Wikipedia:Peer review/April 2007

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

---

Could someone give it a good peer-review Twenty Years 09:28, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have made an extensive revision of the VEST cipher page on behalf of Synaptic Laboratories Limited, in response to false and/or misleading statements that have progressively entered that page over the last 6 months, to update the latest attack status and make other textual and editorial improvements. Please refer to the VEST talk page for detailed information on the recent changes to the page.

We have strived to maintain a NPoV in our revision and have made use of extensive verifiable references. However, we are aware that we may not have fully achieved this objective and are proactively encouraging an open peer review and discussion of the page.

I encourage discussions on this page preceding significant edits.

Thanks.,

Benjamin Gittins 14:53, 20 April 2007 (UTC) :: Chief Technology Officer :: Synaptic Laboratories Limited.[reply]

Review for any further information that may need adding
MarkBolton 15:15, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This article has gone through a lot of work recently. It has become referenced, rewritten, reordered, and consolidated to give those unfamiliar with the genre a better idea of it, yet provide depth for those who want more information. Close to a GA status, in my opinion. What are the opinons of other people? What can be improved? -AtionSong 21:54, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I and a few others have been working on this article since April 22 this year. It's rather controversial (see Talk:Earth Day) but that ongoing controversy has made the article being well-referenced and I think it could be made into Wikipedia:Good articles. Maybe even FA status with a little bit more effort and a little help from others. I hope somebody could give a critical review - including where it concerns WP:OR as well as grammar and references. Thanks __earth ^(Talk) 16:33, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think this article is getting very close to featured status, as it's very well organized and overall very complete. It has undergone two featured article nominations; the first, rejected for lack of citations, which has been fixed. The second time, for several reasons, many of which have been addressed. Before renominating for featured status again, I'd like to submit this for peer review to see what other editors think about how this article meets the featured article criteria. Thanks! Dr. Cash 23:28, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just a couple of small points for starters.

• Firstly, The lead seems rather long - whilst the article is too, I feel the lead would benefit from a more concise style.
• Also, I remember finding recently a website that has past caches of web pages, and trawling through the various incarnations of Google. It might be nice to link to that from the caption of the image 'Google in 1998'.

Verisimilus 12:28, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've rephrased the lead a bit to hopefully be a better summary of the article. Let me know how it looks. Also, the site you refer to is the internet archive, which does have some historical archives of what google looked like in the past. Though most of the Google logos on that site appear to be blacked out in my browser - the very early ones are still visible. Dr. Cash 18:18, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to see more pictures of the college, as well as an expanded history section and parts of campus life improved. Grammer and article flow also needs to be improved.Hochstetler51 03:13, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Goshen College entry has had some changes this year - they changed it to an advertisment.

Jesseby 16:23, 25 April 2007 (UTC)Jesseby[reply]

Many changes have been done to this article recently to get it to GA or FA article status, but any and all suggestions pertaining to this goal are wanted. General suggestions, comments, and pointers to make this a GA or FA are appreciated, thanks. Okiefromokla 02:38, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• This looks pretty good. I notice that there are still several unsourced paragraphs and statements on the page which would count against it at FAC. Comprehensive sourcing would be something that would need to be addressed. Here's my citation criteria for featured articles.-- Zleitzen^(talk) 08:02, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Article has just come out of a major upgrade. A few people have nitpicked on formatting etc (though I'm sure there is more to be done), but not much comment on the content, structure and style yet. I'm also keen to know how understandable people without much of a scientific background find it (so don't be put off by the scary sounding title!) Cheers. Eve 13:04, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This article has undergone very little change in the past 6+ months. I believe this is because it is pretty-much complete, so I'd like to see your opinions of its completeness. The main help the article could still use would be along the lines of: some inline references, some paring down of the external links, and perhaps some better captioning of the images (or maybe different images). Thanks! — Epastore 20:30, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, as you've already said, it could do with some inline citations (I see there is already a sources section, but page numbers need referencing). The article seems to focus on recreational snorkeling and doesn't mention scientific snorkeling, etc. Can you provide a history of snorkeling to complement what is already there? Snorkeling.info is already linked and it provides a basic history here that is ideal as a starting point. Images all provide sources, which is good. WindsorFan 15:50, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that a history of snorkelling is what this article lacks. The snorkeling-info history page mentioned above provides a pre-history of snorkelling, but very little in the way of a modern history of the activity, i.e. the period from the late 1940s to the early 1980s. The most striking omission is the lack of information in the article when it comes to tracing the origins and development of the breathing tube that gave its name to the activity. More needs to be made of the fact that snorkelling is what you make of it. It doesn't require any kind of specialised masks, fins or snorkels as other underwater pursuits have come to do. Nor should there be too much emphasis on exotic locations - snorkelling can be done in any lake, river or sea and with an exposure suit it can be done all the year round. I see snorkelling as the aquatic equivalent of hiking, a non-competitive everyman activity.

Palmersville 20:18, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Previous peer review

Current GA. Article failed at FAC a few weeks ago. I think images, referencing and completeness are pretty good, it's really everything else I'm worried about ;) Having said that, comments on anything are more than welcome. Thanks. Chwech 19:37, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

• Please expand the lead to conform with guidelines at Wikipedia:Lead. The article should have an appropriate number of paragraphs as is shown on WP:LEAD, and should adequately summarize the article.^[?]
• There may be an applicable infobox for this article. For example, see Template:Infobox Biography, Template:Infobox School, or Template:Infobox City.^[?] (Note that there might not be an applicable infobox; remember that these suggestions are not generated manually)
• Per Wikipedia:Context and Wikipedia:Build the web, years with full dates should be linked; for example, link January 15, 2006.^[?]
• As per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates), dates shouldn't use ^th; for example, instead of using January 30^th was a great day, use January 30 was a great day.^[?]
• Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (headings), headings generally do not start with articles ('the', 'a(n)'). For example, if there was a section called ==The Biography==, it should be changed to ==Biography==.^[?]
• Per WP:WIAFA, this article's table of contents (ToC) may be too long- consider shrinking it down by merging short sections or using a proper system of daughter pages as per Wikipedia:Summary style.^[?]
• There are a few occurrences of weasel words in this article- please observe WP:AWT. Certain phrases should specify exactly who supports, considers, believes, etc., such a view.
  • correctly
  • might be weasel words, and should be provided with proper citations (if they already do, or are not weasel terms, please strike this comment).^[?]
• The script has spotted the following contractions: don't, if these are outside of quotations, they should be expanded.
• Please ensure that the article has gone through a thorough copyediting so that it exemplifies some of Wikipedia's best work. See also User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 1a.^[?]

You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, Aqwis 13:20, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Some stuff dealt with, others not applicable (there isn't an infobox that will work here). I haven't found correctly and don't in the article but when I do, I'll see what can be done. Chwech 15:11, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Okay, "correctly" was not a weasel term and "don't" was used as part of an unseen note to editors. Chwech 17:11, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Archive #1 View

Archive #2 View

Well... I recently joined WP:FBI, made some edits, and created a page, but the main priority is to get FBI to FA status. I would like to know what we could improve/add to get the article to FA status. BlackBear 22:55, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is a good article that could probably make it to an A class with a little work. The article is heavy on citations but suffers from some problems that I don't know how to fix without some advice. For example, a large part of the introduction is taken up by a discussion of the name of the group. The article is not heavily edited anymore, was never edited by much more than a handful of Peruvianist, and could greatly benefit from peer review. --Descendall 07:35, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Close to nominating this at FAC. Promoted to GA this month, upgraded to A-class within schools only hours ago. I'm looking for a few feutral people to help me determine how close it is. PhoenixTwo 03:43, 29 March 2007 (UTC) The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program, and might not be applicable for the article in question.[reply]

• Please expand the lead to conform with guidelines at Wikipedia:Lead. The article should have an appropriate number of paragraphs as is shown on WP:LEAD, and should adequately summarize the article.^[?]
• Per Wikipedia:Context and Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates), months and days of the week generally should not be linked. Years, decades, and centuries can be linked if they provide context for the article.^[?]
• See if possible if there is a free use image that can go on the top right corner of this article.^[?]
• Avoid including galleries in articles, as per Wikipedia:Galleries. Common solutions to this problem include moving the gallery to a separate page, like Gallery of Lethbridge Collegiate Institute.^[?]
• Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (numbers), there should be a non-breaking space -   between a number and the unit of measurement. For example, instead of 15 metre, use 15 metre, which when you are editing the page, should look like: 15 metre.^[?]
• Per Wikipedia:Context and Wikipedia:Build the web, years with full dates should be linked; for example, link January 15, 2006.^[?]
• Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (headings), headings generally do not start with articles ('the', 'a(n)'). For example, if there was a section called ==The Biography==, it should be changed to ==Biography==.^[?]
• There are a few sections that are too short and that should be either expanded or merged.
• Please make the spelling of English words consistent with either American or British spelling, depending upon the subject of the article. Examples include: metre (B) (American: meter), organize (A) (British: organise), criticise (B) (American: criticize), ization (A) (British: isation), travelled (B) (American: traveled), enrollment (A) (British: enrolment), enrolment (B) (American: enrollment), program (A) (British: programme).
• Watch for redundancies that make the article too wordy instead of being crisp and concise. (You may wish to try Tony1's redundancy exercises.)
  • Vague terms of size often are unnecessary and redundant - “some”, “a variety/number/majority of”, “several”, “a few”, “many”, “any”, and “all”. For example, “All pigs are pink, so we thought of a number of ways to turn them green.”
• Please ensure that the article has gone through a thorough copyediting so that it exemplifies some of Wikipedia's best work. See also User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 1a.^[?]

You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, Ruhrfisch 13:38, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Any suggestions towards improving the article? Deucalionite 18:12, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• The external links to Thucydides' works were inaccessible to me. You might consider switching them to Wikisource links. Danny 07:33, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Michigan State University and its daughter articles are currently a Featured topic removal candidate. In order to improve the quality of the topic, I'd like to get Michigan State University academics up to FA status. Please give me any suggestions you may have. Lovelac7 07:53, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Could you review {{citeweb}} on all these articles? This would make the citation style consistent. LuciferMorgan 02:26, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Done. Lovelac7 02:57, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've been working on this article for a little while now and thought I should get some feedback on it. --Malevious Userpage •Talk Page• Contributions 05:03, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You don't have any references. See Wikipedia:Citing sources. --thedemonhog talk contributions 08:14, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• You don't even have a category!--Rmky87 15:55, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• You could consider expanding the article a little more: you describe the programme quite succinctly, but a little more in-depth analysis might be good. You should also follow thedemonhog's suggestion above regarding references: I see you've got a link to the project's website, but also consider bringing in sources from outside (e.g. newspaper reports/editorials on the project will give you something to talk about re. how it is received by the community, whether it has been sucessful etc., any academic sources which have studied it or influenced it will add to its notability etc. Overall, a good start but there's a long way to go. --John24601 11:12, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Golf has been working on this article over the past month or two to try and improve it to featured status. It has recently been promoted to GA status. I was wondering what improvements need to be completed for the article to be considered for FA status. I would also like an opinion whether this is an A-Class article, which i'm not sure it is.
Thanks from WikiProject Golf and myself. Grover 23:56, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pretty nice article. I'm no expert on WP:FACR but I'll give it a shot. A couple of specifics first: Obviously the {{fact}} tags in the lead, while perhaps overzealously applied, should probably be addressed. I added a {{clarifyme}} tag in the "Record setter"" section where it was unclear what year was being discussed.

Some more general thoughts:

• The infobox is kinda problematic for me. It's very big, and maybe a bit too detailed. I think of an infobox as ideally an "at a glance" look at what makes the subject notable/important/interesting. The infobox here doesn't contain the word "golfer" or "golf", but lists each major title individually, which seems more appropriate for the lists at the bottom. The baseball infobox, eg here, seems a bit more convenient for the general reader. Also I notice it seems to be coded manually rather than from a template, which seems odd, or did you just "subst:"?  Done Grovermj 01:29, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• I know WP image copyright policy is a nightmare, but images of a younger Nicklaus would be a big help. In particular, it would be nice to visually demonstrate the transformation from 1960s crewcut "fat boy" to 1970s blonde-locks icon that was so integral to his evolving public image.  Not done. I dont think i'm going to find one. Grovermj 01:29, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Speaking of which, more about his public-persona/celebrity might be a good idea...though that's kind of tricky from an NPOV standpoint. Still, for a while there Nicklaus essentially was golf for the American public, and he remains something of an icon in and out of the game. That status could be addressed. In particular, the "rivalry" with Palmer is teased in the lead & I don't think it's mentioned again.
• The lead needs a copyedit for grammar. Also "was a professional golfer" doesn't sound quite right for a living person.
• Shouldn't the total of 19 runnerups in majors be mentioned somewhere? Maybe whatever the ridiculous total is for Top-10s? Also doesn't he always say he really won 20 majors because the US Amateur should count?
• In this passage (under "Career downturn"): "...he was thrilled to have won The Open at the home of golf, St Andrews," the phrase home of golf should probably be in quotes & attributed to someone, ideally Nicklaus himself; or at least explained. I know it's a commonplace in the golf world, but for the lay person it sounds funny.
• I notice all the cites are from online sources. I'm sure plenty of print sources could be found, and might prove useful. One of John Feinstein's books, for instance, or another general golf history, might be a good source on his celebrity & role in popularizing the tour. I think there are a couple of book-length Nicklaus bios, which could be good even if only listed as "further reading." Nicklaus' own books should certainly be mentioned. (Didn't Tiger Woods read Golf My Way 600 times or something? I may have the title wrong.)
• Those complete major-winners lists at the bottom are kind of overwhelmingly huge, & tend to reinforce a vague impression that the article is for the golf fanatic rather than the general reader.  Not done. They're collapsable so it seems fine to me. Grovermj 01:29, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• I guess it can't hurt, but does Jack Nicklaus really need to be disambiguated from Jack Nicholson?!  :-)

Sorry this is so wordy. My handicap is somewhere north of 20, so feel free to heed/ignore as you see fit. Happy editing. —Turangalila ^talk 03:16, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Let's start from the lead:

• It needs expansion per WP:LEAD.
• Who put these ^{[citation needed]}s in the lead? Fix them or remove them, if you cite these assertions later. For issues cited in the main text, you don't have to repeat the citing in the lead.
• "and during this period accumulated 18 major titles, because of this fact". I think before "because" it would be better to put a full-stop, instead of comma?

• Do we know something more about his family?
• Per WP:MoS do not wikilink single years. Only year-month-date.
• "This win made him the youngest player, age 26, and the only one after Gene Sarazen, Ben Hogan, and Gary Player (until Tiger Woods at age 24) to win all four major championships, now known as the Career Slam." I don't see any reason to bold here.
• "Nicklaus did not win the Grand Slam in 1972, as Lee Trevino repeated as the British Open champion, and Gary Player prevailed in the PGA Championship." Avoid short, one-sentence, stubby sentences like this one. Merge or expand.
• Maybe a wider prose variety would help. I read the same monotonous style: "In XXXX NIcklaus won C and D"."In FFFF Nicklaus won F and G" etc.
• "Champions Tour career" and "Close of playing career" look under-cited. My advice is to have at least one citation in each paragraph.
• Two things about "Playing style":

• First of all the prose. It is choppy!
• Then, the context. Why so poor! I think it is very important to analyse the playing style of such a great golfer (you know, in Greece we know amost nothing about golf - but I have heard about two golf players: Woods and him; this proves what a great sport figure he is!).

• "Records" is all listy. It looks like trivia. If you to FAC with such a section, you'll be in trouble. Can you turn it into proper prose?
• In "See also" don't put articles you have already linked in the main text.
• Wikify your online sources you use as inline citations, using Template:cite web and Template:cite news.

In general, an artice with potential, but it needs work.--Yannismarou 20:40, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Seems to me to be a good, detailed, well referenced article. What sort of improvements need made to attain GA/FA status? Archibald99  23:19, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment A very good article, but a few comments nevertheless.

1. There is some info in the lead (e.g. the result of the first international) that isn't in the main part of the article. I believe WP:LEAD frowns upon this. I'd check all info in the lead is either in the main article, or moved if it's very detailed (e.g. the score, or goalscorers)
2. How did Scotland fare in the British Home Championship?
3. Could wikilink 1954 to 1954 FIFA World Cup.
4. Citations needed - the History section up to 1998 has only one citation, should be easy to find them. Also, is it possible to provide citations for Scotland's highest (& lowest) Elo & FIFA rankings?
5. "1970s generally considered...", "...is generally regarded as the best goal..." - weasal words, cite or lose.
6. Many one sentence paragraphs towards the modern era in History section.
7. Tables look untidy, perhaps consider central justification within the article, they're awfully blank as well, although I understand it's because they didn't qualify. Perhaps it's not the best way to present this information, but right now I can't think of another way, maybe removing the blanks would help...
8. Stadium section lacks citations, and supporters section has but one, it needs more (e.g. "...were also named the World's Friendliest Fans during the 1998 World Cup..." needs citation)
9. Players section - put (c) for captain next to Ferguson in table and remove manager - that's stated in the infobox.
10. What makes the players "noted"? In most FA football team articles, a fork is created to handle lists of players with justification as to why they were noted (e.g. 50 appearances, 50 goals, crucial contributions).
11. Remove the recent results section, just leave the link to the results fork.

Hopefully some of that helps... The Rambling Man 16:24, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Prior peer reviews can be found here

• Wikiproject Novels first peer review
• Second WP:Novels peer review
• Wikipedia wide peer review

I'm submitting a peer review on this book again. There have been had multiple peer reviews and an FAC that I withdrew. It is parked at the League of Copy Editors awaiting cleanup. Good article status was granted, but the article has changed considerably since then. From my reading on the book, I have found the following:

• It has few articles or books in journals about its literary components, particularly in light of how much of an impact the book has had. The majority of sources that address the novel come from legal journals or teaching aids.
• Due to its popularity and because it has been the only novel by the enigmatic Harper Lee, there is a lore surrounding the book, so there is an extra component beyond the novel by itself.

I'm trying to determine what more can be improved. I appreciate your comments and time. --Moni3 (talk) 03:34, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Because I think this is such an important page (and I offered at some point in the past to help out), I'll be doing a review in a few days. Sorry I can't jump to it immediately, but I'll get to it as soon as I can. – Scartol • Tok 20:39, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My review is below. Hope it helps!

This article is very detailed and comprehensive – well done! I enjoyed reading it; I think you've done a great job finding some very nice elements, and woven them together skillfully. I've made some copyedits along the way; feel free to adjust these as you see fit.

With regard to images: Remember that the pages you link to can sometimes be useful sources; although not a very significant connection, the image from Shadrach, Meshack, and Abednego could spice that section up a bit. Perhaps an image of Charles Lamb would be useful? And of course you should include a picture of a mockingbird. =)

Also, I found in my digging that the 1962 Gregory Peck movie was not copyrighted, which means that it's in the public domain (and so are screenshots from it)! So although you don't want to overload the page with images from the movie, you have the legal freedom to capture any images you want from that film and add them to the page. (If you're not sure how to do this, I might be able to help.)

Here are some assorted comments I've made while reading. Please don't feel the need to respond to each one (but you may if you wish).

Lead

• The lead should reflect the general structure of the article. Thus, I'd recommend leaving the first paragraph as is (it's a good general overview of the subject), and writing one paragraph about themes, one about reception and controversy, and one about adaptations. If you haven't already, read WP:LEAD.

Background

• I've retitled this section "Background and composition", since it encompasses both aspects.

• Harper Lee approached a literary agent referred by her childhood friend Truman Capote. Why did she approach him? This sentence would be better with a brief mention of what she had in mind.

DONE

• Lee was a relatively unpublished author up to that time. I'd put this information first. Maybe: "In 1957, Harper Lee had only published small opinion pieces in campus literary magazines."

DONE

• at both schools the themes of her pieces were extraordinarily rare I've reworded this as: "rare topics on these campuses at the time". If this is inaccurate, please revise as necessary.

DONE

• For future reference: unless it's part of the quotation itself, punctuation should go outside of the quote marks. ("quick and merciful death,") I've fixed it where I've found it in the article, but you should do another pass.

• We should have a source for the "wide readership" provided by the Reader's Digest and Condensed Books editions.

Plot summary

• I've rewritten parts of this section. Please feel free to revert or alter further as you see fit.

• Scout and Jem see their neighbors through the eyes of children. Having learnt from Atticus not to judge another until they have walked around in that person's skin, the children discover many instances of quiet strength and dignity in the most unlikely people. These sentences feel awkward. I think they'd fit better in the "Southern life through a child's eyes" section. Let's stick to the plain events of the story here.

DONE

• this danger is averted with the unwitting help of Scout, Jem, and Dill. This is unclear. Can we be more specific about what actually happens?

DONE

• The serial comma appears in some spots and is absent in others. Best to go through and make it consistent one way or another.

Autobiographical elements

• You say that both Capote and Lee were "atypical children", but we only have examples about Lee. Anything we could add about Capote?

DONE

Style

• The quote from Jacqueline Tavernier-Courbin moves between singular and plural: "is one of those rare books that expose some of ... but also provides some insights...". Is this an oversight on her part, or a mistake in duplication?

DONE

• Scout's foil as a girl who beats up multiple boys... As I understand it, a foil is a character used to contrast another character. Maybe a different word is called for here?

DONE

• ...the juxtaposition of Scout's childish comprehension of complex traditions also feels sketchy. (I usually expect to see "with" after "juxtaposition".) Also, can we get an example of this from the book?

DONE

• Lee also drives the plot in entertaining ways. As universal as this sentiment may be, it feels POV here. Can we say: "Critics also note the entertaining methods used to drive the plot." or such such?

DONE

• I'd like to see an example or two of what the legal scholars say about Atticus. Why is he revered so?

DONE

• I'd incorporate the info from "Genres" into the "Style" section.

Themes

• As time progresses and more scholars view the impact the novel has had, as well as the time in which it was written, more thematic elements are recognized. I don't know if this sentence really adds anything. I'd be in favor of removing it.

DONE

• I'm not sure that "Southern life..." and "Racial injustice..." should be two separate subsections. I'd support combining them.

DONE

• Remember to use the literary present ("So-and-so notes that...") when referring to literary criticism.

• Harper Lee sent $10 US to The Richmond News Leader suggesting it to be used toward the enrollment of "the Hanover County School Board in any first grade of its choice". The connection isn't clear here. Was she responding to a particular letter? Please clarify what point she was trying to make.

DONE

• Atticus must also rid the disease of racism from the town by himself. Surely the black folks in town were also trying to do this? Perhaps the review is using the white man's burden a touch liberally?

I couldn't say. The book tends to make people go off with praise sometimes. What do you recommend?

I'd write the end of the sentence like so: "...must also fight against the town's racism without help from other white citizens." Thus the "loner" theme is preserved, without making it sound like he's the only person interested in the issue. – Scartol • Tok 01:20, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• The statement that seemed to make the most negative impact in Tom Robinson's testimony was that he felt sorry for Mayella. This is confusing. Is it according to a source? Your reading of the novel? The phrase "seemed to make the most negative impact" feels like original research, unless we attribute it in some way. You might also want to make clear that the examples in the middle of the paragraph are representative of the compassion theme. (Readers can get easily lost in a sea of examples, without some analytical string to tie it all together.)

DONE

• You may not need to include all of the "Critic X notes..." attributions. In many cases, the footnotes can take care of this. So long as you're citing mainstream opinion (and there are several ways to approach such a thing; multiple citations are best), you don't have to overburden the reader with critics' names. (I generally save them for unique points of view or superlatives, or direct quotations. See Le Père Goriot.)

DONE

• Bob Ewell, it is hinted, has a sexual relationship with his daughter... This feels like sugar-coating. Can we just say "molested"?

DONE

• ...she is so starved for a compassionate human relationship that she saves seven nickels over the course of a year to be alone with Tom Robinson. The connection isn't clear here.

DONE (deleted)

• ...it is suggested that men like them as well as the traditionally feminine hypocrites at the Missionary Society can lead society astray. Again, unclear.

DONE

Genres

• See note above about suggested merging of this section with "Style".

• The LGBTQ commentary feels tacked-on. Maybe this would be better fit under "Reception" or the gender discussion in "Themes"?

• Lee, furthermore, wrote about her small town with an admirable honesty... (I rewrote the first part of this sentence.) I don't really get the connection between this and Southern Gothic.

• Does the novel really have to be either a bildungsroman or a Southern Gothic? Can't both apply?

• Novels in the bildungsroman genre grew in popularity in Victorian England Is this essential? Given the length of the article, I'd advocate for removing extraneous information whenever possible.

To clarify: your suggestion is to have a Style and genres section? I think both genre's do apply, but the references I used don't. They describe them in terms of Southern gothic or bildungsroman. Can I describe the book as both if my sources don't connect them? Lee writing about her town with honesty was included as one writer's way of saying the book is kind of a Southern gothic, but an atypical one. Whereas Faulkner or Capote may have reveled in the depravity of their characters, Lee seems to describe them as more realistic. Awadewit suggested I describe what Southern gothic and bildungsroman mean. But I can take that out, too. --Moni3 (talk) 00:05, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Explaining what a genre is without going into extraneous detail on its history can be tricky (especially with regard to something like Southern Gothic, which evolved in a particular context). To combine information with flow, I think it's best to insert a brief description of the genre into a sentence about the text being discussed. The key is to keep the focus closely tied to the novel itself, with straying into the realm of general background as controlled as possible.

In the case of bildungsroman here, here's how I'd reword it:

The presence of children facing a cruel world leads critics to cite the novel less as an example of Southern Gothic, and more as a bildungsroman. The latter typically features a character discontented by witnessing a shocking event, who develops through the novel to make sense of the event. In the case of To Kill a Mockingbird, both Scout and Jem exist in this role.

Note that we can explain (and generally should) that we're reflecting the consensus of critical opinion, rather than some generic and objectively-true perspective. With respect to the realism of Lee vs. other Southern Gothics, it's probably best to state such a thing explicitly in such a section.

As for combining: I'd recommend making a subsection of Style called "Genre", and giving the discussion about it there. This is more or less what I did in Le Père Goriot#Style, and (without trying to be immodest) I think it worked fairly well. – Scartol • Tok 01:20, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

DONE —Preceding unsigned comment added by Moni3 (talk • contribs) 17:34, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reception

• ...the novel was well-received in her hometown and throughout Alabama. Is this discussed in the Johnson source? If not, we should get a citation for it.

• I think someone earlier made a comment which I'll echo: The reader is bogged down in references to lists of Greatest Books. Pick 3-4 and focus on them (and then, if you really feel the need, include the others in a footnote). It's also a good idea to organize the positive reviews together, and the negative reviews together. A little narration is also useful. ("Not every critic was enthusiastic, however..." or some such.)

DONE

• ...citing several cases from that period and earlier of the book being challenged or banned. This phrase doesn't really add much to the sentence. I didn't want to remove it since it had a footnote, but I don't know that it's needed.

DONE

• Response to these attempts to remove the book from standard teaching was vehement... "Vehement" is usually attached to another adjective, so I'd suggest using "passionate" here.

DONE

• If we quote "benign censors" we should provide a source.

DONE

• The quote from Saney feels adrift. Part of this is because it's suddenly a comment on the media's coverage of the discussion, rather than a point being made about the book itself. If he supported the ban, the article should say so. Best to provide a transition ("On the other side of the debate, Isaac Saney...") before the discussion of his perspective.

DONE

• The use of ellipses throughout is sketchy; I've fixed them where I can, but you might want to have a look at WP:ELLIPSIS and go through the article to check them another time.

• I recommend changing "After publication" to "Honors". As it is, some readers might assume that "After publication" is a subsection of "Controversy" relating to later such dust-ups.

DONE --Moni3 (talk) 20:47, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Adaptations

• I recommend shortening the title of this section to simply "Adaptations".

DONE

• I recommend renaming "Film's connection to the novel" as "1962 film".

DONE

• For future reference: Using a comma to lead into a quote works only when it's a shorter quotation, and when a word like "said" precedes it. (Bob said to Sue, "Hello".) In a sentence like Pakula remembered hearing from Peck when he was first approached with the role: "He called back immediately....", a colon is better.

• I wonder if some of the information from the movie section should be in the page for the movie itself. Info here (in my opinion) should stick to the adaptation process, connections between Lee and the actors, and a brief summary of the film's success. Given that the page is 67 kb right now – and FAC reviewers start to get skittish at around 60 – I'd propose this section as ripe for pruning.

I did my best to stick to information that involved how the movie tied in with the book. I can transfer some of this information to the film, though. --Moni3 (talk) 20:47, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that's my take on it. I hope my suggestions don't feel overwhelming – it's a very thorough article and I believe it's on the way to featured status. Good luck and please let me know if you have any questions. – Scartol • Tok 13:16, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Scartol. It may take me a week or so to get through these, as I'm sure you know I'm paying attention to a couple of FACs. I'll leave a note on your talk page when I think I've covered everything. Thanks so much! --Moni3 (talk) 17:52, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. I still have to do a few more things before I try to *gulp* nominate it for anything... Gah! --Moni3 (talk) 20:47, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's looking much better – kudos for all your hard work. I'd recommend spacing out the images a bit more if possible (or adding more; there are big swaths of text with no images at all). I'd also suggest getting another set of eyes on it before nominating it; perhaps WillowW or JayHenry? – Scartol • Tok 00:55, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I think I just might be somewhat at the end of addressing your points. I just added a couple of images to spruce it up. I hope they're appropriate in licensing and purpose. I just asked Maralia to clean up all 120 freakin' citations. And I have no problem asking WillowW or JayHenry to give it another look. Thanks again, Scartol, for all your help! --Moni3 (talk) 01:06, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, this is a pretty important classical physics topic. Its failures helped to spawn quantum mechanics and even now it's pretty useful. Please let me know what you all think of the presentation, and derivations. I'll try to flesh out the article titles and page numbers for the 19th century journal references but, if you happen to know of some already, I'd be very grateful. I'd like to bring this to Featured Article status in the near future. Thanks for your time and thoughtful reviews, Willow 20:08, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'll read through it and comment as I go.

• "Similar examples could be cited for every ..." this sentence is very unencyclopedic and unnecessary. Fixed
• What are "first principles" ? Fixed
• Can theorems form alliances? "The history of the equipartition theorem is closely allied with that of specific heats" Fixed
• There are alot of "unknowns" and question marks in the references. I'll work on this; it's hard to track down 19th-century references! :(
• You have a lot of high-quality sources. However, these all seem to be used in the History section. Make sure the applications and equations are well-referenced. The entire Derivations section is missing citations. Fixed
• "Pair potential" is red-linked. Either whip up an article for it or give a brief explanation here, as it's not a well-known concept. Fixed
• I doubt this is even possible, but if you can find or create a visual for this article, it would definitely help. It is very dense reading, as would be expected of physics theorems. Two figures; any suggestions for more?

On the positive side, this information seems very comprehensive and well-organized. Keep at it! --Cryptic C62 · Talk 03:31, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much, Cryptic! :) I'll try to address your concerns. Willow 16:16, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a few more little fixies for the intro:

• "Indeed, the failure of the equipartition theorem to predict the specific heats of solids and diatomic gases was the first hint to physicists of the 19th century that classical physics was incorrect and that a new physics — now understood as quantum physics — was needed." I have two problems with this sentence:

• It's very long, compounded by the fact that it doesn't have commas. Consider either breaking it apart or removing some of less important phrases, such as "to physicists of the 19th century."
• The word "hint" seems like an odd choice. What about "sign" or "evidence"?

• "to predict the specific heats of solids and diatomic gases" is used twice within the same paragraph.
• "For example, the ideal gas law can be derived from equipartition. So can the Dulong-Petit law, which describes the specific heat of all solids at high temperatures." that can probably be schlorbed together. I like "The ideal gas law, for example, can be derived from equipartition, as can the Dulong-Petit law." or "Both the ideal gas law and the Dulong-Petit law can be derived from equipartition."
• Why is "quadratically" italicized?

These may seem overly nitpicky, but phrasing and flow is especially important for the introduction. Many a time have I read the introduction to a theory article and gotten discouraged because of how dense it was. An easy-to-read intro will encourage more people to read the entire article. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 01:26, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Cryptic, thanks for your excellent notes! I've tried to fix up the lead as you recommend, and made some further changes as well. Please let me know what you think! :) Willow 23:36, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good revisions. However, I noticed the section title "Failure in the quantum regime". Regime seems like an odd word choice. While it can be defined as a ruling or prevailing system, the dominant definition and the most common connotation is a dictatorship. I'm fairly certain that quantum mechanics were not a precursor to Saddam Hussein. :P --Cryptic C62 · Talk 03:26, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what I was thinking; it does sound really poetic, doesn't it? I must've heard someone say that somewhere, and it stuck to my brain like Velcro. ;) Hopefully, it reads better now; thanks for the tips! :) Willow 21:11, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Google finds over 90,000 hits for "quantum regime" and over 73,000 for "classical regime" -- it's very much a standard phrase. Jheald 14:57, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Google is not an all-knowing entity. That's Wikipedia. Even if we are using Google as a proving ground, 90,000 pales in comparison to the 5,850,000 hits for "quantum mechanics." To the average user, "regime" will incorrectly imply dictatorship. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 18:11, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I'm back. I added redirects at Law of equipartition and Equipartition theory. I also noticed the Maxwell Boltzmann image uses nonstandard isotope notation, He-4. They should be either Helium-4 or ⁴He. Try recreating the image, or contact its author, Pdbailey. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 01:46, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oops. I did it myself. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 00:15, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A couple of comments, not a full review (more comprehensive comments, maybe, in a day or two)

• Something the article does is link to Hamiltonian quite early on with relatively little explanation. Despite my first instincts, I quite like that the article does this, because it's a useful set-up for the relativistic gas example, which is a very useful corrective to the idea that the energy is always ½kT per degree of freedom. But the idea of a Hamiltonian is quite an advanced concept compared to the entry level for a lot of the potential audience for this article. And Wikipedia isn't giving you much help at the moment. At the moment the link of the page is pointing to the Hamiltonian disambig page - which probably isn't going to help, if a reader has never heard of the word before. But the articles WP does currently have, eg Hamiltonian system, Hamiltonian mechanics, Hamilton's principle and Hamilton's equations don't currently altogether help either -- I fear that none of them has an introduction/summary which is pitched remotely simply enough for the entry-level of people coming to this article; and they could use being knocked together big-time. The one which probably most ought to be fixed up as a potential entry-point is Hamiltonian mechanics, which is supposed to be the category lead for Category:Hamiltonian mechanics. An introductory paragraph there, after the contents, glossing (but not proving) some of the results set out in Hamilton's equations, in particular H=T+V and the form of the equations of motion, might be the way to go. In fact the best solution would probably be to merge the two pages together outright, with most of the content now at Hamilton's equations coming in first, and the material now at Hamiltonian mechanics coming in as things get more sophisticated.

You're definitely right, although I had hoped to avoid all the work. When I first started out here, I also encountered some difficulties with a few pure-math Wikipedians over my overly basic description of the Hamilton-Jacobi equation; I kind of dread having to wrangle with them again. :(

Okay, I've added the merge tags, as an indicative first step. Let's see whether anybody wails! Jheald 14:14, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Pictures. It might be nice to show a pic of something like the Maxwellian distribution of 1d kinetic energies, with 1/2 kT marked, to show how much energy spread there can be in a single quadratic co-ordinate; and then a pic of the energy per d.o.f. for 3d and say 12d, to show how the energy per d.o.f. becomes very sharply defined for systems of more degrees of freedom as the Central Limit Theorem kicks in. Would pics for the corresponding relativistic gas show nice qualitative differences ?
• Pics showing the effects of frozen-out d.o.f.s due to energy-level spacing might be nice, too - showing how this makes an impact even before you put in Bose-Einstein or Fermi-Dirac effects. The nice thing about pics is they allow you to talk qualitatively about the effects, while being able to defer the quantitative details.

Maybe there's a way of combining these two figures to show how equipartition fails when you go from continuous to quantized energy levels. I'll brood on it for a few days.

• For the very simple quadratic case, would it be an idea to work through the maths starting with Boltzmann factors from the canonical distribution? Without prejudice to the more detailed and general derivations still being considered later.

Just some thoughts. Jheald 20:18, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, maybe. I'll try to add that and let's see how it flies! :) Thanks for your comments! Willow 11:55, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Willow. Thanks for pointing me to this informative article. It contains a lot of great information and some useful equations. However, I'm very concerned that the article is having a hard time deciding on the level of presentation. If it's going to be technical in nature, the theorem and its derivations need to be right up front. If it's going to be less technical, it can't discuss the theorem in such general terms. I was frustrated reading the first few sections because, first, the theorem and its consequences were discussed in detail without actually stating the theorem, and second, the theorem was stated in a very general form (in the Hamiltonian formalism but without explaining it) but derivations were pushed to the end. A start at improving things, which I think another reviewer suggested, would be to first present the theory in a very simple form, perhaps only explaining the E=N/2*kT result and alluding to an elementary derivation. Later in the article the theorem could be generalized. At its current level, I think the history section needs to come after the more general explanation. It'd be nice to discuss the history without such reliance on the general formulation. I'm reminded of the term "weasel words," usually used to refer to POV issues where awkward language is used to avoid saying something offensive; here, I think there are weasel words used to allude to highly technical concepts without defining them. Finally, as I understand things---disclaimer: I'm no thermodynamicist, and it's been awhile since I studied the subject---the equipartition theorem only "breaks down" in the quantum regime due to ergodicity. I suspect the quantum breakdown should be described as a failure of ergodicity. That certainly seems to be the case for the ultraviolet catastrophe, unless there's something I don't understand. Also, the description of Einstein proposing quantum stuff way ahead of everyone else seems to be an exaggeration of the history as I understand it, but I'm no expert there, either. In summary, I can't support this article as a featured or even good article unless some fundamental problems are addressed. Again, though, there's lots of good information here, and I hope it can be shaped into a good article. Sorry for this long, rambling paragraph. Perhaps I can explain my thoughts better if this becomes a dialogue. Best wishes, Gnixon 02:36, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Gnixon,

I didn't notice your reply until just now, sorry!

• I agree about the difficulty of presentation. I originally presented everything in its most general form immediately but, as you see above, that was not well received. On the other hand, though, I'm not willing to say (incorrectly) that "equipartition is the equal division of energy kT/2 into all possible modes." It's difficult, isn't it? I'll have to brood on it some more. :)

Yeah, it looked like the article reflected a history on this point. By the way, let me apologize up front if I'm getting any of the theory or history wrong---you're clearly much more familiar with both than I am, so you may have to take some things I say with a grain of salt. Deciding on the level(s?) of the article and its overall structure will probably be the hardest part, and the part you'll get the least help on from anyone else. Unless this article is only going to be a short sub-article for stat mech (in which case I'd do the heavy math right up front at the level of the parent article, keeping everything short and not worrying much about the history, etc.), I think you've got to find a way to introduce things simply, formally but without the full aparatus. Gnixon 00:36, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Ergodicity is not a problem for the ultraviolet catastrophe, since all modes may be populated, no? Energy can be freely exchanged between the modes and a set of oscillators that emit and absorb the radiation. Equipartition truly breaks down in quantum systems, because the energy spectrum is not continuous. As you see from the calculation, the mean energy in a single oscillator is not always kT/2, as predicted by equipartition.

I guess I meant it in the sense that certain values of energy cannot be exchanged in the quantum regime, so we can't "freely exchange" energy with low-lying states. That's probably an abuse on my part of the concept of ergodicity. After a bit more reading, I'm still not able to express why classical stat mech had an ultraviolet catastrophe but the h*nu hypothesis solved things. Some famous physicist (Einstein, right?) said that if you can't explain something in simple terms, you probably don't understand it. I clearly don't fully understand the classical blackbody derivations---I was always a little hazy on classical stat mech. It's moderately embarrassing to me since I apply Planck's law frequently in my work.

Some more criticism, which I hope is constructive. I'm not that bad at physics, but I find that as I read the article, there are a lot of things I don't immediately follow. I'm sure part of that is because my thermo is rusty (never my best subject), but I also think part of the problem is presentation, particularly how the article relies heavily on certain formalisms without reviewing key concepts and equations. Often when I try to write about things after I've been deep into the calculations, I find myself throwing around a lot of details without getting the big picture across. I think this article has a little of the same problem.

On a related note, even though the equipartition theorem can be expressed more generally, I think it could help to start with the limited case of a quadratic hamiltonian and get the N/2*T result. Probably readers will be most interested in getting to that point, and one can always generalize the theorem later. It would be perfectly fine to say "for quadratic Hamiltonians, equipartition is the equal division of energy kT/2 into all possible modes." Gnixon 00:36, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Perhaps I am giving too strong an impression about Einstein. But he did propose E=hν both as the solution for the ultraviolet catastrophe (in 1905) and for the specific heat deviations from the Dulong-Petit law (1907), and his solutions were still not publicly accepted by any physicist in 1911, as described at the Photon article. Other physicists did not want to concede that light itself (or sound itself) had to be quantized; quite reasonably, they preferred the more conservative hypothesis that the emitters/absorbers were constrained somehow to emit energy in quanta.

After a little bit more reading, maybe I just didn't understand his role in pushing the photon concept. Interesting. Gnixon 00:36, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

When I have some time, I'll think more about your suggestions, and try to bring the article up to snuff. Thanks for your help! :) Willow 22:29, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Glad to respond to other versions as the article evolves. Gnixon 00:36, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. Any suggestions for what the figures should look like?

Hmm, tough one. For one, maybe just take an arbitrary thermo picture for effect---it might be a little silly, but you could steal the animated picture on Physics. Other than that, maybe consider turning equations into images---you could do the general theorem and the ideal gas law, for example. You could show plots of the blackbody spectrum and perhaps something about the Dulong-Petit law. Those are all kind of random images, but at least they'd give us some eye candy. Gnixon 00:36, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Willow. I think the article has taken a huge step up since I last saw it. Nice work!

I'm so glad that you like it! :)

After a very quick re-reading, I have a couple comments:

• Great job presenting a simpler version of the theorem first, but I think it's been a little oversimplified. You've gone all the way to the ideal gas example where only the .5mv^2 energy is involved. I'd recommend instead stating the theorem as it applies to all quadratic forms of energy. It's not much harder to understand, and it explains applications like lattice vibrations (.5kx^2) and rotational contributions to gases' specific heats (.5Iw^2). I'd distinguish between the simplest form, (the theorem on quadratic energies) and the simplest application (the ideal gas).

Actually, the kinetic energy argument pertains to all atomic systems, not merely to the ideal gas. That's because the momentum and position are independent variables. I tried to clarify that and also to extrapolate as you suggest to other quadratic potentials. Please let me now if you like it!

Here's how the theorem was introduced in a book I have called "Introductory Statistical Mechanics" by Roger Bowley and Mariana Sanchez:

The equipartition theorem can be stated thus: every degree of freedom of a body which contributes a quadratic term of a coordinate or momentum to the total energy has an average energy of kT/2 and gives a contribution to the heat capacity of k/2.

I'd recommend saying it something like that. By the way, the text continued by briefly discussing the cases of monatomic and diatomic (two rotational, 1 vibrational DOF) gases, which might be useful here, too. Gnixon 14:29, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I like the quote and I'll try to work it in, although it's not perfectly correct. The equipartition of kT/2 requires that the degree of freedom appears only as a quadratic term in the energy. For example, equipartition of kT/2 does not pertain to an anharmonic oscillator that contributes quadratic and higher-order terms to the energy, right? Willow 20:51, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're right, of course, about the anharmonic example. I think it's sort of a question of how you read the quote---certainly it can be said more clearly, and you seem to have done so. It'd be nice to phrase it without the "only" emphasizing the lack of other terms instead of the presence of the quadratic, but that's just nitpicking, and I haven't thought of a better phrasing.

More substantively, I like having the Maxwell-Boltzman distribution, but it's not exactly a derivation of equipartition. True, if you know the MB distribution, you can show the .5T stuff, but they both fundamentally come from the partition function, and moreover, you can show the .5T without getting the whole M-B distribution. What if instead we derived .5T using the full partition function formalism, but only analyzing a quadratic energy? (I'm thinking 1-d ideal gas, .5mv^2.) It would be obvious how it generalizes for more quadratic terms, and it would be simpler to follow than the fully general form that comes later (and it would prepare the reader for it). Sure, you'd have to use the partition function formalism, but with a link to the relevant article and some artful phrasing, that shouldn't be a problem.

By the way, it's truly a pleasure to watch this article evolve. Gnixon 02:07, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks so much, Gnixon! It's also a pleasure to work with you. :) I added something about the partition function for quadratic energies, but not right at the start; I was afraid of scaring off beginning students! Please let me know what you think of it. More generally, I'm thinking that references should be peppered throughout the article; what do you think? Thanks for your help as always, Willow 20:52, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for adding that derivation for quadratic energies. I personally would have put it above the MB (which does have the advantage of being more concrete)---after all, who's going to be confused by a one-line derivation?---but it's not unreasonable to order things your way, and I understand the argument for it. I might fiddle with it just a bit so it mentions how the partition function formalism goes, but already it looks great.

References are always a good idea. Kittel is a standard advanced undergrad/grad thermo textbook. There were a couple others that saved my neck when I was studying for generals, but I can't remember them right this second. There's also that Bowley/Sanchez text. It's too wordy for my taste, but that could mean it has some quotable quotes, and the math isn't too hard. Gnixon 11:22, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

At some point it will probably help to trim the intro so it's more concise, but that's probably the last thing to do. Gnixon 11:22, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Going further with the simple/general divide, I'd recommend putting History immediately after the simple exposition, if possible. Many readers will be interested in the history, but might not get there if they're turned away by the general formulation. Likewise, you might consider trying to put issues of ergodicity and quantum failures above the more general formulation.

Good idea! Did this.

Again, great progress---it's showing promise to become a really fantastic article with your continued good work. I've got the article and this page on my watchlist. Do let me know if I can do anything else to help. Gnixon 14:58, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Gnixon! Looking forward to bringing it up to snuff, Willow 08:43, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Starting from the top:

• Introduction section
  • This has been written really nicely, so I don't really want to say this, but it needs references, and could ideally do with being shorter.

Leads do not need references, as they are summaries of information that is already cited in the article. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 22:40, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm; that's something I've not heard before. I've always tried to be in the habit of referencing everything, but so long as all of the information in the lead is discussed, and cited, elsewhere in the article, I guess that approach is OK. Mike Peel 23:58, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Systems with quadratic energies
  • It may be worth (briefly) explaining the reason for using the letter "H" earlier on in the article, where it first appears.

Explained H by "Hamiltonian". Willow 00:56, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• • Also, explicitly state that ${\displaystyle L=I\omega }$ after it's used in equation ... grr; this is where I miss equation numbers. ${\displaystyle H^{rot}={\frac {1}{2}}I\omega ^{2}={\frac {L^{2}}{2I}}}$ (NB: you define it later, but it should be defined where it's first used)

Defined at first opportunity. Willow 00:56, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• • ${\displaystyle H^{pot}={\frac {1}{2}}kq^{2}}$ where q is the deviation from equilibrium, such as the spring extension ... and k is ...? It's the spring constant here, rather than Boltzmann's constant, isn't it? (again, you define this several times later, but it should be defined where first used)

Replaced k/2 with A for consistency with following paragraph. Willow 00:56, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• • More references in this section would be useful. Or does everything in this section come from McQuarrie (2000)? If so, which pages of that reference?

Gave page numbers; Callen reference is cited for general partition-function approach. Willow 13:25, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• General formulation
  • Isn't this missing a factor of 1/2 in front of the ${\displaystyle k_{B}T}$? If not, why not?

No, the factor of two comes from the derivative of a quadratic Hamiltonian. As shown in the derivation sections, there's no factor of 1/2 needed.

It may be worth mentioning that in that section, or even better have a "see also" line or something pointing to the derivation for more information at the start rather than the end of the section. Mike Peel 23:58, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Internal wiki-link to derivation? Willow 00:56, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• History
  • Do references to the original papers by Waterson in 1843 and 1845 exist? The furthest back the reference goes at the moment is 1851.

Explained the 1845 reference; I'll need to dig around for the 1843 reference. Willow 01:17, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Added 1843 Waterston reference Willow 16:31, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• • "A few years later" - please be precise. How many years?

Fixed; sorry about that! Willow 01:17, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Anharmonic oscillators
  • Reference(s), please!

Two references added. Willow 16:31, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• • I'm curious: is ${\displaystyle m}$ restricted to integer values, or is it any real number?

Any real number; it just comes taking the derivative.

How about with the Taylor series expansion? That seems to force m to be integer (and > 2).

Also, this section uses "m" for both the mass and for the index, which is a bit confusing. Mike Peel 23:58, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're so right; I tried to clarify this. Willow 00:56, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Non-ideal gases
  • "where the factor of two" - do you mean a factor of 1/2, not 2, here?

Exactly right!

• • "By an analogous argument" - is it possible to include a derivation of this, or alternatively link to somewhere else that does?

Included a reference; I could add the full derivation, but the article is already heavy on math, and it is just analogous to the prior derivation. I suspect that anyone who followed the ideal-gas derivation could do the non-ideal case themselves, especially given the answer and the analogous energy equation just above.

• Brownian motion
  • Does all of the content in this section come from a single reference?

The complete derivation is given by Pathria (1972).

• Stellar physics
  • Brief interlude: I can't read "assuming spherical symmetry" without thinking "assuming spherical cow..."
  • Back to work. Reference(s), please!
• Skipping over the derivations for now, as it's late and I'm tired. I'll have a look at them (and the rest of the article again) another day.

• Failure due to quantum effects
  • "which is required in the derivations of the equipartition theorem below" - I think you mean "above", not "below".

Oops, good catch!

In general:

• Please choose between using ${\displaystyle k_{B}}$ or just ${\displaystyle k}$ for Boltzmann's constant, rather than using both variably. This is especially important here, where you use k to also refer to the spring constant.

I thought that I had only used k_B for the Botzmann constant. Please point me to where I dropped the B subscript, thanks! :)

I've re-checked, and there were only a couple missing near the start. I've added the subscripts in now. Mike Peel 23:58, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Nice use of figures throughout. However, they're occasionally a bit big. Also, "Figure 1" is currently the second figure on the page, and "Figure 2" is the 9th. Is there a reason for this, or could all of the pictures/figures be numbered?

Figure numbering will get fixed once we settle on all the Figures; I'm thinking of adding a few more, and we may yet re-order the sections.

• More references are always good.

That's all for now. I'll try to leave more comments some other day, when I'm more awake. Mike Peel 22:27, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks muchly, Mike — you're awesome! Willow 23:02, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A couple more (pretty minor) things (I was going to do these myself, but you seem to be doing a rewrite at the moment, so I'll avoid the edit conflicts):

• Equations should generally be punctuated as if they were part of the text, e.g. see [1].
• Use of (in German) and (in French) where appropriate in the references would be nice.

Thanks, Mike! Please go ahead; I'm about to go off to work! :) Willow 14:41, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mike Peel 14:36, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, managed to make this a Good article. Any suggestions to help make it a featured article would be welcome. Poor Yorick 06:48, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is the correct title Either/Or or Either-Or? It says both in the article. --thedemonhog talk contributions 05:08, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Original Danish is with a dash; apparently, it's been translated into English with a slash. Will correct. Poor Yorick 06:54, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is a good start on a difficult text. Here are my suggestions.

• a practice which he developed during the first half of his career - "employed" or some other synonym, perhaps?
• Can you characterize the genre of the book in the lead?
  • Attempted characterization...
• I think that the lead could summarize the article better. Perhaps the details about the author/narrator could be placed later and more information reflecting the article could be included. See WP:LEAD.
• The lectures turned out to be a disappointment for many in Schelling's crowd - this usage of "crowd" is too colloquial for an encyclopedia, don't you think?
• The heading "Development" is unclear.
• I think that you should try to change the bulleted lists into prose in the "Development" section; bulleted lists aren't very "brilliant" or "compelling" (if you eventually want to go for FA) and should only be used when absolutely necessary.
• I would also suggest that you transform the list in "Either" into prose.
• Your use of the cite book template makes it very difficult to know what pages you are citing in the "Either" section; could you include the page numbers?
• When referencing other works in the text, such as Kierkegaard's other books, it is generally a good idea to include their dates of publication.
• What are your references for the last paragraph in the "Either" section?
• Victor Eremita found a group of letters from a retired Judge Vilhelm (or William) to the author A, trying to convince A of the value of the ethical stage of life. - be careful not to represent fictional personas as real
• Undefined usage of the term freedom, "choosing one's self", etc. - etc.? How is the reader supposed to know what that "etc." refers to? You need to explain more here.
  • Unknown entry, not mine. Removing.
• What are your sources for the last paragraph in the "Or" section? If it is the source in paranthesis, please make that an inline citation like all of the rest of your notes.
• Along with this work, Kierkegaard published, under his own name, two upbuilding discourses intended to complement Either/Or - do you mean "uplifting"?
  • Has been translated in the Princeton Edition as "Upbuilding".
• Please remove the table from the "Themes" section and put the information into prose form - this is not scientific information, nor, do I have a feeling, is it that neat. Also, as far as I can tell, you address a single theme, so either the section should be retitled to describe this theme or you should add more material - I would vote for adding more material.
• Alcohol, drugs, one-night stands, couch-potatoes and other self-indulgent lifestyles are some such examples of unrefined immediacy. - Does Kierkegaard give these examples? Perhaps we should stick to his examples.
• I would again suggest that you remove the table in "Kantian interpretation" and convert the information into prose.
• The "Later reception" section jumps around a bit; can you make it flow better?
• I would say that overall the article needs more citations, particularly from Kierkegaard scholars. Scholarly ooks and articles on Either/Or and Kierkegaard would probably help you turn the tables into prose and flesh out the "Themes" section a bit more.
• This article also needs a copyedit when you are done revising; I saw a few grammar mistakes. When you decide to go for FA, it will need to conform to the manual of style more rigorously than it does now. You should begin by going through WP:MOS (the first page, anyway). Awadewit 03:42, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I've rewritten this Lost-related article from this to the current version and am about to nominate it for featured article status. If I am horribly mistaken in thinking that I have contributed to a great article, please tell me. --thedemonhog talk contributions 22:05, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The article is a nice read, an example to the other character pages. The only problems I see are the custom TOC formatting, it appears "clunky"/sandwiched for me in Firefox. I'd also advise removing the spoiler-end tag, I believe they're quite redundant in fiction articles -- because really, what *isn't* a spoiler :-P? Matthew 23:02, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the endspoiler tag (it was at the bottom of the page anyway) and restored the default TOC. --thedemonhog talk contributions 23:17, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good to me then, I like the free image. Will you be FA/GAing it? Matthew 23:19, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think I will be FA-ing it in a few days, just in case anyone else wants to peer review it. I got the free image because of the possibility of it eventually appearing on the main page. I think three or four times in the last month, the picture was removed because it was under fair use, and I don't want that to happen with this article. --thedemonhog talk contributions 23:23, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think you should try to GA it, then FA it. Will ^{(I hope they cannot see, I AM THE GREAT DESTROYER!)} 18:20, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why? --thedemonhog talk contributions 23:39, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

One step at a time usually makes things easier and smoother. - Joshua368 15:39, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Another road article. The current WP:NYSR selected article.

Currently we're hoping to get this ready for a GA nom. Article is long but once you take out the tables and footnotes you're down to about 30-31K readable prose. Any help and suggestions would be appreciated ... I do not quite yet consider this ready for a GA yet but it's getting close. Daniel Case 17:26, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Went through and standardized all the conversions in the article, which proved to be rather daunting. There may be mentions of feet or something in there but I just did a search for miles and fixed all of them using {{convert}}. Not really a peer review. But I consider it a step towards a better article, mm? -- drumguy8800 C T 08:45, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've just re-written this page and am very keen for any constructive criticism!

I'm aware that it weighs in at around 41kb - in way of defence, around 10k of these characters are used in a work-around to reduce the size of the Table of Contents, and in the extensive referencing; I feel that the article length is about right for such a large and significant topic.
It'd be nice to push this forwards to Featured Article status... I've grown very fond of 'my baby' and would welcome some more critical outside input!
A main concern is that a suitable level of established fact has been conveyed in a very turbulent and rapidly changing field, with all views given due weight (for historical or scientific interest).

Verisimilus 12:20, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A quick comment (I'll look through things later). I think the default table of contents is fine; no need to mess around with all those tables. CloudNine 13:21, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My other reason for wanting a fixed ToC was that hiding a flexible one sent the timeline into the images in the morphology section and caused chaos; I still feel that the full listing is overly cumbersome if it includes sub-units (which there's currently no way to disable). But I see your point in so far as it'll make any major edits harder to integrate. Shall contemplate what to do... Verisimilus 13:36, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that removing the TOC table is a good idea. Future editors who move, consolidate, or rename sections will not only have to make changes in two places, they'll have to understand wiki and html formatting. That's a maintenance nightmare, and the mistakes in the current version also suggest that it's too complex (e.g. == Interpretations == is followed by ==== Cnidarians ====, which skips a step; and === Disappearance === is not in the TOC yet its subheading ==== Preservation ==== is).

 Done | Verisimilus 16:31, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I also recommend figuring out a way to move the cites from the transcluded tables into the article proper. It's counterintuitive to have to search related pages to fix a reference, especially with tables that are only used in a single article.

 Done | Verisimilus 16:31, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

| Pat 16:25, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've reinstated the default ToC. Is there any way to stop it becoming 'hidden'? It wreaks havoc with the layout otherwise! Verisimilus 18:34, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Charnia image and the table are competing for vertical space. Uploading a horizontal version of the Charnia photo might help (it would also reduce the 10-line caption; see WP:CAP), though I'm not sure it would be as attractive. Moving it might work, as well; the Preservation section is fairly empty, and the image of a volcano is kind of a stretch.

I'd rather keep it near the sea pen, for ease of comparison. Agree that the long caption's not ideal. Maybe the solution is to use a wider (uncropped) picture - though this would reduce the clarity of the image. I'll think on this one too. Verisimilus 19:43, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

 Done | Verisimilus 16:31, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Separately, since hierarchal article titles are depreciated (see WP:NAME), Ediacaran biota/List should probably be moved to List of Ediacaran biota.

 Done. Moved to List of Ediacaran genera. Verisimilus 19:43, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I also expanded the intro. For a reasonably hefty article with a decent-sized table of contents, it was pretty short and didn't provide sufficient context (see WP:LEAD). But I'm not an expert, so please double check and make sure I didn't make any subtle mistakes. In particular, it might be good to change the dates from the Period to the range during which the fauna was found (which overlaps the Cambrian). Are the earliest from the Doushantuo formation?

You write well! I agree it's quite short compared to other articles; I may even look at expanding it further. The oldest embryos are from the Doushantuo but they may be the embryos of anything - i.e. animals as opposed to Ediacarans. The Drook Fm. is the earliest confirmed finding of an Ediacaran. I think the dates of the fossils, rather than the periods, would be more useful. Verisimilus 19:43, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. | Pat 15:25, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

| Pat 19:09, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A few comments:

• History section is short, and full of two or three line paragraphs. Same with the Morphology section. These could do with expansion or removal of section headings.

 Done | Expanded | Verisimilus T 00:17, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• You may want to split the further reading section into a 'See also' and 'External links' section, as well as a 'Further reading' section.

 Done | Verisimilus 16:30, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Trace Fossils -> Trace fossils in heading surely?

 Done | Verisimilus 16:30, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'll add more as I go through the article. CloudNine 08:28, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your input. I've split down the further reading section, but I'm not sure that it really adds anything other than clutter to the article. It's probably standards I suppose... but I liked it better all together (-:

I'm not sure which route to take with the history and morphology sections. I envisioned the main article to be a brief overview to introduce the reader to the biota, and feel that in situ expansion may make the article too long.

There's no harm in expanding the article; the more information, the better. CloudNine 18:09, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose I'd really like to have a separate article for each sub-heading - enough ink's been spilt to warrant them - and a concise summary on the main page, but that would mean a lot more writing!

A quick comment:

• There should be an image in the upper right hand corner (not a table). I recommend Dickinsonia; it's both striking and iconic. | Pat 15:25, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

 Done | Verisimilus 16:29, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• They're ok in Oracle (and presumably Firefox), but the tables holding the images are deformed and overlap the text in IE. | Pat 16:48, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

 Done | Verisimilus 18:40, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Use of quotation marks is inconsistent (partly my fault :). Surprisingly, WP:MOS has a blanket recommendation instead of leaving it up to regional preferences.

 Done | Verisimilus 21:53, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• The last sentence of the intro says: "[Ediacaran biota] may yield useful insights into the processes controlling modern ecosystems and evolution". Needs a source, and it should be covered in more detail later in the article.
• The interpretation section is a good overview, but it only gives a vague sense of chronology. Adding some dates might help indicate the 4–5 decade span beween the first stumbling attempts to jam them into the Linnean box, and modern perspectives.

 Done | Verisimilus T 00:27, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

 Doing... I'm still planning ta add a separate article about this, extracts of which could feature on the main page.| Verisimilus 23:15, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Vendobionta ... phylum or kingdom? I believe it started as a phylum and was promoted to kingdom, but I'm dealing with sloppy secondary sources not primary ones.
  • The difference is purely semantic. It's unarguably a clade (by Seilacher's definition, anyway); the only difference between a kingdom and a phylum is a fuzzy line drawn by human observers... Maybe I should look into the words, although it doesn't affect the science.| Verisimilus 23:15, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Then it should say "clade" not kingdom/phylum. But Seilacher repeatedly uses Kingdom and Phylum in his descriptions (e.g. [2]). | Pat 18:04, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      •  Done Thinking about it, there's more to it than pure semantics. If all animals are descended from Vendobionta, it's a Kingdom; if all Vendobionta are animals, it's a phylum. If no animals are Vendobionta, it could be a kingdom (or a phylum). The language used in the literature varies... Verisimilus T 00:30, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• A sentence or three describing microbial mats towards the top of the article would be useful. They're extensively referenced.

 Done by expanding preservation section and moving to start | Verisimilus T 01:10, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• The modes of life paragraph (the duplicated one) seems out of place. Either spawning a new section, or a transition sentence and renaming the section to "Significance and palaeoecology" would help.

Good idea. I originally had it in a section of its own with some other bits but integrated the rest into the article (they were quite repetitive), and couldn't quite work out where to place that...| Verisimilus 23:15, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

 Done | Verisimilus T 01:18, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• The "modes of life" also aren't defined, or linked. It's just a bunch of random numbers with nothing concrete. Families? Ecological niches? Feeding methods?

A combination of the latter two. I'll write out a fuller explanation.| Verisimilus 23:15, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

 Done | Verisimilus T 01:18, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I agree that the history section could be expanded.

 Done | By enough? | Verisimilus T 01:18, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• "skeletal"? Vertebrate? Not arthropod?

Arthropods have exoskeletons | Verisimilus 23:15, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Most people have never heard of endoskeletons :p. It's unclear. | Pat 18:04, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How about "Skeletonised"?

• There isn't any real discussion of how the Ediacaran fossils are distinguished from earlier specimens, except for the giant protists comment. Could use a couple sentences.

 Done Verisimilus T 01:24, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• "... with organisms being preserved in sandy beds containing internal bedding". Hasn't it been suggested that the quilted types have a sand-like internal structure? If so, that's unclear.

• Not that I've heard or seen... I'd be very interested if you could find that referenced for me too look at!| Verisimilus 23:15, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm. Looks like I was thinking of Psammocorallia. | Pat 18:04, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm not sure about the footnote in the section heading.

• Likewise. Since the link's repeated in the sentence afterwards, could we omit it? We'd probably have to attribute it more clearly to Glaessner in the text immediately following.| Verisimilus 23:15, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

 Done or fixed at least. | Pat 18:04, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pat 21:15, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A couple more:

• An IPA transcription might be useful (see WP:PRON).  Done but unsure of how to bracket, "(Formerly Vendian" causes problems. | Verisimilus 18:42, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Billings discovered Aspidella in 1872, predating Gürich in 1933 Namibia.

 Doing... - will include when re-write history. Thanks. | Verisimilus 18:42, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• No mention of sponges?

I don't consider Ediacaran biota, as they exist today - but agree worth mentioning. I'll include.

 Done | Verisimilus T 02:33, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Are the trace fossils still considered probable worms? How about the possible mollusc scrapes?

Kimberellagenic? I've not head much about these, will have to investigate further.

 Done - Martin, Grazhdankin et al., 2000, contained details.

• The origin and disappearance sections covers the general issues, but very little specifics. It might be useful to describe the specific early and late examples, like the controversial Twitya finds, possible early arthropod burrows, and Cambrian examples like Nimbia.
• Is the kotlin crisis still worth mentioning?
• If FA status is a goal, get rid of the red links. Either create stubs or un-bracket them.

I may be away for a while. | Pat 18:04, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Looking good, by the way. Enough of those niggling technical details have been taken care of that the rest of the article is coming into resolution. The coverage is appropriate; at times it feels superficial, but that's an artifact of the length of the article and the breadth of the topic. All the major issues are covered, at least briefly, and no sections go into excessive detail. And IMO at least, "temporal" is fine. Clarity is important, vigorous prose is important, but this isn't the Simple English Wikipedia. We can exploit the richness of the language; this may be the era of the nitpicking reference, but brilliant prose is still important. Jargon, on the other hand, can be a problem. Ediacaran biota is undeservedly obscure, but this article is still the gateway to a fascinating and surprisingly important range of lifeforms, so it needs to be accessible. It's actually pretty good at providing context, wikilinks, and in situ explanations, and I'm strongly opposed to simply removing the essential terminology or turning the article into a tutorial, but there are still a couple areas where the ecological and geological terminology is a bit dense. | Pat 21:35, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks again for all your dedicated proof-reading and editing over the last couple of days - it's very much appreciated! It means a lot to have someone else taking an interest in the article (-:

I'm away for a couple of days so will have reduced input for the forseeable, but will hopefully return with fresh enthusiasm! | Verisimilus 23:15, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lots of green ticks - I'm happy with the way the article's looking now. I'm thinking of nominating it for GA - any last comments to help it on its way? Verisimilus T 02:33, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This article needs cleanup. What are the priority areas, would you say, besides sourcing? -- Zanimum 17:31, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I used AndyZ's automated peer reviewer to get you started:

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

• Please expand the lead to conform with guidelines at Wikipedia:Lead. The article should have an appropriate number of paragraphs as is shown on WP:LEAD, and should adequately summarize the article.^[?]
• Per Wikipedia:Context and Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates), months and days of the week generally should not be linked. Years, decades, and centuries can be linked if they provide context for the article.^[?]
• This article has no images. Please see if there are any free use images that fall under the Wikipedia:Image use policy and fit under one of the Wikipedia:Image copyright tags that can be uploaded. To upload images on Wikipedia, go to Special:Upload; to upload non-fair use images on the Wikimedia Commons, go to commons:special:upload.^[?]
• See if possible if there is a free use image that can go on the top right corner of this article.^[?]
• If this article is about a person, please add {{persondata|PLEASE SEE [[WP:PDATA]]!}} along with the required parameters to the article - see Wikipedia:Persondata for more information.^[?]
• Per Wikipedia:Context and Wikipedia:Build the web, years with full dates should be linked; for example, link January 15, 2006.^[?]
• As per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates), dates shouldn't use ^th; for example, instead of using January 30^th was a great day, use January 30 was a great day.^[?]
• Watch for redundancies that make the article too wordy instead of being crisp and concise. (You may wish to try Tony1's redundancy exercises.)
  • Vague terms of size often are unnecessary and redundant - “some”, “a variety/number/majority of”, “several”, “a few”, “many”, “any”, and “all”. For example, “All pigs are pink, so we thought of a number of ways to turn them green.”
• This article needs footnotes, preferably in the cite.php format recommended by WP:WIAFA. Simply, enclose inline citations, with WP:CITE or WP:CITE/ES information, with <ref>THE FOOTNOTE</ref>. At the bottom of the article, in a section named “References” or “Footnotes”, add <div class="references-small"><references/></div>.^[?]
• Please ensure that the article has gone through a thorough copyediting so that it exemplifies some of Wikipedia's best work. See also User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 1a.^[?]

The script writer also suggests that you may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas.

Keep in mind that it's automated so some things do not apply; for instance it doesn't seem to notice infobox pics. Quadzilla99 02:00, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've pretty much exhausted my public library searching for sources. I cross-checked it with other animal-related FA's. It was comparable to or better than much of the older ones, but it was slightly inferior to the newer ones. I'd really like to know if there's a way I need to expand, if there's any funky wording, if I need to find more citations, and if I should add more images (there's a lot in the Commons I haven't used). There was a previous peer review in February here, although this was when it was "Komodo dragon" instead of the current full capitalization. bibliomaniac15 00:54, 12 April 2007 (UTC

• 'Komodo Dragons eat by tearing large chunks of flesh while holding their food down with their forelegs then swallowing it whole' - can this be clarified. Having ripped off the chunks of flesh do they then swallow the rest of the animal whole? or only the chunks?
• What is the name of the 'organ on the roof of the mouth'?
• To who is the mucus malodorous? Humans or Komodo Dragons?

I haven't got very far through the article yet. JMiall 17:32, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• The::*'more or less defenseless'. Are they actually defenceless? if they do have defences what are they? how large is a newly hatched dragon?
• 'the population at Padar was almost decimated because of a wildfire' - what is almost decimated? Decimate is not a good word to use anyway as it means 1/10 killed but people use it to mean a larger proportion killed.
• 'One particularly interesting fact...' - this could certainly be chopped.
• 'a more or less familiar keeper' - this would be clearer if it just said 'a less familiar keeper' which is what I assume is meant
• what is a 'tow statue'? JMiall 22:20, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've addressed most of the concerns that you've brought up. The only thing I didn't change was the organ on the roof of the mouth. I believe that it is a Jacobson's organ, but my source didn't specify. bibliomaniac15 22:30, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This site seems to describe the process. But is the 'tasting' going on on the roof of the mouth in the organ, or on the pads on the floor of the mouth? JMiall 22:45, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I recall that the original diet of the Komodo dragon might have included the dwarf elephants that lived in Flores - it might be worth mentioning. I'll try and dig up a ref on that over the weekend. I'll also see if I can't find some journal refs to drop around the place, they always make things easier. Web of Science lists 23. That should help some. Sabine's Sunbird talk 06:04, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Found it! And added and cited it. I'll look some more later. Sabine's Sunbird talk 06:21, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Would Philosophers of all stripes please contribute and make this page more substantial viz. Phillips' beliefs. More details of his life would also be helpful.

