Wikipedia:Peer review/September 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 (~~~~).

---

This is the first "real" article I wrote for wikipedia, and after months and months of tweaking, and after a recent reformatting, I think that maybe, just maybe, it has a fighting chance at, at least, a decent FA-nomination. So, I'm looking for copy-editing and suggestions or fixes that it might need. Thanks. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> - 00:12, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It is a good article on a rather obscure topic (see the quote at the top of my user page) but - I sorry to have to break this to you, if you were not already aware - you are going to face rather virulent accusations that this is mere "fancruft".

I figured (from the beginning) as much may happen.

There have been a couple of massive bunfights over Starfleet ranks and insignia, which failed on WP:FAC twice, spilling much blood in the process (see first nom and second nom for indications of the sorts of objections you may face).

I'm familiar with both debates. Indeed I would have voted for the page, but the problem is that most of it is conjecture and original research.

The best you can do is to write entirely objectively, citing everything you can from published sources, and leaving out speculation unless its source can be cited. -- ALoan (Talk) 10:22, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Which I do believe I have done. I've got 19 21 footnotes to various sources, mostly JMS posts and the show itself, and the only instance of conjecture (the fanon relating to spoo price volatility) is referenced as well.

I aggree, it's a bit obscure, but I feel it meets the criteria. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> - 00:53, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Well, given the discussion above, I won't argue your deletion of my shmoo contribution, which you labeled unfounded speculation. I think the parallel is strong, and the evidence is suggestive of either a conscious tribute or an unconscious influence on JMS. But I agree that there's no obvious citation for it that I can footnote. --Smwpu85 17:43, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ahoy, and thanks for your contribution. Before you added it, after the suggestion of (another?) user, I tried, to no avail, to find any specific reference by JMS to shmoo, Al Capp, or L'il Abner. While it is a distinct possibility there was some influence (though it is outside of JMS's previously acknowledged fraim of reference), there is no evidence to support it, and the etymology of the name as well as the evolution and uses of it throughout JMS's career indicates there is absolutely no relation between shmoo and spoo. I'll look through old interviews next, but chances are if he didn't mention it online it won't be anywhere else. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> - 05:44, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

On the other hand, there is absolutely no reason not to add a See also: schmoo and explain the possible link there... -- ALoan (Talk) 11:13, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Done --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> - 12:20, 25 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Very crufty indeed. But it shows how objective language and referencing can do miracles. Besides, being cruft isn't an actionable objection. - Mgm|^(talk) 12:50, August 25, 2005 (UTC)

Indeed! See this FA, for instance --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> - 05:19, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, so it seems to have been copy-edited to a significant degree, it's stable, accurate, and comprehensive; it's uncontroversial, has a bunch of sources, isn't too long, and isn't too short (it's longer than AEJ Collins, for instance, even sans references), meets the standards of style and, I feel, has fine prose... Does anyone see anything actionable that could prevent a successful Featured Article run? --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> - 00:59, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Since the article is on the short side the current use section which is currently written in bulletpoint form could definately be spun out into prose.

When I originally drafted the article, the section was planned as prose, but it was kindof choppy - so bullets seemed appropriate. I just put it into prose, per your suggestion, and rearranged a couple of references. It seems a bit short as a result, but entirely workable.

Also avoid single floating sentences - they make the text seem disjointed.--nixie 09:23, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Are you referring to the lead for the Etymology section? I've tried moving it around, but it only really works where it is. Or are you talking about the JMS quote in the same section? The quote is long enough to warrant indentation, but is easily recombined if it presents a major prose issue. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 05:52, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Currently impending tasks involve wikifying, adding pictures, adding references, and adding a lead. I'm doing the first of the four as I wait for commentary, but I would like to know if anything else needs fixing in the meantime. Also, what should I use in place of the title for the "Statehood" section? Toothpaste 04:49, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• One thing the article should probably mention is the history of the death penalty in the state. Only eight executions from 1900 and 1957 and no death penalty statute since 1957. This page has more information. Evil Monkey∴Hello 09:53, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• A few comments -
  • no lead section
  • no images
  • all the sections are very long and could be subdivided
  • too many unnecessary wikilinks in the early sections; not enough in the latter
  • nothing much between 1900 and 1942
  • statehood could probably be expanded, with the earthquake and later topics given their own sections
  • second half of the 20th century is a bit all over the place - it would be nice to see a bit of structure here
  • though the rest of the prose is excellent - kudos. :) Ambi 13:17, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

From Redwolf24, please strike out things once fixed... Redwolf24 (talk) 00:30, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

1. Russian Alaska has 0 images. Flood it with images. Get some of the Russian leaders of the time.
2. The biggest problem would be the lack of a lead-in section.
3. Yes, sections are a bit too large, subdivisions are your friend, even if toby isn't.
4. Ya know, I think we should make a template for all the state history pages.

That'll do for now I think. Redwolf24 (talk) 00:30, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I wikified the entire article, added images, and turned the References section into an Endnotes section. I ordered four books on Alaska, totalling over 2,000 pages, from the Nashville Main Library to be sent to the library closest to me. I also wrote a lead and broke the Statehood section into separate sections. Is it looking better since you first saw it? When the four books arrive, I'm going to solve the problem of nothing being in there from 1900 to 1942 by creating an Alaska Territory section. Toothpaste 01:38, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Addressed all tips, with the help of the #wikipedia crew. I'm nominating this for FAC. Wish me luck. Toothpaste 06:58, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I've been working on this article for a while, but I thought it would benefit from more eyes on it, especially from a broad audience. Since this is an ongoing thing all year - not to mention a really big anniversary in physics - I have been rather hoping that it could make it to featured quality before the end of the year, but for now I'm not really sure exactly what it needs to get there. --Laura Scudder | Talk 03:59, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Well if it's any consolation, the article looks better developed than the International Geophysical Year page, that saw the launch of Sputnik 1 among other events. There doesn't appear to be much material you can add really, at least not yet. You could probably have a little more detail on the WYoP approval.[1] It also looks like they are planning a webcast as the closing event.[2] Perhaps you could have a section at the end mentioning past scientific celebrations such as the IGY? — RJH 15:26, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Probably the most significant area for expansion would be the Selected celebrations, I know that Australia is having events, and other countires are too; mabye you could break it down by events in the regions of the world, north america, south america, oceania, afrcia (south africa is releasing a stamp) etc, page has links to all the countries with events. There are also some big conferences that could be mentioned like the World Conference on Physics and Sustainable Development. The article could also describe how 2005 actaully came to be the year of physics in a bit more depth [3] --nixie 03:56, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

That's always been it's weak point, mostly due to the daunting task of picking out events to highlight from the rather long list, so what's there hasn't been systematically sought out. Trying to get some better geographic coverage is a good idea, and I'll add that conference, too. --Laura Scudder | Talk 05:37, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Written today by me, interresting subject and I'd love to see it as an FA. Primarily looking for people to fix possible spelling and grammar errors, but also interrested in comments about how well one not familiar with the subject understands the text. Any other comments is of course also welcome! -- Elisson • Talk 18:21, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It looks good to me. Just a few minor tweaks needed here and there. Pretty comprehensive. — RJH 20:14, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! User:Bishonen did a good job copyediting the article a few days ago, but I've added new info since then so some more copyediting may be needed. I rejoined a paragraph you splitted, as it felt wrong to split it in the middle of a "story", hope you don't mind. -- Elisson • Talk 21:17, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

A profile of the Democratic nominee in the special election in Ohio on August 2 that attracted national attention. Hackett, a lawyer who served in Iraq, ran a very strong campaign in a historically Republican district. Article has photos, maps, references. I'd really like to see this make featured status. It needs a good proofreading to start--I've looked at it so much, my eyes have glazed over and I know I'm not seeing problems. I am also submitting for peer review my article on the winning candidate, Jean Schmidt. (See Wikipedia:Peer review/Jean Schmidt/archive1 for that.) PedanticallySpeaking 19:16, August 17, 2005 (UTC)

• All three images are claimed under fair use, so the image description pages will need fair-use rationales for why they can be used under fair use; see the image description pages at Jarmann M1884 for a good example of this. I'd also suggest removing one of the two photos of Paul Hackett, since fair-use images should be kept to a minimum. --Carnildo 21:34, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• So nothing to say about the actual content of the article, just criticism about the photographs? I've given a rationale for using the pictures. And there's two pictures, two. I really don't understand your criticism of the number. PedanticallySpeaking 17:43, August 19, 2005 (UTC)

Currently impending tasks involve wikifying, adding pictures, adding references, and adding a lead. I'm doing the first of the four as I wait for commentary, but I would like to know if anything else needs fixing in the meantime. Also, what should I use in place of the title for the "Statehood" section? Toothpaste 04:49, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• One thing the article should probably mention is the history of the death penalty in the state. Only eight executions from 1900 and 1957 and no death penalty statute since 1957. This page has more information. Evil Monkey∴Hello 09:53, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• A few comments -
  • no lead section
  • no images
  • all the sections are very long and could be subdivided
  • too many unnecessary wikilinks in the early sections; not enough in the latter
  • nothing much between 1900 and 1942
  • statehood could probably be expanded, with the earthquake and later topics given their own sections
  • second half of the 20th century is a bit all over the place - it would be nice to see a bit of structure here
  • though the rest of the prose is excellent - kudos. :) Ambi 13:17, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

From Redwolf24, please strike out things once fixed... Redwolf24 (talk) 00:30, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

1. Russian Alaska has 0 images. Flood it with images. Get some of the Russian leaders of the time.
2. The biggest problem would be the lack of a lead-in section.
3. Yes, sections are a bit too large, subdivisions are your friend, even if toby isn't.
4. Ya know, I think we should make a template for all the state history pages.

That'll do for now I think. Redwolf24 (talk) 00:30, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I wikified the entire article, added images, and turned the References section into an Endnotes section. I ordered four books on Alaska, totalling over 2,000 pages, from the Nashville Main Library to be sent to the library closest to me. I also wrote a lead and broke the Statehood section into separate sections. Is it looking better since you first saw it? When the four books arrive, I'm going to solve the problem of nothing being in there from 1900 to 1942 by creating an Alaska Territory section. Toothpaste 01:38, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Addressed all tips, with the help of the #wikipedia crew. I'm nominating this for FAC. Wish me luck. Toothpaste 06:58, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I think the article may be of an interest to a wide audience of Wikipedians. At some point, it may become a featured article candidate. Up to now, a lot of effort has been put into improving the article. Presently, it needs a thorough review by native speakers of English - to brush up the style and enhance the flow. Comments on the layout and composition are also more than welcome. Sashazlv 05:04, 11 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent article, particularly the history section, but there is a lot more that can be added. Take a look at pages like New York City, London, and Tokyo, and you'll see the additional sections that can be added. (E.g. demographics, culture, education, transportation, &c.) I do think that the history could be spun off into its own "History of Kyiv" main article page, with a brief summary on the Kyiv page. Thanks. — RJH 15:29, 11 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Will do. Thanks. Sashazlv 01:44, 12 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Don't compare it to London, NY and Tokyo. Compare it with other featured articles such as Mumbai, Sarajevo, Johannesburg and Chennai [soon to be a FA]. Match these articles section to section; in detail, length and presentation. =Nichalp «Talk»= 20:16, August 12, 2005 (UTC)

London, NY, and Tokyo are perfectly good examples, thank you very much. :P Did you actually read the article, or were you just critiquing the review? — RJH 16:55, 13 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately those three cities haven't gone through the FAC process which is really exacting. If you want a featured article, you'd have to compare with examples which have already passed the test. At least I go by that rule. =Nichalp «Talk»= 08:43, August 14, 2005 (UTC)

I'll try to use strong points of all the articles. Thanks. Sashazlv 21:46, 13 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

A good start, but agree with RJH and Nichlolas - this needs much expantion to be up to our city-FA standards. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 17:45, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Previous request archived at Wikipedia:Peer review/Megatokyo/archive1

I feel that the criticisms and suggestion from the previous peer review and the FA nom have been adressed and dealt with and this article will soon be ready to be go up for featured article status. I am hoping that this will act as a good step to get some suggestions on how the article can be improved and made better so that it will meet the quality requirements for a featured article. Pegasus1138^{Talk | Contribs | Email} ---- 00:28, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's a very odd article, I'll give it that. I'm not entirely convinced it's FA material just yet, despite (in spite of?) working on the article on and off at times. Some comments:

• The lead should actually talk about, y'know, the comic. Currently it's simply a lot of short, factual statements that look like they're pulled right from the infobox they're next to. The only statement about the comic in the lead is that it uses l33t speak; is that really the kind of comic Megatokyo is? It uses l33t speak?
• I would not be opposed to merging the characters and plot together into one section; the characters section drew fire in FAC last time, and it's definitely not much improved since. Bulleted lists definitely won't earn you points in FAC, since it's not "brilliant prose".
• I'm gonna sound really stupid, but the plot actually needs some fleshing out: it says next to nothing about the direction the comic took after Caston left, merely that it has "changed somewhat". Currently the only real plotline given its own paragraph is the "Piro and Largo need jobs" plot, which is resolved (relatively) early on as other plots move on. The rest of the section mainly talks about the setting at large.
• I gave Image:Megatokyo - 0619.png some fair use rationale. I don't know if the manga covers also need it, but it couldn't hurt.
• Again, there is more MT after Caston leaves, but the History section doesn't go past it. Use the space to say some things about how Piro sees the comic; in particular, I believe on several occassions he's said he sees the website as a working journal of sorts for the book versions. Also go over how the comic has been funded over the years (has it always been merch?)
• Not sure if the forums deserve their own section or not. One of my rules of thumb for pop culture is "The fandom doesn't matter", particularly since it's not exactly the most citable thing in the world.
• Merge the MegaGear section into the History. It's too short by itself and can't be expanded much.

That's about all I can think of. No comment on the Reception section yet. Nifboy 03:59, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the suggestions I'll get right on them. Pegasus1138^{Talk | Contribs | Email} ---- 06:33, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Megagear is now merged thanks to one of the editor.--Kiba 02:54, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Was going to say "see my objection from FAC", but I note there's actually some discussion of the style of the comic now. However the content is still pretty patchy, and there's no real cross references still. The NYT quote is pretty cute though. The lead needs work, as does the format and layout of the artilce, which is really... odd at the moment. Like, why is 'History' at the bottom? Also, pet peeve:

• "It is written and drawn in a manga-influenced style." - this just isn't helpful, either needs another way of phrasing what's trying to be said, or you need to narrow down what 'manga' is meant to be, or you're just saying "this comic is drawn in a comic-influenced style".
• "the comic changed into a manga-styled free-form layout" - what's this even meant to mean?

Are there any featured webcomic articles atm? Dunno if there's anything that could serve as a useful template for improvement. --zippedmartin 09:48, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• • I checked and I couldn't find any. Pegasus1138^{Talk | Contribs | Email} ---- 01:50, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • This is the only webcomic that even has references (Correction: Penny Arcade now has references thanks to me, but the article is a raging mess.). Nifboy 03:20, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Does this mean that Megatokyo is the best webcomic article ever?

--Kiba 21:05, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• • • • • Yes. Nifboy 21:27, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Japanese names need to follow WP:MOS-JA and should be written in western order. i.e. Yuki Sonoda (園田由紀) not Sonoda Yuki (園田由紀). You can always use template:nihongo for quick formatting i.e. {{nihongo|Yuki Sonoda|園田由紀|Sonoda Yuki}} → Yuki Sonoda (園田由紀, Sonoda Yuki). --Kunzite 19:47, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• There are four {{citation needed}} templates. These statements needs sourcing, or removal.
• Notes should not be preceded by space, and should be placed after punctuation, per WP:FN style.
• Multiple links to the same article should be reduced.
• No "characters" section
  • There is a serious issue in the related articles: There is Main characters of Megatokyo, Minor characters of Megatokyo AND a Characters of Megatokyo. Since the last is the only linked from the article, but the other two are in {{Megatokyo}}, this issue needs to be resolved.
• Non-comic elements are not discussed: "Dead piro days" are mentionned without saying what they actually are, Shirt Guy Dom is not mentionned.
• One paragraph sections should be expanded or merged.
• This has lead to a section of former fans feeling that Megatokyo was better when Caston was writing it. This statement should also be sourced.

These are what I see if yur aim is FA status. Circeus 15:17, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a couple more:

• Some characters in the main characters section are gone into depth way beyond summary style - I'd recommend keeping it to a 2 paragraph limit on each one
• "Chapters" needs some more prose.... maybe you could explain what the chapters are

Anyway, it has been a long time and I think several FACs for this and I'd like to see it featured, but there is still a bit of work to be done.... Just another star in the night ^{T | @ | C} 21:15, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is the first Wikipedia entry I've created, and it's on a subject I enjoy bringing to public attention. I would like the article to be as good as it can be. Austinbirdman 13:56, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Very good article! So good that I'm afraid I can't help you improve it further. Hope someone else can. But since I liked it so much and it's new, I have suggested it for the Did You Know section on the Main Page. So, with some luck, you'll get the subject's attention by the article appearing there soon ;-). Shanes 07:29, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the "Did You Know" suggestion and the kind words. 128.83.166.190 14:26, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• One suggestion. I would appreciate a bit more on the recent Seminole exclusion. The New York Times Magazine recently did a big article on it and it sounded like a bigger and more interesting deal than the one sentence on it in the current article makes it out to be. In particular, that the exclusion is based on a certain U.S. census which specifically did not count freedmen, and that many modern descendants from freedmen are attempting to use DNA testing as a way of establishing their legal and biological links. I think a special section on this would really add to the article — after such a long history, to be excluded for monetary reasons based on a racist census is, well, a bit interesting, is it not? But that's my only real suggestion. --Fastfission 14:09, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

That's a good suggestion. There's a WIRED story on the DNA exclusion. I'll try to add more detail on that, along with some 20th century background. Austinbirdman 16:09, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Consider shrinking the References and Endnotes section, like this article here. --maclean25 00:01, 5 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I started this article a few months back, pretty much just after I started using wikipedia, and was shocked by the lack of an article about shoe / boot polish. I've gone back to it from time to time, trying to make it as awesome as possible, but I'm all out of ideas now, and would appreciate some other viewpoints. How could the article be made more awesome? Proto t c 21:47, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• In some south african countries they produce wooden figurines as "authentic" local crafts to sell to tourists. As ebony is becoming costly, however, they often resort to using shoe polish as a stain to darken the sculpted wood. It also gives the wood product a nice polished finish. — RJH 15:57, 10 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Excellent, more useful trivia. I know some wikipedians frown on trivia in an FAC, but I doubt this will ever be a featured article, just as good as it can be. Thanks RJH. Also thanks to MattKingston for comments on the shoe polish talk page. Proto t c 08:45, 11 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Great article, should be more like this. Might get featured... Japanese toilet did! --PopUpPirate 13:35, August 11, 2005 (UTC)
• A nice article, but the sections are woefully small.

1. remove the bold text in the article. Just Boot/shoe polish should be bolded.
2. Expand the lead by another para
3. Start with the chemistry section first, rename [Chem] to =Manufacture= and include the manufacturing process here. The dangers can also be added here.
4. follow with history section, try and increase the length by 50%-75%. Remove sub headings
5. Trivia section can be merged somewhere else.
6. Remove the home made section ingredients. This should be added in wikibooks:. (recipies do not come under an encyclopedia)
7. Now the section on how shoe polish is applied can be added. Expand. Suggestion: There are a lot of home remidies such as the use of alcohol, potatoes etc. to get that perfect shine. Include this. The tone should read like an encyclopedia, not a help magazine BTW.
8. Brands should be expanded to cover all continents. Brazil, Agentina, Russia, Spain, Egypt, Japan. Try and get info on all these countries. It is currently too commonwealth centered.
9. The image has a dubious copyright status.
10. Please add your references.

If you reach this stage, I'll try and reward you by uploading a pic of the shoeshine boys in the railway station. :). Just ping me for that. =Nichalp «Talk»= 09:19, August 15, 2005 (UTC)

• Thanks Nichalp. Useful help and motivation! I'll copy your post to the talk page of shoe polish so I can refer back to it easily; hope that's ok. One problem is that I don't know what transwiki-ing to Wikibooks entails. Is there a page that can help me out with this? Proto t c 12:02, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• This statement in the article is confusing, "An essential ingredient in shoe polish is a thickener; without this, the polish would be over-viscous, making using it difficult." It seems contradictory that a 'thickener' would make a substance less viscous. ike9898 17:02, August 22, 2005 (UTC)

I very much want this article to become a FA at some point, but this is one of the more deserted areas of wikispace so I'm listing it here with the hopes that someone else will take a look at it. Language probably need a general brush up by a native speaker. I'm aware of the glaring lack of images and maps, but so far I've not been able to find any usefull free ones. Fornadan (t) 18:23, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Overall, a good article. However, there are a few things that I feel ought to be done:

• • I realise that Norwegian isn't as straight forward as English when it comes to pluralising, but the form used (birkebeins) is just sounding horrible. A more acceptable form would be birkebeiners (correct plural in Norwegian is birkebeinere (several birchleggers) and birkebeinerne (all the birchleggers)).

