think that's a ringing endorsement of this article standing alone. - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 07:21, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

And again, if you AfD'd any FF character article, you would be opposed to the tenth degree. WP:FICT generally doesn't apply to game articles. You're focusing too much on WP:FICT, when there's more people who would oppose deleting game character articles. This is just how people want it to play - What about Lakitu? That's not the most notable thing ever, not even one of the most well-known Mario enemies. To sum it up, if an article can do a split from the main article and do it well, then good for it, and this one succeeded. Now drop the debate on this, because I do not plan to merge this with either parent articles. - A Link to the Past (talk) 07:29, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

We're not talking other articles, and I'm not advocating deleting this. I'm advocating that this be merged to the source work, as it is tied inextricably to a single pair of linked source works and has little popularity or presence outside of discourse on those works. (This isn't a notability argument; it's a question on whether it's a discrete topic.) Lakitu and Wario have many different roles in different games, and the Final Fantasy characters have a rabid fanbase and cannot practically be merged into the already overlarge FF articles, but this is not about those articles, but this one.

WP:FICT should apply to game articles the same way it applies to any fiction articles, as this article is a prime case of why WP:FICT is the way it is (as this character cannot be discussed except as a small part of a larger whole).

I feel that further replies on my part in this line of conversation would no longer be productive, as they would simply be restatements of the above point. - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 07:38, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Images - The portraits of Sturm are CSD candidates, with no info on their copyright status. Adding some basic copyright info would alleviate this. - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 07:06, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I've already applied the fair use tag to two and game-screenshot to one. A link is provided in regard to the Meteor Strike image. - A Link to the Past (talk) 07:14, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good, given that. - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 07:21, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The AW:DS plot summary - You're telling people to go to other articles in cases where the information isn't relevant to this subject. Sturm didn't appear in that game, so there's no need to summarize that game's plot. Goomba doesn't summarize Super Mario Bros. 2. As for future games, he's dead, and Wikipedia isn't a crystal ball (and there aren't any games currently announced that he could appear in), so I think it's safe to say he's not gonna appear again any time in the forseeable future. - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 07:06, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but it is the army he created, and he is mentioned throughout the story. The section is about his army, Black Hole, so logic states that we focus on the actions of Black Hole following his demise. Also, he may not have died. He IS a master of deception, after all. - A Link to the Past (talk) 07:14, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It seems like this is a better start for a Black Hole article than a Sturm one, then. - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 07:21, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I do not think that replacing Sturm with a Blak Hole article would garner a lot of support. I personally plan to make articles based on characters such as Sonja, Andy, Lash, etc. - A Link to the Past (talk) 07:29, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please not, until the discussion at Talk:King of All Cosmos is resolved? Right now, there's no clear consensus on appropriateness either way. - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 07:38, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

That would be preferable to you, as all three have far more personality to speak of than Sturm.

Also, there have been people that were in agreement on the matter of if WP:FICT should not be without exception. - A Link to the Past (talk) 07:42, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm asking you not to make any more grey-area articles until the King discussion is finished, in the hopes of avoiding a revert war where we're both making claims of the status quo. It's hopeless, and I'm planning to try and expand the discussion elsewhere anyway before this becomes a bunch of little fights over little articles. Ideally, it should be one big fight, so everyone can yell at us both for not going out and getting lives. ;D - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 07:51, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

But life is too cold! My feet have gone numb. ;<

Oh, you know what's cool? Nell was in Super Famicom Wars, under her Japanese name, Caroline. So I'm checking if Sturm was in any past games. - A Link to the Past (talk) 07:56, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'll be placing my review here. Link, if you could cross off my points if/when you address them, that would make it easier for me to spot any consequential issues I want to raise. Rob Church ^Talk 18:31, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Let's have the Japanese characters for the name, shall we?
• Minor grammatical correction in the leader, which I'll fix if I get round to it: Needs to be ..though the army he commands, Black Hole, appears..
• Not sure we need the contraction of Commanding Officer explained in the leader; the Commanding Officer article would explain that itself
• Link to video games in the leader
• In the Biography section, we refer to the plot of two games. Could we somehow link to the plot section of the games' articles, or else the articles we have on their plots (if we have them)?
• Consider floating the second and third images a bit, to make the article more interesting to read; a column of images down the right is monotonous and boring
• In the Abilities section, the link to meteor is displayed as Meteor - remove the capitalisation
  • Done. Rob Church ^Talk 19:34, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• While it is discouraged to make too many of the same links, at the bottom of the page, consider linking to the games' articles upon mentioning the games - the article is long enough to justify this
• This article mentions a lot of important video game concepts; consider wikilinking to appropriate material where possible
• Bottom section - who is Hawke?

Initial review completed. Rob Church ^Talk 18:37, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

What do you think? David.Monniaux 09:41, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It looks pretty good overall. Some suggestions: It is in need of more references, and could use a few more details on his personal life. (Who was his first wife? Where did he grow up? Mention is made of his "extensive family acquaintances", but no details.) Most of the bulleted lists need to be expanded into prose to give it a polished appearance. The list of ministries can be formatted into tables. There's a few sentences that are dangling their participles. (E.g. "schemes he has been named in." -> "schemes in which he has been named." &c.) Typo: "ofteen". Thanks. :) — RJH 19:40, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, he only married once. I've rephrased it to make it clearer. The article on fr: has more references and more details, I think we should copy from it. David.Monniaux 06:24, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yup, that works for me. — RJH 20:13, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

My first major edit. Photos from own collection, Is it the right licence for them?Ghostieguide 07:50, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to see more detail. What was the engine - cylinders? capacity? Was the horsepower indeed 40-50? What was the car's max speed? Fuel consumption? Typical weight? What changes were made between 1907 and 1926? What were some of the body styles produced - I assume that there would have been standard body styles, and also customisations. How much did they cost? -gadfium 18:55, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Please help me modify this article in the best way possible, following research I have done I want this aticle to eventually become a feautured article and I would be grateful if I can have your views on it, and on how it can be improved. Extensive research was done, the photo is taken from a government tourist pamphlet (1960?), and in my opinion it is uncopyrighted. The Hypogeum as one will not, is a unique worldwide site. There is NO similar prehistoric site in the world, therefore its importance is clearly significant.

I look forward to your views Maltesedog 15:00, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

First of all the Peer Review template should go on the article's talk page. Then the article is missing references , and definitely more descriptive text for each level. More pictures wouldn't hurt either, specially because the copyright status of the picture you provide is unclear. You could get rid of the "introduction" header since the lead is supposed to serve that function. You also need to clarify the meaning of the abbreviations in "Fr. Manuel Magri sj." and generally copyedit the text you already have. As it stands this article needs a lot of work. -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ | Esperanza 18:21, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

- Fr. Manuel Magri refers to Father (Priest) and sj (Society of Jesus) - as he was a jesuit. I believe the abbreviations are correct.

- With regards to references most of the info provided is following personal notes carried out after a visit to the location.

- With regards to the picture that government pictures are uncopyrighted.

- I am looking to increase the number of photos

Look forward to hearing from you further advise on the matter Maltesedog 14:39, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• • • I added a list of references, related articles, categorised the article and included external links. What do you think now? Maltesedog 15:29, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, the article is looking much better now. Do you have any source for your claim that Maltese government pictures are uncopyrighted (e.g. a website)? You say you took the picture from a pamphlet, so it may be that the government licensed the picture from some private photographer and therefore only the Tourism Ministry would have had the permission to use it. Do you know if any books or magazine articles have been written about it? You could include references from those even if in Maltese.

I still think you can considerably expand the description of the site, maybe including the reason behind better explanation of the names of the features in the second level.

I copyedited the text a bit of the lead text. And also expanded the abbreviation since you can't assume every reader to be familiar with them. Keep up the good work. -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ | Esperanza 15:08, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Copyright legislation is quite recent in Malta. I have traced the following website regarding crown copyright, I do not know if its useful to detect whether there are copyright implications with the picture provided. Actually the picture came to me as a cutting on itself, yet I quite sure it was taken from a 1960's tourist pamphlit. What I found is http://www.lexum.umontreal.ca/conf/dac/en/sterling/sterling.html

• I do not have knowledge of a book written directly on the Hypogeum. Actually much of its history is a mystery. There is not much detail which can be added.

• The stamp actually is a 2c5 stamp (2 cents 5 mils), I arranged this in a way which will clarify the meaning of "2c5" which is not the same as 25c. Mils were removed from the local currency system, even though certain prices of products do include mils which are than rounded. In this case, the stamp is an old stamp and no longer in use Maltesedog 17:08, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• • My initial impression is that it's pretty sketchy. Of course, it could be that there really is no more worth saying about some of the rooms/chambers than one line... but then that may alsoimply that the subject isn't sufficiently engaging for a featured article.

• • • I will do my best to try and seek further information on the rooms even though its a mystery. I can't understand your phrase "pretty sketchy" in the sense you mean it. It took me personal time and research to have such article complete. Maltesedog 17:44, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• • • • Hello, the above comment was by yours truly. Sorry I forgot to sign. I've been told on my talk page that Maltesedog is upset by my comments. Obviously that wasn't the intention. However, I'm afraid I can't really find fault with anything I've said. By "pretty sketchy" I merely meant that you have 7 sections, each having less than 4 lines, this suggests that either there is more detail that could be added or, possibly, that each room does not warrnat a section of its own and the whole temple could be described in one or two paragraphs that flow together.

I'm further informed that Maltesedog is a new user. It's brilliant to have you aboard and very gratifying that you've discovered peer review so quickly. I've been here for 18 months and was only dimly aware of this page and haven't contributed before. It's fantastic that you want your articles to be among the best on Wikipedia and I hope you'll stay on the project. However, criticism is a necessary part of peer review, so I'm afraid you will have to accept that as part of the process and try not to take any comments personally.