Also, does anyone know if "Rhush Rhees Professor Emeritus in the Department of Philosophy" and plain old "Professor of Philosophy Emeritus" are the same position? If so they are mentioned twice. BillMasen 00:34, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Needs sections, expansion, and inline citations. Quadzilla99 02:07, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Archived: 16 October 2006 peer review

Still trying to get to FA status. It's really close: very well referenced and such. could use some fresh eyes though with the prose and such. -- drumguy8800 C T 08:32, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There's a lot of red links that may cause problems later in the FAC stage. These should be resolved somehow, preferably by creating the articles.-- Zleitzen^(talk) 15:41, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have recently cleaned-up this article and have met GA status. Recently the discussion has returned to the environment. Hence, this article is front and center along with Global warming and its associated articles. My goal is to get this article to FA status. Please review the article and add your comments below.Kgrr 18:03, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On first look, expand the lead. Mahanga^Talk 20:22, 14 April 2007 (UTC)  Done[reply]

I am hoping to get this to FAC sometime. I was wandering if there is anything more that needs adding. Mattythewhite 19:09, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ten out of ten for effort in improving this article! Check out the other football club featured articles, such as Arsenal, Sheffield Wednesday and Ipswich Town to get an indication of what is required for a FA. Some of these points were suggested to me when I peer-reviewed Hereford United F.C.. Bigmike 23:17, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• The history section needs its own article (i.e. History of York City F.C.), so that the section appearing in the main article can be shortened. I've had a look at the other featured articles and their history sections average about 1,000 words. Also I think the prose needs improving in certain parts of the history section, particularly the Division Yo-Yoing bit.

   Done History article created and main history section shortened. Mattythewhite 21:25, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• The Supporters section needs to be expanded beyond one sentence.

   Done Expanded. Mattythewhite 21:25, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Personally I would trim the Staff section to only footballing staff.

   Done Trimmed. Mattythewhite 21:25, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• The notable players section needs criteria for notability.

   Done List of York City F.C. players gives criteria for notable players. Mattythewhite 21:25, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• The managerial history needs to be converted into a table, containing names, dates and statistics.

   Done Mattythewhite 19:44, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Are there any books on York City that could be used as references?

   Done Book reference given. Mattythewhite 21:25, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Remove the red links, alternatively create the respective articles.

   Done Mattythewhite 21:25, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hope this helps. Bigmike 23:17, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks for the suggesions, I'm working on them right now. -- Mattythewhite 10:44, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Try and combine the short paragraphs of 2 senteces, 3 lines etc into full flowing paragraphs.-- Zleitzen^(talk) 17:48, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Be consistent in use of singular/plural - either is fine but stick to one.
• I would put the "Some sources state" sentence after the sentence about the club's foundation - that way a definite fact is followed by a partially-verified statement.

   Done Mattythewhite 09:02, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I actually think you don't need to reference every sentence with a footnote; easily-verified and non-controversial information such as movements between divisions are not necessary. The red & blue NET footnote could just become a general reference.

   Done 09:29, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

• The whole history section should be a lot shorter.

   Done I've shortened down the history section. Mattythewhite 09:02, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• The prose is quite halting, a lot of the sentences are a bit stubby and could be joined together, e.g.

York were elected to the Football League in 1929. They originally played at Fulfordgate, from 1921-1932. York moved to their present home of Bootham Crescent in the summer of 1932.

really could be better, expand the first sentence (perhaps worth mentioning who York replace when they joined the League and the reasons for their election?) and merge the second and third together.

•  Done Merged sentences and I've got more sorted out. Mattythewhite 09:02, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Be consistent and use hyphens not slashes in seasons e.g. 1949-50 instead of 1949/50. Use endashes if you want to be ultra-correct.

   Done Mattythewhite 09:02, 16 April 2007 (UTC) [reply]

• The paragraphs detailing the placings in the Third and Fourth Divisions in the 1960s and 70s becomes very hard to read very quickly - summarise it without going into too much boring details.

   Done Mattythewhite 09:02, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• The verb "to resign" is active, never passive. Ditto "to fold", when concerned with a company folding.

   Done Mattythewhite 09:30, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I'd put the information about the crest into a section of its own.

   Done Just looking for some references now. Mattythewhite 09:02, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• "In the clubs first season (1922-23), maroon shirts were worn, with white shorts and black socks. In the 1930's..." - "club's" should have an apostrophe, "1930s" should not.

   Done Mattythewhite 09:02, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Staff section should be cut down, I would just have the coaching team and the board listed. The flags don't look right either, consider removing them (see WP:FLAG, which is not policy but worth bearing in mind)

   Done Mattythewhite 09:02, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There's probably a few more minor ones but those are the main ones. The main issue is the prose in the History section - it needs to be more concise, and the sentences should flow together better. The manual of style's notes on summary style and guide to writing better articles are useful resources in restructuring prose to.

• I would strongly argue that the history doesn't need its own article. The club isn't that large and it takes away from the quality of the article itself to stuff all the informative filling into another article, I mean premiership clubs such as Aston Villa F.C., Tottenham Hotspur F.C., Blackburn Rovers F.C., Fulham F.C. don't have that. - Daddy Kindsoul 19:26, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but thats because they haven't had intensive work done on them. -- Mattythewhite 20:38, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, very good article, a few suggestions you may consider:

• Wikilink the football seasons e.g. 1934–35.

   Done Mattythewhite 09:21, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• One or two very short paragraphs - try aiming for five or six paragraphs in History.

   Done I've got it down to eight right now; I don't think I can get it down much more now. Mattythewhite 09:21, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• More citations e.g. their high league finishes in 1953 and 1954 could be cited.

   Done Mattythewhite 09:38, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I usually write numbers below 10 in words (e.g. "five years" instead of "5 years")

   Done Mattythewhite 09:37, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• History suffers a bit from recentism - 6 paragraphs from the 90s onwards compared with 6 paragraphs from 1903 to 1980.

   Done I think I've more or less got this sorted out after merging the paragraphs. Mattythewhite 09:39, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Bottom of the league is bottom, I don't think it needs to be qualified as "24th place".

   Done Removed "24th place" comment. Mattythewhite 09:21, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• No citations in Crest section.

   Done References added Mattythewhite 16:08, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Consider merging small paragraphs in both Crest and Colours section.

   Done I've done one, but I don't think any more need doing. Mattythewhite 16:45, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I don't think you need to reference the same footnote for five consecutive sentences (e.g. [3]) In fact, I think [22] is cited 17 times in a row... just add the cite at the end of the last relevant sentence.

   Done Mattythewhite 09:30, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge the small sentences in Support and Records sections.

   Done Mattythewhite 09:21, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Trim external links down, heed WP:EL.

   Done Mattythewhite 09:21, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hope that helps, let me know if you want anything more, or any help getting the article ready for FA nomination. The Rambling Man 16:51, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have never seen such a badly written article. I would like help on this to be completely re-wrtten on the point of it's failures and get it to Good article status. Retiono Virginian 18:11, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Split the lists of strips sections into another article. Buc 19:27, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

 Done - Nswinton 20:52, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, Ruhrfisch 02:46, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to get some feedback to see what more can be done with this article. Specifically, I would like to know if the article needs more citations (and if so, what pieces of information need to be cited), whether or not some of the information is crufty (if only knitters would really care about some of the information), and whether the images are helpful in conveying the information in the article. All other critiques are appreciated, too. Thanks! – Dok^{(talk|contribs)} 16:19, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This article is the current subject of the National Register of Historic Places WikiProject collaboration. I expanded it from a stub to where it is now and am looking forward to broad based input here. Trying for GA and then FA, eventually. What is the article missing? Feel free to assess for NPOV and if you feel like it, the article surely needs a copy edit or two by those new to it. Thanks in advance and I will respond to reviews here, as well. IvoShandor 09:27, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Here are my suggestions:

•  Done <Figure out what's going on in that lead. You should keep the TOC where it automatically is so that the average user isn't confused. As it is, it conflicts for space with that image and makes the page look cluttered from the start. IvoShandor 19:06, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
•  Done<The images in your history section are creating a giant white space between two paragraphs. moved IvoShandor 19:06, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
•  DoneFix up that citation needed spot. On that note, read through the article and try to find every place you think you made a claim that needs to be backed up. If you are very conservative in your judgment, I think you'll get it right. As it stands, the referencing seems pretty good.
•  Not doneDouble check to see if you need to be so specific in some sections (particularly incentives and nominations.

That's all I can come up with right now. Hope this helps, JHMM13 08:38, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Commment: Probably will stay specific until I figure out a good way to break up that section per WP:SUMMARY, any suggestions? IvoShandor 19:06, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Will take a look. I don't see the white space or how the lead is confusing but I will consult with others, as this is a current project collaboration.

As for the refs I think that "anything likely to be challenged" has been suffciently referenced, so I am not sure where we could add more, I don't want to overdo it as I don't think every single fact requires inline citation. Thanks again and we will get to work on your suggestions asap. : ) IvoShandor 19:01, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for responding! The article is very well-referenced, but that was just sort of a catch-all line I send out there to get people to self-check themselves before FAC shreds it :-/. New suggestions:

•  DoneI think you might find some hawks at FAC who wish to see the lead trimmed down maybe a touch (I'm talking maybe two sentences shorter). I would be among that group as right now the lead isn't a great "introduction" to the world of NRHP. It seems just a bit too detailed for me. Try to get some of the greater issues regarding NRHP in there and reserve the details for later in the article. This is, of course, at your discretion since I don't know exactly what is detailed and what is not, but right now it's hard for me (maybe not everyone) to be truly captured by the lead. --IvoShandor 09:46, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

•  DoneWill do a complete rewrite, I will let ya know when it's done. IvoShandor 20:56, 27 March 2007 (UTC)--IvoShandor 09:46, 11 April 2007 (UTC), and User:Ebyabe[reply]

•  DoneAnother suggestion for you is to try to get some images in your article! An article with the three images you've chosen will have a tough time being approved for FA status. You've got such a plethora of possible images to choose from (so many historic places!). Think of a few that were significant and fit the article's content to help illustrate it a bit better. --IvoShandor 11:13, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• This has torn me. We have tons of NRHP places images, but I just wish there was a better way to illustrate this article. That just seems, so, cliche. I don't know. IvoShandor 20:56, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Added a number of images, let me know what you think. IvoShandor 11:13, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

•  DoneFor quotes you may want to use the template you can find here. It might create an interesting look to the article and single out any important primary sources that you want singled out (like 49 USC 303).

• Wasn't aware of this, thank you. IvoShandor 20:56, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

•  DoneIs there an emblem or seal for the National Register of Historic Places? That would be a much better lead picture than the one you currently have which, at first glance, could be slightly confusing to the casual reader who does not understand the subject.

• There is no seal that I am aware of, will delve deeper. IvoShandor 20:56, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Only the NPS seal. IvoShandor 06:56, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I have sent an email to find out if they do indeed have a seal along with a request for an image of it if it does exist. Soon we will know. IvoShandor 07:08, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Email response confirms there is no seal, official or otherwise, a follow up revealed that there are no current plans to adopt one. IvoShandor 16:39, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• "As of 2007, the list includes more than 80,000 entries, including many icons of American culture, history, engineering, and architecture." The wording of this sentence could be improved by not having two "include"s.
•  DoneOK I found a part that is confusing me in the lead. "As of 1998, there were over one million buildings, sites and structures listed on the Register - including historic districts and individually listed buildings - and each year an additional 30,000 are added." Why talk about as of 1998? How were there over one million entries in 1998 when there are 80,000 now? --IvoShandor 09:46, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Yeah, I know. I am working on this problem, as it seems no one really knows anything about specific numbers. However, the 1,000,000 number includes those buildings listed as contributing properties in historic districts where as the 80,000 would just include the one listing for the whole district.IvoShandor 20:56, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• See if it is clarified as is, please remember I plan to rewrite the lead. IvoShandor 06:56, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Please check this now, any suggestions would help. These numbers are true, just confusing. One million refers to not only the individual listings, historic districts (just the district; not its buildings), buildings, sites and other indivdual lsitings, but also to the member properties of the thousands of federal historic districts. Check it now and let me know. IvoShandor 09:46, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

•  Done"Nominating a property to the Register, which can be done by anyone, is a process which involves property owners, State Historic Preservation Officers (SHPO), local historical organizations and others related to the field of historic preservation." Here's an example from the lead that illustrates what I'm talking about. It seems to me that you're going into far too much detail and this whole section could have the fat trimmed off it. Talk with your fellow collaborators and decide just how you want to do this. Also note the proper conjugation of "to involve." --IvoShandor 09:46, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Word. IvoShandor 20:56, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

•  DoneFigure out what you want to do with the red links in the history section. If they're worthy of their own articles, create them. If not, unlink them.

• They are, I would say. They will be written as part of the collaboration, I wouldn't take it to FAC with red links, no worries. : ) IvoShandor 20:56, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• See comment below. IvoShandor 16:43, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

•  Not doneThoroughly copyedit this article for grammar, typos, and, most importantly, for flow. Here's an example of some of these problem areas:

   Done"In February 1983, the two assistant directorates, created in 1973, were merged to promote efficiency and recognize that the cultural resource programs are both directorates were interdependent." This sentence reads a bit bureaucratically, apart from the fact that there is a verb issue and you need that comma after 1983. To help you un-bureaucrat it, I'll give you some suggestions. Try to avoid set-asides like "created in 1973." It confuses the reader after you've just given another date which is more important. If you're going to use the term cultural resource programs (which sounds kind of heavy-handed as is), try to really explain it above where you first mention it instead of just giving examples of what they are. Try at all times to make it very readable to the common dolt such as myself. If these are industry terms that must be used, try your best to define them briefly but thoroughly before you use them consistently. In other words, see the article from the point of view of someone who hasn't a bloody clue what the hell you're talking about. ;-D

I reworked this, any other problem areas you see, I am far too wedded to this article to effectively copyedit it, I plan to utilize the League of Copyeditors. IvoShandor 04:12, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

•  Not doneRoger that, avoid jargon.IvoShandor 20:56, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Check this out, I made some tweaks in this article (not the main one yet, will that be required for FAC too?) IvoShandor 09:46, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

•  DoneWhat's the short name for the Register? Is it the Register or the National Register? Pick one and stick to it. --IvoShandor 09:46, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I think I got them all changed to National Register. IvoShandor 09:46, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Okay. IvoShandor 20:56, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

•  DoneTry to layout the sections a little better. Perhaps you want to separate the incentives section from the listed properties section or something. Right now, I don't know at first glance what you mean by incentives, which is an important consideration considering it's in the TOC. Another solution could be using more descriptive words like "Incentives for joining," but please consult with your fellow collaborators first. I am not an expert on the subject and you should take my suggestions as a pointing in something that might be generally considered the right direction...it's certainly not a detailed road map.
•  DoneI think you should dedicate a whole section to the nominations process with separate subsections detailing it to some degree. You could also find some other solution that might include a table or picture or something of that sort that would illustrate the criteria for nomination. As it stands, I think the nominations section is too long and doesn't seem a proper subsection of "listed properties." Also think about renaming it to "nomination process."
•  DoneThink about renaming the protections section as well to something that is less vague.
•  DoneRename the section "academic criticism" to "criticism" and rework the thing to make it flow more smoothly. I'm specifically talking about the first sentence and how it fits into the rest of the section.
•  Done (kinda)You might do yourself a favor by keeping separate notes and references sections like you can find here.

That's all I have for now. JHMM13 19:47, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, all good points. I will comment more in depth later. : )IvoShandor 20:28, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On the issue of the image, it is a difficult one to address. At the same time, though, it still remains difficult for an article with few images in it to get nominated, especially if it's on a subject that is not obscure. Do some digging and see if you can perhaps find "the first NRHP place or some other milestone place. Something that is representative of the whole...like maybe the White House if it is one or Mt. Rushmore. Something really iconic to illustrate one end of the spectrum and then maybe like...I dunno...the rock upon which the Secretary of the Treasury to Grover Cleveland once ate lunch. Something more obscure. These are just ideas. Yours will probably be better. JHMM13 22:29, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Added quite a few images, check this out if you please. IvoShandor 11:13, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Haha. The rock that Grover Cleveland ate lunch on...hahaha. Yeah, I like those ideas though. I appreciate this, as this collaboration has been somewhat of a solo effort thus far. IvoShandor 10:32, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Still working here, but I did do some tweaks and some reorganization. I added a collage I made, though, admittedly, it isn't that great. I am still turning some ideas over in my head. The problem with "the first" listed place is that the first listing were en masse, all of the National Historic Landmarks were added at once, in 1966. IvoShandor 06:49, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tags above added by IvoShandor 06:56, 10 April 2007 (UTC). IvoShandor 06:56, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tags above altered by IvoShandor on 09:46, 11 April 2007 (UTC). IvoShandor 09:46, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To tell you the truth, I kind of like that collage! That's a good way to illustrate it that I hadn't thought about. If you think you can improve upon it...go ahead, but I like this one. Several other things:

• Thanks, I just thought it could be more evened up but my photoshop skills are subpar, maybe I can get some help with this, will that be counted against me at FAC you think? 09:46, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

•  Not done??? The expansion to the lead is impressive, but try to slice off maybe two sentences so it isn't so imposing. I see that you're still rewriting it, but just as a reminder, the 80,000/30,000/1,000,000 thing still confuses me, so don't forget about it. Also, pull that sentence into the first paragraph and start paragraph 2 with "for most of its history."

Tweaked, check it. IvoShandor 09:46, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

•  Not done and  DoneTry the best you can to read through the whole thing again and find sentences that might not logically flow. I don't at the moment have time to read through it all and copyedit, but an example from the lead that could be improved is: "Its goals are to coordinate and help property owners and groups such as the National Trust for Historic Preservation identify and protect historic sites in the United States." If we break down the two verbs you use here, the sentence with just "to help prop owners...identify and protect etc." makes sense, but with "to coordinate prop owners...identify and protect" doesn't. I know what you're saying, but it seems like different clauses are overlapping. Try to separate them into something like, "Its goals are to coordinate property owners and groups such as the NTHP and help them identify and protect historic sites in the US." See what I mean?

• Gotcha. : ) Thanks again here, will peel my eyes wide. IvoShandor 09:46, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

•  Not done and  Done Try also to get rid of/reword sentences like this: "The National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 was not the only piece of important legislation to pass that year." We can't decide what legislation is important or not...multiple instances of sentences like that would get an FA an oppose, I think.

Working on this and I have altered a few things. IvoShandor 09:46, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

•  Not done I know it's being vague, but try to get rid of redundancy here and there. Check this page out. It will help you run another copyedit eliminating unnecessary words. An example of this might be: "While Section 106 does not explicitly mandate that any federal agency head listen to the advice of the ACHP it is practically "awkward" to rebut their advice..." Also, this is a good example of a place where you should say ""awkward" according to the ____." I think it's a strong enough word that you have to cite it in the prose as well as the citation at the end of the sentence.

• After I am all done I am usually pretty good at catching these, not always, but I will be going to the League of Copyeditors as well as having other project members do some copyediting. IvoShandor 09:46, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

•  Done I like the refs in total so far. I can't find anything wrong with any of the sources you've listed and there's pretty good coverage throughout the article. You may want to tighten up the format on the last three refs in the References and further reading section, though. The second and fourth I don't get and the third lacks and ISBN or LCCN. I could be wrong about these...I'm just calling your attention to it.

• Any idea where I can find the ISBN or LCCN, didn't see it on the contents page of the online version I linked. IvoShandor 09:46, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

•  Done Try to create the articles for the red links. This wouldn't kill an FAC, but having blue links throughout makes it look more professional, IMO.

• User:Ebyabe, I believe, will be taking care of that. IvoShandor 09:46, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• A couple created, the other two are being worked on, marking this done. IvoShandor 16:43, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

•  Done One-sentence paragraphs, on the other hand, will kill an FAC. Reevaluate those sentences and either incorporate them into the above or below paragraph or get rid of them.

• Think I nabbed em all, just an oversight on my part. IvoShandor 09:46, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• You asked me if it has a chance at FAC and I'd have to tell you that it will...after you finish working on it and have someone who is unfamiliar with the topic give it a thorough copyedit. It is a very extensive article that needs another week's work before it will be getting there, I'd say. I congratulate you for working so hard on it and I really, really want to see this thing reach FA status, I just don't have to time to do more than give you this quick summary. Please don't hesitate in the future to request my help, though. I'd rather know you need it and decide whether I can give it or not than you not telling me :-D. I could also direct you to FAC or PR regulars if you needed extra help. For now, really try to look through the WP:FAC page to find common trip-ups and failings. By skimming through those candidates, you'll quickly get an idea of what is expected. A year ago, the article you have might have been an easy FA, but it's tightened up over there. I'd say FAC is one of the very bright spots of Wikipedia in terms of quality and editor consensus, so it's tough to bring an article up to that level...but you can do it. Good luck! JHMM13 18:20, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Your comments have been more than awesome so far, no need to explain why you can't do more, no need at all. You are doing more than enough. There are plenty of ways for me to make sure this is all addressed, but it might take a little longer than a week. : ) Thanks again. IvoShandor 09:46, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Requesting comments and suggestions on the overall article. Thank you for your time and comments.Sparkzilla 10:51, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Evidence of very serious sourcing problems here, although I assume good faith and sincerely recognize the efforts of the editors involved to create a good article. First, a cited Guardian articles reads, in part, "Mr Baker said his words had been misunderstood by officials with a poor grasp of English and inadequate inter preters who attended an interrogation which was never recorded or witnessed by a defence lawyer." The current Wikipedia article reads, "Baker said his words had been misunderstood by officials with a poor grasp of English and inadequate interpreters who attended an interrogation which was never recorded or witnessed by a defence lawyer." It then gives a reference, but does not put the direct quotes in quotation marks, nor is it the correct reference, which is to the article cited ninth, not the article cited eighth. ...The next citation I looked at showed me that the Wikipedia article reads, "the mafia members threatened Baker that if he told about the plan his family would be killed, showing him three grisly murder-scene photographs to illustrate their point." The source article reads "the Israelis threatened Baker after check-in at the airport, threatening to kill members of his family, and showed him three murder-scene photos to illustrate their point." Again, this is cited, but not put in quotes; this one is an example of inappropriate paraphrasing. I did not delve further into the sources after finding these problems on my first run-through, but this is enough to tell me that the whole text of the article needs to be checked against its sources for similar problems. Dekimasuよ! 11:30, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am going to add this post to the talk page of the article as well to attract more eyes. Dekimasuよ! 11:33, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The article is well-written and well-sourced. Any suggestions towards improving the article's quality? Deucalionite 16:53, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You may wish to amend these minor points:

• expand/edit the lead so that it is a summary of the article
• check that Marie zu Erbach-Schönberg was titled Countess (Gräfin) (after her husband) rather than Princess (Fürstin) (after her higher birth title)
• stub Marie zu Erbach-Schönberg (or remove the red-link), ditto for Stylianos Gonatas
• check that "their wedding was one of the last great gatherings of the descendants of Queen Victoria and Christian IX of Denmark before World War I." WWI was 10 years later, what about the 1905 Spanish or 1913 Berlin weddings or the funerals of Edward VII of the United Kingdom or George I of Greece?
• cite "she was typically referred to as Princess Aliki"
• explain the relationship between Rachel and Haimaki Cohen
• add source information to the main photograph

DrKiernan 12:28, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am trying to clean up this article and get into good article status. Some comments would be appreciated. I recently added a lot of citings from pages in the published Woody Guthrie biography by Joe Kline and cleaned up some of the grammer as per comments on the talk page. Dannygutters 20:10, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Some suggestions:

• • Remove a lot of the subheadings in "Biography" and combine the sections.
  • Remove statements like "Guthrie's laid back temperament and disheveled dress disguised a sharp wit and observant eye. This wit can be seen in the lyrics of his many songs which evoke the spirit of their subjects quite astutely" unless they are direct quotes someone has said.
  • Soundclips would be useful.
  • Write more about his musical style.
  • Convert the items in the "Guthrie's influence" section from list format to prose.

The references are a good start, but the structure of the article has a way to go. WesleyDodds 11:30, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• "and for his abhorrence of fascism, politicians, hypocrisy and economic exploitation." I am not sure if this wording is in accord with WP:POV.
• "He was a small lanky man with curly black hair and frequently dressed with little regard for his personal appearance. Guthrie's laid back temperament and disheveled dress disguised a sharp wit and observant eye. This wit can be seen in the lyrics of his many songs which evoke the spirit of their subjects quite astutely." This is the lead. Such information shouldn't be here. In order to understand what is exactly a lead, check WP:LEAD. And, the prose does not look very encyclopedic.
• "The breadth of his song topics ranged from the plight of the migrant worker to children's songs about riding in cars.""He traveled around the USA many times and spent much of his time on early trips learning traditional songs and creating new American folk songs of working people." Aren't you a bit repetitive here about the songs? In general, maybe you should think about restructuring a bit the lead.
• "His life seemed to be full of tragedy." Uncyclopedic.
• "Mary Jennings, first wife" Stubby section. Merge or expand.
• "he did express sympathy towards the party many times, which was not unusual among 1930s folk singers.[1]" Avoid external jumps like this one. Turn them into proper inline citations.
• "Originally titled "God Blessed America"; It was inspired in part by his experiences during a cross-country trip and in part by his distaste for the Irving Berlin song "God Bless America", which he considered unrealistic and complacent (and he was tired of hearing Kate Smith sing it on the radio)." Cite please.
• I see a series of stubby sections. Maybe you should think about expanding or merging them.
• "Despite his love for children, he was unpredictable in his support for his family." Meaning? Specify and cite.
• I am a bit about the chronological line you follow in the biography. For instance, why are you placing "Prolific writer" before "Deteriorating health, late 1940s" and after "Marjorie Mazia, second wife". Have in mind that his writing activity could also be analyzed in a seperate section after you have exposed his biography.
• "In California Woody lived in a compound owned by Will Geer and some other old folkies. Here he met his third wife Anneke Van Kirk and had another child, Lorina Lynn. The couple moved to Florida briefly. In Florida Woody was injured trying to light a fire and damaged his right arm. Eventually the couple returned to New York in 1954.[23] Eventually caring for Woody became too much of a strain on the much younger Anneke and she filed for divorce. Lorina Lynn was adopted by friends of Anneke." Choppy and repetitive prose.
• "Folk revival" is uncited.
• "Musical influence" is listy and looks like a trivia section. It would be better if you could turn it into proper prose. The same in "Woody Guthrie archive".
• Have in mind that in "See also" section we place articles not already linked in the main text.
• You don't have to repeat the ISBN of the same book in each note it is referred. I would also propose to vary a bit your sources. You seem to rely a lot on a single source.
• Alphabetize categories at the end of the article.--Yannismarou 18:51, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest saying more about his politicial leanings and activism and summarizing this in the introduction. Also suggest more about his influence on other forms of American popular music, if possible by providing a big-picture summary view of his influence, in addition to the list of specific allusions to Woodie Guthrie in more recent music. --Shirahadasha 04:49, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have done a complete rewrite of this article, including the addition of filmography, table of tv shows and awards. I would like to get this into shape for at least a GA rating with an eye towards making it a featured article. Therefore 18:27, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I would expand a bit more the lead per WP:LEAD.
• "Born in Waterville, Maine, raised in Boston, Kelley was the son of a hockey coach[1] and played the game himself." Try, wherever possible, to have the citations at the end of the sentences.
• "Kelley was the son of a hockey coach." His mother? Do we know their names?
• You use many fair-use tagged photos. This might (or might not!) be a problem in WP:FAC.
• "Towards the end of the fifth season in 1999, facing cancellation, Kelley fired all cast members added since he had left the show, brought back Mandy Patinkin and began writing episodes again." Had this change any positive effects?
• "Casting" is uncited.
• You have seperate criticism for each show. Maybe some of it should be incorporated in the relevant articles. In any case, I would like to have criticism about his work, his writing, his talent as a whole.--Yannismarou 19:11, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is a very important article, and yet since failing a good article nomination, it has been in the doldrums for months, with no real ideas as to how to substantially improve it. I'm hoping a peer review will kickstart efforts to bring it up to code. Serendipodous 13:57, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, I've got a few suggestions:

• Reiterating: It fails the Wikipedia:Lead section definition as a stand-alone summary of the entire article. Section-wise I think the definition should take up no more than one paragraph. It would also help if the lead off were more engaging, rather than a dry discussion.
• Etymology, para. 2: the first sentence is much too long and could be readily broken into two smaller, bite-size chunks.
• Parts of the writing could use a bit of polish. For example, the following seems awkward: "Some Romans, following a belief imported from Mesopotamia into Hellenistic Egypt,[7] believed that the seven gods after whom the planets were named took hourly shifts in looking after affairs on Earth, in Ptolemaic orbit order listed inwards." A trick some writers use is to read the text out loud. If it comes out badly, odds are good it needs a re-write.
• There is no discussion of planetary interiors, which would seem at least as important as their atmospheres. For example, mass segregation, radioactive decay, generation of magnetic fields, convection, and so forth. Also, very little is said about the reason for a planet's (oblate spheroid) shape. There is no discussion of tidal/perturbative interactions between the planets (and moons), or the reasons for their varying axial tilts.
• The dash in the first para., Attributes section should be a &mdash;.
• The formatting of the references section is very inconsistent. It would probably be helpful if they all used cite templates.
• There is some redundancy between the "See also" list and the main article. For example, a "main article" link such as "List of Solar System bodies formerly regarded as planets" or "Definition of planet" shouldn't also need to be mentioned in the "See also" section.

Hope this helps. Thanks. — RJH (talk) 16:07, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, right away I know I could probably use better references for the opening date, and for the opening/closure of various anchors, but I've exhausted every relevant online reference to this mall (and there ain't many). I guess I'll have to hit the Saginaw library. Other than that, however, I'd like to hear some feedback on the entire article. How're the coherence, word choice, structure, etc. etc.? Are the photos sufficient? Does anything need rewording? TenPoundHammer 13:00, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The structure of the article looks good. I am not familiar with this mall, and the article is very informative in my opinion, therefore it must be of reasonably good quality. I do agree that some citations are still needed, but I would suggest that you find some sources, and the library trip sounds like a good idea. A wikipedian in Saginaw may be able to help you out! One more comment is that if you can find a source other than your own website to back up some of your claims, I would reccomend it, hovever that is minor. To me it seems to be a slight conflict of interest that you, the main contributor to the article, are using yourself as a source. Great work!!! --Nenyedi ^TalkDeeds_@ 20:38, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I don't live all that close to Saginaw so it may take a while. TenPoundHammer 23:23, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Article about a Bollywood comedy film that has created great interest, and revived the tenets of Gandhism (principles of Mahatma Gandhi) in India. The article is already a Good Article, thanks to the excellent effort of User:Classicfilms. Comments are requested before it goes on for FAC. Commensts on the following are particularly needed:

• Plot— Does it need anything more? People who have not seen the film are especially requested to comment. (One alternate, shorter plot is kept here. Interested users can see it.)
• Awards—Probably needs summarisation. Please comment.
• Soundtrack—Anything more needed?
• Reception—Anything more needed?
• References—Please say if you think citations are needed anywhere.
• Prose, in general.

Please help improve the article. Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 18:53, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just a quick point to say that a number of editors worked on this page though I appreciate being noted. Looking forward to hearing your feedback. -Classicfilms 21:25, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This article on Mary Wollstonecraft's only piece of children's literature has recently achieved GA and I would like it to reach FA. Any suggestions along this line would be much appreciated. Awadewit 15:50, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Only had a chance to scan through the first two sections. Other than a couple punctuation changes, the only thing I noticed that needs editing is one sentence is somewhat difficult to read: "Wollstonecraft continued writing on educational issues in her most famous work, A Vindication of the Rights of Woman (1792), which was written in response to Charles-Maurice de Talleyrand-Périgord’s proposal for a national system of education in France based on the assumption that women only needed a domestic education and Jean-Jacques Rousseau’s Emile: Or, On Education which claimed that women were irrational and could not be taught to reason." Can we break this into two or three sentences? Kaldari 23:48, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've tried to improve it. Awadewit 05:15, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• There are some aspects of the lead that are a bit awkward - eg, the first two sentences contain semicolons, and it's the second instead of the first instance of children's literature that's linked. What stands out more, though, is that there's introductorym material about Wollstonecraft's intentions and social messages in the book, but no single-sentence plot summary - we know what the book was meant to do but not what it's about.

I've been working on the lead. I'm not sure that a single-sentence plot summary is appropriate (see below), but I'll see what I can do. Awadewit 05:22, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• On a related note, the historical background section is quite long to be the first section of the article, before any discussion of the book itself - especially considering that the article isn't really very long overall. It breaks things up a bit, but maybe just put a bit of the history in the lead, and put the rest after the section on the plot. The plot section itself could use a bit of expansion; it's very brief and nonspecific. There's more in the later sections, but there are unanswered basic questions about how Mary and Caroline came to be taught this way, what the setting is, the sort of stuff you'd put in the plot section of a modern work of fiction.

Unfortunately, it is very difficult to write a plot summary of this text because there is no real plot; it is not structured like a modern work of fiction (in fact callling it fiction is problematic). The Mary and Caroline story basically serves as a thread narrative - we learn next to nothing about them and they are essentially irrelevant to the purpose of the work; the bulk of the text consists of Mrs. Mason's stories and the group's visits to other people who also tell them stories. I will revise to try to get this across. It is not a story with a single narrative arc - it is a series of didactic tales. Awadewit 05:22, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• If you're going to mention Mitzi Myers by name in the text, some aside about her eminence as a scholar would be useful. Does she need her own article?

I don't know if she deserves her own article or not. She did not live long enough to publish a book (she died tragically), but her articles transformed the study of eighteenth-century children's literature. Awadewit 05:22, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• In the same discussion - Myers' articles demonstrate that women writers of children's literature had a particular purpose? "Demonstrate" seems too strong here, or at least misplaced; I'd associate it more with empirical results.

It's common language in literary studies but I have changed it since other readers will have different connotations associated with the word. Awadewit 06:23, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• "Aesthetic of the sublime" - wikilink goes to a disambig page; I assume you meant sublime (philosophy).

Oops - thanks. Awadewit 05:22, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• "Teaching through precept" won't be intuitive or familiar to most readers, even if it's fairly clear from the context.

Linked to dictionary and redid next sentence to hopefully make it clearer. Awadewit 06:23, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• There's a quote from a "Kelly" in the pedagogical theory section; he's mentioned much earlier, but I'd since forgotten the name. He should be re-introduced here.

Done. Awadewit 06:23, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Was there really a deliberate effort to formulate the genre of children's literature?

Yes, see my article on Sarah Trimmer and her Guardian of Education. Awadewit 05:22, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• ' fairy tales and other popular tales that they associated with the rich and the poor, respectively.' - not clear what the 'respectively' goes to here, since 'other popular tales' is so general.

Done. Awadewit 06:23, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• To me, the illustration interpretations read like the usual just-so stories. A large hat means Mrs. Mason is an oppressive influence? If there's no more context to give, I suppose there's nothing more to be said, but I suspect many people will read these interpretations and think no further than 'pfft, that's dumb'. Opabinia regalis 05:02, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I've included a good part of Mitchell's analysis now. Perhaps you will see why I left out some parts of it in the first place. Let me know what you think. Also, please don't ask me to summarize the quote. Blake scholarship is impossible (as is Blake)! Awadewit 06:23, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I might add, clearly not everyone agrees on the large hat being oppressive, so it is not a "dumb" interpretation. What do you think? Does the large hat represent oppressiveness? Why or why not? Can you give reasons? Are they historically specific? That is the essence of good scholarship in the humanities, in my opinion - you can really back up what you are saying with evidence from your primary source and you can put that evidence in historical context. By the way, these interpretations of the print are actually pretty good because they focus on details from the print itself as well as eighteenth-century artistic traditions (one Blakean, one a larger artistic movement). Unfortunately, this does not always happen - there is no real "evidence" presented for the critic's interpretation from the work. Here we have evidence that the reader can weigh - does the large hat look oppressive? Do the girls' hats look like halos? If they do, what does that mean? Is Mrs. Mason's stance suffocating the girls or embracing them? Both critics have good reasons for their interpretations beyond "I just think so." Just trying to defend the humanities a bit. :) Awadewit 06:23, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I will start working on these things. Awadewit 05:22, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is another excellent article by Awadewit, and a really useful contribution to Wikipedia, which, thanks to her, is developing an informative and reliable niche on eighteenth-century proto-feminist writers and eighteenth-century educational theory. I would certainly vote “support” at an FAC. I found the article extremely interesting; for once, one of Awadewit’s subjects overlaps slightly with some of my areas of interest, which include the history of Cornish folklore and eighteenth-century art.

I’ve made a note of a number of small points; but, first, two main points which occurred to me after I read the article for the first time:

• The first concerns the description of the narrative, which I felt lacked in vividness and specificity. As a reader, I could have done with a short quotation or two, illustrating the tone of the dialogue between Mrs Mason and the girls. Also, I suggest that the article might benefit from a sentence or two summarising a few—say, three—of the exemplary tales, to give a flavour. I had to scout round the internet to gain an idea of the sort of thing: for example, there turns out to be one about a robin who tries to take over the nest and insists on being the first fed because he is the oldest. We have tantalising fragments of information about Townley, Trueman, and Fretful, but they are too insubstantial to chew upon, in my opinion.

That story comes from Sarah Trimmer's Fabulous Histories (another article I'm working on). I can expand the description of the text - I just wanted to make sure that the article didn't become a long plot summary. Also, I was worried about original research. When does a plot summary become interpretation? It is a thin line. Awadewit 21:49, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've worked a bit on this now. Awadewit 01:06, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think that gives the reader some necessary assistance now in imagining the style of the book. You've probably overdone it, for the moment, but this is work in progress, and the right length for such summaries will gradually emerge. FAs tend to keep them quite, but not too, short. I had this problem when working on Chekhov, who wrote all those short stories. In the end I opted for a few brief summaries here and there, as you find in any article on him; but it felt unsatisfactory.

I've removed the extended description of the nature walk. Awadewit 16:44, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The issue you raise about original research is one that fascinates me. Wikipedia is very contradictory on writing about fiction, but I think it leaves scope to summarise fiction so long as one does it accurately and references an edition of the work as a source. One quotes the story as a reference to itself, in effect, which I think keeps to the spirit of those passages in policy pages which allow self-reference so long it is balanced by other material. Writing summaries is exceptionally difficult, though, isn't it? Especially where, as with Chekhov, the stories aren't self-explanatory.

Yes, it is a very thin line. But there's a thin line in almost any text we word ourselves. We can't just copy from the sources and so we have to find our own words. But what if the source was perfectly written, using les mots justes? We introduce slightly different meanings by using our own words. On the other hand, quite a few books are badly written, so it is often possible to improve on their phrasing (a somewhat arrogant claim there). qp10qp 13:49, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also, just the act of summarizing a body of scholarship into an article is in its own way original research. Since another editor or another set of editors would have summarized differently (included different material, emphasized different material), there is no way to achieve the mythical WP:NPOV. Awadewit 16:44, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• My second main point relates to the article’s comments on Rousseau. (Before I proceed, let me make clear that I have no time for Rousseau’s view of women whatsoever [or for his quality as a writer: I have read Emile and found it wishy washy—give me Voltaire any day].) I feel that the article does his views on women a disservice by presenting them too crudely. It seems to me that Rousseau constructs an antithetical argument about the qualities of males and females: men are this, but women are that; men have what women lack; women have what men lack, bla bla bla.

Let me refer to the following two statements:

She also directly challenged Jean-Jacques Rousseau's Emile, which claimed that women were irrational and could not be taught to reason.

Rousseau argued in Emile that women were naturally cunning and manipulative; moreover, he felt that these traits should be encouraged in young girls and that women were incapable of reason and rationality.

It’s a while since I read Emile, and I cannot be sure he never put it like that; but even if he did, we must at least lay out his full argument. I would say that he suggests overall that women’s reason is different to men’s reason, not that they are incapable of reason at all; he sees men as equipped with the ability to reason theoretically, for instance for science, and women as equipped to reason practically, possessing a superior talent in that regard. In his view, this is a clever arrangement on the part of nature, which will keep the world in order if we only attend to it.

I can expand Rousseau's arguments, but since this article is primarily about Wollstonecraft and Original Stories, I tried to keep the Rousseau explication short. Rousseau is a difficult and contradictory writer, but I do not feel that I have represented him unfairly inaccurately (see quotations below). Awadewit 21:49, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The second extract above cries out for the explanatory, complementary part of the equation, if only because the average reader would surely be brought up short by the idea that Rousseau believed women were not only naturally cunning and manipulative but that they should even be encouraged to be so. How come? Well, a fair summary of his argument might be that he believed that, despite their weakness, women can achieve power over men by the use of their special arts, and that this is actually a good thing, since it will keep men in check and stop them doing too much damage; by this system, he believes, the relationship between men and women can be kept in balance and everyone will be happy

I can use some of the quotes from Rousseau below, if you believe that will help. Awadewit 21:49, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect that Rousseau’s argument has slipped to a cruder formulation after being refracted, for present purposes, first through Wollstonecraft, then via Wollstonecraft through feminist scholarship on Wollstonecraft, and finally by this article's choice of words. It would be perfectly all right, in my opinion, to say that Wollstonecraft wrote these works against her conception of what Rousseau said, or that scholars have characterised Rousseau’s views as such and such. But it seems to me inaccurate to summarise his views in this context without acknowledging the point of view from which they are summarised (at the very least quote him in the note).

Although I haven’t read Wollstonecraft’s Vindication, I did spend some time yesterday trying to check what she said in it on this matter. She certainly objects to the idea that women should be required to rule men rather than themselves and be obliged to use deceptive arts to do so. She is entitled to distil that message from his theories and expose its implications and limitations. But Wollstonecraft, as far as I can see, doesn’t characterise Rousseau’s views in the same crude terms we use in the article, which reports him as believing merely that women were irrational, cunning (a contradiction there, surely), manipulative, and silly.

Wollstonecraft dedicates a large portion of the fifth chapter of the Vindication of the Rights of Woman to attacks on both Emile and Rousseau personally. You might check that out. She gets pretty vicious.

Here are some quotations from Emile that might illuminate the situation.

Rousseau, Jean-Jacques. Emile, or On Education. Trans. Allan Bloom. New York: Basic Books, 1979.

• “In what they [men and womne] have in common, they are equal. Where they differ, they are not comparable. A perfect woman and a perfect man ought not to resemble each other in mind any more than in looks, and perfection is not susceptible of more or less. In the union of the sexes each contributes equally to the common aim, but not in the same way. From this diversity arises the first assignable difference in the moral relations of the two sexes. One ought to be active and strong, the other passive and weak. One must necessarily will and be able; it suffices that the other put up little resistance. Once this principle is established, it follows that woman is made specially to please man.” (358) Rousseau never makes clear in Emile what men and women have "in common."
• “Woman and man are made for one another, but their mutual dependence is not equal. Men depend on women because of their desires; women depend on men because of both their desires and their needs. We would survive more easily without them than they would without us.” (364)
• “Men’s morals, their passions, their tastes, their pleasures, their very happiness also depend on women. Thus the whole education of women ought to relate to men. To please men, to be useful to them, to make herself loved and honored by them, to raise them when young, to care for them when grown, to counsel them, to console them, to make their lives agreeable and sweet—these are the duties of women at all times, and they ought to be taught from childhood.” (365)
• “Since the body is born, so to speak, before the soul, the body ought to be cultivated first. This order is common to the two sexes, but the aim of this cultivation is different. For man this aim is the development of strength; for woman it is the development of attractiveness.” (365)
• “Guile is a natural talent with the fair sex, and since I am persuaded that all the natural inclinations are good and right in themselves, I am of the opinion that this one should be cultivated like the others. The only issue is preventing its abuse. . . . This peculiar cleverness given to the fair sex is a very equitable compensation for their lesser share of strength, a compensation without which women would be not man’s companion but his slave. It is by means of this superiority in talent that she keeps herself his equal and that she governs him while obeying him. . . . She has in her favor only her art and her beauty.” (370-1)
• “I would want a young Englishwoman to cultivate pleasing talents that will entertain her future husband with as much care as young Albanian cultivates them for the harem of Ispaham.” (374)
• “Why do you consult their [women's] mouth when it is not the mouth which ought to speak? Consult their eyes, their color, their breathing, their fearful manner, their soft resistance. This is the language nature gives them for answering you. The mouth always says no and ought to say no. But the accent it adds to this answer is not always the same, and this accent does not know how to lie.” (385)
• “Readers, I leave it to you. Answer in good faith. What gives you a better opinion of a woman on entering her room, what makes you approach her with more respect—to see her occupied with the labors of her sex and the cares of her household, encompassed by her children’s things, or to find her at her dressing table writing verses, surrounded by all sorts of pamphlets and letters written on tinted paper?” (409)

As you can see, although some of Rousseau's statements contain the argument you referred to (men have one set of talents and women have the complementary set), those statements also end with a narrowing of the possibilities for women. Moreover, other statements in Book V make his opinions regarding women even clearer. Awadewit 21:49, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I must say that I do still feel some adjustment or balancing is necessary. If the article is going to say that Rousseau believed women are manipulative, we should add a balancing sentence or note explaining what he meant by that (the one beginning with "guile" would do well for the latter, since it explains the paradoxical point by showing that Rousseau believed "guile" was a good thing.). It appears that he is not translated as using the words "cunning" or "irrational": those very damning terms should either be replaced by something from his work or balanced by a statement, however absurd, of his on the value of women or their talents. I'd be interested to know what the French word translated as "guile" is, because "cunning" has a damning connotation in English, whereas Rousseau here seems to approve of the characteristic.

By the way, this translation says "coquetry" and "wiles." Awadewit 23:33, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think that confirms for me the feeling I have that though Rousseau belittled women, he didn't hate them. For that one has to go to Stendhal. qp10qp 14:04, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You should read Rousseau's Confessions; his attitude towards his various lovers is fascinating. There is a lot of other great stuff, too - a fun read. There is this intriguing passage about how he decided whether or not he was saved - he threw a stick or a rock at a tree. If it hit the tree, he was saved, if it didn't, he wasn't. I won't spoil the ending. Awadewit 16:44, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The quotations above give women (and any wise man) very good reason to be angry, of course, since he declares them inferior and designed to please men; I was sure of that already. But he doesn't say that they can't reason at all. qp10qp 22:18, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've tried to make some adjustments to the Rousseau sections. Awadewit 01:06, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Again, they might be slightly overdone now, but the article is balanced on Rousseau and the reader isn't jolted. qp10qp 14:10, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I took out a little bit of the Rousseau. Awadewit 16:44, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Alan Richardson appears to have found some later editions of the text; he claims that Original Stories was published until 1835

I wonder if this has been updated now. I notice that he states this as a fact rather than a claim in his essay in The Cambridge Companion to Mary Wollstonecraft, which must have been approved by the editors. Also, it seems he is not the only one to claim (or state) the same, or maybe even the first: I found this exceptionally infuriating page: try to read that cut-off line at the bottom of the snippet.

I thought that sentence might cause problems. A tiny secret. Editors often don't check on that sort of thing. They would just assume that Richardson was right. Unfortunately, I have never seen an edition after 1818 or 1820 or even a reference to one (I am writing one of my dissertation chapters on this text). Looking at the talk page, you will notice that when I first started really getting into wikipedia, I was trying to fix the date problem on this page. The National Union Catalogue only has listings up until around 1818. Another editor found a listing for 1835 in another database, but it was an approximate date inserted by a librarian (on what basis we have no idea). I do not know how Richardson came up with that date. The reason I put "claim" in the article is because there is no other evidence to support his statement - no books, no records, nothing. I can't really read the link you sent me to. Is it saying there were Dublin editions in 1835 or 1825 (I can't actually read the date)? Where are they getting that information from, I wonder. I would actually really like to know for my own work as well as for the article. My library has this whole set, so I suppose I will have to trudge over there and look it up. It looks like OS might be reprinted in there. Interesting. I didn't know that (I wonder why our online card catalogue didn't tell me about it!). If it is reprinted in the series, I will add it to my list of reprints. Awadewit 23:33, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It comes like this on the search page if you type in a phrase from the snippet: [3] Not that a search page is reliable (Google Books often even spells authors' names wrong). But I am 80% sure that is a 3 and not a 2. qp10qp 00:08, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But the whole question is where they are getting that date from. Like I said, I will go check out the book. Awadewit 01:07, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Quotations: I know you reverted me for adding a capital letter to "boy" in "The Little boy Found". I'm not familiar with the scholarly principle for quoting a book with this sort of error in it (by the way, I first checked with the 1794 facsimile, in case Blake had been having one of his calligraphical off-days). Forgive me for suspecting you of an untypical mistake, rather than the publisher; but are you content to let this stand? I'm not going to be the last to want to correct it.

I don't know how much you know about Blake, but all of his illuminated manuscripts are different and he did not follow "conventional" typography (which didn't really exist as we know it at that time, anyway, so its hard to call it a mistake). Capitalization "rules" were very unclear during the eighteenth century. Authors usually determined their own rules on that. I can do a little "The Little [B]oy Found" if you think that is better, but, honestly, I don't see the necessity. All of the illuminated manuscripts I checked at the Blake Archive do indeed have the capital, but there may be some myserious Blakean reason that Mitchell wanted the lower-case letter. To me, this is not a clear-cut mistake because Blake's orthography and typography was just so eccentric. Awadewit 01:05, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On the subject of that quotation, it seems to me far too long and out of proportion to the importance of its contentious point. It's not one of Blake's best works, so I hardly think he would have put all the thought into it that this critic suggests, not that my opinion on that is relevant. If I was editing this, I'd keep a small quote, from "hats to child", maybe, and add a one-sentence paraphrase of the writer's overall interpretation in the note.

I used to have a much shorter version of the quotation (you can go back in the history to April 17 "revising per peer review" to see the changes), but other reviewers felt that it did not adequately explain Mitchell's interpretation (see above and my talk page). They felt it made Mitchell's interpretation look simplistic, so I decided to expand it out because that was not my intention. I'm afraid that if you want to dispute how much thought Blake put into his works, you will have to provide some sources on that! You said that you are interested in eighteenth-century art; surely you have seen arguments like this before? (Also, "not one of his best works"? Now we're starting to make value judgments? :) ) To talk about this section in larger terms, it is difficult to write it because so little has been published on the illustrations, but I did feel that it would be wrong to leave out the topic all together and I, of course, can't just insert my own ideas into the article. Awadewit 01:05, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I'm always happy to indulge in original research and opinions on talk pages. It affects my judgement about articles in omitting rather than adding. It's the same with you wondering where that website got its information from: you wouldn't just take it as read.

I don't know as much about Blake as I should, though I have spent some time looking at his manuscripts in dark rooms at the Tate. The truth is, I don't like his work very much. But I'm an obsessive Samuel Palmer nut, Palmer being one of Blake's acolytes, and have made pilgrimages to Oxford just to look at the drawings I fell in love with as a student. They keep them locked away now, and I have to badger the snooty curators to get them out of the drawers for me (I'm planning to steal one).

Only joking.

I've got a house full of art books, but let me tell you, there's hardly a decent page of scholarly criticism in any one of them. The standard is abysmal compared to that for literature or history. Mitchell's mistake is Mitchell's mistake, whether of accuracy or of judgement; if it's not a mistake, it's an act of stupidity. Eccentric though Blake is, the capitalization in Songs is standard on all the copies and in all the printed versions I've been able to check. Of course, it's conceivable there might be exceptions, but that still wouldn't justify the decision—if it is a decision and not a printing error. qp10qp 03:00, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm curious, what books do you have? A lot of those coffee table books don't have any scholarship in them or very poor scholarship, but there is actually very good scholarship out there. I could send you a little bibliography on some topics that you are interested in, if you want. I was an English-Art history double major as an undergraduate, so I have a bunch of bibliographies lying around from all of my survey courses. Art history professors are very helpful that way. (I will change the Mitchell quote - who knows what happened with that. Maybe he'll come by and tell us!) Awadewit 03:46, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I should have made clear what I meant by "scholarly criticism", which was the value-judgement side of it, rather than the art history...the sort of wiffly theorising that we have here from Mitchell. Of course, there is magnificent scholarship otherwise. My prized possession is a huge book on Egon Schiele which contains reproductions of every last bit of his work, finished or unfinished (apart from one, discovered since), all annotated microscopically. I will use it to bring the Wikipedia article on him up to scratch one day. I have all types of books on art, from coffee table ones to ones with no pictures. I just find the prose in them very dreary on the whole, either pedestrian on the one hand or pretentious on the other. A particular victim is Paula Rego, one of my favourite artists, who has become a real pretentious-drivel magnet. My favourite eighteenth-century artist is Jean-Baptiste Chardin; I have a little Chardin at the top of my talk page. qp10qp 14:33, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A lot of those books that contain all of the reproductions don't contain a lot of scholarship - you are right. It is best to go elsewhere for that. What do you mean by "pretentious"? Awadewit 16:44, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was also not happy with a couple of things in the long quote by Gary Kelly:

The first part of the title indicates that the ‘stories’ are not merely fictitious but have a factual basis in domestic, quotidian life, though readers would understand ‘from real life’ to mean ‘based on’ or ‘adapted from real ‘life’, and not necessary ‘representation of actual events’.

I've read that over and over, and it seems to me that "necessary" should be "necessarily".

The phrase ‘real life’ strengths ‘original’ excluding both the artificial and the fictional or imaginary.

That "sentence" lost me completely. qp10qp 00:00, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed those problems. Incorrectly copied quotation. Awadewit 01:05, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Religion is rather skirted round in the article. We could almost get the impression from this article, by omission, that Wollstonecraft's belief in reason had taken her beyond religion as well, but she thinks it a significant part of the book's moral apparatus: "The Almighty, who never afflicts but to produce some good end, first sends diseases to children to teach them patience and fortitude; and when by degrees they have learned to bear them, they have acquired some virtue". It makes me wonder if Wollstonecraft was as much influenced, though not so consciously, by the religious tradition of giving children a strict moral upbringing as she was by the growth of rational moralism (or that one was more a product of the other than it acknowledged, both taking against fairy tales, paganism, or whatever, in a rigid way). Your article on Barbauld showed me that the new style of children's literature was not without a religious dimension traceable back to Pilgrim's Progress, or whatever.

Yes, I know. You are right to notice that Wollstonecraft was highly influenced by the Pilgrim's Progress tradition; in the children's literature tradition, one can trace it back to James Janeway's Token for Children (1672) which is a collection of miniature spiritual biographies just like Jane Fretful's story in Original Stories (might Jane's name be a reference?). Unfortunately, nothing has been published on this. One of my dissertation chapters deals with this topic (and quotes just that passage from OS), but my dissertation is not yet completed (so I cannot quote it). I am currently writing an article based on that chapter and trying to get it published. If I do, I will add it to the article. Awadewit 03:46, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Another aspect of historical context that could be noted is the tradition of works concerning a governess, parent or tutor in dialogue with her charges. You mention conduct books without drawing that out. It appears Newbery had published the genre quite a lot.

• Newbery published a lot (interestingly, he made his fortune off of some medicinal powder - it was quackery). Conduct books were published by everybody, though. Conduct books also don't all have this dialogic structure (I'm beginning to feel that I should write an article on conduct books - I have to explain them in every article I write); that is why I made of mention of Madame de Genlis's books which do have this same structure (a lot of children's books did). Unfortunately, again, there is no good study of this topic - just little references here and there, as far as I know. There really is very little written on eighteenth-century children's literture. It is a burgeoning field. Awadewit 03:46, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Is it worth mentioning the ages of the children, who are described merely as "young girls"? They could be five, they could be twelve. It makes a difference, since both Locke and Rousseau seemed to have had fixed ideas about when children become rational beings.

Yes, it is. Awadewit 03:46, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• The note mentions that Wollstonecraft had worked as a governess of two girls with the same names: to me that sounds a significant enough detail to deserve mention in the article proper.

I didn't think it was that relevant to the plot summary, but I can put it in. Awadewit 03:46, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was not so much thinking of the plot summary as of the background to the book. qp10qp 14:44, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure it really fits there as I have structed the "Historical context" as a history of Wollstonecraft's writing career. Awadewit 16:44, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• The article emphasizes experiental learning over precepts, but it sounds, as far as I can gather, as if Mrs Mason was using experiences as an excuse to rattle off precepts. "Adieu! When you think of your friend, observe her precepts." Was she not using a combination of the two?

Yes, that is how I interpret it as well, but that is not what the most reputable scholars emphasize. You can go back to Summerfield for an interpretation like that but when you read the rest of his book, you won't want to use it. Again, I am limited by the sources here. Wait until you see my Sarah Trimmer page - I don't even have a real biography for that page. It's a nightmare. Awadewit 03:46, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You should try writing articles on early medieval history. qp10qp 14:44, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Coming back to Rousseau...odd he's not mentioned in the "Gender" section. I would have expected it there.

Yes, I realized after I finished the article that perhaps that would have been more appropriate. Do you think I should move the whole section on Rousseau? Awadewit 03:46, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Part of it, perhaps. qp10qp 14:44, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've tried to move part of it. Awadewit 16:44, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations. Great article. qp10qp 02:27, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've brought this article as far as I can without more help from. It needs especially comments and revisions to make it a balanced treatment. This is such a huge topic that no article can be perfect, but I've tried to make sure it hits the really important aspects of the history of biology, without going into too much or too little detail in any one area. Inevitably, it falls short in many areas, but it's hard for me to get any further with it without some interaction.

I also would like some help sources and revising the most recent developments and other areas that I don't have good sources for (e.g., the history of RNAi, and of stem cell and senescence research).

Another thing that would be helpful is more images, especially for the 20th century. If you know of appropriate illustrations, please suggest or add them.--ragesoss 06:13, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What a pleasure to read such excellent articles. I have reviewed the sections up through the 19th century. I will do the 20th century later. Overall, I think it is very good. Most of my comments deal with the prose.

• I thought that the caption to the "Tree of Life" illustration was kind of cheesy.
• The history of biology traces human study of the living world from ancient to modern times. - something about this sentence is awkward - I kept getting hung up on "human study"
• There are a lot of links in the lead, which to my eyes makes it more difficult to read; is there any way to cut them down?
• In the 18th century through to the late 1800s - awkward
• Into the 19th century - awkward - why not just "In"?
• explorer-naturalists such as Alexander von Humboldt investigated the interaction between organisms and their environment, and the ways this depends on geography - not clear what "this" refers to
• The end of the 19th century saw the disproof of spontaneous generation and the rise of the germ theory of disease - "disproof of" seemed odd to me
• I wonder if the lead isn't too detailed - too many fields named and too many scientists named. Rather than an overarching picture of the history, I felt like I was being beseiged by lists and names.
• Heading: "Etymology" of what? Perhaps that could be made clearer.
• Before biology, there were several terms used for study of animals and plants. - "used for the study of"
• Do you really need the paragraphs on "Biological knowledge in early cultures"? It isn't really "biological knowledge" anyway - not as we think of it now. It seemed a stretch to include it. Why are we discussing their agricultural practices but not those of people throughout time?
  • This section is intended as a brief treatment of what the state of biological knowledge was before the traditions of systematic knowledge that begin with the Greeks. I tried to be even-handed and general about it; while it could be cut and it isn't very relevant to the rest of the narrative, I think it's something some readers will be looking for. If others agree with Awadewit, I have not problem with removing that section.--ragesoss 19:28, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Natural philosophy and natural theology encompassed the conceptual basis of plant and animal life, dealing with problems of why organisms exist and behave the way they do, though these subjects also included what is now geology, physics, chemistry, and astronomy. - I would not include "natural theology" in this sentence; the link doesn't support you either. The two "disciplines" were not identical (as you know).
  • I think it's important to mention natural theology here, as the extension of natural philosophical inquiry into the world of wild plants and animals (in the 17th, 18th and 19th centuries when the naturalist approach was really established as an important endeavor) was significantly driven by natural theology. Neither of our current pages does justice to the significance of natural theology as a driving factor in early modern science or the degree of overlap between the two (though of course, they certainly weren't identical).--ragesoss 19:28, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Fair enough, but this sentence is misleading. It needs to somehow indicate that natural theology focused on the religious consequences of natural philosophy or something like that. Awadewit 20:07, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• However, the interwoven path of biological thinking and investigation in the Western tradition is usually traced back to secular tradition of ancient Greek philosophy. - this sentence is vague; it is also missing a "the" - "to the secular tradition"
• Though his early natural philosophy work was speculative, Aristotle's later biological writings demonstrate great concern for empiricism, biological causation, and the diversity of life. - awkward; "natural philosophical"?; how can Aristotle demonstrate concern for empiricism? - diction is odd
• A few scholars in Hellenistic period under the Ptolemies - "in the Hellenistic period" - what is with all of the missing articles? :)
• Claudius Galen became the most important authority for medicine and anatomy. - "authority on medicine"
• You should probably explain the teleological idea of life; that is not a commonly-known word or concept.
• Caption: De arte venandi, by Frederick II, Holy Roman Emperor, was an influential medieval natural history that explored bird morphology. - "medieval natural history text" perhaps?
• In 1543, Andreas Vesalius inaugurated the modern era of Western medicine with his seminal human anatomy treatise De humani corporis fabrica, which was based dissection of corpses. - "was based on"
• Vesalius was the first in a series of anatomists who gradually replaced scholasticism with empiricism in physiology and medicine. - you might explain this a bit
• Briefly describe beastiaries - a phrase will do.
• This was part of a larger transition in world views that continued into the 17th century, as the traditional metaphor of nature as organism was replaced, with the rise of the mechanical philosophy, by the nature as machine metaphor. - awkward to have the "with the rise of mechanical philosophY" interrupting your nice metaphor story
• Botanists such as John Ray worked to incorporate the flood of newly discovered organism shipped from across the globe into a coherent taxonomy - "organisms"
• Debate over another flood catalyzed the development of paleontology - "another flood" is cute but confusing
• Don't we still use the Linnaean system or something related to it? Shouldn't that be mentioned?
• By 1900, much of these domains overlapped - "many of these domains"
• Caption: In Micrographia, Robert Hooke had applied the word cell to biological structures, but it was not until the 19th century that scientists considered cells the universal basis of life. - Make it clear that the picture is from Hooke. Also, why do you have a 17th century picture in the 19th century section?
  • The picture is here because the section with Hooke is already full of pictures, and this is the best illustration I can find to illustrate cell theory (in the sparsely illustrated 19th century section. It also makes explicit a connection (between microscopy and cell theory) that is only implicit in the main text. At least, that was my reasoning. --ragesoss 20:25, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Right, I understand that, but it seems like you should have a 19c picture in the 19c section, doesn't it? Awadewit 21:05, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Alas, it does seem that way. I've moved the Hooke picture up (now, at least at my image size setting, it physically bridges the 17th and 18th century section with the 19th century section, for added symbolic impact). I wish I had I could find more nice 19th century images to decorate this article (not to mention 20th century images).--ragesoss 21:57, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Victorian Web has a lot of links. Awadewit 22:33, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• while debates over vitalism vs. mechanism continued apace - not clear what this means to a reader who doesn't already know because you haven't mentioned what "vitalism" is up until now
• One central issue was the distinction between organic and inorganic substances - "one central issue" of what?
• a field that developed quickly after the discover of the first hormone, secretin, in 1902 - "discovery"
• importance and diversity of experimental physiology methods - "physiological"
• created a more successful evolutionary theory based on natural selection - more successful or more accurate?
  • More successful is the key; while we can now look and see that it is more accurate, many would have argued at the time that while Darwin's work, framed by his natural selection theory, was more successful at demonstrating evolution (because of the strong evidence), the theory itself was not accurate. Maybe some day I'll write an article on the eclipse of Darwinism, which is a big, gaping hole in history of evolutionary thought; hopefully someone else will get to it before I do. (Basically, this is the point of every book Peter J. Bowler has ever written.)--ragesoss 20:44, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I see. Perhaps this could be briefly explained in the article for curious folks like myself? Awadewit 21:05, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Between "Though natural selection would not be accepted as the primary mechanism of evolution until well into the 20th century, most scientists were convinced of evolution and common descent by the end of the 19th century." and the explanation of alternate theories in the "classical genetics and evolutionary synthesis" section below, I think it covers it appropriately. What kind of further explanation do you have in mind?--ragesoss 22:03, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • You do realize that those statements do not repeat your explanation, right? :) My point was, when I was reading and I reached "successful," I thought to myself: "is this article saying that Darwin's theory won out because it was accurate or for some other reason?" Saying that scientists were convinced at a certain time doesn't mean that they were convinced because of its accuracy; the sentence gives no reason for why they were convinced, actually. What convinced them? Also, as to the later section, I know what those alternate theories are, but I don't think your average reader is going to, so I'm not sure that that section is as persuasive as you think. You must ask yourself - are readers going to click on each theory? I have my doubts. Do what you think best. I just wanted to raise this issue. Awadewit 22:41, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • • You're right. It's easy to forget how much background knowledge you bring to the topics you're familiar with. I've tried to do your concerns justice with some expansion.--ragesoss 23:04, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
              • It's so hard to put oneself in the position of an inquiring, yet still ignorant (I don't mean in a bad way), reader. What is the best way to introduce the material? What order should it go in? How much should be included? It's just like teaching. Awadewit 06:10, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Though natural selection would not be accepted as the primary mechanism of evolution until well into the 20th century - by scientists or the public?
  • Both. Scientists possibly more so than the public.--ragesoss 20:44, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Perhaps this could be mentioned in the article for the sake of clarity? Awadewit 21:05, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • For the sake of scope, this article is focused on scientists'/scholars' work and ideas, and the second half of the sentence explicitly refers to scientists. I don't think added mention of the public also not accepting evolution is helpful.--ragesoss 22:08, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I would mention Origin of Species in the "Evolution and biogeography" section.
• I would emphasize the importance of evolution more - it was the single most important biological discovery during the nineteenth century. That needs to be made clear. I would say, in general, that each section should try to explain to the reader what was more important and/or influential and what was less. That way everything doesn't seem of equal import. Harvey, for example, should receive extra attention. Awadewit 18:44, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank so much for this. I've tried to address everything I didn't reply to specifically. I eagerly await the review of the second half.--ragesoss 20:51, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• However, most work was still in the natural history mode - "most work was still done in the"?
• "(which were not actually present in Mendel's work)." - I see no reason for the italics.
• Soon after, cytologists proposed that chromosomes were the hereditary material. - might you mention what "cytologists" are? That is not a common word.
• Between 1910 and 1915, Thomas Hunt Morgan and his fly lab forged these two ideas - the "and his fly lab" clause is awkward - it kind of sounds like flies were working in the lab - was it fly experiments?
• Building on his work on heredity and hybridization - who does the "his" refer to (this is at the beginning of a paragraph)?
• The second paragraph of "Classical genetics" is disjointed and a bit hard to follow. You need to link the sentences and ideas together more coherently.
• Is the gene-centered view of evolution really that controversial?
• "Further developments in evolutionary theory" seems to have two major topics - why don't you divide the section into two separate paragraphs? Right now, the paragraph seems a little disjointed.
• In the early 20th century, naturalists were faced with increasing pressure to professionalize and add rigor and preferably experimentation to their methods (as the newly prominent laboratory-based biological disciplines had done). - no parallel structure and a lot of "and's"
• Perhaps you could briefly describe "quadrat" since you invoke it as an example?
  • I didn't realize quadrat was a redirect to square. I've made it into a stub. That it is a quantitative method of field biology is as far as I think it needs to go in the history of biology article.--ragesoss 07:59, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Zoologists and botanists did what they could to mitigate the unpredictability of the living world - vague - explain further - second half of sentence is not enough
• set the pace for the kinds of quantitative methods that spread to the developing ecological specialties - "set the pace" doesn't seem quite right - metaphor is off
  • I changed the metaphor to "[the studies] were pioneers among the succession of quantitative methods that colonized the developing ecological specialties.", as in pioneer species, ecological succession, and colonization. Is that too cheesy and/or convoluted?
    • Well, of course, "colonizing" has a negative connotation to it. Awadewit 14:25, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • One might view the professionalization of ecology as the death of natural history.--ragesoss 15:18, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Following the rise of classical genetics, many biologists—including a new wave of physical scientists in biology—pursued the question of the gene and its physical nature. - This sentence suggests that the "Origins of molecular biology" section should follow the "classical genetics" section.
  • Yeah, it should.--ragesoss 07:59, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• The adoption of simpler model systems like the bread mold Neurospora crassa made it possible to connect genetics to biochemistry, most importantly with Beadle and Tatum's "one gene, one enzyme" hypothesis in 1941. - I understand this sentence, but I have a feeling a lot of people wouldn't, especially the "simple model systems" part.
• By 1953 James D. Watson and Francis Crick showed that the structure of DNA was a double helix and showed its probable connection to replication. - "showed" twice
• And, once again, Rosalind Franklin gets left out. I would include her; her discoveries were essential for DNA.
• Please explain in your caption about the "central dogma" that Crick was being ironic about the word "dogma."
• In 1965 it was shown that normal cells in culture divide only a fixed number of times (the Hayflick Limit) then aged and died. - verb tenses - "divide . . . age. . . and . . die"
• The last paragraph of the "Expansion of molecular biology" needs to be better explained for the lay reader (those are HOX genes, right?)
  • I'm still not sure what to do with this paragraph. It's been sitting around for long while, but I don't have any sources on hand for the history of stem cells and developmental genetics, and I also haven't figured out how I can take this content and make it fit somewhere logical. I've been hoping someone would come along and take the problem off my hands. I'll figure something out.--ragesoss 08:58, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• "Molecular systematics" also needs to be de-jargonized and explained better for the lay reader.
• I felt as if the 20th century section also suffered from a lack of priority - the discovery of DNA should glow as the most amazing biological achievement of the century with the mapping of the genome a technological achievement that provides the basis for nearly unlimited work. I felt that the thrill of discovery was missing a little here as well as the importance of some of these topics.
  • Double helix, bah. About 2/3 of the prestige of the discovery of the double helix is due to Watson's fantastically successful myth-making. From a strictly intellectual history perspective (not that I endorse that as the best way to do history of science), it's only marginally more important than 10 or 20 other pieces of 20th century biology, and probably less important than 3 or 4 others. Nonetheless, I've expanded and emphasized it a bit more.--ragesoss 08:58, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well, if that is the case, those 3 or 4 others should receive priority (I was just relying on my history of biology class which emphasized DNA). My larger point is, again, priority - some things should really stand out as important. Awadewit 14:25, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I have tried to emphasize DNA; I think it's in keeping with the best history of molecular biology/biochemistry sources in terms of proportionality. I think the main place for emphasis is the introduction. It's hard for me to justify added emphasis to a few main things when there are so many other things that could be added, at the cost of one extra sentence at a time. Although I suspect that over time, the emphasis on parts of the history of biology that are already well-known will see some gradual accretion within the article.--ragesoss 15:18, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Overall, an excellent article. Awadewit 06:08, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• • Phew! I think it will be ready to move on to the next stage, once that problem paragraph gets dealt with.--ragesoss 08:58, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have been working on this article for a while, adding refs and such. I now want to receive comments and advice to know where to go from here. Specifically:

• The history section - Good sectioning?
• Should information about women in Beijing opera go under history, under Dan (the female Beijing opera role), or in its own section?
• I can't find good references for the aesthetics of Beijing opera. What should be done with that section?
• Should I list specific plays in the repertoire section?
• Anything else you want to comment on?