Agree

• • One or several maps showing the movement of the Birkebeiners and the places mentioned in the article would be helpfull. As a Norwegian I know where most of these places are, but I would be surpriced if the avrage reader knew.

Problem is that my graphical skills are close to zero and I have not so far found any. I have left a note at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Maps/Requested_and_orphan_maps though. I can provide some rough drafts if someone would agree to make them presentable.

• • You refer to the ship "Mariasuda" as the "largest ship of them all", allthought most sources indicate she was only '33 room long' (ie; had 33 pairs of oars - 40 to 45 mieters long and 8 to 9 meters wide). At the same time, all sources indicate that "Ormen Lange" (buildt for Olav Trygvason) was between 50 and 60 meters long and 9 to 10 meters wide. In all fairness, the section on the Mariasuda should be rephrased to show it was the largest longship afloat at the time, and possible the second largest ever built.

OK, will do that alhough I have my doubts wether Ormen really was longer (but that is not for us to decide. Fornadan (t) 09:33, 10 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Again, a good article. WegianWarrior 08:22, 10 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose the article's name is in accordance with Wiki practice, but in those days, kings did not have numbers. It should, to be correct, be called Sverre Sigurdson of Norway, I think, and then noted in the text that he has been called Sverre I by later historians. John Anderson 14:12, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This was discussed at Talk:List_of_Norwegian_monarchs some time ago. In short, the conclusion (see Wikipedia:WikiProject Norway#Naming policy) was to let the articles titles be consistent with the rest of wikipedia, but use the more traditional & familiar forms within the article text. Fornadan (t) 20:47, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sverre Sigurdsson has never been known to historians as Sverre I, since there has not been any later kings of Norway with the name. So, Sverre of Norway would be a more appropriate title. --Tokle 19:45, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Seems comprehensive, but can use more references and pictures. Lead can also use some expantion, those paras are tiny. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 17:48, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I've listed those references I've used. Pictures are very difficult to find. Was thinking of using the coins which I've linked under Externals, but they seems to be copyrighted Fornadan (t) 17:58, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This article has been slowly creeping up to Featured Article standards for some time now. I think its almost there, but I'm looking for ideas to improve it before running it through FAC. TomStar81 02:31, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It looks good, and almost FA worthy. One issue is that there are a few too many overly short paragraphs and sections. For instance, the "Missiles" sections could easily be merged together. This would also help make the TOC more clearly organized. I'm also not sure what the relevance of Image:Mark 48 Torpedo testing.jpg is to the article. It actually seems somewhat misleading, as it depicts a fate that did not befall any of these ships. Overall the content is very good. One area I would like to see more on is the ships' actual performance in combat. How were they used in WWII and later conflicts? How effective were they? What were some of the most important engagements of ships of this class? - SimonP 03:04, August 14, 2005 (UTC)

• Item A) Why most of these short paragraphs were not merged is beyond me. I would rather they remain independent of one another, but if I can't expand on them without being redundent then I will put them togather.
  • I couldn't expand on them, so as promised I started combining them. TomStar81 03:06, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Item B) Regarding the inclusion of the picture Image:Mark 48 Torpedo testing.jpg, I placed it in the article to illistrate a live-fire weapons test against derelict ships. I do concede that the picture is neither of an Iowa, nor of a battleship, but I thought it illistrated the point rather well. Unfortunatly, that picture has copyright issues, so it may wind up being removed in the long run anyway.
• Item C) Actual Combat: To tell the truth I forgot to add this section (oops ^_^), but for a quick reference you can check out the page Crossing the T. I will add the rest just as soon as I can. TomStar81 03:15, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The individual ship articles are chock full of combat info.

Thats true, but an overall total for ships sunk and planes destroyd wouldn't hurt. Unfortunatly, I cannot seem to get such numbers to add up, which is why I have not added any estimates yet. TomStar81 07:23, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

What do these lines mean?

"nine 16 inch (406 mm) 50 and six 5 inch (127 mm) 38 guns"

"5 inch (127 mm) 38 caliber guns" - How can they be 5 inch caliber and 38 caliber at the same time? Rmhermen 03:22, August 22, 2005 (UTC)

• In the interest of being fair and accurate I'm going to say right off the bat that I'm not sure. Most of this data was copied and pasted from the ships in the Iowa class, and I am not familar enough with weapon statistics to attempt to answer this. This is more of a question for the members of the wiki ships group. Sorry :-/ TomStar81 07:23, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • From WikiProject Ships: "the gun's barrel is 5 inches inside diameter, and 38 times that in length (190 inches, 15.83 feet) ➥the Epopt 15:26, 22 August 2005 (UTC)"

This article has had alot of disagreement, but I'd like to think it has resulted in a rather fine article. I'd be interested in any assistance or advice on making this a featured article. There was an old peer review back in 2004, which is archived below. Cheers, ¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸ 00:08, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Wikipedia:Peer review/Racialism/archive1

IMO, the long quote from Reggie White is out of place, and lends a POV character to the article. I think his statements like "White people were blessed with the gift of structure and organization" and "Hispanics are gifted in family structure" are completely contradicted by the scientific evidence, which these days is starting to paint a pretty clear picture of what things (not very many of them) are actually correlated with "race" and what things aren't. Although the article starts by saying NPOVishly that "Racialism is a term used to describe the belief in the existence and importance of racial categories, in themselves often disputed," the Reggie White quote clearly expresses a POV that such categories exist and are important. I was also disappointed that the scientific discussion in the lead was never followed up on. You might want to read Gould's The Mismeasure of Man, and then think about it in comparison with the opposing points of view expressed in Steven Pinker's books and Matt Ridley's Nature Via Nurture. The article could also use a discussion of the history of anthropological thought on this issue.--Bcrowell 01:08, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Good points. While I'd very much like to keep the reggie white quote for alot of reasons (I'm from wisconsin and I think he's great, so maybe I'm just biased ;), I completely agree w what you've said. Very sharp observations, esp. on the lack of follow-up on the anthropology. Thank you very much. ¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸ 01:21, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Another thing that concerns me about this article is that although almost all the examples it uses are black people (Marcus Garvey, Bob Marley, Anthony Appiah, W. E. B. DuBois, Reggie White, Nelson Mandela), almost none of those people would intentionally describe themselves as "racialist." In 100% of the cases where I've seen a person or a movement that wanted to be called "racialist," it was right-wing white racists in the U.S. (White Aryan Resistance, Stormfront, nationalist.org, etc.). Although I'm sure it wasn't your intention to come across this way, the article really does come across as though it's trying to legitimize those organizations' racist POV. This is a longstanding strategy of organizations like David Duke's National Association for the Advancement of White People: to promote a violent white-supremacist agenda under the guise of simply doing for white people the same thing that black organizations have been doing for black people.--Bcrowell 03:34, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thats a POV that I am familiar with, and agree with the inclusion of, but recent edits (and a long history of reversion) have attempted to enforce the conception that the term is nothing else. It has a historical usage distinct from "racism", which is where the article should focus. ¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸ 17:21, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• If you want to make it a featured article, you'll have to do something about the images. Image:Hitler-car.jpg has a dubious fair-use claim -- most photographs from Nazi Germany are still copyrighted. Image:DuboisWEB.jpg has no source or copyright information. --Carnildo 05:20, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• I haven't heard this term being used in the American press or seen it in the literature. The article itself is fairly short, and it's very odd to find a list of sources that are nearly as long as the article. That leaves me wondering how useful are those sources? Or can this article be greatly expanded based on said sources? — RJH 14:53, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• "Organisations such as NAAWP insist on these distinctions, and vehemently oppose state sponsored racism." - come on.. at least "claim to vehemently oppose". Serious NPOV issues, even without the notice. Mozzerati 21:59, August 22, 2005 (UTC)

I've worked hard on this article since I created some time back. Like to hear what others think and how to improve it i n keeping in line with the Wikipedia standards. Thanks--71.136.187.127 00:34, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

While it's an excellent article, some people may find the style overly familiar and judgmental at times. Statements such as "they beat a steady pathway to his door" and "finding a shared soul and recognizing her complimentary qualities to his own awkward introvertedness" appear to be non-neutral opinions. &c. Thanks. :) — RJH 15:28, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This is a departure to what I usually do on Wikipedia. Because of that, I need help on this one to make it through the FAC process. It's an Italian province, so those who are good on Italian subjects or that can read Italian, I ask for your help on any expantion. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 04:09, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• a) lacks photos. b) should cover mountaineering, skiing and walking, at least briefly. c) geology would be good and interesting d) statistics on the economy e) food f) natural disasters / floods / landslides g) disappearance of glaciers and retreat of the marmolada since the 1950s and before. h) some very short paragraphs could better be combined i) some language is a bit strange / informal "prepared achieve their ends by hook or by crook" j) lack of coverage of transport systems. ; Has definite potential. Area is great; should be a great article. Mozzerati 22:14, August 22, 2005 (UTC)
  • I will try to fix all of those as soon as I can. If you wish to help out, join in. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 22:17, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• I've read about this place in my newspaper recently. 1) History section is too long. Summarise, remove subheadings.
• There's just a solitary paragraph on the government. The first para is more of a history. Explain the power sharing between the autonomous govt and Italian govt. Police etc. can be included.
• Economy is short; expand
• Culture, education, sports, transport, geology seem to be absent

=Nichalp «Talk»= 10:05, August 23, 2005 (UTC)

• • I forked the History article, so I can condense the history. I will check up on those too. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 13:52, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Since the previous peer reviews (1 & 2), further improvements have been made in this article including better images, reduced length (with concise sections linking to more detailed sub-articles) and better sources. In theory, it should meet the featured article criteria, but any suggestions by fresh pairs of eyes before it is submitted would be very welcome. --Dave A 12:26, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Lead seems a bit short for an article of this length. More footnote references might be required. — Wackymacs 10:12, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've put up this article for a peer review because of comments that have suggested that the sections on Edward Said's book are inadequate. The article is about the history of Oriental studies in the west and about the ways in which the term "Orientalism" itself has been used in the past, and has come to acquire negative connotations in more recent times. The article covers Orientalism in both the sense of "Eastern/Asian studies" and the sense of "arts depicting Eastern cultures", especially those of the nineteenth century. Paul B 16:35, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Personally, I have no problem with your treatment of Said's book. I do think, however, that you should list your references explicitly (web and print sources, alike) and link those sources to assertions in the text. I have moved Said's book to a new ==References== section to give you an example of bibliographic style. —Theo (Talk) 22:13, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, referencing is a weakness, I think. Thanks for your intervention. Paul B 23:55, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I worked fairly hard on getting this page done. I didn't want to elaborate on too many things just a down to earth article that people would enjoy reading without getting overwhelmed. KB3JUV 13:49, 22 August 2005 (UTC)KB3JUV[reply]

• Overall it looks pretty good. I did have one or two issues, however. The expression "MARS Proud, Professional, and Ready" looks like a slogan of some type, and the way it is employed on the page does not appear very encyclopedic. If it is a slogan, you could explain it as such, and not present it in the manner of an advertisement. Both "Department of Defense" and "Armed Forces Day" can be linked to their own pages; "intellegence" is spelled incorrectly, and the page could do with a category or two. Thank you for your contribution. :) — RJH 15:43, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Thanks for the comment, I fixed and added all the things you talked about.KB3JUV 17:35, 24 August 2005 (UTC)KB3JUV[reply]

A very well-written article, mostly developed by Joel Ng of Singapore. I would like to get improvements and suggestions in (before submitting it as a FAC). In particular, if anyone can upload an artistic representation of Manetho, that would be great. --Peter Kirby 02:24, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Who is Joel Ng? I don't see his name in the history of this article.

I noticed that a number of links that originally pointed to a number of existing articles, & now are red. If you are serious about FAC status, I would suggest that you go back & re-check all of these links, & perhaps change the spelling to conform to existing usage. (If you can prove that your version of the names are more correct, perhaps you should make an argument that those articles be moved.)

Although your transmission chart is informative, the areas around the text have a grey pallor & need to be cleaned up.

If you are interested in Ancient Egypt, please help out at Wikipedia:WikiProject Ancient Egypt.

But what is presently on this page is a more extensive treatment than what was there before. -- llywrch 23:08, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Joel Ng is an online friend. Joel Ng wrote the text and released it under the GNU FDL; I merged it into the Wikipedia article for him. I have fixed some of the red links. I have fixed the transmission chart. Finally, I have added a hieroglyphic for "Gift of Thoth," a popular supposition about what "Manetho" was in the Egyptian language. --Peter Kirby 04:56, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You've given a number of references, but it's not clear which reference covers which topics. If it was it would help with verifiability very much. One possibility would be a system of inline references such as footnotes. Mozzerati 21:26, August 24, 2005 (UTC)

This article contains a lot of informations, and its apparently have mantained its NPOVness. I think it's ready for WP:FAC. Just a little Peer Review. CG 15:34, August 13, 2005 (UTC)

• a) it's quite low on references, lots of statements could do with sourcing b) e.g. Criticism of Muhammad is often equated with blasphemy, which is punishable by death in some Muslim-majority or Islamist states. should have a reference to a specific example c) lots of non specific statements: some societies are more credible than others. - which ones d) weasle words / "some say" e) I think it's quite unbalanced: Muhammad's life according to Sira is very long (and should probably be a separate article) whilst Muslim reverence for Muhammad lacks a plain text description, statistics etc. f) please give references to the texts which "have raised doubts about the reliability of these sources" Mozzerati 21:22, August 24, 2005 (UTC)

This article was put up for FA status back in April. It was really very far from ready, so the nomination failed. I've taken stabs at improving it since, but right now it needs a fresh set of editing fingers. Anville 19:26, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• If it's going to make featured article status, the image copyrights need to be straightened out. All the images are claimed under fair use, so fair use rationales, as outlined in Wikipedia:Image description page#Fair use rationale, need to be supplied. See Sunset Boulevard (film) and related image description pages for a good example. --Carnildo 05:34, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I did some research and took a stab at writing the rationales. Anything else? Anville 19:21, 25 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I found this as a random stub and have spent an evening expanding it. I am looking for style notes more than anything else. —Theo (Talk) 22:03, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• I would love to help, but I can't think of anything you should add. Was he ever the subject or part of a book or film? - Mgm|^(talk) 12:40, August 25, 2005 (UTC)
  • Just having your confirmation of its apparent comprehensiveness is a help. Thank you. I have now clarified the first sentence of ==Later life== to read: "Corrigan wrote his autobiography within months of his flight and helped RKO Studios produce The Flying Irishman, a movie about his life, in 1939." —Theo (Talk) 14:15, 25 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

previous PR

Since the CVG Peer Review wasn't very helping (and Mario is also aching for the FA), I need to know what is needed here. igordebraga ≠ 16:38, 25 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It's a very decent start, but I think it still needs some work.

1. Statements such as "incredibly popular", "overwhelming popularity" and "Sonic is well known for his various abilities" are non-encyclopedic.
2. In some places it is unclear what is canon, what is non-canon, and from whence the non-canon material was derived. An example is the "Former US/UK version" section, where it expounds on the coloration question that was earlier stated as non-canon. But what else in that section is non-canon?
3. There's also an issue with the chronology in places. For example is says "In more recent games...", but never explains what is meant by "recent". How will that read in 20 years? Likewise for "In later games he...". Specific dates would be better.
4. It could use a reference section, instead of general statements like "American sources often claim" or "by some sources, 16-year-old".
5. Is there any information on who is credited with the creation of this character, besides the company?

I hope this was helpful. Thanks. :) — RJH 17:33, 26 August 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 03:39, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is the first of 83 articles on current Alberta provincial electoral districts to reach completion, Please see my user page for the other written articles. I would like peer review to see if there is anything else that can or should be added to this district article. This district has a detailed ninety year electoral history, and every result has been researched. --Cloveious 01:57, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The article looks great, and I can see the article has been well researched, but I'd like to know where you reaserached it, please cite your sources. The only other thing I can suggest is working some of the lists into prose, or making graphics for things like the age distribution; the local issues could be expanded a bit too.--nixie 03:36, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I updated the references, they should all be in the article now. (most were at the bottom) If some artisan wants to make a better graphical way of displaying the demographics data, they would have my gratitude! As for the Local issues, I try to scour the web to find topics of local interest, needless to say its not easy. I have had a debate with myself whether they should remained bullet point or not, and what counts as a local issue. It's hard when you don't live anywhere close to the riding to write about local cross currents, that affect the voting population. --Cloveious 04:03, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I, too, have been working on electoral districts. Here is a BC provincial example and a Canadian federal example. One of the goals I tried is to achieve is to make them a simple and easy to read as possible. I kept the sections short, used tables and strategic bolding. I like to think it is comprehensive and intuitive. For Little Bow I would like to make these suggestions:

• Sum up the Boundaries section into a couple of sentences. The legal descriptions are way too long, and not that informative. I work with that Township/Range system everyday at work and it is useless to just read it (it needs a map for comprehension). That system is only used in Alberta and some places in BC (maybe Sask, too) so people outside these places will definately have no idea what it is talking about. I suggest using place names (ie. communities, towns, streets for urban areas) that lay inside the borders and provide a link to the legal description (Electoral Divisions Act 2003).
• Demographics should go into a table and/or graph.
• Local Issues should be summarized elsewhere. They probably change from election-to-election but can be described in, say, the Geography (or History) section where it explains it is a rural district dependent on ranching.
• For the election boxes:
  • I would get rid of the red links. They are annoying and distracting.
  • I believe voter turnout is important. This can be written down right beside the year of the election (eg. 2002 Result - 60% turnout).
  • Total votes could be useful, too, but if you do use these also use the turnout because pop canges skews total votes.
  • I like to show financial expenditures. It is a first-past-the-post system and money talks. The real parties can be distinguished and true popularity/unpopularity can be found (see 1991 results). I have found it costs $50 000 to be able (not guaranteed) to win provincially in BC and $30 000 federally. -maclean25 03:23, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks for the input, I have tuned up the page, combined local issues into the header text. The financial expenditures are another issue, and not all that feasable currently. Elections Alberta does not currently keep candidate financial statements online, and the Central Library in Calgary does not carry all the Elections reports. The boundaries in Alberta generally don't follow noteable things, except for the urban ridings, which make it hard I discovered that when I was doing the Peace River. I am just working on a graph to better display demographics. --Cloveious 07:00, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • I have started working on the turnout and total votes, --Cloveious 16:55, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • I have provided a Boundary summary, but I am also keeping the Legal boundaries, as well as provided images of all historical boundaries
          • Perhaps I was not clear with my criticism. The 'Boundary summary' you recently provided is excellent in that it helps orient me while describing the district at the same time. My complaint with the Sec-Twp-Rge system is that it is unreadable without a key or a map. I doubt anyone will ever sit there and read that entire section, and if someone did they would not be better informed because of it (just confused). I recognize the desire to be as formal as possible but I think it distracts from the article. Describing lines on maps verbally, especially in prose, is never pretty. Hence the use and popularity of maps. I am of the opinion that all geographic info on the page should be consolidated into a Geography (or what-have-you) section that details, most importantly, place names (ie. communities), then borders (in general terms), and major landmarks or other distinguishing features (eg. mountain range, river, prairie, etc.). My original point was that naming communities and place names that the electoral district covers is more useful in describing where the district is than listing boundary coordinates. Also, I think the "Demographics for Little Bow" external link is broken. --maclean25 04:18, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
          • I removed the comment on it being the sixth oldest in Alberta. That sentence came right after a sentence that claimed it was created in 1913 out of five other districts. Speculating that these were not the only five in Alberta, it just didn't add up. Btw, I don't think the 'Riding Association' section adds much to the article. --maclean25 05:08, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This is my first article and, basically, I want to make sure I am doing it right!! I have read through as much of the Help section as I can, but there is so much, and it's all a little daunting. I welcome any feedback, positive or negative. John the mackem 17:37, 22 August 2005 (UTC)John_the_mackem[reply]

• The images need to be tagged with their copyright status, as outlined in WP:ICT. --Carnildo 19:54, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• I thought I had? If you click on the image, the copyright tag is in there. Have I done it wrong? John the mackem 20:18, 22 August 2005 (UTC)John_the_mackem[reply]
  • Must have missed it -- I think the "copyrighted any purpose" tag is the smallest one around, and the colors blend in quite well with the "Classic" skin. In any case, the description page needs to indicate the source of the image. --Carnildo 21:36, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• The Reference section links should be labeled
  • Thanks to everyone who has given feedback. I have made all of the suggested changes. Does anyone have any comments regarding the subject matter? John the mackem 19:42, 25 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Our article naming convention requires us to avoid abbreviations so I have renamed this Nissan Motor Manufacturing (UK) Ltd and bypassed the consequent redirects except here and at the noticeboards (because I thought that those last few might confuse John). Comments on this clear and interesting article:

1. Avoid informal contractions like "it's". 2. Link more of the text to specific sources. For example "It is expected up to 18% of the plant's overall power needs can be met through these turbines." could do with a citation. 3. The last part of ==History== has too many one-sentence paragraphs. 4. Consider restructuring the ==Plant functions== section to reflect the tripartite division and avoid one-sentence paragraphs.
I hope that this is helpful. —Theo (Talk) 12:20, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Theo, thanks for all the input. Greatly appreciated. I did read the rule on acronyms, but I also read that they are OK in situations when the subject is almost totally known by it's acronym. I thought this was one of those cases, but on reflection I think you're right. Thanks for doing the changes for me; I don't think I could have managed it!