A featured article nomination cannot claim special favours by virtue of being nominated by a new arrival. It has to slug it out with the old hands on a level playing field. But don't be discouraged. Wanting a featured article is probably 90% of the battle and I'm sure you'll get there before long. Good luck. --bodnotbod 09:07, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

PS, I haven't time to check these myself, but you may find some more info at this search or this page in particular. --bodnotbod 12:07, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

No article on this fellow existed. Very little information is available on this GREAT American painter (I'm not kidding). Whowever wants to add anything, please do so. -- Impressionist October 6, 2005

• When looking to have information added to an article, Wikipedia:Pages needing attention or Wikipedia:Requests for expansion are better forums for listing. Peer review is better at pointing out the areas that an article needs work done. --Allen3 ^talk 00:33, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you. I'm aware of that. I'm afraid, however, that not much CAN be added to the article. As I've mentioned, information on Maurer is scarce. Most of his paintings are privately owned. What makes it worse is the fact that his very CAREER is controversial. His "figurative" period is, in addition to being virtually unknown (and short), is frowned upon by fans of Cubism; and his "cubist" period is trivial. In other words, NO ONE wants any part of him, which is a great shame. I myself found out about Maurer when, several years ago, I attended an exhibition at the Met titled "American Realism and Impressionism." The event did create some waves, but it failed completely to fill the American Painting section of the museum with viewers (we're talking about Sargent, Chase, Homer, Benson, Sloan, and Co. - a dazzling group, a great milestone that NO ONE HAS EVER HEARD OF), nor did it make anyone remember the name Maurer. Goodness.

Impressionist October 6, 2005

• The American National Biography has a decent entry on him (1650 words), they cite these sources, perhaps you could track them down to work on expanding this article --nixie 02:58, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  Maurer's works are represented in the collections of the Smithsonian Institution (Hirshhorn Museum and Sculpture Garden and the National Museum of American Art); the University of Nebraska, Art Galleries; and the Brooklyn Museum, among others. Selected letters are in the microfilm collections of the Archives of American Art at the Smithsonian Institution. For a biography see Elizabeth McCausland, A. H. Maurer (1951). McCausland was also the author of the catalog A. H. Maurer, 1868-1932 (1949), which accompanied the first major exhibition of his work at the Walker Art Center in Minneapolis. The major retrospective of Maurer's work organized by the National Collection of Fine Arts (now National Museum of American Art, Smithsonian Institution) produced Alfred H. Maurer, 1868-1932 (1973). Salander-O'Reilly Galleries in New York City published two catalogs of selected works, Alfred H. Maurer, 1868-1932: Modernist Paintings (1983) and Alfred H. Maurer (1868-1932): The Cubist Works (1988). See also the exhibition catalog from the Bernard Daneberg Galleries, Alfred Maurer and the Fauves: The Lost Years Rediscovered (1973). Obituaries are in the New York Times and the New York Herald-Tribune, both 5 Aug. 1932, and in ArtNews, 13 Aug. 1932, p. 8.

I've been kicking this article around for awhile, and I'd be interested in hearing ways it could be improved or restructered by outside parties. It could also probably use some copy editing, if you're up for that. I think this fellow is a strange and overlooked figured in U.S. history, and take some pride in the fact that, even in a disorganized and incomplete state, our Wikipedia article is more comprehensive (and tries to be fairly NPOV, though improvements in that direction might be warranted too) than anything else about him on the internet. Your advice for improvement is humbly requested. --Fastfission 17:51, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Really intersting topic- the article does do a good job of staying neutral. First up the lead needs to be expanded to summarise the articles content. In the early life section I think the reason why his first politicial association was impotant should be explained- and there needs to be something added to lead into the remainder of the article. One things that I think needs some clarification is this sentence:

his work as a conservationist has been somewhat ignored and obscured, as many organizations with which he was once associated do not generally want to overstress their connections with him

would it be possible to back this up with a specific reference or some other form of evidence? It'd probably be good to provide some specific examples of scholars that use him as an example too. I've added a few little things from his entry in the American National Biography - I can send you the text if you don't have access, just email me.--nixie 05:30, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• • Thanks, those are some good things to think about. --Fastfission 18:17, 9 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like a good candidate for featured status - comprehensive, accurate, generally well written, good use of images, etc. - but would hugely appreciate feedback and advice to make it better. --HighHopes ^{(speak to me)} 23:01, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Good article, would vote support for featured status if the following were done:

• The "Band Members" section was moved closer to the end of the article.
• The "Awards" section was combined with the "Discography" in the Pink Floyd discography article and the two summarized in a new section called "Discography and Awards" which might read something like:

Since their conception, Pink Floyd has released fourteen studio albums (1967 - 1994)...

You may also be able to get featured list status for the discography if you add an appropriate introduction.

Good luck!

Cedars 01:39, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Cedars, thanks very much for the advice and for your support. Moving the band members won't be a problem (though there appears to be some dispute over the end of each member's tenure (i.e. have the band split up?)). I agree that the discography page is very well done indeed - would you suggest keeping the discography and the awards separate, or laying out the page so that awards appear next to their corresponding albums? While I'll look at featured list status once work on the main article has been completed, it would be good to ensure that items removed from the article are immediately 'tidied' elsewhere and left looking presentable. Thanks, --HighHopes ^{(T)⋅(+)⋅(C)⋅(E)} 11:17, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Changes made - looks neater, I agree. --HighHopes ^{(T)⋅(+)⋅(C)⋅(E)} 12:56, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Too many unsourced/unfree images. --Ryan Delaney ^talk 23:46, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ryan, thanks for your comment. I see that someone has already removed the unsourced image of the band at Live 8. I'll read up on WP's image policy and importance of images in featured articles, and then come back for suggestions on how to tackle this. Cheers, --HighHopes ^{(T)⋅(+)⋅(C)⋅(E)} 10:35, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• The first sentence of this article is too flamboyant, if not POV. Further down the line are similar sentences, such as "The album covers and sleeve artwork add to the emotional impact of the music with vivid and meaningful imagery." The article should be carefully cleaned of all such instances. Bibliography should drop the In Year Y, book X was released format. Article should list main studio albums, then link to discography using {{main}} template. Some glaring red links (light show -> Laser lighting display? Projection screen is being piped from Mr. Screen making it a red link) —jiy (talk) 00:54, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Make sure you read over what you've written; at the moment, you have both the Live 8 concert detailed, then later, you say that they haven't toured since parting company. --JB Adder | Talk 02:11, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• I made a few copy edits to the article (primarily combining the two sentences referring to Bob Klose into one -- there are a lot of duplicate links that need thinning out), but there are a few unacknowledged opinions that have seeped thru into this article which need pointing out:

1. Did Syd Barrett lose his mind from drugs? This article states yes, but without any discussion -- or even supplying evidence that he is mentally ill (for example, an actual medical diagnosis). There's an external link from Syd Barrett to an Observer article that shows this item, indeed, has several POVs. (For the record, I'm agnostic on the issue, butthe Observer article does make me think.)

2. Pink Floyd's zenith. My best friend believes their best work came before Dark Side of the Moon; I believe that Dark Side of the Moon was their masterpiece, & they spent the rest of their career trying to come up with something worthy of comparison; & then the article says something else. My point here is that this article embraces one POV which may be the correct one, but does not explain where it came from. What would a widely-respected publication like Rolling Stone or NME say -- or the bands' members? Let's follow WP:CITE here, & save us from some needless revision wars.

3. Can we say something about their influence? ISTR that they were an important art rock band, & influenced groups like Tangerine Dream.

4. The "classic-car racing film". Do you mean La Carrera Panamericana with Music by Pink Floyd? Seen it, because I gave a copy of it on VHS to my best friend. I can help with information about it, if needed. -- llywrch 23:07, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I have seen the objections and I understand them fully. Now let me tell you what I think.

I think that the NPOV concept is a very good thing. In fact, it’s wonderful. Without it, we would all go to hell. However, with so many people contributing to the best and most informative source of information in the world today (I’m not kidding), it is inevitable that now and then things tend to get out of hand. Some of the contributors are, no doubt, sound thinkers and well-meaning people in general; the majority, however, will always be inclined to follow the rules to the letter. That’s one of the most annoying problems in any field these days: lots of people follow the rules to the letter and insist that others do so as well. Which is why there are neither artists, scientists, nor politicians today: just a lot of bureaucrats INVOLVED IN art, science, and politics.

Once in a while folks need to be reminded that it is the SPIRIT, and not the LETTER, of the law, that really matters. Without the spirit, the letter is worthless.

Now. The NPOV thing SHOULD be treated as some kind of, I don’t know, DOGMA - by most. However, once in a while, and only once in a while, someone who feels especially strong about CERTAIN THINGS should be, not merely allowed, but actually encouraged to express a point of view (within the boundaries of good taste, of course). Some folks had better remember that NOTHING in this world can EVER be presented without a point of view ANYWAY. Technically, any complete sentence IS a point of view. For instance cool:

The battle of Hastings occurred in 1066.

Yes, but only according to SOME people. There is plenty of disagreement about our dating methods, chronicles, documents, reputable sources, and so on. Is it commonly accepted that William the Conqueror kicked Harold’s ass sometime in the course of that year? Yes. Are there folks out there who disagree or (more commonly) HAVE NO OPINION? Yes. Conclusion: the fact that the battle of Hastings took place in the year 1066 is not a fact at all, but rather the majority’s POINT OF VIEW.

There are no facts without a point of view.

Let us now move on to the matter in question.

Unless one is determined to outdo the Pharisees in pedantry and hypocrisy, one would naturally agree that Philip Glass is not as good as Verdi or Wagner or Puccini. It is also pretty obvious to anyone who has any knowledge of opera and can appreciate it that not all of Verdi’s operas are equally brilliant. When pressed, a great deal of folks would probably admit that some of his pieces are actually pretty weak and generally boring.

Moreover. Avoiding making a distinction between “Rigoletto” and “Falstaff” IS tantamount to expressing a point of view.

Because it IS a point of view.

It is the Establishment’s point of view.