Thank you in advance for your comments.--Danaman5 05:00, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My opinion:

• Sectioning in History is good. I don't think rephrasing the title is necessary though.
• Woman in Beijing Opera is probably not significant enough for its own section, and fits well enough under Dan.
• The current references for aesthetics section seems fine for me. Are you going to expand the section?
• For specific plays, I would recommend starting a separate new list, and just put a see also link in the section.

Other than those, all I have to say for now is that several sections in "Performers and roles" and "Aesthetic aims and principles" will have to be expanded. Total of two pictures for the entire article might be a bit few. Good work, good article! AQu01rius (User &#149; Talk) 04:11, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comments. What do you mean by "rephrasing the title" in regards to the history section? The problem with the aesthetics section is not that the references that are there are bad, its that I can't seem to find anything good beyond that, so expanding the section will be difficult. I'll keep at it though.--Danaman5 04:52, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I'm aiming to get this to FA status. Any recommendations would be very much appreciated. Epbr123 02:45, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good work so far, a few ideas

• a more detailed map of northern Kent would be good, showing the relevant items discussed in the article eg town (obviously), beach, Whitstable and oyster beds, windfarm, Canterbury etc  Done
• generally try to remove some of the uses of "Herne Bay" and replace with "the town" or "the area" as it doesn't read well with so much repetition in some of the sections  Done
• use the {{main|ARTICLE}} template eg in the Politics section
• create an "Architecture" section discussing the general style and any individual buildings
• does the article need Pre-20th and 20th/21st century sections (perhaps the most recent 21st century paragraphs would be better elsewhere in the article, possibly the economy section), either

• combine in the History section  Done
• or create a main article History of Herne Bay, Kent and reduce to a smaller overview section

• I think the historical census detail would be better in "Demographics" as a paragraph detailing the growth of the town.
• expand the paragraph on the harbour, in the History section, and move to "Economy"  Done
• more information could be added to the "Economy" section, with details of the industries mentioned,  Done
• change the format of the "Popular culture" section, removing the list, discuss why the town was used in all of these productions, possibly because of its traditional seaside look  Done
• do we need the bus timetable in the "Transport links" section, details discussing why the routes are in place would be better - Margate, neighbouring resort - Canterbury, main city  Done
• expand the "Twin towns" section with detail of the comparisons between the towns and work done with each other  Done
• more detail needed in the "Famous residents" section, eg short explanation of what Bob Holness did, what popstars is etc, try to remove the list format  Done

- Olive Oil -_ŢάĽɮ - 08:39, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

After seeing a few more of her movies recently and looking at her page on wikipedia, I noticed there weren't many citations, not too many pictures, and not much discussion about Mary Astor's article. I was hoping with this peer review some of the experts on this site could help improve the article Mary Astor and hopefully it could become a featured article some day, maybe even going on the Main Page, bringing some well-deserved attention to this great actress. Ilampsurvivor5 23:40, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Put the objective before the subjective, ie move the director's opinion of her downward in the intro, and the reasons for her fame up. She is objectively famous for Maltese Falcon; readers may or may not agree with some guy's view of her acting ability (with all due respect). Kaisershatner 19:25, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• You have no inline citations, and, maybe even more importantly, no references! Read carefully WP:CITE and WP:FOOTNOTES.
• "She was born Lucile Vasconcellos Langhanke" I think this info should go to the lead.
• The only citation you have needs formatting. Make use of Template:cite web or Template:cite news.
• Per WP:MoS you shouldn't wikilink single years (1920); only full dates (date-month-year).
• "She was named one of the WAMPAS Baby Stars in 1926, along with Mary Brian, Dolores Costello, Joan Crawford, Dolores Del Rio, Janet Gaynor, and Fay Wray." You have many stubby sentences like this one. You should avoid them, because they make the prose listy. Merge or expand.
• "Astor had four husbands, director Kenneth Hawks (married February 26, 1928-his death 1930); physician and surgeon Franklyn Thorpe (married June 29, 1931-divorced 1936); insurance salesman Manuel del Campo (married February 1936-divorced 1941); and stockbroker Thomas Wheelock (married December 25, 1945-divorced 1955)." I don't know if this information is placed in the right plave. You are in mid 30s and you speak about 1955. Put the info in the right section or another alternative is to create a seperate "Personal life" section.
• "Her daughter was born in June in Honolulu, her name being a combination of the names of her parents. Her middle name, Hauoli, means "To sing with joy." IMO the repetitive prose here is not nice. In general, the prose could be better improved and get more encyclopedis. Many choppy phrasings; many "she did this" "she did that". You could combine sentences together, making the syntax nicer and the flow of the prose better.
• "He said that if she would let him take their daughter, Marylyn, she could have her back after six months to keep for six months. She believed that later on she could get custody of Marylyn and avoid bad publicity." Again the prose could be better here and elsewhere. After what he said, we go to what she believed, without telling us is she finally gave the child?! We imagine she did but ... Wouldn't be nicer if the last sentence was like that: "Astor agreed with his proposal, because she believed that ..."
• "Fortunately, the scandal caused no harm". "Fortunately" is POV.
• External links go after References.--Yannismarou 08:20, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I need comments about the article's structure, and how to keep the text comprehensive without making the article bloated. I've been looking at Climate of Minnesota, and am wondering whether readers need temperature tables and separate sections like "Precipitation" and "Temperature"; if so, I can add them. Also would appreciate comments regarding prose, organization, flow, length, comprehensiveness, etc. Please feel free to also comment regarding whether a "History" section is needed; it would describe how India's climate has evolved since it was a part of Gondwanaland. Thanks. Saravask 19:32, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Looks nice; did not read the whole article though. IMO temperature tables are not needed. If necessary, a daughter article named Seasons in India can be created which will host the temperature tables. A "History" section in line of your proposal would be damn interesting! Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 05:28, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good. I'll get to work on a "History" section. Thanks for the advice. Saravask 05:35, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Seasons are once mentioned under "Climatology", and again elaborated under "Seasons". In fact, it seems the section "Climatology" can be removed, it's mostly redundant. Can be incorporated in other sections. The first paragraph of "Climatology" may be incorporated into the intro para of Climatic regions. Regarding the maps in "Climatology", rainfall map may find a place in "Monsoon" (may be one image has to be sacrificed), while "wind zone" map, may be, under "Cyclones". As a start, all images may be right aligned. Those may be rearranged later if need be. Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 08:22, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for pointing out the redundancy. I got rid of "Climatology", shuffled some pics, and made other changes ([4]). Still working on finding sources for the "History" section. Please let me know if you have other ideas. Saravask 13:50, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• A monsoon wind map would be useful
• States which receive snow would be useful (6 total)
• PNG map needs to be converted to SVG
• low value common nouns should be unlinked, duplicate cases of linking should also be avoided
• Amritsar -0.6 needs a cite (That figure was reached in Dec 98)
• Use &minus; for negative figures
• Lowest temp needed. (use the ref I posted on your talk)
• Monsoons need to be differenciated into southwest and northeast. I believe these are two separate incidents, and NE <> to retreating
• "Many textbooks however, refer to this as a separate season." -- cite needed to debunk this
• The Nilgiri Range is exceptional -- actually this applies to the Westen Ghats, hills in Kerala too fall below freezing, and it is plausible that northern western ghats too might fall below freezing at elevations over 1500 m
• The Himalayan and Nilgiri hill other hill stations can also be included such as the Gharo-Khasi, Western Ghats (instead of Nilgiri)
• Snow disrupts life in Kashmir + blizzards in J&K
• Mention the Loo
• Many textbooks mention that the Thar Desert is responsible for the monsoons, can this be clarified?
• Max rainfall in a single day: [5]. Source here would be the ToI-Mumbai 27 Jul.
• Western Disturbances from the Medit. Sea? Brings rain and snow to N. India (IIRC -- my class 10 geography)
• A table showing select temperatures across India would be helpful: Fields: Summer max, winter max, summer average, winter average, monsoon max, monsoon average. Cities: Srinagar, Delhi, Mumbai, Chennai, Guwahati, Kolkata, Bhopal, Port Blair.
• A standard X-Y graph, rainfall vs months for selected cities would be useful.
• NE India is much cooler in summer, any reasons?
• submersion of parts of Mumbai and Chennai.. I think the islands of LK and AN would be also severely affected
• What about climate of AN, LK? tropical?
• The climate of India is difficult to generalize due -- starts negatively. Should be rewritten in a positive tone
• NE India is kept cooler in winter through cold air coming in from the B'putra valley. Could this be researched?
• Tropical dry, wet, etc could do with some apt photographic images of the vegetation
• Some left-aligned images push the section headings, need to be realigned

=Nichalp «Talk»= 15:19, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wow. Thanks for the critique. It's going to take me several days to address these points; I'll post here after I think I've finished. But there are two issues:

• − does not work with {{convert}}; the template probably makes this switch automatically (I haven't checked)
• I agree that redundant wikilinking within the body or lead should be removed, but think that some of the climate- and weather-related common terms ("glaciers", "summer", "cloud", etc.) should be kept linked.

I'm willing to discuss these further after I've done the map, tables, research, and your other requested changes. If you see other problems, please share. Thanks. Saravask 22:45, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I dont think cloud and summer should be linked. They are common nouns known to 10 year olds, and just a "type and Go" away. =Nichalp «Talk»= 12:29, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I see. Saravask 21:05, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment More inline citations are needed in certain section eg "History", and the whole of "Climatic regions". --Dwaipayan (talk) 14:45, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

1. That table mentioning the seasons is slightly incorrect. NE monsoons occur only in some parts of India. There for to label it for Delhi, Mumbai, Bhopal would be misleading.
2. That swollen B'putra image does not add any value to the page. It's hard to pick out the river, and furthermore hard to figure out the extent of swelling
3. Late Permian --> year needed

=Nichalp «Talk»= 09:52, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think I've hit all the points ([6]). Thanks for the review. Are there any other issues? Thanks. Saravask 06:20, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(See previous review here).

Looking for overall comments, going for GA, eventually FA with this one.

Current issues (any elaboration on specifics would be appreciated):

• Citations: Aware that I need more (IvoShandor 15:26, 20 March 2007 (UTC)) (if you see anywhere that needs {{fact}}, please add it. Also, aware that some are not linked, as I retrieved many of the articles from microfiche I didn't originally have web links, I am in the process of finding digital copies via research database and will slowly be adding links to increase verifiability. : )[reply]
• Need for copy edit: any specific problems you see, it would be helpful if you can point them out.

• See comment below, request filed with League of Copyeditors. One user has done some tweaks already. : ) IvoShandor 03:21, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Lack of images- added some, still need more, should be some public domain stuff out there. IvoShandor 15:26, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Lead length: expanded a bit, may need more.
• WP:MOS issues: again, point these out; I can think of WP:DASH, but there are probably other problems.
• Further reading section is a bit redundant at this point, but I am using it for reference right now, it will probably be reworked though: Still plan to rework. IvoShandor 15:26, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

•  Done Deleted for now. Will add non-referenced reading later in due process, probably after GAC. IvoShandor 03:22, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Some possible POV issues, how connected is the other violence? Do the sources confirm this? If not, are there others that do? Worked on this heavily, please let me know what you think. IvoShandor 15:26, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Still need WP:SUMMARY for post massacre violence section.  Done IvoShandor 03:19, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Needs additional sources for description of riot. IvoShandor 02:40, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wondering about:

• Could use some suggestions for some more wikilinks.
• Is it too lengthy, where could it be trimmed? What info specifically?
• Are any relevant aspects of the topic missing, glaring omissions?
• Any other suggestions?
• Major prose issues?

Thanks ahead of time for anyone who responds. I worked pretty hard on this article. IvoShandor 18:56, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: I cleaned this article up a lot for POV, any help would be greatly appreciated. I think this could be FA someday. IvoShandor 15:12, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Another comment: I have filed a request with the League of Copyeditors for an outside copy edit. IvoShandor 15:24, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The following is from the Rock Springs Massacre talk page. It has been copied here as it developed in the midst of this peer review. Feel free to add to it.

The subsections from "Post-massacre violence" are the makings of separate articles entirely, and are not about the Rock Springs Massacre directly; they should be placed in other articles and each section here should have a "Main" template; all that's necessary to say is that other violence broke out; this is not a history of THOSE events, but is supposed to be only about Rock Creek. Also, if stuff like this is trotted out as though it's connected, but some source hasn't said it's connected, stringing all this in one place to expound a thesis about post-massacre violence is actually original research, and a no-no. But it's clear from the tone of some of the content here that there's a thesis being expounded ("the NYT was 'just as guilty'" and other POV language). Please remember this is an encylcopedia article and NOT a political tract.Skookum1 18:17, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This comment could have been before the peer review was posted but the article is still being worked on. Some of the sources HAVE connected the events to Rock Springs. So it's not original research. Guilty was probably a bad word choice, but they did do it. Will look for such things as I work. Political tract? IvoShandor 19:14, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"just as guilty" is clearly a political statement; also IMO is the seeming effort in the article to tie in general historical materials and also other not-necessarily-connected events; it comes off like a tract, and is full of not-neutral language; like so many Chinese-American/Canadian history articles. Just the facts, please, no editorializing. And no introducing extraneous materials as if they had to do with things; if the sources make that connection, it should specify that it's the sources that made the connection, and which sources.Skookum1 19:26, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's what the inline citations are for. I have no political agenda related to 19th century America. IvoShandor 19:28, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I would hardly call a wave of anti-Chinese violence beginning with Rock Springs and encompassing events for the next six months a general connection, the Oregon stuff might be stretching it, but I thnk you're wrong. IvoShandor 19:30, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just as a note, there is absolutely no question this was a racially motivated attack, even the President agreed with that assessment, in 1885. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by IvoShandor (talk • contribs) 19:15, 12 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]

And what in my post led you to think I was disputing that? Your re-asserting it seems to indicate that you think it was THAT that I was criticizing; but that's just more POVism, i.e. assuming that a criticism is about something that it's not. The point remains that the language of this article is very accusatory. And THAT is POV. It's possible to report facts and events without brow-beating people or using invective.....Skookum1 19:30, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So why don't you just fix it instead of making general objections. I have changed some of the wording but as the writer it can be hard to flesh out stuff, at least for me, that I have done myself.IvoShandor 19:33, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well. Go ahead, if its just POV, it won't matter to the material. I'm not that worried about, if there are any problems presented by your edits they can be fixed and discussed later. Go for it, it would really help. Sorry if I seemed hostile, I think I missed your point at first. IvoShandor 20:07, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not familiar enough with the events to edit conscionably; as you can tell I'm also prolix - infamously so - and my edits tend to be emendations; I find it easier to point out issues here, unles I know the material well.Skookum1 19:38, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Removed some POV wording, a lot of which is leftover from when this article was started, about eleven days after I registered for Wikipedia. : ) The Post Massacre section is already set up for WP:SUMMARY, I believe the sources confirm that this violence was related to the massacre in Rock Springs, but if you don't please point out where and I will try to verify. Remember there is a difference between "unverified" and "unverifiable" information. Also, if you are using caps for emphasis, could you please use italics, it looks like you're yelling. IvoShandor 19:27, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but in another parallel case, the Anti-Oriental Riots in Vancouver were seen as some historians as an offshoot of or reaction to the Boxer Rebellionsm the ongoing Nationalist uprising after that, and fears of Asian imperialism in the wake of the Russo-Japanese War, and also by various labour practices of Chinese workers and Chinese labour contractors; yet to mention any of these, despite their presence in sources, is dismissed as "racist propaganda" and no recent histories go anywhere near the background of the events, choosing instead to condemn the antagonists instead of understanding "why" - it's so much easier to paint people simply as goons, or to try and boil everything down to "racism" and "racists" (and "racist" is often used as a dehumanizing term, often by people who are very racist themselves....). So I appreciate your un-POV'ing this; the point, central point, of this is what THIS article is about, or supposed to be about. "Splinter events" certainly have their place; but if they're so notable as to be mentioned, they should ahve their own articles, and a summary of those that sources state are connected, should be made (but no others).Skookum1 19:38, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Would you care if I moved this discussion to the 2nd peer review? So it would be archived? This article will take some work but I can make it shine. I wrote it way back when I was a wee little youngling wikipedian, didn't know as much about policy as I do now. That and no one ever mentioned this before, some help that other peer review was! ; ) IvoShandor 13:37, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was pleasantly surprised when this article, which I'd greatly improved as part of my work on The Devil Wears Prada (currently undergoing a peer review of its own) was given an assessment of A-class this morning despite three statements flagged as needing citations. So I took care of them. Any suggestions before I take it to GAC? Daniel Case 03:56, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for reading this! I was beginning to worry that no one cared enough.

Much of your very good criticism will probably be taken care of by a forthcoming expansion. Daniel Case 02:22, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm afraid the second and the third paragraph repeat the same things. Maybe they should be merged or re-phrased.

• • It's likely that they will be ... I have been doing more research (i.e., reading Jerry Oppenheimer's biography). I had written that because I couldn't see where to put the bit about the sunglasses

• "Her salary is reported to be $2 million a year.[1]" Avoid stubby one-sentence paragraph like this one. Merge or expand.

• • That's because I took something out that wasn't sourced. I have a source for it now, and it can go back in.

• "Politics" is too stubby. If you cannot expand the section merge it with another one.

• • Same thing.

• "There have also been accusations that she has imposed an elitist aesthetic on the magazine, promoting celebrities over fashion personalities and making demands that even prominent subjects change their image before being featured in its pages." Assertions like this one need citing.
  • They are cited further down in the body of the article, but I'll put them in the intro.
• I think you overanalyze The Devil Wears Prada. Most of this material should be moved to the film's or book's article through WP:SS.
  • The film article is long enough as it is, and the book article needs a lot of reworking. Some of it could probably go there, though. I'll see what I can do to trim it down and keep it relevant.

    But it is important.

• "She has often been the target". Personally I do not like a new section to start with "she". Who's she? "Wintour ... " looks to me better. But maybe it is just a personal preference.
• "In Paris in October 2005 ..." The trend is to wikilink full dates (date-month-year) not year alone or month-year. Check WP:MoS about dates.
  • I didn't do that; someone else did.
• "She has often been the target of various animal rights organizations such as PETA who are angered by her use of fur in Vogue, her pro-fur editorials and her refusal to run paid advertisements from animal rights organizations. Undeterred, she continues to use fur in photo spreads. She is routinely assaulted by activists over this matter." Uncited. Try to have at least one citation for each paragraph of your article.
  • Again, cited further on down.
• "Wintour has been accused of exercising ... have also been criticized as being motivated ... despite its heavy reliance on advertising dollars". Mixing styles?
  • Not quite sure what you mean here ...
    • That you mix American with English spelling. Am I wrong? If yes, diregard this comment.--Yannismarou 13:59, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yes. All three of those are the generally accepted and widely-used American spellings. Daniel Case 17:26, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• "Popular culture" is a trivia listy section. Especially in FA such sections are not esteemed at all. If you could make it proper prose or incorporate its material in other sections ...--Yannismarou 17:46, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Will do. I can probably use the DWP stuff to springboard that. Daniel Case 02:22, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I would like to get an assessment on this article. Thank you!Kmarinas86 19:27, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I will try to review the prose later, it would help if you could convert it from lists first. : )

A quick review:

• Lists: Way way too listy, convert all lists to prose.

DoneKmarinas86 07:36, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Sub-sections:

• Too many sections, combine them, no need for a section for every year.

DoneKmarinas86 07:36, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Try to use more descriptive section titles, such as 'Founding' or 'Early years,' or something of the ilk, when you combine and retitle them.

DoneKmarinas86 07:36, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Intro: The intro should conform to WP:LEAD and, also, not include any lists.

DoneKmarinas86 07:36, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• MOS: Read and understand the Manual of Style

DoneKmarinas86 07:36, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Pronunciation:Might need a pronunciation for this subject.

OkKmarinas86 07:36, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Images:

• This image: Image:Betty Dodson hugging one of her friends.jpg, is a vanity photo and unencyclopedic.
• Same with: Image:Raelian Women and Hugh Hefner.jpg.

OkKmarinas86 07:36, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• References:I would separate the bibliographic lists from the footnotes.

DoneKmarinas86 07:36, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• External links: The external links section is beginning to look like a link directory, See WP:NOT. Try to trim it down to the most pertinent links that are on topic, just the history, the other stuff probably belongs linked from other articles.

RemovedKmarinas86 07:36, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Criticism links (unless the criticize the history), unofficial websites, sexuality (unless they directly discuss it related to the movement's history) - should probably all go.
• Trim the rest down, too many official links too. Try to find the best history ones, and maybe one or two that might act as directories of the official stuff and try linking that.

• Content: Like I said I will comment more later, but at a glance, try to remember that not every event is notable in the movement's overall history (which is what this article should remain focused on).

OkKmarinas86 07:36, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hope that helps for now, as I said, if you could convert it to prose I could do a much broader assessment.IvoShandor 05:53, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We are wanting to improve this article to be a good article. Idea's for structural improvement or how to expand the article would be most beneficial. John Vandenberg 22:27, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Having briefly glanced at the article, there are some structural things that pop out to me:

• • Not all quotes should use the Cquote format. Only long quotes (a paragraph or more) should utilize this format. The remainder of the quotes can be incorporated in the text with "regular" quotation marks. Additionally, the sources for all quotes should be footnoted.
  • In the first paragraph under the first heading, you shouldn't have an external link in the text, especially when the work is on Wikicommons with a link provided. Fixed John Vandenberg 09:48, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The references should link to the title of the source, etc. AND include the page numbers for where the specific information being cited is found. This will vastly expand the number of references you have.
  • The text of the entire poem, Anthropological Thoughts, is unncessary. Select a few quotes from it, but the entire poem is not encyclopedic. Fixed John Vandenberg 21:31, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Try summing up some of the quotes, there really are too many quotes about him. They are interested, but they break up the text.

Overall, this is a good start to the article and there is a good deal of good information. Really, I think the quotes are the biggest problem and it is easy to remedy. Cheers! *Exeunt* Ganymead | Dialogue? 16:43, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks for the review. I have tackle one of them now; the hold up was that I wanted to put all of the book on wikisource before removing the link. I have struck that review point so everyone can see what is left to do; I hope that isn't inappropriate. Next, I'm going to tackle Anthropological Thoughts. John Vandenberg 09:48, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• The lead is short. Per WP:LEAD it needs expansion.
• Per WP:MoS inline citations go straight after the pm; not before.
• The article is full of stubby pars like this one:"Rivers suffered from a stammer that never truly left him, he also had no visual memory. He dedicated Chapter II of his book Instinct and the Unconscious to describe his lack of visual memory." Read here, and think about reworking some parts of your article.
• "He later concluded that something must have happened to him on the top floor of his house so terrible- at least to a child- that he had blocked not just the memory of the place and event but the ability to remember visually in general; in the words of Barker's character Billy Prior, Rivers "put his mind's eye out"." Uncited.
• "Pat Barker, in the third novel in her Regeneration Trilogy, The Ghost Road suggests a reason for these problems but Rivers himself, although he may have had some idea of the causes, does not appear to cite them fully in his writings." Too vague. What reason? What idea? I'm lost!
• "However, these things did not seem to affect his academic performance." Not the most encyclopedic expression.
• I see a series of uncited quotes.
• "He was made a fellow of the Royal Society in 1908 and won the Society's gold medal in 1914 (information obtained from Rivers fonds)" Why in parenthesis and not a proper inline citation, also using Template:cite web or Template:cite news?
• "(Head 1923)" Mixed citing systems.
• Are you sure about all these quotes and the way you put them? IMO they interrupt to often the prose. Maybe you could incorporate them more in the prose, in order to make the article flow better.
• "Rivers' methods are often, somewhat unfairly, said to have stemmed from Sigmund Freud". WP:POV.
• "however, this is not truly the case as you can read both in Pat Barker's novels and in the words of friends such as Myers." POV and uncyclopedic prose ("as you can see").
• "Although he was aware of Freud's theories and methods, he did not necessarily prescribe to them (See Pat Barker's Regeneration pg 28- 32- Penguin Books- for his interpretation on dreams. For this, see also Rivers' Conflict and Dream for his methods of dream analysis and his thoughts on Freud)." Again mixed citing system.
• "As such, he really is a pioneer in his field- both for his new methods and for the fact that he went against the grain of the beliefs of the time'. Uncited and possibly POV.
• "Sassoon came to him in 1917". Per MoS we don wikilink single years or partial dates; only full dates.
• "In Pat Barker's novels and in Rivers' works (particularly Conflict and Dream) we get a sense of the turmoil the doctor went through." "We"? Again, have in mind that you are writing an encyclopedic article; not an essaie.
• What a loooooong citation by Jean Moorcroft Wilson!
• No reason to have books and papers in bold as you do at the end of World War One. Per MoS, it is just italics.
• "Rivers signed the papers as he lay dying in the Evelyn Nursing Home [2] following an unsuccessful emergency operation. He had an extravagant funeral at St. John's[2] in accordance with his wishes as he was an expert on funeral rites and was put to rest in the chuchyard of St Giles Church, Cambridge[2]." You cite the same source three times in just one sentence. Why?!
• I don't see a reason for a "Quotes" section. It looks like trivia. If these quotes are useful for your story incorporate them in the main biography. And the second one of these quotes s again tooooo long. Turn it into your own prose and incorporate it in your text.

A good start definitely, but it needs much more work, in order to get a proper encyclopedic article. Right now with the quotes, the short paragraphs, the POV assessments etc. it looks like a very nice report of Rivers' life, but it is not a proper encyclopedic article. Have a look at some of the recently promoted FA biographies. It could be helpful in terms of structure and prose.--Yannismarou 13:34, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I wrote this article last fall and would like to have it peer reviewed for quality, readability, etc. I want it to be a Good Article. Please be aware that this article has been the target of sporadic vandalism over the past few months, although nothing recently. Also, there was a controversy over the article title and naming protocols. There are no photographs available for this article. There are two extant pictures of Singleton, but both are owned and copyrighted by the Kansas State Historical Society. One user tried to illegally insert one of them and it was deleted. StudierMalMarburg 14:22, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Same issues as noted below, particularly the lack of precise footnotes. Your list of references is good, but you need to let your reader know exactly where (reference & page) your various pieces of information came from. One other thought -- when I taught history, I had a copy of the transcript of the hearings Singleton went through in, I believe, the US Congress. (Clearly people who lost a significant number of sharecroppers through the Exoduster movement were not happy about and tried to have it stopped.) If I can locate these transcripts, which I found on line, I'll post the link here. Jancarhart 16:16, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just found the testimony I spoke of: Benjamin Singleton Congressional testimony; April 17, 1880 (PBS)Jancarhart 16:27, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Only one in-line citation. References are good, but we need to know what information comes from where specifically (most people use footnotes). Not sure if this is an absolute requirement for GA status, but most have that and certainly all FA's require it.
• There's a lot of bolded text. I've hardly ever seen this in articles I've read. If it's important enough, wikilink it and make a short stub about it.
• Why are the first subject headings subsections? (=== ===) vs. (== ==) ?
• ISBN numbers are helpful for books.
• Watch out for statements that sound subjective like "Such misconceptions are based upon inadequate research." Anything like this needs to be cited specifically for sure or cut.

Hope this helps! Best wishes, MarkBuckles (talk) 13:54, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• • Thank you. It does help. I appreciate your taking the time to read through it. StudierMalMarburg 16:26, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• The lead is short. Check WP:LEAD.
• No picture of him?
• "Although it is known that Benjamin Singleton was born in 1809 ..." Known by whom?
• Add inline citations. Try to have at least one in each sentence, and read WP:CITE.
• Why so many "bolds"? Only the name of Singleton in the lead should be bolded. Nothing else!
• "Singleton remained in Detroit until the end of the Civil War.". Which civil war?! Probably the American, but you don't say that; you only wikilink it!
• "Unfortunately, white landowners were unwilling to bargain with Singleton and would not sell land to blacks at anything other than outrageous prices." Avoid POV expressions like unforunately. Maybe (not sure though) this sentence could also be regarded as POV: "Disgusted by the posturing of political leaders who failed to deliver on their promises of freedom and equality for former slaves".
• "Many histories of Benjamin Singleton incorrectly state ..." Weasel; which historians?
• "Such misconceptions are based upon inadequate research." Avoid such expressions; they are ofter considered POV and one-sided. In general, "Misconceptions" should be rewritten to reflect a more objective approach to the subject. You may have to change even the heading.--Yannismarou 13:57, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am listing this article for Peer review to get feedback on the episode list, as I feel this is an important list relating to Aqua Teen Hunger Force and I am looking for ways to improve it further.

I should also note that the length of the episode summaries will (within the next week) be shortened to one or two sentences each, as a lot of the information belongs, and is present, in the individual episode articles.

I speak for myself and other editors when I say that we appreciate any and all feedback regarding the list. :: ZJH ^{(T C E)} 03:07, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I strongly recommend adding fair use rationale for each of the episode image, especially if you're going for featured list candidate. - Mailer Diablo 11:57, 18 March 2007 (UTC)  Done[reply]

I think that this is a decent article that is somewhere between a start and a B class article. I would like to see it get to good article status. I think that it could benefit greatly from the insights of fellow editors. Thanks. TheRingess (talk) 01:38, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The vast majority of the article is in list form, which is generally considered infirior to prose. I'd say start there. Explain the practices in greater detail, explain the causes/effects of historical events, explain the holy days, etc. -- bcasterline • talk 05:31, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the suggestions. TheRingess (talk) 06:10, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Length of article is a major concern - I think the bulleted points under 'Practices' can be expanded into prose. Citation of sources should be in a consistent format for the references section. - Mailer Diablo 11:47, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks.TheRingess (talk) 15:38, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This article was only rated as Start-Class on the quality scale, despite being such an important topic, and was previously almost unsourced and contained large chunks of OR. In the last couple of days I've rewritten it and added sources, but it's still a little confusing, and contains a lot of material that's duplicated from Political power and the tripartite classification of authority. I think I've improved this article considerably, but it needs a bit more work to get up to GA/FA standard. Walton ^{Vivat Regina!} 17:55, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• (and many non-human) - that animals have what we call politics is a pretty strong statement. Expand, and cite, or remove.
• Political science, ... - unbold.
• Political Philosophy, Public Administration - uncapitalize
• Aristotle asserts in Politics - I know what you mean, but considering the title of this article, specify that it's a book
• Thomas Hobbes ... proposed - contrast with Aristotle, above; pick a tense for statements made in books, and be consistent
• left-right - cite, and specify that this is fairly recent. Hobbes, Aristotle, etc., didn't mention such a divide. What divides, if any, they mention? Monarchist/populist maybe?
• Certain politicians have tried to transcend - frankly, most politicians try to transcend, saying they are "a uniter not a divider", all that. Unless you have a really good set of sources, I'd leave that out, and certainly not mention specific politicians in an article on all politics, reads biased. Just saying Morin is more notable than De Gaulle is going to get you a lot of opposition, for no good gain.
• Authoritarian-Libertarian - need more than one sentence for a subsection
• Machiavelli's The Prince is pretty important, no? Just a suggestion
• Some within ... various ways - be specific in each case; who says, and which ways, per WP:WEASEL. End with a period. It is also often considered a good idea to have more than one sentence in a subsection. :-)...
• and sociological perspectives. - is this the same as Pragmatic, per that subsection? Specify.
• May want to mention the roles of politics in popular modern and ancient forms of govt: monarchy, democracy, communism... --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 21:09, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• The page begins with "Approaches to the study of politics," but Aristotle, Plato, Hobbes, etc. were not just studying politics, they were coming up with political theories. I would suggest that the page begin with some short "Definitions" (such as "politics," "republic," "democracy," etc.) so that the reader has some basic terms to work with and then move on to "Political theories" that would encompass Plato, Aristotle, Hobbes, etc. in subsections. The "Related concepts" should be discussed in terms of the political philosophers and philosophies when relevant and defined when necessary. This is what needs the most work right now, as I see it.
• "Political power" should come after the "Political philosophy" section (the section on "Political spectrums" should come later). Might Michel Foucault be a good representative of the postmodern view of power (Discipline and Punish)?
• The bulletted lists should be changed into prose, for example, in the "authority" section.
• The "other considerations" section does not seem necessary at this time.
• Of course, when you are tired of writing, you can add pictures. :)
• And, of course, you already have all of my comments about the sources.
• By the way, just to make everything more difficult, I have feeling Eastern philosophers also discuss politics. You might add a tag to the article saying that it does not represent a worldwide view (it is no reflection on yourself - no one can know everything). That might alert someone who does something to add to it. Awadewit 12:59, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This article's been rewritten over the past two or three months. I'd like to submit it to WP:FAC, but this is by far the most ambitious article rewrite I've ever attempted, so I want to solicit opinion first. Any suggestions, comments, or criticisms are welcome. For example, the citation density was very high just a short while ago, when I had cited a source for every single statement in the article. Did I cut too much? Not enough? What needs to happen to make this an exemplary country article? Thanks, — Brian (talk) 10:55, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know much about the subject or the standard for country articles, but, caveats aside, this looks like a great overview. Well-written and organized; not much I can criticize. Couple comments though:

• The sentence "Cameroon came to international attention on 21 August 1986 when Lake Nyos belched toxic fumes and killed between 1,700 and 2,000 people." comes out of no where since the rest of the history section focuses on politics. It's a noteworthy event, but in the scope of the article it may not be important -- unless there's more to say about consequences, etc.
• Perhaps add more on tribal vs. national affiliation? The conflict was mentioned a couple times but only in passing.

Good luck. -- bcasterline • talk 22:05, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the comments. Regarding your first point, it's a toughie. Basically, the two facts most everyone knows about Cameroon are: a) They have a good football team; and b) They had a natural disaster in the 1980s where a lake killed a bunch of people. I wanted to make sure I covered both points. I'll see if maybe I can't work Nyos in somewhere else, such as the Geography section. Regarding your second point, I'll see if I can't dig up some more information about tribalism in the country. Thanks again! — Brian (talk) 22:49, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Subsections needs to go
• Sections need to be summarised
• Further review once this is done.

=Nichalp «Talk»= 19:02, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the comments, but I'm not sure I understand. What's wrong with subsections? And the prose size is currently within standards, so I'm not sure why further summarization is needed. However, I do acknowledge that "History" may be a bit long. I'll see if I can't reduce it some. — Brian (talk) 00:54, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've edited down the "History" section to 4 KB of text-only prose, which is equivalent to the same section of the Featured Article on India. — Brian (talk) 05:10, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

1. Much better, now other sections need to be pruned down. Culture, Demographics and Economy can get rid of unessential data, while politics and government can be split into a one or two sections.
2. Remove all set pixel values for images. Align them to the right for now
3. Administrative divisions could do with the regions as a list. Also could you request that the map be converted to SVG format?

=Nichalp «Talk»= 19:29, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm. I disagree that anything else needs to be really pruned. Readable prose is now almost perfect: 32 KB (so I could conceivably trim 2 KB of stuff, granted). I think you may be onto something about splitting Politics and Government, so I'll look into it. I rather like the image distribution at the moment; what would be the point of removing the pixel values and right aligning the lot of them? As for the list of provinces, lists get the ax regularly on FAC, in my experience. But the SVG map would be a good idea; I'll ping the folks at the graphics lab. Thanks again for the comments! — Brian (talk) 01:46, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It should be pruned further, 6-7 paragraphs make the section too long, and sections for a geographic location article are all summaries. Ideally, it should be three mid paragraphs (~200-250 words) with the content being the summary of the main article (ie the content of the article which appears in the lead of Geography of Cameroon, Economy of Cameroon etc.). About the list for administrative divisions, that's one case where nobody objects since putting it in prose is more difficult to read. =Nichalp «Talk»= 04:27, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If I can add my opinion, I tend to agree with Brian here. I full agree regarding the list of provinces: few things are as ugly in this sort of articles. While I disagree with the radicality of Nichalp's proposals regarding pruning, I do feel that a minor pruning with the sections "economy" and "culture" could be useful. After that, pass it to FAC, where other editors will be ready to offer further suggestions. That said, I'm no expert in FA.--Aldux 12:28, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've trimmed some more fat and killed another 1KB of text. Trimming further from the "Politics and government" or "Economy" sections is problematic, since these are actually conglomerations of things that other country articles devote several sections to. For example, "Politics and government" covers the politics of Cameroon, foreign relations of Cameroon, education in Cameroon, and healthcare in Cameroon. Likewise, "Economy" (now renamed "Economy and infrastructure") includes the economy of Cameroon, tourism in Cameroon, transport in Cameroon, and communications in Cameroon. In other words, they cover a lot of ground and shouldn't need to be cut further. — Brian (talk) 05:02, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Damn, this article is simply too good, I really would love to have a similar one for Chad :-) It's certaincainly ready to stand for WP:FAC. Also the sources and the images are very good. Only, I'll observe:

• I also feel that the subsections should go; really one of the problems is that the history of the economy sections of this article are much better, and almost greater of the respective history of Cameroon and economy of Cameroon, which in theory should give a more detailed treatment of these topics. I advise to reduce especially the history section, moving considerable chunks of material to History of Cameroon.
• The "external links" section is really meagre. Couldn't you add some other valuable external links to to this sections.--Aldux 00:50, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm. Yes, I primarily write articles on Cameroon's history, so it's tough for me to decide what to cut from the "History" section. I do note that it is the longest section in the article and could be shortened. However, I don't think that the abysmal state of history of Cameroon and economy of Cameroon should be held against this article; my goal is to get this one up to FA first and then turn my attentions to the sub articles. But I'll look at maybe reducing the "History" section a bit more and moving stuff to history of Cameroon. :(

As for the external links, Wikipedia:WikiProject Countries suggests linking only to official websites, and the Cameroonian government just doesn't have much web presence. There was a huge link farm before I began my revisions, but it was mostly spam. I'll take another look at it to make sure I didn't miss anything, though. — Brian (talk) 00:54, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A thing I've noted only now: there are almost no categories. Shouldn't you add :Category:African Union member states, :Category:Organization of the Islamic Conference, :Category:La Francophonie. Among the navigational templates, you should remove {{Countries of West Africa}}; if you give a look at West Africa, Cameroon is not considered part of that subregion by the UN.--Aldux 18:41, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for checking these things. All of those subcategories are appended to Category:Cameroon. (It's my understanding that if a subject has an eponymous category, further categorization should be done at the category level rather than the article level). As for the region, the UN has it's categorization scheme, and many other sources differ. Cameroon is regularly categorized as both West and Central African, so I'm not sure that the UN should be the only source deferred to on this. — Brian (talk) 22:25, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

His two sons, Edward VIII of the United Kingdom and George VI of the United Kingdom were recently peer-reviewed. DrKiernan 08:37, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"The King George's Fields in London were created as a lasting and fitting memorial by a committee in 1936 chaired by the then Lord Mayor of London."

The words "lasting and fitting" are POV. LuciferMorgan 04:33, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks, I missed those. Now removed. DrKiernan 08:10, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is an excellent article overall (as usual). My list of suggestions (though long) focuses mostly on small issues of clarity.

• was the first British monarch belonging to the House of Windsor, as a result of his creating it from the British branch of the German House of Saxe-Coburg-Gotha. - awkward - how about "was the first British monarch who belonged to the House of Windsor because he himself created it from..."
  • Simplified. DrKiernan 15:28, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• (from 1927, split into King of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and King of Ireland) - do we need this information in the lead? is it essential to understanding George?
  • This is a politically sensitive issue, and an over-simplification of the Irish titles is likely to lead to offence. Perhaps an option would be:

George V (George Frederick Ernest Albert; 3 June 1865 - 20 January 1936) was the first British monarch belonging to the House of Windsor, which he created from the British branch of the German House of Saxe-Coburg-Gotha. As well as being King of the United Kingdom, and the Commonwealth Realms, George was also the Emperor of India and the first King of the Irish Free State. George reigned from 6 May 1910 through World War I (1914-1918) until his death in 1936.

• I like this better. Awadewit 15:53, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• As a youth and young man he served in the Royal Navy - unnecessary repetition? not really clear what the distinction is between "youth" and "young man" until much later
  • Amended. DrKiernan 15:28, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• They toured the British Empire but George preferred to stay at home with his stamp collection, and lived what later biographers would consider a dull life because of its conventionality. - doesn't quite make the contrast clear - "Although they toured the British Empire initially, George preferred to stay at home..." OR "Although they occasionally toured the British Empire, George preferred to stay at home" (I don't know which one is more accurate)
  • Well, they toured until they were in their mid-forties, and then their children took over. I've chosen occasionally. DrKiernan 15:28, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Another significant event in his reign was the passing of the Statute of Westminster which separated the crown so that George ruled the dominions as separate kingdoms. - can you transition better than "another"? also, perhaps the more detailed information regarding the split should be moved here?
  • Rewritten. DrKiernan 15:28, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• I have changed "Early life" to "Early life and education" since "Early life" had so few details before "education." Feel free to change it back.
  • That's fine, thanks. DrKiernan 15:28, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• The Prince of Wales appointed John Neale Dalton as their tutor, although neither excelled intellectually. - the "although" does not seem to follow logically - explain - was Dalton brilliant? his wikipedia page does not say much about him
  • Sentence expanded to make clear that Albert Victor and George did not excel intellectually as children, not the Prince of Wales or Dalton. It is unclear whether their lack of attainment was because of poor teaching or poor studentship. DrKiernan 15:28, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Do we know why the two princes were given naval educations?
  • Their father wanted it (Queen Victoria didn't) because it was "the very best possible training". Traditionally, second sons go into the navy and it was thought unwise to separate the boys because Albert Victor was reliant on George to induce him to work. Their father also thought it would be better for them to mix with ordinary people. I'll add something brief in about this. DrKiernan 15:28, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• You might briefly mention what the "Flying Dutchman" is.
  • Done. DrKiernan 15:28, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• There are a lot of links here. I don't think it is common practice to link individual years and do all of the geographical locations need to be linked as well?
  • Yes, you're quite right WP:MoS deprecates the linking of years like this, so I've removed most. DrKiernan 15:28, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• When they returned to the UK, the brothers were parted with Albert Victor attending Trinity College, Cambridge and George continuing in the Royal Navy. - confusing - do you mean - "When they returned to the UK, the brothers were parted from Albert Victor who began attending Trinity College, Cambridge and George who continued in the Royal Navy"?
  • Amended for clarity. DrKiernan 15:28, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Why did "the mothers" oppose George marrying Marie?
  • Alexandra was anti-German, the Duchess of Edinburgh was pro-German. But I think basically they just didn't like one another. I'll add something about this after checking Pope-Hennessy. DrKiernan 15:28, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• You might explain why being second in line to the throne "effectively ended George's naval career."
  • Added a phrase. DrKiernan 15:28, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• The marriage was a success, and unlike his father, George did not take a mistress. - the mistress information seems like an odd intrusion - why are we suddenly comparing George to his father?
  • OK, reference to non-existent mistress removed. DrKiernan 15:28, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Throughout their lives the couple exchanged notes of endearment and loving letters. - some editors at FAC may want a source for a statement like this
  • Added. DrKiernan 15:28, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• It was claimed that at the wedding, the crowd were confused as to who was the Duke of York (later George V) and who was the Tsarevitch (later Nicholas II) of Russia, because their beards and dress made them look alike superficially. - I'm only bringing this up because at FAC (where I am assuming you are headed), sentences such as this one are often criticized. We academics love the passive and it makes sense to us in many contexts. But I have been asked numerous times "who claimed" and that sort of thing. I just mention it. Defend your use of the passive!
  • I've removed "it was claimed" but inserted "may have been" just to irritate FAC by adding "may have been" and you by removing "it was claimed"! DrKiernan 15:28, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• George Frederick Abbott's Through India with the Prince (1906) describes the tour. - can you tell us a little more about why Abbott was chosen to describe the tour and what his book said? his wikipedia page is a stub
  • No idea. I'm not responsible for adding this, and I tried to remove it. I've moved it to a footnote in the hopes that it will wither and die. DrKiernan 15:28, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • May it rest in peace. Awadewit 15:53, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• May chose the regal name of Queen Mary - was she naming herself after Elizabeth's sister? if so, could you mention that fact - you say the name was "regal" - that is the reason I can think of
  • That's a typo - I think it should be "regnal". Officially, May was styled "Princess Victoria Mary", and signed herself "Victoria Mary". When she became Queen the use of a double name was deprecated and she chose "Mary". Do you think I should put this in? DrKiernan 15:28, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • If you can do it in two sentences! Awadewit 15:53, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Is the only relevant historical event during WWI really the whole title business? Wow. Maybe you could just mention in a few sentences what the war was about and who the British were fighting, just in case readers don't know and don't click on the relevant link (I am again thinking of those poorly educated American college students). Even if someone clicked, they would have to read a lot of the WWI page to understand. Just a little relevant historical background. Many Britons died, etc. But perhaps this is asking too much and the article already flows so well.
  • I'd rather try and focus on him rather than the war. There are other events which happened to him during this time, for example he fell off a horse and fractured his pelvis at a troop review (the cheering troops spooked the horse). But the section is already rather long. DrKiernan 15:28, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • But that is so funny! Awadewit 15:53, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• He had always had a weak chest - this sounds like a nineteenth-century novel! - can you be more specific?
  • Amended. DrKiernan 15:28, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• A bout of illness saw him retire to the sea - "to [a place] near the sea" perhaps?
  • Amended. DrKiernan 15:28, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• he would never leave the room alive - a bit dramatic for my taste
  • Well, to be quite honest, that's why I put it in! Maybe I will remove it, I'll see if anyone else complains. DrKiernan 15:28, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• At the King's lying in state in Westminster Hall, his four surviving sons, King Edward VIII, the Duke of York, the Duke of Gloucester and the Duke of Kent, mounted the guard at the catafalque on the night of 28 January, the day before the funeral as a mark of respect to their father. - awkward - how about "As a mark of respect for their father, the king's four sons [insert names] mounted the guard at the catafaulque on the night before the king's funeral at Westminster Hall" or something like that
  • I've tried to clean that up a bit. DrKiernan 15:28, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• At the procession to George's Lying in State, as the cortege turned into New Palace Yard, the Maltese Cross fell from the Imperial Crown and landed in the gutter. The new King, Edward VIII, saw it fall and wondered whether this was a bad omen.[46][47] He would abdicate before the year was out. - this suggests it was - I would delete the last sentence to avoid that suggestion
  • OK. DrKiernan 15:28, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• The title list has odd formatting issues on my browser. Why is "and, occasionally, outside of the United Kingdom, and with regard to India" on its own line with no bullet - it looks weird
  • Yes, that needed re-formatting. DrKiernan 15:28, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• I have changed John's cause of death from "epilepsy" to "seizures." I've never really heard of a person dying from epilepsy. It's the seizures that cause the death or the resulting injuries from the seizures that cause the death. I checked the John page, but his cause of death was not precisely listed. Seizures seemed the best way to go at this point. A somewhat flawed analogy: people do not die from AIDS, they die from other diseases that they get because of AIDS. Also, how sure are historians that John had epilepsy? Lots of diseases cause seizures but that does not mean that a person has epilepsy. It's a very tricky distinction to make.
  • Yes, you're right. Thanks. Most biographers do say seizures. DrKiernan 15:28, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• I would move the "Tributes" section above the "Titles" and "Ancestry" sections.
  • Yes, Done. DrKiernan 15:28, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Most of the article seems to be written in British English. Make sure it is consistent - I changed one "honor" to "honour."
• Why are all of the images on the right side of the page? I would move a few over to the left side for variety.
  • I had to delete one (or was it more?) because of uncertain sources/copyright. I've moved one over to the left. DrKiernan 15:28, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• You describe the Punch cartoon as "depicting" the King as "relinquishing" his German titles. But cartoons usually have a political slant - could you make this cartoon's slant clearer to the reader? Is it supporting or deriding the King's move? Political cartoons from a previous era are often very difficult for later readers to understand (as you are well aware). The eighteenth-century political cartoons that I myself look at are well-nigh impossible for students to understand (they certainly don't find them funny). I would guess that this is slightly derisive. Am I right? Showing a king sweeping, showing his robes hiked up, the "made in Germany" stamp, etc.
  • No, I think Punch was patriotic during the war and was supportive of the move. The King is wearing the Garter robes, which, although seemingly comical, do actually look like that! DrKiernan 15:28, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well, there you go. A reason to explain. Awadewit 15:53, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• In the names of the "External links" can you tell us a little more about where we are going so that we know if we want to click? "George V at geocities" or something like that?
  • Right. DrKiernan 15:28, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• You probably want to add in the rest of the ISBNs on your "Reference" list, if they are available.
  • Added one. DrKiernan 15:28, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• My only real substantive issue would be that the "Issue" table indicates he and his wife had several children but we never really read about them in the biography. There is really only the mention of their parenting style and his desire to see "Bertie and Lilibet" on the throne. Why is there not more on their children? At least noting the births of each one (and death of one)? Awadewit 09:24, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Each child has their own article, and the issue are in the table and the infobox. I'd prefer to concentrate on the two most important relationships from a historical perspective: his relations with his two elder sons. DrKiernan 15:28, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • But, he had a child that died, John, right? That seems worth a mention. Awadewit 15:53, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Looking forward to comments regarding prose, organization, flow, length, comprehensiveness, neutrality, etc. Saravask 02:55, 12 March 2007 (UTC) Self-nomination. No peer review.Saravask 02:16, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Strongly Opposed. Until major POV issues in the Politics section are resolved:

1) How do you explain that "A New Era (UNT) together with its allied parties Project Venezuela, Justice First, and others." are "center-right"? where are the reliable references to their ideologies? How do you explain, for example, that they are allies with Movement for Socialism (Venezuela), Red Flag Party and Radical_Cause?

2) Is the word "watchdog" the best way to describe Súmate?.

3)"Historically, Venezuelan politics was dominated by the center-right Christian democratic COPEI and the center-left Social democratic Democratic Action (AD) parties". Do you mean after the fall of Marcos Pérez Jiménez? or for ever and ever?

4)"Because voting is not compulsory". Voting is compulsory in Venezuela, although no punishment is enforced and, by the way, in this regard I'm still wating for an answer to my arguments at the Talk:compulsory voting

5) "As is common elsewhere in Latin America, the National Assembly has twice voted to grant Chávez the ability rule by decree in several broadly defined areas, once in 2000 and again in 2007". Now this is just grotesque! "common elsewhere in Latin America"? where is this coming from? facts? references? or is this article trying to justify a president ruling under an enabling act? (by the way, enabling act is another article clearly aimed at trying to justify the enabling act of the current President, since it does not explain that Lusinchi's act was under an economic crisis and restricted to economic issues, Ramón José Velásquez was to rule for a brief period of one year after the destitution of Carlos Andrés Pérez and Pérez's occurred after the Caracazo, hence those enabling acts have nothing to do with the current act which was dictated under no extraordinary circumstances) (Caracas1830 00:34, 12 March 2007 (UTC))[reply]

• Erm, how did you find your way here? I'm afraid you're jumping the gun a bit. This FAC is not even open yet (and was not meant to open for another week or so); the page was completely orphaned according to "What links here". At any rate, feel free to comment further, as the article still requires major overhauling. Saravask 02:55, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• See changes. Saravask 04:04, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This article looks to be heading for another POV tag; too limited input from too few editors, and that's not likely to change. Items that will need to be addressed include those mentioned by Caracas1830, and:

• ... national politics in 1958. Since that year, Venezuela has generally enjoyed an unbroken tradition of stable liberal democracy. (That may be a semi-true statement in a technical sense, but it does a gross injustice to factual reality of the Venezuelan political situation. Cite please?)
  • A CIA citation was added to support the wording "Since that year, Venezuela has generally enjoyed an unbroken tradition of stable liberal democracy." I don't find that wording from the CIA. What I do find is a more realistic summary, lacking from this article:
    • Democratically elected governments have held sway since 1959. Hugo CHAVEZ, president since 1999, has promoted a controversial policy of "democratic socialism," which purports to alleviate social ills while at the same time attacking globalization and undermining regional stability. Current concerns include: a weakening of democratic institutions, political polarization, a politicized military, drug-related violence along the Colombian border, increasing internal drug consumption, overdependence on the petroleum industry with its price fluctuations, and irresponsible mining operations that are endangering the rain forest and indigenous peoples.
• This sentence needs fixing: According to another theory, the fact that, in Spanish, the suffix -zuela usually resulted in a diminutive term (e.g., mujerzuela, cazuela); thus, the term's original sense would have been that of a "little Venice".[2]
• The lead is not a compelling or adequate summary of Venezuela. The lead also contains a strange selection of items to mention; Guayana dispute is mentioned, but nothing of political upheaval of the last ten years?
• Christopher Columbus, upon seeing its eastern coast in 1498, referred to Venezuela as "Tierra de Gracia" ("Land of Grace"), which has become the country’s nickname. (Never heard Venezuela called that in my life. Also, that is mentioned in the lead, with no reference, yet never discussed in the text—the lead should be a summary of the text.)
• Murder of Tamanaco is mentioned *before* colonization; seems out of order. "Put to death" is a nice euphemism.
• Biased sources, similar to what we saw on Chavez? Please attempt to aim for more neutral sources (Health and Neoliberalism: Venezuela and Cuba).
• Collapse in oil prices resulted in coup attempts? That's a simplification and a whitewash, not surprisingly from a leftist source.
• This statement is opinion, biased, one-sided, and has no citation. (Venezuela continues to enact a program of wide-ranging socialist reforms while placing more emphasis on the nation's future as a part of a more integrated Latin America.) You could alternately say that Chavez continues to consolidate power, undermine democracy, and so on ... one-sided reporting.
• Complete failure to mention significant historical and political events resulting in complete upheaval in Venezuela; article dives straight into current politics and government as if nothing ever happened. Unbalanced, biased by omission. No indications whatsoever of the consolidation of power, president for life, or how Chavez achieved that. Whitewash of history.
• The president can ask the legislature to reconsider portions of laws he finds objectionable, but a simple parliamentary majority can override these objections. Yes, but, don't you think we should tell the whole story? I notice that these items are completely uncited, and summary (daughter) articles are also uncited. This verison of Venezuelan politics is according to whom? Several sections here need an uncited tag.
• Main article Government of Venezuela is a redirect; what became of Government of Venezuela, which should certainly be distinct from Politics of Venezuela.
• Political parties, politics does not adequately cover the divisions or unions that exist and the controversies. Whitewash.
• NGO organization is redundant.
• Saying that voting is not compulsory only tells part of the story and is misleading; the full story should be told, include how voter rolls are kept.
• Foreign relations, again, POV by omission—no mention whatsoever of Chavez pursuit of relations with enemies of Israel and the USA, or how radically he has changed Venezuela's foreign relations. No mention of Iran, first visit to Iraq, Libya, Russia, etc? Oh, so much left out; too much to mention.
• Armed forces, no mention of activity or plans in Bolivia? Glossing over of militarization of society?
• For a country article, this is dramatically undersized, at 24KB of readable prose, and the daughter articles do not make up for what is missing in comprehensiveness. See Turkey, Germany, or Canada for example—each have 40KB or more of readable prose. Only a very favorable (to Chavez) story has been told; pls fill in the rest of the blanks. There is plenty of room to tell the whole story.
• Subdivisions leaves out entirely consolidation of power.
• Please tell me, where is the mention of crime (highest murder rate of any world capital), where is corruption, and where is human rights? Where is the mention of Chavez's role in all of these societal declines? Where is the economic turmoil and decline? None of this is mentioned, a complete whitewash. How about Chavez' destruction of the oil economy? How about the decline in medical care? (Oh, we believe that Cuban care is superior to what Venezuela had before Cuban "doctors" were brought in?) How about the decline in education, plans for indoctrination, and universities with no standards? Scanty mention of education and health care, and certainly no mention of indoctrination in the schools. No mention of Bolivarian circles? A very scanty picture of a very ugly situation.
• The article is very scantily cited.
• Sorry, the article is unbalanced and has a very very long way to go towards being comprehensive.

And now, stand by for the usual rejoinders from the usual parties ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:26, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lead:

• In the opening sentence "coast" should be replaced with a more comprehensive word, "region" or "area" maybe. Considering that Venezuela spans from the jungle to the coast, going through the llanos, coast may confuse readers into thinking Venezuela is geographically just about beaches.
• As noted already, 'referred to Venezuela as "Tierra de Gracia" ("Land of Grace"), which has become the country’s nickname', needs a citation.
• You should probably insert some history in the lead, talk briefly about the move from a colony to a nation, and also that Venezuela is officially under a participative democracy.
• Overall the lead does not summarize the article.

History:

• Mention the year in which Colón arrived to Venezuela.
• Contradiction: you first say that caudillos dominated the first half of the 20th century, you later say that their demise occurred in 1935, so which one is it?
• I think you should mention Pérez Jiménez.
• This section needs more comprehensiveness. What exactly happened between Colón's arrival and the independence movement? How come we ended in dictatorship less than a century after independence? What was the mestizaje? What about the oil nationalization?

Government:

• This section should be expanded overall.
• Mention governors and mayors.
• Introduce major constitutions, and other government milestones.

I will complete the rest of the peer review tomorrow.--enano ^(Talk) 04:09, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Continuing...

Government

• Add public powers and how these changed with the 1999 constitution.
• Talk about all the ministries.
• How are governors and mayors elected?

Politics:

• You think the last paragraph summarizes well the current status of the politics in Venezuela? Needs expanding.

Foreign relations:

• Separate military from here. They are not the same, and specially in Venezuela, the military has a lot to do with the domestic policy as well.

Subdivisions:

• The regions have changed a lot throughout the history of Venezuela. When was the current layout decreed?
• Explain how the capital of Venezuela is composed. (By the Libertador municipality of the Capital District and by the Sucre, El Hatillo, Baruta and Chacao Municipalities of Miranda).
• I don't see the Capital District categorized in any of the lists. You could put it with the Federal Dependencies and replace "Dependencies" with "Other administrative divisions." Maybe add The Esequibo there as well. Your choice.

Geography:

• No beaches?

Flora and fauna:

• According the the Guinness World Records the biggest spider was found in Venezuela. I think this would be interesting to readers.

Economy:

• This section is very weak overall.
• "The country's main petroleum deposits are located around and beneath Lake Maracaibo and the Gulf of Venezuela." True, but it's worth mentioning that there also deposits in Barinas, Apure, the Orinoco, Anzóategui, Monagas and half of Guárico.
• The 2nd paragraph has several interesting facts—all worthless if there are not citations.
• What's the minimum salary?
• Talk about the control de cambio and the parallel market of currency, and how events like the government acquisition of CANTV and the Electricity of Caracas have affected the black market and other aspects of the economy.
• The government has announced the biggest economic reform in decades: they want to eliminate three zeros to the currency. This should be mentioned.

Demographics:

• "Diseases ranging from typhoid, yellow fever, cholera, hepatitis A, hepatitis B, and hepatitis D are present in the country." Dengue fever should be added to this list.
• No more recent HIV data?

Culture:

• As I mentioned in the to-do list several month ago, there are too many names in this section.
• Sports should be in a separate section.
• Add media here.
• Cinema?

Misc:

• Take a look at es:Venezuela. I haven't read it carefully but a quick glance tells me that it's much more detailed than the English version. Specially the history section is very weak in the English article. The economy section is also mediocre in comparison toe Spanish article.
• Sections completely missing: Education, Infrastructure (transportation, urban development)
• POV issues:
  • "Venezuela continues to enact a program of wide-ranging socialist reforms while placing more emphasis on the nation's future as a part of a more integrated Latin America." What's this supposed to mean? If you are going to mention social programs, you may as well talk about the international community accusations toward human rights violations in Venezuela.
  • Mention the intentions of the present administration to reform the municipal organization.
  • The current layout of parties (MVR vs UNT) is too subjective to be worth mentioning.
  • The control de cambio should be mentioned, and how the Venezuelan Bolívar has been fixed to the US$ since 2003.
  • Explain how this 4-year-old government control of the currency has affected international investment.
  • No recent inflation?
  • "Venezuela is also highly dependent on its agricultural sector." Highly dependent is what really bugs me in this sentence. It's true that you later mention that coffee and cacao production has decreased, but I think it would be more accurate to mention that agriculture has decreased as farmers move to urban Venezuela, making the economy more dependent on oil, and less dependent in agriculture. Explain how this affects poverty.

It still needs a lot work.--enano ^(Talk) 16:42, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Adding to Enano's Culture list, it's hard to avoid mention of Miss Venezuela when discussing culture—comparative number of Universe/World crowns relative to other countries. Also, couldn't help but mention the failure to include Alma llanera with national symbols, and no mention of typical holidays and regional celebrations. No mention of world waterskiing championships or other Olympic champs warranted in Sports? And no mention anywhere of the Tupuy discovery a few years back? Is world-class fishing worth mention? Isn't the Guri dam still one of the largest in the world? No mention of Angels Falls and its place in the record books, or the teleferico (is it still the longest)? The article is massively lacking in comprehensiveness, in addition to POV, and needs a lot more Venezuelan input. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:50, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Angel Falls is mentioned in Geography, but I agree 100% with the rest.--enano ^(Talk) 19:56, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Some details of his 2005 and 2006 seasons added. Breandán Dalton 12:46, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My thoughts:

• Add the {{rugger}} template to the article.
• Include information on his playing for Auckland, and the Blues.

• Why is he not captain for the Blues? Are you sure about explaination, for example Richie McCaw will take over captaincy for Crusaders when he returns. So why him and not Mealamu?

• Include information on his background, so before he started playing first class rugby.

• His schooling, his family, did he have a job before rugby, or has he only ever been a professional player?

• More references need to be added.
• Expand info on his All Blacks career, esp regarding reconditioning squad.
• An image, preferably free, should be included in the article.

- Shudda ^talk 08:49, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• There is not much written about his RWC03 selection. Cvene64 08:50, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My thoughts:

• Add caps and points stats to the {{rugger}} template and bring stats up to date
• Add image - As a tip I recently emailed the sharks website and got full GFDL rights on the pen pictures. You could perhaps ask the Blues for the same consideration
• Expand article and divide up into sections for example

• Early life
• Blues career
• AB career

--Tiucsib 06:18, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I've been working on the CBWT article since August 2006. It has a photo at the top. Is the photo light enough? It has a History section where I used the digital archives of the local paper (via Archive.NewspaperArchive.com) to summarize the station's history. It has a list of current and past personalities. The past personalities list is getting a bit long, should it be put into a separate article? --Jimj wpg 12:57, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• If you're sending it for FAC, the logo gallery definitely has to go. (WP:FAIRUSE) Several paragraphs are only one or two sentences, looking very scattered (looks like listing). You may wish to merge some of the paragraphs. Still a lot of work to go. - Mailer Diablo 11:54, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I want to keep the Gallery, so maybe we can shoot for GA status. --Jimj wpg 08:05, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

old peer review: Wikipedia:Peer review/United States Navy/archive1

Submitting for second peer review, just to get some more comments. Arcimpulse 20:24, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

First pass here - I think it is a very good article! A small point, but do you think a reference to Alfred Thayer Mahan in the neighborhood of the Civil War to WWI history would be useful? I don't want to overemphasize something unimportant, but it has been my understanding that he was a chief architect of the "expand the Navy" philosophy. Kaisershatner 20:13, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The article is currently part of a hot debate (hence sprotection for the past week), but many of a wide variety of editors have been working diligently to work and rework the article to both properly represent current controversies as well as the unique production and surprise success of the film. It is very well referenced, well written, and once the vandals back off a little more (it's already begun to quiet down), we plan to nominate the article for GA status. With this goal in mind, any and all outside opinions and suggestions are very much welcome. Please help us improve the fourth (or is it third now?) most popular article on Wikipedia. María: (habla conmigo) 16:17, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fourth. Anyway, I'd recommend going through the references and using {{cite news}} for proper referencing. WikiNew 16:22, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I'm not a member of the WikiProject and haven't seen the film yet, but I'll comment anyway. Here are some points to consider:

• Some of the wording in the Historical accuracy section needs watching. A nice subtle way to smuggle in your point of view is to put all the dissenting view points in "person x claims" and "x states that historical record states", while putting your viewpoints "in x dismisses" and "x points to historical research" this is done in making the case that the film is not historically accurate. Instead of dismisses and points to historical research "this point is debated by x who states or claims that" and "x states (or claims) that the historical record is actually different" are more fair and less subtly devious. Claims implies doubt of the statement's accuracy, I would just use states in both cases. Basically try to use the same wording for both points of view and let the facts do the talking while hopefully presenting them in an accurate, even handed manner. If one side's facts genuinely dominate another's it should be clear and obvious to everyone.

Most of that has since been removed, and further additions will be smited into neutral phrasing. Arcayne 21:52, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• The image with comic and film spliced together has no source information, please explain how it was made and where the two images came from. This is done well on the other image with two images spliced together and should serve as an example.

The fact it comes from the comic book and film should quell many copyright sniffers. WikiNew 19:18, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It still needs source info for attribution purposes, as a matter of fact it's only a matter of time until it's tagged by the bot as not specifying the source and creator of the image. Quadzilla99 20:33, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

These are the two sources, here and here and I'm going to add them. The first one is from the actual website that put the images together, the second is where "our" image came from because it was resized on the other screen.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 22:56, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• The last two paragraphs in the Political aspects section probably belong in the critical reaction section or perhaps could just be deleted as there are already several negative reviews quoted in length in the critical reaction section. The whole political aspects section seems unnecessary to me. Perhaps it could be just mentioned elsewhere that the film has been interpretated using contemporary political views but there is no evidence it was made that way (especially given the source inspiring it was written in 1998) and the filmmakers have denied it. Maybe it needs to stay as there obviously has been some debate about it but I would delete it. It seems like someone used that section as a chance to include several more negative reviews quoted at length. Basically I would suggest to perhaps eliminate the section and mention it briefly elsewhere (There's already a Persian depiction section which could house some of this info) and pick 2-3 of the most essential negative reviews to use in the critical reaction section.

This strikes me as an interesting point; as I wrote quite a bit of that section I'll briefly give my reasoning here. The question of the film's contemporary political relevance became a major topic of discussion immediately after it was first screened, and I thought it was worthwhile to track that discussion, giving Snyder's replies throughout. (Snyder's replies, incidentally, are quite nuanced, if colloquial, and don't simply consitute a "denial"; more a subtle understanding of the way a film takes on a life of its own once it is released.) That's the first half of the section. The second half charts a major theme in the film's reception by significant critics (i.e. "fascist aesthetics" and the like). Here again, I've attempted to provide balance by supplying demurrals by other critics and by Snyder himself. I don't think these reviews belong in the main "critical reaction" section, which is concerned with more traditional subjects (style, characterization, etc.). Nor do they belong in the "depictions of Persians" section -- the questions of androgyny, mysticism, etc., that are appropriate to that section are not addressed. In general I think the "historical accuracy," "political aspects," and "depiction of Persians" sections provide good coverage of specific significant themes in the film's reception, thus providing some structure to the "reception" section and preventing "critical reaction" from becoming a formless laundry list. But they may all need to be trimmed. --Javits2000 10:06, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well it's a suggestion. Like I said if it is genuinely a large and reported enough issue it will deserve it's own section, but if it's just a temporary reaction that has no merit and will die down in a matter of days. It should deleted or mentioned briefly in my opinion. Also, be aware that to people who aren't as in to the film as you are the endless detail and subdivision might look like needless overanalysis. The statement that "films take on a life of their own" looks like classic reificiation in it's most pure sense to me. I feel it's pretty absurd personally. Correct me if I'm worng, but the film was written in 1998 and is closely based on the original story hence there is no way it could have been made with current political events in mind. The idea that the film is floating around out there in some nebular region developing a mind, consciousness, and life of it's own, is kind of like when ancient philosphers would get so detached from reality they would ask questions like, "What happens when Liberty confronts Justice?" or when "Will confronts Eternity?" Forgetting for a second that those concepts are nothing more than adjectives created by human beings to describe things. Quadzilla99 10:55, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. For the record I'm not so interested in the film itself (although I did enjoy it) as I am in its reception (i.e. as a discourse -- now there's an article that could use some copy-editing!), so naturally I give greater weight to these sections. Whether or not any political allegory could have been intended by the creators, the fact that such a reading has been repeatedly bandied about by the press strikes me as an interesting historical phenomenon in its own right. But I recognize that someone who is less interested in the subject will probably have to slash these sections -- just as I've slashed "marketing" (see below)! In any case, thanks for your remarks; I think they're on point and very useful.--Javits2000 11:09, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, thanks for taking as what they were meant to be: helpful advice. Quadzilla99 19:43, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

While not legitimizing the validity of the current uproar or comparisons to current events, it would appear that certain stories, or the methods of communicating them are timesless, i.e. East vs, West, Good vs. Evil, Pure vs. Polluted, Invader vs, Defender, etc. When the earlier film version of Thermopylae was made, comparisons were made between it and the Cold War. All politics is allegory, as all history is repeated. Seen in that context, the grasping at 300 as a sign of the times is to be expected. For that reason, maintaining the political reaction with a minimalist eye will likely work in the long run. Arcayne 22:04, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Marketing section contains a lot of trivial cruft and short sentences which look like they were converted from a bulleted trivia list. Condense the paragraphs to two or three and eliminate the cruft.