The citations are quite difficult, because a lot of it comes from my own personal experience and knowledge (I work at the factory). With regards to the one-sentence-paragraphs, I understand what you mean - I will have a look at reworking it. Thanks again. John the mackem 20:09, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I have worked hard on expanding this relatively obscure but interesting article on one of the most influential landmines in history. I'd like to get it featured soon, but to the obscurity of the topic matter, it does not get much traffic. So, I would like to see what other people think about it. Primalchaos 00:25, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• A referance section would be good for starters. --ZeWrestler ^Talk 00:49, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Changed. See the bottom of the page. --Primalchaos 05:40, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• The article looks quite good to me. It could possibly use a few more links in the descriptive mid-section. There's probably a few more photos of this mine floating around.[4] Nasty little item. You might mention that part of its psychological effect was due to it's maiming ability, particularly with regard to limbs and genitalia. Thanks. :) — RJH 16:18, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Added more links and what images I could find that were a confirmable and appropriate copyright status. Also incorporated comment of maiming fear. --Primalchaos 05:40, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

For the archived peer review of this article see Dogpatch USA Peer Review Archive 1
This article is near feature status. Only a few problems with sentence structure, reference, and may be a few italics problems. Hoping it will stay here a week or two and then become featured.--The_stuart 13:31, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

A good article, and it is clear that a lot of work has gone into it, but there are still some problems. The sentence "a kaleidoscope of characters and events would unexpectedly conspire to transform the pot of gold at the end of the Dogpatch rainbow into a financial roller coaster ride which eventually ended in failure" doesn't belong in an encyclopedia. The images also need more information. Some like Image:Dogpatch USA.JPG have copyright information at all. Others just have permission to be used in Wikipedia. Permission for use in Wikipedia is not enough. We need explicit permission that an image can be released under the GFDL. More photos of the park itself, rather than just advertisements, would add to the article. Trivia sections are also bad form. The points there should either be merged elsewhere or deleted. - SimonP 13:59, September 1, 2005 (UTC)

I have contacted the creator of the image and gotten him to release it into the public domain. I have also changed the lead to reflect a more "encyclopedic" tone. The trivia section, however, is kind of a difficult matter because the facts it lists are important yet don't seem to fit into the article anywhere.--The_stuart 21:39, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I integrated the trivia section, any other suggestions?--The_stuart 18:37, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hello everyone. Most of my areas of interest are in relatively obscure eras of Irish history, and, because of uncertain health, I would like as much help and peer review as possible; not just on this article, but them all. Very much looking forward to your comments (mostly!). Fergananim 21:06, 25 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Fergananim. I took a look at the writeup and I found some of the sentences a bit unclear in the way they were written, so I attempted to do a little clarification. Please check and make sure those revisions are meet the intent. The page could use a slightly longer introduction that at least mentions that he was the Archbishop of Dublin for nearly two decades. The very last sentence mentions a "great many" miracles that occured by his intercession, but gives no specifics. Could this either be expanded or referenced? Also the page could do with some references for credibility. Are there any illustrations of this man? Pictures of staues? Paintings? Representations? That sort of thing. Finally, much of the article is concerned with the history of Lorcan, but less so with the man himself. Are there any personal details? Any of his writings? Thanks. — RJH 17:45, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hello RJ. Deeply appreciate the help. I agree on the introduction and will do so. As to the miracles I as yet have no specifics but will look them up. As far as I know there are no contempary illustrations of Lorcan, but it would not be hard to find a modern rendering. The trouble is I still don't know how to upload and insert illustrations, which has not helped the quality of my articles. And as to the man himself, point taken. Fergananim 18:27, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Fergananim -- Image uploads are actually fairly easy. The hardest part is figuring out which copyright template to use. I go to the following page for uploads: Special:Upload, and to the following for the list of copyright templates: Wikipedia:Image copyright tags. All of this is available under the Help link, along with information on image formatting, and so forth. — RJH 15:50, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Extremely good article, but it needs images. Tasks you can do 20:31, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

I've put a lot of time and research into this article and would appreciate some feedback. 209.247.222.103 21:09, 13 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks for all of the suggestions below. Rick Norwood 15:05, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

At first glance, it needs to be broken up into sections (i.e History, etc). Second thing is you don't really need to list the different magazines by format (glossy paper, etc) or by size. In fact, you probably don't need to list them at all. I don't the size or the format of a magazine is as important as the content. Maybe concentrate on the contributions of the various magazines to the field. Also, I believe it is spelled "phenomenon". --Barista | a/k/a マイケル | T/C 09:49, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Done. And I've added an explanation for my reasoning in listing my size: because libraries and collections shelve magazines by size, and so it helps to know the size of the magazine when searching for it in a collection or back issue shop.

Needs to be broken up with headings to make it more readable, as at the moment it's really ugly and hard to read. Dividing the magaizes by size is an odd choice; personally I would have categorized them by movements instead eg The Golden Age, ushered in by John W. Campbell's editorship of Astounding, The New Wave, begun by Moorcock's editorship of New Words, and so on. Euchrid 17:41, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• It's a good start, but I agree with the above commentaries. Also right now the article is about 50% lists. I think the long lists of magazines should be placed on their own page sub-divided by type, and this page can focus on the topic description. The page could also do with a couple of images, some categories, and a few "see also" links and some good quality external site links. Thanks. — RJH 14:44, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I have seen some articles that have the lists in the articles, and other articles that break out the lists in a separate article. The wiki style sheet on lists does not mandate which of these choices to make, and so I went with my preference: to have lists right there in front of me.

• I agree, for the most part, with the other comments. One serious error is that most of the American paperback "magazines" you list were actually anthology series -- all but Quark, as I recall -- and Orbit was a hardcover series, with the last half of the run (roughly) never appearing in paperback; Nova and New Dimensions were also hardcover series. Missing are at least two paperback magazines -- Destinies (edited by Jim Baen at Ace) and Far Frontiers (later New Destinies, edited by Baen at Baen Books). In terms of fact-checking: Current "bedsheet" magazines aren't the same size as "Life" was; Worlds of Tomorrow was revived c. 1970; missing digests include The Haunt Of Horror (mid 70's, from Marvel Comics!) and Forgotten Fantasy (reprints); the history of Fantastic Adventures/Fantastic is more complicated than you have it; Galileo and Asimov's Adventure weren't on "slick" paper, and I don't think Cosmos and TZ were, either; I'm not sure it's correct to say there were best-of-the-year anthologies for every year since 1949, and expect there's a gap or two in the years just after the Wollheim and Carr collections ended; there were at least 9 US digests in 1970: Galaxy, If, WoTomorrow, WoFantasy; Amazing, Fantastic; F&SF, Venture; Analog -- there may have been more; I'm not sure when the publisher of Amzing/Fantastic stopped publishing reprint digests; and, if you include Captain Future, why not Doc Savage? Not to mention Perry Rhodan? Monicasdude 00:51, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Twilight Zone also had a relatively short-lived digest companion called "Night Cry," which I'd forgotten entirely until I saw a few copies in a local used bookstore last weekend. I thing it was principally a reprint zine drawn from TZ, but I could be wrong. Monicasdude 17:15, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I've added Destinies and Far Frontiers. I agree that it is hard to tell a paperback (or hardback -- which I now mention) magazine from an anthology. I think the main difference is whether or not the book is a periodical. The inclusion of book reviews, editorials, etc. is also in indicator -- but not an absolute guide. I've fixed the mistake on the size of current magazines, such as Realms of Fantasy. And, as I say at the beginning of the article, horror magazines are a separate genre, about which I know little. Why include Captain Future but not Doc Savage? I suppose I was influenced by the Day index, but somehow Captain Future feels like an sf mag while Doc Savage does not. Captain Future spent a lot of time in outer space, Doc Savage was mostly earthbound.

On the numbers of US magazines in existance in a given year, I was guided by Locus. I'll double check.

Please add to the article information you know that I don't, such as info about Perry Rhodan and other non-English language sf magazines -- though Perry Rhodan doesn't "feel" like an sf mag to me, since (as far as I know) it did not publish any non-Perry Rhodan stories.

• For start, let me advice you to register and read up Wikipedia:Manual of style. This article needs redaction: it has no Wikipedia:Lead, no sections and no categories. Also, it is no comprehensive: it is basically an article about American and British SF magazines - it does not mention Fantastyka, Fenix (magazine) and many other non-English sf magaziens you can find while browsing the relevant category. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 17:40, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Please add a section on magazines from countries other than the US and Great Britain.

• I believe the physical format of the magazine is only of passing interest. should be less prominent. ike9898 13:45, August 28, 2005 (UTC)

As I mention above, it is important when trying to find the magazine in a large collection.

I think the article is pretty much ready for FA status, but I think that it still has a few kinks to work out. So anyone can give me some suggestions? The Filmaker 20:52, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Way too much in the trivia section, very little of which is cited to reliable sources. Christopher Parham (talk) 20:30, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The trivia section has been heavily shortened and I've added a few references throughout it as well. The Filmaker 00:10, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The refs dont looks right being numbered to 18, then having a bullet point. That should be fixed. Tobyk777 01:54, 9 May 2006 (UTC) Some ideas[reply]

• There is not one reference in the cinematic/liter. references as far as I can see
• Though I see it is in chronological order, plot should be at the top
• All the images should have a fair-use rationale (the posters do not)
• Havent read through the trivia yet, but I'm guessing its not that important. Find out what is useful, discard the rest
• Avoid dot points/list [Triva]
• DVD section is a mess. See dot points/list. It is also debatable as to if it even desereves such a large section. Anyway, turn into paragraphs
• This article runs the risk of getting in trouble for having too many fair-use images (bonus disc DVD set...righteo?)
• You may want to shorten the plot, I understand it is Star Wars, but consider shortening it a little
• There should be a much larger section on the build up-->Pple sleeping outside theatre/general anticipation of seeing Darth Vader etc etc
• Awards sub-heading does not offer much. It should be merged into reception/reaction. it is debatable whether a Rasberry award is even worth mentioning...You could asdd Lucas' views on the PCA award (I believe he as pretty happy about it/was the only award that he cared about)
• You may want to expand the production section and split it into subheadings
• ..Gray & Christmas claimed before the premiere that it may have cost the US economy approximately US$627 million because.. need a citation
• The MPAA paragraph seems a tad USA-focused, even though Great Britain and Canada are tacked on at the end, may I suggest rewriting it into a paragraph about how it was meant to be the most dark/emotional out of the six..thus...got an X MPAA rating..no need to ramble on about the American rating
• The reaction section could do with a cleanup. Go easy on the romantic criticism/'wooden' stuff...at best, tone it down (it's a little POV)
• Turn box office section into paragraphs..not really sure how much that is important either...seems like a bunch of info pasted from boxofficemojo...remember its not a competition with LOTR/Spiderman/whatever..it reads a little fan-boyish
• Cast infobox is annoying..check out some other film FAs for ideas..
• Don't need sountrack cover in the article Cvene64 01:09, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually, "Gray & Christmas claimed before the premiere that it may have cost the US economy approximately US$627 million because of employees who took a day off or reported in sick" doesn't even make sense -- did they make the claim before or after the event? Christopher Parham (talk) 02:44, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• A few thoughts. The Box Office Performance section is very US-focused for a film that was released in 115 countries. The wording in the DVD Release section implies that the DVD was only released in the US. The Bonus Discs subsection needs some clarification - does it only refer to bonus disc releases within the US? i.e. was the two-pack DVD with the bonus disc only available at Wal-Mart stores in the US? or was it available at Wal-Mart stores worldwide? or from other suppliers outside the US? Jazriel 11:18, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• My thoughts, from having viewed many evaluations and FAC nominations:
  • First of all, extremely good job, I am impressed by your efforts to make this happen. Jsut a few things:
  • You should strongly consider reducing down the number of fair use images by a few, see Tenenbrae for a recently approved FA.
  • Not all images that should have fair use rationales and sources have them.
  • trivia really should go, always first thing to get axed in an FA for film. If important, incorporate, if not, scrap it.
  • too many two sentence paragraphs.
  • Sources look excellent overall, just think about replacing the "Hitler +World War II" and "The Shape of Days" references do not inspire confidence in their reliability. Who are they?
  • Do a final sweep and check for any statements that may need references, and then find reliable ones like you have for virtually all of the things in the article.

Good job! Let me know if you put this up for FAC, I'll try to help you Judgesurreal777 01:58, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So far I've taken into consideration all of your suggestions, and I thank you all for them. For the purpose of this message though I'd like to say to Judgesurreal777 (thanks for the extremely kind words by the way), that the cast list is written to be in the same style as the articles Blade Runner, Casablanca and Arrested Development all of which are FAs. Not only that, it was re-written namely because of a complaint above over a Cast Box that he refered to as "annoying". At the moment I feel that the list is fine. The Filmaker 05:05, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If it's cool with FA standard, it's cool by me :) Judgesurreal777 05:11, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That was me, "annoying" was perhaps the wrong word choice, but it is generally (tables in general) frowned upon at the FAC. Cvene64 11:42, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm very impressed with what has been done in such a short time. Congrats. There is still a way to go though, may I offer thr following improvements.

* Statements that may need a source:

• Bai Ling's claim
• Lucas' denial of Ling's claim
• "It is often said the film contains a number of plot holes, although this claim is widely disputed and debated by fans"
• The Gay Oldman info as well as Wood's comments on it
• Die Hard references
• Tucker Torpedo
• Dr. Mabuse references

* Images:

• There is not an even distribution of images per characters
• There isnt really a good reason to exclude Padme
• Maybe an image of the scene between Anakin/Palp/Mace could solve the issue of Palp/Mace not having an image from the movie
• The cast image is cool, but I still think Padme/Palp/Mace should be featured in the plot..maybe even General Gre. as well

* Other:

• "including McDiarmid himself" Does this mean that people have made comparisons between Palp and Ian, or Ian himself made comparisons between Palp. and lago..
• Deleted Roles could flow a bit bitter
• The criticisms of the film, in my opion, still kind of mirror the views of a "Lucas Basher" as opposed to a general audience...

...More to come..but great work! Cvene64 12:20, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello everyone. Most of my areas of interest are in relatively obscure eras of Irish history, and, because of uncertain health, I would like as much help and peer review as possible; not just on this article, but them all. Very much looking forward to your comments (mostly!). Fergananim 17:34, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The lead is a bit thin, it should summarise the article. Are there any paintings or prints showing a likeness of him that could be added?--nixie 09:28, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It should be made clear from which source each quote is taken from Fornadan (t) 23:40, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Aside from the lack of pictures and sounds, which I am attempting to fix, does anyone have any suggestions? I recently added a bunch of inline citations and changed some things around in accordance with past comments. Here's the old discussions. Tuf-Kat 07:29, August 23, 2005 (UTC)

Overall an excellent article, at least in my oponion, that covers the topic in depth. However I did trip over the assertion that "Nigeria has also produced some of the most popular music in the world". I think that an assertion this broad needs to be backed up with specific examples in a section on Nigerian music that has achieved world-wide popularity. Similarly with the statement that "the country's musical output has achieved great international acclaim". Thanks. :) — RJH 14:42, 25 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The first claimed weakened, and the second sourced. Obvious exceptions, like Fela Kuti, notwithstanding, Nigerian music is primarily a domestic affair. Tuf-Kat 07:15, August 26, 2005 (UTC)

It looks good, thanks. About the only other element the page could use is a few more illustrations, either of notable artists or local instruments. — RJH

Great article. One thing that could imporve the flow would be taking out some of the section headings and getting rid of the {{main}} links. --nixie 09:19, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I removed a couple of the main article links, and got rid of two section headings. Is this better? Tuf-Kat 16:22, August 30, 2005 (UTC)

Okay, I gave it a read. Here's what struck me:

1. First, the article is overlong (42 KB). I wonder if it might be a good idea to summarize the "Folk music" section based on region rather than ethnic group. In a country with over 400, as the article claims, it seems odd to only focus on three here.

42 kb isn't all that long, and three groups focused on are by far the three largest in the country (I've amended the article to explicitly say that).

1. The intro says Nigeria has "dozens or hundreds of tribes". Which is it?

Fixed.

1. Lots of passive voice.
2. What about modern Christian praise music? I've never been to Nigeria, but I lived in Cameroon, and the Anglophone portion of that country takes its cultural cue from its western neighbor. Nigerian singer Agatha Moses is like Elvis in Anglophone Cameroon. The mainstream radio is saturated with Nigerian praise music, so you're as likely to hear a Nigerian cover of an American Christian contemporary tune as you are to hear Danfo Drivers (an extremely popular Nigerian reggae group). Again, I haven't been to Nigeria, but I suspect things are similar in the south of the country.

Some googling gave me enough info for a paragraph, though some web pages (like this) seem to imply that gospel is extremely popular in Cameroon, and that much of it is Nigerian. I'm not sure it's quite as important in Nigeria itself.

1. Piracy. How do these artists make any money? What's the business model like? I know that in Cameroon, I only found one store that sold actual, non-pirated CDs, and these were priced ten times as high as the pirated ones sold at thousands of street kiosques and off of teenage boys' heads. This is probably a topic for Music of Africa, but a mention of how piracy affects the Nigerian music industry would be good.

I added a mention in the bit about the music industry in the lead, but I agree a more detailed examination belongs at music of Africa.

1. A couple of places mention what I think are states in Nigeria, but the wikilinks go to disambig pages. The two I caught were Adamawa and Borno.

Fixed, I think

1. "The most extreme northern region uses essentially monodic music . . . ." What's "monodic" mean? If it's not a typo, a quick definition would be good.

It means having only one melodic line (see monody). Fixed.

1. The article currently mixes American and British English. I'd say go with British, considering Nigeria's colonial history. (This would affect "marginalized" and "theater", but probably a few other words, too.)

Fixed, may have missed some.

1. The Hausa boorii cult is described as featuring "trance music". You might want to specify what you mean -- Trance music is a genre of techno music, and I don't think that is the intended meaning here.

Fixed.

1. The section on "Classical music" is awfully short. Could this be merged somewhere else so it doesn't stick out so much? Similarly, the phrase "African Western classical composers" is awkward. Perhaps "African composers in the Western classical style"? I keep getting tripped up thinking "West Africa".

Changed to one of the most famous African composers of the Western classical tradition, paragraph moved to lead

1. The quote under "Palmwine and the invention of juju" seems out of place, as no sources are quoted directly in the rest of the article.

Fixed.

1. What's an "MBE"? Perhaps spell out the acronym or define it.

Fixed

1. Watch where were is linking. It's not an article about Muslim songs.

Fixed.

1. Likewise, check all the links to be sure that they're going where they're supposed to. Juju is linked a lot, and it should go to jùjú music.

Fixed.