It cannot be commonly accepted since opera is not a common genre.

It is the Establishment’s fault that opera is in crisis today. It may therefore be a good thing, a quixotic thing, even, to contradict the Establishment’s opinion and re-establish the truth. Opera needs new blood; it needs new audiences; it needs young folks to buy tickets. If a young man or woman’s FIRST live opera is “Falstaff”, and not “Rigoletto”, he or she might NEVER AGAIN go to the opera. Ever.

Clear so far?

As I have mentioned before, I’m all for the NPOV thing. Seriously. However, I insist that in SOME instances, exceptions should, and MUST, be made. Yes: it is indeed my opinion, my point of view, my conviction that where opera is concerned, the Five Greats (Verdi, Wagner, Puccini, Bizet, Tchaikovsky) have to be given all the exposure they can get and THEY ABSOLUTELY HAVE TO BE HYPED. The reason I rewrote nearly the entire article about Verdi is the previous article was an insult. I can say no less. I haven’t made up my mind about the Wagner entry, but it SEEMS okay. The Puccini article is not an insult: merely a damn shame. The one about Bizet is short and stupid. The one about Tchaikovsky seems to have been written by a fatuous obese spinster with a Russian accent.

I give you my word of honor, ladies and gentlemen, that when I’m the one providing the hype, it (the hype) can be neither tawdry nor tediously heart-warming. As a Second Renaissance man, I know the value of good taste. Believe you me. If you still doubt me, read the (expletive deleted) article (READ it, don’t skim through it).

That said, I very humbly ask those of you who feel the least bit pedantic to stay the (expletive deleted) away from the article. Seriously. You want to be all neutral about a composer – do Beethoven or Brahms or Mahler. Leave Verdi alone.

What, after all, is the main purpose of an encyclopedia? Isn’t it to provide information? Well, I have news for you. The implication that “Aida” and “Falstaff” are equal in value as works of art is NOT information: it is bureaucratic (scatological term deleted). Ricardo the Texan 14:32, 22 October 2005 (UTC) (aka Ricardo the Impressionist[reply]

• Rant by User:Impressionist (talk · contribs), -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ | Esperanza 11:59, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • How did you know? You're lucky I don't know much about Mexico. I'd show you some real "ranting," smartass. (I wish YOU knew a thing or two about music. A smart ass would be an asset this side of the barricades). Ricardo the Texan 19:20, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well, there's the page history. You do know about that, don't you? -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ | Esperanza 19:35, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yeah, kind of. What was I thinking. Do accept my apologies. And may I recommend "Rigoletto" to you? It's really something. Try catching a live performance. You won't regret it. Ricardo the Texan 22:01, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • Apology accepted. And for the record I personally have nothing against opera and nothing to do with this article, just in case people were left wondering. -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ | Esperanza 22:15, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Sooooo... are you asking for a peer review, or just out to mildly embarrass youself? —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 21:41, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • If embarrassing myself is what it takes to get the Verdi article, the way it is now, to the front page, I'm all for it.Ricardo the Texan 22:01, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I've been attempting to transform this article into something it was once not. I would like to nominate it for featured article one day, so point out anything that you find. --Winnermario 16:26, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Well, for one it starts out with a one-sentence paragraph :(. Other than that its not too bad :) - "Chart performance" should be turned into something like three long paragraphs instead of the many shorts there. "Music video" the last two paragraphs here are a little short. "Lyrics and meaning" - the quotation here is odd - is it one or two? Right now it looks like two because there are two sets of quotes... last paragraph is a little short too. Other than that the structure isn't too bad. I'd take a look over it for POV issues though - even the smallest POV problem in an article like this will draw many objections at FAC time. Ryan Norton ^{T | @ | C} 22:14, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Attempting to bring Waterfall Gully (a suburb of Adelaide, South Australia) up to featured article status, but want to be thorough in doing so. Spent considerable time on the web finding references as well as riding around the place with my friends and camera! I believe there may be minor spelling and grammatical issues, if you find them - please edit/fix them! Any advice will be heeded and acted upon, so please comment!

Thanks! G 05:48, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I think the peer-review is a good idea - to polish the article somewhat - but I don't believe this article will become a feautred article (there's a difference between that, and WP Adelaide's "feature" standards). The standards there are ever-raising, and there seems to be a growing view among some that some topics just shouldn't be features. (I see it as a natural progression, regardless of topic: from stub through feature). Although you've already provided many references, one of the things people will be asking for is footnotes. I'll try to have a proper look at the article later on. The article is fantastic and you're to be commended (especially for actually taking the photographs yourself!).--Cyberjunkie | Talk 14:09, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Footnotes? I'll add them in tomorrow! ;) - G 14:24, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You might want to look at Wikipedia:Footnote3 and Wikipedia:Footnote4. The first is now considered the standard style, and it's the one I use. But I know others who use the latter because it better allows for multipal references to a single source.--Cyberjunkie | Talk 14:47, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I've added in a number of footnotes and reorganised the references. When you (or anyone) has a "proper look" at the article could you advise me as to what other points need specific footnotes or referencing? - G 05:47, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I think this article has a good chance of being featured - it's certainly well along the way there - but there are a few things that need to be fixed. Firstly, it needs to be neutral - there's quite a few instances of personal opinion, and with a bit of a reword, it may be possible to take that out and still keep the general point. Secondly, it'd also be nice to see the prose tightened up a bit - it's pretty good, but could be improved a bit. Thirdly, wonder if the history could be expanded a bit - there's more about the mines as a tourist attraction today, for example, than there is about their importance as part of the area's history. Fourthly, I wonder if the "attractions" section could be made a little less tourist-guideish. Some of the already-featured articles on cities and towns might be of assistance here. Fifthly, a demographics section mightn't be a bad addition. Finally, while the politics section is excellent, would it be possible to base the section on the statistics from the nearest booths, rather than its electorates as a whole? I'm also not sure the member list is necessary, as the electorates have (or should have) their own articles.

I'm sorry to be a bit nitpicky, but these are all things that are likely to get picked up if this was nominated for featured status. It's one of the best examples of a suburb article I've yet seen on Wikipedia. Ambi 13:26, 9 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

If possible would you (or anyone!) be able to list the instances of where it is not as neutral as it should be? I'm well aware that it could be in some parts. In regards to "demographics" I was under the impression that the residents section covered this well enough - nonetheless I'll add one with more specific resident details if that is the consensus. I was looking for more suburb-relevant political data, but had to rely on ABS figures which do not go as far down as "booths".

Thanks for the advice, though! I'll see to what I can! - G 13:36, 9 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The residents section is essentially a demography section (perhaps change its name?). The AEC provides details on polling places in the Division of Sturt. The State Electoral Commission should provide similar results.--Cyberjunkie | Talk 14:37, 9 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I've rewriten the politics section with the new results, and provided references (cheers for the links Cyberjunkie). What parts of the article are not neutral? I'll concentrate on that next. Thanks for the help so far! - G 15:38, 9 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Though I still haven't read through the article thoroughly yet (I will sometime this week), I can quickly refer you to some pages that might help you decipher "neutral". See Neutral Point of View for an overview of the concept. I suspect Ambi might be refering to language that is a little too glowing. Failing to provide specific examples, this generally comes from the use of weasel words, something that people invariably do. Hyperbole can also be a contributor. --Cyberjunkie | Talk 15:52, 9 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

What he said. It's pretty easy to do. :) Thanks for adding to the politics section - would it be possible to clarify that they are booth results, as opposed to electorate results? It looks like you've changed them, but the text still makes it sound like they're referring to the whole electorate. Ambi 16:00, 9 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I've corrected a number of words and sentences in the article in regards to overly "glowing" language... and the politics section should not be more relevant to the suburb and make it clear that the results are from the closest booth. - G 05:06, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It's unusual to request peer review for a page in another language, but these are unusual circumstances.

As part of the general cleanup and improvement of the Interlingua wikipedia, I'm considering changes to the front page. Is there anything the front page needs badly? Anything that needs to be modified, or anything that should be taken out to make the whole more legible? Almafeta 21:13, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The Usability Wikiproject is working on redesigning the en frontpage; maybe there's something useful you can glean from their work? - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 13:03, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This article has come out of Wikipedia:WikiProject Chemicals, where the general consensus is that it's pretty good. However, it would be useful to get some opinions from the wider community as to what Wikipedians want from an article such as this, as well as specific comments on the acetic acid article itself. Physchim62 18:34, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• A very good article to start with. Recommendations for further improvement include
  • More information about uses
  • More or better information about commercial production
  • Info about world market size, and major producers
  • Textual improvements, spelling corrects, etc.

