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 (~~~~).

Thomas Playford IV

Sir Thomas Playford served as Premier of South Australia from November 5, 1938 to March 10, 1965, which at 26 years and 125 days, remains a British Commonwealth record for the longest time someone has served as a democratically elected national or regional leader.

This is my sixth attempt at a featured article, and if successful, it will be my fifth gained. Any comments, on any aspect of the article, will be attended to promptly. Thank you, michael talk 13:43, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

This has certainly developed a long way from my first draft of the article and I can find little to fault it. As I mentioned earlier, I think some people may complain about the red links, particularly the constituencies. Other than that, I think his life and times are well covered but perhaps we could cover his political and social philosophy in greater detail. Finally; this isn't criticism but I've always wondered about the claim of holding the "British Commonwealth record for the longest time someone has served as a democratically elected national or regional leader". I have yet to find anyone outside the Commonwealth who served longer. It would be great if we could find whoever the person or people may be who apparently served longer than 26 years as national or regional leader (of course this is not to the detriment of the article). --Roisterer 01:52, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
Are you saying that... it concentrates too much on what he did, as opposed to who he was? This is one area that I think I'm going to need to work on. michael talk 05:46, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
I wouldn't say it concentrates too much on what he did. Rather, that here was someone who always seemed prepared to go against his party's tenets to get what he wanted (such as nationalising industries and so forth). It is covered to an extent within the article but if we can come up with something to put his actions into a context, that will advanttage the article. --Roisterer 03:54, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
I've added two extra paragraphs. Tell me what you think. michael talk 04:28, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
Yes, i think they help greatly. --Roisterer 06:09, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

A table containing the election results he participated in, including votes by number, percentage, and seats won would be very good and a way of indicating how the Playmander helped him. An excellent resource I came across is http://elections.uwa.edu.au/ which contains all state and federal election results since 1890. Looking at his elections myself, it's astonishing how many seats the parties won considering the percentage of votes received... *major* rural overweighting. Timeshift 20:36, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Table added. Timeshift 17:56, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

The Four Stages of Cruelty

I started this a couple of weeks ago to fill a redlink and it's come on quite well, so I may put it up for FAC soon. Some fairly disgusting and cruel acts are depicted in the engravings, but if you stomach them it is an interesting bit of history. There's probably some wayward punctuation or dangling phrases that I can no longer see, so any fixes for those, as well as comments on the content, will be appreciated. Yomanganitalk 16:00, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Trebor

The second paragraph should really be the first paragraph. I found out what the article was about after reading the second paragraph, and then went back to read the first paragraph to discover how this series of works fits in with the rest of Hogarth's works. I still find myself asking what was the intention (other than 'intended as a form of moral instruction') of Hogarth. Perhaps elaborate on why he was interested in moral instruction. The lead needs to be improved overall. See WP:LEAD-BiancaOfHell 09:40, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Not that much else I can find; it was a very enjoyable and informative read. For two weeks' work this is brilliant. Trebor 16:56, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

  • Thanks for another good review. I think "nevertheless" is right here: you might expect that the pictures would be very broad swipes at the subject from the lack of finesse in the engraving and the harshness of the message, and yet they aren't. I also liked "...a poke at the law", but I'll see if I can rephrase it without losing the sentiment. With regard to the citations - they are both in the references somewhere...now I just have to find them again (serves me right for not flagging them at the time, but when I started I didn't realise the article had so much to cover). Yomanganitalk 17:24, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
  • That's fine, don't feel any need to take my suggestions; you are much better-versed on these matters than me. Trebor 18:05, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Opabinia

Not a subject I know much about, really, but since I was here I thought I'd have a look. It's a fascinating article, and excellent for only a couple of weeks' work.

Prince Sadruddin Aga Khan

I would like to move this article a step closer to FA status. It received encouraging feedback when it went through a WikiProject Biography peer review which is now archived. I am hoping that the general peer review process will generate additional interest and feedback from a broader audience. I would also like to see the article's rating upgraded. Cimm[talk] 00:05, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

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

You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, SenatorsTalk | Contribs 00:33, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Gzkn's review

I copy-edited some stuff as I went along. As requested, here are my comments:

Gzkn - Thank you for your copyediting and your comments! I will consider all of your suggestions and make appropriate updates. I appreciate your time and thoughts. Cimm[talk] 23:30, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Yomangani's review

I mostly find I'd be repeating Gzkn's comments, but additionally:

Yomangani, I appreciate your feedback and editing! I'll review your comments shortly and incorporate your suggestions into the article. Thank you also for your kind encouragement! Cimm[talk] 23:32, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

SG review

Sorry for the delay - have been busy. Since some excellent copyeditors have already reviewed, I won't look at the prose - just structure - everything looks good, but can you expand the lead, per WP:LEAD? Maybe one more paragraph, if doable?

I will try to expand the lead as suggested. Cimm[talk] 23:39, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
Expanded the lead per your suggestion. I would welcome more comments. Cimm[talk] 02:05, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
Thanks Sandy - I appreciate your review and comments. Cimm[talk] 23:39, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:05, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Review by Jeffpw

My apologies if some of my comments are redundant. I haven't read any other reviews, so as not to be influenced in my comments.

Overall, I think this is an excellent article. Are you going to do the same for his brother and father? I checked their articles out, and they could use the same attention you gave this one. And one last suggestion: before you submit this for FA (this should be at least considered for FA status), ask SandyGeorgia to have a look at it. She is a very critical FA reviewer who invariably offers helpful suggestions. She also has an eye for detail that I envy. For my money, she is one of the best reviewers on Wikipedia. Jeffpw 10:04, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Thank you Jeff. Sandy was kind enough to review this article and provide her comments a few days ago. I really appreciate all of the feedback that I have received and I can already see improvements in this article since the start of the review process. I appreciate your encouragement - if I can raise this article to FA status, then I will give serious consideration to working on similar articles about other members of Prince Sadruddin's family. Cimm[talk] 20:38, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Anas's review

Nice job researching this article. Here are my two cents:

Sorry for the not-so-extensive review. Four of the best reviewers have already reviewed this article, so that, and me having my midterms will be my excuse. Drop a message when and if you need anything. Good luck! ← ANAS Talk? 12:59, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Thank you Anas, for spending the time to read and review this article. Your comments were very useful, in particular your suggestion about how to reorganize the article. I am going to work on that next! Cimm[talk] 21:38, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Carabinieri

Other than that, it looks good though.--Carabinieri 16:13, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your feedback Carabinieri, particularly the point about reorganizing the lead. It has made a huge difference to the article! Cimm[talk] 20:56, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Trebor

A lot's been said above, but I'll add my thoughts.

You could try "throughout his lifetime"? (But I'm not too bothered; leave it if you want.) Trebor 23:21, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

None of these are major complaints, and some are purely a matter of personal preference. A very good article in general. Trebor 16:53, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

I really appreciate your feedback Trebor; I will review your comments soon and make appropriate adjustments. Cimm[talk] 02:42, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
Trebor, your comments were very useful. I'm glad I decided to wait a few days before acting on them - it allowed me to re-read the article with fresh eyes. Cimm[talk] 23:15, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
No problem, hope they helped. Trebor 23:21, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Peter Jennings

Been working on this one for a while. I'm almost done with the complete rewrite (still need to flesh out the run-up to the Iraq War/2004 election coverage). I hope to submit this to WP:FAC sometime in the near future. What needs to be done before then? Many thanks in advance for your reviews! Gzkn 08:53, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

I've cross listed this at Wikipedia:WikiProject Biography/Peer review. For those reviewers, would you mind giving a reassessment of the article? Does it meet A-class? Many thanks. Gzkn 09:12, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

M3tal H3ad

Generally well-referenced and written, goodluck with the FAC. M3tal H3ad 09:36, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Yannismarou

It is A-Class, but typically I cannot rate it as such, because it has not gone at least through GAC; but probably it will be soon FA, so why do you care about A-Class?! This is my review:

I tried to find other flaws (although not even most of the above remarks have to do with flaws!) reading the article line by line, but I just couldn't!--Yannismarou 17:05, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

  • I think it's equivalent to Sir, but I'm not Canadian, so I'll ask one to find out!
  • I'll fix the disambig links...looks like I'll have to start an article on news bureau!
  • Haha, that's because I gave the wrong link to LexisNexis for almost all of those articles...I typed "universal" instead of "universe". >:-( Thanks for catching that! However, I'm wondering if I even need to give out the link...it's not as if most readers have LexisNexis subscriptions anyway...hmmm...I'll think about this one.
  • Yeah, unfortunately I didn't have access to any of the books while writing the article since I'm overseas at the moment. :-( However, I don't think any of them feature anything major that wouldn't be covered by newspapers/magazines (I've read a few of them in the past). None of them are actually biographies on Jennings (and as far as I know, one doesn't exist). However, I really wish I had access to those books!
  • Unfortunately, nope (and I doubt they'd go on the record now! :-)
  • Yeah, parts of the prose kind of resort to the dreaded "in this year, he did this...in that year, he did that..." A product of uninspired writing :-/ I still need to do some more revising. I'm planning on trying to get some of my friends in the league of copy-editors to look over the article, too.
  • Me neither. I'll ask a fair use expert to comment on them. I've been trying to find free photos on the web, but all of those I've contacted haven't responded. :-(
  • Thanks for your insightful comments! Gzkn 00:49, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Automated

Eastern Suburbs & Illawarra railway line, Sydney

Hi all - I've done a fair bit of work on this article, and I think it could become a featured article in the near future, or at least a good article if it isn't good enough for that. I don't know where to go with this article right now, so I'm keen for some feedback and suggestions on how this could be upgraded to an FA status-article. Thanks. JROBBO 02:36, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Is there a reason it's not at Eastern Suburbs & Illawarra Line or Eastern Suburbs and Illawarra Line? There's nothing else with the name, so the disambiguation is unnecessary.--NE2 03:00, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
The name stems from a decision made by members of WikiProjects in Australia to have a consistent format for the name of every railway station in Australia with an article. Australia doesn't have any metros by which the stations could be named, so every station in a capital city is listed as "X railway station, City", and outside of a capital city is "X railway station, State". You make a good point though on the simple name of the line, so I'll add a couple of redirects. JROBBO 04:21, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
This is however a line, known as the "Eastern Suburbs & Illawarra Line" according to the article, not the "Eastern Suburbs & Illawarra railway line". If the common name is "Eastern Suburbs & Illawarra Line", the article should be titled that; see Wikipedia:Naming conventions (common names). (Also note that Wikipedia:WikiProject Trains/Manual of style says to use "and" rather than an ampersand, though that's for companies.) --NE2 04:29, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
The line doesn't really have an official or most well-known name. Most people would refer to it as the "Illawarra Line", but that's not entirely accurate. I've changed it to the "Illawarra & Eastern Suburbs railway line" to reflect its title. Re the ampersand— that is how all the official documents refer to it— should I leave it as that or move the page to the non-ampersand version? JROBBO 05:53, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
I'm not sure - I'd say keep it with the ampersand. By the way, I apologize if it seems like I'm picking on you for a minor issue... I'll give the article a run-through later and give some more substantial comments. --NE2 07:07, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
I am very surprised that an article of such quality could be written about something as obsecure as a railway line. Going over it, it seems fine: the prose flows, it is detailed and well-referenced, and there are ample images. I look forward to giving you a support when it goes to FAC. Sorry for not being able to find any noticeable qualms! michael talk 04:48, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

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

I've fixed up what I can find that was wrong with this so far, apart from perhaps the length. The references and links sections, I think look a lot better. JROBBO 03:09, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
This is a good article and probably should be put up for GA or FA immediately. I don't think subheadings should come immediately after headings and after "history" both "mainline contruction" and "Initial proposal" could both be deleted.Grahamec 05:16, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
Thanks Grahamec. JROBBO 05:02, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Here's my reply to GI:

I've taken aboard most of your suggestions. The ones I haven't I'll address here. I thought overall the comments were fair and not harsh.

  1. References and dates - I've taken what I did straight from the Wikipedia policies and style manuals on references and dates. According to that, you only need a reference if something is likely to be challenged, or is a direct quote from somewhere. Accordingly, I've only used references for that purpose, although I have still used quite a lot of them and have generally been inclined to put one in even where I thought it wasn't exactly needed. Secondly, I've placed the citations where they refer to something explicitly, which may include in the middle of a sentence, which according to the guidelines is fine - having said that, though, I've generally fixed most of the ones you took issue with. Thirdly, the guidelines say years in isolation are ok where significant for the purposes of the article. I think openings and closings of parts of the line are significant for the purposes of this article, so I've generally left them in. I took all months and days out which are not acceptable.
  2. The Railpage and Geocities pages- I wanted to use some different sources, and these generally are reliable sources, even if the timetables are copyrighted. Wikipedia doesn't control the content of external sources, so whether they are copyrighted or not is beside the point - what matters is how reliable the source is. In the case of the geocities page, the source is the actual timetable that existed in 1991; I can't find a reference for the actual original ones kept in the State Library (they obviously don't have it there), so I'm inclined to leave the timetable where it is as it's the only source of one I can find. The Railpage page is not part of the discussion forums, which would be a dodgy source, but is a hosted site with a table sourced from a heritage rail operator on electric trains in Sydney, which IS a reliable source on the electrification of the system. I've updated the references to reflect that they are sources taken from elsewhere and not made up by the web operators, so that should satisfy your questions about the sources.
  3. Stations - I've said before that the status of stations and the stopping patterns of trains are an important part of the operational aspect of a line. The table is not overly long, unlike the old Sydney Buses tables we used to have, which took up an excessive amount of room on the page, and I don't understand how it "could be annoying to some readers" - how? I think it's fine that we leave it as is - there really isn't any valid reason why it should be put into a hideable table.
  4. Dive Tunnel - is a generic term, but doesn't have a Wikipedia entry.