Good article. Hope you do Music of Cameroon next. BrianSmithson 14:19, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

My next African one was going to be music of Kenya or music of South Africa, because they should be relatively easy to research. I hope to spend some time on Cameroon soon though. Thanks for your comments! Tuf-Kat 17:11, August 31, 2005 (UTC)

I've spent considerable time going through it and editing on the clause level. Based on the inconsistencies in the first part, I regularised the spelling to BrEng; I realise now that I should have asked the author whether he prefers Br or US spelling. It's a fabulously rich topic, and the article, although too long, is mostly well written. It could do with some trimming down to the daughter articles. It's rather densely linked, which makes it harder to read, so I delinked the simple years, decades and centuries, since these are of little use to the reader. I've reduced spacing between the sentences to one space, to avoid the 'rivers of white' problem. I hope that this becomes a featured article. Tony 04:32, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

British English is right (or more precisely, Nigerian English, which is the same as I understand it). Your edits look great. Thanks. I hope I can get it featured soon too, but I don't think it will unless I can find some freely-licensed pictures. I've been sending e-mails out to a bunch of webpages, but so far haven't gotten permission from anyone. Tuf-Kat 08:03, September 3, 2005 (UTC)

Pictures are essential; I wonder whether you might trawl through releated articles and ask some of the contributors for help; and there must be some ethnomusicologists who either possess photos or can point you towards those who do. Tony 08:21, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This article has undergone significant editing and revision in the last five months. I believe the main objections have been rectified and this article is very ready to go through the FA process again. --Chevan 02:04, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Could the paragraphs under "(Dec 2005 - Present) Hiatus Again..." be written like the rest of the article in prose, not in timeline form? I believe Hiatus and Again should also be decaptalized, per WP:MoS. Also, note Wikipedia:Make_only_links_relevant_to_the_context#What_should_be_linked; years with full dates should be linked, like "October 7, 2005" (but not "1980" and "1981"!). AndyZ 00:22, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• My first suggestion would be to go over to recommendations through the Wikipedia:Featured Music Project. I noted that a review has been made of the page, and I agree with the suggestions. Just about all the new FAC music articles have some sort of sound sample. As well, the FMP noted there were no outside references, i.e. books, referenced in the article, although Van Halen has had numerous biographies, official magazines, and music entries over the years.

• Personally, I think the article is a bit wordy, and at times sounds more like a "VH1 Behind the Music" special than an encyclopedia entry. Some examples, "The commercial success that Van Halen reached with Sammy Hagar set high expectations — and fans everywhere were watching and waiting for the band's next move" sounds odd. "By 1980, Van Halen was perhaps the world's most successful and influential hard rock band" sets yourself up for arguments by fans of Led Zep, AC/DC, and others who might feel there were other more successful and influential hard rock bands. Similar unsourced opinions slip through the article, like "5150 is generally considered the strongest album of the "Hagar era." and "A left over track entitled "That's Why I Love You" found its way onto the internet, leaving fans to wonder why it didn't make the album." are two other quick examples, although there are others. Also, the article is very wordy, i.e., "By September, however, David Lee Roth and the rest of the band were asked to present an award at the 1996 MTV Video Music Awards. On September 4, 1996, the four original members of Van Halen made their first public appearance together in over eleven years, presenting an award at the 1996 MTV Video Music Awards." Essentially, both sentences repeat the same thing.

• I think that the article is there information-wise, but the writing needs a complete copyedit. Work on eliminating duplicate words, opinions, and POV. Otherwise, an informative article on a major rock influence.

• Hope this is helpful. Best of luck!

--Ataricodfish 16:42, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Someone offer me some support. I've done major work, but progress is slow (The Elfoid 18:02, 18 May 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Message me on my talk page if you wish for me to highlight specific concerns with the article, and I'll review it with a fine toothcomb. LuciferMorgan 00:43, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Article seems pretty good as it is, but it could do for improvements. - A Link to the Past (talk) 04:50, August 21, 2005 (UTC)

I, Redwolf24, will be working on this peer review. Strike out things once changed please.

• Could use more links in lead-in paragraph. Link to turtle.

*Perhaps lengthen the lead-in. * He rides on a cloud and throws Spinies, turtle-like creatures with spiked shells, at Mario (or Luigi for the second player), the game's protagonist <---change to throws spinies at the game's protagonist, Mario (or Luigi for the second player). Sounds less choppy IMO.

I disagree with the deletion of the definition of "Spinies". Wikipedia articles on game-related subjects often forget that not everyone who accesses an article will be familiar with the subject. In other words, it's important to remember the uninitiated. BrianSmithson 11:32, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Oh no that wasn't my intent. My intent was to change the wording with Mario and Protagonist. I just didn't retype it to make this PR quick. I mentioned it in the IRC room to Link too. Redwolf24 20:00, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

*Thumbnail the Mario Kart images and make them a bit smaller. Also, maybe add a pic of MarioKart64?

• How about an image of the first fishing lakitu?
• Otherwise looking great.
• One more thing, write the pronounciation in the first paragraph. Redwolf24 01:44, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

See the Talk page. I don't think the English pronunciation is known. I could try to write Nintendo, though. BrianSmithson 13:42, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I, Rob Church, will be adding my peer review below also. As for Redwolf24, please strike out anything I raise should you address it.

• I agree, the leader needs more wikilinks and these should be distributed evenly throughout that text.

Done.

• Consider changing "as neither friend nor foe to" to "as neutral to", in the leader text.

Done.

• In which of the games was "Mario's quest to save Princess Peach and retrieve the 120 Power Stars"? This isn't made sufficiently clear.

Done.

• Consider splitting Characteristics into subsections Appearance, Attacks and Defense and move the content about accordingly.

Idunno. The sections would become awfully short if we did this.

• Can someone take a screenshot of a Lakitu from one of the Paper Mario games? I think it'd be better than the Super Mario RPG image that is currently there. BrianSmithson 23:55, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• We need to provide fair use rationale for the images we've included.BrianSmithson 20:22, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Done. BrianSmithson 13:42, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Complete profile on Ohio's lieutenant governor, who could be governor if Bob Taft resigns amidst the investigations of his administration. Has photos, bibliography. But needs a good copy-edit. Would appreciate comments about it possibly being a featured article. PedanticallySpeaking 20:54, September 2, 2005 (UTC)

Could possibly be a featured article. A longer section on the scandle as more is made public. Overall a great article. --Banana04131 02:38, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, this looks like a decent article. It's perhaps far too much detail about a fairly typical state politician than I'd ever want to know, and frankly I lost interest about half way through. But others may find it more interesting, particularly if the reader is from that state. Do you have any information regarding where he grew up or where he was born? Thanks. :) — RJH 17:50, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Article has a greater potential but I am not sure what to write about. --Cool Cat ^Talk 17:53, 8 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Small: I would like to see the table with the sound track less wide so it fits on a 800x600 resolution monitor. You don't need those large empty spaces in the table. - Mgm|^(talk) 21:29, September 8, 2005 (UTC)
  • Better? --Cool Cat ^Talk 22:53, 8 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Could references be added? Maybe a history of production, if possible? Toothpaste 22:57, 8 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• You could discuss differences between the various versions. I'm not happy with the sound track stuff... seems like far too much space being taken up for something so trivial. I'm not sure the soundtrack listing (by CD, even!) is something that should really be in an encyclopedia article. Also, a brief character blurb for each character listed could help. Nothing in depth, since there are main character articles, but a brief summary would be nice. You could also mention fansubs briefly, since I know I've watched a number of episodes in fansub already. Just a start. Obviously, there's a ways to go... Fieari 06:50, September 12, 2005 (UTC)

I spent a lot of time researching this article and I was wondering how I could improve it further. I'm especially interested as to wether the style is good. --Carabinieri 23:45, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Well, the political history leaps from '79 to his assassination. Maybe cover what he did to get elected and assassinated? And please check out my Hopkins School article a little further down! No one seems to want to help! Staxringold 03:38, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to know what I should do to bring this up to FA standard. Alr 15:34, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Disclaimer: I've worked on this article. The article only has two footnotes; it would be more typical for an FA on a historical topic to have 30 or 40. Someone needs to go to the District Six museum and get a copyright-free photo of the yellow "for use by white persons" sign. The maps from the University of Texas are claimed to be PD because they're products of the federal government, but I don't see any evidence of that on the UT web site, which specifically says at http://www.lib.utexas.edu/usage_statement.html that many of the materials are copyrighted. Some of the images are under noncommercial use licenses, which is a problem. Although it is possible to have an FA contain one or two images used under fair use, they would have to meet the criteria given at Wikipedia:Fair use, and the sheer number of images with copyright issues in this article is going to be a big problem. This article consists mainly of material from History of South Africa, merged with the former Apartheid article (now redirected). History of South Africa was nominated for FA twice, and failed both times, for exactly these reasons: footnotes and copyrights. --Bcrowell 16:09, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I was under the impression that the maps on that site were PD unless marked otherwise, according to their FAQ. Alr 16:14, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Most of the SA maps were produced by the CIA. Alr 16:16, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The image's description page needs to have enough information to convince other people that the copyright info is correct.--Bcrowell 18:42, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder if it would be OK to import material from the Library of Congress country study on South Africa, which as, to my knowlege, PD? Alr 17:36, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I think in general any product of the federal government is PD, except in cases where it was created by a contractor for the government.--Bcrowell 18:42, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I wrote this article recently and think it's pretty good. I'd be interested in others' comments. Note that I've deliberately not broken it up into sections as I feel it would disrupt the flow of the article, but see what you think.--The Brain of Morbius 00:27, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• It's pretty decent, but relies on a strong knowledge of the sport and includes some vernacular expressions. I suppose that is to be expected to some degree. "Desperate" is spelled incorrectly. There are a number of statements bordering on hyperbole. It says, for example, that "The Lions were thrashed". Does that mean 3,921 to 15 or some such score? You could be more specific. Generalizations such as "White's shellshocked teammates", "White was devastated", "an inspiration to other indigenous players", and "strict disciplinarian" could use quotes or references to back them up. Paragraph 4, sentence 3 is missing an "and". Is he married? Does he have children? Any family at all? Thanks. — RJH 15:02, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for the feedback, I'll consider your comments and see what I can do.--The Brain of Morbius 22:24, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can't see any instance of "Desperate" being spelt incorrectly, can you be more specific?--The Brain of Morbius 23:14, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sorry, my bad. Please ignore that spelling issue. Thanks. — RJH 19:28, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This article is good. More changes could be made.

Raj2004 23:32, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• I don't know enough about the topic to give specific advice on the content, but the section titled "Benefits of chanting Vishnu Sahasranama" appears to be bordering on non-neutral. That portion could do with a lot less simple recitation and a lot more critical analysis. The quotes section looks to be poorly formatted and the bullets should be replaced by in-line text. Otherwise overall it looks pretty decent. Thanks. — RJH 14:52, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The benefits come at the end of Vishnu sahasranama and are part of the prayer. so it's not a point of view.

Raj2004 10:32, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Well I'm sorry, but a simple recitation of a prayer is not neutral. It is entirely from the point of view of the religion and involves no analysis or critique. It is purely a form of religious advocacy. WP:NOT and Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. Thank you. — RJH 19:35, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This was the quoted text from the prayer. I am not advocating a point of view.

Quotes are not expected to be neutral. Now, if someone can find some criticism of the prayer, it should be included. Are you aware of any such criticism of this specific prayer, Raj? I tried to address the format concerns in the quotes section, btw. Sam Spade 21:01, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Using a religious prayer as the only source of the text for an entire section without an explanation or analysis just is not neutral. Especially when it fills up an entire page. If that section was a page by itself, it would be put up for deletion. "NPOV policy often means presenting multiple points of view. This means providing not only the points of view of different groups today, but also different groups in the past." Please see Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view#Religion. Thank you. :) — RJH 17:23, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sam, no specific criticism of the prayer. But two commentators, Sankara and Parsara Bhattar give different interprations to different names in the prayer. Sankara and Parsara Bhattar have written commentaries on the meaning of the 1000 names and come to different interpretations.

Please see for example, the name #3:

"Nama 3: vashatkAra:

One who controls and directs (not merely pervades).

Sri Bhattar interprets the names VishNu, vashatkAra, and bhuta-bhavya-bhavat-prabhu, as additional elaborations of the name visvam. The root of the word is vas - to control as He wills. It should be noted that Sri Bhattar has pointed out in his commentary for visvam that BhagavAn is everywhere with His shAdguNya paripUrNatva WHICH IS NATURAL TO HIM, in the commentary for vishNu that He permeates everything that HE CREATES AND POSSESSES, and in the current one for vashatkAra that He controls AS HE WILLS. Thus, all these guNas are not something that have been acquired or imparted by something external, but this is His will and schema.

The following passages from the sruti are given in support of the interpretation of this nAma:

• sarvasya vaso sarvasya IsAna: - He is the Controller of all and the Ruler of all.
• jagadvase vartatedam - The Universe is under His control.

The summarization from Nirukti is svecchayA yo sarvam vase karoti sa: vashatkAra: - One Who controls and directs everything and everyone as He wills.

Sri Sankara provides a very different interpretation for this nAma. He points out that BhagavAn is Himself the vashatkAra mantra, where vashat is a sacred sound (similar to Om, svAhA, etc). used on sacrificial offerings. It is also used in the anganyAsa and karanYasa practice before chanting the sacred slokas (e.g., sahasrArchis saptajihva iti saktyai sikhAyai vashat). Note the similarity of vashatkAra to Om kAra, a word with which we are familiar. VashatkAra is thus a mantra, and BhagavAn is the mantra svarUpi.

The explanation in terms of BhagavAn having control over all His creations is appealing because of the continuity it provides to the interpretations of the previous nAmas.

from http://home.comcast.net/~chinnamma/sahasra/sloka01.html

Raj2004 21:17, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thats exactly what we need, discussion of differences in interpretation, held by expert personages. Such citations are what make this a wonderful article! Sam Spade 00:57, 4 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This article was already the subject of a peer review and can be found here. It has undergone significant changes since then, and I resubmit it for peer review so that one day it may join AIDS as a featured article. --Bob 23:58, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program, and may or may not be accurate for the article in question (due to possible javascript errors/uniqueness of articles).

*Per WP:CONTEXT and WP:MOSDATE, months and days of the week generally should not be linked. Years, decades, and centuries can be linked if they provide context for the article.

*Per WP:MOS, avoid using words/phrases that indicate time periods relative to the current day. For example, recently, last year, soon, and last week might be terms that should be replaced with specific dates/times.

*Per WP:MOSNUM, there should be a non-breaking 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.

*Per WP:MOSNUM, please spell out source units of measurements in text; for example, "the Moon is 380,000 kilometres (240,000 mi) from Earth.

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

*Per WP:MOS#Headings, headings generally should not repeat the title of the article. For example, if the article was Ferdinand Magellan, instead of using the heading ==Magellan's journey==, use ==Journey==.

*Please alphabetize the categories and interlanguage links.

• This article may need to undergo summary style, where a series of appropriate subpages are used. For example, if the article is United States, than an appropriate subpage would be History of the United States, such that a summary of the subpage exists on the mother article, while the subpage goes into more detail.

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

• • it has been
  • allege
  • is considered
  • might be weasel words, and should be provided with proper citations (if they already do, or are not weasel terms, please strike this comment).

*As is done in WP:FOOTNOTE, for footnotes, the footnote should be located right after the punctuation mark, such that there is no space inbetween. For example, change blah blah [2]. to blah blah.[2]

• Please ensure that the article has gone through a thorough copyediting so that the it exemplifies some of Wikipedia's best work. See also User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 2a.
• 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 00:27, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is a couple of things I've noticed after quickly looking through the article. I'll read it in more detail later and perhaps add more comments. In general it looks like a very good effort. All my complaints are very minor.

1) Is this repetition in the intro: "WHO estimate that AIDS has killed more than 25 million people" and two lines down "current estimates say that about 28 million people have died"?

2) This sentence in the "Introduction" section is confusing: "This viral DNA is then integrated into the cellular DNA for replication using cellular machinery." It could be misread to mean that the DNA is integrated using cellular machinery.

3) This sentence seems redundant: "CD4+ T cells are white blood cells that are required for a properly functioning immune system." In general that paragraph requires revision to reduce repetition.

4) Genetic variability of HIV: subtypes of the M group are commonly referred to as clades, I think you should mention that.

Peter Z.^Talk 00:29, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

1) Fixed

2) True, fixed.

3) The whole paragraph, I thought, is redundant, removed.

4) True, the term clade has been introduced.

Thanks --Bob 00:45, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• As Andy suggests, it can be improved by removing excessive links to solitary years. In this article, there is only one unnecessary date link to remove: '1983'. For those that want to address this issue for many articles, a monobook tool allows this to be done with one click on a 'dates' tab in edit mode. You can then accept or reject the changes offered and/or do more editing before pressing 'Save'. 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. bobblewik 17:25, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Done --Bob 22:30, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. You are doing great work. bobblewik 10:02, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Great article! Congrat! I haven't found any faults (I have microbiology exam in two days...). Why are images so small? In my opinion, it can go to FAC. NCurse _work 07:46, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is a central topic in music and (Afro-)American culture. It is referenced more than 1500 times. I think we need to get it featured.

This article has been improved very much in the last weeks. History and influences of the blues have been expanded. Many details have been added to its origins and musical characteristics. We have now more than 40 kB info. I think some pairs of fresh eyes could help us to reduce a bit the length and improve the flow. Thanks.

This article has been once peerreviewed: Wikipedia:Peer review/Blues/archive1 (I was the only reviewer) =-o

Vb 12:16, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• This is a great article, and it should become featured soon. My only problems with the article as it is:
  • It's got some awkward formatting (I just fixed one instance of quotes inside parentheses inside quotes)
  • The "Musical style" subsection seems to have two redundant descriptions of the 12-bar blues chord progression. I think the "I - I - IV - I" version is more accessible than the "tonic - tonic - subdominant - tonic" version. Removing the "tonic" version will involve rearranging the text of the section, though.

rspeer 17:36, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for the edit and the useful comment. I have change the paragraph according to your suggestions. I would appreciate further comments of this kind. Vb 08:42, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Looks great! This article is one of the best if not the best Music article on Wikipedia. The form style and all around greatness of this article is, well great!_Seadog ^♪ 20:49, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

An instrumental tool in the coast guard's fleet, the motor life boat is an often overlooked but greatly appreciated sight when in need.

I have great respect for the mlb and the sailors who drive them and felt that it was time that they were featured in wikipedia.

what do you guys think? -Seasee 03:53, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• It looks pretty good to me. The prose is a little colorful in places for an encyclopedic article: "unfortunate souls", "scurrying for high ground", "serving the Coast Guard ... faithfully" &c. If you're going to take it through for FA, they'll probably want reference tags. Have any of these boats ever been lost at sea? — RJH 20:29, 5 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I've been working on this for a while. It's an obscure topic for the english-speaking world and the wikipedia article is by far the best source of information on this figure in either language. I hope for this to be featured on the front page one day and I think information wise it's pretty good... I'd just like to see what things could be improved now before nomination, what to smoothe out, little details, etc. Anything you could think of to help improve this article would be appreciated. Live Forever 19:36, 4 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Just had a brief look, looks good overall, but the Image:Gradacac.JPG can be troublesome - just because it _probaly_ is from a defunct nation don't mean it's in public domain. Safer to claim fair use and provide a rationale for its use in the article. Will read more carefully thru the actuall article later. WegianWarrior 09:01, 5 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This article is unique in that it discusses the differences between Karma in Hinduism vs. other religions.

Raj2004 23:17, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• I don't know the subject well enough to comment on the details, but hopefully others do. I can give some general advice. 1) Karma is a Sanskrit word no? If so, put it in Devanagari script and maybe also a png image for those who don't have indic fonts installed. Also a pronunciation in Sanskrit and English in ogg format would be great. 2) References should be clear which are used to add or fact check material in the article (references) and those that have not (external links or further reading). Mixing them leaves it ambiguous if any sources have been actually used as references. 3) More use of the most authoritative sources available. You seem to have quoted from the source texts and some scholars, so more of that would be great. I don't have enough familiarity with the subject to even know if your scholars are the most prominent or not, but try for that. - Taxman ^Talk 23:01, September 6, 2005 (UTC)

As you can judge from my username, the subject of this article is one I have a strong interest in, but after pouring over countless media articles related to this album, WikiProject Album guidelines, featured articles about musical compositions (including Smile, the only FA about an album), and re-reading the article itself over and over again, my mind seems to have gone blank. The article has tripled in size since I started expanding and rewriting it, and there's certainly more to come in the next few weeks, for reasons you'll find when you read it. An outside view of this article would be greatly appreciated, especially since I might consider nominating at WP:FAC in a couple of months. Thank you in advance. Extraordinary Machine 03:28, 4 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Sweet crackers! That's quite the story. Consider using parallel lists for the Track listings, like this. I have been trying to figure out how to do this for awhile now but User:Cloveious's List of Northwest Territories general elections has provided a great template. --maclean25 05:20, 4 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for making the track listings look like that! I didn't know lists could be inserted side by side like that. I agree, it takes up less space in the article, and doesn't leave large blank portions to the right of the page. I've separated the track listing and personnel lists into two sections, though, so that they are both accessible through the table of contents. Once again, thank you! I'll integrate the changes into the article now. Extraordinary Machine 14:23, 4 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Well, you helped Everyking out with Autobiography so I feel I owe you :) ...