That's all for now, if it looks like I'm being harsh I'm just being thorough. I actually came here as I saw the article and thought "Damn this is a pretty good article for a new movie" and went to the talk page as I wondered what it was rated. I expected it to be a GAC or undergoing something like this and wanted to come comment. Quadzilla99 18:26, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Users at WP:RU would like feedback on the article to get it to FA status. It has had two previous peer reviews and is currently listed as a good article. Cheers. Cvene64 08:47, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My thoughts:

• Lead needs to be expanded as per WP:LEAD
• In the 1900 section, does not explain how the France team is selected? Was is a representative team, or a club side that won the right to compete for their country. Also, how did the Frankfurt club and Mosley Wanderers RFC come to represent their respective countries.
• Also, are their match reports for the games?
• Why was it not played in 1904 and 1906?
• What was the RFU's involvement in 1908?
• Is there more information that can be given about the 1908 game?
• Why was the sport not included in 1912?
• Did the american team in 1920 ask to compete? Were they asked themselves?
• Why did Czechoslovakia and Romania withdraw?
• Any other info on the 1920 match.
• Can you say who installed France as 20-1 favourites?
• Can you expand on the game?
• I've read about the 1924 match before, can more be said about the French media's reaction, rather then just one sentence.
• The 1936 thing is interesting. Can more be said about the matches? Is there a wiki-link to exhibition match. If not, please include more details.
• I think the info regarding the 1976 boycott can be expanded.
• There is not much about all the reasons for rugby being turned down for inclusion. It's been requested many times, but turned down every time. Why is this?
• Apart from that, just general things. Seems to be several types of English used. Organization?
• References seems fine.
• For FA, would need more images.

Hope this helps. - Shudda ^talk 10:03, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there. I have contributed a lot to this article and would like some feedback on its current form: prose, grammar, content, anything that needs improvement. Any feedback will be appreciated very much. kawaputra 04:50, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why no review? a simple comment, or even automated review is ok. Just want a little feedback. Thanks. kawaputra 04:07, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just a few

• The lead in is extensive, look into shortening it.
• Number of citations have been not properly cited yet, example [1], [2] instead of using proper citation format. RaveenS 15:07, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strike-through text

Thanks Raveen. will try apply your suggestions asap. kawaputra^tok2me 07:14, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Editors of WikiProject Spain have selected the Madrid article for a Peer review request, with the hope of obtaining Good article status, and possible Featured article status.

All comments, suggestions and edits are requested regarding this Madrid article.EspanaViva 18:37, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

General comment: There's a massive lack of inline citations throughout the article... that really needs to be fixed for it to be GA and FA.

See Wiktionary for the name of Madrid in various languages other than English and Spanish. - A link to Wiktionary shouldn't really be included in the text like that, especially not in the lead. It's already included in the infobox at the bottom, I think.

I would make other comments but the lack of citations makes it really hard to see if any of the information is verifiable, and if it's not verifiable it shouldn't be in the article. Veesicle (Talk) (Contribs) 19:56, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, to be fair, I do see some 20 inline citations currently in the article, so I'm not sure that there really is a "massive lack." Can there be more, of course, but 20 is a good start! EspanaViva 21:58, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's not about quantity but usage. The "History" section currently has just one reference, covering only the modern Olympics bullet point, and its main article is no better. Melchoir 06:29, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there and thanks for the feedback. :-) We are aware of the lack of citations, and are working on it (especially on the History section). Are there any other comments about the article (structure, type of info that should/should not be included, prose...) you'd like to make? :-) Cheers Raystorm 09:52, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well… the table of contents is awfully long, and some of the latter subsections are listy. It seems to me that both of these problems could be fixed by creating more summary-style daughter articles, which would internally contain more lists and subsections but present a cleaner face to the main article. Melchoir 20:24, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think you're right. We'll see what we can do about it. Raystorm 16:17, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I concur over the lack of citations. Other points I noticed:

• The initial infobox is too wide, please cut it a bit.
• The culture section is too listy, bitty and untidy.
• Virtually all pictures are located on the right hand side, ideally they need to alternate.
• The Universities section has too many short paragraphs. These need to be merged into coherent structured paragraphs. The number of redlinks too is a concern. The entire section would be better off being turned into a general education section and throwing in some more about secondary schools. See Ann_Arbor,_Michigan#Education.
• I really do not think you need tables explaining every motorway in madrid!
• You cannot use the Spanish Wikipedia as a reference! (ref 10)
• Sister cities thing not needed. Use the space saved to put in some more see also.
• You have absolutely nothing on how Madrid is governed.
• For such a pivotal city in Spanish history, there's not much in its history section. Could do with some expanding.
• Similarly for the modern economics section. Much more information could be added. See London#Economy for inspiration.
• Would like to see religion stats in demographics.
• I presume Madrid has some really good quality architecture, given it's place as the seat of the Spanish empire, either historical or modern? There should be a section on that. Hong_Kong#Architecture.

That's all I can think of at the mo. Go do that and I'll check back later. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 21:42, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks to Dev920 for these useful comments, and thanks to Raystorm for following up on many of them! EspanaViva 15:01, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah thanks Dev, we'll try to address all your concerns asap. Raystorm 16:17, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My thoughts:

• The article is too many lists, not enough article. And it seems to only focus on the tourist areas. For example, the 'Popular neighbourhoods' section. Don't capitalise 'opera theatre'. If the district has an article (such as Gran Via, Retiro, AZCA and so on, it doesn't need a whole paragraph in the article, just use {{mainarticle}}. Also, it's subjective - why do only certain districts get mentioned as "well-known barrios"? On what are you basing this? Plaza Elliptica, Callao, Goya, etc for example, aren't mentioned. You need to cut and paste into a spell checker - "effectivey" isn't a word. I like the photo of Osito, no explanation as to why he's the emblem of Madrid, though. It is clear that the article has had a lot of contribution from non-native speakers of English, as it's very stileted in parts ("Through its programmes this new channel tries to advertise Madrid city."), and could really do with a good copy edit - I'd be happy to do this once all the information is on the page, let me know via my talk page. Neil (not Proto ►) 16:55, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I believe we can give more info on the districts you mention. And there is a legend about the osito and the tree, we need to find a ref for it. We'll try to address everything asap. Thanks for the copyedit offer, btw! :-D Raystorm 16:17, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rated B Good coverage and well written. Excellent collection of images. Reasonable referencing of sources.

• Resolve copyright issue with Image:New Coat of Madrid.svg or remove it.
• Use Citation templates for all references.
• Remove px sizing and left placement from thumbnail images to improve article readability.
• Reduce usage of subsections by writing comprehensive paragraphs instead. (Eg. Culture)
• Avoid usage of incomplete paragraphs.
• Remove or create sub articles for lists such as City attractions.
• Remove wikilink tagging of broken/red wikilinks.
• Change URL references to footnote references as only one reference style should be used.

Copied from Madrid comment page EspanaViva 20:34, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Some of the other editors above already said some of the things that I would have said but let me ask this:

• Why isn't there a Geography section? I know as a little kid I learn that the rain in Spain falls mainly on the plain, but you'd think that there would be at least a few sentences worth saying on the geography of Madrid. —MJCdetroit 01:50, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your insights, we'll try to address them asap. :-) Funny rhyme, that one... Raystorm 16:17, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you to each of the reviewers, your comments are appreciated! At this point, we would like to request no more comments at this time until we have had a chance to implement the comments above. EspanaViva 16:31, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You don't do a lot of these, do you? :) Just leave it open and get as many suggestions as you can - it'll drop off the bottom of the list soon, and the more feeback the better... Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 16:37, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Some improvements have been made following Dev920's suggestions, such as the City Government, Transportation, Universities, general infobox, Television and Climate. --Maurice27 23:45, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Previous peer review

This article has gone through much revision in recent months and achieved Good Article status in January. I am looking to nominate this article for Featured Article status soon, and would like to know how to improve it more.--十八 09:45, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-automatic

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

• Please expand the lead to conform with guidelines at Wikipedia:Lead. The article should have an appropriate number of paragraphs as is shown on WP:LEAD, and should adequately summarize the article.^[?]
• Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (numbers), there should be a non-breaking space -   between a number and the unit of measurement. For example, instead of 3Ft, use 3 Ft, which when you are editing the page, should look like: 3 Ft.^[1]
• Per Wikipedia:Context and Wikipedia:Build the web, years with full dates should be linked; for example, link January 15, 2006.^[2]
• Please ensure that the article has gone through a thorough copyediting so that it exemplifies some of Wikipedia's best work. See also User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 1a.^[3]

You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, GunnarRene 22:20, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

GunnarRene

• Should link to Lycèe Trading Card Game

I'll get on that.--十八 00:23, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Again, it's been GA rated and is comprehensive enough to be A (more than the Air article), but has a few problems that might undo the GA rating:

• • Livejournal and forum posts used as sources.

This is merely because that information cited in those source could not be easily found in other places, but the information is still very true. I'll try to do some sorting out and find some other sources to use.--十八 00:23, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• • The lead is inadequate: It should summarize the main points of the article rather than serve as mostly a release history.

The main points...Going off the TOC, we have Plot, Setting, Themes, Gameplay, Characters, Release and Sales, Reception, Adaptations, and Music. The Plot, Setting, Themes, and Characters most likely do not belong in the lead, or am I wrong? Gameplay is lightly touched upon, so that's there. While there is nothing on the Music in the lead, the lead is composed primarily of Release and Sales and Adaptations because there isn't really much else to put about the other sections.--十八 00:23, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

They do. Move some of the release details into the release section, and keep less detailed info in the lead. For example, exact release dates belong in the release section, not in the lead unless it's a particularly notable day like September 11 or Christmas Eve. You absolutely need to say something about the setting, plot, themes, characters and reception in the lead, without having to go too far into detail. Those things are the things that set it apart from other works. As for the music, you don't need to say much. Perhaps just state the number of soundtracks along with the other release info. In my view, the lead does not need to be equally balanced regarding each section length, but it has to summarize the article, and it needs to be equally NPOV. --GunnarRene 17:05, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• • Why do the secondary characters have severly in-universe articles?

Wait, are you talking about the individual character articles themselves, or the short summaries in this article? If it's the former, then I'd say that's not the concern of this article. For the latter, you can't really describe the characters without getting in-universe, or am I wrong?--十八 00:23, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The second. Be aware that on Featured Article review, daughter articles will also be scrutinized. It might be good to proactively reduce the secondaries to a list and reduce the amount of information. See {{plot}} and Wikipedia:Fair use for some reasons why. WP:FICTION is also relevant here. Some in-universe is good, but not so much. --GunnarRene 17:05, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• • What kind of source is hentai.co.uk? I can't find an "about" section even.

This was one of the original sources on this page. I believe the site serves many functions, but also gives information on hentai games, such as Kanon.--十八 00:23, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We need more information about who publishes it, and who writes on it. Without such information, it can't be relied on.--GunnarRene 17:05, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• • Anime Densetsu seems like a site that hosts reviews written by anonymous, unpaid, users. WP:RS?
  • Why that geocities reference?

I've removed them.--十八 00:23, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• • Sales into reception, preferably.

I'll get on that.--十八 00:24, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lastly, the prose could use some work before a Featured Article request, but it's understandable as it is - seemed better than the Air article. --GunnarRene 22:02, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On the points about the sources that the article uses...I suppose I could remove all the sources and information taken from those sources if you are saying they shouldn't be there.--十八 00:23, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Peer review/Dungeons & Dragons/archive1

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This article I feel has gotten too much information in some places and not enough information in others. It would be great for an outside person to come in and review it and tell things that can possibly be improved to help this article reach Good Article status. I feel that the main body and the criticism section could use the most work but I feel the article as a whole could use a nice edit. Any comments on ways to improve this article are appreciated.  Orfen ^{User Talk} | _Contribs 21:44, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, here's what I've got so far:

• The lead is way too short. Check out WP:LEAD.
• What's the copyright status for the second reference? Is that website licensed to reproduce those pages of that magazine? Remember, it's also acceptable to cite the magazine itself without linking to that website.
• Don't link single years like this: In 2001 something happened. Take off the wikilink for those.
• Cite web references properly per Wikipedia:Citation templates.
• If there is any literature out there about the band, you should find it and use that as a source. It's generally not the most advisable thing to have a wealth of internet links with no reputable books backing it up. I know this is difficult for a band that has really only been in the public eye for 3 years, but try your best.
• The Black Parade section is way too listy. Try to turn this into better prose.
• In general, the prose doesn't flow extraordinarily well. This might be a result of the band's popularity and different sections, even different sentences within a section, being written by different people. This is one of the more difficult aspects of turning an oft-visited and oft-edited article into something worthy of GA or FA. It's why I tend to choose more obscure subjects to work on.
• There are far too many large swaths of text that make claims with no references to verify them. This is evident in most sections, but especially in the Black Parade section. Not every last word needs to be referenced, but particular claims like: "In Rolling Stone magazine's ranking of the top 50 albums of 2006, The Black Parade was voted the 20th best album of the year." There is no easy way of finding out if this is true or false.
• Think about reworking the "Criticism" section without separate subsections for each source of criticism. There doesn't seem to be enough text here to validate separate sections for each criticism.

That's all I can think of right now. This article needs a pretty big reworking that will take a lot of time. There are lots of other FAs out there for bands from whose layouts you can steal ideas. Check them out here. Cheers JHMM13 06:07, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am currently aiming to get this article to FA status and have modelled it after current FAs Pilot (House), Cape Feare and Homer's Phobia. Any suggestions for improvments, spelling mistakes and grammatical errors are needed. I have left the image "Grime2" for the time being, because it illustrates a key plot point of the episode: Frank Grimes's last momenst. Any suggestions anyone has will be most welcome. -- Scorpion 17:17, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Synopsis section could be more detailed. The subplot about Bart has only 4 lines. Buc 07:45, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a major plot. I think 4 lines is more than enough. -- Scorpion 15:48, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please review the entire article. I would like to know what would need to be changed so I can nominate it to be a good article. 1312020Wikicop 20:43, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nice article. I think it is just about ready for a good article review after one more pass. Some remarks:

• I find the prose straightforward and uncluttered.
• I find it strange that the history ceases with the American civil war. Has the town been that quiet since then? Not much is needed here, however. Possibly some remarks on how the town fared through WWI, the Depression, WWII, the cold war, or other historical milestones.
• Does any significant newspaper, radio or television station provide coverage for this region?
• Economics: is the town/region changing from economic pressures? Is the agrarian sector in decline? Has there been significant population shifts?

The last three points would be where I would start to develop detail. If there is any defect here, it is the absence of history after 1870 or so. Gosgood 16:05, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A lot of work has been done on this entry and I think it is not far away from either GA or FA status with maybe a little more input and advice from others. I would appreciate any help or suggestions you may have. Count Ringworm 17:37, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

All dates need linking. Plot could be expanded considering it's close to three hours. WikiNew 18:05, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Plot definitely could use expansion, also a 1-2 fair use pics could be added to the production section. Quadzilla99 04:14, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Incidentally I changed one or two things—saying reviews have been generally positive when it got an 87% score on rottentomatoes, strikes me as suffering from wiki NPOV paranoia. With numbers like that it's well within reason to say they've been highly positive. The actors complaints don't belong in the post-production section, also the MPAA and Box office sections are hopeless one sentence stubs, either expand them or merge them under a section called simply "Reaction". Here's a couple of phrases that could be put into more formal language:

"he was raised in Marin County during the Zodiac Killer's reign of terror." Replace reign of terror with active years or something of the sort.

Addressed by Ringworm. Quadzilla99 15:35, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Graysmith went from cartoonist to crime-stopper." Very hokey.

Addressed by Ringworm. Quadzilla99 15:35, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Fincher was keen to work with Shire" This might be British language, sounds informal to me.

Addressed by Ringworm. Quadzilla99 15:35, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also as a side note I've never seen the film so I didn't read the plot section, so I don't know if that needs work. Quadzilla99 04:30, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for all of these helpful suggestions. I've implemented several of them already. Count Ringworm 14:54, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okay nice work, I'll look it over again today or tomorrow and see what else I can point out. Quadzilla99 15:35, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• There should be 2 or 3 lead paragraphs. No film article of Featured status has 4 lead paragraphs.

Addressed by Ringworm. Count Ringworm 18:08, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I assume there's a reason why the Plot section isn't expanded?
• In the Infobox Film template, there's too many names listed under "starring". This attribute is meant for those who have top billing (such as Downey and Gyllenhaal), and from what I've seen, the list shouldn't exceed five names, unless it's an ensemble film like Bobby. Instead, is it possible to create a Cast section? A straightforward list of actors/roles could be created, or you could add descriptions to the characters, which may help avoid being long-winded in the Plot section down the road. (Note: You can also embed the actors' names like I did at Fight Club, but since this is a film with multiple roles, I think a Cast section would be more easily read.)

Addressed by Ringworm. Count Ringworm 18:08, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• The Research subsection should be entitled the Development section, as more things happen in that subsection than research -- seeking financing, getting help from sources who dealt firsthand with the Zodiac killer.

Addressed by Ringworm. Count Ringworm 18:08, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I would recommend "Principal photography" being re-titled to "Filming", and "Post-production" to "Editing" -- they seem to be better titles for the stages of production that the film goes through.

Addressed by Ringworm. Count Ringworm 18:08, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I don't know if there's a reason for this, but I see numerous paragraphs that don't have citations for sentences at the end. I don't know if the citation is included in the next paragraph, but if there's a break like that, there should be a citation located at the end of a paragraph. An example is the last sentence in the first paragraph of Research. If it's from citation #3, which is the next citation mentioned in the second paragraph, then you should duplicate the reference so the sentence in question has the reference at the end of it. Hope that makes sense.
• Overall, I notice in the Production section that there are many quotes, more than what seems necessary. My rule of thumb is that quotes should be used if they are opinionated but still contribute something to the article. If there are quotes that describe something that's been done in production, then it should probably be written in prose. Some examples below:

*"...got sucked into the Zodiac lore, much like he did and much like a lot of people have. I tried to translate that into the script." This can be rewritten more tightly as prose.

*"...the case had taken on its own mythic proportions over the years, and it was our job to undo all that. To draw a clean line between fact and fiction." Could be rewritten as prose.

*"there are no car chases in it. People talk a lot in it. It’s about a cartoonist and a murderer who never got caught. So, yeah, the studio is nervous." Could be rewritten as prose, like, "The studio was concerned about the heavy dialogue and the lack of action scenes, as well as the inconclusive nature of the story arc." There are more instances of quotes that could either be removed or rewritten in prose.

• I think in general, there may need to be some copy-editing done for the writing. Some sentences strike as clumsy, such as, "Once he knew the camera’s limitations only then did Savides feel comfortable with it." Also, parentheses should be avoided wherever possible. For example, "Not all of the cast was happy with Fincher’s exacting ways and perfectionism (some scenes required upwards of 70 takes)..." could be rewritten so parentheses aren't used.
• Reception should begin with where Zodiac premiered. The first sentence about Variety doesn't tell me the date of its world premiere, and after that, I'm already reading reviews of the film. When was Zodiac first commercially released? I think it's usually best to start out Reception sections with numbers, such as box office performance and number of theaters (if it's relevant), because that's an initial objective approach to the film's performance. Then the critical reaction can follow afterward. Also, I would suggest removing the IMDb user poll because since they are not bona fide polls, there is no guarantee that there is no vote-stacking involved. For example, 300 had 2,000 votes that put it up the Top 250 at IMDb, before the film even came out.
• In the external links, are there any links that the film's Wikipedia article already addresses? External links should be for supplementary content, so if most of a link's content is used in the article, it probably doesn't need to be kept.

Addressed by Ringworm. Count Ringworm 18:08, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• The images need fair use rationale. Also, two images are misidentified as screenshots -- the one with Fincher in the frame, filming the scene, and the other with the side-by-side VFX comparison.

You have a lot of good content established in the article already, but I think it's a matter of molding it into a more encyclopedic structure. Feel free to comment on my critique, and I'll explain my reasoning for my suggestions if I need to. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 16:45, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• • Comment The length of the lead isn't overly long. It does contain several stubby paragraphs, which could be condensed in number. Quadzilla99 16:59, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for all of the suggestions! I will get to work improving this article with these comments as helpful guidelines. Count Ringworm 18:06, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This page looks like it's close to being a FA. Giving it a PR to see if there is anything eles needs doing. The main issue is that it's a bit unstable. Buc 17:44, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My thoughts:

• Google's purchase of the company, which appears in both paragraphs, seems to take a disproportionate amount of space in the intro. Some other issues are left out, so it doesn't conform to WP:LEAD.
• "...YouTube presented three agreements with media companies..." What does that mean exactly?
• "However, the real cutoff is 10:58." needs attribution to avoid WP:OR.
• The end of "Media recognition" begins to sound like a list. Much of the subsection is also redundant with "Copyright infringement" (under "Recent events") below.
• "Press Coverage" and "Revenue model" are stubby. It's not clear why they deserve their own subsections.
• "Recent events" also has a number of stubby subsections. I think it could be reorganized without too much trouble to avoid them -- "Banning" probably doesn't need subsections, for example, and a lot of content could be put under a more general heading like "Legal troubles". As it is now, I think much of this section amounts to a list of miscellany of unclear relevance.
• Seems like "Social impact" could be fleshed out a little bit -- web2.0, democratizing of information, the significance of "everyone's a content creator", and so on. But, perhaps there hasn't been anything serious written on the topic (yet).

Hope it goes well. -- bcasterline • talk 22:19, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Nice work so far, here's some comments to help improve the article:

• Expand the lead and improve it's overall quality. Given the size of the article you could double the size if the lead. I know this can be hard when you want to get the wording perfect. I myself am having trouble expanding a few leads in articles I'm working on. Also the lead's prose needs a little work, words like popular don't really add much. Try to be more descriptive, point to definable numbers. Second sentence in the lead contains a few redundancies. This is a recurring problem throughout the article sentences like: "In its short time on the web, YouTube has grown quickly and received much attention." are kind of useless and could be replaced with moe concrete definitive descrptions. Like, Since it's inception in 1999, youtube has steadily from x number of traffic hits to x number of traffic hits."
• There's a lot if informal language like: "signed a deal" (should be contract) and "Hollywood remains divided on YouTube" surely that one guy speaking doesn't represent Hollywood. I mean unless he the official representative of the city. Be more specific and make it clear that whoever is talking is offering their summary of the opinions of the entertainment community. That one's a little broad of a generalization.
• "Examples of infringement complaints" has no flow and looks a trivia section with the bullets removed and the title changed.
• Prose could use some work; this is from the banning in Thailand section: "As for now it is unclear as to the reasons why."
• In general the article is severely oversectionalized.

That's enough for now, deal with those and contact me and I'll try to see if I can give more comments. Quadzilla99 06:23, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My favorite game ever. But I think the article could do with a big improvement. Buc 07:17, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'd start by writing a "legacy/reception/history" section, explaining just how it was the Genesis/MegaDrive's "Killer App" (as mentioned in the dev section), and all that entails: See Halo: Combat Evolved#Reception as an example. Check out the WP:VG Magazine archive for other editor's resources. Nifboy 11:43, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think this article is well on it's was to GA status, but I still think the prose is still lacking brilliancy. The whole thing of starting each paragraph with "In April 2002" or "In late 2005" or whatever is quite tacky. The Personal information section could probably be done without, or integrated into other section(s). Anything to improve the writing itself is encouraged, but other points are welcome too. -- Reaper X 21:47, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Only read the beginning parts, but here are my comments:

• Lead could be expanded per WP:LEAD.
• Early life section suggestions (hover over underlined text to see my comments; if they scroll off into ellipses, edit this to see full comments):

• Alanis Morissette was born in Ottawa, Ontario, Canada's capital, to Alan and Georgia Morissette. The couple brought their three children (Alanis, her twin brother, Wade, and their older brother, Chad) up as Roman Catholic, but Alanis later converted to Buddhism [citation needed]. From 1977 to 1980, the family lived in Lahr (Black Forest), Germany.

• At the age of seven, Morissette wrote her first song. With the money saved from her stint on the children's television show You Can't Do That on Television, she released an independent single "Fate Stay with Me" with the B-side "Find the Right Man". She appeared onstage with the Orpheus Musical Theatre Society. Morissette attended Glebe Collegiate Institute in Ottawa during her high school years. In New York City Morissette landed a spot on Star Search, a popular American talent competition on which she used her stage name, Alanis Nadine. Morissette flew to Los Angeles to appear on the show, but she lost after one round.

• During this period Morissette suffered from anorexia and bulimia nervosa, catalysed by "hardcore" professional pressure and managerial demands. She recalled returning to the studio to re-record some vocals, only to be told "I actually wanted to talk to you about your weight. You can't be successful if you're fat." During this period, she lived on a diet of carrots, black coffee, and Melba toast, and her weight fluctuated by 15 to 20 pounds. She subsequently began therapy, which she called "a long process to un-program [my brain]. I try to remember, whatever my body is, it's perfect the way it is." BuddingJournalist 02:39, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your review. I have made these edits to address some of them. I don't have sources for the time periods for "Orpheus Musical Theatre Society" or "In New York City". As per explaining "'hardcore' professional pressure and managerial demands", I made this edit. The record label part and album is explained in the next section. The quote "I actually wanted to talk to you about your weight. You can't be successful if you're fat." is included in the citation of the whole paragraph it is in. Again, thank you. Hopefully the other missing details can be assisited by other editors. -- Reaper X 21:37, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For Orpheus, see http://www.orpheus-theatre.on.ca/members-only/alumni.html. Hope that helps! :) BuddingJournalist 00:49, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Awesome, thanks for that. Of course I didn't properly cite it, but I will go through it all as per LuciferMorgan's review sometime when I am free or if anyone else does. -- Reaper X 18:15, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Review {{citeweb}} with the citations. LuciferMorgan 03:28, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'll see if I can do anything to tighten up the prose myself - might be simpler. I think the lead needs another sentence or two; I'll look at that. Metamagician3000 13:49, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've also made some comments on the talk page of the article. Metamagician3000 01:39, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There are quite a few unsourced statements in the article, besides the one already marked with the appropriate "fact" template. In particular, the "Move to Los Angeles" should be sourced a lot more thorough imho, since it contains many hints at her motivation and less-then-obvious biographical facts. Good luck with the article! Johnnyw talk 21:48, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This article has gotten relatively comprehensive (compared to a few months ago) but I'm not sure what could be done to make it an actually good article.

It's a relevant topic (considering the shaky and infamous history of Euro Disney) but unfortunately many potential contributers are French or speak another language, leaving the English article with very few real contributers. Being one of these contributers, I don't feel qualified to assess it.

I'd especially like a review for the economic aspect of it and the style of the prose. Thanks. - SergioGeorgini 15:25, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is a very difficult article to review because it does need a pretty thorough copyedit. As I'm writing this peer review, I'm going through the article to find problems. I'll be posting problems I have with specific sentences here after I've made basic copyediting changes. Here are my suggestions:

• I wouldn't use French spacing (ironically enough). Browsers suppress extra spacing so that the following two sentences look the same. This sentence has French spacing. This sentence does not.
• "Both of these nations saw the potential economic advantages of a Disney theme park and competed by offering attractive financing deals to Disney, including free land and more." I don't like the wording at the end of this sentence. You should go into more depth about what was offered and not just leave it off with "and more." Perhaps you could end the sentence at Disney and follow it up with another sentence about the more interesting specifics of the offers. You don't have to give everything, just more than one thing.
• You do not need to separate the paragraphs quite so much. One longer paragraph about a certain topic should do and then separate it at turning points in the prose or when you switch the topic within the same section.
• "However, the site in the Alicante area was abandoned when it was discovered that strong Mediterranean Mistral winds affected that region for several weeks each year and Spain itself was deemed to possess an inferior infrastructure to other European nations." This sentence needs to be split up. Also, how can the site have been abandoned when it was never originally gone to? Consider rewording the beginning. You need to cite the specific claim about Spain's infrastructure.
• "The pleasing landscape of that region as well as its climate made this spot a top competitor for what would be called Euro Disneyland." If you want to cite climate, and I don't think you should, cite it when it first shows up in the article. The fact that the landscape was pleasing to Disney is relevant to this article, and if sourced, it would be worthy of inclusion. Just stating that the landscape is pleasing is POV and contributes nothing. What was pleasing about it's climate and can you prove that Disney liked it? You don't need to bold Euro Disneyland.
• The rest of this paragraph needs references. You need to verify that the location was chosen for the reason you said it was and you need to verify estimations made.
• "Unlike Disney's U.S. theme parks, which tend to hire many seasonal and temporary part-time college students, Euro Disney's employees (a required 12,000 for the theme park itself) would be permanent cast members on the Euro Disney stage." Cast members? Stage? Are these official terms? Why was it required?
• Throughout the article, you switch back and forth between American English spelling and British English spelling. You can choose whichever you like (Disney is an American company, but in Europe they tend to use British English), but be consistent throughout the article.
• For specific quotes, you may want to use a quotation template like you can see here: Simeon_I_of_Bulgaria#Culture_and_religion.
• Search around for other tables because the one you have in the Name changes section is a bit boring.
• The Disneyland Resort Paris today section needs to be expanded and you need to not have nearly as many subsections. Some of them are just one or two sentences long which could easily be converted into a paragraph. Overall you need more information here.
• You need more references and a topic of this magnitude would need several reputable literary sources or essays from trade journals. This topic has been well-covered from the economic point of view, as far as I know, and I think you can find some interesting articles on it written in peer-reviewed journals.

Alright, I've gotten up to the hotels section and I'm realizing that this is taking far too much of my time. It might do you better to find a native English speaker who is willing to copyedit the entire article and start referencing more of your claims in the article. I know this is general and does not get as specific as you wanted, but I simply don't have the time to do the entire article as I've done the first few sections. I hope you understand. JHMM13 07:02, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much. You're absolutely right obviously (although I can't find any American spelling outside of the quotes). Now I hope someone competent will be willing to put a little time into solving these issues, although I'll try to pitch in. - SergioGeorgini 08:40, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am seeking any comments which could support this article's current assessment as a B class or for improving it to GA. I have an additional book en route which may provide for some additional expansion; and I intend to upload a couple modern-era photos hopefully within a week or two. Thanks! --Bossi (talk ;; contribs) 20:00, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As I wrote in the peer review for Barnegat Lighthouse below, your best bet would be to search out how other towns are laid out on Wikipedia, especially ones that have articles that have reached featured status. Finding literature at your local library about the town of Barnegat Light would probably be a lot easier than finding info on the lighthouse, so be sure to ask around at the ref section. Also, note what I said below about how to cite sources regarding claims made in the articles. It might do you good to go lurk around WP:FAC for a little while to see what it takes for articles to get to featured status. Hope this helps, JHMM13 20:00, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am seeking any comments that could be used to support this as a B-class article or for improving it to GA. The references cited provide much of the information in the main text and, as the information from each source is scattered about, it would be difficult to footnote it. I have requested some additional photos regarding its earlier history. Thanks! --Bossi (talk ;; contribs) 19:55, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, first of all you could create separate sections instead of just one long lead. After you write the different sections, you could write a lead that incorporates information from the rest of the article in a summarizing fashion (see: WP:LEAD). There might be a wikiproject on lighthouses out there that could help you find a common structure for the article, so you should look around for that or any other kind of sight-seeing-related articles wikiproject. Otherwise, you could check other lighthouse articles and see what seems to be the common way of presenting the information. If you can improve upon what they have, be sure to take the initiative. Also, be sure to read the Wikipedia guide to article layout which I'm sure could give you lots of great ideas. Something that is typically required for GA and FA articles is consistent referencing of claims made within the article to reputable sources. I don't know how many Barnegat Lighthouse books or scholarly articles are out there, but if you want to make this article shine, find as many as you can and put the ones you use in a separate References section. Then when you cite each one using footnotes, you can use a minimal amount of text. Just to review, your first stop might be the local library. When you've got more of a layout going, please don't hesitate to start another peer review or drop me a line on my talk page. Cheers, JHMM13 19:41, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

After a failed GA nom., I have worked to improve the article based on the GA reviewer's comments. He suggested that I seek a peer review after following his advice on revisions, so here I am. Please note the GA review here for an idea of what areas the previous reviewer cited as needing some work. I would like to get this article to GA status (and perhaps eventually FA status), so please keep the GA criteria in mind. Thanks, DickClarkMises 20:58, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's off to a good start but still needs more work. Some suggestions:

• The sections on Professional Life and Theoretical Contributions aren't developed enough. In particular I suggest enriching the first two parts of the Theoretical Contributions section.
• An additional image may be helpful

Good luck.

Thanks for your input. I found a book cover image to add to the article and am asking permission to release another image of Fetter himself from a school website under the GFDL. As for the Professional Life and Theoretical Contributions section, I'll probably try to elaborate on those tomorrow. Any other suggestions? DickClarkMises 02:00, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I also added images of Alfred Marshall and Irving Fisher in the subsections that talks about Fetter's criticism of each of them. I have also expanded the Theoretical Contributions section a bit. DickClarkMises 04:04, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'd really like some input and comments as to how I can make this page better. I've translated it from Spanish(where it was a featured article), and have been tweaking it for the past few days. I know I need to add more citations and stuff, so whenever you come across something that isn't verified, you can put (citation need) next to it so I can correct that. Thanks a lot.Ychennay 21:33, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• The information in the "Trivia" section either needs to be incorporated into the main body of text, or discarded. See Wikipedia:Avoid trivia sections in articles. A few more citations would be good too, but you already seem to be aware of that. Lankiveil 03:48, 22 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]
  • Thanks!Ychennay 14:34, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This article is reasonably-well developed, but it has an odd style. What is needed to get it to GA (or better) status? —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 23:37, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

At a glance:

• References:

• article should probably have inline citations, while not required for GA it is recommended, highly. See: Good article criteria.  Done

• External links:

• Should be titled as such, section goes last per WP:MOS.  Done

• Table/Chart:

• The table in the 'Football' section is very confusing.  Done (removed it)
• Additionally I don't think the graph in the 'Basketball' section adds much at all to the article.  Done (removed it)
• Same with the comparisons between coaches and stadiums later, those could easily be converted to prose.

• Word choice: Be careful using words like however, they can imply POV.  Done
• Image: POV here. The one photo (isn't that great because it is hard to decipher) is the only one present and it leans the article in favor of Tech.  Done (additional images added)
• Trivia: The whole trivia section should be converted to prose and inserted in the appropriate section(s). See WP:TRIV.  Done
• General comments:

• In general rivalry doesn't imply that comparison be made between every aspect of the schools and their athletic program.  Not done

• Could you clarify/explain that statement/suggestion? —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 22:11, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• With the book sources I think ISBN numbers are preferred included. See Wikipedia:ISBN.  Done

I will likely complete a more thorough review soon. It will include much more in depth comments but hopefully that gives you a starting point. Good luck.A mcmurray (talk • contribs) 07:02, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Looking much better. I will take a look in the next couple days, try to give you some tips on other stuff. I will look more at the prose itself, which is an essential part of GA. See WP:WIAGA, just FYI. IvoShandor 18:34, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How many times can I post the same link, I wonder? ; ) IvoShandor 18:38, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm happy with the progress of the article, too. You've been quite helpful so far :D ... I've even added an appropriate picture I found in the GT archives. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 17:01, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Table that lists the annual football results is inaccurate, the game in 1947 was won by Georgia Tech, at home in Atlanta, 7-0. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.184.218.151 (talk • contribs) 09:36, 26 November 2011‎

Fixed, thank you. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 04:50, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This article on an early 20th-century baseball club is well researched and loaded with references. It's close to meeting GA standards, and I hope to nominate an expanded version for FA status. For now, I'd appreciate any suggestions on ways to improve it. Thank you,-- twelsht (talk) 17:02, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

•  Done Maybe link baseball and minor league baseball in lead section? Not sure
•  Done I'm not sure whether the facts introduced in the first and second sentences should be reversed; which one is considered most important or best known?
•  Done The team is best known for winning the premier championship of the Ohio–Pennsylvania League in 1905,[1] and for launching the professional career of pitcher Roy Castleton a year later.[2] - add "for."
•  Done The ball club proved a formidable regional competitor and won the 1906 league championship before its dissolution in 1907.[3] - it might be helpful to add whether the team dissolved prior to 1907's season, or in the middle of the season. At least it gives you a few extra words in the lede...
•  Done In 1905, the club joined the Class C Division Ohio-Pennsylvania League, - I want to add a comma or some other punctuation there somewhere, it's too much info to parse too close together.
•  Done You may want to add how many teams were in the original season of the league (I counted 21), as the reduction to 8 teams is important in the next section.

Some teams left, and others joined; I hope the revised passage makes sense.--twelsht (talk) 21:59, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

•  Done Despite this uncertainty over the club's record, its championship status was apparent, and the team became popularly known as "the Champs".[11] - I'm not sure "apparent" is the correct word here. I think you mean "not in dispute" or "uncontroversial".
•  Done The "Youngstown Champs" allusion at the end of the Formation section ends in a cliffhanger. Was there a team called "Youngstown Champs" in 1907, or was that same popular nickname given to another team then? (If the answer is in the prose, it was too tenuous and I didn't catch it.)

The Ohio Works team was popularly known as the "Youngstown Champs", a name that appears in contemporaneous newspaper articles. But the name "Champs" became officially associated with the team that replaced the Ohio Works. I hope the revised passage conveys this rather confusing point. I was tempted to leave out this detail but thought it would be helpful to researchers. --twelsht (talk) 21:59, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

•  Done Um, 14 teams left the league, and there were only 8 left... but the first season only had 21? Fact-check needed here...
•  Done Early in the season, as the Ohio Works team prepared for a second game with the Zanesville (Ohio) Moguls... - I'd just remove the "(Ohio)" part, and bypass the redirect on the Zanesville link by linking to Zanesville, Ohio.

I removed the Zanesville link because the city was linked in an earlier section.--twelsht (talk) 21:59, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

•  Done "...We have no .350 batters on the club, but any man on it is liable to step in and break up a game".[11] - you may want to include a link to batting average there somewhere. While I know what you are talking about, keep in mind that not everybody knows baseball.
•  Done An article published in the The Youngstown Daily Vindicator in October 1906 stated that the local team ended the season with its third consecutive state pennant in hand.[14] - so they won in 1904? Why wasn't this mentioned earlier?

Winning the league championship and winning the state pennant were separate acomplishments, but this wasn't clearly indicated. I added language to make this point and restructured the paragraph. The league championship was much more important, so I referred to the state pennant at the end of the paragraph.--twelsht (talk) 21:59, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

•  Done On August 17, 1906, Castleton gained national recognition when he pitched a perfect game against rival Akron... - link perfect game for football people (*ducks*)
•  Done The Youngstown team closed the season with an 84–53 record and won its second consecutive league championship.[3] - ??? Didn't you say they won their third immediately above? Or is there something more to this?

Hopefully, the revised passage mentioned above will prevent any confusion on this point.--twelsht (talk) 21:59, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

•  Done Okay, the dissolution section answers the question about the official Youngstown Champs team that I posed above. But the section follows the teams that played in Youngstown after the Works left the town. It doesn't follow the Works themselves into Zanesville and beyond, as one would expect.

Following this recommendation proved something of a challenge. I came across very little information on the Zanesville team, though enough to conclude that their performance was lackluster. I found more information on the Ohio Works' former manager, who eventually signed Stan Coveleski and Sam Jones to their first professional contracts. As you recommended, I removed extraneous information on teams that played in Youngstown after the Ohio Works' departure. I retained some material on the Youngstown Champs that seemed to shed light on the circumstances surrounding the Ohio Works' dissolution. Thanks, again, for the detailed recommendations! Please let me know if you have any further recommendations!--twelsht (talk) 21:59, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 06:19, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wow. That was fast. :) The article is certainly impressive. I'd ship it straight to WP:FAC. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 05:58, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Responding to a request on my page. Not sure what else to say on this one. I am looking for ways to critique it, but it looks FANTASTIC as it is. This is a GA in flying colors. If you want my honest opinion, skip the GA and head straight to FA. There is little benefit (other than an easy Green Plus) that you would get from a GA review. This would pass GA in a heartbeat, and I can't see where a GA review would give you much feedback for improvement, if only because it is so good. And I say that myself as a frequent GA reviewer. This is well past GA standards already. If you are heading for an FA, this looks also quite close, if not exceeding, standards as it is. There are a few issues with flowery language (the one on "Youngstown's rich history" needs a rewrite, for example) but after a quick copyedit to catch those problems, this should be FA ready. It is scrupulously referenced, and it is fairly well written (except for as I note above). It seems quite comprehensive, given the team existed for less than 3 full seasons, and I see no obvious stability or neutrality issues. Well done! --Jayron32|talk|contribs 05:41, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Language problems seem largely fixed. Well done. Let me know when this goes to FAC. I plan to give it my full support! --Jayron32|talk|contribs 16:37, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is a very interesting article about a little-known American sports team. One reviewer has already requested that more information be given on non-first-class cricket matches. Surely the team played less important matches, but I've not found information on those yet. The article seems to me to be a bit to much of a match summary, but I'm not sure how to remedy that. Any information that can be provided to make this article better would be much appreciated. I'd like eventually for it to become a GA with a view towards and FAC. Thanks a lot.--Eva ^bd 13:25, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A credit to the editors after my first read this article is in better shape than most that appear at FAC. Its well referenced, appears to cover the subject except for the period between the last Australian visit and 2004. Question what happened after 1912 did everybody just pack up their kit and walk away? Gnangarra 13:46, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

An excellent question. That's what I'm looking into right now. I'm trying to get my hands on a couple of books that will explain the prehistory of this article as well as what happened after the first-class span ended. Hopefully I'll get to that soon. If anyone else has any sources on it, they are welcome to add. Thanks for the compliments.--Eva ^bd 13:52, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Needs a copyedit
• What was the home ground of the team? Can a picture be sourced of the ground today?
• Team logo (if possible)
• Graph of the FC wins/losses

=Nichalp «Talk»= 19:06, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I agree that it needs a copyedit. I think that ought to wait until all of the bits and pieces have been put together properly.
• I'm not sure that the team ever had a "home ground." Most of their matches in the states seem to have been played at Germantown, Belmont, Merion, and Philadelphia. There are images of at least three of those on the commons (I'll have to check to be sure). We could add a section listing which grounds the matches were played on.
• I'm not sure if there was ever a logo. Did sports teams in this period do that sort of thing? I'm still working on getting my hands on Lester's book that may have a lot more inforation.
• Graph of the FC wins/losses--good idea.

Thanks for your input. I'll do my best to get all of this implemented soon.--Eva ^bd 13:39, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's been about a couple weeks since this PR was updated. I think it can be closed now and we can implement the suggested changes. I've added a todo list to the talk page using these suggestions. Thanks all.--Eva ^bd 14:47, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This article needs a thorough general review.

The subject is a contemporary historian and author with a new book coming out within a week (by March 20, 2007) for U.S. nationwide distribution. Subject of book is the history of virginity in the Western World.

Because her previous books/publications have been via relatively smaller publishers, and because she's had a varied and interesting career (not always just a historian or just an author), it's been very difficult to find and use secondary sources. Many sources are primary, currently, and could probably use work (it may be possible to find secondary sources now that the primary sources are provided).

It would be grand to get this article in tip-top shape, but I don't know what the interpreted rules are and where the wiggle room is. Good article would also be great, but a B would be fine too.

Finally, because the picture I submitted still hasn't been processed through m:OTRS, I didn't feel comfortable submitting this for Did You Know... consideration, but please let me know if that should also be done at this stage.

Thank you in advance for your time, whoever gets to this. --MalcolmGin 17:33, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think this article is between stub and start-class. In order a peer-review to be useful, I think former improvement is needed. Some initial remarks and suggestions:

• Read and implement WikiProject Biography 11 easy steps to producing at least a B article, in order to bring this article to at least B-Class status.
  • I did read and implement, what I thought was comprehensively, the recommendations in WikiProject Biography 11 easy steps to producing at least a B article. Can you please clarify what parts you feel I missed?
    • You may have done it all fine, but in order to get it to B-Class status, you do need more material and a better structure. Right now, the prose is limited, and with no appropriate structure (lead, sections, maybe sub-sections). As it is now, it is a fine start article, but I am afraid it cannot go higher.--Yannismarou 09:56, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Okay, I will leave the fleshing out to others, beyond what I can find in published book reviews (which are beginning to come out now). Reviews tend to be short on biographical data, but what's published is certainly fair game. I can't really flesh out the article with private info I know anyway, since it's not published via a reliable source, but I will also be crippled by the boundaries she and I draw between public and private (e.g. I won't use my special knowledge to unfairly bias my search techniques to dig up stuff I think I might be able to find in reliable sources about her - I'll leave that to other folks who are more inclined to search that stuff out and put it here). So I'm OK with the article not achieving the B rating due to my in-built limitations. --MalcolmGin 14:39, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Use Template:cite news and Template:cite web for your online sources and references.
  • Thank you for the pointer to Template:cite news and Template:cite web. I'll implement those in the article as soon as I have time to devote to thatDone. I reviewed several authors' bios to see whether you intended your recc here for the Works/Bibliography section as well, and concluded that you probably didn't, but if you did, please let me know and I'll convert those entries too. MalcolmGin
• You article has no proper structure: lead, sections etc. Read WP:LEAD, WP:EDIT, Help:Section, and expand your article.
  • I'll also review the article for the proper structure and implement when I can. I will note here that the article was recently converted to the same format as {{subst:Biography}} by me very recently, so the mechanical parts of structure that are missing from the template are essentially because there was no material I had to put in them. Thank you anyhow for the links and pointers. MalcolmGin
• Maybe you could find some secondary sources through Google book or Google scholar, but I can't be sure.
  • I'm pretty familiar with the extant primary and secondary sources about Hanne Blank. I have been her life partner for 10 years or so. I'll give the sources/scrapbooks another pass for public information I can use, but I don't think there's (yet) a lot of hope there. Do reviews of books count as "news"? I do know that book reviews for her latest have come out/are starting to come out now. MalcolmGin
    • • Book reviews are reliable printed sources, and could be used.--Yannismarou 09:52, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Cool, I'll add bio new information as it comes out via the reviews. --MalcolmGin 14:39, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Expand your paragraphs or merge them. It is not nice to have stubby paragraphs.
  • I'll do what I can to merge the paragraphs sensibly. I personally cannot expand them without breach of privacy, but others are of course welcome to. MalcolmGin
• Place inline citations straight after the punctuation mark and not before.
  • Done, thank you. MalcolmGin
• Try not to have so many external jumps (links to online sources within the text) in your prose, and prefer to cite these online external sources through Template:cite news and Template:cite web as proper citations.
  • Done. I left in 3 external jumps to issues/articles not in Wikipedia. All others link internally to extant Wikipedia articles. MalcolmGin
• About the "See also" section read here, and format it accordingly. You could also get rid of it by incorporating the links there in your main text. And, of course, we do not link the WP:Biography in the See also section!
  • For the "See also" section, I'll definitely do the reading done. On the other hand, regarding your And, of course, we do not link the WP:Biography in the See also section!, I think this must have been an artifact of my misunderstanding of the {{subst:Biography}} template, in that those links were in the template, and I thought they were standard for Biography articles. I'll know better next time. MalcolmGin
• I see confirmation of release under GFDL has been received at OTRS.--Yannismarou 13:49, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, the OTRS has confirmed GFDL of the headshot, which is good, but I think I'll wait to implement your suggestions before trying to submit the article for Did You Know consideration. Thanks again! --MalcolmGin 03:20, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again, Yannismarou --MalcolmGin 14:39, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As the diff shows, in the last 24 hours I've done a lot of work on the Kya: Dark Lineage article. I'm going to continue to make edits to this as I move along, but I was wondering if I could get some input on the layout or suggestions to improve the article. Sourcing is going to take place when I get home and have access to the game and instruction booklet. Cheers, Lankybugger 20:09, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The layout of every article is likely to be different than the next. For some examples, check out the layout of featured articles of other video games. You can get ideas from any of these and use them in your article. Also look at some of the newer FAs in that group and note the amount of referencing and the various kinds of references that are used. You'll need to have a wide range of reference types to bring this article to a superb quality. Also look at the amount of wikilinking that is done in those articles. Use it, but don't go overboard like this. Often your best bet is to just look at how things have been done in other similar articles and try to either mimic it or improve upon it. JHMM13 07:14, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

---

• You need a development section -- look at some VG FAs for examples.
• The reception section can go into more detail.
• In the lead I read "the titular character Kya", then at the start of the body there's an image with "The titular character, Kya", then the text starts with "Kya: Dark Lineage begins with Kya, the protagonist". If you tell me that the game's protagonist is Kya, I can figure out that she's mentioned in the title.
• Improve the Captions.
• The article needs copy editing. Ex: "During each of the nine stages within the game ..." doesn't needs "within the game".
• Another ex: "Complimenting Kya's mobility is her 'Boomy'" -- You mean complement, and I don't understand how the weapon is a complement to mobility.
• Add fair use rationale to the images.
• Flesh out the refs: add publication date, publisher, and author information when available.

Pagrashtak 15:12, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Requesting comments and suggestions on the overall article and also suggestions to organize and make the article look better. Thank you for your time and comments. Good friend100 23:56, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• You need to tread carefully on issues like this, because unfortunately a lot of people take Asian history very seriously and personally, and tend to take offense at the slightest slight, often even when it's unintentional. This goes doubly so where Japan is involved. However, from what I can see here, to my Western eyes, this seems more or less without POV, and with enough detail to be comprehensive. I think it's probably at about the upper limit of how long it should be though. Lankiveil 03:43, 22 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]

So is there anything POV going on the article that I should change? thanks again. Good friend100 03:45, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• A lot of the wording is awkward. It reads as if it was written by a non-native English speaker. The article could use an English-language edit. I did not get all the way through the article, but it appears to be very informative.imars 19:29, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! I'll run through the article and make the neccesary grammer edits.

• Are there any problems concerning POV issues?

• Is the article organized correctly?

• Is the article ready for FA status, and if not why?

Thank you again for the comments. I really appreciate the help. Good friend100 23:31, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Archive 1

Archive 2

I think this page is ready for FA status. It's a Good Article, and done a lot of work on it, especially the plot section to shorten it up and remove some redundancies. Hopefully there won't be any major problems, and this can be nominated for Featured Article in a short short. ColdFusion650 21:43, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I find it so funny that for a copyrighted film there are so many free images! I'd find some film shots for the Plot though, like Bond vs Treyalan and Bond actually jumping off the dam. WikiNew 17:14, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Previous peer review

We're looking to nominate this for Good Article sometime soon. Are there any problems we should clear up beforehand? In particular, does the reception section look okay? Are the other various sections well-explained? Is it generally clear what we're doing here? :) Thanks for your time. --Masamage 02:15, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Image:Sailor Senshi2.png is high resolution and does not have a detailed fair use rationale. Shrink it to no more than 400px high. Image:Smlogo.png and Image:Sailor Moon English logo.jpg have no fair use rationales at all, and they are also unsourced. ShadowHalo 09:18, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oh, thank you! I totally forgot about the image-work. I'll get that done this afternoon when I'm on my own computer. --Masamage 19:22, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Okay, I shrunk the Senshi image, added the Fair Use stuff for everything, and now we're working on hunting down sources for the logos. --Masamage 18:21, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at cult television, Sailor Moon is listed as an example of cult TV - if we could reference that and add it into reception, then maybe it might cut down on some of the confusion of the bit where Sailor Moon is popular, yet unpopular. Do we need to expand on the whys and wherefores of Sailor Moon being compared with Barbie and Mighty Morphin' Power Rangers? Anne Allison's chapter in particular discusses MMPR as a success localisation story compared to PSSM. From hanging around GA/R for a while, I can say that sections without any inline citations are looked upon badly.-Malkinann 20:58, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Here's some suggestions:

• In the lead, in the last paragraph, video games is linked as [[video games]], when it should be linked as [[video game]]s. The word tokusatsu is linked, but not explained; you did well explaining where the term "Sailor" originates.
• This article needs to go through copyediting to remove weasel words, such as the word "many" in the last paragraph in the lead; just how many are there?
• In the "Story" section, you introduce Usagi Tsukino without presenting her as the main protagonist. I know she is, but that doesn't mean everyone will. Try to start the section from an out of universe perspective, such as "Sailor Moon's story begins with the main heroine..."
• In the beginning of the Characters section, knowing that they are in order of appearance may be considered trivia that does not necessariy need to be known. The next thing said is to check the individual character articles, but all the names are linked and bolded, so this is obvious without this notice; the western-order of names notice has been phased out of most articles and it's become common (especially with the WP:MOS-JP) to name Japanese names in western ordering, so this too I think can be taken out. Also, bullets make it look too listy, and lists tend to be looked down upon in potential GA articles. There are two alternatives: 1) Write in a paragraph or two where you go through all the main characters by name and what they do, or 2) Write it in ;[[Character Name Here]]: format and expand some to make it more readable and less listy.
• In the manga section, the phrase "nearly a dozen" is used; try to be as specific as you can get; again, avoid weasel words. Next, you link Nakayoshi; point out that it's a shōjo manga magazine. While I realize there is a main article for the manga, the manga was still the source material and thus should be a worthwhile section on this page. First, it's best not to leave lone sentences, as is with the end of this section (which is also missing a comma between "completed" and "Takeuchi"). Possibly try to expand this section a bit more. I say this since the Anime section below it is much larger, yet the manga came first and thus should be of more focus.
• In the Anime section, the phrase, "Sailor Moon has since become one of the most famous anime properties in the world." is unsourced; either tag with {{fact}} or find a source; otherwise remove it. In the third paragraph, the word "numerous" is used; be specific. You're missing a comma in this paragraph in the final sentence between "North America" and "only"; copyedit the article for grammar as well as with spelling. The next sentence, "All of Sailor Moon was animated traditionally" seems odd to me; possibly reword it. There are 5 links in this section that do not have pages, all of them people. I'm sure with a series this popular there is at least a minor amount of info somewhere on them, possibly at Anime News Network or the Japanese wiki I find is always a good resource. GA and FA articles should have very little red linked pages, or none at all. Consider making stubs for all the red linked pages in this article.
• In the English adaptations section, there are two unsourced lines; GA articles should have none of these.
• In External links, the {{ja icon}} should be placed at the end of the link.
• This article is specifically deficiant in categories. I know of at least 5-10 that would work well. Try to look at other articles that have similar genres and try to include as manga categories as possible. This makes the scope of an article look greater and more important.
• Lastly, the number of inline citations is centered in the Reception section, with only 9 of the 24 being used in the article; there are sections without citations that need them, though I believe this has already been adressed.

Take care of all these things, put it through some rigorous copyediting, and the article should improve greatly.--十八 00:48, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wowee... Thanks for the hints! We'll get right on them. Good luck with Strawberry Panic!. -Malkinann 03:02, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I've been pluggin' away at this. Let's see what we've got.

• Fixed everything you mentioned in the lead, story, and character sections. The character bits look weird in this format; one long, skinny line each. No more info can be removed, and I hesitate to add much more; what would you suggest?
• Expanded the manga section and removed its weasel words. Does it need anything more? I also disagree about adding that comma. :P Some comma uses are required, some are forbidden, and some are a matter of taste.
• Fixed almost everything in the anime article. I ended up just relegating most of the redlinked people to the anime page itself and leaving them out here. I also really don't want to replace the word 'numerous' with something more specific, because just about every song was written by two or three people, and hunting down all the overlap would be an absolute nightmare. Not sure what to do about that.
• I believe I have some sources for the English adaptations section and will plug them in.
• Fixed the external links thing.
• Category:Sailor Moon is in a ton of categories, so we just put this one into it. Is that not the way to do things?

Thanks very much for your input! --Masamage 00:47, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the late reply; for some reason I didn't see the update.

• Re: Characters; I agree, which is why I suggested you add more to the characters section than just one liners. I've done this before in the Kanon and Air (visual novel) articles, so I don't think it's too much to ask for a little bit of expansion. It would also be more useful for the readers who don't want to leave this article to learn more, but having read enough feel satisfied with what is supplied.
• My suggestion for a comma between "completed" and "Takeuchi" had nothing to do with taste; a comma should be there because due to the way the sentence is worded, it's more natural to pause at "completed".
• Re: Anime; all right, it's fine then to keep "numerous" if nothing else will fit. I'm just saying, it might come up again in the future with a different reviewer.

Final note: A lot of good work has been done, but it still needs work. I think I have exhausted my reviewing abilities for this article as I beleive I've adressed all the salient points for a GA promotion. Perhaps try to get another neutral editior who is involved with WP:Anime to add suggestions.--十八 11:13, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for your help. :) I'll take a whack at expanding the character descriptions. --Masamage 21:07, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

• See if possible if there is a free use image that can go on the top right corner of this article.^[?]
• Per Wikipedia:What is a featured article?, Images should have concise captions.^[?]
• 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.
  • correctly
  • might be weasel words, and should be provided with proper citations (if they already do, or are not weasel terms, please strike this comment).^[?] <-- This may be where we talk about how, with the anime, they are correctly termed series(es) as opposed to seasons, as this has come up on Talk:Sailor Moon once or twice, maybe we should find something to cite this.
• Watch for redundancies that make the article too wordy instead of being crisp and concise. (You may wish to try Tony1's redundancy exercises.)
  • Vague terms of size often are unnecessary and redundant - “some”, “a variety/number/majority of”, “several”, “a few”, “many”, “any”, and “all”. For example, “All pigs are pink, so we thought of a number of ways to turn them green.”
• Please ensure that the article has gone through a thorough copyediting so that it exemplifies some of Wikipedia's best work. See also User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 1a.^[?]

You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, Malkinann 06:35, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The series/season reference is actually the Wikilink itself, somewhere in there, to an article explaining the difference and the tendancy to misuse the terms. --Masamage 06:49, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You sure? clicking on metaseries gives me "The series Tenchi Muyo! and Sailor Moon have been comics, multiple TV series, and movies, but they do not have a rigid single continuity. Though the latter does have Continuity within the same form of media.", which doesn't explain it to me, and clicking on seasons gives me an idea that each 'cours' of Sailor Moon should be only 13 episodes long, which clearly isn't the case! -Malkinann 07:11, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rar, it's the second one, but it's been modified since I last looked at it. The relevance is not as clear now. :/ --Masamage 07:13, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've put a {{clarifyme}} on that part because it's come up on the talk page a couple of times. If we can find a reference, then we could put it on the TV program article. -Malkinann 07:47, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I recently obtained GA status for this article, and hoping for FA, with this being a logical step along the way.

I'm looking for a review on scientific verifiability, particularly from experts in the areas of biochemistry, etiology, and genetics. Also, any suggestions the community could make on reference formatting and prose would be extremely helpful. Thanks in advance — Jack · talk · 06:50, Tuesday, 13 March 2007

• If you're looking for expert feedback, you might try WP:SPR. I think it's semi-active. -- bcasterline • talk 06:18, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've now nominated it there, thanks or the heads-up. If there's anything that you could suggest here about prose, or other general improvements, that'd still be ace :) — Jack · talk · 11:36, Wednesday, 14 March 2007

• Firstly all the bullet points need to be either incorperated into prose or into tables. Secondly the article really needs overall tightening, as several points are repeated in various sections. It actually needs to be reorganized entirely. "History" should rather be something like "History of human consumption" or something, as you hardly give the evolutionary history of Vitamin C in that section. Then you can move the "Daily dosage requirements" under that etc. Also see if there any non-dietary uses of Vitamin C worth mentioning (preservitive, etc.)--BirgitteSB 20:33, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
  • I've moved history up, and converted a whole bunch of bullets to prose. There are non-dietary uses of the vitamin, and they're mentioned in the third paragraph of the intro. I can totally see what you mean about repetitive info, and it's been mentioned before. Trying to fix it now, let me know what you think — Jack · talk · 20:03, Friday, 16 March 2007
    • I will re-read it completely this weekend; but two qick points. 1) WP:LEAD say that The lead section should briefly summarize the most important points covered in an article. Everything in the intro (i.e. non- dietarty uses) needs to be followed up in more detail in the article. 2)The "See Also" section is huge. This section is supposed to only hold things which are not yet covered in the article. Featured Articles do not have a "See Also" section at all as everything should be incorperated into the article by that stage.--BirgitteSB 20:45, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi Jrockley. I originally checked out the article because I saw the request for scientific review; I was forwarded to this page for discussion. I think the article on the whole is solid, but there is one statement in it that gives me pause. I've started a discussion of this on the article's talk page. Briefly, my concern is with a sentence in the introductory paragraph that presents one side of a controversial topic. This statement is factual, but its location and its meaning are such that it biases the reader. The intro paragraph would be just as good without this sentence, but if it is to be left in, I have suggested adding an additional sentence to reference the mainstream scientific point of view, too. Sorry for making this comment so long - jump to the talk page and you'll see my analysis. Antelan ^talk 01:54, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This article is a fair way from GA or FA, however, it's hard for me to see what needs improving about the article as I have edited it so much. We'd really appreciate outside comments on how to improve it :) Veesicle (Talk) (Contribs) 18:47, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

At a glance, try to use sources related to WoW rather than trying to conjure explanations from unrelated sources (e.g. the references to Celtic, EQ2 druids). Not particularly attached to either the infoboxes or pics (There are only so many people in 8/8 Tier X sets). Nifboy 00:05, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The two sources you named were meant to provide sources for showing similarities World of Warcraft druids have with druids outside the game. If I removed those sources I'd have to remove that section. I only really added it in the first place because someone in the AfD said that they thought it would be nice if something like that would be included for the classes. I can prose-ify the infoboxes if you'd prefer - are you against pictures in general or just ones of characters in full sets or whatever? Veesicle (Talk) (Contribs) 00:13, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's because "Druids outside WoW" has only a very tenuous connection to WoW; unless there's a significant link, wherein the link itself is stated in a source, you start drifting into original explanations. Blizzard could have been inspired by Druidism, D&D druids, EQ druids, or any combination of the above. The article is on, ultimately, WoW, so use WoW-related sources. Nifboy 10:04, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is a quality article that I have helped write, and I am at the point where I don't know exactly what to do to improve this article to GA or FA status. Wikipedia's False Prophet holla at me Improve Me 17:59, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

FP, here is an automated peer review output to get things started. Not all may apply since it is an automated review, but a quick scan shows a few you can work on to improve the article. Although not officially required for GA-status, I would suggest trying to have a cited reference for every paragraph and for the tables (i.e. where did the ablum chart info come from). That will help the GA review and you will have already met requirement 1.(c) for FA status. I would also recommened workingon the prose for the beginning of the history section, it could be written in a more encyclopedic manner IMHO. Good luck!

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

• Please expand the lead to conform with guidelines at Wikipedia:Lead. The article should have an appropriate number of paragraphs as is shown on WP:LEAD, and should adequately summarize the article.^[?]
• Per Wikipedia:Context and Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates), months and days of the week generally should not be linked. Years, decades, and centuries can be linked if they provide context for the article.^[?]
• See if possible if there is a free use image that can go on the top right corner of this article.^[?]
• Per Wikipedia:Context and Wikipedia:Build the web, years with full dates should be linked; for example, link January 15, 2006.^[?]
• As per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates), dates shouldn't use ^th; for example, instead of using January 30^th was a great day, use January 30 was a great day.^[?]
• Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (headings), headings generally should not repeat the title of the article. For example, if the article was Ferdinand Magellan, instead of using the heading ==Magellan's journey==, use ==Journey==.^[?]
• Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (headings), avoid using special characters (ex: &+{}[]) in headings.
• There are a few occurrences of weasel words in this article- please observe WP:AWT. Certain phrases should specify exactly who supports, considers, believes, etc., such a view.
  • allege
  • might be weasel words, and should be provided with proper citations (if they already do, or are not weasel terms, please strike this comment).^[?]
• Please ensure that the article has gone through a thorough copyediting so that it exemplifies some of Wikipedia's best work. See also User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 1a.^[?]

You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, Roswell native 19:27, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

When I go back and find the citations for the tables, is it acceptable to say "The information presented in the below tables is from (source)"? Wikipedia's False Prophet holla at me Improve Me 19:48, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would put it by the column header assuming the source is the same for the entire column, e.g. after "USA" and after "UK" in the first table.

Album covers should not be used in the discography section (see Wikipedia:Fair use), and the ones that are being used in the main article space need detailed fair use rationales. The Grammy Award history should not be separated by whether or not they won; rather, it should be one table with an additional column for the result. ShadowHalo 08:20, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've tried to expand this as much as I can. Besides how jumbled "Films and other projects" is, how does the article stack up? The aim is to get it to featured status within a month. -- Zanimum 19:18, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wow! I'm glad you've taken on such a project—although FA is really difficult to attain. In your case, I would go for GA instead. That being said, I see a few problems with the article. The recentism needs to be fixed, and the multiple single-sentence paragraphs need to be merged together. Also, the article needs to be expanded, and the prose needs to be severely rewritten so that it flows. Right now, it reads like a timeline (In 1991, he did this. In 1994, he did that. In 1999, he did something else). On the flip side, the article is cited quite nicely. The ikiroid (talk·desk·Advise me) 03:36, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nice start, but it needs further work. This is my review:

• Maybe you could expand a bit more the lead per WP:LEAD.
• I don't like very much stubby sections, where a quote is longer than the prose like "Military service".
• "Under the professional name Sinbad,[6] he began his career appearing on Star Search, Sinbad won his round against fellow comedian Dennis Miller,[7] appearing a total of seven times." If this is really one sentence, it is not nice. In general, you should improve the overall prose, which is often prose and not "professional". Further problematic prose: "While Bonet only stayed with the program for a season,[8] Sinbad stayed with the cast from 1988 until 1991 as "Coach Walter Oakes"."
• "With the exception of later addition Marissa Tomei to the cast, the students at Hillman were all high-achieving African Americans with unique personalities, contrary to the "token" roles previously focused on." I don't get something here: the College is fictional; Tome is a real actor. Are you talking about her or about the character she plays. The whole Hillman analysis in these two paragraphs looks to me confusing.
• "Films and other projects" is spread with one-sentence paragraphs and looks listy. I see the same problem is other sections as well. This is not nice for a prose that flows badly and seamlessly.
• I think that all the quotes in "Sinbad in pop culture", although from TV series, should be cited.--Yannismarou 13:08, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This article has many refrences and I am planning on putting it up on FAC so I'd like a peer review before i take it there. It is indepth, but I would like a review from a non-biased editor. The Placebo Effect 20:41, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is an uncommon kind of subject in WP:VG, but I'll try my best.

• This article could use an infobox of some kind. Maybe make one, even. Include the image currently at the top in it, and list information like dimensions, manufacturer, hardware (what kind of sensor?), etc.  Done
• Move the 'pricelist' from the lead section to the infobox (above), and state both the local currency price and the prices in a reserve currency.  Done
• The images in the article are horrible. Make them have a size at least somewhat viewable (the sensor bar image is particularly guilty here) and better quality. Wiimote nunchuk.jpg is grainy, zapper and the classic controller are too small on the article, while the images themselves are quite large.
• Split 'design' in two: 'How does it look' and 'How does it work', with different titles. Colour and the current lead paragraph of the section go into the first, power source, sensing, memory, and feedback go into the second. Need to figure out where 'strap' belongs. Done
• A schematic drawing (svg!) of how the sensing works would be great in that section.
• Memory is a stub section. Either expand or merge.
• Improve the lead paragraph of the expansions section. (How does one expand it, what does one need an expansion for, etc.)
• A small infobox for all three expansions would be great. Just put the images in there, the prices, the manufacturer, the dimensions, and more. The pricelist in the content text doesn't look nice, and infoboxes make great overviews. Note that these are sections, not articles, so keep the box small.
• Wii zapper needs expansion.
• Tennis rackets, baseball bats and golf clubs? Tell me more. Make a section for each of them complete with small infobox, if there's enough information/content to warrant that.
• Steering wheel needs expansion.
• More see also - articles about infrared sensors, the wii, list of wii games, and maybe more. Keep see also to about 5 articles. Not much more, not less.  Done
• There's a 'articles which may contain original research' category on the page. Why? You can remove it, IMHO.  Done

--User:Krator (t c) 10:24, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

PS: I would appreciate it the appropriate parts of this review could be marked with a {{done}} template, if any edits are made based on it, or made because of it.

I am working but it won't be fast because of school. The Placebo Effect 13:06, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Product images and an Overstock.com listing indicate that game accessory manufacturer Intec is releasing a third-party Nunchuk controller for the Wii Remote. This is the first third-party expansion to be discovered for the Wii Remote. Surely that should read ...first third-party expansion to be released for the Wii Remote. Sabine's Sunbird talk 19:58, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to submit this article as a featured article candidate. Comments, questions? (Ibaranoff24 22:06, 21 March 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Good article. No issues on first glance, though perhaps the lead might need trimming down to 3 paragraphs to satisfy the FA crowd.-- Zleitzen^(talk) 09:27, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Past peer review

The Paris article has been undergoing several minor changes over the past months, but has had much added acclaim over the same period: it is now A-class in three seperate categories! I think now may be the time to make those last final improvement that will raise it (finally) to FA class. This is a major article, so quality (and precision) is not to be taken lightly! Any constructive suggestion would be helpful. THEPROMENADER 12:35, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

FA reviewers tend flip a lid if more than a sentence goes unsourced. Let alone a paragraph. As the Paris article has unsourced sections, then I think there still needs to be a lot of work in rectifying that. Ironically, the lead is the most heavily sourced section, but leads don't generally require references, as the material should be sourced below. I recommend taking a toothpick to the article and beginning the laboriously tedious task of adding references to each detail. I think Sheffield was the last city to pass FA, but I doubt even that would get through now due to lack of sources.-- Zleitzen^(talk) 09:20, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Since you seem to know more than a thing or two about this, perhaps could you help by adding an invisible <!-- source needed --> or the like tag to sentences you think need sources? There is, of course, the ^{[citation needed]} template as well - but things can get pretty ugly with too many of those. Anyhow, thanks for the input. THEPROMENADER 01:10, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello ThePromenader. Rather than go through the article and make a bit of a mess of it, what I've done is detail where I believe the FA crowd will expect to see citations in this sandbox: User:Zleitzen/Paris sandbox. My flags have not been an exact science - but it should give an idea of what is required. It may look daunting, but sections like the history section could be covered by only 2-3 main sources, preferably reputable historical book sources, with other points patched together with web citations. Some of the flags may seem so obvious as to not need citations, and much of it I knew to be easily verifiable. However, they'll still need to be visibly cited to escape the FA hawks. It's an exceptionally well written article by wikipedia's standards - I added strike-throughs to only 2-3 sentences, these I believed were a touch too personal and bordering on original research. However, I do think the article is too long to pass FA at its current length. The education section in particular could be farmed out to a sub article leaving a paragraph or so remaining.-- Zleitzen^(talk) 05:22, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For earlier discussion see Wikipedia:Peer review/Richard Dawkins/archive1

I'd like to re-open this peer review and see if it is possible to obtain any more feedback on the article in its current form. It has been worked on quite a bit since a year ago. I think the article is just about ready to be submitted to the FA process, but would like to identify any possible objections. Metamagician3000 13:12, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The sentence Both were interested in the natural sciences, and answered the young Dawkins' questions in more scientific than anecdotal or supernatural terms. is kind of jarring in an encyclopaedia.