Of course, I'll chip in myself to do some of these. Wim van Dorst 21:37, 24 September 2005 (UTC).[reply]

The article is mostly well-written. The only problem is that the article's lead section, and especially the section on Chemical and physical properties, can get confusing. Obviously in a science article technical information will come up, but make sure every term is linked to a good article ("dimer," in particular, isn't linked) so that a layman can follow along, even if he has to click a few links to understand the terms. Think of the reader; scientists probably aren't going to need this page, but high schoolers or middle schoolers might. The infobox links to everything, which is extremely helpful; keep up that same helpfulness in the text. With just a bit more clarification for the non-expert, this could easily be a top-notch featured article.Kevin M Marshall 20:29, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It would be helpful if you could use actual structures instead of ASCII art. Also the image of the structure in the infobox could be larger in order to scale down nicely. Otherwise I agree with the comments above. -- Rune Welsh ταλκ 11:35, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Forgot to mention: let me know if you need help creating the structures. -- Rune Welsh ταλκ 14:39, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes, both the dimer as well as the anhydride could do with a proper structure drawing. I fully agree. Please be so kind as to contribute. And if you would happen to have a nice fotographs of glacial acetic acid crystals, that would even be better (for the chembox). Wim van Dorst 22:21, 28 September 2005 (UTC).[reply]

Got the structures, but someone else will have to get the pictures. I'm on sabbatical right now and the lab is fortunately far, far away. -- Rune Welsh ταλκ 23:05, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I can take a pic of a huge winchester of acetic acid- and I could probably get one of the crystals if someone told me how to make them.--nixie 01:03, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes, please add a winchester to the page. That would be a welcome addition. Perhaps you can even add a short text what it is for, in the article too. And I guess that creating crystals would be easy (never done it, though): take a concentrated solution of acetic acid (glacial acetic acid) and cool it below 16.6 °C. For very nice crystals, you maye have to trick it a bit, e.g., by starting off with a non-concentrated solution and cool it really slow and long. Wim van Dorst 07:09, 29 September 2005 (UTC).[reply]

Depends where you are. In Arras the nighttime temperatures are below 16 °C, but I don't have any glacial acetic acid... Otherwise, I would leave a sealed container (eg Tupperware box) outdoors overnight and take the picture in the morning. Hazard warning: Glacial acetic acid is corrosive, and the smell of the vapour can be quite overpowering in a confined space. Wear plastic gloves and eye protection, and work in a ventilated environment (eg outdoors). Thanks for the structure, ChemSketch wouldn't let me draw hydrogen bonds. Physchim62 07:23, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

A nice picture (but it is water ice instead of acetic acid ice) as an excellent example of a picture: [13]. Probably copyrighted, so I can't include it here. Wim van Dorst 11:57, 29 September 2005 (UTC).[reply]

So if I put some glacial acetic acid in the cold room (4 degrees C) over night- in a closed shallow container- I could have crystals in the morning? If so I will set it up when I'm net in the lab.--nixie 10:50, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Since last, I have copy-edited the article (and still working on it), focussing on the comments above. I would appreciate renewed comments. Wim van Dorst 21:32, 2 October 2005 (UTC).[reply]

Since the comments I had made earlier were addressed, I decided to see what similar articles are FA's and to start seriously thinking about the FA potential of this article. Hydrochloric acid is an FA, and it's a good bit longer than the acetic acid article. I think the set-up of this article is very good right now, but it should probably be a bit bigger. In particular:

• The history section could probably use some information from closer to the present day (right now the last year mentioned is 1847.
• Would a table like the one at Hydrochloric acid#Physical properties be useful to show the differences between varying concentrations of acetic acid?
• The Biochemistry section is extremely short. What more can be said?
• The chemical and physical properties section could probably be lengthened a bit if more information from the links is brought into the article. Hydrochloric acid#Chemistry mentions, for example, a few facts about monoprotic acids; perhaps the corresponding section for acetic acid could mention a few salient points about carboxyl groups.
• In short, basically every section would probably need to be a bit longer for this to be an FA.Kevin M Marshall 23:33, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I will have a go at some pictures next Monday or Tuesday, I will post my best choices here then. Busy busy till then! Walkerma 21:04, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Many changes have been added to the article now, making a major leap forward. I would think that nearly all comments here have been catered for. Nonetheless, I would propose to let it settle down a bit: further additions and other improvements are still welcome. Notably PICTURES!!!! Wim van Dorst 21:11, 14 October 2005 (UTC).[reply]

Agree. The applications section could do with being less note-like, and the chemistry section needs attention, but neither of these seems beyond the capacities of the WikiProject Chemicals team! For the chemistry section, we will need to decide on the split of information between acetic acid and carboxylic acid. To answer one point from Kevin M Marshall, I don't think a table of physical properties would be as interesting here as it is for hydrochloric acid: if I can dig one out, I will place it on acetic acid chemdata supplement. Physchim62 09:05, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The article is shaping up nicely, thanks guys. A few comments: I agree that the chem needs expanding. I will try to do a couple of reaction schemes and some text to go around them. Regarding its uses, I think I would like to see more on its use as a solvent. The biochem I suspect could be bigger, but I can't help much there. In the production, I would like to add something more on the Showa Denko KK process which I think looks competitive with CATIVA, plus we need a little more on CATIVA. I accept PC's comment that we don't want simply to duplicate a full article on the Monsanto process or CATIVA. However I think the basic info should be there (I faced this recently when I rewrote sulfuric acid where I wanted to summarise the Contact process). The article should be such that someone printing off the article has the basics of all the main methods right there on the page; we can leave subtleties like by-product distributions for the more detailed articles. As for the photos, we have literally have had about 10 days of very overcast weather here, with rain on & off, preventing the taking of decent photos. (Flash gives very flat pix, see some of my early efforts). I will have a go at pictures as soon as things clear up. Walkerma 21:25, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

A couple more comments- I think the chlorination should be mentioned, it is my impression that a lot of drug syntheses use chloroacetic acid or chloroacetyl chloride. Acetic acid is also unique among carboxylic acids in that a trihalo acid can be formed; and isn't TFA pretty important in that regard? Also, as I understand it most acetic anhydride is not made from acetic acid, it is made directly by the Monsanto process by use of reduced water. If it had to be made from HOAc and P4O10 it would be much more expensive than it is. Finally, my personal feeling is that HAc is considered WRONG for acetic acid, at least in the USA (I have seen my former prof shout at people for this!). Ac is an ACS approved abbreviation (see issue 1 of any year of JOC, near the beginning), and as such HAc would mean acetaldehyde. Walkerma 21:39, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Just saw the debate on the HOAc talk page. I wonder if this is an academic/industrial thing (like the meaning of EDC)? HOAc is the common abbreviation I see, but I can accept Wim's comment as true. I back down on that. Walkerma 21:46, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Martin that the chem section is still too poor: I suggest we work on this in parallel with carboxylic acid. Yes, chlorination must be mentioned. Some acetic anhydride is made by direct gas-phase dehydration of acetic acid (no, I don't know how the raction works, but I will try to figure it out, probably with a ketene intermediate). As for biochemistry, we could probably do with a description of how the levels of free acetic acid are kept so low. Martin, if you mail me the Showa Denko paper I will try to see what the catch is ('cos there probably is one...).

Given the debate on Talk:Acetic acid, we cannot really pretend that HAc is not used as an abbreviation for acetic acid, and so it ought to be mentioned in the article. Physchim62 07:45, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• I have been looking into the chlorination reaction: the mono/di/trichloro-acetic acids are already mentioned under the 'Other applications' sections. Sorry to say, but this is all it is worth, IMHO: the chlorination is just a boring reaction and has nothing special with it acting on acetic acid. So, I don't think is needs explicit mentioning in the Chemistry-section. And the amount of MCA/DCA/TCA being produced from acetic is also minor, so I don't think the chlorination should get more prominence.
• The acetic acid used in TFA production is as a solvent, as it is used elsewhere. I agree that acetic acid's solvency power should be mentioned in the chemistry section.
• Some additional info from the Monsanto and the Cativa processes has been added to the related section. For me, I think this shows enough detail in this acetic acid article. More details should be added to the pertaining wikipages. Notably the Cativa process needs more details: it's a mere stub.
• That a lot of acetic anhydride is made from other raw material than acetic acid (as Martin says) isn't relevant to the acetic acid article: given that upto 30% of all acetic acid is used for the production of acetic anhydride is a good reason IMHO to give it the prominent place it currently has. And I understand that the formation of anhydride is typical for carboxylic acids, so to have the condensation reaction in the chemistry section is acceptable.
• Actually, I think the article quite good as it is. Wim van Dorst 21:10, 18 October 2005 (UTC).[reply]

I think acetic anhydride prepn at "Monsanto process" plants is the cheapest way to make it, and this is relevant because they it is being made at an acetic acid plant. The flexibility of that process that allows a plant to make the acid one week, the anhydride the next, is probably a big factor in affecting the viability of carbonylations over other methods. I read somewhere recently that all the major carbonylation plants can do either/or. If 30% is made by older methods (I realise P4O10 has never been used, but ketene has), then definitely this needs a big place. BTW, a major use for chloroacetic acid is in making dyes, mainly indigo (unless there's a new method for indigo I'm unaware of), and one source I read suggests that 2% of acetic acid is used for this, though it may be out of date (there are a lot of blue jeans!). Walkerma 17:25, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Correct me if I'm wrong, Martin, but isn't chloroacetic acid prepared by the oxidative hydration of vinyl chloride? Free radical chlorination produces a mix of the three, unless you leave it long enough to have fairly pure trichloroacetic acid. Physchim62 17:29, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I can tell you that we (Akzo Nobel, chlor-alkali related business units) are a monochloroacetic acid (MCA) producer with the following:

• production process is 'simple' chlorination of acetic acid. By-product is hydrochloric acid, being recycled into the hydrochloric acid business. And the di- and tri- production are kept at bay with good catalysts (iirc).
• indigo is not being produced from chloroacetic acid, says indigo dye
• our MCA is not being used for indigo, but other applications. If we can show the reaction mechanism to from acetic acid to indigo, perhaps it should be listed in the indigo dye article. But merely 2% means it is just one of the minor applications, where it is currently actually listed.