1. Try making the track listings and personal sections more like most of the other albums like Ashlee Simpson's Autobiography.
2. In addition, you use the same album cover image twice in the article... I'm not sure if that's covered under fair use, I'd check that out. (in addition, I think finding a replacement image would help the article too)
3. There are a LOT of red links in the article.... try to cut out most of them and just have them in normally...
4. Waay too many quotes! It makes the article hard to read for some people. Try to summerise/use prose for a lot of them instead :).
5. I see a lot of sentences in there that could be rearranged for better readabily and some sentences that verge on being a run-on.... in general try not to have too many thoughts in one sentence
6. Embedded links - you've already got a references/notes combo. All links should be in either of those two sections - none should be inlined if you want to go this route :).
7. " begged Brion, whose five-year relationship with comedienne Mary Lynn Rajskub had abruptly ended during the shooting of her film Punch-Drunk Love (2002)," Many things like this in the article.... interesting tidbits but really "who had just broke up with his girlfriend, for example, is sufficient enough for people who are not fiona :). Also, try to relate this accesory information to the album as much as possible and avoid making these seem like a side note.

Have fun! 67.185.103.222 10:44, 5 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Thank you for your reply, although I should point out that I have only made small edits to Autobiography.
  1. maclean25 converted the track listings and personnel lists into parallel tables because, as the normal album article format created a lot of white space on the right side of the page.
  2. The second album cover is a slightly different version of the one in the infobox (it's the original version). I thought it would have some historical significance in the future, so I kept it in. Anyway, I've added fair use rationale to all the images except Image:Fionaappleextramachine.gif, which will probably be replaced with something else.
  3. I'll remove some of the red links.
  4. I actually think quotes liven up the article, instead of justing making it a timeline of events leading up to the album's release. I think readers of the article might be interested in what Apple, Jon Brion, the press etc. thought about the status of the album at different times. However, I appreciate this suggestion in particular, and will take another look at the article.
  5. I'll also look over the article for "run-on" sentences.
  6. I just thought that people shouldn't have to scroll down to the bottom of the article for a link to the Free Fiona website or Apple's official website, particularly as the album's release is approaching. I'll probably change them to ref/note format after the album has been released, though.
  7. The Brion/Punch-Drunk Love mention is important because apparently he was saddened at having to see his ex-girlfriend over and over again while working on the film. Personally, I think the article is about as detailed as Smile, although I'll see what I can do.

Once again, thanks for your comments. Extraordinary Machine 17:53, 5 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above anon was me. Anyway I think this is good enough to skip past the peer review here and go straight to FAC. You might get nailed on the excessive quoting though (that's the only real thing I'm worried about). Ryan Norton ^{T | @ | C} 17:05, 6 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Also by getting rid of quotes I mean paraphrasing so it reads better rather than a direct quote all the time :) Ryan Norton ^{T | @ | C} 17:06, 6 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I assume you mean sending it to FAC in a month or so, since I have no intention of sending it now. Extraordinary Machine 21:46, 6 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

previous PR

I welcome any comments regarding things that could be done to the article to improve it. It's a featured article, and has been since 2005, but I'd like for it to keep its featured status rather than go through a FAR in the near future. ~ Sebi _[talk] 03:15, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, APR _t 12:50, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This article has problems with the representation of other input to the creation of the Internet outside of that of ARPANET. There is a major dispute between if ARPANET is the sole major contributor to the cultural aspect of the Internet, and if the UUCPNET and comercial X.25 networks made significant contributions to a worldwide network. It needs substantial expansion on non ARPANET issues, internet culture and non technical history. --John R. Barberio ^{talk, contribs} 21:42, 5 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Hi Barberio, it seems that this article is currently in the middle of an NPOV dispute, and so Peer review is not the right place. Informally, just looking it over, it is severely lacking in stuff on the European side, such as JANET. In general, the real problem is that the article seems rather unclear as to what it is describing: the origin of the physical structures? The emergence of internet "culture" (in which case it would have to cover things like BBSes, from which big chunks of internet culture today emerged? The origin of the software and protocols? (e.g., the article seems to discuss things like e-mail, aka, the SMTP protocol.) These various questions are answered only partly, in a confused order. Sdedeo 03:13, 6 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

A lot of work has been done on this article in the last few months (see what it looked like at the end of february). I've put this up for peer review now as I wanted to get a feel for what people think of it before a whole load more work is done on it. Specific things I was wondering about include:

• Is the article too long?
• Is this suitably focused on the biography side rather than general history? This is difficult as Uganda has quite a personalistic regime, so the history of the country since 1986 is inextricably intertwined with Museveni.

Would really appreciate any pointers, even if you just scan the article. Cheers! TreveX^talk 10:50, 6 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I would support this article for featured status, you've done a wonderful job. Are their still issues w pro and anti POV's, particularly regarding scandal claims? When I last edited it (back in april or something) that was a serious issue. Sam Spade 11:54, 6 September 2005 (UTC) {copied from talk page by TreveX^talk 14:54, 6 September 2005 (UTC)}[reply]

No, it's calmed down now. The contributions of certain users was very useful, but with their particular POV some of these claims needed verifying, this process has largely been completed. Glad to know you like the article. Cheers! TreveX^talk 12:04, 6 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I randomly stumbed upon this article, and since breakfast cereal plays such an essential part in my life (and the lives of countless others), I figured it'd be cool to bring this up to FAC quality. I already added a history section; any other suggestions? I'm at a loss of what to do next. The PNM 04:12, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Consider renaming to "American cold breakfast cereal". Very U.S. POV, no mention of muesli, for example. Exclusion of hot breakfast cereals seems odd. Rmhermen 16:49, August 23, 2005 (UTC)

Strikes me that this would make a good WP:COTW or WP:AID. -- ALoan (Talk) 11:23, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Nitpicking but the text under the image reads a bit goofily... I tend to prefer a quotation out of the text, ie, Breakfast cereals have their root in the temperance movement in the United States in the last quarter of the nineteenth century. Bit of POV in there too. --PopUpPirate 23:09, August 30, 2005 (UTC)

I added the for template WikiProject Countering systemic bias Seano1 00:37, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I would expect a section about the types or categories of breakfast cereal: wheat-based, rice-based, corn, bran, etc. A description of how different kinds are made and packaged, maybe? It needs a lot more information but this could turn into a really interesting article. --Yodakii 09:19:04, 2005-09-07 (UTC)

Hello, I am requesting another peer review of this article, nearly one year on from the incident. The article's looking great, the facts are fairly "stabilized", and the story is no longer much of a current event, though the article may be a point of interest when the anniversary of the shooting comes about on the 22nd. KWH 05:36, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Very good well-researched NPOV article. I made some minor changes which I hope make it easier to understand.

Some comments from my read through:

• "The officers were watching three men who they claimed were Somali or Ethiopian in appearance." - this doesn't appear to make sense in the context - "watching for" , perhaps? (or needs some further clarification)
• The section on the killing is confusing because of the use of "their" rather than "his" or "hers" (Difficult call as I assume we don't know the sex of the officer and "his/her" is ugly), "officers" to refer only to firearms officers (so you end up with "...officers and the surveillance officer...") and the interchangable use of Hotel 3 and surveillance officer. It also reads badly as Hotel 3 is 'dragged' 3 times.
• The timeline of the article has the police revealing the reason for the shoot-to-kill policy before the Muslim Council demanding to know the reason.
• The section on "controversy over police procedure" has no inline references which lets it down. It reads as much more POV and WP:OR than the rest of the article as a result.

Personally, I'd leave it a while before going for FA status (although I'm sure it would qualify) because it is still current enough to need further work. - Yomangani 11:19, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Yomangani... for what it's worth, I don't like the whole "Hotel 1,2,3" narrative either, but it is a paraphrase of a report of someone's leaked testimony, so there's only so much liberty to take with the wording. The bit on "controversy over police procedure" is probably one of the oldest parts of the article so although it's probably all from contemporary press reports, it wasn't fully cited. I do see how it seems different from other sections, though. Thanks again, KWH 20:44, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, AZ _t 15:34, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Packed full of trivia, would make a great FA one day. --PopUpPirate 23:16, September 1, 2005 (UTC)

It looks good to me. I only saw a few minor editing issues (A period instead of a comma: "Colby was not only involved... equipment>.< He also..." "Archeology" in one sentence, "archaeology" in the next.) — RJH 15:24, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This article concerns a technically and historically important part of the computer revolution. I've gone through it and made extensive minor edits, but it needs serious consideration by computer techs if it's to be considered for FA status. Please assist by commenting here and editing the article! It would be great to raise it to featured-article standard.

I particular, will someone please check whether the images are all OK with respect to copyright? Is Apple good about granting permission? Tony 02:51, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• I'll put my reveiw at the end, but I'm afraid that since Apple didn't license their software to others in the beginning (circa 1980s), they lost a considerable market share. That's why Microsoft leads the market. Still, Apple is a shrewd company, and I'm sure they learned from that mistake. HereToHelp 21:36, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• It looks good so far, but I think it can be improved. The article says that, "This was a landmark event for its time and had a massive impact...". How so? Is this in reference to the subsequent description, or just the fact that a product line had been trimmed down? It is unclear from the explanation. It later says that "Opinions were polarised over Apple's drastic changes to the Macintosh hardware." But what were these opinions? Surely there was a lot of negative feedback over the lack of multiple expansion slots. Did it require a box swap to get a CPU upgrade? If so, I'd see that as a big negative as well. Thanks. :) — RJH 20:41, 5 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

My review:

• References are missing. Absence of references means no FA.
• Lead too short. Triple the size.
• Immediately after becoming Apple's interim CEO in 1997... reads like a climax/anticlimax. Start with the performa series and why it was discontinued.
• VP --> vice president
• ADB, SCSI, Geoport serial could do with some more details
• all-in-one -- use monolithic (suggestion)
• Purists felt that... -- reference this statement to a site etc.
• '"hockey puck" design -- I think flat would be more descriptive. "Round and flat hockey..."
• =Technical= should either merit a top level heading or be merged with history.
• MacNC project and CHRP -- Brief into needed.
• OS 8.5 ---> 'Mac OS 8.5'? wikify
• L2 cache, IrDA port and the CD-ROM etc -- wikify
• versions had a slot dubbed the "mezzanine slot" -- reads odd. Is this considered an expansion slot?
• Electricty consumption? (suggestion)
• I think =USB= needs to be merged under technical and it be given a top level heading.
• March 2003, 15 August etc. Dates have to be wikified
• iMac (Flat Panel) (aka The New iMac in production, iMac G4 after discontinuation) That's a very long heading. Headings need to be as laconic as possible
• Non breaking spaces hould be used between a number and a unit. 15&nbsp;inch.
• I think {{Promophoto}} should be used for the images instead of {{fairuse}}. Currently photopromo is only for people, but the tag does not explicitly say so. Just verify.
• There are too many fair use images, free ones should be sought. I'm sure there are many wikipedians with Macs who might help.
• Income garnered from macs worldwide?
• advt. / disadvt of Macs? (eg. Costly in India so are rare.)
• Countries in which macs are sold?/not sold?
• Usage? Used by artist, video developers etc because of the accurate colour depth, resolution and speed.
• weight
• Some more about the OSes used

That it for now. I wont be checking for replies, so message me if you need any comments. =Nichalp «Talk»= 10:12, September 7, 2005 (UTC)

I rewrote this a while back and finally got around to adding the extra stuff that was needed. We are sadly lacking any FAs on telecomms, and since this is a commonly used modulation scheme, I thought it might be a good place to start. With this lack of precedent, I'm particularly interested in whether there is enough/too much mathematics and whether the lead-in is thorough enough at the same time as not being dumbing-down. As well as other thoughts, of course. -Splash 23:40, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Splash,

Here are my suggestions for the article:

• Single quotation marks and italics are used throughout this article. Since they break the article's flow, try reviewing each use and consider whether it is really necessary.

• Working on this...

• Review the choice to make bold the phrases "binary phase-shift keying (BPSK)" and "quadrature phase-shift keying (QPSK)"

• They both redirect here, like DPSK.

• It might be worth minimizing the number of acronyms used in order to aid readability consider "The bit error rate (BER) of BPSK in AWGN can be calculated as:"

• This is true. I will look through and see where acronyms may be avoided. Sometimes, the phrasing would become repetitive with them included, but I will squeeze them out where I can. The particular case of AWGN is because I don't like referring to it simply as "white noise" — a statistically inadequate phrase.

• The obvious problem that stands out to the reader with differentially encoded PSK is an error in transmission seemingly won't be undone until there is another error in transmission. It might be worth briefly mentioning how communication systems overcome this difficulty in practice.

• It may be prudent to add something about duobinary encoding in the article you think? --HappyCamper 11:06, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Hmmmm. I'll go and read up on this a bit. We should take care not to conflate two distinct, but similar, techniques. -Splash 12:51, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• The article should start by explaining phase shift keying not listing the three most common classes of digital modulation. Instead place this in the body of the article.
• Rephrase the first sentence so it avoids the use of brackets. Maybe "Phase-shift keying (PSK) changes, or modulates, the phase of a reference signal to convey data.".
• "necessarily" is unecessary.
• "comprises the 'symbol'" is bad grammar.
• Since DPSK redirects to this page it should be bolded.
• The sentence, "In exchange, however, its performance in terms of how many erroneous demodulations are made, is worse." has far too many redundant words.
• Sentences shouldn't begin with "which".
• The paragraph and sentence, "As for many digital modulation schemes, the constellation diagram is a useful representation and is relied upon in this article." goes nowhere.

• I've expanded this to give a compressed overview of constellation diagrams. The wikilink to the main article should do the rest.

• The equation for s1(t) is mathematically wrong. I think you forgot to drop pi from the last part.

• Yes. The basis-functions were added by another editor who I mentioned this peer-review to.

• "where 0 is represented by...and 1 is represented by...This assignment is, of course, arbitrary." might be redundant.

• Think so? It shows why the basis functions are a handy representation.

• Then I have no problem with leaving them in - it was just my opinion.

• "the I- and Q-channels" introduces new unexplained notation stick to talking about the in-phase and quadrature-phase components.
• It's a small point but instead of "The constellation diagram shows that" try "In the constellation diagram shown"
• Consider merging the last two sentences to make "This yields much lower amplitude fluctuations than non-offset QPSK and is often preferred in practice."

• Yes. They were originally so merged.

• Instead of "power of 2 (2,4,8,...)" try "power of two".
• Avoid the use of pronouns to address the reader (e.g. "we").
• Introduce the function Q(x) textually before you define it mathematically.
• Rather than defining Q(x) twice mathematically define it once in the form Q(x) = ... = ...
• The "just" in "it uses just two phases" is redundant.
• In "spacing around a circle which gives maximum phase-separation", "which" introduces a restrictive clause, try using "that".

• Made 'power' a wikilink instead.

• Instead of "which, since there is only one bit per symbol, is also the symbol error rate." try "Since there is only one bit per symbol, this is also the symbol error rate." Consider using a new sentence for all paragraphs that proceed equations maybe with the exception of those that just define variables.

• I'm not sure what your second sentence means exactly.

• You specify the basis function for BPSK but not QPSK. If you are going to discuss basis functions I believe that those of QPSK are equally deserving of mention. Especially since they might help with understanding in-phase and quadrature-phase components.

• These were only recently added to the article by me. I'll look into adding the QPSK ones if they seem useful. --HappyCamper 11:06, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• We have a choice here (a)Leave the constellation diag as it is, and present the basis functions for QPSK - this is instructive since they take the general PSK form which BPSKs basis function does not; or (b)I can rotate the constellation diagram to be on the axes. Then it is readily apparent that QPSK is two BPSKs, and the basis functions' presentation may be more straightforward. -Splash 12:51, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• There is no signal versus time diagram in the article. At least one would be appreciated.

• Added for most of the schemes now. Only differential-encoding remains wanting, but I will do it. -Splash 03:50, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• I think an extra constellation diagram for π/4-QPSK might be helpful but may be difficult to fit in the article.

• Yeah, I'm still thinking about this. I could show the 'other' constellation with faint points or something.
• Done. -Splash 03:50, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• The final sentence before the example is an important one. There are two things that could be done to improve it. First make it clear that "only a small increase in Eb / N0" is needed to overcome the increased BER. Second you might like to stress that the BER does not account for phase shifts in the communications channel caused by something other than AWGN and that in such channels the differentially encoded PSK may come out on top.

• This is a very good point. I've expanded the sentence into a short paragraph. What do you think? I decided not repeat the point in the final sentenc of the whole section; the one that deals with the graph.

• "k<supthth" is probably a typo.
• Try putting the footnotes in a section "Notes" and the other references in a section "References" in accordance with Wikipedia's other articles.

• I intend all the current entries as references to back up the Applications section. Which ones do you think should be footnotes?

• I really just meant that, by convention, most articles have a separate section for their Notes and their References. I've done this now. Some like the Nirvana article combine them and if you want to do this feel free.

• Ah, I see what you mean. Thanks. -Splash 12:51, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Good work and I hope this helps.

Cedars 08:54, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, that's mighty thorough. I'm working my way through the list, so I've struck out the ones I've done. Along the way, I added some questions about some of your comments. -Splash 10:58, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• looks good, but it's too technical. show a diagram of a single bit (e.g. a sine wave reference from -20 to +20, a signal starting as a sine wave then turning into a cosine from about -5 to +10 and then returning to the reference sine wave from +10 onwards). I've had some success generating this with gnuplot and the erf function. If you don't have an easy way to generate these diagrams, message me.
  • That bit done. -Splash 03:50, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• I think you want to move discussion of other modulation techniques out of the article line, possibly to a navigation template.
• move the applications section quite early in the article and include pictures
• possibly split some of the maths out, particularly error definitions. Remember Wikipedia isn't paper so the article doesn't have to be complete in its self.
• ${\displaystyle {\sqrt {E_{b}}}\phi (t)}$ for example might be better represented by a warm fuzzy picture.
• I find the statement "Analysis shows that" a bit strange for "this may be used either to double the data ..." since it's in some sense just a clear true statement / follows directly from the definitions of these concepts. I think just dropthe phrase.
• try to make it so that you could know all of the basics of PSK without passing an equation. They should all stay in, but later and/or in more detailed articles.

Mozzerati 21:50, August 22, 2005 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll work my way through the review up above first, since I'm already part way through dealing with it. But a discussion of some of your points is important now too. In the same order:

• I will make a timing diagram, which lays a bitstream against a signal. I'm going to do this probably only for QPSK since it will also cover BPSK. The BPSK section can just point to "below".
• Yes, a navbox. I've been thinking about making one of those. I'll do it if people want one, although the linear series between the three classes isn't very clear (what order would they go in?). My inclination is (as it was originally) simply not to mention the others, but rely on the wikilink to modulation to do the job. This article isn't about modulation or communications in general, after all, its about one particular shift-keying.
• The various points about mathematics. I'm generally not keen to strip this down to words and pictures. The topic is more than that and, whilst we're not-paper, we are an encyclopedia. The coverage should not shy away from the more difficult parts of things. Spinning the maths out into other articles is something I considered, but decided I didn't like too much. This is because I would have to reproduce a large part of the contents of this article in each subarticle, and the only different material would be a few lines of math. Holding them in here I don't think does much harm — the non-technical reader can either use the rest of the Wikipedia to learn the necessary terms or just look at the graphs.
• To the particlar point about basis functions. They are an important aspect of all digital modulation schemes, and I wonder what warm fuzzy picture you have in mind? A picture of a cos wave?

• Ah, click! You mean a block diagram of the modulator. Yes, I agree. That would be an excellent idea and would show the meaning of the mathematics nicely. I shall make one! Again, I'll make it for the QPSK system since that absorbs BPSK and avoids repetition; perhaps it should just go straight in the Higher-order PSK section?