He then studied zoology at Balliol College, Oxford, where he was tutored by Nobel Prize-winning ethologist Nikolaas Tinbergen. Was this during his undergrad or PhD. In his info box Niko Tinbergen is described as his Academic advisor, does that mean the same as his PhD supervisor? There is a differing level of involvement in the two, and it would be really useful to clarify that.

The Richard Dawkins Foundation section could use some explaining, don't rely on a quote to do all your talking.

Hope this helps Sabine's Sunbird talk 19:54, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I'll try to deal with all these points, or to find someone else who can. (Edit: have dealt with the first one.) Metamagician3000 08:12, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Any comments on the layout and the text are appreciated.--Maestro 21:46, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

These are my suggestions for further improvements in the article (version: 117619187):

• Lead: Most prestigious/most selective. These claims need to be cited either here, or further down the article from WP:NPOV sources or taken out. I would note that two universities that could make similar claims Harvard and MIT and prep schools that have similar stature in the US, Phillips Exeter Academy, Stuyvesant High School do not have these claims on their WP articles. For most selective, perhaps entrance statistics could provide support, though I have no idea how most prestigious could be measured or made encyclopedic.

You may also wish to shorten the lead, and move the history that is present in the lead to the History section.

Mention the grades rather than call it a "high school", the definition of which changes according to country. As far as I know, it still has a boarding section, which should be mentioned in the lead, as well as co-educational status.

Rather than call it independent and have to explain in a footnote, call it private. Private/public is a well understood distinction, independent/dependent is murky.

• Co-educational status: This should be mentioned in the lead as well as developed further as a subsection in the history. The time of co-educational changes is always interesting for older schools and Robert College's merger with the American school for girls is of significance.

• History: Can be and needs to be developed much further. Which sultan was it that gave the irade? The school has status specified by the Lausanne treaty. Musurus Pasha's estate is now part of the campus. The school had waves of different influences and ethnicities educated - e.g. the first couple of cabinets of Bulgaria were mostly educated there. Split into Bosphorus University can also be mentioned here. There is enough history of RC to expand into a major article.

The major events section looks too lopsided towards the Republican period. However, I would caution against making the history section too listy. More prose/less listing seems to be a good thing.

• List of Presidents: Aside from notable presidents, do we need every headmaster listed? I notice a lot of red links there. Unless there are plans to provide bio's, separate articles for every headmaster (meaning they would be notable), de-link the red links.

• Curriculum: very demanding program, take out POV

A list of every single elective given is unnecessary and makes it read like a school catalog. Highlight what is special/distinguishing about the curriculum w.r.t. a regular college preparatory school internationally, or a Turkish high school.

• Higher education: It can be inferred, though not specifically mentioned that college placement is close to 100%. Should be mentioned and cited at the beginning of this section. Last year - what year is that? Statistics should be cited, one per sentence seems like a good idea, esp. in this section.

• Extracurricular activities: As of 2006, Robert College has nearly 100 clubs including the sports and publication club, which may be found below. The school has a rich history of extra-curricular activities and sports. - awkward and repetitive. Robert College has a rich history of extra-curricular activities and sports, with nearly 100 student activity clubs as of 2006.

• Student council: Why do we have a student council paragraph, which reads like a student council intro from practically every good high school? If there is something specific about it, mention it in the lead.

• Publications: Should be named something like student publications if it is to be kept, for a casual reader expects something other than the student newspaper from that section title. Neither of the three articles I used for comparison (Harvard, MIT, Phillips Exeter Academy have such a section, but Stuyvesant High School does, which can be used as an example. If the significance of this section is to illustrate the depth and breadth of student activity, perhaps should be merged into a paragraph in the relevant section.

Move the alumni newsletters and such to an Alumni section.

• Athletics: Expand into something other than a list of names of sports. Facilities, sports teams, championships, statistics (what % of student body is a member of a sports team, is the # of sports teams significant?)

• Music clubs: The music club being 2nd largest in RC does not mean much to anyone who is not a graduate. Is there anything otherwise notable about it?

• Extracurricular activities in general: IMO, this entire section needs to be rewritten to make it less like a school catalog. 3-4 well structured paragraphs would convey the information that this is a school that has a very large amount of extracurricular activities available to the student body and mention a few interesting details, rather than the current format.

• Festivals - change the format of this section so that every festival is not a very stubby subsection. There is enough material for a paragraph, not enough for a subsection. The FAF begs the question what the largest festival for high schools in Turkey is. Also, 2000 people come, from where? Do other schools visit? Is it local community? Is it alumni?

• Campus - something in the lead about the section about history of campus grounds instead of as a footnote. When was this campus established? When did RC move into it? Again, too much subsectioning in this section. Some details/statistics/capacities about facilities can be given, sports facilities in particular. Labs - capacity? Biology Museum has a rarest collection of what? Expand.

• Bosporus Beetle - what a wonderful tidbit! Was it discovered on campus? What is the taxonomy for it? Expand.

• Tuition - are scholarships/financial aid available? If so, what percentage of the student body receives financial aid? Cite most expensive school claim, or make it encyclopedic by providing dates and more statistics.

• Notable Alumni - change this to a section on Alumni and provide at least a paragraph about the alumni and give the link to List of Notable Alumni. Remove the very POV quote, utilizing the facts in the quote. Alumni associations / newsletters, foundations etc can go here. Also, quite a number of RC alumni support their school later, providing endowments, buildings etc. Some statistics?

• Notable faculty - if it is to be kept as a list, provide dates they were faculty and subjects they taught. No non-Turk is going to assume that Tevfik Fikret would have taught Turkish literature. Better to form into 2-3 paragraphs I think. Mebrure Gönenç is an alumna not an alumnus. (female, alumna, female plural, alumnae)

• References and notes - very few non-affiliated sources are used. Sources are not formatted strictly per WP:CITE - take a look at Hrant Dink for strict use of refs. Non-English sources should use {{tr icon}}.

• Books on RC - Use of citation format here would be nice as well. Perhaps you can use some of this bibliography to flesh out the article. I am sure that RC also gets mentioned in a number of works specifically not on RC. Should the title be changed to include these and list a few of these?

• See-also - this section should be for only those WP articles that are not linked in the main body of the article.

• Endowment? - Does the school have an endowment or affiliated foundation that provides monetary support to the school?

• General - this subject has FA potential. For a high school article that is FA, take a look at Stuyvesant High School. I have left GA review notes on the Talk:Robert_College page and have placed it on hold, pending those issues specific to GA. Good luck! Regards, --Free smyrnan 06:12, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

archived PR

The U.S. DST hoopla has died down, so now's a good time to do a peer-review for Daylight saving time. I'm a first-time editor trying to achieve "Featured article" status (why not be ambitious?). Some sample questions:

• Is there too much detail and too many references?

• Section order? For example, "Origin" doesn't come first, on the theory that people first want to know about DST before knowing its history; is this reasonable? Also, "Mnemonic" and "Name" are widely separated; is there a better or more-traditional order for this sort of thing?

• Should there be explicit sizes for the thumbnails? The style guide says no, but the map and graph get a bit hard to read with the default sizes.

Eubulides 20:36, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding your questions:

1. Definitely not. Some FAs have well over a hundred citations (see AIDS) so 30 is certainly not too many. As I say below, I think you could add more detail in some areas.
2. I think I would put origin first, benefits and drawbacks second, and when it starts and ends (technical details, really) third. If people are interested in only a specific topic they can use the table of contents. "Name" and "Mnemonic" are both short and could probably be combined -- maybe put that information before origin?
3. Thumbnails look pretty good to me at 1280x960. Smaller would be a problem. If they're left at default size the user can always set a personal size preference (in "my preferences").

Some other comments:

• The intro paragraphs should be a summary of the article that follows. (See WP:LEAD.) In this case, I'd say it should be longer. The second paragraph, which is just a sentence, could use elaboration.
• Under "When it starts and ends": I think the skewing of time zones could use some more explanation.
• Reading through "Benefits and drawbacks", I get the feeling the author is more interested in the latter. For example, benefits are always introduced by "this study reported", whereas drawbacks are simply stated as fact. Some drawbacks (especially under "Complexity") aren't even sourced. So I think NPOV could use some work.
• "Computing" is rather long for something that seems to me rather trivial. Is that really one of the core concepts?
• Lots of stubby subsections throughout the article after "Origin". Expand or consolidate: if the topics deserve their own sections, they need more information; if they don't, combine them.
• I would remove "Cultural references". (See WP:TRIV.)

This is an interesting subject and it'd be great to see it reach FA -- but I think it needs some more work, especially if it's controversial. Good luck. -- bcasterline • talk 22:37, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your quick and careful review.

• I'll raise the section-order issue in the talk page; the current order arose because people kept bugging us about details during last week's big DST change, but now that it's no longer a hot topic perhaps we can rethink this.
• I will work on lengthening the intro.
• The "benefits and drawbacks" section is hampered because there seem to be relatively few reliable sources on the "benefits" side; I asked for more cites on the talk page but so far no luck. I will work to remove bias from the wording, though.
• "Computing" used to be waaay longer! I'll trim it down more; some of this can be moved to another page perhaps.
• The sections "Mnemonic", "Associated practices", "Name" seem to be stubby in the sense you describe; I'll add something on the talk page about them. Or perhaps you are referring to all the subsections of "Benefits and drawbacks" as well? I suppose some of them could be combined too.
• I have removed Cultural references.

Eubulides 23:34, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have edited the page and have followed your suggestions as best I could. Thanks again for the review. I hope it's more suitable for FA status now. Eubulides 21:15, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A bit unusual not to have a single wikilink in a three paragraph intro. Kaisershatner 20:37, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for mentioning that: I added some wikilinks. Eubulides 22:10, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

John Lester was a Philadelphian cricket around the turn of the last century. This article is along the same lines as Bart King which is slowly nearing FA status. The Lester article was just promoted to GA status after a couple fixes. I'd like some advice on how to make this article even better than it is and some day get it up to snuff for an FAC. If anyone has a copy of Lester's book (A Century of Philadelphia Cricket. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1951.), that would make a lot of Philadelphian related articles much easier to improve. Any other help is greatly appreciated. Thanks much.--Eva ^bd 21:05, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I had put this on the article's talk page but since I noticed the peer reivew I'll cut and oaste it here. One minor note that should be addressed is a sentence or two about his personal life. Such as whether he was married, whether he had any children, etc. Quadzilla99 08:15, 26 March 2007 (UTC

Thanks for the note, Quadzilla. I've got big plans to address this. I mentioned this on the talk page, as well, but I'll reply here, too. I've just checked out a couple library books that may address some of this and want to repeat that Lester's A Century of Philadelphia Cricket would be very helpful if any reviewers have it. Thanks again.--Eva ^bd 14:04, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm just looking for opinions on how this article can be improved, and a rating of its current content. Che84 01:15, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• In my opinion, this article needs a fair cleanup. That includes more factual information and even a player picture. Also required to make this article good is more informational and club references for those people that wish to view more details about him and/or the club itself. Otherwise, the article has been created with pride - rating of around a 4/10 but after some editing it should look great. Extranet ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 06:35, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This article might need to be checked for grammar mistakes (I'm not a native English speaker). References (especifically notes) seem to be disorganized. Perhaps the article can be shortened a bit. Let me know what do you think about it. Dalobuca 05:20, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There are a number of grammatical issues that need attention. It might be easiest if I simply fixed the smaller ones rather than produced a list of small changes needed and brought larger issues back here. Are you happy with that? Ben MacDui (Talk) 17:16, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that the article has the makings of FA. I would like to hear the opinions of others. Tony the Marine 04:03, 2 April 2007 (UTC)  Done[reply]

This article has come a long way, and is almost ready for FAC. Please, lend a hand in polishing the article to Wikiepedia's finest standards. Aditya Kabir 16:45, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comments
• What about the administration of the area? Municipal wards, thana (which is Shahbag thana, as the article states) etc? I see that the infobox contains such information, but how about creating a section that will state the administration in some more detail, and also address administrative problems or uniqueness, if any? The section can be named "Civic administration" and could include electric supply, telecommunication, sewage, transport etc. I just found that Dhaka does not list Shahbag as a thana, why?

Explanation: The information in the Dhaka artcile must be dated. Number of thanas in Dhaka has incresed twofolds in the last decade. Aditya Kabir 21:20, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Update: I have put a note on Talk: Dhaka asking for a change in that article, but haven't made the required significant change to that FA right away. Aditya Kabir 14:51, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• What about geography and climate of the area? (data can be taken from Dhaka, mentioning that the neighbourhood does not have a separate met office and utilises Dhaka met office, if that is the case). In geography also can be mentioned any water bodies, or any other special geo feature (like the garden, if it exists still).
• The web references need date of retrieval.

Update: Done. Aditya Kabir 04:24, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 20:44, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• First look
• cite the 7th century claim.

Update: Done. Aditya Kabir 04:24, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• "with the decline of mughal power"--nothing before this prepares use for this sentence. Atleast one sentence abt when Mughal rule started in Dhaka should precede this.

Update: Done. Aditya Kabir 04:24, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• "Garden of the Kings" -- though this is introduced in intro, do so again. The intro is meant to be a summary of what in the rest of the article. In fact that whole para is problematic: "lost splendour", we haven't told about any splendor before this point.

Questions: It is written four sentences befor the splendor thing that - ...Shahbag or the Garden of the Kings became a forgotten project - is it falling short on clarification? Aditya Kabir 14:51, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Update: Copyedited to accommodate the issue. Aditya Kabir 04:24, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• "first office of Bangladesh Betar" -- is this then a post 1971 event? Date this. "the Bangla Academy during the Language movement. " the bangla academy article says it was establised in 1955, after the lang movement.--ppm 20:52, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Update: Done. Aditya Kabir 04:24, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• More comments

"Urban layout" and "Civic life" are not well organized. The later has stuff that should be in the former. "Urban layout" on the other hand, almost solely focuses on three old mansions, which do not dominate the current urban design. "platform for all political-cultural movements" -- "all" is streatching it. "The Bangla Academy initiated the first Boishakhi Mela ... is also sponsored by major cell-phone and carbonated drink brands. " -- last part quite unnecessary

Request: Can someone lead me to a couple examples of appropriate content of Urban Layout and Civic Life sections? Aditya Kabir 12:59, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Look for similar stuff--ppm 17:53, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Review by Nichalp

• Copyedit needed
• 7th century -- spell the number (same with 1st etc.)
• Map should be svg. Is it scaled?
• Echo above concerns on urban layout.
• collector --> wikify as district collector
  • Done by now. --Ragib 20:32, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Mr. Walters --> remove Mr.

Request: Can't locate Walters' full name in any of the sources I am currently using. Can someone with an access to Raj Records help me on this? Aditya Kabir 12:59, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It seems that this Walters is Henry Walters , per this page from censusindia. Added that. --Ragib 20:32, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• double decker buses should be right aligned
  • Done by now. --Ragib 20:32, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• khanqah --> meaning needed so that a user does not have to click on the link
• 14 April --> wikify
  • Done by now. --Ragib 20:32, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Neighboring Thanas --> I believe Bangladesh uses British English?
  • Done by now. --Ragib 20:28, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• in early 19th ??
  • Edited to "in the early 19th" --Ragib 20:28, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• then powerful --> how powerful?
• DHAKA UNDER THE EAST INDIA COMPANY --> remove all caps
  • Done by now. --Ragib 20:28, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Format all references & notes using standard cite templates
• What is Syed Muhammed Taifoor doing under ==See also==
  • Removed now. --Ragib 20:28, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

=Nichalp «Talk»= 18:23, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Review by Niaz

I have gone through the whole article and found some of the parts that should be improved. Besides, this article demands some of the points to be added in order to give it a complete touch.

• This article started in a nice way but ended up with a messy style. I didn’t found any organized conclusion and I just felt all on a sudden it ends.
• Shahbag’s importance related to our liberation war can be arranged with a separate sub heading. It will be more appropriate if we can provide a picture of Banga Bondhu’s 7-e March Speech on Ramna Rasecourse.
• I personally felt this article demands two special pictures, 1. A picture of Dhaka University, if it is ‘Aporajeo Bangla’, that will be the best. 2. A picture of Ramna Park.
• Ramna Bomb-explosion can also be a sub heading as it was (or is!) one of the burning issues related to this place. We should also mention terrorist’s fate and current undergoing investigation by the law-n-order force with in one or two lines.

Other than those parts, overall article is well written. Niaz bd 05:50, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the comments. I do disagree about giving prominence to the recent incidents per WP:RECENT. The 7th march speech of Sheikh Mujib is still under copyright, and hence we shouldn't use it here. Does Aparajeyo Bangla fall under the Shahbag thana? --Ragib 08:36, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It does (see the map), but is more relevant to Dhaka University. The article has enough images as it is. Aditya Kabir 01:40, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Review by Arman

• The article once says that Paribanu was the daughter of Khwaja Salimullah (History Section) and later says she was his sister (Urban Layout Section). I'm not sure which one is correct. Could someone please check and correct it?-Arman Aziz 11:20, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would love some advice on how to improve this article and take this on the path to a featured status. I would like to get feedback on the whole article, but on the following sections in particular:

History

Academic Program

Student Life

Should I add any other sections? One section you might notice missing would be notable alumni. As this school will graduate its eighth class this May, I feel that it is too soon to start that section. Plus, I don't know of any prominent alumni. Feedback on the article is greatly appreciated. Chrisfortier 13:50, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This article is very well written and presented. A pleasure to read. And it deserves a higher rating. Two things might help it along and one of those is easy -- captialize only the first word in headings, for example, "The Beginning" becomes "The beginnning." Most important though, the article is perfectly cited in some parts but other parts are noticeably missing any inline citations. Or did I miss the pattern? Citations for everything will be required to reach GA and FA. Is there a way to cite every part of the article? Either an overall reference work to which all the uncited paras refer, or individual citations per sentence or paragraph would do the trick. By the way, the formatting of citations that are there seems to be very well done. I am not an expert but I think that once those refs are in place the article might pass GA as written. -Susanlesch 02:46, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for the feedback Susanlesch! I will work on what you suggested, strengthening the citations and formatting the titles. I appreciate your help. Chrisfortier 14:33, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's an interesting, if obscure topic. This article is easily the single most comprehensive source on the subject on the web, and possibly in print too. I think it's in pretty good shape, considering the subject is the music of a tiny island with virtually no historical documentation, international acclaim, scholarly study or web presence. Anyway, suggestions welcome! I'd like to move this on to WP:FAC in the near future, so please let me know if you know of any information to add. Thanks, Tuf-Kat 16:09, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Just saying I'm working on typing a long commentary. So far, the content looks fine, but the writing could really use some slicking. Circeus 15:43, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• The lead needs adjustments to conform to WP:LEAD.
  • Avoiding a link inside the bolded title would be good.
  • If Music of the Lesser Antilles is any hint, you probably don't need to bold "Lucian music" (it's not an "alternative name", more a grammatical variant)
• I'd recommend "in Saint Lucia" (it's a country) over "on Saint Lucia"
• Too much "especially"s in the lead.
• The lead should probably be divided in three paragraphs,not two as it currently is. The way the first paragraph strings facts verges on the nonsensical.
• The article lacks an historical overviews. Small bits across the articles have historical reflexions, but it's hard to have a picture about what styles where popular when.

Folk music

• You start with "Lucian" in the lead, but "Saint Lucian" afterwards.
• "based around" usually refer to a smaller subset. The list given easily constitutes a full band.
• [H]owever, the kwadril is increasingly viewed as a national symbol.
  • There doesn't seem to be a pertinent reason to use "however" here.
• That paragraph mixes elements about dances and musical styles. Since the dances and their associated musical style are not discussed specifically, these two elements should be kept more separate.

jwé

• You would probably do better merging jwé here. I realize that thearticle is brodly linked, which probably means that the section should be shortened slightlyand the bulk of it moved into the separate article.
• Linking both as a "Main article" and in the firsts sentence is redundant.
• débòt comes up without warning. What is it? (see Principle of least astonishment)
• Jwé is performed as an informal, social event
  • This is a strange formulation at best
• Jwé includes both songs for men and women, both of which can be singers
  • This comes off strange,since there has been no previous indication of musical division along gender lines
• clapping, responding to the leader and singing and dancing
  • Can you spot the redundant word?
• Some Lucians avoid jwé altogether because of its sexually raunchy lyricism and atmosphere;
  • Is the sexually raunchy part typical or integral to the genre? Maybe expanding slightly on the themes associated with it would be appropriate.
• "saying the opposite of what is meant"
  • In English, we call it sarcasm
• 'jwé chanté (sung songs) and jwé dansé (song-play-dance)
  • How interesting! Such things as "unsung songs" exist? And what is a "song-play-dance"??
• their use of call-and-response singing between a leader and a chorus, with the exception of listwa,
  • dashes or parentheses would be more appropriate here.
• You don't need to repeat the parenthetical definitions.
• The last part makes it clear that débòt is a part of jwé (specifically jwé dansé), not the other way around,as implied at the beginning of the section (cf. above about débòt).
• Overall, the section is poorly organized. A firmer instruments/substyles/dances division would help.

kwadril

• Same merge as above suggested.
• The modern kwadril has declined in popularity; it had come to be seen as a symbol of colonialism around the time of independence, and was shunned as old-fashioned and out-of-date.
  • This sentence is rather clunky. The semicolon is probably superfluous.
• Learners act as a sort of apprentice for more established performers.
  • Act as X to Y
• A successful performance brings respect and prestige for all participants who dance the correct steps which are traditionally said to "demonstrate control over behavior, manner, and skills" and "symbolize... a set of special values linked with a higher social class".
  • Run-on relatives...
• are the lakonmèt and the mazurka the same thing or not??
• latwiyèm fidji fixed this typo.

rose and marguerite

• With only 3 other incoming link, this one can definitely be merged here for the time being.
• La Rose and La Marguerite are rival societies that commemorate the Anglo-French heritage of the island; the factions represent the warring colonial powers, between whose hands Saint Lucia changed fourteen times.
  • It should be made clear what type of societies they are. Cultural societies? Learned societies? Or something closer to the arab world's tariqahs?
  • Also, that sentence is poorly built.
• Both societies draw on English royalty traditions and have a number of positions, including the King, Queen, Prince, Princess and various lower titles like the Chief of Police and nurse.
  • Why is "nurse" not capitalized?
  • One redundant word in the two first.
• La Rose and La Marguerite meet once weekly except during Lent.
  • I'd think weekly meeting do occur only once a week.
• At these meetings, which are on Saturday for La Rose and Sunday for La Marguerite, members sing or play instruments and dance.
  • It,s not clear whether the last part is intended to split, or describe all meetings: parsing as "sing or play instrument, and dance" comes more naturally in this context.
• earlier, it was vaguely implied that the lakonmèt can be substituted to parts of a kwadril, but here it's clearly made to be an entirely different dance. that needs to be cleared up.

other styles

• Just making sure: is "merry-go-round" pointing to the right article?
• Lucian drinking songs are the chanté abwè, which are rarely performed in recent years.
  • Why "the" chanté abwé? And "recent years"? Not exactly the best word choices
• Chanté abwè are performed in a game in which the singers
  • Less than ideal stringing of prepositions
• performed one couple with a leader and chorus

funereal

• • looks like a word's missing
• in contrast to other Caribbean islands, which hold their wakes on the first and ninth days
  • Wow, wordy mcwordiness: "whereas other Caribbean islands hold theirs on the first and ninth days"
• accompanied zo or tibwa and ka.
  • Missing word
• the images makes it difficult to spot the location of wherever the places are right away.
• The villages of La Grace, Piaye and Laborie in the southwest area of Saint Lucia
  • Missing commas
• the paragraph switches from past to present.

Kélé

• Yet another ridiculously short "sub article"
• "region" is a wee bit sweeping term for a country the size of Laval and Montreal combined...
• Only one family, from Resina, in modern Saint Lucia claims to have the religious authority to perform and pass on the kélé rituals.
  • My mind reads this and expects a "still" somewhere
• these are the adan, èrè, koudou and kèré rhythms.
  • Use a colon and drops "these are"
• Kélé rituals also include singing and dance
  • "Singing and dancing" or "songs and dances"
• The following enumeration? way too long and complex.

Popular music

• "found through" should be "found throughout" or "found across"
• Music scholar Jocelyne Guilbault has called calypso the primary way modern Lucians "express social commentary"
  • The placeen of the quotation marks looks off. This probably needs to be recast.
• Along with calypso, Lucia has
  • Saint Lucia has...
• mostly on 45-RPM
  • If grammophone record is any indication, this probably should be "45 rpm"
• That sentence does not connect well with the following one, and the paragraph seems mostly redundant to the "government and industry" section below. If its not, then the latter section probably needs to be re-titled.

Roots revival

• I'm really not fond of a section having only a subsection. It can probably integrate into the parent section or an historical outlook.
• I wasn't able to trace what the "1969 Expo in Grenada" was, but it's definitely not a World's fair: there was none in 1969. Also, "1969" appears twice in that sentence.
• The section is odd, because there is no indication that the "revival" was preceded by a decline... Which leads me to recommend the whole "popular music" (by the article's own admission, St.Lucia has little Pop music proper, and no industry) be completely rewritten to an history overview.

Government and industry

• Section is poorly organized, and hardly reflects its header.
• The 2005 festival was a boost for the local music industry
  • Is there or is there no music industry in St. Lucia?

Education

• change the header to "musical education" or something similar
• Music is a part of the curriculum at public schools in Saint Lucia; it has long been taught in younger grade levels [...]
  • No semicolon, break the sentence.
• Primary education on Saint Lucia, music and other artistic education is commonly used incidentally to teaching other subjects or for special occasions.
  • Looks like you started a sentence and finished a different one.
• while others spent more time on general group singing
  • while the remaining spend [...]
• Many of the schools that do not normally instruct in music may offer volunteer clubs
  • drop the "may"
• Many Lucian schools have formed ensembles, most commonly a wind ensemble (30% of schools), or a steelpan band (20%) or combo group (20%).
  • Stringed "or"s
• both for the benefit of all students and the enrichment of the musically-gifted among them.
  • This is very poorly worded, bordering on the garden path sentence
• from across the island.
  • from the whole island
• The footer template there needs to move to the full bottom of the article.

Circeus 23:50, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'd greatly appreciate peer reviews on this article as a whole. I'm particularly interested having the "Characteristics" section re-organized so that comparison of Transcendentalism and dark romanticism is more clear. I've considered using bullets for the three major points of comparison, but they don't seem right. Thank you.

Stcircumstance 00:11, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good article on first glance. Agree with the bullet points idea. That section, which I imagine is very difficult to write, needs more clarification. Could also do with a small summary  Done at the beginning of the Prominent examples section.-- Zleitzen^(talk) 00:21, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• If you eventually want to go for FA, you will need to expand the lead. It should be about three paragraphs and summarize the article. WP:LEAD
• I think that you have to explain transcendentalism more so that the contrast is clearer. I would do this in the "Origin" section when you describe the rise of transcendentalism.
•  DoneSpawned in eighteenth-century England from ideas of the Romantic intellectual movement - This is difficult to substantiate. Horace Walpole's The Castle of Otranto is often labeled the first gothic novel and it comes before the beginning of the Romantic movement (traditionally defined).
•  DoneYou might try to explain why "gothic fiction" is different from "dark romanticism."
• Rather than having separate sections on each author, I would use their stories, novels, poems, etc. to illustrate what dark romanticism is.
• I would also suggest that you read quite a bit more before expanding this article. Your sources seem a little thin. Using an introductory textbook and an encyclopedia is generally not the best way to go because these works simplify a topic. You should know much more than you include in the article. You should decide what to include in the article (which is actually a summary of the scholarly work on the topic). You should discover what the scholarly consensus is by reading many scholarly books and articles. Google scholar is a good place to start. The MLA database, if you have access to it, would be another good resource. Awadewit 23:28, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've been working on this article sporadically for a while, and I'm looking for some input on what else to do with it. --PresN 05:21, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Big points:

• Excessive use of quotes (like: "level", "Paradise", 'life', "sandbox", "leveled" and "Blood of a Divine") throughout the whole article. Things that have an unusual name (like level in Oblivion context) without an internal link specific for that meaning should be made italic (e.g.: level system), and those with an internal link should be not within quotes (e.g.: Paradise). Quotes from cited sources should be rephrased, or use {{cquote}}. The reception section is a huge clutter of quotes right now.

 Done

• The Overview section is just a pile of information stitched together. Move the first four paragraphs to a 'development' section just before 'reception', and the last two to the lead section.

 Done

• Section structure of the first few sections is confusing. Separate by world, lore, and story information, and Gameplay information. Move guilds a and playable races to setting, and write something about the gameplay. Check out Final Fantasy VIII, a FA, for a good example (though it names the section Plot, which I wouldn't do).

Split it up into sections, though I wouldn't call it done yet. --PresN 01:47, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Gameplay and Story need images.

 Done

Smaller points/nitpicking:

• Try to cut some information from the infobox. Long infoboxes are not well-read. Make the image smaller as well - consider having only the logo and name as image, and use the full box cover somewhere else.

 Done

• WP:LS. Lead section is poor.

 Done, I think. I tried to model it off of Final Fantasy VIII's. --PresN 01:47, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Gameplay of the Elder Scrolls series shouldn't be a main article, but a see also.

 Done

• Guilds section is poorly written and unreferenced.
• Story is too long. Cut non-essential information, or move to a separate article. A good way to do this might be to move the information to "The Elder Scrolls" articles instead of this one, like Cyrodiil.
• Translation errors is a fourth-level section header, should be third.

 Done

• Reviews table is too wide. Should be half of the page (on 1024) maximum, and even then the column of text next to it should be made text-align:justify with a div.

I narrowed it, but I'm not sure what you mean by text-align:justify with a div --PresN 01:32, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Done it myself - see my most recent edit. Non-justified text next to a table is unreadable. --User:Krator (t c) 08:25, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, now I see what you mean. --PresN 15:26, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Downloadable is an awful neologism, especially in a section header. Consider rephrasing.

 Done

• Reorganise references to the official game guide. Twelve times the same reference is not good, I'm not sure how it should be done, but I do know that someone must have encountered this problem before, so a template might exist.

 Done

• Why are only wiki fansites listed? This is Wikipedia, not a guide to all wikis. List a few fansites (three or so), and leave it at that. If one of these happens to be a wiki, so be it, but don't make exceptions for wikis.

 Done

I do not consider this done, really. It still lists these sites only. --User:Krator (t c) 08:25, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hashed it up again, only one wiki linked now. --PresN 01:47, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

--User:Krator (t c) 22:44, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

PS: I would appreciate it the appropriate parts of this review could be marked with a {{done}} template, if any edits are made based on it, or made because of it.

Thanks! It has some pretty serious flaws, but they do get hard to see after a while. --PresN 01:25, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm nominating this article as a test of the system, and also because he was a really cool guy. Haus42 18:57, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As I stated in your other article up for peer review, a good article starts at the library. You need to start writing a lot more verifiable information regarding this person before we can really slice and dice the article. Please refer to the many featured articles on Wikipedia that are biographies. JHMM13 08:02, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your time JHMM13. It wasn't clear to me that the project's peer review functionality put the page up for Wikipedia-wide peer review. Given this information, and with apologies, I withdraw this article from consideration. Haus42 11:57, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No problem at all. It's not your fault. I hope to see this article on the "real" peer review soon on its way to GA or FA. That's a challenge ;-D JHMM13 19:53, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Currently listed as a Good article but needs other sets of eyes to look over it, particularly as it only has one major editor to date. I'm working this towards FA and need advice on what is wrong or missing - Peripitus (Talk) 11:18, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On the whole, this article looks really good. A few comments:

• You may want to the change the table style to "wikitable" - it'll look nicer. See Help:Table.

  fixed

• It might be worth coverting the timeline into a table; see how other articles of a similar nature handle it.

  Converted. Does seem to look better with the preceeding table.

• Where's Adelaide? (I know where it is, but many readers might not). Add a note in the lead; perhaps after the first instance of the town's name?

  Fixed - works better now as I've split the opening sentence into two and noted where adelaide is.

• Check WP:MOSNUM. I have a feeling numbers such as "50" should be in word form. A minor point, however.

  After reading the style manual on this I've made it consistent, using the words except in places like "expanding to 90 trams and 650 horses" where numerals and letters don't mix well

• Could Kensington Gardens have it's own article? I'm not sure if Kensington Gardens (and John Stephenson Co., etc.) is a proper use of italics according to the manual of style. You may want to check usage of italics throughout the whole text.

  Changed the sentence about the gardens. Looking at a map it's never going to have it's own article although it will be mentioned eventually in the associated suburb's one. Fixed the italics, as I couldn't find anywhere they were used per the style manual I've taken them out

• Great Depression should be capitalized.

  fixed

• "Until purchased by the government, all horse tram operations were by private companies with the only government involvement the passing of legislation enabling line construction." Sentence doesn't flow too well. Could you rephrase?

  Now reads "Until 1907, all horse tram operations were by private companies, with the government passing legislation authorising line construction". The line as written was poor and contained redundant parts.

• tax exempt -> tax-exempt. This might only occur once in the text.

  Fixed - only occurred once that I can find

• Could you sum up what "turning of the sod" means? Also, it shouldn't be in italics.

  Changed this to "official ceremony starting track construction" and removed the italics. Turning of the sod was a common phrase for the ceremonial digging up the first bit of grass during a construction project, but it is probably not widely used.

• Changes
• There's some punctuation missing, especially before/after footnotes. I've caught the ones I've seen. Check reference positioning also.

  I think I've caught all of this now but will not strike this out until sure.

• According to WP:MOSNUM, "fifty eight" -> "fifty-eight".

  fixed

• "Open cross-bench trams with no weather protection on the side of the cars they became unpopular during inclement weather." This sentence doesn't make much sense to me, even after "placing" a comma in the middle of it.

  that line was awful ! Changed to "They were open trams, with no weather protection on the side of the cars, and passengers seated on cross-benches"

• "Victoria square" -> "Victoria Square" surely?

  fixed

• Off topic, but the pictures and diagrams would be useful on Wikimedia Commons; you could then add a {{commons}} link in the External Links section.

Hopefully that's enough for now :) Feel free to strike out comments you feel you've addressed. CloudNine 14:59, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the detailed commentary !- I'll see what I can fix in the next day - Peripitus (Talk) 22:03, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Now fixed all except for rechecking punctuation and grammer errors, thanks for the quality input - Peripitus (Talk) 01:13, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, Senators^{Talk | Contribs} 22:01, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Just created this article from scratch as it's a book I've owned and loved for many years and appears quite notable in view of authorship and popularity at the time. Think this could be a great (FA) article and would appreciate people's thoughts on how to make it so! GDallimore (Talk) 02:48, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• The most obvious first thing would be a picture of the book cover. CG 16:10, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's plain brown leather! :) But a picture of the title page, preface or contents pages might be an idea. Thanks. I'll see what comes out best. GDallimore (Talk) 16:36, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Done, plus some tweaking following a suggestion on my talk page.GDallimore (Talk) 01:04, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there - I have been recently working on this article in an effort to improve it from its pretty much stub-class status, and I would very much like to get it up to FA-class. As such, i'd appreciate any comments as to which sections could be expanded or condensed, a review of the article to finad any errors I have missed, and for the page to be assessed to see whether or not it is yet A-class. Currently i've managed to get it up to Good Article-class, and would like some fresh minds to look it over before I make the final push for featured. Thanks very much in advance. Colds7ream 16:44, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This article is really nice work! I'm confused by something, though. There are two source references given for the sentence that starts, "In all, the American astronauts would spend more than a thousand hours aboard Mir." But ... that doesn't look right. Shouldn't it be "more than a thousand days"? (American astronaut Shannon Lucid spent 179 days aboard Mir. 179 * 24 = 4,296 hours.)

• Yes, it should - and it looks like someone's corrected that already! Colds7ream

Also, there seems to be quite a bit of Capitalization of Words in the article. For example the phrase, "next leap into Space, to the Moon, Mars and Beyond." But also, repeatedly, "Space Station." Wouldn't "Mir" or just "the station" work as well?

And then, maybe most importantly, as regards the discussion in the "Program background" section about the motiviations for the program: the section doesn't mention the idea that the U.S. participated in the program partly to keep the Mir program (and the larger Russian space program) funded and operated by a relatively friendly Russian government. This is only touched upon in the "Criticisms" section. But it isn't a criticism; it's basic political science. Some people have asserted it was the primary motivation for the program. Of course some assert it continues to be the primary motivation for "Phase 2" as well.... Sdsds 01:20, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Right - thanks for pointing those out. I'll work on some decapitalisation and reworking of the background section when I get back from work this afternoon - thanks very much for reading it through! :-) Colds7ream 07:58, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Decapitalisation done - just got to rework the background section now. Colds7ream 16:20, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• I have added a 'political aims' paragraph to the background - if you think it needs expanding, please keep the comments coming! Colds7ream 18:10, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello – a cool article there. Several comments:

• Introduction: eleven Shuttle flights → eleven shuttle flights
• Program Background: Program Background → Background
• Program Background: US president → American president
• For all sections: For the citations, spaces aren't needed before and after: examples: - in orbit. ^{[1] [2] [3]} → - in orbit.^[1][2][3] and (flying Mir expeditions LD-4 and EO-15). ^{[10] [7] [11]} → (flying Mir expeditions LD-4 and EO-15).^[10][7][11]
• Mir: 250 tons, link tons.
• Program Timeline: Program Timeline → Timeline

• All above done. Colds7ream

• Safety & Scientific Return: ageing → aging

• What can I say? I'm British, that's how its spelt: Cambridge Dictionaries Online Colds7ream

• Forgive my ignorance of British spellings :). Thanks for the link. [sd] 16:26, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Safety & Scientific Return: Align image to the right.

• The reason I aligned it to the left was to continue the left-right-left-right image arrangement of the rest of the article - without wanting to sound rude, why do you think it'd look better on the right? Colds7ream

• Ahh... Thanks for the explanation. [sd] 16:26, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Finances: Reduce the number of one- and two-sentence paragraphs.
• Finances: own money is their business,". → own money is their business."
• Safety & Scientific Return: Safety & Scientific Return → Safety & scientific return or Safety and scientific return

Good work! Happy editing, [sd] 10:47, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Above three done - thanks very much for reviewing it; I appreciate the feedback. Colds7ream 16:20, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• You're welcome. Cheers, [sd] 16:26, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, everyone - thanks very much for the reviews of the article you carried out - I'm putting it forward as a Featured Article Candidate today, and hope that the things you spotted and the changes we made come to fruition in that. Thanks for all the help! Colds7ream 09:02, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Wikipedia:Peer review/The Godfather/archive1

I am planning on rewriting this article for GA and then FA status. Any suggestions would be helpful. :) The Filmaker 02:32, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Extend production information.
• Cite differences from plot, don't make it part of synopsis.
• Get better pictures, like everybody around Vito at the wedding and the aftermath of Michael committing his first kill.

WikiNew 19:44, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• The Cast section seems more like a Characters list. Perhaps reverse the actor/character order and make it so?
• Combine, in some way, the three tiny paragraphs about people who auditioned.
• Citation 10 is blank.
• More pictures would, indeed, be good.
• I added a number of "citation needed"s. Please find sources for those sentences.

Polymathematics 17:46, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• The lead seems somewhat short.
• Incorporate the sentence-long section Release into Reaction.
• As above, maybe a picture or two more.
• I'd use any and all DVD special features/documentaries as much as possible since they probably can help verify much of what is yet to be referenced.
• Ordering of sections: I tend to see it like this

1. Production
2. Plot
3. Cast
4. Release (sometimes incorporated into Reception)
5. Reaction/Reception/Response (so many different names that essentially mean the same thing...)
6. Soundtrack
7. References

• Sometimes, however, Production follows Cast. And I think Adaptations would follow Soundtrack, but don't quote me on that.

Cliff smith 20:04, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comments/Contributions on:

• Infobox
• Plot Review
• Other sections needed (Characters perhaps?)
• Background Information
• Sources

Millancad 19:01, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• (Update) If anyone who knows German could see what could be added from the German article, that'd be great.

ɱўɭĩє^{What did I do}_wrong 20:24, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Could you find a cover that is at least closer to the time and place of original publication? I'm not a stickler for first editions but that picture is silly. The page is supposed to be about Goethe's book after all. Let's try to put it in historical context, please.
• Also, the novel was not published in Germany. Germany did not exist as a nation until at least the middle of the nineteenth century. You might check where Goethe originally had it published.
• Do you have a reference for the climactic scene being the poems? I would tend to think that the climactic scene would be the suicide. Statements like that tend to be a matter of personal interpretation. Be careful with them.
• The lead should be a three-paragraph (or so) summary of the article. WP:LEAD
• leaves after a great embarassment - mention what it is
• You need to have scholarly sources for your material, such as the claims that the book is partly autobigraphical and had a wide cutural impact. See WP:CITE
• The cultural impact section could be greatly expanded. This book had a dramatic impact on writers at the end of the eighteenth century. "Everyone" read it, as they say. It influenced Romanticism in England and Sturm and Drang in the german states. That should all be there. Also, I would suggest that you have a section explaining what literary scholars have written about the book.
• You might consider a small section on Goethe.Awadewit 12:44, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly this is not ready for peer review but I wanted to point you at Google Books which will have a wealth of full view critical resources for a book of the age. This article needs LOTS of work, but follow what the sources have to say most often and it should be easy to see what points are important to get across. Also you need to get a free content image for the info box. There should be many public domain possibilities This is almost certainly PD.--BirgitteSB 21:16, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

I have added a lot of infomation to this article, including finding some pictures. It's a challenge to write as the club is a very passionate item amongst the older lesbians in the UK. I would like to see it elevated from a Stub. Fluffball70 22:28, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Cites come after a full stop and not before. Also try reviewing Wikipedia:Citation templates which'll help as concerns suggested citation styles. When citing from a book, it's best to quote the specific page number for each citation. LuciferMorgan 00:40, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am confused? There is completed citation template for the book that was used. I'm not sure how you would do the page numbers? Except be doing each point as a complete new reference entry? Do I need to reference every single line? Fluffball70 19:34, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah you would do each point as a new entry, like; Surname (Publication date of book), p. number

The Iron Maiden (band) article does this. You would then add the book name to a References section. The section you've named References should be called Notes. LuciferMorgan 23:23, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've done some heavy sourcing of this article, and would like to get it to GA-status or better if possible. I would like recommendations especially regarding any sections which need expansion, and suggestions as to what's missing. Chubbles 22:36, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good article Chubbles. Perhaps the lead could be expanded somewhat to two evenly sized paragraphs.-- Zleitzen^(talk) 04:52, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Added a few sentences to both paragraphs; thanks Chubbles 07:27, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've completed a radical expansion of this article from a stub. It was rated "Start" by an admin; since then I've added the infobox w/ photo, plus subsection headings & a bit of miscellaneous formatting & cleanup, but I'm stuck on how to further improve it. I left out some addtional material -- such as a section of musico-philosophical quotes from Spano -- as possibly unencyclopedic overkill. It's pretty exhaustively sourced, I think -- maybe overly so? the multiple footnotes do kind of break up the text, but I wanted to be careful. GA or FA status would certainly be cool. Any comments or suggestions would be hugely appreciated. Thx --Turangalila (talk) 11:37, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I fixed a few spelling mistakes, also I am not sure about the "--"s, is that standard? overall an informative article and good job. The lead could probably be worded a little bit better --Rayis 12:35, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry -- I'm not sure what bit you mean when you mention: "--"s. Are you referring to orphaned letters "s", as in "[[Wagner]]'s Ring Cycle"? Or do you mean the double-hyphens themselves? On the latter I'm not sure if there's a standard; I'm in the habit of using them as a sub for the long dash, but maybe I should replace them w/ Unicode dashes? --Turangalila (talk) 19:43, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

[copied over from article talk page ---Turangalila ]

One thing I noticed off the bat is the four quotes in the lead section. The quotes should be moved to a new section, possibly in a recognition section. See also Lead section. Your concern about over-referencing is understandable. I noticed a sentence with five references and many that are double referenced, which does seem a bit excessive. That only happens for controversial statements, but now that the citations are in, I see no reason to remove them. The Recording and Affiliation sections are lists that take up almost as much space as the other content. I'm not quite sure what to do there...

Lastly, I think it would be great if you could put up 30 sec samples of his work like in Bradley Joseph. I think this could easily be a Good Article and maybe a Featured Article in the future.

You may want to check out some of the musicians that are Good_articles and Featured articles to get an idea of what GAs and FAs look like. Mahanga^{Talk to me} 15:55, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is a concise, informative article. Nice work. Here are my suggestions.

• The quotations in the lead should be included in the article and the reader should be told in the text of the article who is saying them. The lead is supposed to be a summary of the article. WP:LEAD
• He is regarded as an advocate of new music - you link to "contemporary classical music" so why not say that Spano is an advocate of emerging classical composers or contemporary classical music? I found "new music" vague.
• lead any of the most prominent (and richest) orchestras - I would delete "richest" - it seems oddly placed and prominence requires wealth in the classical music world.
• The younger Spano began making music early - The tone here is rather cheesy.
• After high school he went to Ohio to study at the Oberlin Conservatory - how about emphasizing the conservatory? "After high school, he went to study at the Oberlin Conservatory in [town], Ohio"
• After high school he went to Ohio to study at the Oberlin Conservatory, where he would earn a degree in piano performance, while also pursuing the violin and composition and studying conducting with Robert Baustian. - run-on sentence
• From 1993 until 1996 he travelled the world nonstop - tone is colloquial
• while also exploring the use of visual elements to augment (or fundamentally alter) the standard orchestra-concert experience - could you provide an example?
• In 2002, Spano announced his intention to step down from the Music Director position in Brooklyn at the end of the 2003-04 season, remaining as an advisor, and then principal guest conductor, until 2007. - a bit awkwardly worded
• By then, Spano was ensconced in his new position, as Music Director of the Atlanta Symphony Orchestra. - I love the word "ensconced," but I am not entirely sure it is the best choice here.
• After some troubled years for the orchestra in the 1990's,[18][8] and despite his would-be gala debut as Music Director being marred by the tragedies of 9/11 just four days earlier,[18] Spano's tenure has been judged by most to be a lift to the orchestra's spirits, as well as its artistic standards, which are generally seen as having improved. - awkwardly worded
• I wonder if you could separate the "Awards" from the "Recordings" or if you could somehow make the "Recordings" section easier to read. Right now, the awards are buried amongst the publication information.
• I noticed that most of your sources are from major newspaper like the New York Times; that is good, but what about the publications that are for the classical music world? Certainly they have talked about Spano? What about Gramophone, for example?
• You say in your comments above that you have left out Spano's philosophy of music, but I would definitely include that. Wikipedia is more expansive than most encyclopedias and since Spano is a conductor, his philosophy of music is certainly relevant to his "notability."
• You might also think about including more pictures. Are there free or fair use images of him conducting, for example?
• If you want to go for FA, you should probably fix the red links either by de-linking or creating stub pages for them.
• This article needs a very brief copyedit. There are tiny problems with commas and other minor writing problems. Awadewit 16:28, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Peer review/Zaireeka/archive1

Zaireeka is now a GA. What can be done to push it to FA status? What can be done to improve the article in general? - MajorB <talk> <contribs> - 00:37, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think the best advice I can give you without having read the article is to find an album article that became an FA recently and figure out what they did to get it in. At first glance, I'm not a gigantic fan of the section layouts. I don't know what other album articles do, but I think they might put the track listings somewhere else. Check up and do write what you find out here so I can see it and comment further. Thanks, JHMM13 03:08, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It seems the other album FAs have the tracklisting near or at the end of the article. I could try and place it there, and have the actual article section start off with "About the Songs." - MajorB <talk> <contribs> - 00:08, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I restructured the article. What do you think? - MajorB <talk> <contribs> - 10:37, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Article has seen fairly big changes in recent months and has expanded and improved a lot. Over time, I hope it can become a featured article. Some specific areas of attention are references (are there things that still need references, are the references used ok?) and the human culture section. Are some of the entries perhaps too trivial? Are important appearances in human culture left out? But obviously, ALL comments are welcome and as always, edit where you see fit yourself! BabyNuke 22:28, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I like it! - apart from the taxonomy and long list of dolphins which kinda screws up how the whole page looks. Couldn't that be moved to its own page? Think outside the box 13:08, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Personally, I believe it's one of the things more commonly looked up in the article so it'd be nice to have that in the same page. BabyNuke 20:59, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok then, but could it be moved to the end of the article. I just feel that I'd rather see some pictures of dolphins and how they basically are, before we get more specific. Think outside the box 11:13, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I like the current location. I suppose however, some photos could be put next to the species list as examples of various dolphins? BabyNuke 12:49, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeh that would work. Think outside the box 09:13, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comments a quick look over showed some promising material but also some causes of concern.

• TOC is a mess, frankly. Headings like Genetic evolution and anatomy of dolphins with only one subheading? Break it up with more conventional subheadings. In fact, evolution, taxonomy and genetics should be separate from anatomy/morphology and sense. Likewise more subheadings for behaviour (breeding, play, feeding, social organisation,). Consolidate threats, role in culture and other like things as subheadings of one section called Releationship with humans.
• I agree that the species list should be moved to the botom. Most TOL articles folllow this convention.

I see no "convention" here. In the deer article it's roughly in the middle, in the porpoise article it is at the top, in the bird article it is also at the top, in the Cetacea article it is at the bottom. BabyNuke 14:33, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Dolphins entered the water roughly fifty million years ago. Dolphins' ancestors maybe?

Changed. BabyNuke 14:33, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Unlike most mammals, dolphins do not have hair, but they are born with a few hairs around the tip of their rostrum which they lose after some time adult dophins do not have hair perhaps?

It is clear as it is. BabyNuke 14:33, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Origin of name aka etemology can be moved to relationship with humans. Start with biology, then move onto human-dolphin aspects.

I would agree, but some other things are clarified in this section also which help in understanding the article, namely which definition of the word is used. BabyNuke 14:33, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• In this article, the second definition is used. which refers to Any member of the families Delphinidae and Platanistoidea (oceanic and river dolphins), , yet the taxobox only has Delphinidae. Which is it?

Added Platanistoidea to the taxobox. BabyNuke 14:33, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Hybrid dolphins can move to genetics/taxonomy/evolution section

They are in the taxonomy section already. BabyNuke 14:33, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Six species in the family Delphinidae are commonly called "whales" but are strictly speaking dolphins. They are sometimes called "blackfish". A dolphin by any other name would still smell as fishy. If this is an article about the family Delphinidae (and Platanistoidea) then include these 6 species as any other in the taxonomic list.

They are in the taxonomic list already, these are just given special attention as mistakes are commonly made with them. BabyNuke 14:33, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Dolphins are often regarded as one of Earth's most intelligent species, That should be some dolphin species are egarded as amongst the worlds most intellegent animals or something. Dolphins aren't a species.

Changed species to animals. BabyNuke 14:33, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• In behaviour... the section begining Because of their capacity for learning, dolphins have been employed by humans for many purposes can probably go with the sectin on human-dolphin interactions rather than behaviour.

Agreed and done. BabyNuke 14:33, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Feeding sction geneally needs expansion.

Perhaps, will take a little more time to do. BabyNuke 14:33, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• The culture section needs rationalising. Too much info, and it isn't organised to best effect.

Pruned. Organisation in my eyes if fine, it's roughly chronological. BabyNuke 14:33, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Get rid of the See also section. It isn't FAish and most of it can be inclded in the text.

Done. BabyNuke 14:33, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I hope that helps some. Sabine's Sunbird talk 22:52, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comments: seems too similar in appearance to a number of related articles; based on that I suggested, for example, that list of dolphin species be merged into it. In the alternative, the taxonomy section can be removed and merged into the list of dolphin species article. 69.140.155.148 04:10, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I blieve the entire list of dolphin species article can be removed. It contains no information that isn't in the dolphin article. BabyNuke 15:22, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I would like to have a community peer review on this article done, based on it's compliancy with established, written policy, and also for the linguistic feel/style/wording of it. thank you. - Denny 19:43, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• The incident is still too new, in my opinion, for it to have settled on a form which would be eligible for peer review; it is barely one week old. However, it does seem to follow our written principles of NPOV and ATT, in that all statements of merit are sourced, and that the prose is written from neither an apologists nor villifier's point of view. Whitewashing/bowlderization is as much a POV violation as is defamation. We have sources, we bring them accurately, and we refrain from editorial comment. At this point, the article should be allowed to evolve, and perhaps three months from now, when it is semi-stable, it could undergo a more complete peer review. -- Avi 19:50, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree in principle, but as 1 to 3 people are so vocal still in the content choices, I want to do this now, and have more people avaluate where we are and where best go, then bring it back again in 2-3 months to build on that and aim for Good Article status... - Denny 19:53, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• The article is in serious need of oversight. Any attempt to organize the article is being revoked. A few minor adjustments to the sections will improve the quality of the article. I have attempted to organize the sections but to no avail. The images were removed without consensus. Previously, many editors wanted to pictures to remain in the article. I have made comments on the talk page without collaboration. More editors are welcome to participate and read the comments in the talk page. Please help. For more detailed information read my comments on the article's talk page. Thank you. QuackGuru ^TALK 20:24, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • What personal private information is in the article that Oversight is needed? -- Avi 20:22, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • QuackGuru was referring to oversight in general, attention needed, not speaking of WP:OVER. Hbdragon88 22:30, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The article has considerably stabilized, and I am hoping for more input. - Denny 18:33, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

• This article has no images. Please see if there are any free use images that fall under the Wikipedia:Image use policy and fit under one of the Wikipedia:Image copyright tags that can be uploaded. To upload images on Wikipedia, go to Special:Upload; to upload non-fair use images on the Wikimedia Commons, go to commons:special:upload.^[?]
• See if possible if there is a free use image that can go on the top right corner of this article.^[?]
• There may be an applicable infobox for this article. For example, see Template:Infobox Biography, Template:Infobox School, or Template:Infobox City.^[?] (Note that there might not be an applicable infobox; remember that these suggestions are not generated manually)
• Per Wikipedia:Context and Wikipedia:Build the web, years with full dates should be linked; for example, link January 15, 2006.^[?]
• As per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates), dates shouldn't use ^th; for example, instead of using January 30^th was a great day, use January 30 was a great day.^[?]
• Please ensure that the article has gone through a thorough copyediting so that it exemplifies some of Wikipedia's best work. See also User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 1a.^[?]

You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, Wikipedia's False Prophet holla at me Improve Me 01:11, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Since this peer review was first put up, it has changed considerably. Most issues have been thrashed out, consensus reached, and the article could do with another review. Several editors on the talk page have expressed a wish for the article to reach FA status; pointers for how to reach that would be gratefully received. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 04:33, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• It's very difficult to write so soon after a events. The editors at this page have my thanks for their efforts. Yet even if all other elements were perfect I don't think this article could qualify for FA yet because of stability and comprehensiveness issues. The long term impact hasn't happened yet. Durova^Charge! 06:12, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• One glaring omission is that the article by Michael Snow and Andrew Lih from The Signpost is not referenced. In the context of this article, it is probably a more reliable source than any of the mainstream media publications, and includes original reporting. It would be a mistake to exclude it simply because the article is being written on Wikipedia; were it written on a different hypothetical wiki encyclopedia that follows our policies, it would most certainly be a valid source.--ragesoss 07:29, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • While I see your point, one problem there is that if the signpost is reliable, then it brings up the very relevant question of why my personal observation (or a userspace essay/report I wrote on the subject) wouldn't be. After all, I and most of the other editors on the page where there when the on-wiki blowup happened. If nothing else I agree that we should include it as a related link, like we have Essjay's user talk. --tjstrf talk 22:18, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • My view on the subject is that WP:SIGNPOST is held to be reliable by its relevant readers, whereas a personal userspace essay on the subject wouldn't. I'm also in two minds myself on this matter. CloudNine 16:10, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to help bring this article to featured status. Let us know where improvements can be made and what content is lacking. — BRIAN0918 • 2007-03-29 20:00Z

Apart from some recent disputes over the lead, which have now been practically resolved, the article is fine. It reads well, is thorough, contains very good images and is exceptionally well referenced. It only needs to be included in a few more categories, and it's ready.--Orthologist 21:52, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I've added more categories, including the ones that contain Category:Atheism, and the ones that are used on the featured German Wikipedia article. — BRIAN0918 • 2007-03-30 03:19Z

A very well-done article

Overall I would say it is a very good article. It is well-referenced and makes a good read.

It is mostly about atheism from the point of view of Western religion and tends to overgeneralize when discussing Eastern religions. The article seems to have a limited awareness of the broad diversity of views that exist within Buddhism regarding theism. The notion of all Buddhists being atheists is uncritically accepted by the article, and while this is true for some Buddhists it is not true for all. There are in fact many Buddhist sects that place great importance on the role of various deities. Buddhism in Japan is not the same phenomenon as Buddhism at the mall in the United States.

There was also a lumping together of Hinduism with Buddhism that did not seem to appreciate the differences between them. Hinduism is a profoundly theistic religion, and while there are some atheistic schools, these are a very small minority. The point is that Hinduism is able to accept both theistic and atheistic conceptions as valid spiritual positions.

I rarely say this about Wikipedia articles, but I would say that the section on References is too long. I find specific citations in footnotes to be invaluable, but a long list of general texts that are not specifically cited in the article is less helpful than a short list of the ten best books on the subject to help the reader know what to buy at Amazon if they want to learn more. Can a short reading list be pruned from the forest of general articles? If an article appears in a footnote, does it also need to be cited in the References? Buddhipriya 03:24, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This has been a feature article drive, and even though it's unrated (yet), I feel it is ready. I want comments, especially from some people who aren't familiar with Ice Hockey, to see how it can be improved. Thank you very much! The Evil Clown ^{my contributions} 14:26, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Definitely ready. It has great wording and synonyms and also flows very well. Thae guy drinking out of the Cup doesn't fit very well in this article. And the ^{[citation needed]} tag in the section Traditions and anecdotes needs to be cited, I'm sure. If that can be cited and the image can be removed it will be better than featured. --Hasek is the best 15:10, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Or, we can get rid of the offending quotation, too. What do you think? The Evil Clown ^{my contributions} 15:21, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is what I wrote on the Stanley Cup talk page:

In the anecdotes and traditions section, we need a few citations. This is a general notice. The Evil Clown ^{my contributions} 15:23, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I looked over the article. Written pretty good, however I do have some minor issues:

• If I am remembering correctly, they created a new Stanley Cup in order to preseve the old one. If a source is listed, that should be included. There needs to be some reason why they made the first duplicate. In progress. Might be tougher to correct.
• The note about the Rangers taking it to McSorley's Old Ale House, if it can not be cited, should be removed. I've never heard anything about that until reading the article, and there's not citation, and there is plenty of other noted things the Cup has done to be able to removed an unsourced event.
• The Finals of note should just be removed outright. It is rather POV, and one could argue that every finals has been notable for one reason or another. Deleted

Other than those points, I think it could make a good case for FA status. Kaiser matias 17:58, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Since Kaiser did the PR already I just looked over this quickly. A couple of things I noticed:

• Is it really necessary to put the South Park thing there, specifically? It might be better if it said "For other disambiguities, click here" or something. Deleted
• The Adventures and Misadventures lists are kind of long, and long lists are generally not encouraged (unless they're specific list articles like "List of so and so"). Is it possible to convert them into non-bulleted prose?Rewritten
• You can get rid of that last section, because it doesn't pertain to the cup itself.Deleted

That's what I noticed after a quick lookover but for the most part it looks very good. Nice work! Sportskido8 20:16, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As far as when the duplicate was made, it was in 1969. Why? Err, because the original was over 75 years old, had undergone a lot of wear and tear, and silver just isn't that rugged?  RGTraynor  20:25, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have the source? That source is probably the difference between GA/A and FA. The Evil Clown ^{my contributions} 00:54, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Looked over the article again. It looks a lot better, and very well written. Should make the grade to FA if you submit it, I think. Kaiser matias 20:50, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I don't actually have time to read the entire article, but one comment: The lead image is horrible. We really need to find a free image of just the cup, or someone can crop that one and make a new image out of it. As it is, the focus is on the player's bright orange shirt and not on the cup. --Mus Musculus 03:57, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm working on this article to reach featured status. Reviewers please make comments.-- Zleitzen^(talk) 08:04, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This article has come a long way in the last few months, including coming through a couple of significant content conflicts. The end result has been a well-cited article. Aware that there are still some things to address (see talk page), I am looking for some suggestions/criticism to help get this article to GA status. -- Pastordavid 21:18, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The article is very close to GA status. Some suggestions:

• Add an image of a Byzantine icon of St. John Chrysostom
• Add final cites
• Further description of author's argument in footnote 44 (Wilkin), along with citation of specific pages
• Some additional information on liturgical contributions and influence. I will help with that over the next three weeks.

I believe the article has a good chance of passing GA. The article is much better documented than many I've passed. I'd try to remove the citation needed tags, either by removing the point or finding a source. I'd also take a quick look at the WP:LEAD standard to see if adjustments should be made to the lead. On a style level, I would also try to turn passive into active tense where possible. It makes text easier to read. Having said that, I would likely have passed it. (Having commented on it now, I have to recuse, though. --CTSWyneken^(talk) 20:52, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ages ago, this article was nothing but a "list of patents that geeks don't like" to quote one person who voted it for deletion. Following an extensive editing process, it's now got to the stage where I think it includes a lot of useful info, including links to main articles that report further on a particular patent or the effects that that patent have had. It's also pretty stable as an article.

However, the article still attracts mainly geeks (of which I include myself). I'm hoping that this peer review request will lead to a review by people who aren't patent specialists or who aren't programmers. Hopefully this input will tell us how to further improve the article so it is useful/interesting/understandable by the general public. Thanks in advance. GDallimore (Talk) 15:08, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Probably would benefit more from a review by a patent specialist than by ordinary Wikipædians... what do you think? 69.140.155.148 03:57, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am a patent attorney. As, I believe, are User:Nowa and User:Edcolins who are also regular contributors to the article. As a consequence, we can be pretty sure the article is factually correct and non-attorney contributors have never raised any WP:NPOV objections since my major re-write. What I want to know is whether it's useful/interesting/understandable for the average Joe. My personal goal with the article is to make this tricky and often misunderstood/misrepresented area of law more accessible. GDallimore (Talk) 09:34, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Done a lot of work on this in the last few mounths. There is talk of make this a FAC. I think it's best to give it a PR first. Buc 08:08, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Numerous one line/two line paragraphs will need to be worked on and eradicated. -- Zleitzen^(talk) 05:26, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• I would suggest the following for starters. Hope this helps. Bigmike 18:54, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Re-align the text to standard (left), rather than 'justified'. I think most FA have their text aligned to the left which looks so much better than justified text.
  • Could the "Early years" section be expanded to more than two paragraphs?
  • The article is quite long, could it be split up, perhaps a separate article could be created for his career with the Ferrari team?

After about a few months of tinkering and still trying to achieve good article status, I feel the article is ready to march towards possible featured status. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 22:14, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Ok, it got GA now. Lead expanded, looking for pics. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 08:41, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I want this article to reach GA, but I've been working on it for too long and I need other people's advice. I'm not sure all the references are reliable, but I've exhausted Google resources, so ideas are welcome and any feedback appreciated. Please note that I'm not a native English speaker and that I'm a newcomer, so I might have done some basic mistakes - but I'm eager to learn. Thank you.Rosenknospe 10:38, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This article has been in a good-but-not-perfect state for a very long time; I remember promising to work on it soon back in October after an unsuccessful FAC nomination, and it was recently the subject of a stillborn SCOTM in February. I've been intermittently picking at it over the last couple of weeks but have left the basic structure intact. Specific questions:

• Placement and size of the antibiotic resistance example.
• Readability to people who haven't had this article watchlisted for months, possibly years
• 'Impact' section in particular, I think, needs further development. On the other hand, I think the history section may be hypertrophied considering that the subject is treated very well in other Wikipedia articles.

Thanks in advance. Opabinia regalis 03:42, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have a few comments, mostly regarding article size and organization.

• The article is fairly long. You might be able to summarize more briefly some of the sections that have their own articles. ("Historical development", as you suggest, is a good place to start.)

35k prose at the moment. I hate to cut this section too much because it's long-standing and rather well-written, but it does seem excessive. I'll give it a trim.

• Under "General principles": "Sexual selection" could be cut down and combined with "Types of selection".
• I would remove the "Nomenclature and usage" subsection and put that material in a paragraph immediately following the first paragraph of "General principles".

This and sexual selection have actually been trimmed a bit already. I moved the nomenclature section to the top but kept the subheader, as it doesn't really qualify as top-level material for 'general principles' (personally, I'd probably remove it altogether, but apparently this has in the past been a point of dispute). My bias is to keep sexual selection as its own header, but you're right that logically it goes under 'types'... will think about this.

• Too many stubby subsections under "Genetical theory of natural selection", though I'm not sure how it could be reorganized other than just removing the headings.

These are pretty standard subtopics, and I think there's a utility in keeping the recognizable terms in the TOC so people can find them easily without reading the whole article. But the TOC is quite long; does it at least fit on the first screen for you?

• The "Speciation" subheading under "Evolution by means of natural selection" is probably unnecessary.
• "Impact of the idea" has more stubby subsections which should be removed or reorganized. I would also rework the first sentence -- to say only that it had a profound influence on 19th-century thought suggests that its influence was less profound later (and today). The section is tangential by interesting: I like that the article is not limited to the science.

Good suggestion; I'm planning on rewriting that first paragraph, and I've been trying to think of where to move Lotka so he doesn't get his own header; all that maximum-power stuff is one of those systems concepts that's right on the border between 'useful' and 'nonsense'.

• More inline citations would be a plus. "Fitness" (under "General principles") and "Genetical theory of natural selection" are especially lacking.

Well, the material in those sections is really very uncontroversial, and mostly definitional more than anything; it can all be found laid out very straightforwardly in the Rice book. However, that book is very mathematical and probably not accessible to a general reader, so I'll try to rustle up a text that's less quantitative as a supplementary source. Are there any specific statements in those sections that you think need explicit citation? (You may also be interested in this thread on FA citation criteria, which didn't happen in the most visible place.)

• Overall, seems like scientific jargon is treated well. But I'm familiar with it so my opinion might not be the most useful.

Looks well done, but I think it'll need a little more work before FAC. Also consider submitting this entry to WP:SPR, although feedback may be long in coming if it comes at all. -- bcasterline • talk 20:41, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review! I'll post here again after looking at the impact section, at minimum. I'm not sure scientific peer review would be helpful, since most if not all of the people who would be likely to participate already watch and maintain this article. Opabinia regalis 04:48, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is, in general, a very well-written and clear article. My biggest issue is that it is written on too high a level. Because natural selection is "foundational" to modern biology, as the writers say, I feel that the page should be more accessible. I also feel that it is possible to explain the concepts to people unfamiliar with the material (it does not require higher mathematics, for example). Many of my suggestions below bring up sentences or sections that I feel my college freshmen would not understand (some I did not understand, and I am a graduate student in English who is an avid reader of popular science books). I want to make clear that I think that the editors have done very good work, I just want to make sure that their work is comprehensible by the general public. I have posted my comments on the first third of the article. I will post more later.