I think I've covered everything else. Thanks for the suggestions. JROBBO 03:27, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

In case you aren't watching that page:

Response - with some clarification of original points:
  1. Having read a bit more - I now understand that generally references should go at the end which does allow for mid-sentence refs... and I think we have artistic differences about which year references are significant, but you've addressed it.
  2. Thanks. IMO - the timetable source, should quote the timetable publication as the source document, and the website as the value of the place parameter. That makes it obvious that the source document is quite reliable - even if (generally) private web hosts aren't (this is a reliable document held in an unreliable location). For reliability purposes - are the same documents available off an internet archive site? - I will look at this one for you, would you consider changing the reference to an archive site instead of geocities?
  3. Artistic differences only. To me - a table that scrolls for more than one screen is a good candidate for hiding.
  4. Fair enough - I'm not a train / engineering guru, hence my question - it looked generic but I've never heard it before.
Honestly glad to hear I didn't come across over critical - I have rubbed ppl the wrong way on public transport topics in the past... Anyway the goal is to have it reach FA. It will be exposed to criticism on the way there...
In summary - mainly artistic / stylistic differences of opinion. It is the best Sydney public transport article I've seen. Garrie 10:18, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the feedback - To answer #2, I don't think the docs are available off an internet archive site; it's a 1991 timetable, which is almost pre-Internet - the CityRail website started in 1994, if I remember correctly from previous research on timetabling. The electrification info is also available in the State Rail Book though - I just felt that I could use some different sources - so I could add that to strengthen the source information. In regards to #1, if you find a year that you don't think adds to the article, by all means remove it. JROBBO 10:32, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Christmas

(The previous peer review discussion has been archived.)

This is a former Featured Article that has undergone extensive renovation in the past few weeks to add references, achieve balance between the Christian and secular aspects of the holiday, and in general move it back to something that could be an FA again. Additional input on what else needs to be improved would be greatly appreciated. - Eron Talk 16:59, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

See Also is a no-no. Wiki-newbie 17:03, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean. Many articles have see also sections and the Manual of Style refers to them. Is there a problem with the content of this one, or how it is formatted? Or am I missing something in the article? - Eron Talk 17:14, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
If I understand correctly, it is because the See also section has too many links. Remove all links there that have already been linked to in the article. AZ t 22:28, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for clarifying that; it makes sense. I'll make those changes (more-or-less) immediately. Doc Tropics 22:45, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Very helpful, thank you. - Eron Talk 23:26, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Very timely article review.  :-) Here's a few comments that you can take or leave:

  1. The opening sentence needs to be rephrased. For now it reads Christmas or Christmas Day is an annual Christian and secular[1] holiday that celebrates the birth of Jesus, which suggests that Christian or secular, all people celebrate the birth of Jesus.
  2. Footnotes should generally come after punctuation, a problem that I bet you can fix with the same reordering. I think this is applicable to footnotes 1, 2, 3 (further down) and 31.
  3. My first thought was "whoa, there are a lot of links". This could be cut down by removing a few things are linked more than once in the article, e.g. Western Culture and Nativity of Jesus are wikilinked twice.
  4. Also, links to "birth", "volunteer", etc. probably don't have much value to the reader and just break up the text.
  5. Finally, many of the links that begin with "Christmas" can be written with just the latter word, disambiguated to the Christmas variety. E.g. Another tradition is for people to send cards to their friends and family members.
  6. "Etymology" section has three paragraphs and only five sentences. Could these be combined with a clever topic sentence? There are a few other times in the article where a sentence is also its own paragraph. This makes the information look more like a list of facts than good prose, and it also makes it harder to read. Try to incorporate these unless you want to call particular emphasis on a single factoid (and I would not do this frequently).
  7. In "Origin of the Christian holiday" there's an entire paragraph on March 25 and Jesus' death. I wasn't sure exactly how this was related to Christmas.
  8. The article could be more consistent on its use of AD. The Origin section begins using AD with the year, it just kinda trails off, but then AD shows up again in the next section. Perhaps you can keep using AD throughout that section and then drop it once you're well away from the boundary?
  9. (Although many stories about the truce include a soccer game between the trench lines (often reported as a 3-2 victory for the Germans) there is no evidence that this event actually occurred.) - ouch, parentheses within parentheses. At least one set should be removed.
  10. What does "Modern times" mean? Being more specific (e.g. Post WWII, 1900s and beyond, etc.) would be great. "Modern times" is also used in the text.
  1. The article mentions a few controversies over Christmas, but only gives us a link in the See Also section. You may want to incorporate a "Controversy" section with a "Main article:" link. I think the arguments over capitalism, secularism, and Christianity are interesting and even necessary for the reader to have a complete understanding of "how does Christmas stand today".

Good luck with the article, I hope some of these help!--Will.i.am 23:53, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Oh boy. More work. Thanks a lot. (But seriously, thanks. This is just the kind of input we've been needing.) - Eron Talk 00:33, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for the many useful suggestions! We really appreciate the time and effort you put into your response. Doc Tropics 02:38, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

you shoyld put something about santa clause in it —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.146.153.170 (talk • contribs) 22:29, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, but there is a full section on Santa Claus. Is there information you think is missing? - Eron Talk 02:53, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Why info about Russia and Jehovah's Witnesses, Puritans, etc. are written in the same paragraph? These are not Russian religions, we are Orthodox Christians! And, actually, Christmas was not banned in U.S.S.R! We have Russian or Orthodox Christmas, and it is celebrated in December 7, Christmas Eve is December 6. Change it, please!

Considering that they have articles of their own, "Pre-Christian winter festivals" occupy a fair amount of the article -- and early, too, so that the reader has to page through a substantial amount to get to the information about Christmas. They should be pared down. Goldfritha 20:11, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Vivah

Hello, everyone, could someone have a look at this article. I hope it's referenced well enough (tried only to take newpapers as references). Since I'm one of the few editors to work on this article, please could someone review for:

and maybe, someone could rate it and give me ideas how to improve the article further. (I took the featured Star-Wars-articles as role models.) Thanks a ton and best regards, Plumcouch Talk2Me 22:05, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

  • Perhaps you should use the Template:Cite web (or see Category:Citation templates for other applicable templates) template instead of the current scheme employed. And citations go after the punctuation, and a space follows the citation (e.g., Statement.1 Next statement.) Pepsidrinka 00:22, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
I picked one of the many possibilities to reference/footnote an article and used it on the article. Have a look? --Plumcouch Talk2Me 22:08, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Mandela: The Authorised Biography

I am trying to expand this article, mainly focusing on the differences between this book and other accounts (books and otherwise) of Mandela's life and South Africa throughout this period. Any comments or suggestions are appreciated. BillMasen 17:11, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Chris Lowe 21:11, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't know how to make an infobox, if someone could start one off that would be very helpful. BillMasen 12:16, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Hey Bill

The second paragraph of the overview contains sentence saying” Mandela describes his education at a Thembu college called Clarkebury, and later at the strict Healdtown school, where students were rigorously put in routines.” This sentence seems choppy, I understand trying to be concise however I would consider breaking that one sentence in to two.

Prince Sadruddin Aga Khan

This article has been significantly rewritten, and I would like it to be assessed and rated. I would also like to receive constructive comments on how it could be improved. Thanks - Cimm[talk] 20:14, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Can you find an image? Kaisershatner 14:49, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
There are images available, for example this AFP file photo from 1988. But I don't know whether it would qualify for uploading to wikipedia. Cimm[talk] 15:56, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
Done. Cimm[talk] 01:08, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Yannismarou

The article needs expansion and work. Most of the sections are still stubby. I rated it as B-Class, because despite its problems, the article is informative. These are the major problems IMO:

Done. Cimm[talk] 18:08, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
I have added some where appropriate. Cimm[talk] 18:08, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
I agree, thanks for pointing this out. Working on it. Cimm[talk] 18:08, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
I have expanded this section. Cimm[talk] 18:08, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
Done. Merged the first section into a Career summary and expended the sub-sections. Cimm[talk] 18:08, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
Fixed. Cimm[talk] 23:58, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
I agree. I have corrected this and other run-on sentences as well. Cimm[talk] 18:08, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
Good question. It has now been answered in the expanded childhood and family sections. Cimm[talk] 18:08, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
I disagree with you on this one. Many of the source texts refer to him throughout as Prince Sadruddin. It appears that he was commonly referred to as "Prince" throughout his life, and I think it is appropriate that this article reflect that. Cimm[talk] 18:08, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
I agree that repetition of information should be avoided, but the information parentage is relevant to the context of the lead, childhood and family sections in which it appears. I have tried to word it differently to avoid the feeling of repetition. Cimm[talk] 18:08, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
I have moved more information into this section. The marriage paragraphs could probably use some expansion (if I can find more information). Cimm[talk] 18:08, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
I'd like to keep this information because these awards represent significant recognition of his life's accomplishments, but I'm not sure where to relocate it. I'm leaving it alone for now and will revisit later. Cimm[talk] 18:08, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
I boosted this section with additional refs. Cimm[talk] 01:08, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

--Yannismarou 18:59, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for taking the time to review the article and providing such thoughtful and comprehensive comments Yannismarou. I will consider them carefully and revise the article accordingly. Cimm[talk] 19:19, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
I have updated the article based on your suggestions, and responded to each of your comments above. If you get a moment, I'd appreciate your thoughts on the updates. Thanks Yannis - Cimm[talk] 18:08, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Additional comments by Yannismarou

Thank you - looks good. Cimm[talk] 23:43, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
This sentence reads well to me... not sure what you mean. Cimm[talk] 23:43, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
Oups! My mistake!--Yannismarou 09:01, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Reorganized the text to improve clarity. Cimm[talk] 00:24, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Done. Cimm[talk] 23:43, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
Noted. Cimm[talk] 16:37, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Done. Cimm[talk] 00:03, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Done. Cimm[talk] 23:43, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
Added source citation. Cimm[talk] 23:43, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

The article has been improved. It looks comprehensive. The prose is not perfect, but, in general, looks to me fine. Maybe some more photos would also help (only if you find, of course, relevant and not copyvio photos serving the article - after all photos are not a prerequisite for GAC neither for FAC). These are the things I further managed to locate. Maybe two fresh eyes reviewing the article would be even more useful!--Yannismarou 15:53, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Yannis - thanks for reviewing this article once again. Your comments provide a valuable contribution to the quality and accuracy of the article! Cimm[talk] 23:43, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Leapfrogging (infantry)

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Sam ware (talk • contribs)

Kirill Lokshin

Well, this obviously still needs massive work. Some major areas to focus on:

  • Needs proper wikification as well. And the normal headers, 'see also', 'references', 'further reading', 'external links'. — Wackymacs 11:36, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Film

Currently, the article is listed as a Good Article and is ((A-Class)) for the Films WikiProject. It seems to be a good article and it would be good for WP:FILMS if they got this article, kinda their "main article", featured. I'd like to know what can be done to make that happen. Thanks, Cbrown1023 23:48, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

I think when a user comes to a page, they would expect to find a proper source. For example, when I buy a film book, I do like to flick to the back and see the bibliography and various citations. Wiki-newbie 11:23, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

What do you mean by a "proper source" or you talking about citation style or the sources themselves or something completely different? Cbrown1023 15:25, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

I want inline citations simply. Wiki-newbie 09:30, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

But want needs citations? Do you see anything that actually needs them? It seems that they may not be needed according to WP:CITE. Cbrown1023 21:27, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

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

You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, APR t 22:53, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

List of UFC events

I was thinking of nominating this as a featured list. The things that concern me are the few red links that remain and a short intro. Any insight anyone could provide would be great. Lewis 23:39, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

The Lion King

Previously reviewed. Currently, the article is listed as a Good Article and is ((A-Class)) for the Films WikiProject. There has been few changes done to the article recently, so I assume that all of the previous items have been done. Furthermore, it seems to be a good article and I would like to see it become featured. I'd like to know what can be done to make that happen. Thanks, Cbrown1023 00:11, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree, it should definately be shortened. Cbrown1023 15:33, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

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

You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, APR t 22:53, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Star Wars

Previously nominated. Currently, the article is listed as a Good Article and is ((A-Class)) for the Films WikiProject. Furthermore, it seems to be a good article and I would like to see if become featured. I'd like to know what can be done to make that happen. Thanks, Cbrown1023 00:07, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Serenity (film)

Currently, the article is listed as a Good Article and is ((A-Class)) for the Films WikiProject. Furthermore, it seems to be a good article and I would like to see if become featured. I'd like to know what can be done to make that happen. Thanks, Cbrown1023 00:01, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

The "themes" and "cinematic and cultural allusions" sections seem to be a novel synthesis of published material. Since this is an encyclopedia article and not a film criticism paper, we can really just delete most of that, with the exception of statements that cite sources which specifically assert themes and allusions in the film.
Could you give some examples of this becasue I looked through it and saw a ton of references. Cbrown1023 01:38, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
The plot synopsis is at least twice as long as it needs to be. By the middle of the second paragraph, I gave up on all the unnecessary detail and just moved on.
The last section of the article ("spin-offs") does not cite any references whatsoever. In this state the article would not pass FA. There are also some problems with the tone of this section ("a map of the 'verse" !?), which should be corrected as soon as possible.
I changed the tone of the section, but what does it really need a source? It is obviously a spin-off because of the names and the desription there. Cbrown1023 01:38, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
Other than the above, all I really have to recommend is to give the article a good copyedit. You can probably get it down to 80% (or even less) of its current length. At 56kb, it's currently sprawling far outside the attention span of anyone but the most fanatic fans. —ptk✰fgs 00:35, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
Make the synopsis shorter? Take a look at the Star Wars Episode III: Revenge of the Sith article, which is a FA. It contains a synopsis of the same length as the Serenity article's synopsis, as we modeled the Serenity synopsis after that. The Wookieepedian 00:46, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
Oh my. That one's even longer. How obnoxious. —ptk✰fgs 00:56, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
The plot section could definately use some condensing, but it is only 910 words, the guideline is 600 words... that's not too much over (though it could use some condensing but that may not be possible). Cbrown1023 01:19, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
There is nothing wrong with the Plot Synopsis of this article. That guideline is just that, a guideline. A personally I believe it should be upped to at least 800 words. I'd also like to see where you got this guideline from. The issue is that some film articles require a longer synopsis than most because of varying complexity in plot. Many users who complain about synopsis length point to articles such as Halloween (film), Halloween II, Halloween III: Season of the Witch, and Night of the Living Dead. However these articles are based around Horror films, which do not have extremely complex. That is not a judgment on quality, that is a judgment on complexity. The Revenge of the Sith synopsis, while long for a film article, actually condenses a major story event into on sentence and completely omits another. Why? Because they are not essential to understanding the plot. Whereas everything else in the section is. Most users look at synopsis section like Revenge of the Sith's and only see that it is longer than most. They don't bother to read the synopsis to realize that it cannot be condensed farther then it's current state. This is the way all synopsis sections should be handled, not based on length, but on comprehensiveness. The Filmaker 18:18, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