• I'll have to think about the question about bandwidth. This is obvious to the technical reader, but is it obvious to the non-tehcnical? Is it intuitive to say "twice the data doesn't need any more bandwidth" is the same thing as "keep the data the same but halve the bandwidth"?
• As laid out at present, you can cover the basics of each type of PSK without passing an equation. I'll think about an alternate layout that presents the mathematics in a seperate section or two, but will have to see if that leaves the non-maths parts at a couple of sentences each. That might be no bad thing, though. -Splash 23:18, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Nice to know that telecom articles are being improved but the article is too complicated for a casual reader. I would like to see an overhaul in the entire structure of the article. Here are my suggestions:

• The lead is very complicated, it mentions terms that a casual reader won't understand. I would like it 'dummed down' and translated into simple English. Instead of saying phase of a reference signal (the carrier wave) you can use the term 'sinusoidal wave' instead. BPSK is the most simple to understand, so the BPSK concept should be introduced in the lead. In its most simple form a regular sinewave is used to represent binary 0; and a 'cosine' wave (180° phase shift) is used to represent binary 1. This should be supported by a diagram alongside. (You can clip the QPSK image, first line-0110 to illustrate this). This example is the most simple illustration, and a first time user should the concept through this example.
• Now in the =introduction= mention the need for modulation techniques, and ASK, FSK. Explain about NRZ signals which are used.
• Now create a new section =types of= . Under this include BPSK, DPSK, DEPSK, QPSK, OQPSK, M-ary PSK, MSK etc.
  • Under each of these headings briefly mentioned the mathematical representation, graphical representation (waveform), basic information, and advt+disadvt.
  • Remove all details such as constellation diagrams, error probability etc. Push them into dedicated articles where the generation receiving, and probability can all be discussed. =Nichalp «Talk»= 09:12, August 23, 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for being very specific with your suggestions. My concern with the route you suggest is that it will result in a series of articles which have to repeat a lot of the same background material (e.g. what is modulation, what is PSK, etc). These articles would also each be rather short, and would have to import a lot of context from elsewhere: the error-analysis for example would be incomplete without the pro/con discussion that would also be necessary in the main article. I suppose seeking an FA is less important than having good coverage, but would these short articles stand any serious chance at being an FA? A rearrangement of the content as suggested by the second reviewer above would keep it all in context, but move the mathematical features etc. to later on in the article: people can just stop reading when they've had enough. -Splash 21:23, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• You wouldn't have to define what is modulation in each section. The lead is a summary of the article. It should be written last, and it is perfectly ok to have repetition here. So for the moment ignore the lead.
• The intro will have more information on the basics of the topics. NRZ etc.
• Under each section just explain the generation on the topic, such as Sq. Law Dev, Band Pass Filter etc., and why they are used. You can cover the entire topic (of say QPSK) in four paragraphs. Now 4x7=35+3 (give or take a few), which is of acceptable length. Short articles are allowed to be FA worthy, if anyone objects on the grounds "too short"; they have to provide expansion suggestions, else it is deemed inactionably in FAC.
• I don't support the derivation of error analysis on this page. It becomes too technical. For example you can say that the disadvt. of a DEPSK system is that 1) a complex demodulator is needed; and 2) errors occur in pairs because of the XOR operation. More than enough.
• If the article is written for dummies, I see no problem why this shouldn't be featured.

=Nichalp «Talk»= 05:53, August 24, 2005 (UTC)

• Ok, I will have to think about this. I'll add mentions of BP filters and NRZ, but we already have Band-pass filter (and they're not really part of the modulation consideration) and NRZ, and this article isn't about modulation or digital communications in general, so I don't think we need the full exposition of each component in an end-to-end system. We don't appear to have square law detector, but again it only needs a mention and a brief explanation — it's generic material that should be in a generic article.
• I must confess to be somewhat disappointed that the only way this could become featured is to write it for dummies. Is that what a featured article is about? The article before I rewrote it was suitable for dummies, and was a disgrace. -Splash 00:22, 25 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

No, that's not what FA is all about. You can understand these technical terms, I can too, and so can 100-odd wikipedians. What about the thousands of readers who come to read about article content? Do we want to drive them away by using 'technical terms' that are not explained here? For example look at the cricket page. What we've done is to initally avoid the useage of cricketing terminology so that first time users won't be put off. We've gradually built up the terms by defining them, and using them in the article. It isn't crafted for dummies, but at the same time it hasn't lost its essence or quality.

No, I'm not asking for a fullblown account of the BPF etc. A line on what is does is enough instead of clicking the terms.

I want to see this through FA. I hope you are as optimistic as me. I'd like to help u out. However, I would prefer you structure the content as I've suggested before, before I move in and simplify the terms. =Nichalp «Talk»= 06:40, August 25, 2005 (UTC)

Ok, well, I (and HappyCamper) will finish adding the stuff that's been suggested and then any refactoring/etc can happen. I was short on time yesterday, which was why not much happened to the article. -Splash 10:52, 25 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• 1) I'd have to echo Nichalps suggestion that the article be made more accessible to those that don't already know the subject. That doesn't mean dumbing the whole thing down, but does require careful planning and the adding of context to explain terms/jargon. It may require moving highly detailed material off to sub-articles in order to allow the article to be properly balanced. A careful attempt is needed to make sure the article gives proper amount of coverage to each topic in relation to its importance to the overall topic. That's basically the idea behind good Wikipedia:Summary style. As for accessibility, the majority of the lead should be understandable to the well educated person that doesn't know the subject at all. That is possible to do and still be perfectly accurate if you properly add context. Yes that can seem a little redundant, but doesn't have to if done right. The same for the introduction to each major subtopic. After that, proceed into as much of the detail as you need to. That way you get all the needed detail in, it's not dumbed down, but people who don't already know the material can at least dig into it if they want to. 2) To a higher level view the whole article seems to spend the most time explaining how each works and very little on where it is applied and how important/widespread its use is. The applications section is it as far as I can tell, but since the explanation of DQPSK, etc are split between the lead and the intro, I have to refer back and forth to those just to try to grok the applications section. The lead basically covers nothing but how the technology works, while it should give a broad overview of the subject. - Taxman ^Talk 19:57, September 6, 2005 (UTC)
  • Thanks, Taxman. Well, I think the refactoring is 'all' we have left to do, along with a general copyedit to minmise acronyms and things. We're missing an image of the receiver structure, but HappyCamper tells me he's going to make that. So I'll go away and think carefully about what you've said. To the applications section in particular: yes, having more of it in the lead is a good idea. PSK is used so widely that listing all its usages would be an article of its own probably; it started with the NASA space program in the '60s I believe. Originally, and imo more helpfully, the applications section at the bottom so you only got to it once you knew what/where the PSKs are. The other reviewers have suggested moving it upward, and an anon already did it hence its current location. Anyway, I've been taking an extended break from the article but will come back to it now. Thanks for your suggestions. -Splash 00:13, 8 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Can anybody help review this article? I hope we get enough peer review so we can have less objection when Feature Article nomination come. --Kiba 02:11, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Just had a quick look at it, and the thing that strikes me is the lack of references (or at least, references marked as such). Personaly I like using the style recomended at Wikipedia:Footnote3. Remember that citing your sources means others can verify the article with ease. An uncited article can sometimes be mistaken for original research. WegianWarrior 09:27, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• It could discuss in more depth what role astronauts play in the takeoff, operation, and landing. Their training, life-support, etc... A lot of the complexity of the space shuttle has to do with its ability to take astronauts into space and support them for a period of time. Also, "It carries large payloads to various orbits, provides crew rotation for the International Space Station (ISS), and performs servicing missions." could be expanded more in the "applications" section. What kind of satellites, experiments, or supplies? What about the time period that its cargo manifest was a government secret because it was carrying military satellites? I apologize if some of this information is already included or linked to. johnpseudo 18:13, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• full disclosure: i am radically opposed to the use of the space shuttle. don't be miffed at my terse list below. just trying to keep it short.
  • article looks good and tight visually. opening pic is beautifully processed. nice colors. it's not the only one.
  • my biggest criticism of the article is that it defends the shuttle program's failures almost as if it's government/NASA propaganda. i could give you several earfuls for a criticism section (called Retrospect now, i guess), including some details from richard feynman's book partly on the subject.
  • is the space shuttle truly the "first spacecraft designed for partial reusability", or is it the first regularly operated (non-test) such spacecraft?
  • first paragraph seems mired in possibly unnecessary company lineage.
  • suggest a brutal sweep to eliminate some fluff words such as "current", "outstanding", and phrases like "at least two months and possibly more", " in reality", "in fact", "it stood to reason" (POV).
  • overall, the article sounds too analytic to me -- too involved in the subject.
  • will reentry and standard landing be covered? SaltyPig 04:17, 8 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This is the first thing many foreigners think of when they think about Canada and I was just looking for some ways to make the article better.

Some ones I can think of are:

• Expand Modern Era section to include more than just the Mayerthorpe incident, but also present day activities of the RCMP
• Add section on accidents/disasters that befell the Force
• Get some pictures of Mounties in modern unifroms, not red serge
• Fix the rank table to make it more attractive
• Include info from RCMP Academy, Depot Division & RCMP Recruiting
• Just make the article more accesible to non-Canadians and non-historians

Look forward to any suggestions. Madison Gray 18:51, 5 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Add stuff in about Albert Johnson the Mad Trapper of Rat River, who killed a number of Mounties inthe 1930s.Big media circus at the time.Luigizanasi 20:28, 5 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Too much of bold text
• The =RCMP in wartime= has too many subsections. Remove those sub headings (subsections), and expand the =The RCMP in wartime= as a single unit.
• Please keep the with of the images between 240-270px. In 800x600 it occupies too much space. Higher res images also mean more loading time for low bandwidth connections.
• Expand organisation
• =Modern Era= & =Creation of the RCMP= too short. Merge with another section if expn not possible.
• Most of Canada's provinces, while constitutionally responsible for law and order, prefer to sub-contract policing to this professional national force that consequently operates under their direction in regard to provincial and municipal law enforcement very long sentence: split. another example: The RCMP was created as the North West Mounted Police (NWMP) in 1873, given the "Royal" title in 1904, becoming the Royal North West Mounted Police (RNWMP), and renamed to the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Force in 1920 when the RWNMP was merged with the Dominion Police
• A front view photo of the police would greatly enhance the article.

=Nichalp «Talk»= 05:44, September 6, 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the input Luigizanasi and Nichalp. Nichalp, just wondering what you meant by a front view photo of the police. Do you mean like a RCMP officer in their day-to-day uniform?--Madison Gray 02:31, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I meant that, full length view. =Nichalp «Talk»= 08:27, September 7, 2005 (UTC)

• I would like to see the "The RCMP in popular culture" section moved to the end, right before "see also" The history of the uniform and the ranks is in my opinion more important and should be talked about first. - Mgm|^(talk) 04:51, September 8, 2005 (UTC)

I would like to submit the article for peer review so that I may receive constructive criticism and learn from them to write better articles. I would also like to have the article be in form with Wikipedia. --None-of-the-Above 08:45, 5 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It's a decent article, but I'd like to see some more detail on how EGG developed the idea of role-playing out of the old wargaming rules. Also the page doesn't mention his particular interest in pole arms, and his sometimes criticized writing style. The page could also use a little careful editing — I spotted a few minor errors. (Example: "to a the", "anniversary) As of 2005," [no period].) Thanks. :) — RJH 16:22, 6 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, good deal. Actually, come to think of it. It shouldn't be hard to find out, but finding a source that states this might prove more difficult. I will take a look into it. Thanks. --None-of-the-Above 17:40, 6 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

If you can find a used/library copy of "Heroic Worlds: A History and Guide to Role Playing Games" by Lawrence Schick, I seem to recall it has an excellent, in-depth history of role playing games. :) — RJH 14:49, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Will see if I can't find a copy. Thanks for the tip. --None-of-the-Above 20:26, 8 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Any other comments are welcome. --None-of-the-Above 20:25, 8 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

There has been a lot of improvement since the last peer review. A language spoken as a native tongue by 230 million or more people is significant. I hope this peer review will allow critical evaluation of the article, and enable us to upgrade this to Featured status. --Ragib 19:58, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Last peer review: Wikipedia:Peer review/Bengali language/archive1

• From the article's intro: "Bengali is the English word for the name of the language and for its speakers.... From this point forward, Bangla will be used to refer to the language." Wha? The article should use the English word throughout. --NormanEinstein 13:22, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Please don't relist an article for peer review when there are plenty of issues pointed out in the article talkpage that haven't been addressed. / Peter ^Isotalo 08:37, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Very good overal, so I'll just focus on what it needs to improve of course, and I figure I owe you. :). Basically I would agree with what is mentioned in the to do list on the talk page, except I'm not sure what "complete tabulation of word lists" means.

1. Needs more citations. The top 15-20 most important facts should be cited directly to the most reliable source available. The number of speakers is particularly important because of the number of variables involved there. Mention what the different sources claim and why they vary. Other places that could use it are the diglossia discussion, dialects, phonology (what dialect is the given information based on?), the facts in the vocabulary section,

   Taxman's demands and views on verifiability are problematic, if not bad per se. The idea that footnotes should fulfill an arbtirary quota is not constructive. They should be inserted where needed, not because someone has decided that there simply aren't enough of them. The final figure could be anything from a handful to the high 30s, depending on the individual article. I also don't agree in the least with the heavy focus on turning most of the article into an academic treatise by discussing sources in prose. The responsibility of which sources to include (mainly in the reference section) lies primarily on the editors, not on the reader, or we'll just reduce ourselves to glorified copyeditors. Citations can be nice additions, but they should be used sparingly. We're still an encyclopedia intended for everyone, not an academic caveat for the academia and their ilk, i.e. the (upper) middle class. Accesibility and readability to a large audience should as much as possible outweigh the needs of a tiny minority of highly source-critical and demanding readers. / Peter ^Isotalo 16:06, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

2. There should be a discussion of the language history, not just modern history. It's only mentioned in the lead. An explanation of where the Apabramshas fit in and when Bengali became a distinct language would be good. 1000-1200 AD is what many sources say for Hindi, and I think it's the same as Hindi in that respect, but I don't know. A mention of the important sound shifts and other language changes should be covered. The Modern history section focuses on the publication of descritptions of the language and movements, some of which is good, but covering the history of the actual language is more important I think. Were any other scripts ever used for Bangla?
3. I'm not sure either that there's enough backing for using the term Bangla for the language throughout the article. "Bengali" is so much more common in English that you'd need a really strong reason to not use that name throughout especially given what the article title is.
4. Some short paragraphs in various places cause poor flow and should be merged, expanded, or removed.
5. The beginning of the grammar section seems to imply that morphology is inflection of adjectives.
   

- Taxman ^Talk 13:59, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for thorough feedback. I addressed some the address (really, the only ones I could). I took out the implication that morphology is only the changing of vowels and addeded what I think are the linguistically correct terms, but please feel free to correct me.

Tabluation refered to taking the long word lists that plagued the article and making them into graphics. User:SameerKhan placed that wonderful pie chart in the vocabulary section that took out basically the entire reason we had that task. There's still another big list o' words in the lexical variations of dialect section, but I think we'll be able to take care of that soon.

And we're figuring out the Bangla/Bengali thing ever so slowly.

--Ttownfeen 21:51, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I want to have the article peer reviewed so that I can get suggestions on how it can be improved. What could be done to improve the article's flow? Are there any inaccuracies in the article? (I don't think so!) Any major points missing? Thanks. Mb1000 03:22, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• I think the article needs to ease the reader into the topic a little more by a sentence explaining heraldry as a European monarchical institution that had differing traditions for men and women. Also many of the words that are linked on the heraldry page do not have links here. Otherwise it's a decent article, if a bit on the short side. Thanks. :) — RJH 15:10, 8 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• This is far too short if you are thinking of making it a FA. I am sure the modern issues (with differences between the sexes in how the arms are displayed) must have been extensively debated. There must be historical complexities and cultural differences which should be touched upon, and you should be wary of anglocentrism; "heraldic heiress", for instance, is a concept which, as far as I know, only exists on the British Isles - but what about Spain and Portugal, with the Spanish practice of using both paternal and maternal surnames, for instance - doesn't that affect the use of arms as well? English-language heraldry handbooks seem mostly to ignore anything but English and Scottish heraldry, but Wikipedia should not. (When I saw the title I almost expected an article on women as depicted in heraldry, which would be a different but also interesting topic...) Uppland 11:57, 9 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the suggestions. --Mb1000 16:18, 9 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This article is good. More changes could be made.

Raj2004 23:32, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• I don't know enough about the topic to give specific advice on the content, but the section titled "Benefits of chanting Vishnu Sahasranama" appears to be bordering on non-neutral. That portion could do with a lot less simple recitation and a lot more critical analysis. The quotes section looks to be poorly formatted and the bullets should be replaced by in-line text. Otherwise overall it looks pretty decent. Thanks. — RJH 14:52, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The benefits come at the end of Vishnu sahasranama and are part of the prayer. so it's not a point of view.

Raj2004 10:32, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Well I'm sorry, but a simple recitation of a prayer is not neutral. It is entirely from the point of view of the religion and involves no analysis or critique. It is purely a form of religious advocacy. WP:NOT and Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. Thank you. — RJH 19:35, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This was the quoted text from the prayer. I am not advocating a point of view.

Quotes are not expected to be neutral. Now, if someone can find some criticism of the prayer, it should be included. Are you aware of any such criticism of this specific prayer, Raj? I tried to address the format concerns in the quotes section, btw. Sam Spade 21:01, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Using a religious prayer as the only source of the text for an entire section without an explanation or analysis just is not neutral. Especially when it fills up an entire page. If that section was a page by itself, it would be put up for deletion. "NPOV policy often means presenting multiple points of view. This means providing not only the points of view of different groups today, but also different groups in the past." Please see Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view#Religion. Thank you. :) — RJH 17:23, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sam, no specific criticism of the prayer. But two commentators, Sankara and Parsara Bhattar give different interprations to different names in the prayer. Sankara and Parsara Bhattar have written commentaries on the meaning of the 1000 names and come to different interpretations.

Please see for example, the name #3:

"Nama 3: vashatkAra:

One who controls and directs (not merely pervades).

Sri Bhattar interprets the names VishNu, vashatkAra, and bhuta-bhavya-bhavat-prabhu, as additional elaborations of the name visvam. The root of the word is vas - to control as He wills. It should be noted that Sri Bhattar has pointed out in his commentary for visvam that BhagavAn is everywhere with His shAdguNya paripUrNatva WHICH IS NATURAL TO HIM, in the commentary for vishNu that He permeates everything that HE CREATES AND POSSESSES, and in the current one for vashatkAra that He controls AS HE WILLS. Thus, all these guNas are not something that have been acquired or imparted by something external, but this is His will and schema.

The following passages from the sruti are given in support of the interpretation of this nAma:

• sarvasya vaso sarvasya IsAna: - He is the Controller of all and the Ruler of all.
• jagadvase vartatedam - The Universe is under His control.

The summarization from Nirukti is svecchayA yo sarvam vase karoti sa: vashatkAra: - One Who controls and directs everything and everyone as He wills.

Sri Sankara provides a very different interpretation for this nAma. He points out that BhagavAn is Himself the vashatkAra mantra, where vashat is a sacred sound (similar to Om, svAhA, etc). used on sacrificial offerings. It is also used in the anganyAsa and karanYasa practice before chanting the sacred slokas (e.g., sahasrArchis saptajihva iti saktyai sikhAyai vashat). Note the similarity of vashatkAra to Om kAra, a word with which we are familiar. VashatkAra is thus a mantra, and BhagavAn is the mantra svarUpi.

The explanation in terms of BhagavAn having control over all His creations is appealing because of the continuity it provides to the interpretations of the previous nAmas.

from http://home.comcast.net/~chinnamma/sahasra/sloka01.html

Raj2004 21:17, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thats exactly what we need, discussion of differences in interpretation, held by expert personages. Such citations are what make this a wonderful article! Sam Spade 00:57, 4 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This is a good article that can be improved.

Raj2004 23:28, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• It looks good overall and I don't see any major issues. In the last half of the "Teachings and significance" the prose is tending to drift from the neutral perspective a bit. For example, it asserts that "Aside Rama and Krishna there are many other human or animal forms which appeared on earth or elsewhere in the universe". This sort of statement needs to be qualified in terms of the religious beliefs. In the introduction it said there was a statement that "In any event, all Hindus believe that there is no difference between worship of Vishnu and His avatars as it all leads to Him". This is another global assertion that can not be proven. It might be better to say that "In any event, it is a tenet of Hindu faith that there is...". But that's just my 2 cents worth. Thanks. :) — RJH 17:40, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Resubmission - would like this to be Featured soon, I'll admit I'm not too knowledgeable on the technicalities myself but its the sort of thing I'd like to read about. --PopUpPirate 00:07, August 31, 2005 (UTC)

You really need to do something about the image copyrights. In particular, the GFDL claims for Image:Spitfire.JPG, Image:Supermarinespitfire.JPG are almost certainly wrong, and I'm not certain that Canadian Crown Copyright is an appropriate license for Wikipedia -- it appears to have a "no commercial use" clause. --Carnildo 07:37, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

These were some of my comments from the last review of this same article[5]:

"The first thing I noticed is that there is no mention of Lady Lucy Houston's important contribution to the early project. The page could do with sections about the plane's contribution to the air war over Europe, N. Africa, and elsewhere. (Weren't they withheld from France in 1940?)"