• Opening sentence is crystal clear to me, but I keep thinking of my freshmen. Does "genetic" mean the same thing as "heritable"? If so, I wonder if you could use that instead. It is a much more familiar word.
  • Not quite the same, although this is part of the subtle nomenclature distinction below; it is possible for something to be heritable without being genetic, or to be genetic only in a second-order kind of way. This is a common criticism of the claim that intelligence must be genetic because it's highly heritable - maybe there's no gene for intelligence, but intelligent parents create the kind of environment that produces intelligent children. It is also at least possible for something to be genetic but not phenotypically heritable - as in cases of low penetrance - due to stochastic variations in gene expression. This distinction is currently preserved in the lead to evolution (which changes by the day lately, but anyway...) and I think it's worth preserving here. Anyone with a decent grasp of English should be able to grasp the basic meaning of 'heritable', I'd imagine? Opabinia regalis 04:07, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thank you for that explanation. In regards to the article, it all depends on what you mean by a "decent grasp of English." I would say, no, that the majority of the college freshmen that I teach would not be able to define that word or, unfortunately, even guess what it means from context. This is, of course, just one person's opinion. I have only taught a few hundred undergraduates so far. Perhaps we should find someone with a larger data set to ask, someone who has taught a few thousand, for example. :) Anyway, all of these suggestions are simply that, suggestions for making the article more accessible to a wider range of readers. Awadewit 14:48, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Well, you're beating me by... a few hundred ;) But I'd be really, really surprised if the connection to 'inherited' wasn't a clue... the word could just as well have evolved as 'inheritable'. Opabinia regalis 03:52, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • You would think so. Sadly, no. I just thought I would point this out. Do want you think is best for the article. Awadewit 04:59, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• What do you think about introducing "genotype" and "phenotype" later in the article? Do you have any idea how often people look at this article? I would actually think quite a bit and I remember even in my college class on genetics for non-scientists at Columbia people could not keep genotype and phenotype straight (it was so ridiculous). You might think about this in terms of the article. That whole semester, the professor kept repeating the definitions over and over again. They were on every test and people still kept messing them up and Columbia is no slouch school. For some reason, people cannot wrap their heads around the nuances of the difference.
  • Oh no, that's... so sad. So very sad. I have, however, spoken to an aspiring medical student who told me that his 'mnemonic' for this was that genotype meant genes. I always knew the pre-meds turned their brains of.... anyway, isn't this a good reason to put the distinction early in the article, and very clearly? Opabinia regalis 04:07, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's not really sad. It's pathetic. Anyway, I would leave it out of the lead and give yourself room at the beginning of the article to really explain it in detail with examples if you are going to use these words as often as you do. I just wanted to give you a sense of how difficult this terminology seems to be for (supposedly) smart people. Awadewit 14:51, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Even banishing the word phenotype from the lead wouldn't really help this problem, I don't think, because the concept is critical - and it doesn't seem to make sense to discuss the concept extensively without giving it a name. I think the fact that natural selection works on the phenotype but has effects on the genotypes of future generations used to be considered a trivial point, and became more important when people started noticing that the fitness of an individual gene could diverge from the fitness of the body it inhabited. I added a small example in the general principles section, and a definition of alleles (from a classical perspective... we don't need to get too much into the chemistry of DNA here). Opabinia regalis 03:52, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Over time, this passive process can result in adaptations which specialize organisms for particular ecological niches and in speciation events by which new species emerge. - "passive process"? You mean the organisms don't choose it, right? Odd phrasing, though. Repetition of "species"; how about, "adaptations which specialize organisms for particular ecological niches; this is how new species emerge." Something a bit more dramatic and clear, maybe?
  • The idea was to work in a wikilink to speciation too - rephrased. Opabinia regalis 04:07, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Link is good - attach to other words? Awadewit 15:08, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Sorry, I don't understand that last part. Opabinia regalis 03:52, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • I meant attach the link to a different word than "speciation" so that the word doesn't repeat. Awadewit 04:59, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• I thought we weren't linking individual years (1859 book) - are we or arent't we? AHHHHHH!
  • Eh, I can't keep up with this stuff, and it's sad that many people can apparently find nothing better to do with their time than argue at length about this. I think this one is marginally useful, as other events in 1859 could be vaguely related, but it can go if someone cares more than I do. Opabinia regalis 04:07, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I could care less as well, I just wanted to point it out because I keep seeing that criticism arise at FAC. Awadewit 15:08, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• The term was introduced by Charles Darwin in his groundbreaking 1859 book The Origin of Species,[1] by analogy with artificial selection, a process by which individuals with traits considered desirable by human breeders are systematically favored for reproduction. - "by analogy" comes too late, we've forgotten what the analogy would be to by this time; it seems like we're talking about Darwin's groundbreaking book, not "the term" - reword (also, choose one verb tense)
  • Rephrased.
• The concept of natural selection was originally developed in the absence of a theory of inheritance; the union of traditional Darwinian evolution with subsequent discoveries in molecular genetics is termed the modern evolutionary synthesis. - explain - this is all so opaque - I think you mean that they didn't know about genes and DNA (Mendel was a closeted monk, right?) - is the "modern synthesis" the joining of Watson/Crick to natural selection?
  • Actually a little less modern than that; more like the joining of Mendel and Darwin - classical genetics didn't require a theory about the physical nature of genes to work. Tried to give a bit more context in the lead, without bogging down too much. Opabinia regalis 04:07, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Although other mechanisms of molecular evolution, such as the neutral theory advanced by Motoo Kimura, have been identified as important causes of genetic diversity, natural selection remains the single primary explanation for adaptive evolution. - if it is the single primary explanation, should it not remain alone in the lead in an article by itself? This introduction of another concept that I had to click on (sorry, I've never heard of "neutral theory" and it's not explained here) was distracting. All of a sudden, I, a stauch evolutionist, was going, what, natural selection is wrong? I don't think you want that. Something about the wording is off. Perhaps it is the "although." I would leave it off the lead, altogether, unless it is vital to understanding natural selection.
  • Is it really that jarring? Is it better now? There's a population of biologists who will smack people for 'naive' views of selection, especially those who work with molecular data - which are full of drifty stuff that makes actual adaptive changes hard to see amid all the noise. Hopefully some of the others who watch this article will have an opinion on this, though, as I know I'm biased on the molecular side. Opabinia regalis 04:07, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Right, but this article is not for biologists, really, is it? They should know all of this stuff, right? Isn't this all from Bio 101? You know how in physics you start with the planetary model of the atom and then move to the orbital model of the atom and then move to whatever comes next. There are more, but I never got there. The point is, these other models are not really correct, they just help people understand some of the basic concepts. So the article may initially look naive but it will go into more detail and of course it can never provide all of the detail that evolutionary biologists know. In this case, I think your article is actually more accurate than an planetary or orbital description of the atom, right? Awadewit 15:08, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • It's not inaccurate, just (some argue) misplaced emphasis. (Do people still teach the planetary atom thing? I don't think I ever got that without the obligatory asterisk.) I suspect that, if the molecular people were in charge of bio 101 (and there were no political minefields to deal with), they'd present selection and drift as parallel processes, rather than the current common setup where selection is discussed in detail and nobody hears of drift until they take a dedicated genetics class. But if you work with and present only morphological data, you really don't 'see' much drift. I put this question on the talk page for now. Opabinia regalis 03:52, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • I was taught the planetary model first (without the asterisk). Awadewit 04:59, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Didn't Darwin do the finch analysis in the first picture you have? You might mention that.
  • Done.
• The phenotype is the overall result of an individual's genetic make-up - "overall result" is not clear - isn't the phenotype the "outward" or bodily appearance of an organism, which is the result of genes, environment, etc.? Am I wrong? Was all that repetition in my class to no avail?
  • Reworded a bit to make this clearer - it's supposed to be 'overall result of genes, environment, gene-gene interactions, and gene-environment interactions', so they're all elements of a list. Opabinia regalis 04:07, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Often, natural selection acts on specific traits of an individual - what do you mean by "trait"? The most common usage of this word, by the way, is "character trait." I know you don't mean that but a lay reader doesn't automatically know what you mean by "trait."
  • Linked again to trait (biology). It's a fuzzy enough concept that trying to define it here for those who can't jump the chasm from 'character trait' to the biological usage is probably fruitless. Opabinia regalis 04:07, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm just letting you know what the general associations of the term are and why the word should be defined. You know how scientists use the word "theory" differently than the general public and how that has caused a lot of commotion in the evolution debate? It's the same principle. The connotations of these words can be very different to a lay audience. I'm not saying they can't understand it, I'm trying to tell you what many people might think when they read the word "trait." Awadewit 15:08, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I don't really think the biological usage is so different from the common usage in this case, though, do you? Or is my 'normal usage' already contaminated? ;) Opabinia regalis 03:52, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Trait in biology seems to be a lot more concrete than its everyday usage. Character traits are often elusive things like "patience." Dictionary.com, for example, defines "trait" as "a distinguishing characteristic or quality, esp. of one's personal nature: bad traits of character." Awadewit 04:59, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Most traits are influenced by the interactions of many genes, but some traits exhibit Mendelian inheritance patterns and are governed by only a single gene. - perhaps "Most traits are influenced by the interactions of many genes, but some traits are governed by only a single gene - they exhibit Mendelian inheritance patterns." - that way the easy part comes first and it is clear that the two definitions mean the same thing
  • Reworded.
• The "Nomenclature and usage" section makes subtle distinctions. I know that wikipedia is against explanatory examples, but they are necessary here. My students would never understand this passage. If wikipedia won't let the editors write their own, there must be published examples. I know I have read them somewhere. Let me know if you want me to dig them up.
  • I don't know what they're lawyering about on ATT or wherever, but I'm not sure an example is really what this distinction needs - I'd just as soon throw out the section altogether, as the distinction is subtle enough to be irrelevant at this level. But you've seen examples of this nomenclature distinction? Where? Opabinia regalis 04:07, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'll try to find them, but it will be a few days because I am off to an academic conference. Might be Dawkins, I'm not sure. Awadewit 15:08, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Oh, enjoy the conference, then! Opabinia regalis 03:58, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Back from the conference. Looking for the sources, but I'm leaving for another conference in a few days. I don't know if I will have time to find them before then. Awadewit 04:59, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• The basis of this approach is easily seen - most writing manuals will tell you it is not a good idea to tell your readers that something is "easy" or "obvious" because if it's not "easy" or "obvious" to them, you have just insulted them
  • Ah yes, 'the proof is trivial' ;) Reworded to 'is clear', which may not be much better, but I felt like I was insulting the reader just writing this out. It really should be very obvious, shouldn't it? Opabinia regalis 04:07, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm afraid many things are far from obvious to many people. You might see some of the debates I am engaged in at FAC over the use of sources as examples. There is apparently a wide misunderstanding regarding the reliability of primary sources (such as autobiographies) and popular histories and biographies. What seems perfectly obvious to me, such as one cannot rely on Reagan's autobiography as the main source for his article, does not seem obvious to others. Obviousness seems to be in the eye of the beholder. :) I am currently writing a manifesto on sources I have had so many debates over this. Awadewit 15:08, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Oh my, I had seen the Reagan FAC in passing but hadn't really appreciated it till now. There are tons of misconceptions floating around here about proper use of sources and the function of references - I suspect this arises from lack of writing experience, but I guess you're not supposed to say that out loud ;) You should definitely write something about this; you're one of the most articulate defenders of good choices of source material. Opabinia regalis 03:52, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• if an organism lives half as long as others of its species, but has twice as many offspring surviving to adulthood, its genes will become enriched in the adult population of the next generation - "enriched"? - I found that confusing diction
  • Changed to 'more common'. Opabinia regalis 04:07, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Natural selection acts on individuals, but its average effect on all individuals with a particular genotype is the fitness of that genotype. Fitness of a genotype is measured as the expected number of surviving progeny for an individual with that genotype, equivalent to the reproductive success or to the proportion of surviving progeny multiplied by the expected fecundity. A fitness value of greater than one indicates that the frequency of that genotype in the population increases, while a value of less than one indicates that it decreases. The relative fitness of a genotype is estimated as the proportion of the fitness of a reference genotype. Related to relative fitness is the selection coefficient, which is the difference between the relative fitness of two genotypes. The larger the selection coefficient, the stronger natural selection will act against the genotype with the lowest fitness. - This paragraph could be explained a little better. I don't think that I really understand it.
  • This is basically an attempt to say what's in fitness (biology) without the equations. Which seem to put people off for some reason ;) I don't think the formal definitions need so much airtime in the absence of the equation, so I'll reword this. Opabinia regalis 04:07, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Actually, I think that the equation would help. Seeing the equation written out in words is very confusing to me. Awadewit 15:08, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• The fitness of an organism may be broadly said to be a function of the fitnesses of its alleles. - first time the word "alleles" has appeared - no link - no explanation
  • Will put a paragraph in the general principles section on the basics of this stuff. Opabinia regalis 04:07, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• selective pressure can be produced by any aspect of the environment, including mates and conspecifics - give us a phrase and "conspecifics," especially because the link was to the middle of some page on competition, so it was not immediately clear what I was supposed to be looking for (are "conspecifics" organisms that are in competition? it doesn't say that anywhere on the "competition" page)
  • That's bad, I didn't realize there was nothing very relevant there. It means 'members of the same species' and is now defined inline. (And this is as far as I got today... more later.) Opabinia regalis 04:07, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• It is also useful to make a mechanistic distinction between ecological selection and the narrower term sexual selection. - "mechanistic distinction"? Again, this is sophisticated language.
• Ah, we finally get to "An example." While this is a nice example, I would argue that the article needs examples sprinkled throughout it. Frankly, most people cannot learn from abstract concepts alone. Educational theorists will tell you that being able to learn from concepts alone is a mark of intelligence (those theorists who believe in intelligence, anyway).
• You might mention what you mean by "misuse" of antibiotics in the first paragraph, rather than burying it in the middle of the example.
  • Example's been rearranged a bit, so that the arms-race stuff is all together. I'm not sure this is the place to get into all the ways people misuse antibiotics though. Opabinia regalis 03:52, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • You might at least mention not taking antibiotics until the end of their specified run. "Misuse" might imply drug overdose to some people. Awadewit 16:10, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Have you read the NSF report on scientific literacy (they do this study every other year)? It is appalling. Anyway, one of the things people have a really poor idea of is numbers, so I would suggest instead of saying among their vast numbers of individual members saying how many specifically and explaining one reason why it is that bacteria can become resistant so fast - there are a lot of them reproducing very fast.
  • I hope you don't mind me commenting on your review, especially a rather trivial point, but I wonder about this. I was always under the impression that stating an actual number, when that number is extremely large, is even less helpful because people simply can't visualize it. As a result it means nothing to them. In other words, a "vast number" is more easily grasped than "about 110 million", or whatever. -- bcasterline • talk 17:25, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • This is a good point. But what if the editors put the number in context somehow? Something like "there are 10 times more bacteria in the human body than human cells." Or some other illuminating comparison. Awadewit 18:16, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Hmmm. The difficulty with this is that there really isn't some fixed number that can be offered up as 'you need this many bacteria to get this effect' or whatever, and the bacteria/human cell ratio is mostly irrelevant since the vast majority of those bacteria are not the pathogenic ones. Also, the number of pathogenic bacteria present during an infection is certainly widely variable, though I'm not sure that it's been reliably measured. On the other hand, 'vast' is really weak for expressing the magnitude of this.
• several new strains of MRSA have emerged that are resistant to vancomycin and teicoplanin - how about "resistant to the antibiotics"?
• In your schematic representation of resistance, which is great, by the way, I would move the key to the bottom so that people don't confuse the key with the populations. Again, it really is enlightening to read reports. The tests associated with No Child Left Behind (whatever you think of the law - let's leave that aside) reveal that many if not most of the high school students in the United States cannot interpret a basic table or graph (let us not even consider a slightly more sophisticated graph).
  • I'm not sure what you mean - the key is at the bottom? You mean put more space between the populations and the key? Opabinia regalis 03:52, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I mean put the key under the caption. I have a feeling some people might think the key is another population set. Awadewit
      • Ahh. OK, assuming I see what you're getting at, that would make the key its own separate image displayed below the text caption. I think that might cause more problems with images lining up and such - would it help if I just moved the key down in the image, so that there's more white space between it and the populations? Opabinia regalis 06:43, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • I didn't realize it would be so complicated to move it! How about more space and a thick black line? Awadewit 16:10, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Natural selection by itself is a simple concept, in which fitness differences between phenotypes play a crucial role. It is the union of natural selection as a mechanism with genetic material as a substrate that offers most of the theory's explanatory power. - again, with the "simple" - also, "substrate"? not a common word - makes me think of rocks, for some reason
  • 'Substrate' is the most natural choice in my mind - guess I'll have to think of a better word. Opabinia regalis 03:52, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Is "genetical" a word? Why not just "genetic"? It sounds like the always annoying "ironical." Awadewit 14:26, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, it's an old word, but it was the one used in originally formulating the theory and is now universally but exclusively used in this context. Opabinia regalis 03:52, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wow - that is incredibly detailed, thank you! Hard to believe it's just the first third of the article ;) Sorry for not responding more specifically, or doing any work, but I've gotten tied up in meatspace (hmm, mixed metaphors...) and may not be around much for the next couple of days. Opabinia regalis 04:39, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

More comments.

• Overall, in the "Genetical theory of natural selection" section, I would say: examples, examples, examples.
  • Added a couple; can add more, but I wonder how useful these are given the fact that there isn't enough room to go into much explanation of the example itself. Opabinia regalis 04:54, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Anything concrete seems to help. Awadewit 16:10, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• I wonder if you can condense the first few paragraphs of "Evolution by means of natural selection." There is some repetition there.
  • You're right; will be truncated more. Opabinia regalis 04:54, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• I would say that you could cut the first two paragraphs under "Pre-Darwinian theories." I would stick to the direct history of "natural selection" and let the rest fork.
  • OK, it's been chopped a bit - I do think a little background is relevant, as the theory was anticipated to a greater degree than is usually taught. Opabinia regalis 04:54, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• radical evolutionists such as Jean Baptiste Lamarck had proposed that characteristics - what is a "radical evolutionist"?
  • Nothing in particular; removed. Opabinia regalis 04:54, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• might be inherited by their progeny, causing, in enough time - "in enough time" - sounds awkward
  • Reworded. Opabinia regalis 04:54, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• It is not totally clear how Lamarckism is different from Darwinism.
  • Lamarckism as a theory is essentially about inheritance, and happens to have a mechanism of evolution attached. They aren't inherently incompatible, except in the practical sense that acquired characteristics don't change subtly over time as is usually assumed for natural selection. Darwin explicitly did not posit the inheritance of acquired characteristics as a requirement of his theory, though he didn't really have a better theory of inheritance. (One criticism was that 'blending' of characteristics wouldn't maintain them long enough for selection to work, but as far as I know, most people by that time didn't take blending inheritance very seriously.) Opabinia regalis 04:54, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • You might explain this a little more clearly, especially the first part. Awadewit 16:10, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Does the current version serve this purpose? 'Inheritance of acquired characteristics' emphasizes the inheritance angle and links to more detail. Opabinia regalis 04:47, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Yes, I think this is better, but I was wondering if you were trying to link it to the geological theories or not. I was assuming you were but that was not explicitly clear. Awadewit 15:58, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• For Darwin, natural selection was synonymous with evolution by natural selection - just confusing until you read further - start with something that is not confusing
  • Sorry, I'm not sure what you mean. It's confusing that Darwin didn't conceive of other evolutionary mechanisms? Opabinia regalis 04:54, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • The sentence as it is worded sounds odd because most people don't think of natural selection as a mechanism. The rest of the paragraph makes this clear, but the opening sentence might confuse. Awadewit 16:10, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Reorganized a bit. Opabinia regalis 04:47, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Within a decade of The Origin of Species, most educated people had begun to accept that evolution had occurred in some form or another - this is debatable - you might want to find a source
  • It's been reorganized a bit. I need to hit the library this weekend, I suspect, as a significant fraction of the books I own related to this subject are still in a box in another state. Opabinia regalis 04:54, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • That is so annoying, I'm so sorry. Awadewit 16:10, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • It's my own fault, this has been true for months. But books are heavy and hard to move, dammit! Opabinia regalis 04:47, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • I don't even have room for all of mine. They are stacked all over my apartment and in suitcases in my office. It's sad. Poor books. :) Awadewit 15:58, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• This synthesis propelled natural selection to the forefront of evolutionary theories, where it remains today. - "forefront" - I think this is the wrong word, don't you mean something like "the center" or "foundation"? "Forefront" often means untested and unproven.
  • It's now a foundation. Opabinia regalis 04:54, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Darwin's ideas, along with those of Adam Smith and Karl Marx, had a profound influence on 19th-century thought. - why are you invoking Smith and Marx? You need to explain - there are many people who influenced 19c thought - why are you mentioning these two? how are they connected to Darwin?
  • I don't really know; I didn't write that section, and intend to rewrite it when I get some time. Smith in particular is a little curious - I know I've seen references to Marx, Darwin, and Freud as the three most influential 19th-century thinkers, though I suppose swapping Smith for Freud makes sense given the time period being discussed (which is itself curious). I expect this will be rewritten after the aforementioned library trip. Opabinia regalis 04:54, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I know why Smith is included (Wealth of Nation and the division of the labor). I think it would be odd to include Freud since his ideas primarily influenced the twentieth century. It depends on what you want to say. Do you want to talk about thinkers who "profoundly influenced" the nineteenth century or the twentieth century? Awadewit 16:10, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Well, it's a bit awkward to be talking about the 19th century so narrowly in the first paragraph of that section (it was more than half over when Darwin finally published, after all), especially since the subsections all focus on 20th-century thought. I don't propose including Freud here, but rather dethroning Smith and Marx; this should be very brief and general, not an intellectual history essay. There is also an extended series of articles on Darwin's reception and influence that are not well titled, but seem reasonably complete, and I'm fine with offloading most of the 'big' stuff to them. Opabinia regalis 04:47, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • I agree. Awadewit 15:58, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Tell us who Engels is when you quote him. Not everyone knows. And what about giving us his first name, too?
  • Done. Opabinia regalis 04:54, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Interpretation of natural selection as necessarily 'progressive', leading to increasing 'advances' in intelligence and civilisation, was used as a justification for colonialism and policies of eugenics, as well as broader sociopolitical positions now described as Social Darwinism. - awkwardly worded
  • Left alone for now, as I'm planning to do some reorganizing here. Opabinia regalis 04:54, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Extensions of the theory of natural selection to such a wide range of cultural phenomena have been distinctly controversial and are not widely accepted within most fields of cultural studies. - I don't think you mean "cultural studies." "Cultural studies" is a real subfield within history and literary studies and I have a feeling that many of its practitioners would accept the extension of natural selection into these other realms.
  • I think that's true in the sense that they don't oppose natural selection, and would grant that it has had influences on the emergence of human psychology; however, most of the theories thus far put forth under the sociobiology/evolutionary psychology umbrella have not been well received. (Particularly true for any theory involving the evolution of sex differences.) I think the wording is off; it's not that anyone opposes the idea of natural selection applying to human psychology, but that they oppose how it's been applied so far. Also, as far as I understand, the majority (but not the entirety) of this opposition has come from anthropologists. 04:54, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
    • Yes, the opposition has come from scientists. Unfortunately, some people in the humanities have taken this idea and run with it (sad to say - I fight these battles all of the time). I just think that you shouldn't use the phrase "cultural studies" because to any humanities academic it signifies something totally different than what you mean. I actually do cultural studies and it is not this at all; it is a study of society that joins the techniques of history and literary studies (very loosely). Awadewit 16:10, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Oh dear, anthropologists are scientists now? ;) I didn't realize 'cultural studies' had been claimed as a standalone term any more specific than 'the study of culture', but I just dropped the qualifier phrase altogether. Opabinia regalis 04:47, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • I think anthropologists are in between science and social science. Certainly many of them claim to be doing science and some of them are using much more scientific methods (data sets and all) than we would ever use in literary studies or history. I can tell you that literary scholars and historians think anthropology is something very different than what they do. Awadewit 15:58, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• The "Social and psychological theory" section seems choppy and truncated. Is it necessary for this page which is really about scientific natural selection? Could there be a different page for all of these adaptations? :)
  • This will hopefully get better. It's sort of an odd union of topics at the moment, mixing early reactions that have completely lost their currency with much more recent work. I'm a little hesitant even to leave the two together (even though I put the new stuff there), given the fact that 'sociobiology' got accused of advocating eugenics and all sorts of terrible evils to the point where the word has completely fallen out of favor. Opabinia regalis 04:54, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• For FAC, you will probably want to include more citations. At least one per section!
  • Fortunately, I think, the tide seems to be shifting away from counting notes over there. I'll probably just put a note along with the Rice book and a (hopefully) forthcoming simpler text that they are solid works to consult for more information on the definitional stuff (fitness, genetical theory section). I could just repeat notes to Rice in every genetical theory subsection, but I don't think that really helps. Opabinia regalis 04:54, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Is it turning? The tides turn quickly, then. I would still think that you would want to be able to point readers to specific sections of a book on specific topics. Awadewit 16:10, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Done at the chapter level; this article just isn't 'granular' enough for specific pages to be pertinent, except as a restatement of definitions. Will definitely need a general text; in looking this up I skimmed a whole bucketload of unnecessary integrals. Opabinia regalis 04:47, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Chapters sound about right to me. Awadewit 15:58, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• What do you think of more pictures? For example, of close alleles and far-away alleles or even just pairs of chromosomes? Awadewit 04:59, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • More pictures good. I hope to track one down for genetic linkage, which is kind of hard to visualize from a text description. I think you're right that a picture of a chromosome with a few arrows will help people concretize the descriptions of alleles and loci and whatnot. Opabinia regalis 04:54, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In case I don't see it, let me know when this comes up for FA. Awadewit 15:58, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Will do. Thank you so much for what may be the most detailed review I've ever seen on WP ;) This probably won't hit FAC for another couple of weeks, as I'm still busy in the real world, and I expect to be out of town next weekend. Opabinia regalis 02:42, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am looking for advice on how to make the article better.Amkered 23:15, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

At a glance:

• Lose the list (convert to prose)
• Add inline citations for anything likely to be challenged or otherwise in need of citation, assertions of fact, conclusions etc.
• I really don't think the intro provides enough context, (I remember thinking that when I saw it on DYK too).
• Expansion: So how does this all work? How does it "win out"?
  • Further, how does a farmer introduce it to their crop?
• Wouldn't historical perspective be better as just "History"?
• Talk about its use more. When? Where? How often? Why or why not?
• When all is said and done lead should conform to WP:LEAD.
• An actual image of the bacteria would be wonderful for the upper right hand corner of the page.
• Watch for tense agreement as here: found that when this particular bacterium was introduced to plants where it is originally absent
• Talk more about the differences between the minus and plus.
• Are there any applicable WikiProjects? They might have guidelines regarding what to include and what not to.

Hope that helps. Happy editing and good luck with a most interesting entry. IvoShandor 09:40, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I followed over from Wikipedia:WikiProject Molecular and Cellular Biology/Help. Here's a few comments:

• Inline citations = good thing. Wikipedia:Footnotes can help.
• The opening is too jargon-y and doesn't indicate the underlying importance of the strain (that it provides some frost resistance). In fact, the clear link to frost resistance doesn't occur until the "Economic importance" section--far too late.
• Wikipedia isn't a how-to guide, so there's no need to explain the production of the strain.
• Has it been used beyond any government field tests?
• The gypsy moth stuff is too tangental. A link to introduced species or something would prove more effective. — Scientizzle 23:01, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have recieved a peer review for the article, and cleaned up the points made. I then sent the article for a Good Article review which was unsucsessful.

I am looking for a series of peer reviews from at least ten wikipedians (more if possible), so I can get a good idea of what would be universially considered as a Good Article across the Wikipedia community :-).

Marcus Bowen 20:37, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Based on the backlog, I think you'll be lucky to get 3 reviews. Here are my suggestions for your article:

• The lead doesn't need to have so many notes. It should be a summary of the rest of the article where are these claims are made in full at which time you should probably reference the information.
• Try to consolidate some of the paragraphs in the lead.
• "The band are..." vs. "The band is..." Is the first form a typically British English usage? I've only ever heard it in use for things like "Arsenal are running up and down the pitch" whereas in American English we'd often say "Arsenal is running..." I'm just double-checking to see if it's a grammar error or just a variation in dialects. In the second case, leave it as is, of course.
• You should be able to obtain fair use images of the album covers. Check album articles for the fair use rational.
• Is there any literature on the band yet? If not, don't worry about it as long as your web refs are legit.
• In the last section, there seems to be a lot of listing going on caused by sudden news of the band and a fan attaching it to the end of the article. Try to smooth this out into prose and figure out if some of it isn't useful. If you can, also try to flesh out the sections on the other articles.
• Check out other band articles for ideas on more sections and more information. Here's a good link for you.

That's all I have at the moment. I hope this is useful to you, JHMM13 08:48, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Maybe an overall copyediting of the article could make the prose flow better. These are some problematic sentences IMO:

• "Displaying a vein of Pixies and Smashing Pumpkins influenced rock in their earlier sound, they have further incorporated elements of piano driven rock ..." Who influenced rock? Feeder? Is the subject the same all the way in thi sentence?
• "They both then moved to London, to become sound engineers, and recruited a bass player for their new band called 'Reel' and was later fired, and became 'Rain Dancer', in which that band didn't work out either." And recruited ... and was fired ... and became? I lost the subjects here.
• "The Singles (2006) Feeder returned to the studio with this time Stephen Street working as the bands producer, to record three new tracks to appear on their then forthcoming singles collection The Singles." Is this sentence OK? Why "The Singles" are both in the beginning, and at the end of the sentence.
• "The year ended with a small tour of London playing The Roundhouse and The Coronet. Two of these gigs seen guest appearances from The Sugababes and Jamelia. The gigs were in aid of War Child." Maybe a bit choppy?

• When we quote, we do not quote; we just "quote".
• I saw a criticism for wikilinking single years in the GA review. Well, it was not accurate. You can link per MoS single years if they are e.g. "2004 in music" or "2006 in British music" as you do.

In general, I still believe the article is entitled to be GA.--Yannismarou 07:39, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Peer review/Bikini Bottom/archive1

This article has improved a lot since the last peer review and its well on its way to being a featured article. The lists have been removed, it relates to the real world, there is now a picture of the city, it broadly covers the subject, etc. There may be a few problems left with this article, such as the fact that most of the images do not have fair use rationales and that the table of contents is too long. Any suggestions on how to improve the article further would be appreciated. Squirepants101 01:59, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's far too in universe - it's not enough to just say 'such and such is a fictional...' and then go on in the rest of the article treating it as if it's real. All of your citations are to the show itself - did the creators of the show ever discuss Bikini Bottom in interviews etc.? -Malkinann 04:02, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note that it was AMK152 who did most of these things, not me. Squirepants101 12:30, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I meant the plural 'your', sorry for the confusion. -Malkinann 10:10, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is a kind of small, out-of-the way article that I think is start-class and could make it to B-class pretty easily. It seems like a good choice to 1) get comfortable with the project's peer review tools, 2) do a useful, easy collaboration. Cheers. Haus42 21:15, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good choice, Haus! It looks like it could be an interesting read that does need some work, though. There are some basic things that you could do to really get this article going that might be reall interesting for you as well:

1. Head down to your local library and find a good bunch of books on the subject or if you're not feeling up for a drive, check out Amazon.com or BN.com for passage planning books or books on naval navigation. From there it's all obtaining knowledge and citing exactly where you got that knowledge.
2. Keep separate Notes and References sections like you might find at the bottom of this page: Domenico Selvo.
3. Put the images in places where they do not interfere with the text and provide maximum utility. Check out Wikipedia:Images, particularly the section of image choice and placement.
4. Really cover the topic thoroughly, but keep it in accordance with the fact that this is an encyclopedia. It is not a secondary source that details precisely what one must do to plan passages, but it should give a moderate amount of detail that is summarized and cited for verifiability.
5. Think about renaming the sections after you've gathered more information on the topic. Right now they're a bit vague and require a bit of explanation. Check out Wikipedia:Guide to layout.

When you're all finished and think it's ready for GA or something else, please submit it back here or at some other review area and we'll take another look at it! JHMM13 03:20, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much for your feedback! I wasn't aware that enabling the project's peer-review system actually submitted the article for Wikipedia-wide peer review. That said, your comments are very helpful. This (very new) project has over 100 articles and nothing particularly close to a GA. Hopefully, with feedback like this, we will be able to start moving articles from "start" to "b" more effectively. Haus42 14:11, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I can't wait to read them :-). Cheers, JHMM13 19:55, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

seems to me like a B-class article already. If you follow the suggestions above you may qualify as a good article! 21:13, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the encouragement! Haus42 21:17, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please give any suggestions you have which can help raise the importance level and quality scale, even if you don't understand Persian or like the team.Nokhodi 07:16, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Here are a few places to start:

• Wikipedia is perhaps not a repository for links, but it is indeed a large repository for featured soccer-related articles. Check out Arsenal F.C., Chelsea F.C., Everton F.C., IFK Göteborg, Manchester City F.C., and Sheffield Wednesday F.C. which are all featured articles. Here you should get a bunch of good ideas for layout and other such things. An article you can use that currently has an open FAC is Ipswich Town F.C.. Since it is about to pass, there you can see what it takes to pass the latest FA criteria.
• You need to find mostly English sources for the English Wikipedia. People here need to be able to verify the information supplied. You can have some Persian links to info you can't find in English, but it needs to be mostly in English if you can. Doing...
• The article needs many more references. Doing...
• Check to see if it's a naming convention to call a football club an F.C. instead of FC. Done
• Lots and lots of red links. While you're finding information for this article, I'm sure you can find some useful info for the people to whom you link. Done
• You neem to come up with a better name for the section titled "1979-89." Done
• The article needs a (read: several) heavy copyedit (read: copyedits) because there are parts that seem to be written by a non-native English speaker. Doing...

That's all I can come up with now. Try to flesh things out and summarize them at the same time. The best way you can raise the quality of this article is by taking it under your wing and trying to get everything right without any POV-pushing (a difficult thing to do for a sports team, admittedly). JHMM13 08:19, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there. Knowing nothing about this club is probably a good place for me to start peer reviewing this article! As JHMM13 said above, Ipswich Town F.C. did indeed make it to featured status so is a useful guide to what ought to achieve community consensus to promote to FA. Anyway, my specific comments:

• The article has no references at all. When adding these, pay heed to WP:FOOT.
• Is it FC or F.C.? This peer review heading redirects to F.C. but it's FC in the infobox. Done
• Four short paragraphs in the lead, could do with merging or expanding, per WP:LEAD. Done
• History is probably broken up under too many sub-headings. Done
• Several elements of familiarity in the prose ("...the boss was a big fan...", "1990s were a dream decade...") which need to be toned down or cited as quotations.
• With football seasons, n-dash is used i.e. not 1995-96, use 1995–96, as per WP:DASH. Done
• As above, some terms I'm not familiar with, e.g. until I clicked on it, I did know Pas was another club - I think they could be introduced.
• What's happened to the rest of the club season-by-season, since the honours go back to 1973? Probably not worth the season-by-season stuff, if need be, create a sub-article to contain all the records of the club. Done
• Squad changes - not required, if anything truly significant has happened then it should either be in the history section, or a sub-page which is more detailed. Done
• Famous players - famous to whom? I'm afraid to say that I'm familiar with only one or two. Yet again, a sub-page could be used. What criteria are you applying to them being famous? Some don't have an article. Done

Feel free to take all my comments with a pinch of salt, hopefully some of them will be of use to you. Don't hesitate to let me know if I can help clarify anything. All the best The Rambling Man 17:27, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there. Not sure how familiar Wikipedia users are with Alternate Reality games, but I've sort of run into some problems with the Perplex City article that I need feedback on. First of all there is the problem that there are two distinct parts of the Perplex City article - The huge plot section and the parts about the game. Because the game is going into another season that will have a different plot but a different set-up, I was considering moving the plot section (besides the "Background" part) to a separate article, but I'm not sure if there are other guidelines to adhere to.

Also, there is the problem about an ARG term known as "line-blurring". Line blurring is what "puppet masters" (people who run ARG's) attempt to do - to blur the line between fiction and reality. In reference to Perplex City, this would involve, for example, the fact that The Receda Cube is both a fictional artifact (it is not really a weapon or a religious artifact, those are only part of the story), but it is also a physical object that actually exists (but is only a metal cube). Characters aren't real, but their blog posts are. See the dilemma? This poses a problem in the plot section. It's hard to adhere to WP:FICT while remaining concise (Scarlet's blog said that, in the game, she was going to the town of Vindenbourg, a fictional city in the game.).

So, please review and give me some feedback. Thanks. -AtionSong 21:40, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You need to clean up your references and you had two spoiler warnings so I removed one of them. --thedemonhog talk contributions 16:11, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I did a recent semi-overhaul of the page. But I'm not an expert, I'm just an engineering college graduate who got A's in his physics classes and math classes. I know the power of using natural units and I appreciate using unitless dimensions. Hence the large section for the unitless properties of RD. Also, my physics proff. wanted us to demonstrate the hydrometer problem shown. I figured it was important enough to be encyclopedic. I've got a second proof, showing that a hyperbolic cross sectional area would create a linear relationship between displacement and change in RD, but decided it was not encyclopedic enough to warrant placing it on here. Since it required the use of calculus, I doubt most readers would understand it as well. (Also, I'm not quite an expert, as I've said before.)

If anyone has grammar issues, spelling issues, etc... change up the page. I'm not fammiliar with wikipedia's standard code of conduct as much as I'm sure everyone else out there is. I'm not a grammar expert, and I don't know how to program this math code for beans. If anyone thinks the math isn't important enough to warrant placing it there, let me know and I'll just put it on my talk page. I don't have any source for the proof I listed concerning the hydrometers, but I did cite other wiki pages which had sources and used basic algebra for my proof. --Markozeta 01:35, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What I'd like to see in this page.

I'd like to see some history of relative density. But I was terrible at history. Why is it called "specific gravity"? Doesn't that name seem contradictory?

I'd like to see someone talk about the uses of relative density in the Navier-Stokes Equation and other fluid equations where dimensionless quantities are usefull.

I'd like to see a better explanation (other then mine) about how relative density conveys more information then the actual density does itself. I just made that up by comparing the densities of iridium and lead.

I'd like an explanation of the Planck density and relative density. Obviously, if one took a density relative to the planck density, then the numbers would be incredibly small. My hypothesis is that the relative density with respect to the Planck density can not be greater then 1, or else the object becomes a black hole and physics as we know it ceases to exist around that object. But I can't prove that.

I'd like to see a resolution about sinking and floating. It's hard for me to grasp "water" being heavier then "oil". Even if I standardize it to "a liter of water" and "a liter of oil", it's still not easy to visualize. When I see it as "Oil floats on top of water", it sorta clicks and I realize that the water is heavier and sinks. Though it is true that for solids, there is no such thing as sinking and floating, for 2 outta the 3 states of matter commonly found on earth, it is true. And that should make it at least notable.

I'd like to see a difference between SG with comparison to air vs. SG with comparison to water. I think that should be at the top of the page. --Markozeta 01:49, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Many changes have been made to this article, including the adding of sources, as well as information on their musical style and influence. I know we're missing information on the Girls Dormitory section, so I would like to request to reviewers to temporarily ignore that section. I am looking for prose feedback, as well as feedback on what info seems inappropriate for a musical biography article. The prose itself is rather iffy, as it reads more like a list rather than "brilliant prose." Most of the sentences are probably awkwardly phrased, so I'd like to fix that as well.

I'm also looking to boost this to GA, if not FA. In the latter case, I'd like feedback on what this article lacks to get FA status. Thanks. Pandacomics 00:46, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've expanded this article from a stub and provided a history of the series from various sources. I'd say production info is pretty comprehensive but the page could still do with being looked at before it is submitted for GA. WindsorFan 16:07, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm looking for comments on what kind of information could be added to make the article more complete. (Suggest section headers?) Comments regarding bad grammar are also welcome. How far off GA is the article? Thank you for your time! -GilbertoSilvaFan 15:48, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well it certainly has a lot of GA potential. Could use copyediting and less point of view. Comments:

• Sole years and decade shouldn't be linked per WP:DATE.
• ...commonly called Estádio do Maracanã - Change to ...also called.
• Notes should be separated from the references to avoid confusion.
• On March 21, 1954 a new official attendance record was set in the game between Brazil and Paraguay match, as 183,513 spectators entered the stadium with a ticket - Add a comma after the date, "as" > "after", remove "match" as redundant to "game".
• ...three big football clubs in Rio: Botafogo, Flamengo and Fluminese - Replace colon with m-dash.
• ...a much loved Brazilian sports figure - Remove "a much loved" per WP:NPOV.
• ...the stadium after him, to Estádio Jornalista Mário Filho - Remove the comma.
• Put the "Construction", "Opening", "Post World Cup years", and "Modern day" as subsections to the main "History" section.
• References should be properly formatted using the cite templates.
• ...leading to the death of three supporters, and 50 more being injured - Remove the comma.
• Corinthians won the game on penalties - ...,which resulted in the Corinthians winning the game on penalties.
• On June 16, 1950, the opening match of the stadium took place - Move the date to the end of the sentence.
• ...was still by no means finished - ...was still unfinished.
• ...FIFA were happy for matches to be played - ...FIFA allowed matches to be played.
• The official attendance of the game was 173,830, however, the actual attendance was estimated to be closer to 210,000 - The two parts of the sentence aren't opposed to each other. Reword to The official attendance of the game was 173,830, with the actual attendance estimated to be about 210,000.
• However, the widely used nickname of Maracanã continued to be used - Remove "widely used" as redundant.
• Brazil beat Mexico 4-0, Ademir becoming the first scorer of a competitive goal at the stadium with his strike in the 30th minute - Brazil beat Mexico with a final score 4-0, with Ademir becoming the first scorer of a competitive goal at the stadium with his 30th minute strike. Michaelas10^{Respect my authoritah} 16:10, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Thanks Michaelas, much appreciated! -GilbertoSilvaFan 18:41, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A promising start, but to reach GA, the article needs to be more comprehensive and better referenced. For ideas, there are two featured and two GA articles about stadiums: City of Manchester Stadium, Dr Pepper Ballpark, Arsenal Stadium and Gaylord Family Oklahoma Memorial Stadium.

• A section about the structure and design of the stadium would be useful i.e that the stadium is a continuous oval bowl etc. What is the section which juts out in the lower half of Image:Maracana Stadium.jpg? There appears to be some form of track in the stadium, what is it used for?
• How often is the stadium used for club matches?
• Things which need citations:
  • Pele's records
  • Change of name to Estádio Jornalista Mário Filho
  • Completion of construction being 17 years late
  • Barrassi being sent to assist
  • Reopening with 97,000 capacity

Hope this helps. Oldelpaso 10:23, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have worked on this article and I hope I have improved it from a pretty bad version when I first found it to right now where it is more informative. I am not sure whether it has the potential to ever become a featured article, but I just want to know in which areas it can be improved. Thanks in advance --Rayis 19:27, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Still needs work. Right now it is not higher than start class ( though a good start article). Some remarks:

• Citation 1 is not properly formatted (use Template:cite web or Template:cite news). And maybe the citation should be at the end of the sentence.
• "He has been described as "one of Iran’s student leaders".[2][3][4] He is currently based in Washington, DC." Personally, I try to avoid that short sentences in the lead; they make the prose choppy. Try to find a way to better combine sentences, so as the prose to flow better.
• "Before his arrival in U.S in 2005, he had been imprisoned in Iran 19 times, with his first experience at the age of 17.[2]" Per MoS you should avoid one-sentence paragraphs like this one. They are not good for the flow of the prose.
• Anything about his family background? You go straight away to the improsonement, but the reader of an encyclopedic article wants to have a complete biography. Tis is not just a news report.
• ""About military efforts: No one wants war, neither we nor you. Our greatest efforts have been focusing on own people and forces within our boundaries, without war, to uproot the zealot Mullahs governing our country and replace them with a secular, democratic government which respects human rights and freedom". Why you bold here? This is not recommended.
• "he was one of the first of the democratic opposition in Iran to call for a constitutional referendum." You repeat the exact wording from the lead.
• In "See also" section you repeat articles already linked within the text.
• It is not clear in the article how he makes his living in US right now. His whereabouts? He works as a journalist? If yes, where?

After improving and expanding the article, I think tha a new review would be helpful.--Yannismarou 07:54, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I shall edit the article according to these ideas --Rayis 15:59, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I think the article is now up to B-Class status. Consequently the demands and the challenges are now bigger. Within this spirit, these are my remarks:

• If I was the writer of the article, I would definitely go for an external copy-editing by a native English speaker (unfortunately for this case, I am not). Maybe the League of the copy-editors could be helpful. There are obvious prose deficiences. See for instance, the lead: "He is known for his political activism and has been described as one of Iran’s student leaders.[4][5][6] He is currently based in Washington, DC. He was one of the first of the democratic opposition in Iran to call for a constitutional referendum to rescind the powers of the Supreme Leader and Council of Guardians.[7] Fakhravar is the founder of the Iranian Freedom Movement (In Persian: Jonbeshe Azadye Iranian).[2] He is also the ..." Prose which: 1) is repetitive (repeats the same forms of expression; no variety), and 2) choppy (meaning too short sentences).
• It is not nice to have more than one citation in a row. You can combine them. Check for instance Tourette syndrome or Actions along the Matanikau for ways to combine citations.
• Nice you added a "Background and student life" section. Whatever more you can add is welcome, so that the section does not look stubby.
• "Later he started his higher". Personally, I never start new section with "he". I would say: "Later Fakhravar started his higher", but again this may be a personal preference.
• "Later he started his higher education at the University of Medical Sciences in Urmia, where he was elected as the chairman to the student government body of the university in 1994." This could maybe go to the previous section as well I think.
• Per WP:MoS don't have a gap between the inline citation and the punctuation mark. I fixed that in the lead, but I think it is all over the place.
• "He claims to have had a prominent role ..." Why you say he claims? Are there other sources rejecting his "prominent role"? Aren't there any "objective" reports?
• "After an argument with the judge, he was beaten in front of the court by the judge Seyyed Madjid Hosseinian, [16] which resulted in him sustaining heavy knee injuries [17] and a broken leg [16] before being transferred to the Qasr prison. [3]" Try not to interrupt the phrases with citations. Do it only if you feel it is necessary; otherwise, put them at the end of the sentence combining them. Some reviewers (in FA especially) do not like sentences to be frequently interrupted with inline citations.
• I would turn "Awards and honors" into prose.
• Try to get rid of "Trivia". If the info there is important, incorporate it somewhere else in the main text.--Yannismarou 12:45, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks ever so much! Very good points that I shall use to improve this article, cheers. --Rayis 13:08, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have been attempting to source a lot of unsourced statements and information in the Miriam Rivera article, including:

• birthdate
• place of birth
• aliases
• work in pornography
• claims about a recent hospitalization

I have also been trying to limit the citations to reliable published sources. Many exist from 2004, when the subject was in the public eye. However, other sources, including a message board and blog for sex workers and people attracted to them keeps getting inserted as a reliable source. I'm seeking outside opinions regarding the quality of sources after a lot of back and forth with an editor who insists WP:IAR trumps all policy regarding sourcing and reliability. Jokestress 16:31, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have expressed my opinion in the article's talk page, and my reservations towards blogs. I am happy to see that the situation is calmer now there. Now, I understand the difficulty to source the information the article needs, but I don't think I can offer any original ideas. The article, as it stands now, is a start-class article; with some work and expansion it could get B.--Yannismarou 07:24, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I personally have not inserted anything into that article in quite a while. Look at the history of the article. I give Jokestress credit for writing a good article and urger her not to remove anything more. I also understand that their are some valid WP policy reasons for being cautious about the sources.. To be honest it seems as if Jokestress has problems with using hungangels as a source. As she said "However, other sources, including a message board and blog for sex workers and people attracted to them keeps getting inserted as a reliable source.(Jokestress)" So if it were a newspaper ran by and for transsexuals who are in adult entertainment would she still mention the fact that they are in adult entertainment? Why does that matter to her? Certainly people in adult entertainment would know who was who in those video's and pictures, Right?

I would rate the current article highly thanks mostly to Jokestress. However, I mean If it does not mention the following well known facts.

• aliases -- a common practice among the population of which she is a part.
• work in pornography -- A well known and undisputed fact, reportedly admitted to by her on There's Something About Miriam
• Facts about a recent violent attack and hospitalization -- will have to be added eventually.

Without those this will be a very incomplete biography. --Hfarmer 16:09, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I just received my first WP:FA this week. I am attempting to understand the prospects of a WP:FTC for

Campbell's Soup Cans

Andy Warhol {{GAnominee|2007-03-31}}

The Factory

I need some guidance on how The Factory can be improved. TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio) 04:28, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Suggestions - As I see, this article really need references. Try to find out where this info came from. Also, add a few more internal links, and an infobox. Besides that, this is a very well-written article! — JuWiki (Talk <> Resources) 23:27, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to know what to rate this under the FBI Project Box, and since we don't have a lot of members, I thought it would be better to get this reviewed by Peer Review. BlackBear 14:48, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting subject. Sizable article with some room for improvement.

• Needs more links to other articles. A lot more links. How could you not link to September 11 attacks or the FBI?
• Image [37] doesn't work.
• There appears to be something wrong with the referencing. Probably just a simple code mistake somewhere around reference #40.
• "Only the New York Post and NBC News[36] letters were actually found; the existence of the other three letters is inferred from the pattern of infection." Reference that. In fact, most of the overview need referenced.
• "More than Twenty-two people developed anthrax infections, some of the victims have been covered up by the FBI, eleven of the life-threatening inhalation variety." Sounds like a conspiracy theory. Reword if that's not what you're going for.
• The letters sections need references. Don't be afraid to use the same source more than once in the article.
• I don't think we need to have the notes in actual note format. Entering them as a quote should be fine.
• Don't have simple external links within the article themselves. Use <ref></ref> tags everytime you reference or mention an outside link within the article text.
• aerosolization is a red link. Redirect it to aerosol or something similar.
• Use a quote template or something similar for the dialoge in the Congressional oversight section.
• Don't use MLA, APA, or any other high school or college research paper referencing in the articles. This is Wikipedia, not an English class. Use <ref></ref> tags. See Wikipedia:Referecing.
• The principal means of decontamination is fumigation with chlorine dioxide gas. Reference that.
• The comments from 'bio-weapons experts and 'Comments from government officials' seem un-encyclopedic. It's outside the scope of Wikipedia to provide commentary about anything. If they are notable in the investigation and have anything notable to say, move it to another appropriate part of the article. Remove all quotes, comments, whatever, which are not notable and remove the sections.
• Further reading:"Anthrax Powder - State of the Art?" by Gary Matsumoto (Science, November 28, 2003) [43] Fix that.
• Make sure that the timeline is in line with Wikipedia:Timeline standards.
• Related events: Move notable events into other parts of the article, the Timeline, or the See Also section.
• There are four images of the letters and a diagram, but no images of the people involved. Find images of Tom Brokaw, Steven Hatfield, some FBI agents involved, some victims, ect. Make sure that they are alright by Wikipedia image copyright standards.
• Make sure that all claims are referenced. Except for the lead section, every claim in a truly great article should have at least one reference to back it up.

--Wasted Sapience 16:35, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Improving this article was long overdue. It's been hurting for a while now, but I finally got around to researching and rewriting it. I think people have found it confusing before, I'm wondering about its state now and if there are any suggestions for further improvement. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 23:08, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It would be nice if you had a picture. --thedemonhog talk contributions 22:32, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately CBC is very strict that stuff from their website can't really be reproduced. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 22:34, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There must be some image that you can use under fair use. --thedemonhog talk contributions 16:15, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There's the CD cover, but a picture just for the sake of it is decorative fair use and that's not allowed. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 21:54, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is a somewhat unusual request for a peer review, because it deals with an already featured list (administrative divisions of Adygea), which was featured fairly recently.

A peer review is requested because the list was so significantly expanded and reworked that it would be wrong to just replace old contents with a new draft without subjecting it to public scrutiny first.

The main differences between the current version and the updated version are:

• infobox has been re-designed;
• prose has been significantly reworded;
• layout was changed;
• a new large section on administrative division structure has been added;
• "municipal division structure" section has been re-written;
• additional references have been provided;
• the map was adjusted;
• layout of district composition sections has been changed;
• content of district composition sections has been expanded.

Any feedback will be much appreciated!—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 19:31, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The following is a cross-post from User talk:Ezhiki#Adygea, with pieces irrelevant to this peer review edited out:

I have few suggestions/observations:

1. Lead is crying to be longer ;)
2. Nice new map :)
3. The summary table of units of administrative division is great. Just move it to the right (just add align=right next to class="wikitable") so that there is no huge empty space on the right.
4. I really don't like all those intendations. I think different size headings are just fine and do job well enough.
5. I really don't like ==Rural localities== Source: [11]. You should put that [11] after sentences taken from that source (it's ok tuo cite the same source 50 times :)
6. Sources: 1897–2002: [11] 2007: [2] should be incorporated with the table (extra row at the bottom)
7. There is no need to bold things like "municipal urban okrug of the city of Maykop" or "municipal urban settlements"
8. ^ a b 2002 Russian census should have more details: where the date got published?

Renata 00:38, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

1. I am not sure what else could be included in the lead, and, in my opinion, its length is just right.

3. The summary table is now right-aligned. Better?

4. The reason why identations were used instead of different level headings was because there are too many nested sections. When headings are used, the font of the deepest ones is almost smaller than the font used in the body text.

5. We tried to cite the same source multiple times. The output, in my view, is almost unreadable (this revision shows how it looks like). Any other opinions?

6. Implemented. Better?

7. Why not? They emphasize the most important concept in each passage.

8. That was an oversight. It is now fixed.

—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 17:34, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello and great job on this article. Some feedback:

1. The new infobox is WAY better. It is a much neater table that displays the information in a more concise and useful fashion.
2. The new History section needs some attention paid to its visual chunking - it looks bad on the page. Too many small paragraphs. It would look better grouped into larger sections for readability.
3. The Administrative division structure" is not really a logical hierarchy. You say that the district governs the inhabited localities, but they are given the same hierarchical level as the district.
4. The subheadings under "Rural localities" need to be visually distinct, not just indented - it is hard to discern if the hierarchy is just visual to separate listings or if they are intended to be smaller subsections of Rural localities.
5. I don't actually care for the table designs under the "List of administrative and municipal divisions" heading. They are too big for the information that they display, and there is too much white space. Consider sizing them down - for example, there is a huge column that displays one number. Consider using shading for better visual presentation.

Overall great work and I would still support it for Featured List status after the rework. --Mus Musculus (talk) 16:25, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

2. I am planning to expand the History section a bit more. However, I am not sure how to bundle the smaller chunks into larger ones, as they are grouped by time periods.

3. Districts govern some, but not all inhabited localities. Both Adygea's cities are not in jurisdiction of any district, and it is theoretically possible that any other inhabited locality (urban or rural) may be subordinated directly to the Republic. The grouping is thus in accordance with the source (Law of Adygea on Administrative-Territorial Division). Perhaps a clarification of some sort is in order?

4. I think we had tried every possible formatting there is, and identation so far worked the best. If you have suggestions as to exactly what else can be tried, you are very welcome to voice them here.

5. The design of those table, unfortunately, is another source of frustraction. I will happily re-design them if anyone has ideas as to what exactly will work for them. Could you, please, clarify, which cells you believe would benefit from shading?

Thanks much for your valuable feedback!—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 17:49, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Much work has been done on this article since it was promoted to A-Class article status. I'd like to know what other editors think should be done to meet requirements for Featured Article (FA) status. Thanks! Jancarhart 19:00, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There are quotes in this article that are not appropriately cited, and I am hoping those editors who contributed these quotes, which are good ones, will add the citations. While factual and providing a solid array of "hard," academically qualified citations, the section on Stanton's break with the abolition movement clearly ruffles some feathers. I'd like to know what others think of this article and would welcome suggestions on this and any other aspect of the article. Jancarhart 23:51, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I thought that this article was quite good. I'm not quite sure what you mean by "ruffling feathers;" historical personages from another era do not always do what we want them to do. I am assuming you are presenting the story as scholars have presented the story, so no feathers are flying over here.

• If you want to go for FA, I would recommend a copyedit. There are some awkwardly worded sentences, spelling mistakes, etc.
• Any direct quotations should immediately be followed by a citation. Also, again, if you want to go for FA, you will probably need some more citations, particularly for claims about what Stanton felt and larger claims about her impact on society.
• You might look to wikilink a bit more. I thought Charles Grandison Finney should be linked, for example.
• I wonder if you could create some sort of "Legacy" section that more clearly outlines which of her ideas were adopted and which of her ideas influenced later feminists.
• I wonder also if you could discuss her writings in more detail, either within the narrative of the biography itself or in a separate section.
• Have you tried searching for the quotations on google? I have had a lot of luck using google for that sort of thing. Awadewit 23:54, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• • Many thanks for comments. Would be graeful for any copyedit & wikilink you think appropriate. (I will add one on Finney.) Not sure what additional citations to add -- are there particular "claims" you think need citations? (It seemed to me they were either already cited or have been noted within the text as requiring citations. I'm still hoping the folks who oput these in will provide the necessary citations, as I've been unable to find sources for them, and several of them seem worth keeping, if they can be cited.) As for ruffling feathers -- that's based on comments that have been made on the discussion page. ECS was clearly a remarkable woman who had her limitations nevertheless. Seems some people are uncomfortable with including these aspects despite their being remarkably well documented and despite the fact that, understandable or not, they resulted in schisms within the women's rights movement. 71.192.46.152 03:36, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have done a quick copyedit and added some fact tags. I have a feeling that some editors might say the article is too "essay style," that is it comments too much on its subject. Personally, I think it is fine, but I have been criticized for this and wanted to warn you about it. Somewhere in the archives of my talk page User talk:Awadewit, someone explained this concept to me. Feel free to browse those comments and take it for what you will.

• "Oh, my daughter, I wish you were a boy!" - is from Stanton's autobiography; it is from the first paragraph of the second chapter (School Days); I found it on Project Gutenberg, so I don't have a page number, but you seem to have the text itself
• I was searching for the rest of the quotes myself, without any success I might add, and I noticed something odd. The article is all over the web. Do you know how many sites wikipedia has licenses with? I wonder if they have plagiarized from wikipedia. It was strange. Especially after I had edited the article and all of the "citation needed" tags popped up on those articles.
• I wonder if you might send those quotes to a reference librarian. They are good at tracking those kinds of things down and you are right that many of the uncited quotations are good and deserve to be kept.

Well, I don't think you should worry about ruffled feathers. You should tell her biography "warts and all" as Cromwell once said about his own portrait.

I would also add to my review that I think the lead should be expanded to include more about the schism and her role in the women's rights movement in general. Leads are usually three paragraphs for articles of this length, so I think you have room to expand. WP:LEAD —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Awadewit (talk • contribs) 16:28, April 2, 2007 (UTC)

Once again, many thanks!! I've been out of commission for awhile -- recovering from a broken wrist -- and haven't had a chance until now to work on the article. I really appreciate you adding "citation needed" to places where they were lacking. Seems I'm footnoting every fact, but I suppose that only makes sense, particularly given there is some discomfort with the section on ratification of the 14th & 15th amendments and the schism in the women's rights movement. A friend of mine's a reference librarian -- hopefully a good source for referencing the uncited quotations. (I was, of course, hoping the editor who put them in to the article might add her own citations, but, alas, seems that's perhaps not meant to be.) You mention that you've seen this article "all over the web." Is it actually quoted on other websites, or is it just that, as usual, a Wikipedia article comes up first with partial quotations in a Google search? If it's actually quoted or plagarized elsewhere, is there anything you know of that I should do about that, or is that a general "wikipedia" problem? (If Wikipedia copyrights the material, I assume they've got someone who monitors plagarism and copyright infringement issues, don't they?) In any case, thanks again. If you come up with any other ideas, I'd love to know what they might be. By the way, I just looked at the comments you directed me to about "essayist" writing on your pages. Noticed that you're doing your dissertation on 18th century British lit. I know he's a century earlier, but my first British lit scholarly interest was Jonathan Swift. I wrote my undergraduate thesis on his poetry. My real love, however, is Blake.Jancarhart 22:34, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I couldn't help it being April Fool's, but seriously, the sections Peer review#Peer review and software development and Peer review#U.S. government peer review policies specifically need to be taken a look at to get this article to GA and then FA.--Jorfer 15:46, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For me, the biggest issue in the article that needs to be addressed is the overwhelming emphasis on how peer review works in the sciences with much less emphasis given to PR in the humanities and social sciences. --Myke Cuthbert 01:54, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think that this article has real potential to reach GA status. All it needs is to be cleaned up some more. I've already gone in and added citations to all the necessary places (except for one and I may just delete that bit) but it could still use some additional editing, clean-up, etc. Any suggestions, comments, etc. would be greatly appreciated. Count Ringworm 19:55, 2 April 2007 (UTC) :The most readily apparent change that needs to be made is the inclusion of references and clean-up for the Homages section. If you can't find any reliable sources for that section, I would remove it. Also, the images need fair use rationales. --Brandt Luke Zorn 21:30, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Done. --J.D. 15:29, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On my way to FAC... My main concern is the difficulty of the material: if you could point out what doesn't make sense, I could try to make it easier! Thanks. -- Rmrfstar 21:35, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No I don't agree at all. The article is quite accessible. There are still a few awkward phrasings and so on. No big deal. I think the main issue may turn out to be breath/comprehensiveness. It's difficult when your dealing with an article on a term or concept. Still, I should like to see more beef in there before going to FAC. Unfortunately, I don't have resources available right now. I can only serach the net for different ideas. However, I will look through my old copies of Descartes, old SPinny and the rest and see if antyhign can be fleshed out. Actually, the Spinoza section is alright. I'll see what I can find in Descartes and the other classics. Maybe we can expand on these without making it seem artificial. I'll see what I can do in these regards.--Francesco Franco aka Lacatosias 08:41, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, wow: thanks! I looked over your changes so far and they look great... thanks a lot.

So, which sections do you think need expansion? I still have some sources that might be used to beef them up. -- Rmrfstar 15:19, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I didn't have this page on my watchlist. I'm not sure where it can be expanded from here. One possibility is you might want to treat the medieval scholastic's various notions of conatus as impetus or inherent properties more extensively. It seems to have been a big topic in that period. Descartes could probably still use some clarification. Another idea would be to treat thinkers like Vico and Nietzche in a bit more detail than just a sentence or two. Now, I'm just throwing out possibilities. On the more nitpicky stylistic side (I hate to do this, but there are some extremely sharp editors in FAC and they've often nailed me on these things): watch out for one and two sentence paragraphs. I've had some terrible beatings on those in FAC P:........ The lead: three paras, at least. And it's supposed to summarize the contents of the article. As they say over there : it should be able to "stand on its own" so that someone can read JUST the lead and get the main ideas. Hint: The referencing is great, but don't be afraid to err on the side of excess. Format looks fine and all that. Good work so far. Getting late over here. I have to get off. --Francesco Franco aka Lacatosias 17:34, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think three full paragraphs is too much for the lede, but I added a sentence summarizing the "modern relevance" section. With this addition, I believe the lede can stand on its own. I'll try to expand the treatment of other definitions. After that, I think I'll nominate it. -- Rmrfstar 21:55, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not that big a deal. It should be "proportional" to the article, so I think you may be alright.

Let me take a scan through to copyedit a bit. Nominating it is a good idea in any case. I find it's often the only way to get really valuable feedback, in fact. Even if it fails, you still have some clearer idea what to work on afterward. --Francesco Franco aka Lacatosias 08:48, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Challenging validity of footnote supporting "Loss of olfaction may lead to the loss of libido, even to the point of impotency, which often preoccupies younger anosmic men" statement. Mensch 05:31, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am hoping to get meaningful feedback on this article. It's the first biographical article I've written for wikipedia.

• The article needs better citing. Try to have at least one citation for each paragraph.
• For your citations based on online sources, use Template:cite web or Template:cite news.
• Do not wikilink single years. Only date-month-year.
• Inline citations go straight after the punctuation mark; not before.
• "Personal life" is stubby. If you cannot expand it, merge it with "Early life".
• "Within days he was offered a job back at the Seattle Times." Avoid stubby paragraphs like this one. Merge or expand.
• "At the Seattle Times Watson continued to write his column in the style that had made him Seattle's best known newspaper columnist." This should definitely be cited.
• "Accomplishments" and "Death" are also stubby. I think the last one should be merged. Could you enrich "Accomplisments"? You could also possibly merge it with "Awards".
• "See also" goes before "Notes". You could try to incorporate its links within the text and get rid of it.
• Are your "References" used in citations? If not, they are "further reading".--Yannismarou 14:56, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

After seeing a few more of her movies recently and looking at her page on wikipedia, I noticed there weren't many citations, not too many pictures, and no discussion about Mary Astor's article. I was hoping with this peer review some of the experts on this site could help improve the article Mary Astor and hopefully it could become a featured article some day, maybe even going on the Main Page, bringing some well-deserved attention to this great actress. Ilampsurvivor5 19:34, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

---

Thank you for working on this article about a wonderful actress. I love her movies but knew little about her, so reading this was interesting.

Like many similar articles, there is a general absence of footnotes and citations that would enable the reader to know where a particular statement is coming from. I assume much of it is from her book, etc., but it would be helpful if major points at least were footnoted by specific page references. For article maintenance, if someone comes along and adds a random fact, how can we tell if that fact is supported?

I think the article is a bit overlong due to inclusion of some trivial details that slow down the read. You may want to do a copyedit simply for length, with a goal of cutting 20% of the words (you can pick the words). For example:

• Why do we need to know about the "safe deposit box at Security-First National Bank at Hollywood Boulevard and Highland Avenue in Hollywood" instead of just a "safe deposit box"?
• The reference to "Peter the hermit" is unclear. I would delete the phrase unless it is important. (Their lawyer responded that a daughter could not dictate to her parents where they could or could not live as if they were "Peter the hermit.")
• Is it important that the Langhankes then moved to San Fernando from San Mateo?

Regarding page layout, take a look at Myrna Loy for alternatives on how to show the filmography in a quick-reference format.

Hope these suggestions are helpful. Buddhipriya 18:20, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

---

Thank you very much for your feedback, it is much appreciated! I just went through the entire article trying to improve it using your suggestions. If there's anything else that can be done to improve it please tell. I also had a question. Can I save a picture that I found on another website and use it under fair use rationale if it is a screenshot? Or is it still some kind of copyright infringement of that website?

Also I'm sure you are right about most of it being from the book but I don't have a copy and don't know how to create citations/references. If there is anyone out there who could help with this issue it would be greatly appreciated if you could help.

And I will try to do the filmography later. Thank you again for all your suggestions! Ilampsurvivor5 19:32, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm just curious as to see how this article has come along since I've done a lot of editing on it. Is there any section that needs expanding, shortening, change of location on the page. I'm just looking for what else needs to be improved with the page overall. Maybe then I can put it up for GA or FA. El Greco 19:27, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Haven't quite read through the whole thing, so might add more later, but here we go:

• The History section does not quite follow the WP:SUMMARY style. While it is good that you moved the bulk into its own article it would be nice to see some sort of a brief summary of history (though of course with a city like Athens, even a brief summary could become quite long).
• Historical population section is a bit strange. There is no context, it just gives statistics.
• I think it would be useful to have some more info on Geography. What is there already is short and refers to another city Los Angeles, of which I know almost nothing, so this reference is not all that useful.
• I am not sure if this is significant, but I remember hearing about Athens' polution problems, and in particular acid rain damaging historic landmarks - which is not really mentioned in the articles.
• I would recommend you try to get more "solid" sources - most of the citations are web links.
• There are a lot of unreferenced blocks, including a lot of un-attributed statistics.
• If you haven't already had a look, you might find it helpful to glance through articles on other cities that have already achieved FA status: WP:FA#Geography and places

Hope that helps.--Konstable 12:30, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So I've decided to remove the historical population section, as anything you write about the population might as well be in the whole population section. Though I will keep the chart. I'll see what I can do about the History of Athens section, but I try to avoid that section sometimes. I don't know what to put in, how much or what should or shouldn't be included. You look at the History of Athens page and it's huge. Trying to summarize that will atleast give you a large section, but I'll see what I can do with that. I'm also currently looking for information on the geography of Athens, and it pollution problems. I understand what you mean by "solid" sources, but if the information is only avaliable online, do I need solid source then or are the online sources fine? Some of those online sources lead to print material. The Athens transportation figures for example are linked to PDF files, because that is how they are only avaliable. So, is that fine or do I still need a hard/solid source? And one more question. Those section that I have sourced so far, are they sourced enough, or do they still need more references? El Greco 23:06, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A lot of this article was originally on the Elfen Lied main page but at the request of some it was moved to its own article and expanded. Any and all comments are welcome to improve it. Auxfusion 14:43, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Have you seen the guideline on writing about fiction yet? This is an extraordinarily in-universe article. Nifboy 14:29, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello peers! Looking for some heads-up on how to improve the article and perhaps get it upgraded to 'A' Quality and perhaps (dare we dream) obtain a GA rating. Comments on what you think the article has too much of, or needs more of would be nifty. Arcayne 17:30, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Suggestions are below:

• Rewrite Production into useful prose and support with citation. Origin of the project would be good as well, like why Gibson chose to pursue this particular time in history. Move Wikiquote template to External links section.
• (Addressed) Purge Theme section unless you can find citation to back the claims made; the section also has weasel wording like "most notably" -- according to whom?
• (Addressed) Re-format table in Cast section as a normal "Actor as Character" list. Brief descriptions of the characters and any encyclopedic information about the actors being cast would be nice.
• Rewrite Response and awards section as prose. Also, are there any other notable awards that Braveheart won? Check out the Awards section on the film's IMDb page. Stuff like Golden Globes could be added; a possible rule of thumb is that if an award has its own Wikipedia article, it may be acceptable. Other criteria should apply, though. As for box office performance, more detail could be provided -- its premiere, anything unique about its opening, how it performed overseas, especially in the countries that are portrayed in the films.
• Cultural effects section needs to be cited. There's an embedded link for what Lin Anderson said about the film shaping the political landscape; does the link have any information about how it was shaped?
• Historical inaccuracy -- give it the 300 treatment and avoid synthesis. Find references of historians criticizing Braveheart directly.
• (Addressed) Trivia -- purge it. It's trivial, after all.
• Spoofs and references... equates Trivia, in my opinion. Might be better replaced by useful prose about the impact of Braveheart on certain aspects of popular culture.
• Soundtrack and More Music from Braveheart -- I'd suggest a content fork, and if the music was a major part of the film, you could be redundant in having information about the music both at the film article and the newly-created soundtrack article, but only have the track listing at the latter.
• (Addressed) External links -- there's two film reviews. I suggest making "Critical reaction" and "Historical inaccuracy" subsections under "Response and awards" (re-title the section as "Reaction" or "Reception"). Focus "Critical reaction" on the merits of directing, acting, editing, effects, violence, etc. Focus "Historical inaccuracy" on differences from the actual events, but keep it succinct. Not sure how far this film strays from the actual event compared to 300.
• Expand lead paragraphs after all above points have been addressed.