So all in all, even as an chloroacetic acid producer myself, I retain that MCA/DCA/TCA have all the floodlight in the current acetic acid article that they should have. Wim van Dorst 20:22, 22 October 2005 (UTC).[reply]

I have uploaded some of the better pictures we took yesterday, thumbnails of 1, 7, 10, 11, 12 are shown in order on the right. Regarding the chemical composition, I should mention that the beaker was placed in a freezer for about 6 hours with a cover of Al foil. This is not watertight, though it shouldn't have picked up a huge amount of water, also the general humidity here is quite low now. I do not believe that the crystals contain much H2O because of the fact that even the delicate crystals remained frozen for about 15 minutes in direct sunshine. I think the crystals formed when the acetic acid vapour was cooled very quickly. Please vote on your favourites! Walkerma 17:25, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Nice pictures, Martin. Any chance of putting some crystals out of the beaker onto a black or darkblue background and then take a picture. Preferably close up? In that way, you could make a dazzling glorious picture, that could be used on top of the chembox, and for the wikipedia homepage, assuming we get that far (stretchgoal? Nah, that is the real goal). Wim van Dorst 20:36, 22 October 2005 (UTC). ps. I like nr 10 best, sofar.[reply]

• • n° 10 is good, but I like n° 12 as well. Physchim62 21:08, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• • #12 is my favorite of these. ‣ᓛᖁᑐ 04:28, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Good illustratory material ought to be put to use, so I used picture 12 as is in the acetic acid article. Using nr 10, I made a close-up cut-out of Nr 10, to show that glacial acetic acid can be something dazzling, and not boring-stuff-in-picture. Shall we use this (or similar)? And sincere thanks to David Gingrich!!. Wim van Dorst 12:19, 23 October 2005 (UTC).[reply]

Potsdam, NY had two days of sunny (but cold) weather, but now we're set for yet another week of cold, rainy, dark weather, so any new pictures are some time off. I'll try it when I can. My wife's camera is 2 MP and doesn't do good closeups, not sure about David's. I really like your close-up cutout, thanks! Walkerma 00:08, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Update: I was unable to get pictures of HOAc crystals on a dark background today, they melted before I could take the picture. I think we'll have to go with the pictures we have, and I think Wim's close-up looks pretty enough anyway. Walkerma 19:42, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that it is reasonable for the chembox for acetic acid to have a structure rather than the pretty picture - it may not look as nice, but it is more informative. However the structure currently there (shown left) is a line-angle representation that would be incomprehensible to most users. I teach 2nd year science majors at a US college, and when they begin most are completely lost by line-angle formulae - and many of our users for a page like this will be kids taking a science class, or non-scientist adults. I think a Lewis structure or similar is more appropriate, and a 3D ball & stick representation looks good too. I have put up a couple of versions, please leave your comments here. Alternatively, please feel free to make your own! Walkerma 16:43, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I like the approach taken in Benzene, where four different diagrams are shown side by side. Do we happen to have a space-filling model of acetic acid? ‣ᓛᖁᑐ 19:07, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think we have a space-filling model: these pics come from German Wikipedia, and they are only in black and white, which might explain why we only have them for hydrocarbons. Incidentally, I prefer the two pics which the Germans use to illustrate their chembox. Physchim62 19:47, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The benzene-approach isn't wrong either, but the clean fresh looks of the current line/angle are VERY appealing. I like that a lot, even though it means that the pretty picture has been relegated to somewhere down in the article. And I do like what Cacycle did to the other formulae and the pictures (two next to eachother) too: Well done, Cacycle. Wim van Dorst 19:23, 25 October 2005 (UTC).[reply]

Martin, like this?

Met vriendelijke groeten, Wim van Dorst 16:26, 28 October 2005 (UTC).[reply]

Yes, Wim, I'd be happy with that, thank you! However I want to make sure we get the very best choice; something everyone will like, not just be able to live with! I think it may be that Cacycle's images like on the benzene page would satisfy everyone- they are like Wim's latest version, but with the spacefilling image instead of ball & stick. I don't have ChemDraw here, I will try that option. By the way, PC, the spacefilling images are not German, and not B&W, there are dozens of them produced by Cacycle, all in the same general style. See the indole picture for an example with nitrogen, benzofuran has oxygen. I don't have ChemDraw here, I'll see tomorrow if I can do this. Also, PC, my #2 above uses the picture from the German page, but I think their line structure is more crude than mine! Walkerma 02:39, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

OK everyone, I managed to remember how to do the space-filling model in ChemDraw, is this representation (#3, on the left) OK? It's along the lines of the benzene one, set up like Wim's last one. I put it into the acetic acid page so we can see how it looks. I don't have a strong preference at this point, if people prefer the previous one we can revert. Thanks for your patient indulgence of my pickyness. Walkerma 16:11, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I can live with that, the third image is much better than the ones before. I still can't figure out why you want to include the O–H bond in the line angle formula though! Physchim62 (talk·RfA) 16:15, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I just followed what Cacycle did originally with the line-angle one, but now you point it out, I would have expected simple OH. Let me know if you need it changed. Walkerma 16:28, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I would prefer it changed, yes. If we're using line angle formulae, let's at least show them as they're written in real life! (OK, a bit neater perhaps :) Physchim62 (talk·RfA) 16:35, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Neat, ChemDraw seems like a nice program. I'm noticing it hasn't used many colors for the gradients in the ball-and-stick or space-filling models, though; does it have a limited color depth? ‣ᓛᖁᑐ 16:31, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Change made as requested, I just used the same filename at Commons (so you may have to refresh your browser). I've tried to get better color depth- it looks great as a cdx (ChemDraw) file, but once you export it to TIFF, PNG etc you get those unsightly bands. Cacycle or H Padleckas may know how to avoid that, but I don't. Thanks for prompt feedback. Walkerma 17:30, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Putting in my two (euro)cents: Martin's line/angle drawing with OH instead of O-H is much better. The 3D model however is less than the ball and stick: the other examples that you mention are flat molecules, and for those it is good, but for acetic acid (with twist) it is a rather obscure one. And with a high-resolution screen as I have, the electrons of the third picture don't show up any more (they do in my third picture). Conclusion (if we won't go for Martin's slick line/angle drawing alone), a combination of Martin's first with my second and third. Wim van Dorst 20:19, 30 October 2005 (UTC).[reply]

Wim's suggestion is now posted here as version #4. I have also cleaned up #3 in ways I think Wim would like- I brought out the lone pairs, and I rotated the methyl so you can see all three Hs better. Can we now have a vote? My judgement of these things is poor at the best of times, and my brain is fried now anyway, and I am happy with either so I will abstain. Walkerma 20:58, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Either will be fine with me as well. ‣ᓛᖁᑐ 22:55, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

In favour of image #3 vote here:

In favour of image #4 vote here: Wim van Dorst, Physchim62 (talk·RfA) (though happy with either)

Other images, state your preference here:

I have amended the image to #4. Unless there is a sudden large group of votes otherwise, I'll assume that we are finally agreed. Why are we chemists so picky? Thanks a lot, everyone, Walkerma 03:03, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Henry has made the comment here that the article is "just a trifle long". I don't want this to stop us sending it in as a FAC, because I think the occasional trim is not a problem. My feeling is that the following sections could be made shorter, because their space is out of proportion with their (low) importance. Before I (or others, please?) start hacking away, what do others say? Any other things to trim?

1. Acetaldehyde oxidation- important 50 years ago, but does it need so much detail in 2005? (OK, I know I wrote a bit of it!).
2. Fermentation processes. I realise non-chemists will more interested in this than in Cativa, but we have an awful lot. I think the aerobic process is fine because of its importance for vinegar, but the anaerobic is a curiosity & should be trimmed back a bit (even though it is interesting!).
3. Nomenclature. Too late, I just edited it. The paragraph on HOAc/HAc looked like it was written by a committee (it was!) - I rewrote it so that now even I can follow it!

Otherwise I think it's now a great article. I vote for it to go to FAC. Walkerma 04:14, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I think the latest edits to the nomenclature section at about 04:00 on November 3, 2005 by Walkerma are about as good as anything we will be able to come up with. I say we go with that. I'm glad the two sentences on acetate being an anion, salt, or ester were retained for the edification of the general public. I'm also glad the sentence saying the acidic H+ comes from the carboxyl group (not the methyl) was retained for the general public. At first to shorten the article, I was thinking of tranferring some information to a new article such as Production of acetic acid and leaving behind shorter summaries and links. I'm sure things like this have been done many times before in Wikipedia. To some extent, that may ruin the Feature Article quality of Acetic acid. The reason I was concerned about the length of the article was because it was 33 kB at the finish of my edits, which is slightly longer than the ideal maximum of 30 kB per article. However, this is by no means a terrible flaw. There have been Feature Articles larger than 30 kB before. I think we can leave it the way it is and see what the FA committee says. There is one place where two similar example esterification reactions are shown. That can be reduced to one reaction by replacing the two different alkyl groups by the general R. From just a general point of view, I don't think the article is too long. I just finished labeling the 3 images I mentioned before. I will start re-uploading them shortly. H Padleckas 05:39, 3 November 2005 (UTC)H Padleckas 05:46, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

In my last edit up till this time, I replaced the two sample esterification reactions with one generalized reaction with an R group, as I just proposed above. Then the article went into FAC status. Hooray for all of us who wrote, edited, and reviewed Acetic acid. H Padleckas 22:48, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The former featured Belgium article has been modified along the lines suggested in the preceeding review, reasons to remove the featured status, and first trial to get re-featured. In particular, history has been strongly reduced, almost all pictures have been replaced by better ones, the culture section has been re-structured and the reference style has been improved. I am expecting your comments and suggestions. Is this page now ready to be re-featured? Vb 10:44, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• It looks good. I didn't see anything significant that needed to be added or fixed. (Just one typo: "Begian".) Thanks. — RJH 20:26, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Review

• There are too many maps. Please remove the ones in the =history= section and replace them with more apporpriate photographs
  • I removed one -- see comment below
• reduce Demographics, language, literacy and religion to ==Demographics== done
• ==Communities and Regions of Belgium== needs to be reduced to the subdivisions/regions of Belgium. Those extra details can be pushed into the subarticle.
  • This comment has been addressed by addition of a sentence specifying how important this topic is for Belgium and why this information should not be further summarized Vb 09:29, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• The geography has too many images. remove 1 done
• The page size is 37kb which means that long sections will have to be cut down to under 30 kb. It is imperative that the page size be pushed to less than 30kb for now, because when actual copyediting work starts, the size shoots up drastically.
• Please use the countryinfobox template done
• remove the bulleted text from geography. What is the highest point? Are there any regions below sea level? Use the non breaking space (&nbsp;) between a number and a unit. C, mm, etc. done
• Trade is made together...? done hope it's clearer now
• move the bascilica image up done
• ==Politcs== and ==Culture== sections need to be cut down.