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

You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, APR t 22:53, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

James Kim

Looking for comments on all ongoing disputed content as well as general comments on quality of the article, recommended changes/improvements, size issues, etc 07:35, 16 December 2006 (UTC)


Comment: One problem we're having is people wanting to put judgments of James Kim and his family in the article. While these judgments are sometimes evidently "correct" and "common sense," they are not sourced, established facts. Tragic romance 10:27, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Azumanga Daioh

I would like people to comment on content value, general interest, out-universe and manual of style prose and anything else that the editors of this article have missed. --Squilibob 03:21, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

(After only a cursory reading:) Don't know if you've already dismissed these, but you can find some more DVD reviews at AnimeNewsNetwork, THEM Anime Reviews, and SciFi.com. On a larger note, I'm torn on my hobby-horse suggestion that plot and character sections be merged: there really isn't much of a plot per se in Azumanga, but at the same time, it seems like some discussion of story elements could be used to tease out character elements in a meaningful way. Perhaps an amalgam of Plot, Places, and Differences could lay the basis for a unified synopsis? At the very least, would it be possible to move most of the Character section to its own article per summary style? That character section is awfully long. Moving on. The biggest content-hole is production. The DVDs are worthless in that regard, but a Google search reveals that Newtype-USA did an article "Inside J.C. Staff" about animating Azumanga in Feb. 2004, and a whole slew of other bits around then. As it stands, I think combining "Title Origins" and "Hoax" sections would be a good first step towards a Production section. The hoax should also probably be mentioned in the lead. The screen-saver bit strikes me as unencyclopedic, and the dojin video game a borderline case. (I believe the language of that section's source is Spanish.) Cosmetic issues: I don't think character names should be italicized like they are in Plot and occasionally elsewhere; it might be better to have the episode-list link under Plot instead of its own section; since Ayamu is generally known as Osaka in the show, shouldn't that be her primary designation in Characters?--Monocrat 05:07, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
Thanks you've been very thorough. I had omitted the ANN review on purpose as there are quite a few references to ANN in the article already and left out THEM as I haven't read that review. I like your idea of combining Plot, Places, and Differences though I'd probably make them subsections instead of joining them together somehow. If the character section is too long then it can be moved, though the main character's pages may make it a List of Azumanga characters page redundant or vice versa. I had seen that Newtype article on Newtype USA's website, but I don't subscribe to it and so I can't reference it at all. The Production section is a good idea and should happen. I had separated the unofficial games from the official games, knowing that they would come under scrutiny. I'll see what similar articles have done with that. I had also separated the screensaver thinking that if it were scrutinized then it could be removed easily, but another editor has referenced it now and I may see if it's worthy of keeping. I only just italicised Yomi and Osaka today thinking that the opposite would be said; they are nicknames and should be italicised while given names are not. Thanks for your input, seems like I have a lot to do. --Squilibob 05:34, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
Glad to help. I think Nihonjoe might have some resources relating to Newtype-USA, and if it comes to it, I have some access to most issues. One way to deal (i.e., defer problems) with the other media would be to convert the episode-list into a media=list. I'm fond of that option because it seemingly makes the episode-list itself more encyclopedic. I think, though, that the screensaver and game might eventually come under the axe. :)--Monocrat 22:07, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
I think that may need to be done, although I think that the official games can stay as an excerpt from the List of Azumanga Daioh media article while the rest can be moved. Someone else may come along and add something from Newtype. --Squilibob 11:16, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
As an outsider to the anime-manga world, I'll make general comments. First, the "Reception" section. It's in bullet form; paragraph style is preferable. Also, I don't know who the three people the article quotes are: Fred Patton, Chris Beveridge, Andrew Sheldon. A word about why readers should care how those three received it would be enlightening. And, there is no information about reception in Japan, so either renaming the section to indicate the contents, or broadening the coverage, would make title and subject matter match. Readers might be interested in knowing about reception in other parts of the world, too, if any information is available. Judging from the number of links to articles on Wikipedias in other languages, including a featured article, I'd guess there's something to say about it.
Names are sometimes in normal type, sometimes in italics, sometimes in quotation marks. This is puzzling.
Sentences with excessive explanation like "She loves cats, but for some strange reason cats always bite/scratch her - in particular, the grey one she calls Kami-neko (lit. God Cat/Biting Cat, depending on the kanji Or Gray-Cat / Spirit-Cat, for a more indirect translation)." really need editing. The entire expression in parentheses should be removed; we don't need a translation of a cat's name, nor do we need two, together with a discussion of the merits of each. Perhaps we don't even need its name. The slash expressions should also be removed. Wouldn't "She loves cats, but cats don't like her." be enough?
The name "Yuu Asakawa" is linked to an article with the title "Yu Asakawa" and the Japanese "Yū Asakawa." Wikipedia's style convention for Japan-related articles is the last. Likewise, "Doujin" links to the article "Dojin soft" which has the Japanese "Dōjin soft." The article uses Wikipedia style for Masumi Itō and some others.
The section "Differences between manga and anime" strikes me as trivial in comparison to the rest of the article. Why not remove the section and move the few interesting tidbits to other places in the article.
In "Places," the explanation of Chiyo Mihama's house "(in Japan a "mansion" is an apartment complex)" is out of place. The word is used several screens earlier.
An unofficial Japanese computer game has an English name, a Japanese name, a transliteration of the Japanese name, and an English nickname. This is a bit much for unofficial software. Why not move all the unnecessary stuff to the talk page. That way, it's easily accessible without interfering with the article.
The "See also" section with a single link to an article that a character uses in one episode should be removed.
These are one editor's opinions. I hope they help improve the article. Fg2 07:06, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
Thanks Fg2, I have taken Monocrat's and your suggestions and implemented them. I may just have to move the characters' section to a new article and summarize it. The unofficial games and screensaver may have to be omitted in future, if they cause problems with verifiability. --Squilibob 14:44, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
I haven't decided whether to rename the reception section or to try and find some Japanese reviews. This section isn't important until the article undergoes some sort of nomination and either way it will need to be expanded. --Squilibob 11:16, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

The Lord of the Rings film trilogy

Previously nominated. Currently, the article is listed as a Good Article and is ((A-Class)) for the Films WikiProject. Furthermore, it seems to be a good article and I would like to see if become featured. I'd like to know what can be done to make that happen. Thanks, Cbrown1023 00:15, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

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

You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, APR t 22:53, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Maple

I want to bring this to FA, but as you can tell, I am a vexillologist, not a botanist. What kind of things are you looking for to be added, scientifically, to this article. I understand that maple has a major symbolic significance to Canada and several maples were adopted as state trees in the US. Any help is appreciated. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 21:46, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Charlotte Bobcats

A young NBA team, but this article seems in the right steps for a GA. Accurate founding and jersey infomation. --Twlighter 21:43, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

The Velveteen Rabbit

I need someone to look through the prose and let me know what can be expanded upon. b_cubed 21:11, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

I think you've done great work on the plot summary. I don't know how much information is available on this book, but there are a few additional sections you could work up that would greatly improve the article.
  • Background — what led Williams to write The Velveteen Rabbit? What did she write and publish before (and after) this book?
  • Reactions and popularity — it is a classic children's book (mentioned in the lead), so you want to expand on that idea. In addition to the Internet, if you have access to a large library or online subscription service, look for early critical reviews of the book, and use more recent reviews to support its timelessness. If you can find a concrete number of books sold (which will probably be hard, since it's probably been published many times), add that. Did the book win any major awards?
  • Cultural references — the Friends reference is good, but it needs to be cited (the DVD sets will do). But this book is eighty years old, so it's surely been used in other cultural ways as well. Try to expand this section without making it a straight list of every tiny Velveteen Rabbit-related occurrence.
  • Make sure to add inline references if you use a source other than the book itself.
You have done good work here. Make Way for Ducklings is a featured article covering the scope of an article on a piece of children's literature; use it and other featured novels as guides for expanding the article. McMillin24 contribstalk 03:44, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

--- May I add something as a German reader who just came across a reference to the V.R. (in an episode of "Brothers and Sisters" BTW but I wouldn't consider that as seriously wikipediaworthy). Two questions: have there not been any translations of the book [I'll check that one up myself, at least German and Russian are likely candidates, two very "welcoming" languages for foreign material, despite having sizeable literatures of their own), and #2: Does the owner/boy not have a name? WernR 11 Nov 2007 —Preceding comment was added at 12:26, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Enter the Wu-Tang (36 Chambers)

Despite being very informative and well written in my opinion, this article was recently shut down for FAC nomination. What might be needed to improve it? Chubdub 19:56, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Kerr-Tar Regional Council of Governments

Hello all, this is been stub-class since november 04. It has been virtually untouched since 04, also. It needs radical attention to get it back from obscurity. I'd say if nobody's paying attention it may fail to meet notability guidelines.

Can i have ANY good ideas on how to increase this article's scope? Any websites or guides or information about the council that it could be worth expanding to include? Please?--I'll bring the food 19:45, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure how much bigger this could get but you might want to try digging through Google News Archives and Google Scholar. Zedla 22:43, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Balboa High School (San Francisco)

old peer review Requesting another peer review as the article is approaching a FAC. The article passes auto peer review, although I took some stylistic liberty with image captions. It doesn't make sense to caption the United Playaz logotype for example. — Zedla 00:45, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Twenty Years

Firstly this is a quality article, very good. A few preference things:

Latter Days

Wanting to take this to FA, but not sure what to do with it now. your thoughts would be good. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 09:52, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

How? Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 21:49, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
If you can't think of anything, then you don't need to expand it. ;) Cbrown1023 15:19, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
Added fair use rationale, and one screenshot. Looks like I can't add another one under the fair use licences. Anything else? Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 21:49, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
Sorry, but where are the rationales? I don't see either of them. Cbrown1023 22:22, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
They're in the <!- brackets, above each image code. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 22:38, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
Those say that there is a fair use rationle on the image page but there isn't. See Image:Publicenemyposter.gif for an example of a poster's rationale and Image:Grapefruit-james_cagney-mae_clark21a.jpg for an example of a screen shot's rationale. Cbrown1023 22:57, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
Oh, right, OK. I've added fair use rationales to the actual images now. Is this OK? Do you have any other comments for how to improve the article for FA? Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 10:08, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
good job... Cbrown1023 15:12, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
They seem fine, under a cursory look. Thanks for that, and everything else you've suggested. I think once you're finished I will nominate for FA. :) Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 17:06, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
Yes, I was concerned about that when I was first told to create a section, but I think it's cited OK now, and the one sentence that isn't is blatantly obvious and so doesn't need citation. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 17:06, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
Ok, I'll nominate now then. Thanks for your help man - I've learnt new stuff from this peer review (like fair use rationales...). Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 19:52, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Mini Moke

Hi! I want to put this article up for WP:GAC soon and would greatly appreciate someone with an eye for 'good English' taking a look at it. I'm pretty much 100% sure that all of the technical details are right - but it is in need of a 'polish' of the kind that I'm not good at doing!

Mini Thanks!

SteveBaker 22:19, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

(Oh - also: The article is currently rated a 'B' on the Wikipedia:WikiProject Automobiles/Assessment assessment scale. I have already attended to the comments they had and I'll get them to take another look at it after WP:GAC.) SteveBaker 22:34, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

References go after fullstops not before or in the middle of a sentence. The article is also missing a lot of full-stops. That table at the end is too big and ugly, editors prefer articles to have no horizontal scroll. The article has alot of weasel words. Try remove words like However, Whilst. This sentence doesnt make much sense, The engine, gearbox, suspension and most mechanical parts are identical to those of a standard Mini, "most mechanical parts" remove that part and try get someone from wikiproject cars to give it a good copy-edit. Good-luck M3tal H3ad 06:00, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
Many thanks - this is exactly the kind of help I need! I'll get on to fixing those things ASAP. SteveBaker 16:16, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
I've cleaned up the referemces, checked for missing full-stops, narrowed the table considerably and tried to find and eliminate weasel words. The bad sentence is fixed. I'd appreciate it if someone could give it another reading. Thanks! SteveBaker 11:45, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

This Peer review has done it's job and it's now archived. Many thanks to those who contributed. SteveBaker 17:14, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Turok: Dinosaur Hunter

I nominated this for GA, but it did not pass. I tried to fix it up as much as possible, but I would like some more input. Please see the talk page for more info regarding the reasons it did not pass (and my response). Thunderbrand 16:12, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

  • ahh this game brings back old memories anyway,
  • and finally the Chronoscepter, a weapon that shoots a blue laser, which according to the game's manual, creates "micro-tears in the fabric of space time". remove 'finally' and don't write that you refer to the manual as you have it as a reference.
  • 'Worldwide sales of Dinosaur Hunter surpassed USD$60 million in late June of 1997, according to Business Wire.'[10] No need to have 'according' there as you back it up with a reference
  • 'Doug Perry of the multimedia website IGN awarded the game an 8.6 out of a possible 10. He said the game "stands on the shoulders of all previous Doom games", and the gameplay takes the title to places "Doom's never been"'
  • Doug Perry of the multimedia website IGN awarded the game 8.6 out of 10 stating the game "stands on the shoulders of all previous Doom games", and the gameplay takes the title to places "Doom's never been, that sounds better
  • is David Dienstbier a notable game designer? if so create a stub on him
  • 'Besides obtaining ammunition,' every gun game has ammunition so i don't think that needs to be mentioned or worded better.
  • what about that blue person that helps turok, or is that only in #2?
  • if you want me to i can give it a small copyedit otherwise goodluck and goodwork on the article :) M3tal H3ad 02:07, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for your suggestions. In regard to your question, I think you are referring to Adon, who is in Turok 2. Thunderbrand 02:19, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Martin Mattner

I have recently been working on this article and would like to have suggestions to make it better. I have made sure I have sources for everything, but am wondering if it could have more information. Please just tell me anything that needs improving. Thanks, Jasrocks (talk) 04:09, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Chemical series

Hello,

When you look at the periodic table article (same color codes than in the Chemical series article) and at other pages about chemical elements, you deduce that each chemical element is classified in only one chemical series. The 10 chemical series are: Alkali metals, Alkaline earth metals, Lanthanides, Actinides, Transition metals, Poor metals, Metalloids, Nonmetals, Halogens, Noble gases.