Good luck! —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 17:57, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Theme Section - removed unless someone finds a citation. Arcayne 16:43, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Resorted sections so that under new Reception Section are the sections Box Office, Awards, Cultural Effects and Wallace Monument. Historical Accuracy is still its own section. Arcayne 16:50, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cast Section set to prose, removing table w/brief description of character and notable encyclopedic info about the cast where applicable. Using FA article as template. Arcayne 18:01, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Purged trivia section, incorporating info about dual period pieces by Cox in Cast section Arcayne 18:03, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Expanded Spoofs and Cultural References by adding image of South Park's Chef in parody of Braveheart. I still have to address converting the bullet points into prose. Arcayne 19:00, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Do you think the actual tracks are really necessary to list? I mean, a content fork will only list the tracks, leaving it pretty much an empty article. Making note of the greater amount of dialogue in the follow-up album seems to be enough to me. Thoughts? Arcayne 18:09, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Currently, the article is good in terms of content, pictures, and references/citations. Any other improvements to the article are more than welcome. Deucalionite 15:20, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am at this moment (and during the last two weeks) further improving the article (building on the initial excellent work by Pericles*) by proof-reading the article, doing the necessary formatting and rewriting some of its parts. I also use some of my own books to further enrich the article. I intended after the end of my effor to ask for a peer-review by the WP:MILHIST. Any suggestion is of course helpful, and I will take it into consideration, but I believe that the reviewers would have a better image of the article after my partial rewriting is over. Right now I have worked until section 3 ("Allied troop dispositions prior to the German invasion").

Something worrying me is the copyright status of some of the pictures and of the maps. I do not think it is very solit. I have asked the aid of the Wikiproject Maps, but I have no response until now. I have also asked for help from the creator of the maps in the French article. He has done an excellent work there, and he has said that he will try to translate them in English.--Yannismarou 15:29, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Some language in the article is very biased and/or is missing references. Maybe someone who is French or is living in France can contribute. --Heikoh 23:57, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• First of all, there's no need to bold sentences in Controversies. It makes the article more awkward to read.
• Career needs expansion; there are several one line paragraphs.
• Could you possibly find a free image of the person? He is a public personality after all.
• Fix the citation needed or dubious tags, or remove the information altogether.
• EMEA may not be immediately obvious to readers; why not expand the acronym?
• How did Le Meur announce his support? You might want to add a translated comment.
• There's little about his personal life. Where was he born?

That should be enough for now :) CloudNine 18:06, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've recently brought francium up to GA level, and I'd like to take it further. I'm fairly confident about the accuracy and prose. However, I would appreciate input and/or help on expanding it (which is hard, given the utter lack of available information) and refining the technical/style specifics (such as units). Any help would be superb. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 03:18, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The article is pretty good. One thing that would be interesting to add are more details about how it was discovered (I think it involved co-precipitation with caesium salts, as discussed in the article caesium perchlorate). I would also qualify the statement about it being the "last naturally occurring element to be discovered". More specifically, it was the last element that was originally discovered in nature rather than synthesized from other elements. Other elements that were discovered later, such as astatine, neptunium, and plutonium, were eventually found to occur in nature in trace amounts as well (I'm sure there is a more concise and clear way of phrasing it than mine... ;)

A more general comment is about the reliability of the references. Most are references to a few websites or online periodic tables or encyclopedias. I think the article would stand better to scrutiny with more references to the "hard" scientific literature: journals, review articles, monographs, and advanced textbooks. --Itub 18:48, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the feedback. I'll reread the ChemEducator entry, which focuses on the discovery of francium. As for the sources, you're right. Some of them are not the most scholarly of resources. However, in their defense, most of them include references to hard sources, such as the CRC Handbook of Chemistry and Physics. While I would like to be able to cite those sources, Wikipedia policy (and common sense) dictates that whichever source was actually accessed should be the one referenced. I do plan on going on a library run at some point, so the references should be juiced up by that. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 21:58, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I just did some copyediting, and what I saw was quite good overall, but I do have three suggestions.

1. Tighten up the lede: it is disproportionately large, and includes some facts that, while cool, need not be mentioned there. This creates obvious redundancies in such a short article. For instance, the employment of Perey, should not, I think, be there, and the "history" section... I'd get it down to at a max 2 paragraphs.
2. Go to the library and read some books! Maybe find the original articles announcing its discovery? You know this, of course, but I feel like emphasizing it here.

Other than that, great article; I shall track its progress closely... -- Rmrfstar 01:58, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've truncated the lede somewhat, you may still want the second paragraph to be shaved down. Perhaps tomorrow I will go get some books. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 02:04, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A quick read made me notice FrF2 in the reactions, shouldn't this be FrF? Or am I missing something here? Also, I agree that a description of the isolation method should be included. There's not a lot on Fr in the literature, but that is one thing that is definitely there and important. Thanks! Walkerma 03:19, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I think the discovery bit should be moved into the history section.

• The discovery bit is in the history section...

• Well that was sort of my point - I'm not sure it is worth having this info twice in the article, I just say who discovered it in the intro! -- Quantockgoblin 14:01, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Maybe it is just style, but I didn't like (in Applications) "but this idea has since been dismissed" - perhaps better refuted/disproved?

• You're right, "dismissed" is a bit unscientific. I changed it to "but this idea has since been deemed impractical." I think that should suffice.

• Occurrence, nature - I think a reaction scheme here would help like used in Compounds section.

• I see two problems with this. One is that doing this would be redundant. The other is that francium doesn't exist naturally as a compound. As such, reactions and compounds have no place in the natural occurence section.

• Sorry I meant in the Occurrence, synthesis i.e. ¹⁹⁷Au + ¹⁸O → etc ... but no big deal - I just like seeing it laid out. -- Quantockgoblin 14:01, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I think there is a little contradiction in the Compounds section ("no compounds or reactions with it have been formed") with discovery section ("with similar chemical properties to caesium"). Maybe no compounds have been isolated would be better? -- just some thoughts Quantockgoblin 10:29, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm afraid I must be a little harsher than that. If no compounds of francium have been isolated, then the entire "Compounds" section is superfluous: "presumed to have similar chemical properties to caesium" seems to me to be a reasonable application of periodicity. However, it would appear that francium perchlorate has been formed, as it coprecipitates with caesium perchlorate, and several other insoluble francium salts are similarly known (Hyde, E.K., Radiochemical Methods for the Isolation of Element 87 (Francium), J. Am. Chem. Soc., 1952, 74, 4181) The article also quotes a value for the Pauling electronegativity of francium, although the Pauling scale is undefined for elements which do not form covalent compounds. The claim that francium has a lower electronegativity than caesium is widely, though not universally, repeated: this would be expected on the basis of periodicity, but measurements show that the ionization energy of francium is higher (4.0712 eV; Andreev, S.V.; Letokhov, V.S.; Mishin, V.I., Laser resonance photoionization spectroscopy of Rydberg levels in Fr, Phys. Rev. Lett., 1987, 59, 1274) than that of caesium (3.89390 eV; Moore, C.E., Ionization potentials and ionization limits derived from the analyses of optical spectra, Natl. Stand. Ref. Data Ser., (U.S. Natl. Bur. Stand.), 1970, 34, 1). I would like to see a more critical review of the available data, without pretending that we can be exhaustive in our review on WP. Physchim62 (talk) 21:05, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• There is a further problem with the decay energy of ²²³Fr. The article text claims that Perey observed 45 keV beta particles and that these are the product of francium decay; the infobox gives a beta decay energy for ²²³Fr of 1149 keV... In fact, 45 keV is the energy of beta particles produced by the decay of ²²⁷Ac, as is correctly stated in the infobox for actinium: Perey's equipment was unable to detect beta particles with such a low energy, as is described in the review by Adloff & Kauffman cited in the article, and it is this fact which enabled her to deduce the existence of francium. Physchim62 (talk) 22:38, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, today I gathered information from hard sources, and I have made a to-do list for myself:

1. Incorporate information from new sources
2. Expand and de-suckify the History section
3. Figure out what's going on with the compounds

I will also use the links that Physchim provided. I appreciate the feedback and support. Please, bear with me for the next couple of days as I try to sift through these materials. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 01:49, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I've been looking at this National Nuclear Data thing, and frankly, I just don't want to use it. The half-life chart contradicts almost everything on the CRC chart. CRC is more recent (2006) and I think it's more trustworthy. Unless you can show that the NND list is more accurate than the CRC, I'm switching back to the CRC data. NND = cheesy-looking web page. CRC = 2000 page chemistry encyclopedia. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 02:15, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

One issue which does not seem to have been mentioned yet is the glaring change in formatting. There are two methods of displaying an specific isotope: The "superscript" method: ²²¹Fr and the "longhand" method: Francium-221. The whole article save one section uses the superscript method, and the Isotopes section uses the longhand method. This needs to be changed to a single format for consistancy, probably the superscript method since it appears that that is the predominant method. Other than that, I agree that all of the problems listed above should be fixed as well. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 17:04, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've made some significant additions and revisions in an attempt to address your concerns:

• Itub: I've significantly expanded the history section after perusing the Chemical Educator article. I've also added several hard sources, including a few highly-reliable encyclopedia entries.
• Rmrfstar: The lede is somewhat more proportional to the article, and again, I stumbled upon some good sources.
• Physchim62: I rewrote the history section involving decay energies as best I could, though I'm no expert on such technical data.
• Jayron32: I transmogrified all of the superscript isotopes to longhand. I based this decision off of Uranium.

That's not to say that you will all be completely satisfied with the revisions :P. Still to be addressed:

• Quantockgoblin: I'm still not entirely sure of what you're talking about with the discovery bit. Are you saying the sentence in the lede should be removed? Also, I will try to find and list the exact synthesis reactions, as that's a good idea.
• Physchim62: The compounds, of course.

Again, thank you all for your input and support. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 01:15, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fix looks good. I didn't have a preference which form you used, as long as it was consistent. Looks fine now. A few more minor points that might need addressing:

• External link in main body of article:Stony Brook Physics... Either wikilink or no link...
• Prior incorrect data: Why is the 1995 estimate of Francium in the article, if the number is wrong? Seems kinda trivial to report that. Why not just give the current, better, estimate and be done at that.

But this article is really improving!--Jayron32|talk|contribs 02:00, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed both of those. I'm feeling a bit dumb right now. The article Physchim62 pointed out mentions coprecipitation. I have no idea what that is, and I can't find a definition, even here! If someone could tell me what it is, I can work on the compounds section. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 21:58, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Still looking better. Sorry I keep finding these pickaninny things, but every time something gets fixed, I find something new that needs fixing:

• Encyclopedia Britannica, as good of an encyclopedia as it is, is hardly an authoritative source on isotope data. I would accept CRC Handbook or Merck Index or any of a number of other types of tertiary sources for this type of information, but Britannica... mmm... no. Plus, its not wikilinked, it is externally linked, and again, we shouldn't do external links in the text of an article.
• Expansion of history section: Why was Allison's discovery disputed?

That's all I can find for now.

Bah! Pickaninny. That's what peer review is for, right?

• Alrighty, I wikilinked Britannica. I feel it's valid to keep it because, as you said, it's a fairly relied-upon source of information. That being said, the fact that it lists such a preposterously wrong number of isotopes perfectly demonstrates how the reported number of isotopes varies from source to source. It's meant to be a demonstrative reference, not an authoritative one.
• Somehow I managed to find an article about Allison's device. I only added a sentence to the virginium section, but I think it should be sufficient.

I still don't know what coprecipitation is... :( --Cryptic C62 · Talk 04:39, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm making a fairly major edit to the history section based off a web site and paper I found. As of right now, I'm not done adding the info yet, so don't bother commenting on it *grin*. I do, however, need to find why/how alkalinium was refuted. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 02:48, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Regarding the number of isotopes. I wouldn't say the number is not "universally accepted", simply that some references are more up-to-date than others. New nuclides are discovered all the time. I would say that the "true" number is the source that lists the largest number of isotopes (as long as you have no reason to believe that they made some up, or that some of the specific isotopes are truly disputed). This will probably be the most recent source that specializes in nuclear chemistry or related fields. Britannica is not an authoritative source about this, and the discrepancy is not worth mentioning IMO. For all we know, the last time they updated their article on francium thoroughly might have been decades ago!
• Regarding co-precipitation, perhaps google books will help [7] (I haven't read through the results, but there are many, so I hope there's a good one...) Briefly, co-precipitation happens in this case due to the similar sizes of the caesium and francium cations. What happens is that when you have a solution with Cs+, Fr+, and ClO4- and you obtain crystals, they will have a mixed structure (basicaly CsClO4 with some Cs+ sites replaced by Fr+). This is as opposed to a "normal" precipitation, where you would expect more-or-less-pure crystals of the more saturated solute. --Itub 07:10, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, I removed all references of Britannica, and cut out the section about discrepant isotope reports. So what you're saying about francium is that if it coprecipitates with caesium perchlorate, then it forms francium perchlorate? In other words, francium forms the same salts as other alkali metals, right? --Cryptic C62 · Talk 16:30, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sort of, but not really. What coprecipitation means in this context seems to have something to do with separation by differential solubilities. Basically, if you have a solution with a mixture of ions, say for example, Fe²⁺ and Pb²⁺, these cations will exhibit different solubility in the presence of different anions. For example, gradually increasing the concentration of chloride ions (Cl^1-) to the solution will result in the precipitation of PbCl₂ BEFORE FeCl₂, owing to the fact that lead (II) cloride is far less soluble than iron (II) chloride. Thus, you could separate a mixture of the two. There are several factors that owe to the solubility of a salt; however the two biggest in comparing cations are probably ionic radius and valence. Since francium and caesium cations are indentical in both size and valence, they apparently coprecipitate; that is in a solution containing a mixture of them, it is impossible to differentiate between them by precipitation techniques. The same could not be said for, say, sodium and francium, since though they are the same valence (and thus will form ionic compounds with the same formula), their vastly different ionic radius will lead to their salts having different solubilities. I am speculating a lot here, but it is an educated WAG, not a total WAG. Does that sound reasonable?--Jayron32|talk|contribs 16:53, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I can find, there aren't any lists of francium compounds around. Seeing as this isn't the place for speculation, I'm removing the Compounds section. Given that the only source to even mention francium compounds says that none have been made, I think it's better to just leave it out, at least for now.--Cryptic C62 · Talk 17:18, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If reliable sources write that they believe francium will act like caesium, you can, I think, include that fact. -- Rmrfstar 21:07, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The key point about coprecipitation is not the similarity of the solubilities (although they may indeed be similar), but the fact that having similar charge and radius allows a very dilute ion (Fr+ in this case) to be (co)precipitated together with a saturated ion (Cs+), even if Fr+ is way below saturation. I'll give a concrete quantitative example, although the numbers are made up. Let's assume that the solubility products of CsClO4 and FrClO4 are both 0.01 M^2. Imagine you have a solution that is 0.1 M on Cs+. That means that if the concentration of ClO4- gets above 0.1 M, CsClO4 will precipitate (the product 0.1 M x 0.1 M > 0.01 M^2). Now, let's imagine you have a separate solution with a 1 pM (10^-12 M) concentration of Fr+ (not an unreasonable concentration given the rarity and instability of the element). That means that there's practically no way of precipitating the pure FrClO4, because you would need an impossibly high concentration of ClO4- (10^+11 M, according to the ideal calculation!). But now imagine a mixed solution, with 0.1 M Cs+ and 1 pM Fr+. If you increase ClO4- above 0.1 M, CsClO4 will start to precipitate but, since the crystal structure doesn't "recognize" the difference between Cs+ and Fr+ very well, it will carry along some of the Fr+ (i.e., it will coprecipitate). If you manage to precipitate most of the Cs+ out of the solution (by adding a lot of ClO4-, decreasing the temperature, or evaporating the solvent, for example), you will also (co)precipitate most of the Fr+. While you will never get truly pure francium from this method (it will always be mixed with an excess of caesium), it allows you to separate it from other elements that don't coprecipitate with CsClO4 (maybe Ra, Ac, Pa, Pb, etc., I don't know for sure what else was present in the mixture.) Besides the practical use in separating francium from other elements, the fact that it coprecipitated with caesium was part of the evidence that francium was an alkali metal. --Itub 12:36, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cool. Your example seems better than mine. That makes a lot more sense. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 17:35, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you guys want to add in the coprecipitation information where you see fit, that would be great. I sort of almost understand it, but not well enough to incorporate it into the article. Gahh! And I thought I was good at chemistry. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 00:29, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I added a short parenthetical note about it to the article. It's probably not worth delving into the topic too deeply in the francium article. One of these days I'll try to create a co-precipitation article... For the time being, there is an interesting quote in the article about Otto Hahn, regarding the importance of co-precipitation for the purification of minute amounts of radioactive elements. I'll paste it here: --Itub 08:39, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"As a young graduate student at the University of California at Berkeley in the mid-1930s and in connection with our work with plutonium a few years later, I used his book "Applied Radiochemistry" as my bible. This book was based on a series of lectures which Professor Hahn had given at Cornell in 1933; it set forth the "laws" for the co-precipitation of minute quantities of radioactive materials when insoluble substances were precipitated from aqueous solutions. I recall reading and rereading every word in these laws of co-precipitation many times, attempting to derive every possible bit of guidance for our work, and perhaps in my zealousness reading into them more than the master himself had intended. I doubt that I have read sections in any other book more carefully or more frequently than those in Hahn's "Applied Radiochemistry". In fact, I read the entire volume repeatedly and I recall that my chief disappointment with it was its length. It was too short." --Glenn T. Seaborg.

I think the article is really good now. Although I'm not an expert in Francium and I can't vouch for the accuracy of every statement, the article is well-sourced enough so that interested readers can verify the facts if they want. One remaining issue is the electronegativity. I'm pretty sure that it is an extrapolated/estimated value, as thermochemical data is probably not available. However, it is a value found in many sources, so we can include it. If anyone finds a reference specifically discussing the issue of the electronegativity of francium, please add it!. --Itub 08:47, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, quick update regarding previous concerns:

• There is so little reliable information about francium compounds that it doesn't make sense to make a compound section. Instead, I added the compounds from Hyde's journal entry into the characteristics section.
• Every source I've looked at says the electronegativity value is 0.7, including those given in the element infobox reference page. Only the article Physchim brought up said anything to the contrary. However, I couldn't actually read the article, since it was in a secure database, and the abstract was not much help. From the documents that I can check, the only logical value to report is 0.7.

Those seem to be the only unresolved/unresolvable issues at this point. I'm still scouring databases to find random tidbits (like the surface tension paper). Once I can call that process complete, I may rewrite the lede to better suit the current article. Thence I believe the article is only a few copyedits away from being ready for FAC. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 05:10, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I found that Pauling uses the 0.7 value in his book The Nature of the Chemical Bond (1960). It doesn't seem to say where it came from, though... --Itub 06:21, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This article pertains to one of the most imperialistic and prominent empires in Indian History. I have tried to do an exhaustive and balanced study on the contentious topic of "Origin of the Rashtrakutas" which is detailed in a subarticle attached to the main article. I believe the article is well cited and referenced and has undergone several rounds of copy edits. Please provide feedback or concerns about its content and format. Dineshkannambadi 22:22, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The article is good content-wise and in terms of references. However, other suggestions towards improving the article are more than welcome. Deucalionite 15:33, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This could use some information about the symbolic use of Apollo after the worship had ended and before the twentieth century. As it is, we jump from the cult to the Apollo space program. Goldfritha 02:29, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. We're trying to get this at least up to GA standard. Any advice would be very much appreciated. Thanks. Epbr123 22:20, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just a couple quick comments:

• Lead should be expanded to two paragraphs.  Done
• Songs should be in double quotes, albums in italics.  Done
• There are a lot of redlinked songs; unless articles are planned for all of the songs mentioned, they should probably be delinked.  Done
• There's some ridiculous overlinking in general; does Kate Bush's pet cat need its own article?  Done
• That said, some things (names of other artists, other bands' albums and songs, and so on) are underlinked.  Done
• The topmost image has been proposed for deletion (not by me).  Done
• Note 34 has been provided to support the statement "Bush tackled sensitive and taboo subjects long before it became fashionable to do so". The citation is from NME, which is known for its hyperbole, and I believe this is an instance of such exaggeration. It's been fashionable since (at least) the 1960s to talk about sensitive subjects in rock and avant garde music.  Done
• I keep finding little spots of bad copyediting - extra brackets where they don't belong, improper spacing, unclosed parentheses, etc. The grammar/punctuation/spelling/wikilinking should be spotless.  Done
• I would neutralize the POV in the "Musical Style" section, and expand it. There's a lot more that could and should be said there.  Done
• There's more POV in other sections - "Bush's technical mastery is shown to full effect" in 1983-87 is another instance.  Done

Chubbles 19:47, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The current article entitled The Office has had a confusing past. It once was about the British version of the show and it has changed multiple times. Now it pertains to all versions of the TV show, The Office. There are currently five versions of The Office in the world and they are in a total of three different languages. I feel that this intense article can be helped by the Wikipedia community by means of a peer review. Yaanch^Speak! 22:35, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps it would help to organize the current article differently and broaden the focus (which is currently more on the British and American versions). Make the lead paragraphs a summary of the rest of the article, i.e. move the intro stuff out. How about a chronological discussion / history of the development of each (first the British series, then the American, then the others). Either within this or after the history, have a series of subsections that are summaries of each series (with {{main}} templates to link to each of the articles. Then I would have a series of sections comparing each of the four later series to the British original, with briefer comparisons to the other series as needed / applicable. I hope this helps, Ruhrfisch 03:28, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This article was partially re-written in the last few weeks. I think the current version is already in B-Class territory, but would like to clean it up further to get it near GA criteria. Ambi Valent 14:46, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would especially like to know the answers to some questions:

• I've read "statements should be attributed to primary or secondary sources" as main guideline and on the other hand "there are too many links to specific strips" as criticism for an article. I'm slightly confused; should there be only a few general attributions to the primary source instead of specific ones?
• Where exactly is the line between attributing to the primary source making necessary assumptions and original research?
• The "Cast" and "Synopsis" sections are the longest of the article, pushing it over 32K. What would be the correct reaction to this: keep almost all of it, cut short and put the rest in extra articles, or cut short discarding the rest? Ambi Valent 10:34, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Avoid citing a strip for a statement about the strip in general; just because PvP runs strips like this on occasion does not make it an indication of its theme.
• See above, plus WP:WAF emphasizing the use of sources that are not the work itself.
• There isn't a "right" answer. Cover as much as is necessary but no more. I would discourage the use of forks simply by virtue of the fact that they tend towards eventual deletion. Nifboy 12:07, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot, I'll work on it. Ambi Valent 20:45, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is it OK if I used Howard's "Tangents" as a secondary source? He wrote both a lengthy review for the entire comic as some long comments to some storylines/scenes. "Tangents" is nearly as old as "Websnark". And how would I put it best in the article: "According to Howard's 'Tangents' review, ..."? Ambi Valent 07:54, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think the synopsis is way too long. I would prefer it to be about 1/3 of the length it is now, covering only the biggest details. I also think that the order the sections are in is a problem- while a "history" or "development" section does need to be near the top, the section as it is references the story so much that it should be below it in the article- it's very hard to follow right now without it.  Done

I was going to say that the cast section was long, but okay as there are so many characters, but then I realized that there is a "characters of EGS" article linked to. If that's the case, you should use summary style, not just a copypaste of the major characters section of that article. Cut each character down to about half the size they are now, but as this is a webcomic article, save a copy of the "chars of EGS" article in your userspace, in case someone gets in a bad mood and deletes it.

The article needs a thorough copyedit, as there's a lot if times where the tone shifts from out-of-universe to in-universe and back within a paragraph. It's a problem that's inherent in fiction articles, but it's hard to notice when you're writing. --PresN 20:53, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've added that to the article's To-Do-List. Cutting may be an easier task than the others, but it will still take a while. Ambi Valent 21:53, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So far, I made two attempts to cut the synopsis in size, which I threw away. I threw way the first one when I noticed it was getting only barely shorter than the current one, while I threw away the second because I cut so much the rest didn't make sense. Now I'm trying to make a new list of what should be in it, and then put it into text form; I hope that will work... Ambi Valent 07:54, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm more than halfway through with the third attempt to cut the synopsis in size, but the parts I cut are just over half as long as before, not cut to 1/3. Maybe someone else can compress it further without losing vital parts, but I think I'm at my limits. I'll complete this and move the sections around, then head for the cast section. Ambi Valent 07:44, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

All your images need detailed fair use rationales in addition to the templates. Also, your citations need more detail - author, date, last accessed date being bare minimum. Rather than citing the strip itself, cite reviews of the strip. Like, when it talks about the art originally being bad, cite the review that says it was, rather than the first strip. Good luck. -Malkinann 04:27, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Would creator's permissions for the images be sufficient, or are more rationales needed? As for the citations of strips for statements that talk about the comic in general, I will cite reviews there, and will make cite web statements for reviews more detailed. But what about strips I cite as support for an extraordinary statement inside a summary, like a transformation into an anthrofeline? Ambi Valent 09:42, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure - ask the Wikipedia:Help desk. I had thought that as they were there under Fair Use, you'd need the detailed citations, but if you've got Shive's permission, then that may yet be another kettle of fish. Try and use the reviews and author's comments as much as possible, and only use comics for non-interpretive facts. You can also make the cite web statements for individual comics more detailed - I've plunked a goodish-filled-out example in the to do list that you can copy-paste and use. I'm really suprised that the author's commentary isn't more extensively quoted as a primary source in the article. -Malkinann 11:30, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'd use more of his commentary, but he mostly comments in EGS forum articles, which I hear are must-not cites. I have already cited "Painted Black Special Features" as well as the early roleplaying sessions of Elliot, Tedd and Sarah. Ambi Valent 11:42, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'd gathered from Wikipedia:Reliable sources that forums could be cited, as long as it wasn't just shooting one's mouth off about anything. My interpretation of WP:RS is that the author of a webcomic talking about his inspirations on a forum created for the purpose of talking about the webcomic could be considered a reliable source. Read the policy and judge for yourself. -Malkinann 11:57, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To answer the above questions, "Use with permission" images should still be tagged fair use with rationale (Wikipedia:Image use policy). Citing forum/blog posts by the author is perfectly acceptable (with caution), but the further you get away from "authoritative source", the more care should be used in citing it. Nifboy 17:17, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, that helps a lot. Up to now I've never been sure if I was actually doing the right thing, or if I tainted every word I wrote with OR, and put it closer to deletion each day. Now I can finally start working with the rules to write an informative article. Ambi Valent 19:44, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You may also wish to rework the storyline section as it's a bit confusing, (the League of Copyeditors may be able to help you there) and lastly, rewrite the lead. According to WP:LEAD, each section of an article should be represented in the lead in a sentence or paragraph. -Malkinann 10:08, 30 March 2007 (UTC) Another thing.. Maybe swap out that image of silhouette!Grace with an image of non-silhouette human!Grace. It'd give more information to a non-fan. I've stuck in a couple of fact tags, too. -Malkinann 12:15, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The article seems short, though the quality of its content is worthy of anyone's attention. Any suggestions towards augmenting the quality of the article are more than welcome. Deucalionite 15:36, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Maybe we could add a bit on the background and the aftermath
• Overall, I find its size just fine, but then again, I contributed most of its material (along with several contributors), therefore, I am not impartial.

--FocalPoint 19:50, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

More background and aftermath would improve it. Goldfritha 17:16, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is my first article. I would very much appreciate feedback of any sort. Egfrank 19:04, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion has also been added to Wikipedia:Peer review. This discussion page is now common to both Peer Review and Scientific Peer Review, so the deabye occurs in this one place. --Bduke 22:56, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks -- Egfrank 03:15, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It looks pretty good to me. A few comments:

• The first set of categorisations don't appear to have a reference, the ref guidelines for medical articles suggest inline citation for things even if they're covered by the general refs. There are one or two other places where a paragraph doesn't have any refs, might be good to check they are covered by the refs in adjacent paragraphs. Generally the referencing looks robust though.
• You might like to standardise the reference style using citation templates so the reference title rather than the raw URL gets hyperlinked.
• A lot of the paragraphs are very short, and it might flow a bit better if some of them were combined, particularly in the lead section.
• It's no longer a stub - I removed the tag for you!
• Are there likely to be any appropriate images you could add? It would make it look prettier, but I have no idea whether there would be anything relevant.

Good stuff, keep up the good work. Eve 14:03, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

please clarify - first set of categories missing in-line reference? - the in-line reference #1 - the on line edition of the Gale Encyclopedia of Neurological Disorders - is associated with this categorization. Did you mean something else?

You're right, sorry. I must have missed it somehow, sorry. I was obviously having a blonde day... ;p Eve 18:39, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm taking a look at the introduction, and you should definitely take a look at Wikipedia:Lead section. Some issues I've noticed:

• The first sentence should include the bolded title, such as "Cerebral hypoxia is a general term for..."
• All the information in the lede should be also be discussed elsewhere in the article. The lede gives plenty of causes of cerebral hypoxia, but such causes aren't adequately discussed. You should consider making a section on the causes of cerebral hypoxia.
• Inversely, all of the information in the article should be summarized in the lede. There's a good section on treatment methods, some of which should be included in the lede.
• The third paragraph is actually one sentence, and a poorly constructed one at that. It's actually just two lists, and the second list, "or any other event that severely interferes with the intake of oxygen, its transfer to the blood stream, its transport to the brain, its ability to pass through the blood-brain barrier, or its metabolism by the brain" is way too long. You could truncate that whole snake down to "or any other event that severely interferes with the body's ability to handle oxygen" or something along those lines.
• Be careful about making phrases overly complicated without adequately explaining or linking them. Here's a sample from the Prognosis section: "Recent research suggests this may be due to an autoimmune response caused by CO induced changes in the myelin sheath surrounding neurons." I have no idea what that means. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 01:02, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your comments.

• The comments about overlong sentences are quite helpful as well as the need to explain some of the more technical comments such as "CO induced changes in the myelin sheath".

• You make a good point about the need to clarify the relationship between cerebral hypoxia and its various causes, however, I'm not sure how to handle this. At this point I have a problem of exploding scope. Cerebral hypoxia isn't just a symptom, its a dynamic that is central to the process of brain death. In other words, almost anything that can kill you must at some point trigger cerebral hypoxia.

• My other concern is reinventing the wheel. There are reasonably well developed articles on most of the causes of cerebral hypoxia and I don't want to rewrite articles that have already been written.

• One solution would be to move to a summary article format. This would allow enough of a lead-in to save people from having to look up each and every cause in a separate wiki article. However, given the many many different causes of cerebral hypoxia even this would be time consuming.

• I believe this would be a worthwhile solution. Unfortunately, I don't have the time for this kind of expansion - perhaps there is someone else that would like to take this article under their wing? Egfrank 12:36, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, as a provisional solution, I have moved the paragraphs listing causes into their own "Causes" section (after classification). The intro now focuses the notion of severe and mild hypoxia - a concept that is developed throughout the article.

This new "Causes" section needs some further development. It contains little more than a regrouping of causes listed in the previous classification section. Any ideas of how this should be fleshed out would be welcome. Egfrank 13:51, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Here's an idea: Try breaking up the causes into different categories, and give each category its own paragraph or subsection. Expand upon each category and give selected examples. I don't know how well this would work, but it's worth a try. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 00:26, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am not an expert in cerebral hyopxia, so I won't give content feedback, but here's a style suggesstion: When citing medical journal articles, it is a good idea to link to the corresponding PubMed citation for the convenience of the reader. If you use Template:Cite journal and include the PubMed ID number ("| pmid = "), it creates an automatic link. Good luck with this and future projects! - Rustavo 17:34, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We are looking for any suggestions on ways to improve this article beyond current good article grade. Jehochman (^Talk/_Contrib) 01:54, 7 April 2007 (UTC) (Originally requested March 20, 2007)[reply]

I'd love to receive any comments on how the article could be improved. Are there any major things which should be covered but aren't, for instance? Any input would be most welcome! --Casper Gutman 11:44, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Academics/teachers and Notable former students are both lists and need to be prosified. Combine them into a single "People" section.
• The College Graces section is unreferenced.
• Some of the language is very tentative; "somewhat obscure" and "relatively unusual", for example.
• The Welsh Connection might be better merged with Student life or History.
• Don't wikilink single years (e.g. "founded by Elizabeth I in 1571").
• Look at Oriel College, a featured Oxford college article, for other ideas.

Thanks for your input! I can act on several of those items immediately, though the combining and prosification (prosifying?) of the people sections will need a little longer.

I see at the Oriel article that they mention only a few key people in the main article, selected partly to show the breadth of the college's notable connections, and this seems a good idea. The rest of the list can be easily shunted into a separate "List of Jesus College People" article as has been done for Oriel, so as to preserve such completeness as has been achieved with the current arrangement while at the same time decluttering the main article.

If there is another lesson from the Oriel article it would seem to be that a longer article can be tolerated. However, I'd be wary of making (e.g.) the Buildings section too long as I suspect it could risk going beyond what is of general encyclopaedic interest! That said, more could probably be added e.g. on the portraits (by the likes of Holbein and Van Dyck) in the college Hall, and brief sections on the other (less obviously touristic) parts of the college. Time to dig out Pevsner perhaps..... Casper Gutman 13:57, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is an excellent article, very well written, fine references—and you got them all outside the punctuation. Way to go! I live in Texas in the US, and know nothing about the College, but I found the article very informative and interesting. The pictures add a lot. Saying those prayers in Latin is an amazing tradition.

Suggestion: the 1814 chapel pic is quite dark. Perhaps someone with Photoshop or similar graphics editing software can improve it.

Someone placed a comment under Note and references that you look up the instructions for how to make it work. I think that's a bit much. I fixed it for you. It's so simple, and if you scroll down to Wiki markup under SAVE PAGE...SHOW PREVIEW on edit page, you'll see two choices that you can click and insert: {{Reflist}} and <references/>. They are interchangeable. Good work. I wish I had peer edits from you on some of my articles. Have a blessed Palm Sunday tomorrow, and an even more wonderful Easter. He is risen! Afaprof01 22:02, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your kind comments on the article! I'm sure all who've contributed to it will be pleased to hear you enjoyed reading it. Hopefully you had a great Palm Sunday too, and will have an Easter that's just as good. Was reminded of all that's most special about spring today while walking in the Black Mountains, Wales, seeing new-born lambs just about everywhere! Casper Gutman 22:13, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Very, very minor points for me - two section titles begin with the word "College" - I'd be marginally happier without them there. The architectural history is at a fine level for Good Article criteria, but I could soak up plenty more, that may just be me though! The gallery views are the least attractive way of displaying the pictures, there isn't enough text to go round, as it were, at the moment, but I'm sure that will come. I'll look up on which page the Grace appears in Reg. Adams' The College Graces of Oxford and Cambridge when I get home this evening and add as an extra reference, provided of course it matches the primary source ;p --Alf ^melmac 13:44, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the comments. I'll change the section headings, and agree the image galleries are a bit cluttered. More text in that section will certainly help there, and I intend adding some in the not-too-distant future. Thanks for offering to look up the grace! Casper Gutman 13:59, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've had a go at releasing the pictures from the galleries, I've managed to find a connection in each of the bits of texts for the placing. The slight overhangs will disappear with a bit more addition though, a case of 'it'll grow into it' :) --Alf ^melmac 00:41, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Work has been ongoing to clear up this list, or lists, since October 2006. It has been converted to tables, vastly expanded, given a decent lead, see also section and images of people entered down one side. We are still working on formatting the references for entries and ensuring the sources are reliable, and are working to update the list with those who are elegible (please help!), so please ignore those issues. However, this is simple grunt work, and an FLC seems a real possibility sometime in the next few months. Advice on how to get there would be appreciated, particularly regarding what should be on the main page, it seems kinda empty. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 05:18, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Reference 14 or 15 in List of gay, lesbian or bisexual people/U-Z has messed with all the references. M3tal H3ad 12:31, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 13:18, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• The images need to be looked at and possibly redone. As examples, Guy Burgess is unsourced. Alan Turing is copyrighted (there's not nearly enough critical commentary to be able to justify fair use her). Rupert Everett gives no indication that the image is actually free and doesn't state who the copyright holder is. Also, lots of the references need to be improved. For examples, Mark Levengood is cited to another Wikipedia. Steve Kmetko has a link titled "www.findarticles.com". No article title, no name of the original publisher, no author, no original publishing date, no date of retrieval. ShadowHalo 12:11, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I did say in my original message that the references were an ongoing thing. I didn't know about the images though, I will go have them sorted out. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 15:25, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am responsible for adding the images. A few images have been added after me. I did check the images before I added them and I will check them again. I did see a list recently where the images were smaller (see List of recordings preserved in the United States National Recording Registry) and I really think it looks better. Perhaps a change might be in order with size as well? I'll be looking at the images ASAP. *Exeunt* Ganymead | Dialogue? 00:19, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I just removed a number of images. Tomorrow I will go in and see if I can find some free images to add, so the articles don't look so bare. *Exeunt* Ganymead | Dialogue? 01:20, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've added a peer review request in order to get feedback on what the article needs to push up it's class.... Murkee 11:52, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think you should look at some WP:FA and WP:GA quality rugby union team articles for help on getting this to a higher standard, for example Crusaders (rugby). Anyway, specific advise:

• Expand the lead as per WP:LEAD (you prob want to do this after having done everything else).
• Expand the history section 1968-1994.
• Add references to the history section, it's seriously lacking here. (Added fact check template - Murkee)
• Convert what external links you have in the text to inline citations.
• The stadia section needs a copy-edit. It's currently a bunch of paragraphs that are a sentence or two.
• Please add some sort of key, or footnotes to explain the international column of the current squad section. I understand what U19, 7's and A mean, but others may not.
• Add a notable players section, but make sure it's de-listed. Maybe discuss how this should be composed on the talk page (see Crusaders (rugby) and All Blacks for inspiration).
• Wasps abroad? Whats that about? It should be explained or removed (i don't know what it is about at all). (Edit: Attempt made to address this - Murkee)
• Director of rugby - is that the same as coach? This should have an introductory paragraph, and if it is the same as coach should be expanded and completed.

Thats all I have at the moment, hope it helps! - Shudda ^talk 04:37, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I removed the 'See also' section as it is inappropraite to link to a userbox template. < DONE
• I suggest you tidy up the 'Supporters abroad' section as bits of it aren't grammatical. < DONE (I think)
• The history section can be expanded, there is a website that I added to the project mainpage called 'Nobok', IIRC they have a history of Wasps article.GordyB 15:21, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Expand the section on stadiums
• Create a section on colours/logos/kits
• Create a section on rivals/traditions/etc (eg. London double headers)
• Fill in all the ^{[citation needed]}, as it looks messy. Greatly expand the earlier histories. Goldman07 02:16, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've been developing this article for a long time, and would like some advice on how I can further improve it. See also: first peer review on this article. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 16:39, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• References other than the Technique itself would seem absolutely necessary, just to prove notability if nothing else. They will also give you a hint how much space to devote to each subtopic.
• The first ref, just to http://nique.net/ is dangerous - what if they change their "liveliest newspaper" line to something else? I'd link to a specific issue, ideally the first time that was used. Clearly the 1911 issue didn't have it.  Done
• Cite the "citation needed"s  Done
• The Section titles probably don't need wikilinks; for example the Opinion article doesn't really describe the newspaper's Opinions section  Done
• "Possibly the most well-known" - WP:WEASEL  Done
• "Common lore states" - darn, so close to getting a West Dakota Prize! :-)
• Hasn't it ever broken any stories? Been involved in any controversies? --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 17:16, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ooh, good points. I'll have to think about some of these. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 19:35, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • There aren't many mentions of the Technique outside of Georgia Tech and college newspaper-related pages. There was a recent bit of news when the 'Nique decided to not publish a fringe group's inflammatory advertisement, but it wouldn't be news if Frontpage Mag.com didn't have an agenda to push.
  • The online archives only go back to 1995, and there aren't any resources (other than offline archives) that have the answer to that; so, I just said that they did it since at least 1995 (for now). I might have a look in the archives to figure that one out.
  • I happened upon a better-quality copy of the first issue of the Technique today, something I'd been looking for since I started editing this article. So, I've nailed one of them. However, the sources I have that mention the merger incorrectly cite the newspapers that merge as the Yellow Jacket and the Technique; That's not possible, because (from what I've learned) the campus newspaper at the time was The Georgia Tech, and the Yellow Jacket was sort of a humor magazine. So, I'm not sure I'll be able to fill that ref until I do some deeper digging.
  • Removed the wikilinks on the section titles. That one was fun and easy :)
  • Removed "possibly," sounds 100x less WEASEL-ish.
  • As for "common lore states," Well, it's cited in a few places that ANAK founded the Technique, but it's not very verifiable at the moment. Before 1967, ANAK wasn't a secret society, so there might be some resources that confirm or deny this. Also, now that I have that first issue, I'll be able to cross-reference the editor list with the publicly available ANAK member list and give some credence to the claim.
  • See above with the bit about the ad that was denied. While it happened, I'm not sure the event was encyclopedic, given the consistent POV-pushing of those organizations. Unfortunately, not much else is known about the Technique's history than what's on the article right now. I wish it was otherwise.

—Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 22:23, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• After further research, I discovered a past controversy and wrote it up into the article. Given the paper's long history, I'm sure there are more. That's just the one that I've found. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 05:05, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please refer to the first peer review.

On 26 December 2006, the article's GA nomination was failed by ExplorerCDT. This led to a little argument on the article's talk page, involving myself, ExplorerCDT and Ryan-D. Due to stress and real-life issues, after 26 January 2007, I stopped working on or commenting on the article. However, after The Best Bet's successful DYK nomination, I feel like working on the article - and aiming for GA status - again.

The two main concerns ExplorerCDT raised were choppy prose and poorly-placed images. In addition, due to external systemic bias, finding referenced information on Singaporean movies is difficult (and at times, impossible). For more information, please read the last few sections of the talk page, especially the argument. How can I improve I Not Stupid to ensure it meets the GA criteria?

--J.L.W.S. The Special One 16:07, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Last paragraph of sequels and spin-offs needs referencing (otherwise I'm just assuming it isn't true). Change "Plot" to "Plot summary". From the 4 photos within the "Plot" section, remove two and place one of the bottom ones to the left (and maybe lower). Reference the plot summary (just write down the name of the DVD and the distributing company). Compare with other articles based upon movies. Improve the wording within the plot summary (ask other Singaporeans or experienced users within the wiki film community). Overall, it's a good article, thoroughly researched and worked upon. Don't know why it didn't get a GA. Definitely deserves it. Zuracech lordum 10:31, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comments, Zuracech lordum. I will try to address your concerns one by one:

• Unreferenced last paragraph of Sequels and Spin-offs section: That paragraph was added by another user (Jedd the Jedi) after I stopped working on the article. I know the information in that paragraph is true. If I can find reference(s) for that paragraph, I will add them. If not, should I remove the paragraph?
• Unreferenced Plot section: I previously asked the Films WikiProject why the Plot sections of many Featured Articles are unreferenced, and they replied that Plot sections do not need references because the movie itself is the assumed reference point (read the discussion).
• Renaming of Plot section: Most featured articles use the section name "Plot": Halloween, Ran, Tenebrae, Witchfinder General and November. Some, such as Casablanca and Jaws use "Synopsis". As featured articles represent the best articles on Wikipedia, I think it would be easiest to simply emulate them, although I'm only aiming for Good Article status.
• Screenshots in Plot section: Your idea of cutting down the number of screenshots from four to two, and aligning one on the right, would be a good way to address the concerns regarding images. In addition, the remaining two images will need captions. I will post on the talk page, seeking a consensus on which two screenshots should remain, and which should go.
• Prose in Plot section: I am aware that the prose is choppy. I would appreciate suggestions on how to address this concern.

Apart from the images and prose in the Plot section, the Production section is my biggest concern. The lack of available referenced information (due to external systemic bias) is making it difficult, if not impossible, for me to improve the quality of the prose. Fortunately, a friend has found several newspaper articles about I Not Stupid on LexisNexis, and Gmailed them to me. Hopefully the information in these articles, and the information already present in the Production section, will help me write a comprehensive Production section with compelling prose. If the articles are of no help, and I cannot find any more referenced information, should the Production section be removed? (This paragraph addresses everybody, not just Zuracech lordum.)

--J.L.W.S. The Special One 12:53, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you know it to be true and if you think you can find references for it soon then there's no need for it to be removed. Attribution is important but it is not wrong to assume that good faith exists amongst serious wikipedians. Others may disagree.

For information regarding the production, does there not exist any information on the The Straits Times? The Singaporean newspaper is said to be one of the leading ones in Asia unless I'm mistaken. Also, considering the movie seems to be a major landmark within the country's movie scene, there's bound to be some material. That said, I do not know how to obtain information from Strait Times and I wouldn't be surprised if the website asks you to be a subscriber to find information.

For the prose, I presume you may receive help from members within Wikiproject Films.

Finally, if worst comes to worst, you may want to contact (even if it seems like there will be no response) the directors and the producers of the movie. After all, everyone wants to be mentioned. This may sound far-fetched but I am currently in touch with the writer of a comic book series whose article I'm currently editing, much to my own surprise. Just ensure that the information you get, no matter from what source, is verifiable. Zuracech lordum 13:24, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If I can find references for it, of course I won't remove it. The question was whether I should remove it if I can't find references for it, and the article is otherwise ready for a GA nomination.

Yes, The Straits Times is one of the leading newspapers in Asia. Although payment is needed to read the online version of the newspaper, free versions of Straits Times articles are available on LexisNexis (and my friend, who has access to the archive, Gmailed me several articles on I Not Stupid).

Regarding the prose, I will seek help from the Films WikiProject and League of Copyeditors.

On the talk page, I previously discussed the possibility of arranging an interview with Jack Neo (my idol, and the writer and director of I Not Stupid). However, how do I get the interview published in a reliable source, so it is not deemed original research?

--J.L.W.S. The Special One 14:01, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Production is an integral part of an article for a movie and hence I presume it would probably be weak without it. Point regarding original research is noteworthy but instead of asking [Jack Neo]] whatever it is that you think the article lacks, you may instead request him for direction to the sources that discuss the movie in further detail. As director or producer or writer he may be better aware and may be kind enough to share the information. Also, he could have a blog or personal website where he muses or gives information to fans (I think the Fantastic Four: Rise of the Silver Surfer wiki page obtained information from the director's blog) I'm not sure what wikipedia's stance is on blogs of such sort. An alternative that could be cited would be academic information obtained from an institution or tertiary university (I don't think that's OR), if any such exist. Zuracech lordum 14:16, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I need help to clean the grammar of this article and introduction. Thanks. --Pedro 15:38, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Some editing done. Hope it's better. Good article but could use better referencing. Zuracech lordum 10:02, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Article definitely needs a thorough cleanup and rewrite now, even though events are still in the works. I have neither the time (anymore), nor the English writing skills which I feel are needed, to do this job properly.

Peer should be a native English/American writer, having insight/interest in showbizz, the criminal mind, confidence crime and defamation law matters. Thanks --SooperJoo 17:15, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid your highly specified wants rules many out. Zuracech lordum 10:23, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This article is under peer review for upgrade to GA status. Please review the article and add your comments below. The article had been a frequent victim of vandalism and spurious edits. It had also lacked proper citation of facts. Since then we have removed vandalism, copy edited most of the article and added citations. The final sections of the article may require some additional cleanup. Your thoughts? Majoreditor 21:26, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Expand lead.
• Incorporate quotes.
• Add and properly format references with author, title, publisher, date etc; mine the external links.
• Add pictures.

Good luck. WikiNew 21:32, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good suggestions. I will start on them. Majoreditor 23:19, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Expand early life. How did she get to India?
• Early life in Darjeeling not mentioned
• Life during the Bengal riots (~1944) missed out. These were turning points in her life
• October 7, 1950 -- wikify date
• Calcutta -- the name is now Kolkata. First instance should be Kolkata (formerly Calcutta), and then use Kolkata. The only exception is "Archbishop of Calcutta", where the title has not changed.
• 1940s to 1950 missed out
• Sections too small. Expand
• Difficulties she faced need to be expanded
• There was a Hindu priest of the nearby temple who opposed her in the beginning. He later asked her for her forgiveness
• Supposed miracles?
• Beirut link
• Funeral can be expanded
• Remove subsections
• Mother Teresa with Chief Minister M.G. Ramachandrann --> CM of which state?
• President Ronald Reagan presents Mother Teresa... --> US President...
• the Prime Minister of Pakistan --> ..."then" Prime Minister...
• Balzan prize --> link; what is that?
• Copyedit required: When the walls of Eastern Europe, She never again set eyes on her

=Nichalp «Talk»= 15:57, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks you for your observations and comments. I will need to check out some books in order to act upon some of these suggestions. One question. Which subsection(s) do you suggest removing? Majoreditor 18:11, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Critics, external links, and Commemorations could all be converted to free flowing prose. =Nichalp «Talk»= 18:17, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I've started on her early life. Majoreditor 03:39, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Aksi_great (talk)

I haven't looked at the article completely. Just commenting about a thing which striked me first on seeing the article. I do not think that using Image:Mother_Teresa2.gif is a valid fair-use. You are not using the image to illustrate the stamp in question. A valid fairuse for the stamp would only be in an article Stamps released in memory of Mother Teresa, or an entire paragraph in that article devoted to just that stamp. Please leave a message on my talk page if you still have some doubts about why the image should not be used. But do read WP:FU before that. - Aksi_great (talk) 14:45, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I also think that Image:Mmgrfr5.jpg has an incorrect copyright tag. I have marked it as having no source. So probably you should remove it till its copyright status is verified. - Aksi_great (talk) 14:51, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, I will examine it later today. Majoreditor 17:28, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We want to know how RuneScape can be edited in order to attain FA status. It has already passed a GA nom.--Ed ^{¿Cómo estás?} 21:34, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The lead section could do with some polishing. The second paragraph, about Gielinor, looks fancrufty. Consider jettisoning the paragraph, moving useful information to the third paragraph (which then becomes the second paragraph). It wouldn't hurt to add another paragraph which summarises the history of the game, reviews it has received and/or its impact on the world/Internet/MMORPG industry. --J.L.W.S. The Special One 08:32, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We already have those things you mentioned in your last suggestion. There's a paragraph on it's history and development and one on its reception. The reception paragraph covers the impact on the world, internet, and MMORPG industry, although more info could be added on that. I'll see what I can find. Also, I'll make the changes to the lead section right now.--Ed ^{¿Cómo estás?} 13:44, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

When I wrote paragraphs, I meant paragraphs in the lead section. Sorry for not explaining clearly. --J.L.W.S. The Special One 14:20, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, that's fine. I'll get to it ASAP.--Ed ^{¿Cómo estás?} 14:33, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I got the lead paragraph that you wanted done. Any more suggestions?--Ed ^{¿Cómo estás?} 16:43, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Would like to obtain editors' comments on how to improve this article. --Pinkkeith 20:05, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• No sources are cited

• Maybe have a look at WP:LEAD, as the lead section is a bit long right now. The information in it looks relevent enough, but some of it could definitely be moved down into the body of the article.

• It's a unique nickname. There should be a mention of its origin (Chris Berman). If I were a reader coming in out of the blue, not already familiar with the topic, I'd have no idea how that name even makes any sense.

• The whole of the article seems to be the results of the offense and then individual player profiles of some of its stars. But, for an article that is ostensibly about that offense, there's not much about the offense itself. The opening tells us it was based upon Air Coryell (an offense I wouldn't exactly describe as "traditional", by the way), but that's pretty much it. What is the background of the Coryell offense that's the basis? What changes were made to that? How was it different not only from Coryell's, but from the other NFL offenses in use between 1999 and 2001? What were the offenses schemes and designs?

• For the individual players, I'd use the main article template, rather than the details template.

Mwelch 23:54, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Any improvements to get this article qualified for WP:GA or (preferrably) WP:FA. — Alex^(T|C|E) 11:32, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As one of two main authors of this article I humbly agree that it is very far from FA. To start with, it has little inline refs. But GA perhaps? I think it is within reach. --Irpen 20:34, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Current GA on the controversial and recently retired German racing driver. We're making a final push to get this article to FA standard and found previous reviews from this group on Tom Pryce and Clay Regazzoni particularly useful. Particular points of interest are: has a neutral point of view been achieved? Does the article cover the topic in the right level of detail for a general Wikipedia audience? Thanks in advance for your comments. 4u1e 15:06, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This article is really nice, good job! The detail level seems quite reasonable. As for the POV concerns, other than a few very minor wording issues, I didn’t really see anything that would concern me.

A couple concerns I had: some unlinked (potential) jargon you might want to check out: “canteen” "the season finale", "wet races" "Silverstone test", "first podium" vs. "first victory" how are they different?, “black flag”, “downforce”, “pole position”. Also, in the "career section" I kind of felt cheated, like the ending was given away at the very beginning, I would start with his debut (this could even be the section "intro") and work chronologically.

• Pole position, black flag linked. Downforce already linked at the first appearance. Canteen's not jargon, it's just another word for cafeteria. Silverstone test seems to have disappeared, so I guess Buc's covered that. Buc's also covered wet races, although I did think that was very clear from the context! Podium = finishing in first three, Win = win: I'll try and clarify that, if it's not done already. Thanks for taking the trouble to comment! 4u1e 16:38, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My pleasure, good luck during FAC.

A few other nit-picks:

• For continuity, perhaps repeat his vitals in the first paragraph of the "early years" section, (Michael Schumacher was born January 3, 1969, in Hürth Hermülheim, Germany to parents....), also you might want to mention his brother Ralf here since he is discussed later in the article. Change: "Schumacher was served as the president…”
• "Jordan challenged Benetton in the UK courts, but lost the case." - Why did he challenge them, I must have missed something what was his beef? "the more advanced and powerful Williams of Hill and Prost," please include first names here. "Electronic trickery" - edges on POV, could an example be provided? A mention of the deaths of Senna and Ratzenberger should probably be first, before the cheating allegations, plus no citations?

• Jordan challenged Benetton because he already had an agreement in principle (a form of legal agreement) with Schumacher for the rest of the season, which he felt was broken by Schumacher signing with Benetton. That was all in the article, but I've rearranged a bit: Does it read clearer now?

Yes much better, Thanks! --DO11.10 19:21, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Hill and Prost in full at first appearance - Done.
• change order of cheating and deaths. Done.
• 'Electronic trickery' (the term is taken from McLaren's own site by the way, so isn't really intended to be derogatory or imply cheating!) and citations I will cover as I go through doing hardcopy references. 4u1e 16:13, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Done4u1e 17:41, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• “Leading by a single point going into the final race in Australia, Schumacher and Hill collided, both drivers taken out of the race. Schumacher thus became the first German to win the Formula One world championship.” - Who was leading? How exactly did the collision affect the outcome, there is a bit of a disconnect here?

I think this has been dealt with. 4u1e 17:41, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• “…Finnish driver Mika Häkkinen joined the list of Schumacher's rivals” - “rivals” sounds a tiny bit POV, serious contenders? Change: “The championship fight came would come down to the race in Japan. “In December 2006, BusinessF1 magazine claimed Scuderia Ferrari President Luca di Montezemolo pushed for Schumacher's ousting.” - citation?
• “The helmet keeps the driver breathing and cool by funneling directed airflow through fifty holes to cool” - reword, this sounds odd
• “Family and off-track life” feels a bit listy could it be better worked into prose?

All in all, this is a great article. Good job and good luck! Please feel free to contact me if you need clarification of any of these points.--DO11.10 03:56, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would greatly appreciate any help in improving this article. Content, presentation, referencing, prose, whatever. Please help make it better. I'd like to think it may be approaching FA quality with some fresh looks by others and tweaking. Any comments/criticisms appreciated.Sirberus 17:29, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you cka3n and classicfilms for your efforts!Sirberus 23:04, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• This page is for Wikipedia:Peer review, not for Ethnic groups peer review. For Ethnic groups, see the Ethnic groups peer review page specific to this article.
• The article is pretty long. It's the product of a large amount of hard work, esp. by Maowang and myself, but also by countless others. It is currently a GA nominee and we hope to send it to FAC after that...--Ling.Nut 03:38, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is a great article, and I commend you for it. My suggestions:

• I must admit that I cannot sit through all of it and that is going to be a problem at FAC, I'm sure of it. There are some sections with 7 full paragraphs that make this drag on for a long time. You might want to try to take sections that are important enough and bring that over to another article that covers the topic fully while the section in this article can be brought to more of a summarization.
• I'm not sure if it's required at FAC yet, but you'll be saving yourself and everyone else a lot of trouble by switching over to footnote referencing. This will also make the main section of your shorter, flow better, and be less cluttered. I can't think of an article recently that has been promoted to FA status using Harvard referencing. (p.s. it's not hard to switch over!)
• Having a lot of red links in your article is not too fashionable over at FAC, but it's not required. Just a suggestion to create those articles instead of unlinking them.

That's the best I can tell you. I'm not saying that it should be shorter because the subject is not worthy of a long article, but in the interest of user attention spans, we should try to keep things to a relative minimum that goes into a reasonable amount of detail without overdoing it. Review your article here and ask yourself if someone is absolutely necessary to note in the article or if the user can find said semantics in the book that is referenced. JHMM13 08:30, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks! (note left on reviewer's talk page...) --Ling.Nut 11:08, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just a few random comments:

• Bulleted lists might get hammered at FAC; try integrating them into the prose if possible.
• The images are somewhat large; 200-250px might be better.
• Harvard referencing is uncommon on Wikipedia, since it's easy to jump right to the sources. People might disagree with this referencing style at FAC.
• The prose is nice IMO, but it needs a run-through by two or three editors to remove lingering issues. Like I said, I'm somewhat backlogged; I don't know if I can help in that department.

— Deckiller 08:04, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"There is also recorded oral histories that recall some Plains aborigines were sometimes captured and killed by highlands tribes while relocating through the mountains (see the Atayal narrative "Headhunting" in the Formosan Language Archive)." This includes an external jump which should probably be reformatted as a citation. -Fsotrain⁰⁹ 00:07, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have done a lot to this article and would like some feedback on how the article is coming along. Just some suggestions of how it could become a feature article. SpecialWindler 06:08, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• There is some info on your talk page,

The article seems to be pretty stable now after a flurry of edits after it reached DYK, and I'd now to further improve the article to either A or FA class. I'd especially like some hints for the intro; it seems a bit short, and writing intros is very much my bête noire. Laïka 12:58, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Seeking review of references, images, content, and this article's compliance with the Firearms WikiProject. Wasted Sapience 23:27, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone? After the M16 (and variants) and the AK-47, the AUG is probably the most popular standard army rifle worldwide. --Wasted Sapience 23:09, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well writ, but a little too succinct. Is there anyway you might be able to expand it? bibliomaniac15 03:11, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As you may have noticed I expanded it significantly. Enjoy! Koalorka (talk) 23:59, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A few other people and I have been working on this article for a while, and I would like to hear any comments for improvement. --Cremepuff222 (talk, review me!) 20:08, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Suggestions
  • Cite the two unsourced statements
  • Expand all three sections (if possible)
  • Add an infobox
  • Look at Ammolite for a good example.

— JuWiki (Talk <> Resources) 23:12, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks for the review, JuWiki. It's very nice when someone includes an example in the review, it helps a lot. I'll see what I can do..., thanks again! --Cremepuff222 (talk, review me!) 00:24, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Surely there is more content that can be added to this article? It seems quite brief. For example, what is the etymology of the word?[8] Why do spar's form most readily in water? Doesn't a spar have a light coloration?[9] What about the properties of the named varieties of spar, rather than just listing the minerals from which they are formed? (Iceland spar, Pear spar, Rhomb spar, Bitter spar, Satin Spar Gypsum, Dogtooth spar, Nailhead spar, ... &c.) Thanks. — RJH (talk) 19:29, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes, there is much that can be added. The only problem is that only two people besides me have helped add on to the article, and I'm certain that none of us has any background info. Thanks very much for the review, RJHall! --Cremepuff222 (talk, review me!) 00:24, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I just created this article, and would like opinions on how it can be improved, and what rating it currently gets. Che84 18:08, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Its pretty good overall, not too far off good article level. Some suggestions:

• The lead could use some expansion. See WP:LEAD
• There it lots of detail about off-field matters, but more detail of his on-field performance would be useful. How long did he play for OFK? When did he make his Panserraikos debut? It is mentioned that he was played out of position, what is his preferred position?
• Referring to Panserraikos as seedy is POV.
• Is Demon Deacons a nickname of Wake Forest?

Hope this helps. Oldelpaso 10:43, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Tried to expand the lead, but I'm not really sure what I can add there. I read the link, but it's still rather difficult.
• Got some on-field information - Preferred position (withdrawn striker), Panserraikos debut, time with OFK (but not stats...can't find those anywhere.
• Fixed POV
• Demon Deacons is a nickname of the Wake Forest athletic program, yes. Che84 02:18, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The article is somewhat short, but its content is quite comprehensive. Any suggestions towards improving the article? Deucalionite 16:47, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know how much this helps, but one thing that struck me as confusing is that the opening sentence describes this war as "the only major military expedition of the Rus' Khaganate recorded in Byzantine and Western European sources" -- yet when recounting the history of this war (if a raid upon Constantinople & the neighboring area could be described as a "war"), only the Byzantine sources are used. The Western European sources aren't mentioned until the section "Later traditions". Either the sentence or the account of the war needs to be re-written. BTW, I'm not sure "Criticism" is the best choice for the title of that section. -- llywrch 21:42, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

This is the second time this article has been reviewed. I removed the original research that was discussed in the first review, and sourced alternative analysis of the ballad. Although I still have significant grammatical editing to do, content-wise do you all think this article meets the FAC?

Thanks, APAULCH 01:41, 18 August 2007 (UTC) Wikipedia:Peer review/The Ballad of the White Horse/archive1[reply]

Review by Midnightdreary

I'm purposefully reviewing this without looking at the previous peer review so if I'm repeating some of what was said there, that's why! I'm also not familiar with the poem so I'm giving this a complete set of fresh eyes. :)

• First mention of the poem should be in italics. According to Manual of Style on titles, long epic poems should be italicized (not in quotes). You do it right later on, but the first mention is possibly the most important spot to get it right. Generally, the intro can be expanded anyway. It should stand alone as its own sort of mini-article for people with low attention spans. See WP:LEDE. I'm curious about this odd line, "usually considered an epic poem." Is there debate? Should the article discuss it? Also, are the exploits of King Alfred 100% accurate or fictitious? The word "fictionalized" or even "idealized" or "romanticized" can give whole new meaning to "exploits." A quick line about the author (i.e. "English") might also help, as would Wikilinking directly to his article rather than a redirect. An image of the original publication or an early illustration for the poem would be fantastic here too but I'm not sure how likely that would be.

• Your "Summary" section should probably come first. I would consider (though I don't feel strongly) to divide the Summary section not into subsections but just into bold headings (the difference is in text size and also how it affects the Table of Contents; as it is, the TOC is really long and hard to navigate, but that just might be my problem, not yours). I'd also consider swapping the

• I would suggest the "Analysis" section come next. I would make a similar recommendation about subsections vs. bold headings here. Whatever you choose, make sure the two sections match! This section is the one that needs the most work. First, it should be your most referenced section or it violates the original research policy. Quoting the poem here is also very problematic and, really, very little analysis is actually offered. You have a couple options, I think. First, you can really expand the crap out of the analysis on each part, just as you currently have it set up. This would mean lots of sources, and lots of equal weight given to each section. Option two would be to collapse it all together into one overall analysis of the entire work all at once rather than in sections. This might be an easier way to go until you know the analysis is strong enough to stand in its many parts. As it is, I'm having trouble figuring out the different between Analysis and Summary sections.

• As for the full text of the poem itself, just rely on Wikisource. There actually is a way to link each of the summary mini-sections to their corresponding original text in Wikisource if you want to have direct links for each section (rather than just one hard to find box amidst piles of text in the article).

• I'd then add the "Technical Features" section after this, though I'd change the name. It currently sounds like a vacuum cleaner or something! :) Maybe "Poetic structure"? Either way, remember to only capitalize the first word of section headings unless it's a proper noun. You should definitely expand this section, though. This might be the place to add discussion about its "epic poem" status, if such a debate exists. Look at a recently-approved good article on a poem, "The Raven" (shameless plug), for some possibilities.

• "Influence on other works" could be renamed to "Critical response and impact" (based on the suggestion of the behemoth Wikiproject Novels; WP:Poetry doesn't seem to have recommendations for structure of articles). This would definitely be expanded to include (sourced) quotes about the poem's historical value, contemporary and more modern responses, and definitely other works inspired by the poem. It's a good start there, but it could be much bigger.

I hope this was helpful. Best of luck on this article! --Midnightdreary 13:09, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Response by APAULCH 22:22, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your response. It may take me a while to put all your reccomendations into effect. Here's a question:

• I paraphrased almost an entire single article for the analysis, and referenced it in the heading (as well as noting that it was paraphrased). Why exactly are the qoutations problematic? I included the same passages that were present in the original document. I know the analysis isn't that extensive and not very concise or clear, but that's what was present in the original. I was only able to find a single relevant document in the Thomson Gale Literature resource database (from our public library) so I didn't have to much leeway. Should I check other sources to find more documents? Should I incoporate those documents into the existing structure or include it as a separate section?

Thanks, APAULCH 22:22, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm... consider this: If you're entirely analysis comes from only one source, it's hardly a well-rounded view. I think part of the policy on NPOV would suggest that's pushing a single bias rather than showing a broader view. I also think the heavy quotations of the verse make the section incredibly long but lacking in substance. Don't you? Also, think of it this way... if another editor comes along and adds some additional sourced information spliced into the middle of your sourced material,it gets hard to figure out what source applies to what analysis. Well, consider it anyway. I wonder if anyone else out there in Peer Review Land would like to offer an opinion... --Midnightdreary 23:59, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If your sources for the article are online, could you please link them? -Malkinann 09:02, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I can't post a link because it was in a limited-access database. I think you should be able to find the article in most databases or maybe from the journal Thought.

Do you think I should change it from a book-by-book analysis to a topic-by-topic analysis? That would make it easier to include other sources (if I can find more-the book is not well known). There is a little analysis in the book itself (as well as reviews of it when it was first published, which I may be able to use). I also have a homeschool study guide for it, which has a few excellent interpretations but I don't know if it was really "published" or just printed off someone's personal computer for sale.

I agree that the quotations make it long and cumbersome, but I also think they help illustrate some of the points made. However, this probably isn't necessary. Are there any guidlines or additional opinions?

Thanks, APAULCH 21:32, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Do they have a DOI, ISSN or ISBN? As it is, googling for thought academic journal gives me 18,100,000 hits. I'd also recommend that you take the citation from out of the section title - it looks like the source is referencing your section title, which isn't the case.-Malkinann 22:11, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think arranging the analysis thematically is a pretty good idea. It'd probably be easier to read and might make it look a slightly less daunting size. It might be worth seeing if anyone has written a critical biography of this author; that would be one additionally source to start to balance the one that's already used heavily. --Midnightdreary 01:45, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see any numerical ID. The volume info is Thought Vol. LXVI, No. 261, June 1991, pp. 161-78 APAULCH 21:27, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 02:41, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think this article has improved greatly, but could benefit from another set of eyes! Ultimately aiming for a GA, I would love some feedback on the prose and some advice on how to make it flow a bit more naturally. Would also like to hear what someone who hasn't seen the film has to say about it-- whether the plot description feels complete and informative? Any bits that would be okay to take out? Thank you all so much for your time! M. F. Gaede 04:37, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• The Cast section needs to go after Production

Done!

• I don't like the placement of the Image:01 quills.jpg. Maybe it can go under the Cast section.

I agree. I'd actually kind of forgotten about that image. Done, and considering making it a bit bigger.

• Keep WP:CITE in mind when adding the refs.

Bah! This is so hard to find after the fact! I found a few instances with spaces in between the words and one with extra punctuation. Doh. Habit.

• Get rid of the "HTML"'s from the references. 90% of the online sources are in html format, so I don't see any need to point that out.

I just copied the template verbatim, but yeah, unnecessary information. I did keep the format description for the one that's a PDF file, since that's less common.

• Try to find a substitute to the imdb sources. IMDB is considered an unreliable source when it comes to business data.

Should I replace all the IMDb sources? It's not necessarily impossible, but kind of tough. I can, however, get rid of the IMDb business data listing, since the boxofficemojo.com listing has the same exact information.

I would recommend to change all imdb sources.

Changed IMDb Film Locations ref to MovieLocations.com ref, Full Cast List ref to Yahoo!Movies cast list ref, simply removed soundtrack ref as unnecessary, kept release date ref as is irreplaceable, changed Marat/Sade IMDb synopsis ref to an official MGM ref. Yahoo!Movies cast list is easier to navigate and more complete (it looks like), MovieLocations.com is v. in-depth and really the only other place I could find with the information

• You have two {{spoiler}} tags without {{endspoiler}}. Fix that.

Done! Do you have any idea how many times I have noticed this and forgotten to fix it?

• Is there a reason why the subsections of Reaction use Level 4 headings?

Er, because I was equal sign happy? Fixed.

• Oh and the critical reception under Reaction needs to be the first subsection, in my opinion.

All right! I bow to your superior experience!

These were the problems I noticed. I don't see any major issues in this article, other than the reference problems I stated. Good luck in WP:GAC.

Thank you so much for your input and keen eyes!

Crzycheetah 19:57, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like some feedback on how the article is written. The issue has started to get a little bit of renewed attention because of Barack Obama's presidential campaign. That will probably increase as primary season nears.

RFF feedback was that it might be a GA candidate if pictures and external links are added. And that's fine, and I'll be happy to listen to those critiques also. But the truth is that I'm not all tht concerned with official GA or FA "status". Images are a pain to figure out coypright-wise and the "external links" that seem obvious to me at the moment are cited already as sources. Granted, I'm sure there are plenty that are just not occurring to me right now, but the point is that I'm really more concerned with feedback on how well (or poorly) the article is written than anything else. Hopefully, I can learn some things through this review that will improve my writing skills. I'm a computer geek by trade, so my chances to practice are sometimes limited. Once I'm satisfied with the article in that arena, perhaps at that time I'll find myself more interested in GA and FA and that sort of thing.