Most of these issues still appear to need addressing. Thanks. :) — RJH 17:30, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't write this article, but such a lengthy history on a famous band... I really like this article! However, before I nominate it for featured article, I want to make sure all the bad parts are removed. —MESSEDROCKER (talk) 04:02, September 3, 2005 (UTC)

If you want the article to reach "featured" status, you'll need to do something about the image copyrights. Right now, of the ones tagged "fair use", none of them indicates the current copyright holder, and none of them has a fair use rationale. Also, Image:1kiss1992.jpg and Image:1kiss1996.jpg do not give any indication of source, copyright holder, or copyright status. --Carnildo 06:01, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Needs a longer lead, singles discography (probably should just leave the studio albums and charting singles here, or something, and move the details to KISS discography) and a references section, preferably with inline citations. Tuf-Kat 20:16, September 10, 2005 (UTC)

I think we have a good start on an article that covers the historical role of VMI and its current place as a liberal arts college with a military environment.

Would appreciate any and all suggestions on how to improve the article. Rillian 13:08, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, it is a good introduction to the school. I commend you for the work you have done. I tend to be a tough editor and critic. So please do not take to heart the number of my queries below.

1. In the lead, I'd take out the information about the endowment and its alumni and move it into the body.
2. In the info box, I'd remove "address", because all it does is adds a ZIP code to the town, which is already stated in "location"
3. Under student life, I would include more about admissions. Who can get in? Just Virginians? What's the tuition like? There is also information about the physical plant that feels out of place. The honor code that leads the section off seems better placed below where the life of a "rat" is discussed.
4. The "Old Corps" is introduced without explanation. I presume that's the upperclassmen, but that needs to be stated.
5. "Sleeping and relaxing are luxuries of the past." That's a fine magazine sentence, but it feels out of place here.
6. "Sweat-parties" needs definition.
7. The first superintendent and Col. Crozet "imbued [VMI] with the discipline and the spirit for which it is famous" needs to be fleshed out since the former doesn't have an article and the latter's doesn't say much about what he did there. Where did these men get their military ideas?
8. You refer to Stonewall Jackson at first then go to Thomas Jackson. I'd call him Thomas "Stonewall" Jackson at first and Stonewall Jackson later on.
9. The section on WWI and WII seems more about alumni than the school's actual participation in the conflict, unlike the Civil War section. That information seems better placed under alumni than history.
10. Those abbreviations you use for alumni (VADM, BG, etc.) not only look ugly, but are going to be unfamiliar to most people. Maybe you could copy it to Word and "search and replace" them with more familiar forms and copy it back here.
11. The statistics on the composition of the corps of cadets and the information on women seems better placed up at the beginning of the student section.
12. I'd cite the name of the Supreme Court case, with the official citation, that let women into VMI.
13. You should mention Brother Rat, which I believe was a play before it was made into an early Ronald Reagan-Eddie Albert-Jane Wyman picture, oh, circa 1937. It's about VMI. Plus any other pop culture appearances VMI might have made.
14. I'd like to see more about the organization and governance of the school. How are the trustees chosen? How is the administration organized? What relationship does the school have to other public Virginia colleges? (Is there a state board of regents overseeing it, that sort of thing.) What kind of appropriation does it get from the State? Is there any affilation between the school and the state militia/guard?
15. Only two references and both are to web-sites? I checked the Library of Congress catalog and there's a number of books on the school, including one by Superintendent Smith. A better bibliography is needed. To start with, I'd give the citation to the print edition of the articles you cited.

That all said, I do believe you are on the way to a featured status and I commend your work.PedanticallySpeaking 15:43, September 7, 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the excellent suggestions. Items 1 and 10 completed. Item 13, Brother Rat, now in VMI trivia section. I'll work on the others tonight. Rillian 16:37, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Items 1, 2, 4, 8, 9, 10, 11, 13 completed Rillian 00:56, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Whew! satisfy those requirements, and you do have a Featured Article! I could only add that I miss good clear photos of Alexander Jackson Davis's buildings, some of which might illustrate the architect's own entry. --Wetman 23:23, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Article looks great in its current form! The student life section after the introduction is appropriate and it fills the space that was left open and blank in the earlier edits. The article is balanced in its facts and precisely written. Previous edits would state a fact, then quantify and or dilute the fact. For example, in the current edit, the rankings and ROTC comments are precise and to the point. Previous edits went into too much "watered down" detail. For example, previous edits were: 18% who make 20 year military careers, general peay acknowledges going from 40% to 70% is a challenge, for a small school of 1300 it does quite well: 1st of 20 something and 70 something of 2 hundred something, and so on and so on...Article in its current form states the facts:ranked first among public liberal arts colleges, all students are military corps of cadets, 50% commissioned in 2005 with 70% being a goal, largest per student endowment of any PUBLIC college, etc. This version as it is looks very good and any changes should be minimal. Noticed many of the edits made by rillian to VMI were followed up with revisions by the same to south carolina's version of VMI...is there a reason? The two schools are very different. VMI's current revision looks great and thanks to everyone for the input. How long are we going to leave the peer review notice up? Marshall3 18:58, 9 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

On military service, I think it enhances the article to know that 18 percent of the graduates go on to a 20-year career in the military. Why would that not be of interest to readers?

On the rankings, simply stating that VMI is the best public liberal arts college is not NPOV without telling readers there are only 20 schools in the U.S. that fit that category. With hundreds of public colleges in the nation, someone could easily misinterpret these rankings to think the VMI was the highest ranked school across a much broader category. Many wikipedians feel that subjective rankings like those from US News are not encyclopdia material and should not be any article. Rillian 01:02, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't Rillian the one who disputed several proven facts about VMI's rankings in the first place? (Check archived discussions) Those "misrepresentations" were proven, and in the end he had a bit of "egg on the face." Why does Rillian choose which versions are "correct" and which are not?

Who cares about 18 percent for 20 year plus career? That type of minutia is not on other school site articles. Just leave it as 70% goal with 50 % commissioned for 2005. Also, a ranking is a ranking. What type of be-littling statement is "for a college with only 1300 cadets, VMI does quite well?" That is patronizing and not needed. 20 of this 70 of that...MArshall3 is right. The article as it stands looks very good indeed.

Also, "VMI has graduated more generals and flag officers than any other state military college" is very important and should be placed in Notable Graduate section because it testifies to the excellence of the school. There are other "lesser-quality state military colleges" out there who mislead and misrepresent...when it comes to state military colleges, VMI is premier. This statement is important and is directly related to notable graduates. It doesn't need to be buried.

Finally, take out the statement, "While not directly affilliated to the us military." Who cares? It is VIRGINIA Military Institute...that says enough. Why the qualifying statement? It reads much better to state simply that all VMI cadets must take 4 years of ROTC and VMI offers ROTC for all braches of the military.

Remember, sometimes Simplicity is much better than too much intimate and unusable detail. Cadet1 17:38, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

(copied from Talk:Virginia Military Institute by Rillian 02:29, 26 September 2005 (UTC))[reply]

While I think the article is quite comprehensive, there are a few questions that come to mind, from a reader that knows ABSOLUTELY nothing about VMI at all:

• Lead: a picture would be good here, just to give some more visual interest.
• Lead: I am not sure that the mission statement belongs here, but would like to know what about VMI makes it different from colleges in general, and military colleges in particular, in terms of its goals and mission.
• Early history: why was VMI founded? A need for such an institute in the state? Who/what organisation founded VMI?
• Early history: "Living conditions were poor" - I assume this means that the cadets were housed in tents or similar. It would be good to explain this point, as the lead mentions the "spartan" environment current cadets live in. It is not clear what the difference between the current physically demanding environment and historical poor living conditions consists of - I could guess, but if I wanted to guess I wouldn't be reading the article!
• Civil War period: These sentences are quite staccato. The first paragraph in particular would benefit from more flow.
• Civil War period: The information on VMI being one of the three military schools to have students fight as a unit in war might be good to use in the lead, as it certainly makes VMI special.
• World War I and II: Should this be combined with Civil War period in a section on other wars/military engagments that VMI has played a role in? I would assume there were other wars that VMI played a role in.
• Student life: What makes it unique? What is in this section makes it sound like other military academies.
• Student life: It would be good to have a photo of the barracks next to its description. What are the barracks like inside? Like a normal student dorm, or something different?
• Ratline: A photo of a freshman in uniform would be good here: the reader would get to see the uniform, and the "straining"
• Ratline: "The initial week is a crash course in everything VMI" - wouldn't the marching and weapon cleaning be more generic skills any cadet would learn, while the rules, songs and history be more specific to VMI. I think that it would be better to talk about the aspects of the cadet experience specific to VMI.
• Athletics: What does it mean to "complete their eligibility"?
• Parapet photo: While I guess this building must be on campus, what is its significance? The building is not referred to in the article.
• Academic information: Is VMI known for any of its academic programs? The article gives the impression that academic life is not important.

Sera 03:32, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Previous PR are at Wikipedia:Peer review/Opus Dei/archive1 and Wikipedia:Peer review/Opus Dei/archive2.

Two previous peer reviews have suggested changes for this article. A recent rewrite has tried to implement those suggestions, but it has been controversial. Does the rewrite improve the article? If so, how can the article be improved further? --Alecmconroy 11:29, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, AZ _t 21:57, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just a few comments and questions.

• There's some repetition: "personal prelature" is explained three or more times; once is enough.
• Activities: Does Opus Dei run its own churches, or do members attend Mass and receive other sacraments in parish churches? Does Opus Dei organize non-religious activities (for example, social, business, education, and networking) as, for example, Soka Gakkai does?
• Membership: In addition to categories, interesting questions that readers might want to see answered in this article are (1) What is the process of becoming a member (e.g. is there a rite, or is it a paperwork procedure)? (2) What is the process of leaving Opus Dei, whether to resume being a Catholic in a diocese or to leave Catholicism? (3) Do members tend to come from specific groups (such as urban poor or suburban middle-class or migrants from other countries) or are they representative of the spectrum of Catholics? Also, the links to Supernumerary and Numerary lead to articles that are not about Opus Dei and should be removed.
• Finances: The assets amount to over $30,000 per member. What do they do with those assets? Are the residential centers the main holdings, or are there other uses?

Some of these are quite open-ended and research may not be available; please do not feel obliged to answer all of them! Fg2 02:38, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

this is a good article that can be even better improved.

Raj2004 23:21, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi; I started to look through this article to check it, but have some difficulties. I think that more specific attribution of beliefs and statements would help. Madhvacharya is believed by who? All Hindus? His followers? Shri Madhvacharya was born... according to who / which documents? (the formative years section is incomplete). Please give much more full references. Where did he teach? Who did he teach? Where did he study? What did he do? How did he come to prominence?

I think the whole section on Dvaita Philosophy should be a separate article, but it seems to be already at Dvaita in which case it should be deleted as redundant. Mozzerati 09:49, September 11, 2005 (UTC)

This was listed as needing expansion, and I thought I could just as well give it a shot. Ended up spending one and a half hours on it, and I think it turned out pretty nice. What do you think? Any chance for WP:FAC? - ulayiti (talk) (my RfA) 23:51, 5 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yes it's a pretty good article; nicely written. I think that a FAC would require reference tags to support the various assertions in the text. — RJH 19:14, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Featured Music Project criteria

Lead - looks good, but consider expanding just a bit

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I am hoping some improvements can be made to the introduction as it seems somewhat clunky. Also looking for general suggestions about the article to improve it (I am hoping it will become "feature" quality in the not too distant future. Datapharmer 04:22, 9 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

In many ways, this is the best single-song article I've seen on wikipedia. Here are some suggestions:

• Section headings are not helping right now. Perhaps you can think of better ones? Choosing good headings will make expanding the article much easier.
• In general, you don't need to write "(Source: [source])", you can just put the URL in brackets to generate a numbered "footnote-like" link [6]. There are more evolved and complicated things to do with superscripts, read up on it if you like (I can't be bothered, honestly, with that superscript stuff.)
• This may be too fan-boy, but a more extended coverage of the lyrics would be wonderful I think, or at least a rough list of political hot-topics the song covers (bussing, etc., etc.)
• What was the immediate critical reception of the song? Any reviews of the album that specifically mention it? Right now, there's no mention of contemporary responses. (This is probably the biggest thing missing from the article so far.)
• Good luck and well done so far.

Sdedeo 22:06, 9 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sdedeo, thanks for your suggestions. I just recently added the references section, so I agree that the "source:" notes aren't necessary and I will do something along the lines of your suggestion shorty. I will look at the section headings a little more carefully, as I haven't really thought about them too much (many were added by other people). Any suggestions for replacements or changes to the headings are welcomed. As for the lyrics, I will try and get in contact with a representative of Dylan to get permission to reproduce the lyrics, and I like the idea about linking the political issues but my knowledge of the references is somewhat limited in this area. As for contemporary responses, I don't know exactly what you mean. There is a section about the influence the song has had on other groups (including modern ones). Should this be separated between contemporary and original or are you talking about something else entirely? Thanks again for the suggestions, and I look forward to getting some other responses as well!

Datapharmer 23:54, 9 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, right, forgot about copyright issues re: lyrics. I wouldn't bother getting permission, though! Probably a long amount of work.

Re: contemporary responses, I just mean, what were people saying about the song in 1965? 1968? I did a quick lexis-nexis search of the New York Times, but couldn't find a review of the album. One of the first mentions of the song is in an article about the Weathermen, actually, and another says the song (along with "Like a Rolling Stone") "introduced 'folk-rock'" (that's at 27 Aug 1965; New York Times, page 17.) I was sort of imagining a greater response, however, so perhaps that's enough.

Also, re: section headings. If you expand the article significantly, definitely think about altering the section headings (that's the biggest mistake I see happening -- people think of them as set in stone, and choices made at the start are often not the best), but if the article stays about the same size, I think they're fine. Oh, also there was a book recently about Dylan's lyrics (forget the author -- some poetry critic.) You might want to check in there for more ideas.

Best of luck! Sdedeo 00:51, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed that it needs more reviews -- I'll look through some of my books and see if I can find anything. A screenshot from the video would be nice too. Tuf-Kat 20:05, September 10, 2005 (UTC)

Yes, I have been looking for an online version of the video to link to, but so far I have not had any luck. Yahoo music had the video for a while, but it is no longer listed. If I can't find it soon I will try to get a screen shot. Are there any legal issues with this I should be aware of? I will also look into finding some reviews.

Datapharmer 21:44, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

A screenshot of the video qualifies as fair use, so there's no legal problems to worry about. Tuf-Kat 22:39, September 10, 2005 (UTC)

There has been some major work done to this article over the last 24 hours to incorporate the recommendations received thus far. Sdedeo updated the Section Titles and the introduction, which is a great improvement in my opinion, and I have added quite a bit as well including a link to a video clip, a screen shot of the video, and the album cover of the original release. I also added some factual information and sources and improved the citations. If anyone is willing to take the time to glance at the changes it would be much appreciated.

Datapharmer 04:54, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I am looking to add reviews of the song to the article as suggested. If anyone has any sources, feel free to contribute or direct me to the source if you do not ahve time. Thanks!

Datapharmer 04:56, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This article is of highly variable quality. The introduction and the section on demining are very good; however, the section on the types of landmines was until recently riddled with spelling and grammatical errors. I cleaned up some of them but I am no expert in this field and I feel that we need to summon one to help. A quick look at the talk page shows contributors cringing with horror at it.

Things to work on:

• Poorly written and incomplete section on types of landmines
• Fact-checking
• Grammar
• Citing sources

Andrew pmk | Talk 03:02, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I made some organizational changes, but lack a background in the subject to offer more in the way of substantial expansion. MC MasterChef 03:36, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This article is looking better than ever after the a long and wild trial by fire. Please help us make it a WP:FAC. Sam Spade 23:19, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wow. This is very well written, and quite comprehensive to my first glance. If I saw this on FA, I think my only objection would be its length. Unfortunatly, I'm not sure how to suggest to bring it down any... it seems like just about all of it has been divided up into subsections already. In analyzing this, I think that even the length is passable... each section is indeed in summary form, which is good. Hm. Sorry I can't help more right now. Maybe others'll have more constructive criticism? Fieari 06:41, September 12, 2005 (UTC)

• This is an impressive article, and I don't think its length is a problem. As such an important subject it will, however, need to be immaculate to get through FAC. One quick suggestion is that the very brief "The word people" section be merged into the longer "Terminology" one. The "Mind" and "Psyche" sections also need a rewrite. Why are they almost wholly focused on psychoanalysis? While a notable theory, it is far from the only one, and today is not even very widely held. The "Religion and philosophy" section reads like a list of bullet points. I think a general overview, such as what we have in the lead sections of the religion and philosophy articles, would be far more useful than the current far from comprehensive listing of worldviews. - SimonP 18:13, September 12, 2005 (UTC)

My only suggestion is to double check the image copyrights, but the length does not bother me as much as it could others. Though, the Table of Contents could be shortnened a bit. Zach (Sound Off) 18:15, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Soon I'm going to be opposing FACs for articles where raster images are in use for content more correctly displayed using vector graphics in the SVG format. Human contains five such works, the pioneer 11 image, the migration map, the skin color map, the brain, and the psyche. Because the human image was fairly simple, I recreated it using Inkscape, althought it took me a while. :) The migration map looks like it was orignally created using Illustrator, ... I would be glad to assist converting it to a SVG (the landscape can stay a raster object), but it is a truly wonderful image which really must be placed into a more editable form before this article reaches its potential. The skin color map looks like someone should be able to provide a SVG version, the psyche, I could convert if no one else gets to it before me. The brain I don't really care about, but it's missing source information, so something should be done about it.
• I noticed that many of your images are not very big. 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. This is an article of such quality that I think the desire to reprint it will be great, as a result I would oppose featuring this article for low resolution images where I might not another. The USDA should be contacted and at least asked about the two girls image, if they do not have a higher resolution version I will not oppose on the basis of that image. The skeleton is great, (thanks Raul) although a more isolated photo would be better if one ever became available. Vitruvian Man is good considering its use. The freud image is too small and copyrighted, it should be replaced the current text of the article does not justify a claim of fair use. The photo of the thinker is untagged and probably copyvio, 2D renditions of 3D art do not have the same copyright status as 2D renditions of 2D art. It is also low resolution, higher would be prefered but isn't a deal breaker considering the use of the image. Cavehand's resolution and image quality are poor. Again not a deal breaker, but I think the article would be greatly enhanced with a better image. Okay, I've given you enough reasons to hate me now. Feel free to contact me to help with making any changes resulting from my comments. --Gmaxwell 03:17, 13 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I've found a somewhat higher res Freud image, looks like it is from the same series, confirmed taken in 1921, so it's PD-US. I've uploaded the image on commons and changed the article. --Gmaxwell 03:37, 13 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Probably needs a copyedit, but it seems thorough and comprehensive. I'm going to try and find some sound samples to upload -- does anyone have any other comments? Are there any Hungarians around who can help? There's also a lot of red links that I'm guessing probably should be blue, but I did not transliterate the names correctly, or my source only gave a last name and I've been unable to find a first name, so anyone who knows something about Hungarian music, or classical music in general, or even just knows a bit of Hungarian, could look through it and see what links can be fixed. Tuf-Kat 04:38, September 5, 2005 (UTC)

The article would gain quite a bit with some better illustrations. The existing images are of very low resolution and generally poor quality. The 20th century section isn't very large. Perhaps there is a chance to find at least one good, high resolution, and color illustration to match up with the content there? --Gmaxwell 04:10, 13 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Considering that whole of the "Classical music" section is only about six paragraphs, and 20th century is about a third of that, it seems fairly appropriate to me. Or are you not referring to the section titled "20th century" (which is a subheading of classical music), but the various sections which together document the 20th century? Because I agree a picture of a rock band or jazz singer or something for 20th century Hungarian music is needed. I'm going to see if I can't get permission for something. Tuf-Kat 04:57, September 13, 2005 (UTC)

I've made a lot of changes to this article in the last couple of months, hoping that it might encourage others to join in, but as can be seen from the edit history, that hasn't happened. MacNeice is an important poet with a growing reputation, and I'd really like some input - one of Wikipedia's strengths is collaboration and a multitude of perspectives, which the article's currently lacking. --  ajn (talk) 08:48, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I know the situation you're in; my articles tend to be on obscure historical figures and in common with MacNeice, not too much information seems to be available on them. I'll try and give you a hand if you like. Do you know much about his west of Ireland ancestry? Fergananim 16:01, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

His grandfather alleged the family was descended from Conchubar MacNessa. Sticking to historical fact, according to Stallworthy the MacNeice family were a Protestant family originally from Stonehall near Ballysodare in County Sligo. MacNeice's paternal grandfather William was a schoolmaster who worked for the Irish Church Mission to Roman Catholics, married Alice Howell the daughter of a Welsh coastguard, and ended up on the island of Omey in Co. Galway, then Athlone and Dublin. His maternal grandfather Martin Clesham was from Killymangan near Clifden in Co. Galway, descended from early 18th century immigrants probably from the Hebrides, and converted to the C of I from Catholicism when he married Christina Bush, an immigrant from London. MacNeice's parents met in Dublin. So in fact his Irish roots mainly didn't go back very far and he had a fair number of non-Irish ancestors. I don't know a great deal about Irish history (I have a grandmother from Antrim but I'm English), and that's one of the areas that could do with filling in. John MacNeice is worth an article of his own - he was a very controversial figure as a Protestant bishop who supported home rule, he thought the Easter Rising and civil war were disastrous because of the violence, and he buried Edward Carson and was involved in a huge row about Carson's funeral and tomb. --  ajn (talk) 19:15, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Very well done -- however, I feel the article is missing information on the poetry itself. In particular, it would be nice if there was a section (or perhaps something interwoven) that briefly discussed contemporary critical responses to the work. Right now when I finish the article I am still pretty uncertain what the poetry is like. For example, Berryman seems a central figure -- but does MacNeice sound like Berryman (I don't think so!) There is some stuff, mostly on the subject of his poems, but not enough on just things like, e.g., was he working in a Modernist aesthetic? Or something else? Sdedeo 20:07, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

That's the sort of area where I was hoping for outside input - I'm a scientist by education, I just don't have the ability to write easily about literature, though I have access to critical works. I'm not sure Berryman was a central figure - they had a personal relationship (though perhaps not as close as Berryman thought, he had a flair for exaggeration), but I can't see many poetic similarities. --  ajn (talk) 08:45, 13 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have the time right now, but why not start by quoting a few lines from some of his major works in the article? This would at least give a sense of what was going on, and might encourage others to take a look and pitch in. Sdedeo 18:52, 13 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I think that this article is quite good but needs some improvement. I would like a summary of what needs to be done. Thelb4! | Talk to me 20:46, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Its on the shorter side. Since Wiltshire is a sub-division (county) of a country, could I suggest Sikkim, which is also a subdivision (state)? Sikkim is a FA. You can gauge the length of the article, and contents to add. =Nichalp «Talk»= 18:15, September 11, 2005 (UTC)

Soon I'm going to be opposing FACs for articles where raster images are in use for content more correctly displayed using vector graphics in the SVG format. The maps really should be SVG, though I'm bringing that up with Keith Edkins directly. It would be neat to see the crest as a vector graphic, but I'd only expect that if the country had one we could use... 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. TheStonehenge image is good but, but Image:Wiltshire.bridge.750pix.jpg is too small. It was uploaded by a wikipedia so we should ask for the highest resolution image they have. --Gmaxwell 03:53, 13 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This article is vast, and explores many different aspects of the show. I want to see if any improvements need to be made, and if so, what. This is my first Peer Review (hopefully not my last). Thanks, [[User:Mysekurity|Mysekurity]] ^{[[additions | e-mail]]} _{21:45, 11 September 2005 (UTC)}[reply]

• A good start. Here's a few comments.