However, this article:

This vagueness is currently cause of dispute in Commons Wikimedia, as we want to use chemical series to categorize media files.

Because the name of the “Nonmetals chemical series” is also used for the tripartite partition of the chemical elements set (metals, metalloids, nonmetals), another Commons user asserts that Nonmetals chemical series matches to the Nonmetals in the tripartite partition.

Is there somebody to clarify this and to dispel ambiguity in this article (and related ones)? --Juiced lemon 13:09, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

You probably meant to read "For feedback on articles that are less developed, use the article's talk page or requests for feedback" at the top of this page. Yes this article needs a lot of development. Thanks. — RJH (talk) 16:31, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
Yes, we should probably discuss this in the article's talk page. I've posted my opinion there. Itub 17:58, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

C. S. Lewis

I'm surprised this article has yet to get a review. I'm sure with a few minor tweaks it could become a GA if not an FA. Any advice as to what should be done will be much appreciated. Many Thanks b_cubed 20:58, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Biggest problem: you're not using the <ref></ref> format. See WP:CITE. Wiki-newbie 17:30, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Barry Manilow

I would like a peer review of this page after making some major edits.

I would particularly like suggestions as to how to make it flow better given that it is reads more like a series of events.

A large amount of trivia has been moved to a sub-page, but WIKI is suggesting this should be removed. As this reprsents many peoples contributions is there a way to keep it and it still be acceptable.

Goinglogo 01:30, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm one of the people who has volunteered on this article that Goinglogo mentioned before. I think our major concern is to have everything included that we have and more, but written better so that it flows better and is not WP:Fancruft. I previously attempted to get a Peer Review here around December 19, 2006, but got no input. My goal then was to turn the article from B rated to an A class article. The article most recently looked like [1] just before Goinglogo's massive facelift to the article.

I looked over Goinglogo's changes. I think it would be a good idea to have a seperate article about Manilow's medical interventions over the years, as it is all well referenced and did take up a sizeable part of the article along with the small trivia section as some raters dispise Trivia sections in biographicial article and will not give them a higher rating. I think, however, that too much was moved that is a part of the article and put on this new seperate trivia page (Manilow 1965 Playboy letter - encouraging him to try showbusiness, various times Manilow made headlines, and more mixed in besides). I do not quite understand the Emmy awards part at the bottom as Manilow has won three Emmys so far (Callback in the 1960s, The Barry Manilow Special and Music and Passion) while some of his other projects won as well for other people involved (The Third Barry Manilow Special, Copacabana movie, Big Fun on Swing Street special) and just one is mentioned on the page with other nominations his specicals received. Looking forward to any and all input on this article. 67.98.154.56 14:09, 23 April 2007 (UTC)


I have included the Playboy article in context as you suggested.
I am trying to create an awards section and I got the list of his Emmys from the Emmys website by doing a search on his name. It didn't say anything about Callback. Can you be a bit more specific?

Goinglogo 08:34, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Goinglogo, thanks for considering my suggestion. Scooter has a blog online at [2] she has her contact information on the right column, if you need to get in touch with her. I think the Emmy for Callback is a local Emmy. The specific category and details, if any existing archives go that far back, will probably be found at the New York City local Emmys about that time or in articles Scooter has up.

Looking forward to hearing from Wikipedians out there about this article on Barry Manilow in Wikipedia. 67.98.154.56 12:42, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

P.S. A more complete list of Barry Manilow's awards to work from that includes the Emmy, Grammy, Tony, and Oscar nomination and much more can be found at [3] 67.98.154.56 12:59, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

I Not Stupid

I intend to nominate I Not Stupid for GA status on Sunday night (Singapore time). After working on it for over three months, I believe the article is ready. There are a couple of unreferenced statements, and several sections (especially the Plot section) may need a little copyediting. Please give me feedback, and point out any other problems I should fix in the next 48 hours - or before a GA reviewer looks at the article. (Note: This article will never reach FA status - systemic bias makes it very difficult to find information on Singaporean movies. No comments about FA status, please - only GA.) --J.L.W.S. The Special One 15:45, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Just at first glance, here are a few of my impressions. There are an overabundance of red links and too many duplicate wikilinks. For example in the intro, I Not Stupid Too is wikilinked twice in the same paragraph. Work on the style issues, then we can deal with content.--WilliamThweatt 15:58, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
Most of the red links are names of actors or movies which do not have Wikipedia articles. I should consider creating articles on them.
I'm not sure when internal links should be repeated. For example, if I Not Stupid Too is linked to in the lead section, should it be linked to in the Reception section? What about the Sequels section? As for the names of the lead actors, since they're linked to in the lead section, should they be linked to in the Plot and Cast sections? Are there any guidelines regarding this?
--J.L.W.S. The Special One 02:54, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
See Wikipedia Manual of Style-Links for guidelines on internal wikilinks--WilliamThweatt 04:40, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
Only one reference came before a punctuation mark; this has since been fixed. Though well written, the article does need thorough copyediting. This is why I requested peer review - many peer reviewers point out problems with prose. --J.L.W.S. The Special One 02:54, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Han van Meegeren

I just stumbled across this article, which at this point is mostly based on the equivalent German article. I haven't edited it yet, but thought I'd attempt to at least get this to GA. Right off the bat, what I could do:

  1. Shorten the lead.
  2. Add inline citations (although some statements are cited with text and could potentially be converted into standard footnotes).
  3. Use more English references instead of the German-language works that are currently listed. (To make verification easier)

but other than that... suggestions? Quarma 13:30, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Yannismarou

The currect form of the article is a good basis for an excellent article. You have realized most of the existing problems of the current article. These are some additional remarks:

De Lorean Motor Company

Would like to see this article featured in the near future. Obviously needs more references and a copy-edit - but is there anything else? Any comments appreciated. — Wackymacs 11:31, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Unit production was scheduled to begin in 1979, but the engineering delays and budget overruns caused the first cars to start rolling off the assembly lines in early 1981. Workers at the factory were generally inexperienced; many had never had regular jobs prior to this. This may have contributed to the reported quality issues attributed to the early production vehicles and the subsequent establishment of Quality Assurance Centers located at various delivery locations. "QACs" were set up in California, Delaware and Michigan where some of the quality issues were to be addressed and resolved before delivery to the dealerships. Some of the issues remedied in these locations related to the fit of body panels, retrofitting the vehicle with higher-output alternators, and gullwing door adjustments. The combined efforts of quality assurance improvements at the factory and the post-production QA done at the Assurance Centers were generally successful, although workmanship complaints would still occasionally arise; and the 1981 De Loreans were delivered with just a 12 month, 12,000 mile warranty. Though by 1982, improvements in components and the more experienced workforce meant that production quality was vastly improved. However, the combination of expiring warranties on earlier cars, and the fact that in some instances, dealers had not been reimbursed for warranty work, and therefore were refusing to do more warranty work, led to dealership-customer disputes. APR t 00:22, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Hurricane Allison (1995)

Another GA that I am trying to promote to FA. Curious what is needed here too. CrazyC83 22:46, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Cite web formatting, longer lede, preparations, aftermath, and more impact that's not from government sites. Have you tried an extensive google search? Hurricanehink (talk) 22:49, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Hurricane Danny (2003)

Another request for an article on its way to FA. CrazyC83 22:44, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Here's what's needed in my own biased opinion: non-breaking units (add &nbsp's or whatever it is) and a copyedit to make sure everything is good. Hurricanehink (talk) 22:53, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

John Mayer (musician)

This puppy is close to being ready for GA status, but still needs some work. It is well-referenced, but I think it needs to be copy-edited and the flow of the article is choppy. Even though it was written by almost a hundred people, it shouldn't read that way ;). Anyway, any suggestions and or help is welcome.--Esprit15d (talk ¤ contribs) 21:54, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

[ See previous peer review here ]

After a brief look, a few pointers. There is an incorrect citation format in the article in the "Personal life" section (needs to be converted in inline like the rest of the citations). Also, there are probably too many instances of "[[Citation needed]]" to be listed as a GA. Lastly, there are too many one sentence long paragraphs in the article. Those she be lengthened or combined with other paragraphs. Your citations look fine, but there are templates that can help as well. Check out WP:CITET.--NMajdan•talk 22:17, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

GoldenEye

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)

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)

Proteasome

This was the Molecular and Cellular Biology WikiProject's November collaboration of the month and is currently rated A-class; will probably be going to FAC after the holidays. Specifically looking for thoughts and opinions on the accessibility of the text, especially the lead. Thanks. Opabinia regalis 05:35, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments. I'd be interested in a few examples of what you consider problematic passive voice; aside from "the proteasome is assembled from..." and other such inoffensive cases, I only see "it has been reported/suggested that" type statements - which are there mainly to indicate that the data is too preliminary for a more definitive statement. The specific people doing the reporting/suggesting/etc. are unimportant; in a few cases the particular paper cited among several with similar conclusions is essentially arbitrary. Opabinia regalis 01:37, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Risk (game)

Wikipedia:Peer review/Risk (game)/archive1
Wikipedia:Peer review/Risk (game)/archive2

After much work, I feel that this article is very close to becoming FA. It needs someone to do a grammar check and suggest where I should include more citations. Granted, there is still one section that I still need to add a little bit more to, viz. the official Risk versions section. However, I plan on working on that as people give me suggestions. Thanks. :D b_cubed 05:42, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
Review by Clyde

I took a look mostly References. Here we go.
  • "In the most recent rulebook, three variations are given."
  • "The official rulebook suggests variations to the gameplay mechanics for "Risk experts,""
  • Standard setup. There's no proof that what is written is the proper order or accepted practice of beginning the game.
  • Player turn. There are seven paragraphs present, and it is a stretch to believe all of that without any refs.
  • Basic strategy. How do I, the reader, know the official rulebook said that? Cite.
  • Popular Culture. See if you can find something out there about the episode, and then look for a mention of Risk in the write-up.
  • "Compared to other military board games, Risk is relatively simple and abstract."
  • "Setting up the Risk board for play is more involved than in many other games."
I think that'll get you started.--Clyde (talk) 15:34, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Tara Conner

I put this up for review in December but got only one response... cleared up everything from that and have waited until the article has settled down again. I'm basically looking for any suggestions on how to improve the standard of the article so I could possibly get it up to Good Article or Featured Article status. -- PageantUpdater • talk | contribs | esperanza 21:32, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Trebor

It's good, but needs a bit of tidying. Trebor 23:00, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, have worked on the references and tidied them up per your suggestions - took a bit of figuring out but got it to work!. Have also worked on the prose and proofreading. Can you please give me some examples of overuse of the passive voice? -- PageantUpdater • talk | contribs | esperanza 23:40, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
Do a search through the article for use of "was" and if it's possible to rephrase, it's normally stronger. For instance, "This was neither confirmed nor denied by the Miss Universe Organization" is better as "The Miss Universe Organization neither confirmed nor denied this." Trebor 08:25, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

List of tributes to AC/DC in popular culture

Article is a former featured list candidate, however, since its fail, I feel all of the criteria has been met for it to be a featured list. I'd love to hear any suggestions any one has to make the article better and I'd generally like to know if anyone thinks it's ready to be nominated for featured list again. Thank you for your time. ĤĶ51→Łalk 11:47, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Appalachian Trail

Article has come a long way, and has longer to go, but I wanted some suggestions on how to get it closer to GA quality. Any glaring ommisions, major writing issues, etc...? I think it needs more sources for sure.--Esprit15d (talk ¤ contribs) 22:07, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Just a few suggestions:

-- Underneath-it-All 22:47, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Pauline Johnson

This article has been through the generic Peer Review process and I have addressed the concerns and incorporated suggestions. I'm not the original writer, but thought this article has a lot of potential because it's an interesting subject in Canadian cultural history, it reads well, and is informative, and is well illustrated. I also nominated it as a Good Article candidate before I knew this process was here. Thanks, any feedback will be appreciated. Eventually I'd like to see it become a featured article.Bobanny 06:58, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

RedRollerskate

The citations are from books, not the net, so I can't embed them. I'm not a big fan of the author/date format myself, but did tag them to make it more Wikipedia-esque, in line with the policy of not changing format style without a consensus to do so.Bobanny 17:21, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure what else to add except that I can tell you put in a lot of time and effort on this, and it's a very interesting article. Nice job! RedRollerskate 16:46, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your feedback, Bobanny 17:21, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Yannismarou