Ok, once these are taken care of, I'll move on to more stuff. =Nichalp «Talk»= 18:33, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Nicholas,

Thank you very much for your review. Many of your comments are very useful. Others are less so. I hope your comments are first hints to a discussion and not definitive.

1. Your comment about ==Communities and Regions of Belgium== is not correct. This administrative division of Belgium is very typical. Belgium is the only country in the world with such a division. It appears at first sight very complicated and strange to foreigners but it is like this. It is so important that this double division (Communities and Regions) is written explicitly at the start of the constitution. There are no hierarchy between the Regions and the Communities! Those legal bodies are overlapping but do not correspond to the same geographical regions. They both correspond to different conncepts which are not shared by all Belgians. The present description is the result of a very difficult compromise. What you describe as details are not details but constitutive elements of the country. If I would apply your suggestion, any Belgian passing by would directly edit the page to include what you are calling details.
2. The sections ==Politcs== and ==Culture== are quite difficult to digest more. Could you give me some hints about what in your opinion should be cut down? Politics is now divided in four paragraphs: legislative. executive and justice, political parties and lobbies, current policies. I personally think all four parts are informative and difficult to digest further. For example cutting into the fourth paragraph will automatically lead to non NPOV. Cutting it utterly is a bit stupid. This paragraph was born because some editor wanted to add info about nuclear phase out. I thought this is an interesting info but is NPOV if and only if other current Belgian politics are discussed to a comparable extend. About culture, talking about Belgium culture requires to speak about its artistic production. This is not because the article about Nepal does not include it that every country article should mimic that! :-) The culture of Belgium is not only its food, folklore and sport! If you want to be a bit informative you need to say a bit more than Belgium is well-known for its pop music. If I would do as you suggest any Belgian passing by will edit the page and add the info I suppressed in a non NPOV style (depending whether she is Walloon or Flemish).
3. About the size 36K is a usual size for featured articles. I think what you say about explosion of the size is correct but must be addressed as the copyedit find place not afterwards.
4. The pictures of geography have been chosen to please as well the Flemish as the Walloons. NPOV is a very important point which has to be taken into account when writing this article -- at all levels! If you don't do that the page shall be very fast vandalised!
5. The highest point of Belgium is the Signal de Botrange at 694m (as written in the article at its place, i.e. at the description of the Ardennes). Belgium has no notable region below the sea level but there are also many other things that Belgium don't have.
6. Why don't you like the list in Geography? I didn't do it but I like: it it helps reading.
7. The maps in history are important because the political meaning of Belgium has changes very much during history. The first map shows for example the roman province Belgium was located much more in France than in today's Belgium. The second map shows for example what was the location of the Bishopric of Liège which was distinct of the Burgundian Netherlands or that the Duchy of Brabant was split over the Belgian-Netherlandish border. People reading the article must realize Belgium was not clearly localized in history! And was also not really corresponding to a particular people or ethnic group. I think the maps are helping very much in attaining these aims.

So I thank you once again for your suggestion and I hope you understand why I shall not implement them in their entirety. I have not the time now to make all the changes you suggested with which I agree. I'll do that tomorrow or later.

Vb 17:41, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Review

• infelicities such as: bordered by the Netherlands, Germany, Luxembourg, France, and the North Sea. ; As a result, the country is linguistically and culturally split to a certain extent.
  • I could change the second; I don't feel what's wrong with the first Vb 16:11, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• so many --> many
  • Changed the wording Vb 16:11, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• dont start a section with a left aligned image.
  • This was the only way that the picture do not hit the infobox Vb 16:11, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• The history section starts little awkwardly.
  • I have tried to improve this Vb 21:05, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• As I've done to the Eigenvalues article, please remove text within parenthesis
• Belgium possessed: how was it "possessed"? force? Another word needs to be substituted
  • Changed the wording Vb 16:11, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• was no match --> was crushed
  • Changed the paragraph Vb 16:11, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Benelux could be expanded
  • I have tried to do so Vb 16:11, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• remove those sees from =Politics=
  • Done Vb 16:17, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• institutions are complex?
  • I think in the Belgian case they are. One example is provided. Vb 16:11, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• where one can find
  • Changed the wording Vb 16:16, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I would ask you to have this article copyedited before I can review again. =Nichalp «Talk»= 15:57, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Nicholas,

I think now all your remarks have been taken into account. Some editors have copyedited it and I believe one could remove the copyedit flag. Vb 13:17, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm having a little trouble on this article (a case of "Editor's Block", if you will). I've collected all the references for it, and am trying to expand it, but I'm not making a great deal of progress. Please advise. Thank you! Extraordinary Machine 22:54, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Very good article lots of sources, wikilinks, and it is well put together. There are a few issues that need to be addressed in my eyes. Such as the plot details section all it says is; In the words of Cox, her character "goes through three phases. First there's denial. Then she feels guilty and sad about the situation. Then she has to learn to accept it." Now I'm all for the plot summary being short and sweet, but this does not reveal anything about the plot at all. The Development section is quite long I think this article's section would benifit with the removal of Cox's development into the a "serious actress" for it does not concern the movie's development. Again I would like to tell you the article is very good, I like it very much and I can tell how hard you worked on it from the page's history, and I would love to read more about the plot.

KnowledgeOfSelf 02:47, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your comments! I will endeavour to address your concerns as best I can. Once again, thanks! Extraordinary Machine 20:58, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm about to nominated this at WP:FAC (see Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/November (film)), so I'm archiving this request. Extraordinary Machine 04:02, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I expanded this article recently, but as usually, my English is not the best. I also need to make sure that I could have a few people see if I am missing key information or key sources that I can use. I am looking forward to make this a WP:FA, like the other hero titles of Belarus and Ukraine. Zach (Sound Off) 02:50, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Your English is perfectly horrible. Why not have someone do some editing for you? With nearly half a billion native speakers, I'm sure you'd be able to engage someone's help. Just make sure you get them to like you first.--Impressionist October 6, 2005
  • Ok. Zach (Sound Off) 23:46, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• The only thing I'll mention is that the first two sections after the intro are a bit short.... Ryan Norton ^{T | @ | C} 06:32, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I think this is a great article, full of useful technical and historical information about an interesting game. I've put a lot of work into it. I'd like to know whether y'all feel it's ready to become a FA candidate, or whether there's more than can be done to improve it. - Brian Kendig 02:50, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Two major things: an inordinate number of lists (should be converted to prose when possible) and no references (which is necessary for FA). Pentawing 06:15, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

What would be a way around these problems? I don't see a way to turn those lists into prose without making a mess of them, and there really are no references on the subject other than the game itself. - Brian Kendig 12:14, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

What I find works sometimes, at least in cases where the lists are not readily convertible into prose, is to use multi-column tables, usually with {{prettytable}} to set the style. — RJH 14:33, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Concerning references, how about a published game guide and outside reviews? The point behind references is that one can be assured that the game actually does exist and that others can vouch for it. Pentawing 21:50, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above seems fairly straightforward - anyone have any other constructive comments on the article? - Brian Kendig 03:49, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

1. Lead too short - should be at least two solid paragraphs for an article this size (see WP:LEAD)
2. A lot of really short paragraphs and some one-sentence paragraphs. Long paragraphs generally == good flow. Especially pronounced in "Games" where its basically a list masquarading as sepearte paragraphs :).
3. "Items that can belong to an avatar" etc. - could use some more description of the items
4. Some parts read like a game/HOWTO guide, like "Characters". Someone once told me that an encyclopedia is not "prescriptive" but is "descriptive".... hope that helps.
5. Of course the list thing mentioned by the previous reviewer

Generally neat article... I think once some of the lists get turned into prose it will be a better reading length too Ryan Norton ^{T | @ | C} 07:07, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style. If you would find such a review helpful, please click here. Thanks, APR _t 06:35, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Second request. Tell us anything that needs to be improved on the article. --Winnermario 01:36, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I did it for you, but next time archive the old request instead of blanking it. It's at Wikipedia:Peer review/Spice Girls/archive1. -Greg Asche (talk) 01:44, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

1. Section titles: Some problems, especially with the very-similar-sounding In the beginning and Birth of Spice. More clear, less cute?
2. "...it is claimed that they are the biggest-selling girl group of all time, with reported sales of over forty-five million albums and thirty million singles." Should be able to pin that down to a specific authoritative source and lose "claimed" and "reported" weasel-words.
3. In the beginning: The writing in this section often sounds non-encyclopedic and like it was written from the point of view of someone in the room with the band. Example: "Things became tough when many arguments broke out, and the tension was only increased by promises of a record contract that never seemed to materialise". It needs to be established how we know this information. If it is based on specific quotes, use them.
4. "In 1996 they changed their name to 'Spice Girls'..." Maybe I missed it. What did they change their name from?

   You missed it. "Touch". --Winnermario 15:43, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

   So I did. Sorry :-) Bunchofgrapes (talk) 20:10, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

5. Birth of Spice: Consider shorter sentences. Some of these long multi-clause sentences are a headscratcher to untangle.
6. Five become four: "This was a shock and Geri was extremely frustrated, and only added to her desires of leaving the group." How do we know it was a shock, and she felt frustrated? Similar to the writing problems in the In the beginning section.
7. Career records and achievements: I don't like sections like these ("lists of trivia") and would prefer to see the information in the appropriate sections.

Bunchofgrapes (talk) 03:46, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I've worked on this article on and off since I found it with a cleanup tag on many months ago. Just looking for opinions on what more is needed to get it ready for an eventual FAC nomination. Worldtraveller 17:52, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

OK - here we go World! (I'm not reviewing for content, just structure)

1. Grammer of caption in opening image needs a bit of work
2. "History" - one paragraph is too short
3. "Composition" - second paragraph is too short
4. "Age and future evolution" - third paragraph is too short (hmmm...!)
5. "Reflection nebulosity" - all paragraphs too short
6. "Names and technical information" - all paragraphs too short. One sentence paragraph. "Type" needs a legend. "Pronounciation guide" is funky and should probably be a legend too.
7. "The Pleiades in folklore" - no need for a list here. One sentence paragraphs. Paragraphs too short.
8. "References" - footnotes should be kept in a seperate section!
9. "External links" - could use better descriptions

Thank care! Ryan Norton ^{T | @ | C} 18:45, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• What's wrong with the grammar of the opening caption? Paragraphing is definitely a problem, but it's on track for FA nomination. Tony 05:18, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it may need a bit of work. It just doesn't sit right with me for some reason.