1. The prolific Krofft team was very influential in children's television, producing many oddly formatted, highly energetic, and special-effects heavy programs. appears rather opinionated. I suggest you remove it and quickly mention some other shows the two made.
2. The lead section is too short. I suggest you merge the overview section into it.
3. Nowhere in the article does it state how the Marshall's ended up in that world.
4. I would mention the Marshall's before discussing the natives (because they are the main characters) and the other visitors afterwards.
5. The images need fair use rationales.
6. There's no reference section which shows what sources were used to write the article. This needs to be seperate section from the external links.
7. The article could use a copyedit as there's a lot of hard to read long sentences. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:32, September 12, 2005 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll try to see what I can do. As for the "images need[ing] fair use rationales", I'm not exactly sure what to write when it comes to this, is it on the photo tutorial? I'm running the piece over with a fine-tooth comb, and your sugguestions will be taken to heart. Thanks, [[User:Mysekurity|Mysekurity]] ^{[[additions | e-mail]]} _{00:11, 13 September 2005 (UTC)}[reply]

I wrote the majority of the current article and the main source I used was the DVD box sets for the first two seasons - I watched them and took notes as I went ( I've got the third season and have been meaning to give this article a reworking/expansion in light of it, but keep putting it off for various reasons). I put the references within the text of the article, indicating which episodes various facts were established in. I also have the "series bible" written by David Gerrold before production began, but it's pretty minimalist and some of the details directly conflict with what was eventually filmed so I haven't used it as a reference except in a few specifically mentioned cases. Bryan 06:23, 14 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• It's a bit unwieldy. Some of the information on the characters could probably do with being split off into sub-pages. Also the lead is far too short – it doesn't even tell us which country this series is from, let alone what channel it aired on. Also, there seems to be hardly anything about the behind-the-scenes crew or production history of the series, writers, producers, etc. I think that any decent Wikipedia television series article needs that sort of information. (Indeed, I'd argue that a decent Wikipedia TV article should be *mosly* that sort of information, but that's a purely personal view). Angmering 18:02, 14 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I've created a pretty comprehensive page on Scott Joplin's opera, Treemonisha. I've tried to be thorough about sources, particularly based on the limited amount of information available. I'd like to get some feedback on it. Thank you in advance! LuxPerpetua 21:36, 8 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I think a more comprehensive plot summary would be appropriate, maybe a total of three or four paragraphs (maybe one paragraph per act, assuming it's divided into acts). Is there a reason Freddie Alexander is linked? Was she a famous singer in her own right or anything? If not, she should be de-linked. The qualifier about Edward Berlin being Joplin's "foremost biographer" should be removed -- a discussion of Joplin biographies and their receptions would be appropriate at Scott Joplin, but is out of place and not relevant here (especially unsourced claims about their relative merits). I'd like to see some more scholarly views of the work -- I've got a couple books that might say something useful, so I'll see what I can find. Tuf-Kat 20:10, September 10, 2005 (UTC)

Couple of things:

• Freddie Alexander gets occasional, brief mention in lists of black women's history, mostly because she was Scott Joplin's wife, but also because she was a fairly outspoken activist, which is, I believe, how they met. I could be wrong. At any rate, I removed the wikification.
• The qualifier about Berlin was added because because Berlin has been generally considered to be the most accurate of all of Joplin's biographers. Particularly after Joplin's death, there were many biographies written that were completely inaccurate, and for many years, biographies and general knowledge of Joplin was based on these apochryphal stories. From everything I've read (and studied in college), Berlin was the first author to actually research Joplin's life and clarify what was real and what was not, and is held by the Joplin historical society/the Joplin family to be a credible authority, if not THE authority, on Joplin. I wanted to be clear that it was coming from someone who had researched enough to make qualified statements - not someone just guessing. If you have a suggestion on how to more clearly articulate that, I'd be happy to hear it. :) (Let me see if I can find the statement made by the Joplin family about his work, actually. I could use that as a resource in establishing credibility.)
• Re: scholarly views on the work, which is what I assume you're talking about, no? There are several schools of thought on the work, which are sort of related to each other. (1) Some people claim that the opera is too simplistic, the plot has holes (yes, it does), and that it's unrefined. (2) Everyone (particularly the folks from category one) pretty much acknowledges that it's hard to really objectively critique Treemonisha. Despite the fact that Joplin had a piano-vocal score published, it never actually went through the revision process that most operas go through before it ever is presented to the public. The operas you see by Mozart or whomever today would have been cut, added to, plot details changed, etc, as it was worked out on stage. Basically, any performance of it you see is a performance of an unfinished work. (3)There is debate over how much exposure Joplin actually had to grand opera, and as such, his intentions with Treemonisha. As a grand opera on the scale of Puccini or Verdi, Treemonisha is pretty laughable. As a folk opera, it is fine. Opinions on the work basically depend on which camp you place Treemonisha in... LuxPerpetua 17:49, 13 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Also, the lead should be just two or three paragraphs. Much of what's there now ought to be under "history" or something. Tuf-Kat 20:12, September 10, 2005 (UTC)

Not sure how to split that up, though? The whole history is only a few paragraphs long. I'll think upon it. Thanks! LuxPerpetua 17:49, 13 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I expanded the lead a bit with some of my sources, and changed the formatting and organization of the references. There's now a references section for works that are actually cited in the article, and an external links and further reading for those that aren't. It'd be nice to have some more images and snippets of a recording of a performance, but I don't think those're necessary -- it might worth seeing if anyone has anything they're willing to license appropriately. Tuf-Kat 22:17, 13 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I wasn't certain on how to list resources, and for whatever reason, the Wiki servers been so slow lately that when I tried to pull up stuff, half the time it times out before I can get to it. I've been trying to load this page for over an hour now. :( Anyway, I'll see what I can do about pics and clips, but I'm not sure if the right to perform this is actually in the public domain, as his estate still exists and gets royalties for recordings and publishings. LuxPerpetua 20:11, 14 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This article has been stable for a while, but I'm curious to see how it reads to a general audience. I'm sure improvements can be made based on peer review feedback, so this is the place to ask. Buffyg 22:01, 6 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm maybe not the 'general audience' you refer to since I study philosophy, but I must say that the section on deconstruction (the absolute kernel of Derrida's thought) needs expansion, as this is integral to understanding Derrida, and it is also a contentious issue amongst philosophers.--Knucmo2 00:08, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• I've laid out a general plan for a complete rewrite of the deconstruction entry (see Talk:Deconstruction), which is in a deplorable state. I wanted to get some general feedback about the Derrida article before undertaking that, as I'd reckon a peer review ought to provide suggestions on how to improve the entry that's been previously overhauled before we use it as a point of reference for the one that needs to be. The more specific your feedback on the work that has been done, the better to prepare for what remains to be done. Buffyg 00:19, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hey everyone, just letting you know that I've started to get to work on the deconstruction page recently Seferin 13:10, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Two other points. The article size is a little two long, and you could include "quotations" of his.--Knucmo2 00:15, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Some remarks on reading through the article (which I think is very good):

• That final paragraph on Marcus I couldn't parse properly; I imagine it could be removed totally, as it's a bit gossipy anyway.
• It might be nice to include Searle's response to the whole Limited Inc. (which I remember as colorful, as far as analytic philosophers go.)

I believe I've got on hand all of the core texts for the Derrida-Searle debate, so I'm game for updating this. I had thought to do a full article on the Derrida-Searle debate and present a summary here. Buffyg 13:19, 14 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Some stuff on the reception of Derrida in the USA versus Europe might be of interest. A widely made remark on his death was that Derrida's influence was greater, and lasted longer, in the lit departments in the United States than anywhere else; some went so far as to say that Derrida's influence in France was much less than in the US.

I believe Derrida has supported this characterisation himself. Buffyg 13:19, 14 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• "Deconstruction and literary criticism" section is the weakest, and needs expansion (or at least to be redone.)

Acknowledged. Let me see what I can do to fix this. Buffyg 13:19, 14 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Dude, that is one mighty flamewar going on in the discussion page.

Eh? You mean the archive? Buffyg 13:19, 14 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Organizationally, I think you should move sections 1-3 and 5 to later in the article: i.e., cover his bio first, his works next, interpretations of his works next, etc. But definitely, the brief bio should appear first.

As I've said, I think this is a very well-done article, and if things get fixed up a little, I'd definitely support it for FA status. Drop me a line. Sdedeo 21:44, 9 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It's a thought to see if it can be overhauled with the possibility of pushing it for the first anniversary of his death, although that's almost certainly far too ambitious. In any case I'm not sure how self-sufficient the article is and would prefer to do the rewrite of the deconstruction entry before putting this article up for FA. Along the way we might end up with reasonable entries for de Man, Lyotard, and .

For several years, I have been working on the article on industrialist and millionaire Henry Huttleston Rogers (1840-1909), a working class youth born and raised in Fairhaven, Massachusetts (a whaling town). In the spirit of Horatio Alger, he struck out with a small savings to find his fortune, worked hard and sacrificed, and became one of the principals of Standard Oil. As of a 1996 publication, he was considered one of the 25 most wealthy men of all-time in the United States. An unusual aspect of this fellow is that he was a generous but low profile philanthropist, even as his ruthlessness in business earned him a poor public image and the nickname "hell hound".

Although much has been written on this fascinating man, who was the Virginian Railway's co founder and financier, there has only been one true biography published to-date. The more I have learned about him, the more I want to learn (and perhaps write) more. While working on his article, I created a new one on his wife, Abbie G. Rogers, and some of the content is duplicative. After Abbie died, he cultivated friendships and financially mentored Mark Twain, Helen Keller, and did tremendous behind-the-scenes work with Ida Tarbell and Dr. Booker T. Washington. I have added Rogers related information to the articles on each of these famous people.

I would appreciate any help to improve this article. I hope other Wikipedians will also find this man to be as fascinating as I have. I think the article has even more featured article potential than the one on the Virginian Railway's other founder, William N. Page.

The article is too long. One idea I have is that we can move most of the details about his children to the separate article about his first wife and place one of those messages (ie For details on his first wife and children, see related article Abbie G. Rogers).

One last note: This article (like those on the other famous people named above) is one of those on Wikipedia which is pulled into many other web resources (mirror sites?). If you doubt this, just do a search (Google, Yahoo, etc.) on Henry Rogers, and you will see the many websites which use the current text in Wikipedia as their source. So, our efforts here may especially help Wikipedia continue to grow as a reputable and quality resource on the Internet. Please help make Henry H. Rogers a better article.

Thanks to all , Mark in the Historic Triangle of Virginia Vaoverland 22:50, September 12, 2005 (UTC)

• It looks pretty good, but I did not have a chance to read it all, so I'll just give some general advice on what it needs to be a featured article. 1) Separate the references and external links into a references section that includes all the resources actually used as references to add or fact check material in the article, and leave the rest in an external links section. Format the references with full citation information such as author, publisher, date, etc as in Wikipedia:Cite sources. Inline citations for important point using a format such as footnotes or (Hubbard 1909 pg 35) help with the verifiability of the article and really make a strong case for a featured article. 2) Many short paragraphs and sections throughout. The break up the prose and make for poor flow and highlight areas that either need to be expanded or merged with related material. There should pretty much never be a subsection without a full paragraph. That's all for now, but if you finish those let me know and I'll see if there's anything else that would keep this from being a successful FAC. - Taxman ^Talk 15:51, 13 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I have moved out the sections about each of his children to their mother's article, and I will work on these items. Vaoverland 01:29, 14 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Previous Peer Review located at Wikipedia:Peer review/World War II/archive1.

Cut "United States industrial capacity" section. I am living in the Arsenal of Democracy but this is out of place here. Rmhermen 04:10, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I just fixed up this article, shortened some sub-sections, enhanced others, added pictures, etc. Let me know what you guys think. Is this good enough that it can become a featured article, if not, what should I change to improve it. Mercenary2k 12:16, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Likely not, this article is good. Every year it gets majorly rewritten - and becomes another yet another good article but it never reaches a level of stability where most people are happy with it. Rmhermen 14:36, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is a current effort of the featured article drive, so I'd like to hear suggestions and such on how to improve it. Andre (talk) 20:50, September 3, 2005 (UTC)

Off the top of my head:

• Box scan in infobox is dented.
• Japanese-English differences should be condensed and turned into prose.
• Manga section seems out of place, remove it?
• No references.
• Although it is mentioned in the lead it was very popular, there is no sales data or mention of review scores.
• Is there consensus that this is a prequel to the first two? What exactly does the back of the packaging say?
• "returned to the original's formula of all exploration and combat taking place in a persistent overhead world" Huh? There should be a mention of traveling overworld, but all major combat takes place in dungeons.

-- Norvy (talk) 18:05, 5 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding your last two points, the article is clear on what the back of the box says in several places. And, an overhead world is not an overworld - overhead is referring to the view, as distinct from the side-scrolling combat of Zelda II. Andre (talk) 18:10, September 5, 2005 (UTC)

I uploaded a new box scan that doesn't have a dent, and has better contrast. With all that, it's even a smaller filesize! Andre (talk) 21:53, September 5, 2005 (UTC)

As for the timeline placement, I speak for the community that there has been a consensus; not in the Wikipedia Zelda community, but the Zelda community altogether. This is the most common and widely-believed timeline (the placement of the bolded games are undeniable fact):

The Legend of Zelda: Ocarina of Time

The Legend of Zelda: Majora's Mask

The Legend of Zelda: Twilight Princess

The Legend of Zelda: The Wind Waker

The Legend of Zelda: A Link to the Past

The Legend of Zelda: Link's Awakening

The Legend of Zelda: Oracle of Ages

The Legend of Zelda: Oracle of Seasons

The Legend of Zelda

Zelda II: The Adventure of Link

Not sure about any of Flagship's games. - A Link to the Past (talk) 02:47, September 6, 2005 (UTC)

This is all well and good, but so what? It's fancruft, and irrelevant fancruft at that. It's awkward and uncomfortable in the context of what should be an at least passably scholarly writeup of the game. Speculation on the timeline of the games (assuming they even have a consistent timeline) doesn't belong on Wikipedia. There's enough, in all likelihood, to comment on the quasi-prequel status of ALttP, as it is mentioned in various places (and alluded to in the title), but beyond that makes the thing look deeply unprofessional. For practical purposes, the final sentence of the paragraph dealing with the timeline (the one mentioning Ocarina) should be excised. It's speculation, arguably original research, and of questionable relevance. Other than that:

• NPOV and/or otherwise awkward prose, most noticably in the gameplay section: "leading the series forward," the strained "two world" connection with Metroid Prime 2, etc. The gameplay section in general is overlong and reeks of fanboyism. There should be less contextualizing: don't assume someone reading this article is familiar with other games in the series, or basic conventions of the genre.
• The rationale "Setting"/"Game Plot" split in the "Storyline" section eludes me, especially as the latter is basically empty. Is there any reason this section needs to be subdivided?
• The article desperately needs more attention to popular reception, preferably with reference to things like sales figures. There's a bit of handwaving in the introduction about the game's popularity, but it's all very vague. In general, the article should have a couple of cited references.
• Some overall layout concerns: the four image block at the end of the gameplay section is a bit awkward, IMO. Ideally, those images should be displayed inline, or should at least be smaller than they are. Some things, like the Chris Houlihan Room, probably should be worked into other sections if at all possible to provide a stronger basic framework for the article.
• As an aside, it would be nice to have the box art for the GBA version on display somewhere.

In short, the thing needs to be tightened up considerably, both in general presentation and in prose quality. There's a lot of good information there, but it doesn't really feel like a coherent whole as of yet. – Seancdaug 03:14, September 9, 2005 (UTC)

There is a timeline, this much is known. Miyamoto and Aonuma have said that they have a file cabinet filled with information on how they all link up. Many Zelda fans argued and argued, forming this timeline using evidence. OoT's placing is a given, as Miyamoto said it was the earliest Zelda. Majora's Mask's manual says it's three months after OoT. TWW makes clear references to OoT (including even having windows with Saria, Rauru, Ruto, Darunia, Impa, Nabooru and Zelda). After that, the connections get iffier, but if you delve into them, there are clear connections. The Zelda timeline is nowhere near cruft.

I didn't even notice that. Whoops.

I've tried to find that information, but it's hard to find for some reason.

I tried to tell Andre that it was bad (I always hated the usage), but he disagreed, so I decided not to make a national case over it.

There's already an article with the boxart on the GBA version.

What about censorship in FFVI? I would say they both deserve sections equally. - A Link to the Past (talk) 00:07, 14 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This is a decent article, but it has a long way to go before becoming featured. My suggestions..

• Dig up some information about the game's production and release. I remember hearing somewhere that it was Nintendo's big selling point for the SNES launch, but it got delayed (how typical..).
• This page says Famitsu gave it a 9 and three 10s, it's highest score ever at the time. That's gotta be notable to include.
• Give references for everything that's not easily verifiable. John Williams cooked up the music into a concert suite? Either include a source, or remove it (I actually doubt that's true..).
• It's a bit odd that the Chris Houlihan room gets its own section.
• Does anyone have a clue why it's called "A Link to the Past"? Heh, I wrote a FAQ for the game and I don't even know. :p

Coffee 22:51, 9 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Will do.

Will do.

Will do eventually.

Read above, Coffee.

Read below, Coffee. - A Link to the Past (talk) 00:07, 14 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

A Link to the Past is a pun - it takes place in the past (relative to the first two Zelda titles) and is a "link" to that era, and the main character's name is Link. As for John Williams, I don't think that this is a true fact. Andre (talk) 20:37, September 10, 2005 (UTC)

A pretty good article, though far from featured status. I found it odd that the plot summary circumvented all the pendant and crystal dungeons. They comprise most of the gameplay. I read in the talk about a deleted boss section; although it proably would have been too much in depth, you could give the boss names, or say that you often used the dungeon's new item against the boss, or say that they were very elaborate with strengths and weaknesses that have influenced newer games; or any combination. Perhaps there should be a section on Four Swords, at least more than a link (I think there's one, there may not be). Keep working! HereToHelp 21:31, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]