Nice and informative. This is my review:

hmmm...technically, it is "wikified" in line with the Harvard referencing style (including a references section). According to WP:MOS, this style is as legit as the others, and changing a pre-existing style is a faux pas without achieving consensus. But, I'll put a note on the talk page and see if anyone else has a comment. It seems that the original writer is no longer contributing to Wikipedia, so it's not too likely I'd be stepping on any toes. Thus far I've been defending the format of the article, but I haven't yet come across anyone else who doesn't much prefer Chicago-style (the normal one with footnotes), including myself.
No, I am not against Harvard system. I just think your citations should be in a seperate section. Would you like to check Tagore to see what I mean.--Yannismarou 08:39, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
Interesting. I hadn't seen it done like that before. That does look preferable because it has the advantage of allowing you to flip back and forth from footnote to text. But then, I only like it better because it brings it closer to Chicago style. It also loses what seems to be the defining characteristic of any author/date system in that the author/date is not in the text. Also, having 2 sections, one with just the name and page # and the other with the full reference, seems only to take up extra space and add an extra step to get to the full reference. Unless I'm missing some obvious advantage, it still looks like the best option is just to switch to Chicago, which also wouldn't take me as long because I'm used to that one. Bobanny 09:20, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
Thinking again, Harvard style as you have it is also acceptable.--Yannismarou 15:47, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
good point. It seems her family heritage is important in explaining her significance (which is more about her identity than her actual writings). But that could still come across without devoting so much space to her family.
Done. I found the specific Project Gutenberg cite tag and stuck it in.
Sort of done. Those aren't specific references within the books, but the works generally, but I did tag them to link to the full reference at the bottom.
Done.
Thanks for your review, Bobanny 00:31, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Coonskin (film)

I'd like some general feedback on this article. How did I do? What needs to be done? (Ibaranoff24 19:15, 20 December 2006 (UTC))

Amber MacArthur

I've consulted with the subject of the article, and she thinks it's good. I've never come across any mainstream press criticism of her, so I don't think its NPOV. -- Zanimum 17:03, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Neal Boortz

Getting ready to submit this for GA and would like a peer review from the Biography workgroup. Thanks.. Morphh (talk) 18:29, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Yannismarou

Nice. A few remarks:

James Madison University

Requesting a peer review of this page. Rtcpenguin 13:37, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Agreed, but I think we can still mention some of the recognitions the university has earned. -- Johnny06man 23:12, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
Plenty of images already exist on Wikimedia Commons. A gallery is linked to at the end of the article, so adding a gallery at the end seems a bit redundant. I agree it would be better if more pictures could be added throughout the article when they are pertinent. -- Johnny06man 23:12, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

PSS Silent Pistol

This is an new article about a relitively unknown Soviet/Russian pistol, and is also my first Wikipedia article. I would like to run it by more experienced members, with hopes of improving it. JVkamp 21:21, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Kirill Lokshin

Well, as you said, this is a new article; the main thing it needs right now is simply more material. There's a lot of historical context missing that seems like it would be publically available: when and how did the weapon fall into Western hands? Are there records of it being used? What examples have been located, and where? What information is available about its development and manufacture? And so forth. At the moment, the article touches only on the technical aspects; it should, if possible, go beyond this.

Aside from that, some general issues:

Kirill Lokshin 01:37, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Battle of Golymin

As I intend to contribute more in a similar style I would be grateful for some guidence that I am getting it right. Two specific questions are - Is there too much detail? Is the list of forces engaged appropriate for the article?

The Stratigic Situation bit could be moved to a seperate, longer, article on the Campaign in Poland 1806 with map(s)- but at present I have not got the time!

Andrewshobley 13:26, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Kirill Lokshin

Quite nice. Some general suggestions:

Keep up the good work! Kirill Lokshin 18:27, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Portal:Military of Australia

I have put this up for assessment because i am thinking about nominating it for feature in the near future and am looking for other peoples insight. The portal is now heavily automated eg. (selective article, picture, equipment, daily unit and anniversary). The only major problems with the portal that i can think of are the colour scheme and the opening introduction section (see talk page for old discussion). Any help would be useful. Regards Hossen27 13:12, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Reply. I have created archives for all the mentioned sections and have added another DYK (and intend to update more frequently). On the colour scheme i really have no artistic talent to speak of, if any editor would be able to help there it would be useful. On the intro the old longer version is still there in the article its just commented out, Kirill you might want to have a look to see which you think is better. Hossen27 12:40, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Kirill Lokshin

Well, offhand, I'd say the introduction should be longer! (But this does seem to be, admittedly, a matter of personal taste to some extent.) ;-)

Aside from that, a few technical issues:

A more Australian-ish color scheme might be worthwhile, if you can come up with something suitably aesthetic; but color schemes are very much a subjective point, so I doubt you'll please everyone, regardless of what you do.

Other than that, this looks very good; I suggest nominating it at WP:FPCAN once the issues are fixed. Kirill Lokshin 18:31, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Roman-Spartan War

Previous peer review

I just withdrew the article's FA and I want some advice and to see what can be done to improve the article before I re nominated it in the future. Kyriakos 02:32, 4 January 2007 (UTC)


Kirill Lokshin

Well, at this point, the most sensible thing would probably be to focus on the objections raised during the FAC. The chief ones seem to be:

I remove the comments about Nabis' title and put them in the notes section.

Hope that helps! Kirill Lokshin 05:42, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Yannismarou

Per Kirill on the sources. I think the most important thing in this article is now further and more thorough research based on both primary (in case, you have missed any - something I do not believe) and (most importantly) secondary sources. This is I believe the main problem that impeded FA promotion.

The prose looked and looks to me fine. It has been copy-edited by an excellent copy-editor, and it has been well worked by the main editor. Maybe, a second addition external copy-editing wouldn't hurt. In some of my articles, I have asked the assistance of more than one copy-editors.

More photos incoroporated in the article (not just "external photos") would help the article to "show" better. It is not the most important thing, but it definitely matters.

I promise I'll soon read the article once again in detail, but I really think (and I agree on that with Kirill) that what it really needs now is "fresh eyes", which will feed it with "fresh nurture": fresh ideas and fresh conceptions. The article is definitely on the right track, but the FAC reviewers seemed to believe that it lacked the "spark" a FA has to have.--Yannismarou 19:47, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Piotrus

A map of troop movements would be invaluable. There seem to be some confusion between notes (two systems) and references, please streamline.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  20:10, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Would any one be able to make a map about the troop movement? Kyriakos 20:27, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanatosimii

I haven't looked at it yet but I plan on giving it a thorough going over tomorrow. Do you want copyedit/prose concerns adressed, or were the objections that lead to your withdrawl more content oriented? Thanatosimii 05:16, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
The big problem is and was the prose. Wandalstouring 01:17, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Rhodes blood libel

This is a GA now, and I'm looking forward to advice on how this article could be improved further so that it could be nominated for FA. Beit Or 19:07, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Ford BA Falcon

Please write what you think about this article if there is anything that i have missed please tell me. Senators 01:18, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

There is a lot wrong with this article - too much to spell out in detail.
  • This image Image:55142 3mg.jpg is an unnecessary 'fair use' image. You already have photos of the car - it only ceased production last year so there is ample prospect for obtaining new photos. Fair use does not apply under these circumstances - so this photo has to go.
  • There is a confusing switch of tenses in the introduction: "the car is manufactured by..." - yet the car ceased production over a year ago. This confusion of tenses pervades the article. There are still switches of tense throughout the remainder of the article.
  • The quality of spelling, punctuation and grammar needs a lot of work. Elementary mistakes like 'where' instead of 'were'...or: In the BA range there is six models (are six models!). There are far too many problems to list here - the entire article needs a thorough copy-edit.
  • There are many unlinked terms, eg: The ANCAP gave the car 4 out of 5 stars - what the heck is 'ANCAP'?!? Even fairly obvious terms such as 'LCD' need to be either linked or expanded (eg 'liquid crystal display (LCD)').
  • Also, there many weasel-words: (people speculate that... - which people?
  • Factual/technical problems: therfore the car may use an extra 1.5 liters of fuel in the real environment - 1.5 liters over the life of the car? 1.5 liters per day? 1.5 liters per kilometer? What?
  • When you use metric measurements, please put the imperial equivelents in brackets afterwards.
  • SPELL CHECK THIS ARTICLE! There is no excuse for desinged, whanted, etc.
  • Some things are clearly nonsense: the driver moves the gear stick to the left and the vehicle will change gears according to the driver's liking and acceleration. The car is not telepathic - it doesn't know the 'driver's liking'. Tell us what it actually does.
  • You tell us that they were to hard to get in to because a user's head would always hit the top - always'?!? Even little old ladies? People afflicted with dwarfism that are only 3 feet tall? No - of course not - this is a ridiculous statement. The article is full of junk like that. This is an encyclopedia - you have to be really, really careful about exaggerating. Keep to the actual facts.
  • The level of detail in the article fluctuates wildly. You tell us microscopic details such as how the colour of the knobs on the radio changed from one version of the car to another - yet you never tell us fundamental things like what size wheels the thing has. I'm not saying that we need all of that other stuff - but if you are writing a high-ish level article then please leave out the silly little details and if you are attempting an unbelievably detailed description then we need a lot more detail about the rest of the car!
As I said, this article needs a heck of a lot of work.
SteveBaker 03:58, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
The article has improved immensely over the last few days. I've struck out the things from my list of comments (above) that have now been fixed - but the language use is still very sloppy - there are lots of grammatical and punctuation problems remaining. I wouldn't want to accept this as a WP:GA. SteveBaker 02:22, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

From SG

I was requested to review this article for GA status: I don't participate in GA, but can review it anyway. I fixed some things.

Didn't have time to read the article. Sandy (Talk) 02:29, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Ford BA Falcon

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

The Little Shop of Horrors

Famous and important cult film. Any thoughts on the article? (Ibaranoff24 07:20, 8 December 2006 (UTC))

Supernumerary

Laxmi Prasad Devkota

Spent about half an hour wikifying this article today, removing copyvio stuff and trimming it down. Where do we go from here? RedRollerskate 16:24, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Thank you! RedRollerskate 16:07, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Yannismarou

And this is just the beginning. When you are done with this stuff, come back!--Yannismarou 20:01, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks! I'm hoping I can get this up to a B-class (can't decide if it's Start or Stub right now). Part of my plan for today is to head to the library and see if they have anything on him. RedRollerskate 20:31, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Pauline Johnson

This article has been recently touched up with copyediting and additional photos. Personally, I think it's ready for a GA nomination, but thought I should try it here first. It's also been nominated as the "Showcase article" for the Portal:Vancouver. Any feedback would be appeciated. Bobanny 00:08, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Here are some suggestions:

  1. Don't use the article title in section headings:"Pauline Johnson’s early life and education" should become "Early life and education"
  2. Some of the 'works cited' and 'external links' should be incorporated in the article using references style
  3. Dig up ISBN codes for the booke cited, as well as for her bibliography (For example The Moccasin Maker is ISBN 0-66-573499-9 )

--Qyd 00:39, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, Qyd. I did these best I could: trimmed down external links, merged project gutenberg links in the bibliography, and dug up ISBNs where they exist. Bobanny 02:41, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Hey there. I made some small copyedits, but I must admit to very limited knowledge on this topic. Here are some immediate reactions that might help:

  1. In her family life, it is mentioned that Dan Hansen was baptised, but it isn't specified into which religion he was baptised. There is later reference to working with Anglicans, but I think it might be better if it were to be specified earlier.
  2. Same section - there is a mention of working as a translator "on Six Nations". I realize that the grammar can imply different things about the status of the place in question, so I didn't try to edit it, but I don't think it's correct as is. Perhaps "within the Six Nations community" or "in Six Nations territory" ? Even "at Six Nations" strikes me as better...
  3. Literary and Stage Career - "...contributed to the critical mass of Canadian authors who were constructing a distinct national literature." I feel like this should have a reference. The references in this article are, in general, pretty good, and the rest of the article is, in many ways, an argument for the validity of this statement, but if there were to be one that could be found easily, I think it would improve the article.

Hope this helps! AshleyMorton 13:26, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

I couldn't find a reference to specify Hansen's baptism, but I fixed the Six Nations sentence and added another source that situates Johnson in the emerging Canadian nationalist literture. Thanks for your feedback, Bobanny 18:09, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Well written article, learned something new today...only drawback on first impression, I'd prefer citations using ref tags, even CSS cite tags (which I can't stand), rather than Harvard style citations. —ExplorerCDT 07:10, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Hi, just skimmed the article and I think it's a great article overall. My problem though is the Family History section. I would say that that section isn't not entirely necessary. TonyJoe 23:36, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Charles Edward Magoon

This article which I have expanded from a stub has recently been rated as 'A'. At this point, I would like to know what I can improve on to make it 'FA' and whether such a biography can be made into FA. This is the first article where I've really tried to polish it as well as possible. I hope to gain experience as it runs through the process to make my future polished articles better as well. JRP 23:15, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Christopher C. Kraft, Jr.