• I.E. "The Pleiades, dominated by hot blue stars surrounded by reflection nebulosity"

  The Pleiades, dominated by hot blue stars and surrounded by reflection nebulosity

  The Pleiades, dominated by hot blue stars that are surrounded by reflection nebulosity

I don't know, that seems closer to me. I could be wrong, though. Ryan Norton ^{T | @ | C} 05:25, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the comments! I have adjusted the first image caption, expanded a few paras and rearranged a few bits. Mythology bit is prose instead of list now. As for references/footnotes, they're now all references with appropriate citation points in the text. Have tried to give links better descriptions.

Not quite sure what you mean by 'should be a legend' for the pronunciation guide, but in any case they really need to be given in IPA format, but I don't know how to do that. Anyone else? Worldtraveller 15:27, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• It's a very good article but a little crowded somehow. I enjoyed the inclusion of all the images but somehow it seems a bit to move through at times. Including the aspects of world folklore about the Pleiades is a wonderful touch though. Overall, I really like this article.--Mike 01:33, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I nominated this article for peer review because I would like this article to meet the standards of Wikipedia, because this is the hardest I've worked on an article about a person. So I would like it to be the highest quality of article, also because Carl Radle was a fine musician, and doesn't deserve to have just a little article with no information other than, "He was in Derek and the Dominos". Private Butcher 03:04, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Nice start to the article! You've done a nice job so far. Here's what I would suggest to make it better:

• Your intro should summarize the article. Dates for birth and death are usually put in parentheses following the name. It would also look nice to move the picture next to the intro.
• You mention "The Tulsa Sound." What characterizes that? A description of it would be most helpful.
• The article has quite a few red links, it would look nicer to start stubs for these links.
• Please list your sources.
• Inline citations would also help.
• The article should be in some categories.
• Names of albums should be listed in italics and see if there are articles on the albums you can link to.

Bon chance! Ganymead 03:52, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Agree with the above. Please also take a look at articles that have made the cut. Compare your article to those articles. Check for prose, sections, length etc. =Nichalp «Talk»= 04:59, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Just rewrote the entire aritcle, what do you think now? Private Butcher 00:39, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It looks pretty good - but it needs references before it'll pass FAC :). 03:08, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

There was a former peer review at Wikipedia:Peer review/Milpitas, California/archive1, but unfortunately it was unsuccessful.

Please take a look at the article and comment on where it needs to be improved, and how we could make it into a featured article. The Milpitas article looks great but looks like it still needs work. Milpitas guy 19:02, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• There are several improvements that I could immediately see, though there could be more:

1. Convert the various lists to prose if possible. Otherwise, move those lists to sub-articles.
2. Move the current form of the history section into a sub-article and place a summary in its place.
3. Focus only on institutions that are based in Milpitas, notably in the media section. For instance, you could simply say that the city is served by television stations in San Francisco and San Jose instead of placing a list of all stations viewable in Milpitas.
4. Make sure that there are no repeating pieces of information (something that I saw with the "see also" section, where several of the links were repeated in other sections).

I'll probably look into the article in more detail later. Pentawing 00:05, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I have been trying to bring this article up to FA status, and it's much improved with a lot of the recent new research on the family included. I have almost all the relevant information on the biology and conservation of albatrosses, so I'm submitting it to peer review now. Assuming that we can get this featured it would be the first family to achive featured article status (though it won't be the last as I am already collecting info on a few more families to be my next few projects). One note, I will also be spending the next few weeks turning the remaining albatross species and genera that are red-links into articles as well. At any rate, comments, questions, suggestions and critisisms please! Sabine's Sunbird 17:47, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the invite to comment. I agree that sorting out the redlinks (& not just the species and genus ones) is a prerequisite to FA status. I'd also like to offer the following opinions:

• I think the article needs a better taxobox picture; the one there at present is only barely recognisable as an albatross
• The "new taxonomy" is controversial at the species level, and for the moment, the individual species pages should reflect the widely-accepted view that there are only c.14 species, and this page aligned with that. The debate should be summarised in the article somewhere however.
• The "petrel" wikilink links to a page which is about petrels in the vernacular sense, rather than to the Procellariidae page which is what I believe is intended
• Vagrancy of three albatross species into the North Atlantic (and the long-term presence of Black-browed in British/Faeroese gannetries) would be worth including as a passing mention in the distribution section
• The words that attempt to describe the phylogeny of the genera could be clearer. I can't quite be sure that my visualisation of the tree is correct
• Should distribution & taxonomy be two separate sections? They are two subjects that are not any more closely related than any other two in the article. In fact if aything Taxonomy & evolution could be combined.
• Could you be specific about what the "North Pacific" is
• Waved feeds on the coast of South America? or off?
• I'm surprised by the comment about AOU & Ciconiiformes. You ought to check that that comment is correct.it is correct. weird, for sure, but S&A really did put them in as one family in the Ciconiformes. Sabine's Sunbird 00:49, 16 October 2005 (UTC) Duh, re-read your comment, and you're right. Thanks for catching that. Sabine's Sunbird 15:48, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• primitive (i.r.t. Sooty albatrosses) is spelt wrongly, and this should say something like "at that time believed to be primitive)
• the section on generic taxonomy is quite verbose & repeats itself a bit - could do with a rewrite Jim broke it up and I removed some of the obvious repetition, it's better now I hope. Sabine's Sunbird 16:19, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Sibley & Ahlquist's work ought to be mentioned in the taxonomy section It was mentioned in the evolution section, now all one section as per earlier comment Sabine's Sunbird 21:53, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• The sentence starting "The molecular evidence" - same problem in visualising the tree. Perhaps what we need in this article is a cladogram?
• Needs a proof read - I spotted an "is was", an "Oliocene", an "accute", a "colinies", an "essentail", a "my" instead of a "by", an "avarage"
• 1st use of mya could have the unit spelled out in full for clarity
• beak - should say bill and be wikilinked
• you could mention the unguis in the morphology section
• glide ratio deserves an article of its own maybe? Not come across this as an explicit concept before
• the phrase "use them without understanding" is too anthropomorphic for my liking - could be worded better I think
• the recent work on systematics by Penhallurick and Wink should be mentioned somewhere
• Some info on places where albatross viewing is part of the local tourist economy would be worth including (e.g. Kaikoura)
• An albatross category for this and all other albatross articles would be a good idea - I believe this should be standard practice for all biological families
• Inclusion of current threat statuses for each species would be a useful addition
• How about brief descriptions of the morphological characters of each genus?
• Perhaps worth including some info on longevity
• Info on the Birdlife albatross campaign would be worth including

Hope that helps. SP-KP 19:19, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• • Wow! That's a lot to react to. I'm at work now, but I'll adress those ponts asap. But, a few brief points, your comment about the taxonomy re the number of species - 21 is the most accepted number that I can find. The 14 species dates back to 1992 HBW - after which there have been a great deal of work. As for the authors you suggested, I found this reference Only recently a highly-questionable paper by Penhallurick and Wink (2004) has argued for lumping all of the species promoted by Robertson & Nunn (1998), whereas others support he recognition of at least some of these ‘new species’ (Burg and Croxall 2001;Abbott and Double 2003a; Burg and Croxall 2004). [14] Given that scientific concensus is generally against retaining 14 species, I went for the IUCN/Birdlife International accepted species list. But perhaps that is a discussion for the talk page rather than here.

Apart from that I agree with most of your comments, and I'll do my very best to address them quickly. I am disappointed that you disliked the taxobox image, I rather liked it. Sabine's Sunbird 19:42, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I should clarify my comments about the taxobox pic. I don't tend to think about my personal aesthetic tastes when assessing Wikipedia content. What with the amount of brainpower that assessing content on information-conveying grounds requires of me, I don't think I have the mental resources to make assessments of the artistic merit of the content on top of that. I also don't feel I have the attributes or qualification to do that. I don't dislike it as a picture; it's what you human beings might call "atmospheric", I guess...

I think the article would benefit from retaining it, as it would serve to broaden its appeal. I just feel that a picture above a taxobox should convey the distinctive features of the taxon in question. I could go to the shearwater page, post a similar silhouetted shearwater there, and people looking at these two pages would think "blimey - albatrosses and shearwaters look bloody difficult to tell apart".