Thanks to any who wish to help! Mwelch 23:34, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting article. What is a "comfortable lead?" It might also be helpful if you had a chart showing how much the vote changes. --thedemonhog talk contributions 21:26, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much. I've now cited specific numbers in place of "comfortable". I do like the chart idea. I'll look into that when I get a little time, and see if can find an FA or two that present similar charts in an aesthetically pleasing fashion. Thanks again! Mwelch 21:54, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have just recently expanded this article. It is listed as a stub, but I have never worked on a stub before and am seeking feedback. I don't even know if it is ready to have the stub tags removed at this point. I would like to get this bio up to GA status, but need to find some more references and information on the subject. Jim Miller 13:43, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A good start. A few comments:

• Try to use the {{cite web}} format in your references.
• Mention of early life in lead needs its own section. Who were his parents etc.? Check any featured biography, such as Michael Jordan, for more on this.
• It would be nice if a free photo could be found; I'm sure politicians are keen to release photos. Try sending an e-mail; see Wikipedia:Example requests for permission.
• Lead will eventually need expanding per WP:LEAD.

I'd like to improve this article, but I've been having a lot of trouble. Truth is, the song isn't that far above the notability requirements. No music video was produced, and it hardly charted at all since it was only released because Gwen Stefani got pregnant and had to put recording on hold. Most reviewers overlooked it, and "Bubble Pop Electric" was predicted as the sixth single. Does anyone have some suggestions on how to expand the article and improve its quality in general? ShadowHalo 05:49, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This article on an Indian national park and an UNESCO World Heritage Site was selected as Collaboration of the Month (February 2007) on WIkiProject Protected areas of India and had undergone huge expansion. Now wanting review from expert editors to take this article to the FA level or atleast GA level. However I make a request to the editors to correct the minor errors and grammar themselves. Amartyabag ^TALK2ME 05:42, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comments Have not read the whole article yet. Some observations: Please consider creating a daughter article on history, and shift such details as notification numbers, or amounts of areas added to the park to the daughter article. History section needs massive summarization.

created need to summarise  Done

Do not use citation superscripts in section headers.

Removed

Try to reduce so many levels of sections. For example, you can get rid of "Flora and fauna" section (which has got multiple levels under it) and have two separate first-level section of "Fauna" and "Flora".  Done

The section "Conservation Management" need summary form, and avoiding bold fonts. Consider creating a daughter article.--Dwaipayan (talk) 06:16, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rewritten and daughter article created and need to summarize  Done

I cannot see any locator (red dot or shaded area) in the map. Done--Dwaipayan (talk) 06:21, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Don't know how to resolve this problem, need help from experienced persons.

Nice observations, will work on it soon. Amartyabag ^TALK2ME 07:40, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tried to resolve some of the problem. Amartyabag ^TALK2ME 11:57, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Review

• Copyedit needed.
• Linking the audio to baruah.in is bad style. The link should be internal. Ambuj.Saxena could provide you with one aural rendition. Done
• Lead size should be doubled in size  Done
• Etymology can be merged with the lead Done
• charming American --> remove charming Done
• ...firewood etc --> etc remove reword Done
• hectares --> use square km (SI) use the {{convert}} template to generate imperial equivalents. (See Climate of India) for working.). Use for all units. Done
• Unlink standalone years 1918, etc; link full dates like this August 7 1999 Done
• chapories, nallahs? -- meaning needed as they are Indian terms.

Already clarified

• Graph needs to be svg Done

If there a rule in Wikipedia not to use other image formats.

• Geology Done
• Why are places italicised? Remove  Done
• Visitor information --> rename as Tourism and rewrite as neutral tone without giving travel information to tourists. (One can access the park, Kaziranga can be accessed easily by road etc) Done Still may need editing pls review
• Administration: What is the budget? Done The actual amount was not provided event to the UNESCO, every year there is a change in the budget.Amartyabag ^TALK2ME 05:06, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• =Conservation Management= needs to be summarised. Move content to daughter articles and write a summary of the content here. Done Summarised to about 45% of the original content.Amartyabag ^TALK2ME 04:18, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Kaziranga - Karbi Anglong Elephant Reserve -- why is this bold?

Removed bold

• pleasantly mild --> remove word pleasant Done
• Seasonal variation --> content in this section can be merged with climate and Flora/Fauna Done and created daughter article

This part can be added to both and to avoid redundancy created a subsection

• Golaghat District --> Golaghat district Done

Will pause review. Fix these first and let me know. =Nichalp «Talk»= 12:52, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• A few comments:

• "Etymology of the name" → "Etymology" (see India and try to follow its example).

Merged with lead

• Try to reduce the number of one- or two-sentence paragraphs.  Done to an extent
• Administration: Try to make the bulleted list into a paragraph since prose is preferred to lists. Same with the Biomes section. Done
• Flora: Fix the link in the list. Done
• Constraints: Delete extra spaces. Done
• Kaziranga in popular culture → In popular culture or just Popular culture Done
• Fix all Citation(s) needed tags. Done
• Further reading and viewing: Fit information into {{Cite book}} template. Done

Can U show me a article where it has been used.

• External links: KAZIRANGA NATIONAL PARK → Kaziranga National Park.  Done

Happy editing, [sd] 17:24, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Done some revision today. Amartyabag ^TALK2ME 03:00, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding {{Cite book}}, an example of its usage can be found at the "Further reading" section of Pericles. Here's an example of the first book using the template:

• Oberai, C.P. (2002). Kaziranga: The Rhino Land. New Delhi: B.R. Publishing. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)

Also, "Further reading and viewing" could be renamed to "Further information." Done

Jaws of Death → Jaws of Death. Done Cheers, [sd] 12:23, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Replying

• SVG: See Wikipedia:Image use policy#Format. SVG is recommended. A few people can make is easily for you.
• Seasonal Variation: I don't think it's redundant. The part about climate can go in climate and the part about animals migrating can go with flora/fauna. Done

=Nichalp «Talk»= 14:08, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Images

Image:Kazi-elegrass.jpg is actually cc-by-nd (acc to original image at FlickR). So are Image:Kazi-openbill.jpg, Image:Kazi-sunbird.jpg, Image:Kazi-pallaseagle.jpg and Image:Kazi-broadleaf.jpg. All these have been tagged as cc-by-sa. So this issue need to be resolved. You can write to the photographer asking for permission to use, or, asking to release those works under cc-by-sa, or just attribution. Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 15:25, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Check out this link http://www.flickr.com/photos/pankaj/325052000/ the user agrees to release the photos under the commercial use licensing. Probably this can please the Wikimedia. Also a not so clear about the release type the Flickr user send me an email which is send to the Wikimedia for further clarification.Amartyabag ^TALK2ME 12:18, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Could you ask the person to change the license on flickr or mail you the permission? Thanks! =Nichalp «Talk»= 18:58, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

1984

Why are so many figures dating back to a 1984 census? Are there no more recent statistics? =Nichalp «Talk»= 16:27, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reply

Only in case of two animals Gaur and Indian Muntjac the datas dated back to 1984 were used and in all the other cases the year 1984 figures are used for only comparision with the present figures. After the 1984 3 worst flood hit the park in 1988, 1987 and 1998, so this is a significant year. We have tried to add datas even of 2005, In India most of the survey are done at an interval of 10 years, so most of the datas were of 1999 when the last survey of many animals were done. Reference provided in all cases and the figures are taken from reliable sources like UNESCO and other government surveys. Amartyabag ^TALK2ME 04:08, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Geology

There are no special geological features in the area of Kaziranga as there is in case of the US national parks. We have to use some facts from the geology of Assam and India which are not much influential in Kaziranga. Amartyabag ^TALK2ME 04:08, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Need more suggestion and further review.Amartyabag ^TALK2ME 04:18, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Update

I have done some structural changes and copyedits in order to reduce redundancy and the article to appear less touristy. Sections like "Transport", "Recreational activities" have been added instead of Tourist activities. Also, new section on "Climate" (with subsection "seasonal variation") has been created in order to lessen the number of subsections under Geography. However, I feel "Fauna" needs several subsections. Have not yet read "Fauna" and "Flora", so cannot comment on those. However apparaently it seems "Biomes" could be incorporated in "Flora", not sure though. The article has a heavy burden of red links which needs to be blued. Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 19:25, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Dwaipayan, further review can produce better result. Amartyabag ^TALK2ME 08:51, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment-->The citation #23 that Assam has the higest number of Elephants needs examination. From 2001 census, Karnataka with >6000 and Kerela with almost 6000 perhaps have a higher population than Assam. South India in general has >14000 of the the 27600 Asian elephants in India. A well written article in general.[10][11] Done Removed wrong statementDineshkannambadi 00:00, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

comment -->I will look up on the tiger density info (tigers/sq km).Dineshkannambadi 00:02, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

comment -->I may have missed it but is there a mention made that at the turn of the last century, there were as few as 8 Rhinos left in Kaziranga?. An interesting table would be one that shows the decadal growth of Rhino population, poaching numbers, tourist arrivals etc. This may be available from sources such as www.Indianjungles.com or www.Sanctuaryasia.com.Dineshkannambadi 20:19, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I see the Rhino and elephant census chart exists.Dineshkannambadi 21:38, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment *The clouded leopard is not a big cat. Weighting in at 15-20kgs, it is a lesser cat (Encyclopedia of Mammals, David Macdonald, p49)I guess opinions vary.Dineshkannambadi 03:35, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Why is Gangetic Dolphin mentioned and not Brahmaputra Dolphin.[12]

Gangaetic Dolphin is a more popular name and have good references.

• why almost 478 birds? Please provide exact number or remove "almost". Done

• wikilink Nallah  DoneDineshkannambadi 22:07, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment

• Indian Muntjac and Barking deer are one and the same. DoneDineshkannambadi 15:35, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• 30 Gaurs and 58 Sambar are not really considered significant populations. In fact 30 gaur is a non viable population.

• The tiger density I have verified is the highest in Kaziranga but only by a small margin compared to Nagarahole (Karnataka), Kanha (Madhya Pradesh). These numbers can vary from year to year. Unless the population density is significantly higher than anywhere else, its probably better to to just say its "among the highest".[13]

highest is is the highest, a first in exam by 0.1% is always first, when we have good references no need to remove. Amartyabag ^TALK2ME 14:09, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reply-->I understand. But if things change in a few years and number of Tigers fall at Kaziranga, then unless someone changes the information in the article to convey the latest info, the article would be providing incorrect information to the readers.Just a thought, not a bias.Dineshkannambadi 22:00, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• A paragraph on butterflies and insects is necessary.

• Sloth bear in Kaziranga!!. Is there a citation for this. Very rare east of Bengal, most common in south and central India.verifiedDineshkannambadi 03:13, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I noticed at one point a total bird count of 479. I dont see that in some of the articles I have read. Seems like ~350 is more like it.Please verify this. Its better to quote stable numbers for resident, migratory and vagrant birds.

removed from main article, yet the reference is taken from a good source.

Dineshkannambadi 17:50, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

*Error-->First of all, the term Royal Bengal Tiger is not a name used by conservationists. Indian Tiger is the correct terminology. Second, the link Royal Bengal Tiger takes you to a page which was perhaps written in haste. I realise it is not within the scope of this article to rectify mistakes in linked pages. The geography of the tiger on this page is shown as only eastern and central India, completely ignoring the fact that some of the most viable and stable populations of the Tiger is in the western Ghats of Karnataka, Tamil Nadu and Kerala. Karnataka alone comes 3rd in census reports with 402 tigers (2001). The Nilgiri Bio-sphere reserve has the largest concentration of tigers after Madhyapradesh and combined populations of Sundarbans in India and Bangladesh.Dineshkannambadi 18:37, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wow — lots of work being done. Several more comments:

• Introduction: Does Tiger Reserve have to be capitalized?

Needs, coz' it is the official name

• Introduction: Same with this sentence: The park has large breeding populations of Elephant, Water Buffalo and Swamp Deer. Do all the animal names need to be capitalized?

Don't know if there is some norms like this in Wikipedia. Someone may throw more light into this.

• History: River Brahmaputra → Brahmaputra River. The article about the Brahmaputra is also called Brahmaputra River. Done
• History: P D Stracey → P.D. Stracey Done
• History: On February 11, 1974, the 430 km² (166 mi²) park was given official status.^[7]. Extra period after citation not needed. Done
• History: Kaziranga though, has remained unaffected by it, and reports of insurgents protecting the animals, and in extreme cases killing poachers, have been reported since the 1980s. → However, Kaziranga has remained unaffected by the movement. Instances of insurgents protecting the animals, and in extreme cases killing the poachers, have been reported since the 1980s. Done
• Geography: Kaziranga is composed of flat expanses of fertile, alluvial soil. Wikilink alluvial soil. Done
• Geography: animals shelter during floods → animals go to for shelter during floods. Done
• Geography: park experiences three seasons, summer → park experiences three seasons: summer Done
• Fauna: Migratory birds from Central Asia that arrive here during winter on include. The word on not necessary. Done
• Fauna: Birds of prey include the rare Eastern Eastern Imperial Eagle, Greater Spotted Eagle. Eastern is a repeated word. Done
• Fauna: As a reader, the word include is used a little too much. I suggest using synonyms of include for some variety.
• Flora: The invasive species Water Hyacinth → The invasive Water Hyacinth Done
• Administration: First paragraph: ... park receives ... park also receives .. park also receives. Try to have a little variety in the wording.
• Administration: administrative head quarter → administrative headquarters Done
• Conservation Management: Conservation Management → Conservation management Done
• Conservation Management: the poaching of Rhinoceros for its horn → the poaching of rhinoceros for its horn Done
• Visitor activities: Wildlife watching, including birding is the → Wildlife watching, including birding, is the Done
• Transport: (approx. 217 → (approximately 217 Done
• External links: Perhaps you could include {{Districts of Assam}}.

Happy editing, [sd] 01:31, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

May include after the template is redone with Geography and related topics.

• Update

Done with some of the suggestion by Dinesh and SD. Amartyabag ^TALK2ME 13:57, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Important comment->[14] regarding Tiger census. It is very evident and acknowledged all over India that the pug mark method used for tiger census over the decades has been highly ineffectual and inaccurate. Even wildlife biologists no longer accept tiger numbers given at various sanctuaries as accurate. Sariska lost all of its tigers years ago but the officials continued to claim 50 tigers.

It took me 9 years to see my first tiger (at Bhadra WLS, Karnataka) and I am only a wildlife enthusiast, and as many years for famous conservationist Ullas Karanth. Given this situation, claiming Kaziranga or any park in India has the highest number of tigers based on census is nothing but a "Hand wave". This is the reason I said not to adhere to web articles or even research articles about tiger census and numbers. Nobody really knows how many tigers are there in India. However I would concede that Kaziranga is one of the better protected parks in India.Dineshkannambadi 13:37, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support THe article summarizes the most important elements of the Park very well and clearly displays GA quality. It has improved considerably ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ ^{"Expecting you" Contribs} 17:57, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've been working very hard over the last week or so to improve the quality of this article. I've:

• Added references to the entirety of the article
• Got rid of twaddle like "famous fans"
• Got rid of bullet point lists
• Added images
• Tightened up the quality of the writing
• probably some other stuff I've forgotten :-)

I'd now like to get people's feedback on the article and what needs to be done to get it to GA status and beyond.

I'll pre-emptively address one point which people might bring up, namely recentism. Although the last twelve years gets the most in-depth coverage within the article, this isn't just because it's the most recent period but because the most significant events in the club's history (nearly going bust, best cup run, two Wembley appearances, first ever spell at Championship level) all occurred in this era, hence I think the level of coverage is appropriate.

Anyway, I'd like to hear what people think - all comments appreciated!

Cheers

ChrisTheDude 21:30, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Very good job you've got done there so far. Here are some tips that might help:

• An article should be created for the history section, I would recommend creating at History of Gillingham F.C., and the history section in the Gillingham F.C. article should be more of a summary of this.
  • Done
• Seasons should be linked e.g. 1894-95 should be 1894–95 (with an endash).
  • Done
• I would recommend placing inline citations right after what it is referencing, not having a small gap next to it.
  • Done
• I think an article for the records section (e.g. Gillingham F.C. records) would be helpful, and mentioning the main records in prose in the records section.
  • Done

Can't really think of anything else. I'm not quite sure about the given criteria for notable players, but I'm not too sure on that. I would recommend looking at FA-class football club articles such as Arsenal F.C. and Ipswich Town F.C. to get an idea on how to improve it. In my opinion we're looking at a future FA candidate here, I think GA would be an underachievement. Hope my comments help. Mattythewhite 09:55, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the kind words. To address your points:

• I didn't initally split off the history because I didn't feel that a club of the Gills' stature merited a separate history article, but if others concur that this should be done I will organise it
  • Done this now, will now start reducing the extent of the history coverage in the main article
• OK, I'll sort that later today
• OK, I'll sort that later today
• As per my comment on the history really, I can sort that out if it's felt it would improve this particular article

Thanks once again for your comments ChrisTheDude 10:04, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Might as well start with the bit I immediately looked for due to having been there. While I'm as far as you can get from being neutral on the matter, calling the injury time in the 1999 playoff final "hotly-disputed" is POV. Attributing something along those lines to a quote from Tony Pulis' post-match interview might work. I have a couple of newspapers from the day after somewhere, might be a while before I get the opportunity to dig them out though. I'm pretty sure it was five minutes of injury time, not six. The next sentence is a little out of context - it makes it sound as though the playoff final was an act of gross misconduct by Pulis.

Done

Removing the sky blue tinted glasses:

• The history section has one or two too many subheadings; some subsections have only three or four sentences. These sections also have quite a few single sentence paragraphs, which should either be beefed up or merged.
  • Done
• I agree with your point about devoting more to the recent history, but one area which suffers from recentism is the list of players who subsequently played at the highest level. On a pedantic note, Bob Taylor never played in the top division (he was transferred to Wolves just after we were promoted).
  • Done - I've created a sub-article List of Gillingham F.C. players and replaced this section with a link to that, thereby eliminating the "recentist" issue
• Delink single years.
  • Done
• How big was Priestfield at its peak capacity? What is the capacity now?
  • Done
• Could be worth stating explicitly that Gillingham are Kent's only League club.
  • Done
• Check the use of although. I'm no copyediting expert, but a couple of the places where it is used don't quite look right.

Done (I think)

Hope this helps. I think the article could pass GAC already. As Mattythewhite says, FA level is a realistic target for the future. Oldelpaso 21:26, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks for your comments, I've removed the "hotly disputed" reference and the Taylor reference, I'll look at the rest tomorrow. In particular, reducing the size of the history section now that I've created a history sub-article should allow for the easy removal of sub-headings and the tightening up of the text. I'll also have a good scan through my books for more players who went on to play in the top flight.... ChrisTheDude 23:08, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, congratulations on what you've achieved so far, excellent work. Secondly, the majority of issues that would be brought up at a featured article nomination have been mentioned above and you have already dealt with them. So, that nothwithstanding, herein follow my comments:

• You have four short paragraphs in the lead, I would consider making two or three larger paragraphs - I think the strip colour is least significant so could go at the end, but that's a matter of personal preference.
  • Done, I think
• As is always a problem with these articles, the history section suffers a bit from recentism - you have approximately half of the section discussing mid-80s onwards. It would be better to smooth it out and have less focus on the last couple of decades, if possible.
  • Done, I think
• Can you cite winning the league in 48/49 and promotion in 73/74? I would prefer the use of "...promotion in the 1973–74 season." rather than "...promotion in 1973–74."
  • Done
• Remove parentheses from "(the latter a club record)" - it makes as much sense in normal prose and looks better without them.
  • Done
• "In the 20005–01 season..."?!
  • Done, cheers Kevin! :-)
• Pulis sacking citation doesn't appear to mention gross misconduct, just that he was sacked, so I think you need a better citation or drop the gross misconduct charge.
  • Done
• Citation for Peter Taylor appointment? BBC ought to be able to do you for that.
  • Done
• "...largely disappointing..." is a bit POV, I'm sure a lot of the teams in the league weren't disappointed!
  • Done
• I lost who "Scally" was in the last sentence so perhaps reinforce his position as chairman?
  • Done, reworded the sentence
• Remove space between full-stop and ref [28] in first sentence of Stadium section.
  • Done
• Wikilink Brian Moore rather than "the deceased TV commentator" - and reword that too, definitely don't use TV - something like "television sports commentator"?
  • Done
• Use en-dash in the manager table. Consider adding their records if you can cite them?
  • Done on point 1, the records are in a linked sub-article, do you feel they need to be here too.....?
• Too many short sentences in the Stats section. Also, consider a graph of league finishes if you can generate one?
• Done the first part, not sure how to do a graph....

Hope some of that helps. Let me know if I can do anything to help out if you decide on going for FA. All the best. The Rambling Man 16:40, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

CtD: This has been your undertaking, and I don't want to take any of that away from you, so I'll comment here on what has been said & done so far.

I'm afraid I don't think the History section has benefitted from removal of subheadings, although the thinning out and transferring a fuller history to another article I can go along with. I'm afraid it makes a very long piece of text with no visible divisions beyond paragraph breaks.

• Done - I concur, I've put them back in

I would go along with removal of the kit from the intro: it is visible in the infobox, at described farther down.

• Done

I've done the 20005 correction.

• Cheers for the assist there!

TRM's last 2 points are dealt with by the pages recently created and accessed via the Template. It's not true to say that we needed to beat Halifax to avoid relegation: there was still another set of matches to play, and even if Halifax had won that day, a Gills win at Torquay and Halifax losing their last match would have seen us survive.

• Done

One area of recentism that would be a valid criticism is mention of specific matches (although I would consider Wembley justified) and players: details of comings and goings of recent managers is also disproportionate to what went before.

• Done, I think

Great stuff though: UTG Kevin McE 19:20, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers for the comments guys. Looking at the history section now that I've put the sub-headings back in I agree that the "modern era" looks ridiculously out of proportion, I will try and trim that tomorrow. Hopefully I've addressed pretty much all your other points..... ChrisTheDude 20:47, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've done most of the work in this article, and some time ago it got the GA status. Now I need to know what's needed in order to reach the FA. igordebraga ≠ 18:20, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Some general suggestions:

• Footnotes come after punctuation -- done.
• The article could use a copyedit. Particularly, the use of parentheses needs to be cut back.-- done., unless you give more examples to cleanup
• Having a spoiler warning for the entire article is usually not a good idea. A spoilers tag is basically a "stop reading now" sign. -- done.
• Full dates are generally internally linked. For example, March 27, 2007 becomes "March 27, 2007". Also, it's better to use the most specific dates possible.
• The article needs more references. 32 for a subject like Metroid Prime is too few, if your goal is featured status. --added little more
• Try to avoid repeating information. For example, the article gives me a detailed description the game's beginning in two separate sections: Plot and Locations. -- done.
• Avoid cruft at all costs. Large amounts of unnecessary information weigh down even the best written articles.

Specific suggestions:

• In the header, it tells me that Metroid Prime has sold over 250,000 copies. However, in Reception, it tells me that the game is "one of the best-selling games on the GameCube, with about 1.49 million copies sold in the United States alone". Selling 1.49 in one country is better material for the header than "over 250,000 copies have been sold". Remember, the header is meant to be asummary of the article's most important elements. Also, if possible, it would be a good idea to add the number of copies sold worldwide. -- I searched for the worldwide data very much, and I only found it on a website that isn't considered reliable. I don't know if I add the low Japan figures, but I added Australia, and changed the lead.
• The plot section needs to be rewritten into a more out-of-universe style. -- done, unless you can add another way to reduce in-universe.
• You should probably convert the "Sequels" section into prose. Bulleted lists are usually a bad idea. - done.
• I hate to break it to you, but this article has a fair amount of original research. For example: "Most of the items from previous Metroid games make appearances here; however, the functions of many of them have been altered to suit the 3D environment". I recommend carefully scanning the article and getting rid of sentences like these. If possible, rewrite and cite them - done.
• Many statements in the article require citations, but do not have them. For example: "Although the previous Metroid games' soundtracks were composed by "Hip" Tanaka, Kenji Yamamoto assisted by Kouichi Kyuma composed the music for Metroid Prime." Please locate citations for sentences like this. If you need to get your hands on some magazine references, WikiProject Video games/Magazines could be of help.

Good luck! JimmyBlackwing 20:03, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone else can help? igordebraga ≠ 16:11, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jim's still got a few things that need to be cleared up, and it's looking really good, but I found a couple things...

• What is "ando"?-- done.
• If you plan on FA, it's not too far out to out to ask for at least one citation per paragraph. Paragraphs that are missing at least one are: First paragraph in gameplay (the second one could use some more too), the first two paragraphs of story, all of locations, bonuses, and a couple in sequels. -- on the way - how to do with events whose only reference is the game itself? Unlike other FA's such as MGS and all the Final Fantasy ones, there is no dialogue for refs...
• Sequels is a little bit of an awkward name choice. Most articles I see have the name legacy, but it's up to you. -- done.
• The reception section is a little light with criticism. I know it's a little hard to find, but I found some with Game Informer if you need it (mostly more in depth about control choice, but I have some direct quotes).-- done.

--Clyde (talk) 00:44, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I hope this article can become a Good Article. I am aware that there are some grammar mistakes in it, but I want to know if it is well done overall. Thank you.Dalobuca 15:11, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Dalobuca. The lead should be expanded to 2-3 paragraphs, and contain a summary of all the main points in the article. That would be a good area to begin focusing on.-- Zleitzen^(talk) 05:23, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, thank you for your advice. I will try to do that. Dalobuca 18:47, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• "he stands out as a precursor...". When I hear the word "precursor" I want to know of what this person was a precursor?
• "Even though Espejo did not have original ideas". What does this mean? How do we define original ideas and in connection with what? And if he did not have original ideas how come and he was important?
• "he learned "by experience, which cannot be known without studying with pen in hand."". I think that per WP:MoS italics are not recommended in quotes.
• "(in order to practice as a lawyer, he studied under the direction of Dr. Ramón Yépez from 1780 to 1793). On November 28, 1772. Per WP:MoS 1780 and 1793 should not be wikilinked. The full date is well-linked. Check all your dates in the article, and fix them.
• "He became a prominent scientific investigator, philosopher, journalist, and writer." Why is this repetition necessary in "Early years"?
• "Although no surviving posters have been found, there is evidence that he wrote them, including the remarks Espejo made about them in his works." "The remarks etc." refers to "evidence"?
• "by the name of El nuevo Luciano de Quito o Despertador de los ingenios quiteños en nueve conversaciones eruditas para el estímulo de la literatura" "Marco Porcio Catón o Memorias para la impugnación del nuevo Luciano de Quito" "Reflexiones acerca de un método para preservar a los pueblos de las viruelas", "Defensa de los curas de Riobamba". In English?
• "Due to this behaviour, by 1783 he was labelled as "restive and subversive",[6] and was later designated head physician for the scientific expedition that Francisco de Requena was about to begin headed for the Pará and Marañon rivers to set the limits of the Royal Audience." It is recommended to avoid one-sentence paragraphs.
• "Espejo made use of this chance and created his most complete and better written work". According to whom?
• Try to have at least one citation in all your paragraphs.
• "Instead of recognition, Espejo gained more enemies". Why?
• "In 1790 Espejo returned to Quito to promote the "Sociedad Patriótica"". What is that? Tell us just two-three more words about it.
• "Because of his ideas,[12] he was imprisoned". Blur. Who accused him? On what grounds? How was his imprisonment decided?
• "By the interpretation of his manuscripts, it can be inferred that Eugenio Espejo considered education as the main way for popular development." Sources? Otherwise, it is original research.
• "Amazing is in fact his understanding of science." WP:POV
• "When he was arrested, people rumored that his detention was caused because of his support of the "impieties" of the French Revolution." Cite.
• "Eugenio Espejo could be regarded as a polymath, as he was a notable scientist, journalist, satirist and theologian." How many times have I read that already?!
• "Views on Education" is completely uncited.
• The whole "Thoughts" section is tagged for copy-editing etc. You can find copy-editors here.
• "Clearly written and well conceived". Especially well conceived could again be regarded as POV.
• "Once again, this work proved its author's deep knowledge of this religious subject and its situation in the 18th century, as well as his capability to deal with such a complicated matter." Unsourced.
• "Nevertheless, Espejo can be considered a deeply religious man." Any scholarly research supporting that. Where is this assertion based? You announce it as a conclusion in text without supporting it.
• "Views on Economics" and "Legacy" are also uncited.
• "Espejo’s defense, well prepared and documented". I am afraid that "well-prepared and documented" is again POV.
• For your online sources in "References" use Template:cite web or Template:cite news.--Yannismarou 14:43, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Yannismarou, thank you for your comments. It seems I have a lot of work to do!. Dalobuca 18:47, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Check all your inline citations and notes. They should be after punctuation mark always.
• "Overcoming racial discrimination, he graduated from medical school on July 10, 1767, and shortly after in jurisprudence and canon law (in order to practice as a lawyer, he studied under the direction of Dr. Ramón Yépez from 1780 to 1793). On November 28, 1772, he was authorized to practice medicine in Quito." Personally, I try not to have uncited paragraphs; so, IMO, you should also cite even short paragraphs like this one.
• "However, his desire to read everything without discrimination and criteria sometimes led him to irreflexive and precipitate judgments." Such as? Maybe a bit vague.
• "Thought" is still tagged for copy-editing. Don't you go in GAC or FAC with such tags in your article. Fix the relevant issues first!
• In "Legacy" I read mostly about his ideas. I think the goal in such a section is to learn (if and) how these ideas influenced his next generations. In a few words: Why was Espejo important for the generations after him? Did he have any impact?

The article is, in general, much improved. I think that GAC should be the next step, after you have the article assessed and after you get rid of the tags.--Yannismarou 13:11, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have followed almost every recommendation to improve the article, except for two: I have cited almost every paragraph, but there are some paragraphs (seven, to be precise) that I think can be let alone without citations, as most of them come from the same source: Philip Astuto's book. I am also aware that the article is still tagged for copy-editing, but the League of Copyeditors seems to be quite busy at the moment, so I will have to be patient for a while. Please let me know what do you think about my corrections. Dalobuca 01:28, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am looking for any feedback to make this article better. Kilbad 00:29, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Have a look over at WP:MEDMOS for guidelines (Note: we are currently in the process of resurrecting discussion on those guidelines, please contribute on the talk page). In particular, the top level headings will give you suggestions as to topics to discuss, how to structure the article and what order might be best.
  • Symptoms should be first. Beginning the article with a discussion on a historical and fairly academic classification change doesn't really inspire the general reader. The lead needs to be expanded and encourage the reader. How common is this, is it serious?
  • Talking of which, the article's audience needs reworked. It is clearly aimed at advising other health professionals – the use of "diagnostic workup", "are recommended" and "should" are a give-away. Changing the article for the general reader will not be easy for such a complex subject. Currently it is too technical. Whilst some technical paragraphs are OK, there should still be others (particularly at the start of sections) where a general reader can cope without consulting a medical dictionary.
  • The article is currently imbalanced with too much on the various causes. It might help to restrict the content to just the common causes. The reader isn't helped by being overloaded with obscure stuff that only interests the writers of House. The Ocular origin section is weak. For example, how, exactly, does myopia cause this?
  • There are lots of bullet-point list, which are OK for an initial brain-dump but you need to expand these to flowing prose.

Colin°^Talk 15:23, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This article has been developed by many editors. I am requesting if there should be anything wrong in this article and if it qualifies as a FA article. thanks Good friend100 18:45, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• References come after puncuation, [5]. should be .[5]
• Move, merge, expand the one sentence paragraphs, this will make people object per criteria 1a. of FA criteria, "well-written"
• The See Also section comes before the references sections
• Remove the redlinked article under "See Also" - the point of the section is to link to articles that exist.
• Expand the lead to two paragraphs, per WP:LEAD. You can split the info from the first paragraph add a bit etc
• Have an in-line reference for each paragraph
• Don't wikilink solo years, example - 1934
• Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (numbers), there should be a non-breaking space -   between a number and the unit of measurement. For example, instead of 100 meters, use 100 meters, which when you are editing the page, should look like: 100 meters.^[?]
• Avoid misplaced formality: “in order to/for” (-> to/for), “thereupon”, “notwithstanding”, etc.
• Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (headings), headings generally should not repeat the title of the article. For example, if the article was Ferdinand Magellan, instead of using the heading ==Magellan's journey==, use ==Journey==.^[?]
• Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (numbers), when doing conversions, please use standard abbreviations: for example, miles -> mi, kilometers squared -> km², and pounds -> lb.^[?] M3tal H3ad 03:44, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I happened to stumble upon this article and it appears to be well written. I haven't contributed anything with the exception of a requested inline citation but I think this article may soon be worthy of GA status and thought it could use some feedback. I will alert those who have contributed significantly to the article about this review. --Oneworld25 16:10, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm happy to see that people have been working on the Paine article. Unfortunately, it is not yet of GA caliber. Here are my suggestions to help it achieve that (and perhaps more, someday):

• First off, this article cannot be considered for GA status yet because it contains so few citations. Also, those citations are almost all to web-based sources. There is no reason to do this for a person who has been written about as extensively as Thomas Paine. I wrote my Master's Thesis on Paine's Age of Reason several years ago and I can tell you that the books listed in the Bibliography of the page itself are good (I think I've read them all) - why aren't they being used as sources? Instead, we have sites like "ushistory.org."
• Listing his occupation as "pamphleteer" seems a little reductive, don't you think? You might think about including "revolutionary" or something along those lines.
• The lead jumps around a lot and its represenation of the Rights of Man is dubious at best.
• The "Early life" section begins in a confusing way - start by referring to Joseph and Frances as Paine's parents. Notice also that the first mention of "Thomas Paine" is actually "he" - how is the reader supposed to know that the "he" in the sentence refers to Thomas Paine? Grammatically, it refers back to Joseph.
• The article says that Paine failed at corset-making - I thought he just hated it and refused to work. This is why we need sources! By the way, the article states just one sentence later that he set up a corset shop, so clearly he didn't fail, even according to your own account.
• Link or explain "supernumerary officer".
• "The "Early life" section jumps around quite a bit - try to make it flow more. Also, Paine's interest in science seems to be just tacked on, but when I read about him, biographers make a big deal about that. More should probably be said about that.
• The "American Revolution" section should begin with why Paine published Common Sense; it is odd to suddenly read that it is popular. The last thing the reader knows Paine is nearly dead in America - why is this pamphlet now popular? The reader has no idea why he wrote it or why he got invovlved in American political issues so quickly.
• Paine's strength lay in his ability to present complex ideas in clear and concise form - this is debatable - this is why sources are so necessary; other sources I have read would claim that Paine wasn't presenting sophisticated ideas, he was distilling the "philosophical ideas" the article mentions later down into their most basic elements and presenting them with rhetorical vigor - he was a great propagandist, in other words.
• Again, the "French Revolution" section begins without any context - why is Paine writing the Rights of Man? You have to set the scene for the reader by beginning with Burke's Reflections and the ensuing "Revolution Controversy." See my attempts to do this in Mary Wollstonecraft (the section on the Vindication of the Rights of Men) and A Vindication of the Rights of Woman (the "Historical context" section).
• It was an abstract political tract published in support of the French Revolution - the Rights of Man is partly this, but much more - you might begin by reading the "Introduction" to Marilyn Butler's Burke, Paine, Godwin, and the Revolution Controversy, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press (2002).
• You have to explain why the Age of Reason was such a reviled book.
• The "Views" section is very disjointed - I would suggest a radical revision of this section or integration of this information into the biography section of the article.
• The last paragraph in the "Legacy" section seems like an advertisement.
• This article needs a careful copyedit. There are lots of awkward sentences, grammatically incorrect sentences, puncutation mistakes, spelling mistakes, etc. You might want to list it at the League of Copyeditors after you have finished revising it.
• There should be a list of works that Paine wrote. See Mary Wollstonecraft for an example. It is up to the editors whether or not they want to include the publication information for the first editions (see Talk:Thomas Paine).

There is a lot of work to be done on this page, but I feel that with some dedicated editors it could become GA in a few weeks and maybe even an FA in a couple of months. Awadewit 18:12, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Article needs work - need some direction - would appreciate all comments

EugenTopia 06:39, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It needs references for what you've already got there. Take a look at WP:RS and WP:CITE. Also, the article needs more on what people do on the island. Does anyone live there permanently? -Malkinann 22:08, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nominating this article for Peer Review--I would like for it to be eventually FA level, and have it up for GA review now too, but want even more people to review it so that it can be the best article it can be. I think the prose... is good, and the sourcing is rock solid; but the various overlapping natures of the history of this make me a bit nervous. Some sentences have multiple sources due to this, and to make the fairly... insane story/facts cohesive to read, especially as... there were basically two major overlapping incidents happening at the same time, but that also fed off/were related to each other. Any advice would be very appreciated! - Denny 08:24, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Decent, but you really need to work on the lead. Most of that information belongs in the main article. The lead should be a short summary informing the reader about RegisterFly. Right now it's way too long and clunky. Also, what are the exact consequences of loss of ICANN accreditation? Also possible NPOV problems, try and find out how the owners of RegisterFly responded to these claims, and include those responses. Icestryke 17:10, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is a Good Article which has received a lot of work since its GA rating. I think it is well on the way to the FA process, but what do other people think? Any specific concerns or general comments appreciated. Metamagician3000 00:44, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For FA, it'll need "Retrieved..." dates on all the web references. See today's featured article on the main page for examples.-- Zleitzen^(talk) 08:08, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that. Good point - I'll put it on my "to do" list. Metamagician3000 09:53, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The article has a number of "citation needed" templates and a wikified template that need to be resolved, I'll see if I can help some of those soon. Note, I'm the author of Infidel (book), but I haven't worked on this article on a while. JACOPLANE • 2007-04-7 10:54

This is a nice article. I'm glad that someone is writing it since I have a feeling a lot of people will be looking at it with the recent release of her autobiography. Here are my suggestions.

• When she was six, her family fled the country for Saudi Arabia, later moving to Ethiopia and then to Kenya, where they obtained political asylum. - Please briefly explain why her family was forced to flee.
• In Kenya, she attended the English-language Muslim Girls' Secondary School in Nairobi under sponsorship of the UNCHR. - probably best to spell out the acronym as well as link to it
• Following the invasion by the secular nation of Iraq of the Islamic republic of Iran, and under the influence of a charismatic religious teacher, she became a more religious Muslim, sympathized with the Islamist Muslim Brotherhood, and wore a hijab together with her school uniform. Too much information in one sentence - break it up.
• She welcomed the fatwa against British writer Salman Rushdie following the publication of his controversial novel The Satanic Verses. - I wonder about the use of the word "welcomed"; the sources say "supported." The connotations are slightly different in my opinion.
• from whence it was planned she would join her husband in Canada - "from whence" is a bit formal
• Others have disputed the story of her forced marriage - is it possible to characterize these others as a distinct group, such as her family, or not?
• After a brief stay in Germany, she decided, in order to escape the marriage, to go to the Netherlands, since she had a distant female relative there who she felt would help her. - awkwardly phrased
• frequently coming in contact with Somali women in asylum centres, hostels for battered women (an experience that marked her deeply) - Please explain how these experiences affected her.
• She saw firsthand the way certain practices she thought she had left behind in Africa continued in the West. - What practices in particular?
• After earning a master's degree in political science - from which university?
• During this period, she began to formulate her critique of Islamic culture - "Islamic culture" or "Islam"?
• During this period, she began to formulate her critique of Islamic culture, published many news articles, and became a frequent speaker on television news programs and public debate forums, and she then wrote up her ideas in a book entitled De Zoontjesfabriek (The Son Factory). - parallelism problems
• In November 2002, after some disagreements with the PvdA about her security measures, she sought advice from Cisca Dresselhuys, the editor of the feminist magazine Opzij. - advice about what?
• Because of her statements regarding the Islamic prophet Muhammad in a Trouw interview - might you cite the statements?
• Sometimes the article uses "Koran" and sometimes "Qu'ran." Pick a spelling!
• Perhaps you could quote some reviews of or reactions to Submission?
• The program also presented evidence that she was untruthful about the main reason for her asylum application being forced marriage. - awkwardly phrased
• However, several sources, including her first book The Son Factory, which had been published in 2002, stated her real name and date of birth - could you cite this source in the footnotes, then?
• At times the article refers to her as "Hirsi Ali" and at times as "Ali." I believe it is supposed to be "Hirsi Ali."
• Dick Pels describes her as an exponent of what he refers to as liberal fundamentalism, claiming "This ideology is similar to orthodox Islam in the sense that it thinks its perspective is superior and all people should be forced to have it. He thinks the way these liberal fundamentalists try to debate with Islam, by taunting and insulting them, is not constructive. They only deteriorate the relations between migrants and native Dutch people." - I'm not sure that this is the best quotation to use - it describes the rhetoric of liberal fundamentalists, as Pels sees it, not the values of liberal fundamentalism. The reader still doesn't know what the core values of liberal fundamentalism are after reading this quote.
• Hirsi Ali is very critical of the position of women in patriarchal Islamic societies and the punishments demanded by Islamic scholars for homosexuality and adultery. - This is somewhat oddly phrased - "very critical of the position of women" - how about "very critical of the way Islam attempts to instill patriarchy throughout all of society" or something like that
• The second paragraph of "Circumcision" does not seem relevant to the topic of the section.
• The "Social and political views" section seems to be divided into too many subsections - too many of them have just one or two sentences. Perhaps some of them could be combined such as "Islam" and "Mohammad" and "Preference for diverse viewpoints" and "Freedom of speech"?
• The "Political opponents" section is disjointed. Perhaps this information could be integrated elsewhere?
• The "Immigration" section repeats information from the biography section. Perhaps the new information could be merged with "Islam"?
• Where are the quotes from in the "Israel and Palestine" section? This section should be more than a series of unattributed quotes!
• I would list the awards first rather than the dates; this would make the awards themselves more prominent.
• Perhaps you could mention in the biography section that she learned six languages - "Trivia" sections are generally frowned upon.
• The "Bibliography" should be listed using a recognizable citation format like MLA style.
• The footnotes should also all be cited consistently in one style with all of the requisite information. WP:FOOTNOTE
• The "External Links" look a little long - can you prune them a bit?
• I would suggest putting all of Hirsi Ali's works - her books, articles, films, etc. - into one easy-to-read spot, like the section labeled "Works."
• In the infobox, someone has listed her "religious belief" as "atheism," but that is not a religious belief.
• Any translations of the Dutch sources that are available would be appreciated for us non-Dutch speakers. Also, if the Dutch sources could be complemented with English sources, that would be good.
• The article sometimes mixes American English and British English. It should be written either in one or the other.
• This article needs to have more citations, particularly because it is about a living person and there are frequently contentious statements made about this person. I have added quite a few fact tags.
• I would also suggest a quick copyedit to help tighten up the prose. Awadewit 04:54, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• The picture of the book needs a fair use rationale for use in this article.
• The Trivia section should be incorporated in the article
• The Awards section should comply with WP:EMBED Errabee 11:29, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've been away for a week or so. Thanks for the responses while I was away. They are much appreciated and I'll deal with whatever I can of them as soon as possible. Metamagician3000 12:23, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Another lower league club which both myself and Dweller are trying to raise from the depths of original research and points-of-view toward featured article status. Please contribute as much as possible and provide comments which will help this article get to FA if nominated in the near future. For reference, the article structure is based on both Arsenal F.C. and Ipswich Town F.C., both current FA's. Thanks in advance for all your help. The Rambling Man 16:55, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As an additional note, I realise there are several citation required tags on the article - this peer review should, if possible, aim to remove them or satisfy them! Cheers. The Rambling Man 22:58, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Still plenty of work to be done, but judging by the work you and Dweller have done on several other articles, I'm sure it'll get there.

• The lead is a little thin. Perhaps include the years the club moved to Carrow Road and when they first reached the top flight?

   DoneExpanded a bit... The Rambling Man 09:33, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• For topics with more than one related article, list them all under the section header to avoid splitting the section up with Main article: notices.

   DoneOkay, all links to sub-articles are now grouped together at the top of the section. The Rambling Man 07:11, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• The sentence about Mike Bassett: England Manager seems superfluous.

   Doing...Yes, it does at the moment. The point of the section was to mirror other FA's for clubs which have a stronger presence in popular culture. Unless this can be expanded, e.g. by finding something else interesting about NCFC in pop culture then it ought to be merged elsewhere. The Rambling Man 07:27, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • I disagree. I think that people will find this interesting and, as TRMan says, this does mirror the structure of other football FAs. It's appropriately low in the article structure. --Dweller 16:00, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Remove minor officals from the current staff section, or consider dropping the section altogether.

   DoneRemoved section - all important folks, like the manager etc are mentioned elsewhere in the article. The Rambling Man 07:27, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• The Ownership section merely states a minor quotation from the last couple of months. Is the club a private company or plc? What is the make-up of the shareholdings? Who controlled the club before Delia Smith? How long has Smith been the majority shareholder?

   Not doneStill to be done... The Rambling Man 16:37, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  •  Done --Dweller 15:56, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• The Colours section is rather jumbled; it start by discussing canary breeding, which would confuse a reader who didn't already know the club nickname. Introduce the nickname before describing its origin. The section is named Colours, so put the part about the colours first. The Crest section should be merged here, unless you intend to expand it greatly. "Famous" in "famous yellow shirts" is a peacock term.

   Doing...Agreed, both sections are merged right now, and the peacock term removed. It is likely that the crest section will improve. The Rambling Man 16:36, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  •  Done --Dweller 15:57, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Supporters section: Is On The Ball, City more important than the supporters themselves? You may wish to consider putting it lower in the section. How big/small is the club's fanbase? How is the fanbase distributed geographically?

   Not doneStill to be done... The Rambling Man 16:37, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  •  Done --Dweller 16:17, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• The article could use a thorough copyedit. Several sentences use "and" to tie unrelated ideas together. For example, in the first paragraph of the history section "Their first league fixture, against Plymouth, on 28 August 1920, ended in a 1–1 draw, and the club went on to endure a mediocre decade, finishing no higher than eighth but no lower than 18th." could be split into two sentences, and "went on to" removed completely: "Their first league fixture, against Plymouth, on 28 August 1920, ended in a 1–1 draw. The club endured a mediocre decade, finishing no higher than eighth but no lower than 18th. Some useful advice for copyediting is given at User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 1a.

   Doing...I've rephrased a few sections, but it still needs a bit of paring down... The Rambling Man 09:57, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hope this helps. Oldelpaso 20:14, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good work chaps, as ever. Here are my comments:

• "Norwich City Football Club (also known as The Canaries, The Yellows, City or (archaic) The Citizens)" Parenthesis in parenthesis isn't pretty. I'd drop The Citizens from the lead and just give it a mention in the fans section.

   Done Agreed, so moved to the supporters section, as suggested.The Rambling Man 15:57, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• "Since 1935, they have played their home games at Carrow Road and have a long-standing and fierce rivalry with East Anglian rivals Ipswich Town" I know you don't want two short sentences in a row, but there's no real connection between ground location and rivalry.
• When did the club turn professional?

   Done1905 as it says in the infobox, but have made slight modification to early history text to indicate this as well. The Rambling Man 16:03, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• "The club was officially reformed on 15 February, 1919; a key figure in the events was a Mr C Watling, father of future club Chairman, Geoffrey Watling" Either tell us why he was a key figure orjust leave it at 1919.

   DoneCommented out until his relevance is added - Dweller? The Rambling Man 16:28, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I don't especially like this "made worse by seeing Ipswich promoted the same year as champions.[10]" just sounds a bit vague and a bit POV as well - I know a fair number of people who don't really care what the rivals do as long as they beat them in the derby games.

   DoneConfession - a certain Tractor Boy added that. I'll remove it on "his" behalf...The Rambling Man 16:03, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• "The 1958–59 season saw Norwich reach the semi-final of the 1958–59 FA Cup as a Third Division side, defeating First Division sides including Tottenham Hotspur and Matt Busby's Manchester United on the way.[9]" I'd rephrase this as "The 1958-59 season saw Norwich reach the semi-final of the FA Cup as a Third Division side, defeating (insert number) First Division sides on the way, including Tottenham Hotspur and Matt Busby's Manchester United."

   DoneI have made a minor rewording to this, not convinced it's right yet though... we'll see at the FAC I guess! The Rambling Man 16:08, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• "Norwich were promoted to the Second Division after finishing second to Southampton F.C. in the 1959–60 season which was followed by a fourth place finish in the following season.[9]" I'd move the "in the 1959-60 season" to the start of the sentence. I know it mirrors the format of the previous sentence, but I think it reads better. Also, pipe Southampton.

   DoneReworded and piped The Rambling Man 16:14, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• "Sixth place in the league was the closest the..." new paragraph before here, I reckon

   DoneNew para made The Rambling Man 16:14, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• "They played at Wembley Stadium for the first time in 1973, losing the League Cup final 1-0 to Tottenham Hotspur.[14]" You've got two "for the first times" in successive sentences, might want to rephrase a bit.

   DoneRepeat avoided The Rambling Man 16:14, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• "Relegation to the Second Division in 1974 resulted in the resignation of Ron Ashman and the appointment of John Bond.[13]" Saunders, surely?

   DoneIndeed. If I knew what I was talking about I might have spotted that sooner!! The Rambling Man 16:28, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• "but notably defeating Bayern Munich of Germany winning 2–1 away and are the only English team to beat Bayern Munich in the Olympic Stadium.[24]" Hmm, this needs a rephrase. Don't think you need "notably" or "of Germany". Perhaps split into two sentences at "2-1 away."

   DoneRephrased almost as you suggest, hope it suits. The Rambling Man 16:28, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• "Mike Walker quit as Norwich City manager in January 1994,[25]" As far as the reader is aware, the club is still under the control of Ken Brown.

   Doing...Yeah, I thought that might happen, I just needed to skip a few managers, NCFC have had so many! It needs work... The Rambling Man 16:41, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I think you've got a bit too much information from here-on in. I've chopped the remainder down and left it as an example on the article talk page.

   Doing...I'll read your new example and start to look at changes. I completely agree, however, the article is still suffering from recentism...The Rambling Man 16:41, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Crest section needs expanding, but I think you know that. Could be merged with colours section?

   Doing...I've merged the sections because until the crest section is filled out, it's simply too short. I think Dweller has some things in mind to add here...The Rambling Man 16:34, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  •  Done --Dweller 15:58, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• "Canary breeding was a popular hobby in Norwich and Norfolk at that time, (contrary to some suggestions, the canaries were not bred for use in mining, they were bred purely as a hobby)." Stick the stuff in parenthesis in a note. Change sentence to "at the time of the club's creation." (presume that's the time you're referring to?)

   DoneRephrased accordingly The Rambling Man 17:02, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I'd make this: "Originally, the club was nicknamed the Citizens, and played in light blue and white halved shirts" the opening sentence of the section. Then have the canary stuff and follow up with "by 1907..."

   DoneReworded accordingly The Rambling Man 16:59, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Why "famous" yellow shirts?

   DonePOV if you ask me, just plain old yellow shirts, "famous" removed. The Rambling Man 16:34, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Stadium section might need a bit more - when did it under-go the series of expansions that made it all-seater today?

   Not doneStill to do... The Rambling Man 17:03, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• You can expanded the ownership section, see my notes on talk page, albeit this will only start in the early 90s.

   Not doneStill to do... The Rambling Man 17:03, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  •  Done (and responded to on talk page) --Dweller 15:58, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• The table with board members is unecessary and can be removed

   DoneCommented out in case something useful can be added into the ownership section The Rambling Man 16:22, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Citations for the friendship trophy?

   DoneCitation for the trophy and for the match added The Rambling Man 16:22, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hope that helps. HornetMike 15:29, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please help me review this article. I am getting ready to nominate it for a "featured article" and would like some feedback on grammar, wording, organization, what should probably be added, etc.Wikidudeman ^(talk) 03:24, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This article is not broad in its coverage and does not remain neutral as it excludes a large body of recent scholarship on the psychiatric complications of AAS. In this way, it is not factually accurate, but rather displays only a slanted perspective on AAS. Moreover, critiques of this article are largely dismissed without serious consideration, even when critiques are offered by physicians and medical researchers whose opinions are worthy of serious consultation. Indubitocogito 07:43, 27 June 2007 (UTC)indubitocogito[reply]

ON the contrary, It explains all of the relevant facts and just the facts. You claim that it excludes a "large body of recent scholarship"? This is false. The article relies primarily on case studies and if you can cite any recent case studies from peer reviewed journals which have more citations than the ones I have already provided that you believe would be relevant, please do so. The links you provided on the talk page of the article were mostly not even studies to begin with. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 08:30, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have been working on this article for some time, trying to get it up to possible FA status. I've been looking at it for so long that I kind of go cross-eyed sometimes, so I would appreciate a fresh perspective. In particular, I am looking for feedback on:

• What I may not have covered well, or at all.
• Areas where the prose might seem too "hockey fan-ish" or seem to use jargon.
• Areas weak in wikilinking.
• Anything else you can think of!

Thanks in advance for your efforts. --Mus Musculus (talk) 16:12, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is the first time that I comment on a peer review so I'm not sure if I do this right. I think that the refrences should be categorized. For example the refrence section should IMO be categorized in Print and Online sources. And the citations section should change name to "footnotes" and then placed after the reference section. --Krm500 01:30, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I renamed Citations to footnotes. Have you seen any other articles where references are categorized? The style guide at WP:CITE suggests just an alphabetical list, as is the standard for scholarly papers and such. It is also a normal standard to place references last in a document, after footnotes - have you seen it done otherwise in a logical fashion? I don't necessarily disagree with those points, I'm just curious if it is against the standard that will be a problem for obtaining FA status. --Mus Musculus (talk) 15:51, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A little more focus on fighting in European leagues would be necessary, I think. Anyway, congratulations on your awesome work and keep on it. Thanks :)--Serte ^{[ Talk · Contrib ]} 17:46, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have updated the section on consequences to directly address that fighting is not allowed in European leagues. I have had a hard time finding media stories about fights in European games - do you know of any good sources? --Mus Musculus (talk) 17:25, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I really think this article should be merged with Violence in ice hockey. The two cover largely the same issues, and their content could be easily integrated. Also, as I mentioned on the above article's talk page, neither article seems to mention the 2004 Flyers-Senators brawl; this had the most single-team penalty minutes and most overall penalty minutes in the game's history, and is unquestionably notable enough for inclusion. Chubbles 05:04, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, and thanks for your great feedback! The issue of the merger has been discussed several times within WikiProject Ice Hockey and on the article talk page, and the consensus was that they are about separate topics. Violence in ice hockey should probably be tuned up so it doesn't overlap, since it is supposed to be about illegal on-ice incidents like the Bertuzzi-Moore one that had nothing to do with legal fighting. I would love to include the Flyers-Senators brawl - do you have a source? If not, I will try to find one this weekend. --Mus Musculus (talk) 15:48, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a source: [15]. Here's another - this one mentions that both the total number and the single-team number are new records. [16] Chubbles 02:29, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Awesome, thanks. On the other issue - are you agreeable to leaving Violence in ice hockey as a separate article if it is edited to clearly articulate a different concept? --Mus Musculus (talk) 16:09, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sure! (You make it sound like it's my decision - if there's a consensus at WP Ice Hockey, that sure as hell trumps my suggestion! =)) Chubbles 18:19, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I feel this article could be of Good Article or Feature Article quality if improved. I'm not an expert in what makes a Feature Article, so I've asked for this review so we know the best way to improve it. RMS Oceanic 18:58, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Cut the plot to under 700 words.
• Create a production section.
• Axe trivia.
• References need author, title, publisher, date etc.

Alientraveller 20:59, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I condensed the synopsis, but it needs more. Goldfritha 00:15, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also, some of the trivia is -- not trivia. Work it into text. Goldfritha 00:15, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to request that the article be peer reviewed to provide editors with areas for improvement. If it is possible a 'Quality Scale' rating would be greatly appreciated. Ixistant 22:21, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just a couple comments:

• The lead should be expanded (see WP:Lead)
• Much of the article does not have inline citation, although it does contain a list of references at the end. All claims should be cited within the article (see WP:Cite)
• Captions for photos are usually not bolded
• Many of the sections should be expanded

-- Underneath-it-All 04:01, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

1. What does the Gaelic name mean?
2. 'year of the Battle of Arderyth[1](Airdrie). This was a battle between Rydderych The Bountiful' Slight repetition. 'This was fought between...'
3. The inline citation does not show up in the references section. I can only repeat comment 2 above by Underneath-it-All The article can never be much better that Start class without this.
4. The history of Airdrie between the Battle of Arderyth and AD 1162 is unclear, - or is it in fact simply unknown? This is hard to believe but if so, you could be more specific.
5. The public buildings section should come later not in the middle of the history. ' the Town House (now the town clock) in 1856.' What you mean is not clear until later. 'now known locally as the Town Clock'?
6. 'Chonology' is a typo
7. 'In those days travelling was lonely and dangerous.' Why lonely?
8. 'Due to the fact it was "independent", as it had all the powers of a Royal Burgh.' Dodgy syntax
9. 'but instead due to an influx of residents from the Highlands and predominantly Ireland.' Poor wording. 'instead due to an influx of residents, predominantly from Ireland but also the Highlands'? put links into this for Ireland and Scottish Highlands.
10. 'An evolution of the rise in population and industry prompted for more accessible water supplies.' ?
11. 'Until mid 1800s,' word missing
12. 1920 onwards - you could say a bit more about the major companies in the earlier period e.g. Stewarts and Lloyds, Bairdmores etc. Airdrie Public Library, is repeated here for some reason. There are, or were various other public buildings of note e.g the Public Baths.
13. Future - without references and some explanation this just looks like daydreaming. Expand it or remove it.
14. The labour party's monopoly on Monklands does not mean you can omit mentioning the affiliations of its fine politicians e.g. Karen Whitefield.
15. You omit to mention the historic Catholic/Protestant rivalry in the area. The Temperance movement was strong once too.
16. Scobbie, J.K. - Stray apostrophe here.

I will also provide a rating on the article Talk page. Hope that's helpful, Ben MacDui (Talk) 19:15, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I'm interested in getting this article from B-class (which it is at the moment) to GA status, but I'm not really sure what I could do to improve it. I've made many contributions to the article, and would appreciate some guidance on expanding it further. Your comments are most welcome. Cheers, -Panser Born- (talk) 14:44, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just a small suggestion here - one resource you might find very useful for expanding this article is the article on Smooth Jazz and Kenny G in a book called Bad Music: The Music We Love to Hate, edited by Christopher Washburne and Maiken Derno. (I know this sounds like a joke, but it's not - the book is available on Amazon and in most good University research libraries.) Chubbles 18:04, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I'll look into that. =) -Panser Born- (talk) 20:22, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Personally, I would expand just a bit more the lead.
• In early life, we have nothing about his family. Isn't there any relevant material?
• "Influenced by the likes of Grover Washington, Jr., his own albums are usually classified as smooth jazz." Cite please.
• "he was publicly criticized by two notable jazz guitarists." Why don't you tell us straight away who they are? You have another phrase about further criticisms, and then you return to the guitarists, whon you hadn't named in the first place.
• IMO many quotes in a row in "Musical criticism". Maybe some recasting into alternative language wouldn't go amiss.
• I don't think that I can help you with sources about Kenny G.--Yannismarou 13:44, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your feedback, I'll try and do something about all those points. Cheers, -Panser Born- (talk) 10:48, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is my third visit to Film PR. Right now, I am in the midst of getting an article about one of my favourite cartoons to FA level, on or before Easter, as promised in a previous edit summary of mine and on my to-do list. Thanks to Jerry Beck's Animated Movie Guide (I now have it amid an inter-library loan) and various web sources, the page is now starting to get complete.

Except maybe for the screenshots: while images may or may not be pre-requisites for all FAs, for me it's something else. I have the film on my laptop, but, sad to say, our battery's wiring has most certainly run its course. So, on the family PC, I'm trying to do my best without them.

If you see anything in the article that has to be cleaned or fixed (see also this list for potential ideas), please let me know. Wish me the best of luck by the deadline. --Slgrandson (page - messages - contribs) 03:24, 25 March 2007 (UTC) Wikipedia:Peer review/The Bus Uncle/archive1[reply]

A previous version of the discussion has been archived here. I've improved the formatting of the article, and provided many sources to most statements in the article. I also improved the grammar, and moved the transcript to a sister article. Please suggest more ways to improve the article to Featured Status. Thanks.--Kylohk 10:40, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A few months ago I brought this article up to Good Article standards; I'm now trying to turn it into a Featured Article. Because this is a large and complex subject, I could really benefit from others looking at it with unbiased eyes and telling me what needs to be improved. Thanks,--Alabamaboy 01:58, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This article was a pleasure to read. It was so nice to read a well-researched and well-written article. Although my comments my look extensive, they are mostly small comments about the writing. Since you stated that you were trying to turn it into an FA, I tried to look at the article with a fairly critical eye.

• Uncle Tom's Cabin, or, Life Among the Lowly is a novel by American author Harriet Beecher Stowe which treats slavery as a central theme. - This is an awkward opening sentence. How about something like "Uncle Tom's Cabin, or Life Awmong the Lowly is American Harriet Beecher Stowe's novel about slavery and [insert another theme]."
• I would put the publication date of the novel in the first paragraph, even if you have to put it in parentheses after the title.
• Stowe, a Connecticut-born teacher at the Hartford Female Academy and an active abolitionist, first published this book on 20 March 1852. - You are trying to pack too much into this sentence - break it up. Also, "this book" should probably be replaced by the title since we have started a new paragraph.
• The story focuses on the tale of Uncle Tom, a long-suffering black slave around whose life the other characters—both fellow slaves and slave owners—revolve. - The other characters don't revolve around him, their stories or narratives do, though.
• The novel depicts the harsh reality of slavery while also showing that Christian love and faith can overcome even something as evil as enslavement of fellow human beings. - This is a highly sentimentalized novel - don't ignore that in the lead. (Also, "the enslavement.")
• The book also created and spread several common stereotypes about blacks, many of which endure to this day. - "spread" is redudant since you have "many of which endure to this day"
• The heading "Origins" is a bit vague - could it perhaps be made more precise? Maybe something like "Sources for the novel"?
• Is there a reason that sometimes the article uses the term "African-American" (such as the person being mentioned is of African descent) and sometimes uses the term "black"? I just want to make sure that the editors have thought through their choice of words here as these can be highly-charged words.
• where he helped other fugitive slaves arrive and become self-sufficient, and where he wrote his memoirs - "arrive" doesn't quite convey the meaning you want - "escape"? "settle"? - it is not clear what you mean; also the "memoir" clause seems tacked on
• Henson was one of the first escaped slaves from the United States to write of his experience - what experience? escaping or being a slave or both? explain just a bit more
• American Slavery As It Is: Testimony of a Thousand Witnesses, a volume co-authored by Theodore Dwight Weld and the Grimké sisters, is also identified as a source of some of the material. - one-sentence paragraphs are generally not considered sufficient; also "a source of some of the material" for what? the novel? again, just a bit more explanation is needed
• Uncle Tom's Cabin was first published as a 40-week serial, Uncle Tom's Cabin; or, Life Among the Lowly published in the National Era, an abolitionist periodical, starting in the 5 June 1851 issue. - too many clauses separated by commas and repetition of "published"
• While Stowe questioned if anyone would read Uncle Tom's Cabin in book form, publisher John Jewett of Jewett & Company convinced her to let him do just that. - "that" does not have a clear reference - rephrase for clarity
• The book eventually became the bestselling novel in the world during the 19th century (and the second best-selling book after the Bible), with the book being translated into every major language. - dangling modifier
• The "Plot summary", to me anyway, is broken into too many subsections. Can you either condense the whole plot summary and make it one section or make fewer subsections?
• because he considered that loveable old man to be his good friend - awkward
• Mr. Shelby has sold Tom and Harry to the slavetrader Haley - first time we see his name - give both first and last names of Haley
• She departs in the night - verb is too tame
• Tom and Eva come to relate to one another in a very special way, sharing a deep Christian faith between them - "very special way" is too vague
• As Eliza and her husband George Harris, who ran away previously - ran way from where?
• As Eliza and her husband George Harris, who ran away previously, attempt to reach Canada, they are cornered by Loker and his men, causing George to shoot Loker. - whole sentence is awkwardly worded - too many clauses; also who is Loker? this is the first we hear of him
• After Tom has lived with the St. Clares for two years, Eva grows very ill. - not clear how these two things are related
• which renews his resolve to remain faithful with Christ, even unto death - "faithful to Christ"
• I don't think that the character descriptions add a lot to the page. Most of the information is a repeat of what is in the plot summary or the later analysis. I would suggest eliminating that section and integrating the leftover information into the plot summary and other sections.
• while the book elicited praise from abolutionists - "abolitionists"?
• Sometimes the page hyphenates "best-seller" and sometimes not. Choose a consistent style.
• Uncle Tom's Cabin outraged people in the American South[11] and was roundly criticized by supporters of slavery. - lack of parallel structure
• Reactions ranged from a bookseller in Mobile, Alabama who was forced to leave town for selling the novel[11] to threatening letters sent to Stowe herself (including a package containing a slave's dismembered ear). - lack of parallel structure
• led her to create wrong descriptions of the region" - "inaccurate" perhaps?
• as evidenced by the novels best-selling status - awkward and missing apostrophe
• ocusing Northern anger at the injustices of blacks - "anger on the injustices"
• Uncle Tom's Cabin also created great interest in England. - "created" is not the best word here
• I would transform your bulletted list of streotypes into prose and perhaps quote from the novel itself.
• Could you expand on Gates' interpretation?
• I would say that the biggest omission from your description of the novel is a discussion of its style. I see you have read Tompkins, so you are aware of the role of sentimentalism in the novel. Since UTC is a sentimental novel, some explanation of its sentimental style should be given here.
• it contains a number of sections and discussions that are clearly disputing Stowe's book and her view of slavery - "that dispute" - it is not a good idea to say "clearly" as it may not be clear to your reader
• The "Adaptations" section should also be turned into paragraphs. FAs tend to have very few lists.
• Anything linked in the article can be removed from the "See also".
• Can you reference specific page numbers in the footnotes? You reference entire chapters or articles a lot of the time.
• Could you construct a bibliography out of the most important UTC sources in your notes so that someone coming to this page for research purposes won't have to pore over your notes? See A Vindication of the Rights of Woman, for example.
• Are all of those external links absolutely necessary? FAs tend to prune the external links.
• Watch out for commas - you need to take out some (in dates) and add some (in prefaratory clauses). Awadewit 04:32, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Many, many thanks for your excellent comments. I'll go through them and make the correction and changes you mention. I'll also work on a style section or subsection for the article, along with the bibliography. Thanks again! --Alabamaboy 23:41, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've now made almost all of these changes. I've also added the style section Awadewit mentioned, along with a new themes section to go along with it.--Alabamaboy 23:34, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Per WP:PR instructions, articles should not be listed both here and at WP:FAC; please archive this page and replace the talk page template with {{oldpeerreview}} Regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:10, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• First Peer Review

Bart King was the greatest American cricketer ever. This article has been Peer Reviewed and listed as a Good Article. It just received a thorough copy edit. I'd like to solicit comments on one more peer review before listing at as an FAC. Any help is greatly appreciated.--Eva ^bd 18:42, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would switch the placement of the pics, the infobox pic is supposed to show what the person looks like. You can barely see his face, the action pic should be down somewhere in the text. It would go nicely in a section describing his playing style or accomplishments. Quadzilla99 02:20, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Quadzilla. This has been changed. I've put a head shot in the infobox.--Eva ^bd 19:24, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Might go great in angling section. Quadzilla99 03:29, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good point. The batting pictures show his face a little bit better, but I'll try and find a decent head shot of the guy. Thanks for the tip.--Eva ^bd 12:34, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've sent off an e-mail to the CC Morris Cricket Library to see if they have any more images of King--especially a head shot. There is one on Cricinfo, but I'd rather not try and justify a fair use image for the infobox. I'll keep ya'll posted.--Eva ^bd 12:55, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Having a single subsection (3.1 The "angler") is bad style. Promote the section, or merge with parent.

• Done.--Eva ^bd 13:45, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• =Teams= subsections not needed. Too small

• Done.--Eva ^bd 13:48, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• at least one first-class bowling record name the record

• Done.--Eva ^bd 19:27, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• He competed with and succeeded against the best cricketers in the world from England and Australia -- choppy -- there are many such examples in the text where the sentences do not flow.

• Done. If you can point to any other sections that are choppy, I'll gladly address those, as well.--Eva ^bd 00:29, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• likeable --> affable

• Done.--Eva ^bd 19:27, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Belmont Cricket Club image should be right-aligned

• Done.--Eva ^bd 13:45, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• and rolled very fast --> odd phrasing for a even person familiar with cricketing terms

• Done.--Eva ^bd 00:29, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• If possible a table of Kings scores vs each team would be a value addition.

• Started at WP:CRIC. Should be finished soon.--Eva ^bd 18:23, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• A chart of his scores over a period of time would be useful too.

• Requested from Raven4x4x. Should be done soon.--Eva ^bd 18:23, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• were nothing remarkable --> use postive tone

• Done.--Eva ^bd 19:27, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

=Nichalp «Talk»= 12:35, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the suggestions Nichalp! I've addressed the ones that I can, mostly involving formatting and minor bits. The tables and charts are beyond me. I'll see if someone at WP:CRIC can help.--Eva ^bd 00:31, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A table has now been started, and I've asked Raven4x4x for help in making a chart of the scores. That should take care of all of Nichalp's concerns, unless you can provide more instances of choppiness in the prose. Thanks!--Eva ^bd 13:37, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It would look more professional if you could stub the red links. PS the graphs and stats need to be added. Regards, =Nichalp «Talk»= 17:02, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Further comments

• The statistics information should come after =Achievements and legacy= See Adam Gilchrist
• King toured England with the Philadelphians a third time in 1908. The first match that was played was against South Wales in Cardiff. The Philadelphians won by 36 behind the bowling of King and Ranji Hordern. The pair took all 20 wickets of the Welsh side.[17] The first-class matches began with Worcestershire on July 9. -- choppy + the a flow needed when starting a new section
• King is also noted for holding the bowling record against Canada --> first sentence should be an introductory one
• =Teams= convert to a table and add in =Cricketing career=

=Nichalp «Talk»= 04:26, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks again, Nichalp. I've tackled all your suggestions save the last. I am useless at making tables, so if you could create the said table for the team info, that would be great. Otherwise, any other critiques you can offer are most welcome. Thanks.--Eva ^bd 23:09, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]