This article was recently peer reviewed by the Biography WikiProject, but I am trying to gather as many opinions as possible before nominating it as a FAC. Any comments or suggestions would be gratefully received. MLilburne 23:14, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

This was a fascinating article, and an absolute pleasure to review! Here's just about everything I could suggest (and I had to get VERY nitpicky to find anything at all):
  1. He was also a keen baseball player and continued to play baseball in college, where one year he had a batting average of .340.
  2. I corrected a few misplaced commas due to independent clauses. For example: In 1942, Kraft began his studies at Virginia Tech, and became a member of the Corps of Cadets. The comma is only necessary if both parts of the sentences are independent clauses (i.e. they could be a complete sentence). You can a) drop the comma, or b) change the second phrase to "Tech, he became a member ...". I tried to correct most of the ones I saw, but if you see any more they should be fixed.
  3. When, on arrival at Chance Vought, he was told that he could not be inducted without his birth certificate: Purely curiousity, why didn't he have his birth certificate?
  4. After the flight, astronaut John Glenn, in the words of Time Magazine, "affirm[ed] the superiority of astronauts over chimponauts," It's a bit awkward because they're actually Glenn's words in Time Magazine. I believe what the article means to say here is: In Time Magazine after the flight, astronaut John Glenn, "affirm[ed] the superiority..."
This is the only point I disagree with, as I've checked the article, and they are indeed the words of Time Magazine rather than Glenn.
  1. Last thing, ultra-super nitpicky: Commas after very short introductory phrases (e.g. "In 1942, something happened.") are superfluous, though in very common usage. I wouldn't change anything unless a) it comes up again in your FAC review, or b) you are as incredibly anal as I am.
I think that was just about everything I could find. Good luck with everything, thank you for the delightful read!--Will.i.am 11:56, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Oh, and can you make the notes come out as two columns? Especially because some of the notes are rather short. I saw you had done this with the Challenger article and think it's a great idea. cheers!--Will.i.am 12:23, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Thanks very much for the comments, they're very helpful! I'm sorry that I wasn't able to respond sooner, but I've been ill for a couple of days so wasn't able to get to the computer. I'll now make the changes you've suggested. MLilburne 17:34, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Matisyahu

User:Yannismarou

Nice, but it still needs work. This is my review:

  • Done! Thanks. -- Chabuk [ T • C ] 23:15, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Life of Joseph Smith, Jr. from 1827 to 1830

I'd like a good going-over for this heavily-cited article. Nearly all the referenced works are online, and there are links to them. This may seem like a very narrow article, but it's actually a very important part of the biography of Joseph Smith, Jr., for which a lot has been written by historians. Want to achieve FA status, like its sister article Early life of Joseph Smith, Jr., which was featured on the front page. COGDEN 02:06, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Yannismarou

Wow! Great! Excellent work! Some suggestions:

(Addressed. COGDEN 23:08, 8 January 2007 (UTC))
(Addressed. COGDEN 23:08, 8 January 2007 (UTC))
(Addressed. COGDEN 19:55, 10 January 2007 (UTC))
(I think that's addressed. COGDEN 21:04, 10 January 2007 (UTC))
(I think that's addressed, although I don't want readers to have to cross section boundaries to find a link. I think I have about one wikilink per section now. COGDEN 21:04, 10 January 2007 (UTC))

--Yannismarou 15:43, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Great comments. Thanks. I'll start addressing them. COGDEN 19:26, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Dannii Minogue

Main page: Wikipedia:Peer review/Dannii Minogue/archive3

Dannii Minogue is a popular Australian singer, songwriter, actress and fashion designer. I did a massive rewrite on the article and would like a peer review and any suggestion which would improve it to raise it to FA quality. -- Underneath-it-All 04:19, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Yannismarou

Very nice. I think it is in the right path for FA status. This is my review:

Thanks for your review! I've made some changes already and will make some more later today. Some of the magazines that are cited in the article were printed sources, but since there was a scan available online I linked to it instead. -- Underneath-it-All 17:10, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Plek's comments

It's a good article, but there's definitely room for improvement. I like the general structure, the extensive notes, and the lack of obvious fluff (i.e. a "Trivia" section). The article also seems to touch on most of the notable things she's done.

My main criticism of the article is that it's very "descriptive" as opposed to "explanatory." It mainly describes what she has done, but hardly ever explores her motivations for doing so. Thus, the main body of the article gets a bit repetitive with lots of "and then she did this, and then she did that..." constructs. Yes, people are defined by their actions, but a biographical article can be made more interesting by exploring some of the "whys" behind those actions.

My suggestion would be to take a (small) number of Dannii's career moves and personal events, and to try to find out what her reasons were for making those moves, or what her reactions to those events were. The article already does this with her Playboy session, but it could also be applied to (for instance):

You could try to illustrate things by using information gleaned from interviews and other statements she made. This would also have the effect of shifting the article's viewpoint from the predominantly third-person view it has now to a more mixed third/first person view. I think this will help to make the article more involving, personal and interesting.

Some other notes:

Thanks, and good luck! --Plek 17:59, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the review. I've acted on your suggestions and have added the reasons behind many of her career moves. I'm still working on where to add how Kylie's diagnosis had an impact on her, but have found an interview in which she discusses it. The "controversies" has now been moved to the "Personal life" section under a sub-heading. -- Underneath-it-All 20:33, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Hamilton, Ontario

I have put over 60 edits into this article and branched many of the long sections off into sub articles. I am starting from the top and working my way down with including cited sources for the statements. The plan is to make sourced summaries for each section in accordance with the Wikiproject Cities template. After the main article is well sourced, I was hoping to take the sourced information and include it in the sub articles. Next step would be to improve the subs. At this time, I feel that I am making a lot of arbitrary decisions with this article and I would like to get a broader perspective on the goals I have set. I seek constructive criticism on this plan and suggestions on how we may be able to reach Feature Article status. Alan.ca 14:51, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

To begin with: Start populating the history, geography and Law & Government sections. They are currently too small. I'll comment more on the same as soon as I get my internet connection to stabalise. =Nichalp «Talk»= 14:55, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Review by =Nichalp «Talk»=

History

Geography

Economy

Law & Government

Education

Sites of Interest

Sports

Media Newsapers, News channels, radio channels (in prose)

Culture

See also

External links

Other info

Regards, =Nichalp «Talk»= 09:15, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

University of Wisconsin-Madison

I want this article to be featured, and it need clean-up work. Lead may need to be longer, maybe more cites, external links definitely needs to be cleaned up and shortened. Any other comments or ideas will be appreciated! Lordmontu 04:46, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Just a few suggestions:

-- Underneath-it-All 20:05, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Okinotorishima

Very touchy subject between China and Japan. This article has been subject to a lot of pov-pushing from both sides, and I'd like to draw some neutral eyes to the article. Also could use some suggestions for general form and content. savidan(talk) (e@) 23:29, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

List of countries by murder rate

Suggestions on how to get it to featured list level? Change it back to newest at the top (which like newspaper articles will have what people are looking for at the top, but isn't very encyclopedic)? -- Jeandré, 2006-12-24t20:52z

Wow, great list. One little thing I can think of is making a bigger key for the colors as the one in the picture is small. Also looking at other featured lists, they tend to have larger leads that are one or two paragraphs. --Banana04131 22:56, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
I've added a key table, and added some gender info text. -- Jeandré, 2006-12-25t19:30z
Inline citations go after punctuation, like so.[1] Seegoon 20:10, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

James Brown

Wikipedia:Peer review/James Brown/archive1

Requesting a second peer review of the James Brown article after a major rewrite and revision of existing content. At the last peer review, the article was rated previously at B-Class quality and, on February 4, 2007, the article was upgraded to A-Class quality.

After a major revision of the James Brown article (with new material added and extensive references to sources), the article still needs the following information:

* Memorial services (especially since the event was nationally (internationally?) televised on CNN; event was held at the Apollo Theater and at the James Brown Arena; notable celebrities who attended event, esp. those that JB mentored through the years) (edit by →Lwalt ♦ talk 09:25, 13 August 2007 (UTC))

Although this article is already considered "long" (approaching 80K), this missing information is important for this article, and the information should be at least included in the article to in some form since these events were notable. In spite of this missing information, this article is the "featured article" on the Music Portal for February 2007. lwalt 09:52, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Psycho (1960 film)

This was the recent Cinema Colaboration of the Week, and has improved tremendously, mostly thanks to two dedicated users who worked away at the article tirelessly (I only made a few contributions here or there). Now that the CCOTW is over for this article, I thought I'd nominate it for general peer review to see if there's anything we missed, and to get some "outsider" opinions. Thanks, Green451 22:17, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

From SG

I started to review this article, and the first thing I encountered was the absurd tag from Wikipedia:WikiProject Extra-Long Article Committee. Since the article has only 38 KB prose (something the committee members don't seem to be calculating), I removed the tag. It has been reinstated. Good luck trying to write a well-cited article in under 30KB overall, as this committee wants. I guess you're stalled for now. If that gets resolved, I'll be glad to review, since it seems to be a well-referenced article. Sandy (Talk) 09:19, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

That seems to be resolved: I spent some time in the article, making adjustments for WP:LAYOUT, WP:MOS and footnote placement per WP:FN - where to place footnotes. I also consolidated some of the references, used more named refs, and removed some of the cite templates just to show how awkward they are (they result in irregular punctuation) and how much they chunk up the size. (Several of the templates were wrong: when you use cite web for a news source, the formatting comes out wrong - cite news should be used. Those all need to be checked.)

That's everything I saw in terms of article structure. On prose:

Good luck !! Sandy (Talk) 02:07, 13 December 2006 (UTC)


I think the article has some very good things and I'd love to see it made even better - it's a logical candidate for FAC at some point in the future. Well done on all the work done so far. These are my concerns:

Armia Krajowa

A GA clas article, on GA review and with a debate resurrected from mediation archive going on. Comments appreciated, regarding the GA status, current debate and anything else that you think can be added/improved in the article.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  00:02, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Note: replied to comments below in small font.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  03:11, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Cla68

I think it's a really good article. A few suggestions:

Improved, but we still can use more.
Expanded.
Done, although one user strongly objects, comments on talk page would be appreciated.

Cla68 02:41, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Kirill Lokshin

Quite nice, if a bit on the long side. Some general suggestions:

Lead expanded. I am not sure how to use the template in this case, though.
Improved.
Done.
4 see also is not to much, I'll see if the can be incorporated. The red ones, once stubbed, can almost certainly go into article.

Kirill Lokshin 02:57, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Yannismarou

Sentence removed. Copyediting for nicer prose is not one of my specialities, I am afraid.
Improved, per above.
When I find an English source, I'll, but per WP:RS non-English soruces are permitted; especially when (as in this case) this fragment is not disputed.
They had a nice article on this. Eventually I fully agree it should be replaced by English academic sources... but for now it's all we have.
NIE and Delegatura Sił Zbrojnych na Kraj were the two previous ones.
If we have a controversial fact, I try to reference the fact, not the sentence - especially when it contains information from many sources.
Stubbing all the time...
I think the first part was controversial some time ago, feel free to remove the ref though.
Clarified, I hope
I like it in the current format as it links back to the postwar section; it is important to note the connection between 'Relations with the Soviets' and 'Postwar history' sections.
This is mostly discussed in a subarticle now.

Slayer

This article is on the thrash metal band. I wish to bring this article up to FA standards and would like any input on the subject. As far as i can tell, its well referenced and layed out. I think the weakness is some of the wording and would like some help with that, thanks!. M3tal H3ad 12:07, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Underneath-it-All

I looked at other band FAs and chart peaks were written as you suggested, changed it in this. I also can't seem to find a decent picture of them with one of those CC licenses (best picture is under 'Christ illusion' section, Thanks for tips. M3tal H3ad 11:01, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
Just added a new picture under a CC license. It's not great but it will have to do for the article to get FA. M3tal H3ad 13:08, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
Looks good. Good luck with the article! Underneath-it-All 04:24, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Seegoon

I've given it a quick look, and here are the things I've noticed:

OK I said I had a quick look... in the end this took a fair while. However, some of what I've written might be complete nonsense or confusing. If you have trouble, just reply here or on my talk page. All in all, I hope some of this has been useful for you; a good band article is a rare thing on Wikipedia and needs all the TLC it can be afforded. Good luck with it. Seegoon 21:03, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, I've dealt with most of the problems(i hope), but there is still some choppy sentences. I still need to expand Diabolus, can't find any more information during that period . I also need a reference for South of heaven most successful album.
  • * "Reign in Blood", which has been labeled "the heaviest album of all time"" - needs citation. With this i have it referenced under the Reigning Blood section, is that ok or do i add one to the lead?
Once again thanks for all your help! :) M3tal H3ad 10:35, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
Hmm... I'm not sure about that. I'd read WP:CITE as a starting point, or ask a veteran Wikipedian. Besides that, I think the article looks a lot tidier now. It flows better too, and bears striking similarities with some GA and FA music articles. If you come unstuck in the future, just hit up my talk page and I'll do what I can. Seegoon 11:10, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
PS - "While opening for Bitch at the Woodstock Club in Los Angeles, Slayer were spotted by Brian Slagel, a former music journalist who had recently founded Metal Blade Records. Slagel convinced the band to record an original song "Aggressive Perfector",(sample (help·info))[3] for his upcoming Metal Massacre III compilation, released in July 1983. The song created underground buzz, and the band signed a recording contract with Metal Blade." - you say Metal Blade twice here, which is probably unnecessary, and both mentions are wikilinked, which is also extraneous. You're only really required to link the first mention of something. Besides that, the second wikilink is to the wrong article. Seegoon 11:13, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
Done. I think the weak section of the article is God hates us All and Christ illusion, lots of choppy sentences. I've done my best to try remove but it still needs work, if you could take another look i would greatly appreciate it. Also if you want any pointers to get Isis to GA status i will gladly help. M3tal H3ad 13:10, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Resetting the indent...