On the taxonomy, I'm sceptical about P&W's findings too. I wouldn't feel comfortable using their work as the basis for decisions until corroborated by others. I only mentioned including that as it is a recent, detailed work covering the subject and so shouldn't be left out. I agree with the source that you cited that the albatrosses need to be assessed against a species-concept framework like Helbig et al's British list criteria. At the moment albatross taxonomy is based on out of date ideas of what a species is, and so it's quite possible that the revisionists are right. The issue to my mind is that the "interim taxonomy" was not supported by the kind of rigorous data that such a revision requires, and this is why it has proved so controversial. I think that an approach which might help here would be to canvass opinion on the various birding mailing lists and see whether a consensus emerges. SP-KP 21:35, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

One other external link I'd suggest including (I'd like to see the corresponding pages linked for all bird families, in fact): Don Roberson's family page SP-KP 21:49, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• • Okay, lets see. I've already mentioned two points. And I've struck through the small niggly things that were easy to change. If you aren't happy with the changes unstrike them and let me know!
  • The vagrancy of the three species in the NA is alluded to in the section about flight. Beyond that it strikes me as a good thing to keep out of the main article and in the individual species articles.
  • I wikilinked beak- the wikipedia article is at beak not bill. Is there a particular preference for one or the other, I always thought they could be used interchangably. And the ungis, is that the hook at the end?
  • glide ratio may deserve it's own article but that is one for the physics people, I found the bird flight article hard enough!
  • the phrase "use them without understanding" is too anthropomorphic for my likingHmm, funnily enough this is phrased in much the same way as Ticknell did in his book. I don't think, in the context of language, even albatross language, that understanding is the wrong word to use.
  • As for the rest of your points, they are good ideas I'll add to the article. Sabine's Sunbird 21:53, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'll take another look at the article (prob not until tomorrow now though). Just on the beak/bill thing - bill is the preferred scientific term, as I understand it, beak being more a colloquial name. The unguis/ungues (need to check spelling) is/are the plates that cover the outer portion of the mandibles, the upper one terminating with the hook (I think they each have a separate name ... "maxillary unguis" springs to mind for one of them, can't remember which). I'll do some more thinking on how to explain what I meant about "use without understanding" - I've failed to convey my objection well here. SP-KP 22:07, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I think I know what you mean about "use without understanding', it's a failing of using the same words for human and animal behaviour. How is the new wording? Sabine's Sunbird 16:19, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The specifics of Albatross taxonomy are over my head, but it seems that in this case it may be best to discuss that different authors have included different species and how those descriptions differ. A mention of oceanic longline fishing and its impact on albatross - especially since there are moves now to minimise the practice- could be interesting. Lastly the lead is a bit short- for an article of this length go for 2 to 3 paragraphs that summarise the content of the article.--nixie 02:48, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I had planned to expand the intro, and have now done so. Added some more info on the conservation as well. Sabine's Sunbird 21:59, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This article was nominated way too early to become a featured article. Since then its been chopped and changed and has come a long way - I personally rewrote a large portion of it and heaps of people have gradually added to it. Brisbane is an amazing city and I want its wikipedia article to represent that. Your thoughts and ideas would be very welcome. James Pinnell 09:01, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Too much of a list. Match Brisbane to Canberra, section to section and topic to topic and you'll be there. =Nichalp «Talk»= 15:25, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

My reason for this nomination is to give other editors ideas on how to improve this article, and to possibly reach FA status. I haven't had enough time to act on my other nominations but I've been meaning to nominate this one for a while. It was a former Bio COTW and I believe it is well referenced and is comprehensive. The biggest issues will probably be grammer,spelling,red links and the need for a larger introduction. I would also like to thank Hottentot(sp?) for his personal dedication to the article. Falphin 23:57, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm only commenting on format issues since I don't know enough about him to comment on the comprehensiveness:

1. The lead needs to be expanded to summarise the whole article - it is currently far too short.
2. Since the notes in the text and those in the list match up nicely- they should probably be converted to {{ref}} {{note}} which looks much nicer.
3. I don't like the piped html link to his website - its like advertising.
4. Quotes belong in Wikiquote, it'd be ok to work some into the text, but a huge block of quotes like that currently in the article doesn't add anything. Same goes for the list of list of honours, it should be condensed significatly to something like He was awarded [short list of prestigious and well known awards] and honorary doctorates from a number of universities including ... for most readers these kind of details aren't intersting.
5. Films about him may also be better worked into prose [Name of film] is a fictional account of the Dali Lamas escape from China, directed by foo.
6. There are also image issues that need to be dealt with, if you're going to claim fair use, first you really should be able to describe who owns the copyright and where you got the image - which doesn't seem to be the case for at least 2 images in the article.

--nixie 00:45, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the comments. One question, should any quotes be included? I've always felt that a few quotes can make a significant impression(2-3) but would that work against an article reaching FAC? Falphin 02:35, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I prefer quotes if they appear in the context of the text - and they can be pretty easy to incorporate that way. I'm not sure how a short list of quotes would fare- I can't recall seeing a FAC with one recently.--nixie 03:22, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• You'd need a lead size of around 250-300 words.
• Where was he born, Tibet?
• Northeast --> northeast
• Dharamsala, India --> avoid such a style use: "Dharamsala in India"
• Too many single sentence paragraphs
• Reduce overlinking. No need to link China and India so many times.
• rock singer Annie Lennox --> prefix with country.
• Conversations with President George --> U.S President
• and/or ?
• Single paragraphs do not make a section. Please expand or merge with parent heading.
• The Dalai Lama speaks English as a second language? (wha..?)
• I notice both AE and BE spellings. Please be consistent
• Quotations should be moved to wikiquote.
• The article doesn't have a flow. I can't seem to track what he has done over the years.
• use inote, ref and notes for inline citations

=Nichalp «Talk»= 15:35, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Very good. Only one thing, I was wondering what would be best to make this article flow. Thanks for the comments. Falphin 19:33, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

For that you'd have to check out some FA bio articles. 19:36, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

I found this article on "articles for cleanup since 2004", and put a fair amount of research into it over a fair period of time, culminating in what you see there now. I'm pretty pleased with it now, and am hoping to put it up for FA; but I thought I'd better post here first to see if there's any problems I've missed. Cheers, --fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 18:50, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm too tired to attempt to work on your suggestions tonight (hopefully tomorrow, if not, Wednesday), but I figured you deserved a reply now. My comments are interspersed. Thanks, --fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 15:29, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Not bad - I'll comment on structure - its such a short article, someone else may comment on content:

1. Intro should be one long paragraph, not three short ones

• • I had no idea about this one! I'll see what I can do.

1. Paragraphs in general too short - also some one sentence paragraphs

• • I've had people complain about my paragraph style in the past, actually. Something I need to work on! Do you have any suggestions for paras that could be run together, or for how to improve the one-sentence paras?

1. You may or may not be asked to axe the further reading section... be prepared!

• • Bring it on :-). 's not that vital to the article, really.

1. The book review external link could use a better description.

Take care! Ryan Norton ^{T | @ | C} 18:58, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• • Cheers.

The article doesn't really mention how much money Hancock was worth, for a time he must have been one of the richest people in Australia - and it would help put the inqeust and events that happened after his death in context since it isn't explicitly clear that the fuss was over the fortune. It'd be good if you could get a Perth Wikipedian to take a photo of the mansion for the article before it gets knocked down (if it hasn't already). Otherwise the points that Ryan has made will help tidy up the article.--nixie 04:48, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent point (on both counts). I'll flip through my sources, see if I can find anything; if not, do you know where would be a good place to find historical lists of Really Rich Australian People? Now that you point it out, this is a really glaring ommission. By the way, I have enlisted the aid (through the power of subtle hints) of two Wikipedians for images (Wikipedians are cool!). I also lodged a request with the webmaster of Gina Rinehart's company (his was the only public email contact I found) for the use of a picture taken by John Hancock; he passed the request on, but I haven't heard back in three weeks. What's the general feeling on fair use images when there's no known legal alternative? --fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 15:29, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

When there is no free alterantive you need to write up a fair use rationale on the|image page for the fair use image being used- this page provides some good instructions. Business Review Weelkly has lists of Australia's richest people, I'm not sure how far back they go.--nixie 02:20, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I've added a little about his fortune. The most recent BRW article I could find was from 1990, at which point they estimated he was worth whatever $125m was in 1990. Still working on the photos. Cheers. --fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 15:31, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Good job on the lead. Also see WP:LEAD for the (relative) specifics of leads in featured (and sometimes not featured) articles. In addition - combining paragraphs can be tricky for new people. Try to "sort" the text in a section so that you can combine passages that are more related to each other. Sometimes you can use a connecting phrase like "in addition" if the subject veers a bit from the main subject of the paragraph. Its really something that just takes a bit of practice - it isn't too bad once you get the hang of it. Ryan Norton ^{T | @ | C} 14:35, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• For one, you will have to split the lead into two paragraphs.

Done.

• (WA) -- unnecessary

I use the abbreviation "WA" later in the article, and figured, where better to define it than in the intro? What do you suggest?

• colourful -- a synonym needed, colourful doesn't really fit in this tone

The best I can think of is "interesting", which would be worse. What would you prefer as an alternative to "colourful"?

• he is best-known today for his third marriage, -- tense problem; he's dead.

Ah, but his memory lives on!

• John Hancock; prefix it with occupation: explorer/prospector etc.

Done

• CSR?

Colonial Sugar Refining, only ever known (in Australia) as CSR. (addendum 2005-10-18: I recently discovered (when settling down to write an article about CSR), that Wikipedia already has an article, at CSR Limited. I've linked accordingly.)

• Would like to know more about his first marriage.

As would I! Alas, I have no information – my sources are mostly contemporary news sources, and those articles/references that do mention his marriages at all tend to gloss over them. Frankly, the only reason I know anything about Hope Hancock (his second wife) is because her daughter is interested in keeping her memory alive.

• Nunyerry --> wikify (infact wikify all proper nouns)

Fair enough. Done, I think.

• What's the difference between Commonwealth Government and Government of Australia?

"Commonwealth Government" is the phrase invariably used in Australia to differentiate between Cth and State govts. The link points to "Government of Australia" because, in other contexts, it may mean different things.

• At this point a map would me most useful.

'Twould, wouldn't it? I have no talent whatsoever when it comes to drawing, although User:IceKarma recently volunteered to draw a map if he had the opportunity. I'm not sure if he'll be able, but I'm grateful for the offer.

• good friend --> rephrase

I'm not sure what to rephrase it to?

• (she introduced a number... merge the text in the brackets with the rest of the sentence.

Done.

• ==Third marriage== should be expanded

Yes. I'll see what I can do. Done.

• ==An unexpected death==? The title is isn't suitable. At 82 death is anyways expected. If you mean to quote his daughter then it should be "unexpected" death. But I'd prefer you simplify it to =Death=

Okay. I've retitled it "Death and aftermath", since the section deals with more than just his death.

• (that Porteous was Rose's fourth... same as above; embed

Done.

• Complete this first and let me know, more issues pending.

=Nichalp «Talk»= 07:17, 9 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Nick. I've replied after each point. --fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 23:19, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]