I know what you mean about those sections, they feel a little bit like information has been tacked on, one thing after another, as opposed to it all being written at once. With that in mind, here's my take on how it could be improved: "After delays regarding remixing and artwork,[28] including slip cover inserts being made to cover the original artwork after censorship issues, God Hates Us All was released on September 11, 2001. Promotional material announcing the album title and release date drew an unintended connection with the September 11 terrorist attacks. The title track "Disciple" received the band their first Grammy nomination, for "Best Metal Performance" on January 8, 2002; the award eventually went to Tool, for "Schism".[29] Drummer Bostaph left the band shortly after the album's release due to a chronic elbow injury, stating it would hinder his ability to play.[30] He was replaced by original drummer Dave Lombardo.[30]" I swear there was information about Walmart boycotting the cover in there before, too. You'll have to re-wikilink and re-reference, but I'm sure that wouldn't be too tough. As for the second paragraph: "The 2001 European tour Tattoo the Planet was jeopardized by the September 11 attacks. The tour was originally set to feature Pantera, Static X, Biohazard and Vision of Disorder, but dates had to be canceled or postponed due to flight restrictions, and some bands decided to withdraw, leaving only Slayer and Static X remaining for the European leg of the tour.[31] Pantera, Vision of disorder and Biohazard were replaced by Cradle of Filth and other bands dependant upon location; among those bands were Amorphis, In Flames, Moonspell, Children of Bodom and Necrodeath." I hope that's a little better, I can look at more later. As for Isis - just read through and if any of it sounds like shit, tell me! I know it's at 80% of its potential at best, it just needs a fresh set of eyes. Seegoon 16:53, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Changed a lot of wording, the second paragraph of Christ illusion is the only choppy section left (i hope). M3tal H3ad 09:40, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
I think WP:MUSIC asks that you put "(see 19xx in music)" after the more important years in the existence of a band. For instance, I'd put "(see 1982 in music)" after "In 1982", at the start of "Early days". Please don't put parenthetical (see whatevers) into the text - just link to the year in music. Nice ref work :-) Sandy (Talk) 00:34, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
I can't believe I'm correcting Sandy here of all Wikipedians, but sorry. Wikipedia:WikiProject_Music/MUSTARD/Internal_linking guideline two states (in full) "Do not use piped links to years in music (e.g., do not write: The Beatles Please Please Me came out in 1963). Instead, sparingly use parentheses after years mentioned in the article, such as The Beatles released Please Please Me in 1963 (see 1963 in music). In discography charts or other specialized forms, it is acceptable to use non-piped links to the 'year in music' articles. Generally avoid linking non-dated chronological items, such as "1988", "1920s" and "20th century"." There ya have it! Seegoon 17:15, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Yannsimarou

I love to review articles about bands! I'm sorry if I repeat what the other reviewers have suggested, but I do not have the time to read their remarks in detail. This is my review:

thanks,
  • What word would i use instead of 'labeled', called doesn't sound formal.
  • Characterized as, regarded as; personally, I also prefer called than labeled. But I cannot give you the best kind of advice here, since I am not a native English speaker. I just don't feel comfortmble with 'labeled' (don't take my opinion for definitely correct!). I remember that User:Tutmosis had recently written a nice FA about a musician K-os, and seems familiar with music terminology. You could advise him or even read the article to take some ideas.--Yannismarou 10:38, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
  • That quote is taken from Steve so do i mention that?
  • Not necessarily, if you put a citation where the quote ends.--Yannismarou 10:38, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
  • When mentioning slowing down material should i put slowed down the tempo?
  • It sounds better to me, but again per my answer in your first question.--Yannismarou 10:38, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
I'll add that citation later thanks for the pointers. M3tal H3ad 03:16, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
Done, done and done. Thanks M3tal H3ad 11:05, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
Just fixed the Grammy and terrorist paragraph by moving the mention of terrorist attacks to the tour which was jeopardized by it. M3tal H3ad 11:42, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Ohio Wesleyan University

On December 6th, DaveOinSF suggested that we go through a final peer review process for the article so that we can finalize improvements and get it to FA status. Thanks to several people and their extensive comments, we were able to improve the article tremendously from comments from the last FA nomination. Any further comments on what the remaining critical areas are will be greatly appreciated. WikiprojectOWU 03:06, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

From SG

From AZPR|AZ

From Ruhrfisch

I agree that this article represents a lot of work and has improved since I last looked at it. It is getting closer to FA, but there are still some issues that need to be addressed. I have made some of these comments on User:WikiprojectOWU's talk page already, but am copying the ones that are still applicable here and adding a few more observations.

From BS


2) The 2 most notable alumni are people the reader will almost certainly never have heard of, so the impression is left that nobody famous came from OWU, so why mention it in the lead? I think the paragraph would be stronger without that sentence. Having famous alums is not a key distinguishing feature of OWU (or most schools), anyway.


3) The second sentence in the third paragraph sounds like it is explaining how the 200 acres were calculated. It weakens the otherwise key points in the paragraph, so I would drop it. Details about the campus can be included below.
Thanks! Bob schwartz 02:29, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

From Senators

I am not so familiar with that university, in fact I don’t even know were Ohio is (I am from Australia) but the article looks good.

But I am worried about all those footnotes, are you sure there is not any repeated lines. There needs to be more pictures of the college itself, and please can we make the article “user friendly” what that means make the article more understandable so it invites the readers in for more. Sorry I didn’t have time to spell check the article but I will try in the future. Could you please (when you get time) check over my article Ford BA Falcon I am trying to get it to Good article status. Recommend my article to your other reviewers. SenatorsTalk | Contribs 22:11, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

From bobanny

Looks good – obviously a lot of work has been poured into this thing. Its main weaknesses seem to be problems typical of an article that has had a lot of editors in its development, i.e., it’s a bit clunky in some areas that should be smoothed out and has some consistency problems. The content generally seems to be all there, but it still needs a bit of elbow grease.

Good luck with this and congrats on how far you’ve already come with this article, Bobanny 10:33, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

From Nick Mks

Following the request at my talk page, I took a look at this article, even though its subject is not my speciality. My remarks:

That's it for now. Maybe I'll throw in some more later. Nick Mks 18:07, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

From Lovelac7

Hope you had a good holiday. Here's a few quick comments, in random order. I'll add more later if I think of anything:

That's all I've got for now. It's getting late here in Samoa, so I'll talk to you more later. Lovelac7 11:28, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

From Bluedog423

Here are suggestions I left on the user's talk page on December 25, 2006 after performing a brief copyedit of the History section. I am copying it here so that it is more readily available for everybody else since most of these issues have not been addressed:

  • 1.) Footnotes come at the end of punctuation. See Wikipedia:Citing_sources#Footnotes_come_after_punctuation. Sometimes, there is a reference cited in the middle of a sentence without any punctuation. I personally like them at the end of sentences instead of after a comma because it just looks messy, but it doesn't seem to be against the manual to put them after commas. But definitely can't just be after a word.
  • Fixed. WikiprojectOWU 07:10, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
  • 2.) The profile section is a bit too long. Mainly, the details about Ph.D. graduates are really not that important. People care more about things like aspects of the student body. Also, an entire paragraph that includes quotes (which definitely aren't interesting at all and thus ought to be paraphrased even if they were significant) about females in academia is completely unnecessary and harms the focus of the section. OWU stats are not even that much different than the national stats, so I would consider dumping that whole paragraph. Things like SAT averages are not even mentioned, and that's the kind of stuff people who read the article care about. Also, the information under student life should probably be under the profile section, as it is a profile of the student body.
  • I fixed that section and moved the text from student life into this one. WikiprojectOWU 07:24, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
  • 3.) Don't start sentences with numerals. e.g. "59% of Ohio Wesleyan students" should instead begin "Fifty-nine percent...."
  • Fixed.WikiprojectOWU 07:14, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
  • 4.) The student life lead section is very choppy and is a bombardment of facts at times. Try to make it more cohesive and flowing.
  • I tried to improve it but if it still needs work, let me know. WikiprojectOWU 19:37, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
  • 5.) When you are quoting something you use "quotation marks" not italics.
    • Fixed. WikiprojectOWU 07:24, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
  • 6.) You don't need to provide a source to state that something exists. You need references to back up claims. In this following example, the references add nothing except now we can be certain that they exist, yay: "The Daily Bulletin[125] is the student-run daily bulletin. Other student publications include the weekly The Transcript,[126] the electronic Connect2OWU,[127] @Wesleyan,[128] an online magazine published four times a year, and several academic publications, such as The Civic Arts Review[129] and The Historian,[130] a journal of contemporary and relevant historical scholarship." If you say something like, "The Transcript has a daily readership of 5,000" then that should be cited. But merely stating that it exists doesn't require a reference.
  • I removed these references. Thanks for the suggestion. WikiprojectOWU 19:37, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Fixed. WikiprojectOWU 08:15, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
  • 7.) Sports are not capitalized. e.g. chess, hockey, skiing, etc. I shouldn't be finding things like this at this point.
  • Fixed.WikiprojectOWU 07:26, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
  • 8.) Alumni section is still a bit choppy. Consists of short, stubby paragraphs.
  • Fixed. WikiprojectOWU 02:51, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
  • 9.) Organizations and activities still seems like a list. I'd suggest to choose the most significant things and expand on them slightly. What impacts the most OWU students? That's what should be focused on.
  • I took a first stab at this. WikiprojectOWU 03:24, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
  • 10.) Going along with my point 9, things that impact very few students probably don't deserve mentioning. Although sometimes it is appropriate to give a brief summary of a few representative organizations; and I can deal with that. Likewise, aspects that are mundane probably can be deleted too. For example, do we really need an entire paragraph stating that commencement exists? Probably not. Is a sentence about midnight breakfast really necessary? We have that at my school, too. Does that really add anything to the article? I think there are a lot of random organizations mentioned and facts presented that can be deleted. Add more subarticles if you want to have this information somewhere. This article is supposed to include the most imperative things about OWU. If you had 15 minutes to explain OWU to somebody, what would you include? I do not think it would be that the Pell grant averages are similar to "Vassar College, Reed College, Colorado College and Hampshire College.[113]" Things like that are not important. Stating the percentage is fine, but anymore than that is beating it over the head. Plus, naming those colleges tell us nothing as they could have been hand selected. If you said this is among the highest 100 institutions in the nation, that actually gives us information.
  • I removed some of the unnecessarily mundane traditions. Same with some of the student organizations. BryanD reworded the Pell Grant discussion, so let me know if it still further work. WikiprojectOWU 19:37, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
  • 11.) Flow is sometimes an issue. The article should be telling the reader a story that they can easily read from start to finish. The main sections that need improvement in this regard are "Organizations and activities" and "Traditions."
  • I read the entire article to watch for flow. Where necessary, I made changes. If there are specific examples that jump out at you, let me know. WikiprojectOWU 19:37, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
  • 12.) Also, the lead could probably be a bit longer for an article of this size. A couple of more sentences would be appropriate. Maybe include a sentence about activism or traditions or the profile something. Those seem to have more information in the text than recent construction, for example. The lead is supposed to summarize the article; not add new information. Everything contained in the lead should be contained with the text of the article as well (I may have been at fault at this point, though, in my article too; but you should strive to be even better than past FA's!)
  • I added a sentence a few days back about academics and I will another one regarding activism, traditions or profile something. Thank you again for your very helpful suggestions!WikiprojectOWU 19:37, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Ok, that's it for now. Good luck again! -Bluedog423Talk 03:16, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
-Posted by/on Bluedog423Talk 19:17, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Angevin Empire

I would like this article to be improved as much as it could, it has been suggested that with improvements it could be a candidate to be a featured article, since I'll have more time this week I can work on improvement with suggestion. As my first article it is unlikely that it goes that way though. Matthieu 12:47, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Kirill Lokshin

This is quite nice, but it still needs quite a bit of work to be ready for a smooth FAC:

Keep up the good work! Kirill Lokshin 18:01, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

I moved the introduction to a new section about the name and the way it is applied. As well contemporary views on the structure, it is therefore expanded, I frankly don't see what can be added on this specific topic now. There is a new (very brief) introduction too.
I may add a "further reading" section to complement the footnotes. I have also added some citations and notes, I'll do more as time goes on.
Sorry for the grammatical mistakes, well as I said English is not my first language. If there is an English language buff that wants to help he is welcome.
Matthieu 15:47, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
About the citations, if you could indicate me which points seem contestable or will attract controveries I will dig quotes, but I think there are a lot in the notes already. I tried to give more weight to the areas which would be contested (these relatives to the nature of power of the Angevin Empire, its structure and the political weight, as well as the hommages and things that would attract debates have been given notes). Matthieu 14:15, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
It's not so much anything in particular (or, more precisely, I don't know enough about the topic to be able to give a good analysis of which points are controversial), but rather a general sense that a reader ought to be able to go to any point in the article and find a (reasonably close-by) citation for the statements there. There's no specific requirement for a certain density (see the project guideline); but having at least a citation for every paragraph is often a good rule of thumb. Kirill Lokshin 16:21, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
I think I have quoted everything that could raise questions or controversies really. From now I hardly something that can require more attention than the rest, but I'll keep watching Matthieu 23:42, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Raymond

Just some additional things (apart from the grammar) that will need attention:

Commas are fine, eg But by October the new Count of Toulouse, Raymond VI, left the Capetian side . . .

Not too bad, but as Kirill said, it will need a bit of close attention to the prose. Raymond Palmer 01:33, 13 December 2006 (UTC)


Sorry, the map is not of my fact :P but yeah it's annoying. Matthieu 22:40, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Bukvoed

Bukvoed 17:13, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Neuro-linguistic programming

We have made adjustments to the page based on feedback from peer review and cleanup taskforce. We would like some suggestions on how to take this closer to GA or FA standard. Otherwise, how we could encourage experienced wikipedians to assist us in the process. --Comaze 22:30, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

I've started a list of articles related to NLP that have been indexed in pubmed: Talk:Neuro-linguistic programming/Peer reviewed sources. I've also added AAT for dissertation and DOI for those indexed by psychinfo, etc. --Comaze 22:07, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
Of the peer-reviewed articles indexed in psychinfo, only a very small percentage hold the view that NLP is a pseudoscience. On the contrary most authors argue strongly for further research. Would you characterise your POV as positivist? Are you referring to a specific applications of NLP, for example, to the mental health profession? --Comaze 11:43, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks SandyGeorgia for the timely 'hint'! So far our biggest job has been checking that the sources were remotely accurate or even existed at all. Now we need to attend to weight.Fainites 20:51, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Jamestown, Kansas

I'm looking for further ideas of the types of information that would be good to add to this article and general review. I'm working on seveal small-town articles at this time: this one, Concordia, Kansas and Detroit, Kansas.

Something that looks like a redirect at the end of the education section should probably be removed. --Banana04131 23:00, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
I think something needs to be here, but I'm not sure what to put. THe high school was called the "Jamestown Jayhawks" and there is a Jamestown College that also goes by the name "Jamestown Jayhawks" -- to further complicate things, the college claims that it was founded by students from Jamestown High School. Now here's the problem: There are two different Jamestwon High Schools. I'd like to make sure that people doing research do not confuse the two. What is the best way to handle that??--Paul McDonald 15:02, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Generation Swine

I've done a complete re-write of this article and hope it qualifies as a featured article. All facts are referenced, and I've worked hard removing POV and incorrect statements from the page. Darwin's Bulldog 03:52, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Some areas that may need addressing:

Those are my suggestions, improving on them should help the article.++aviper2k7++ 00:47, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Hi, I've done some tweeking as suggested. Citation 4 is a reference to most of the music being written while Corabi was in the band, as said in the album's liner notes. Darwin's Bulldog 09:55, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Bully (video game)

I love this game. So I felt might as well see what I could do to the article. This article really is a mess though and I've no idea what to do. Buc 22:44, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Let's see if I can help.

References, references, references should be added. The entire article is original research and should be improved. It shouldn't be too hard to find sources for everything due to the numerous amount of reviews on the game. These are some of my opinions of suggestions, not necessarily what must happen.++aviper2k7++ 01:52, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Hurricane Danny (1997)

This is already a good article, and has been one since August of this year. I and 3 other users have edited it since than, and I would like to know some feedback to further improve the article. I, or someone if they wish before me, am considering making the article a featured candidate fairly soon. Hello32020 21:34, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Lots of random things.

  1. Find a better infobox pic, maybe one later in the article
  2. Find a damage pic. There might not be any PD ones, though you could still try and email people to get one.
  3. Longer lede.
  4. Any more storm history? More explaination would be nice.
  5. More impact. It should be organized with one paragraph of meteorological details, then successive paragraphs on state by state impact. NCDC reports would most likely help in the state by state coverage. Also, did the tornadoes cause any damage?
  6. Any aftermath?
  7. Records should either be expanded or merged with another topic.
  8. More research in general. There are only 6 references. Other WPTC FA's generally have many more than that.

Hurricanehink (talk) 21:45, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Snow leopard

I really want to make this a featured article, so please tell me what I need to do. Daniel10 15:09, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

This article is well on the way. It needs two or possibly three paragraphs in the lead which should summarise the important points and be expanded upon later in the article. In this article I'd move the history of its changing genus back and forth between Panthera and Uncia into the main article somewhere as it doesn't really belong in the startoff bit. So I'd put in a heading Classification somewhere down the article and put it there. Habitat and distribution need to be expanded, also there could be more on behaviour - how long do they live? how many cubs do they have? If the information is unknown then list it as unknown (by science in general that is). Also make sure material is in the correct place - I generally make a Heading Behaviour and have subeahdings like diet within it. I am not sure the list of conservation events should be there near the end of the article, but I don't have a strong opinion on it one way or the other. Finally, many articles on animals have more references. There may not be many more useful ones but if I were nominating this as an FA then I'd want more (I'm feeling slightly anxious at only having 43 with Diplodocus cheers Cas Liber 20:43, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
PS: Forgot to add that this - Wikipedia:What is a featured article? - may be helpful.Cas Liber 20:46, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Captain Falcon

Currently GA status. Anymore room for improvement? Specifically to get this to FA status or should it just be listed now as a FAC? FullMetal Falcon 17:10, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

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

You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, JACOPLANE • 2007-01-11 15:07 15:07, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Daniel Rodriguez

This article has had a very difficult birth. It was created by new editors who didn't understand Wikipedia policies, and was the subject of some fierce edit wars. I have given it a thorough cleaning, and would now like some feedback about improvements. One criticism has been that it reads more like a press release than an article. I don't agree, but perhaps I have lost my objectivity in the editing process. I would appreciate suggestions for how to expand it, and also what can be trimmed to make it more encyclopedic. Lastly, it has also been suggested that it is over-referenced, and that the amount of referencing and the quality of the sources, taken together, are "unintentionally hilarious". So a critical look at the references would be in order, in my opinion. Thank you for your time and feedback. Jeffpw 10:56, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't think it looks like a press release, it seems pretty good to me. Minor suggestions:
  • "He has now recorded several albums, appeared in opera, in symphony concerts, and performs in support of several charities" - bit choppy and would work better as a triad, could it be "...opera and symphony concerts,..."?
  • "a prominent figure in the New York music industry" - I'm assuming you don't know the person's name, otherwise it's a bit odd
No, the name was not given in the source. I agree an actual name would be better, but could not find it, myself. The sourced used as a ref uses a similar construction. Jeffpw 16:50, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
  • "May of 2004", "June of 2006" and any others I missed - the "of" is redundant, so don't use it
  • Check the article for odd punctuation or positioning of refs (I found a few and corrected them, but there may be more) - refs should come after the punctuation mark but with no gap
Not sure why the sourcing is "unintentionally hilarious", it seems alright. And over-referencing is hardly a deficiency of the article (although any more than 3 cites for a non-controversial issue would be perhaps overdoing it). My only other suggestion would be to try to find a picture of him at one of the more important events. Trebor 16:32, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for your time in reviewing this, Trebor, and for your constructive feedback. Jeffpw 16:50, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
(Edit conflict) I would appreciate if this request for peer review were put on hold for at least a week. This article has no stability, and all edits made to it are intensely and often inappropriately edited by an editor, who while possibly meaning well, has been hostile to 3 prior editors who tried to make improvements to the article. In addition this user created 7 or 8 sockpuppet accounts, now blocked, to facilitate this hostility. Jeff has done a lot of good work on the aritlce, but I think allowing it to breathe for a week would do it no harm, and could potentially lead to a better relationship among editors who edit it in the future. I think it would be unfair for anyone to step in and PR the article only to meet with revertions and potentially being attacked. This is not an assumption of bad faith on my part, I think people can change. But I think that when things are heated up adding new people into the broth is not as good an idea as waiting until the broth has cooled well below the boiling point. Could this simply be withdrawn for a week, then be reposted? KP Botany 16:34, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
I certainly understand your concerns, KPBotany, given the article's development. I personally don't see any harm in having a Peer review as this is a separate page used solely for feedback from the community to improve the article. However, if you would like to withdraw this, I have no objections. Jeffpw 16:51, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Zhou Tong (monk)

I've added a great deal more info to the page. I know one major issue is the "Notes and References" secton. I realize that they are supposed to be separate. (Ghostexorcist 11:58, 26 December 2006 (UTC))

Would you care to elaborate on which links these are? (Ghostexorcist 22:55, 26 December 2006 (UTC))
Here are some examples:
Kaldari 23:06, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
Ok, I get what your a saying now. I thought you meant the material on those webpages were not very good sources. You meant that I needed to elongate the description so people will know what they are about to be linked to. I'll rename them. (Ghostexorcist 00:04, 27 December 2006 (UTC))

I would like to see someone rewrite the part of the Fictional section which details Zhou tong's character in Yue Fei's fictional biography. I wrote it in a rush and now that I read it, it seems really choppy. Could someone do this without deleting any of the original material? (Ghostexorcist 12:28, 27 December 2006 (UTC))

-------------------------------------------

It doesn't look like anyone cares about this article, but I'm putting my thoughts on here for possible feedback. Because I use two different Yue Fei biographies, it can get confusing when I refer to one in one sentence and then the other in the next. So, my proposal is to link all the biography names back to the sections of the article which describes them. This way, when a person gets confused, they can link back to either section which says "historical" or "fictional". They will know the difference. Thoughts?(Ghostexorcist 21:08, 29 December 2006 (UTC))

Mary Wollstonecraft

This article has been rewritten from scratch due to plagarism issues. The current version should hopefully meet all of the Featured Article criteria. It has already been approved as a Good Article and has improved even more since then. The referencing and comprehensiveness are excellent. I'm mainly looking for problems in the prose, i.e. discontinuities, confusing passages, awkward wording, etc. Broader suggestions regarding organization and emphasis are certainly welcome as well. No automated suggestions please. Kaldari 04:59, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Hello again. Taking another look at the article, I'm impressed by how far you've come since my GA review at the beginning of the month. I'm not sure how much help I'll be, since I've already gone over it once, but here goes:
  • Examine the prose for unnecessary words. As an example, a sentence in the lead reads: "In addition to Wollstonecraft's literary work, her life itself has been a topic of considerable interest due to her struggle against numerous hardships and her unconventional, and often tumultuous, relationships." This could be rewritten: "Wollstonecraft's life has been a topic of interest to [historians? scholars? feminists?] because of the hardships she faced and her unconventional, and often tumultuous, relationships." The introductory phrase is not needed because the preceding and succeeding paragraphs deal with her literary work; "itself" is not needed; "considerable" is something of a weasel word and not needed; "numerous" is not needed. If you would like, I'd be happy to offer to copyedit for these instances -- I know firsthand how difficult it can be to see them in your own writing -- but it might take me some time to do so.
    • I added the introductory phrase ("In addition to Wollstonecraft's literary work") as an afterthought to try to make the transition between the two paragraphs flow better, but I suppose it's really not needed. Your wording seems much cleaner, so I'll try to switch to something closer to that. I'll look through the rest of it as well and try to clean out any unnecessary words. Let me know if you notice any other passages in particular.
  • More proofreading stuff: minor grammar and punctuation issues. For instance, "Her early advocacy of women's equality, and her attacks on..." shows an unnecessary comma. There doesn't seem to be a lot of this, though.
    • Noted. I'll try to proofread for this...
  • More examples of awkward phrasing, redundancy, or weasel words, from the Early Life section: "he appears to have been a violent man", "Wollstonecraft also played this protective maternal role for her sisters, Everina and Eliza, throughout her life.", "she convinced and helped her sister Eliza", "With this action, Wollstonecraft demonstrated that she was willing to challenge social norms, but the human costs were severe: her sister was doomed to a life of poverty and hard work (as she could not remarry) as well as social condemnation.", "Wollstonecraft credited Fanny with opening her mind to new possibilities; in the end, though, she discovered that she had idealized Fanny, but she remained dedicated to her and her family.", "Fanny had become engaged and after her husband, Hugh Skeys, took her to the continent to improve her health,[6] she became pregnant and her health worsened; Wollstonecraft followed in 1785 to nurse her."
    • Great examples. You should be a professional editor :)
    • This is exactly the kind of thing that was getting me down before.

1) "appears to have been" is necessary because we have only Wollstonecraft's word for it 2) "throughout her life" emphasizes Wollstonecraft's life-long efforts to financially and emotionally assist her sisters (although sometimes this was unwelcome help) 3) "convinced" and "helped" do not mean the same thing 4) Wollstonecraft's relationships were not simple and cannot be explained simply nor do I think her relationship with Fanny should be explained this way. "First, Wollstonecraft credited Fanny with opening her mind to new possibilities. Then, Wollstonecraft realized she had idealized Fanny. Finally, Wollstonecraft remainded dedicated to Fanny and her family despite that realization." Awadewit 18:57, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

  • "The First of a New Genus" -- All words in the section header except the first should be lowercased, unless they were capitalized in the quote. The quoted text in the body of the section doesn't share the capitalization, so I assume they were not. The same is true of "Memoirs" and "Works" in the respective section headers.
    • Fixed.
Why is this? I would think that section headings would be capitalized in this way to draw attention to them. Most American publishing companies use this capitalization style in subheadings. Cambridge University Press, a British publishing company, for example, uses the lower case version and it is usually associated with them. Awadewit 18:57, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
This is just Wikipedia convention. I'm not sure where it first came from. Kaldari 19:12, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Add ISBNs to the "Further Reading" and "References" where possible. Add "accessed on" dates to any weblinks.
    • Will do.
  • In general, go through the manual of style and make sure the article follows it pretty closely. I think it does, but I might be missing something. Shimeru 04:46, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
    • Thanks for all your suggestions! They are all extremely helpful. Kaldari 07:34, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Mötley Crüe (album)

I've done a complete revision on this article and would like to have a peer look over it for the possiblity of having it nominated as a featured article. All of the facts have been referenced, and I've tried to make sure that no POV or incorrect statements exist. Darwin's Bulldog 03:48, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Hi there. Some suggestions:
  • The lead section is too short. Try to expand it to at least two more paragraphs.
  • If a date includes month and day, you should link them and don't pipe the year in music. For example: ...album released on 15 March, 1994 (see 1994 in music).
  • Add a few more professional reviews, see WP:ALBUM in the section Review sites.
  • Music genres such as hard rock and glam metal shouldn't be capitalized.
  • In the track listing, use an en dash (–) rather than a hyphen (-).
  • In the personnel section, link to the instruments on first occurrence, for example:
  • There's some unreferenced paragraphs. See the album review on the AllMusic Guide.
I think there's nothing more. Maybe the article is too short for a WP:FA, so you might want to expand it a little bit. Cheers. No-Bullet (Talk • Contribs) 00:40, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
  • There is a Rolling Stone review of the album here, if you want to incorporate. + Ceoil 22:54, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
Nice adds! The article's lookin' better, I appreciate the help. Darwin's Bulldog 06:28, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
I don't see that it has to be laid out with "Album" as a header and "Background", "Recording" and "Reaction" as sub-headers. I'd make them full headers. Illmatic is often seen as one of the best album pages on Wikipedia, so I'd have a look at that for guidance. For a great article not on a rap album, see 1987 (What the Fuck Is Going On?). Seegoon 19:13, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

USS Missouri (BB-63)

First Peer Review Second Peer Review

By accidentall oversight its been more than two years since this article has seen any type of community attention, so I am submitting this article for Peer Review ahead of a needed FAR to address any issues that may need to be fixed. TomStar81 (Talk) 22:39, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Patar knight

Alright, pretty good article. Couple of minor suggestions:

Good job on this article, and good luck on the FAR. --Patar knight - chat/contributions 00:09, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Christopher C. Kraft, Jr.

This article achieved GA status at the beginning of December and I am hoping to nominate it as a FAC shortly. As such, I would welcome any comments and suggestions for improvement. There are two particular areas on which I would welcome outside opinions. One, how does the lead look to readers who are unfamiliar with the subject, and does it need more context? It would be difficult to overemphasise Kraft's importance to the history of manned space exploration, but I didn't want to belabor the point too much. Two, does the article seem to be drawn too much from Kraft's autobiography? The reviewer at GA stage thought that it did. Since then, I have made some changes, and the article references thirty sources in total, but I would like to know how it looks. MLilburne 16:24, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Yannismarou

One of the main reasons I really enjoy reviewing articles is because I have the chance to read amazing, almost flawless, articles like this one (and your previous FA). My only problem in these cases is that I do not have mush to suggest! These are my remarks:

History of Ohio Wesleyan University

I would like to get comments on what to include and how to improve the article. WikiprojectOWU 01:36, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

  1. Top picture w/ logo needs to be taken or edited out because of blurriness.
  2. Opening paragraph doesn’t flow well and has some grammatical errors. The “but Augusta was…” sentence starts off kind of weird.
  3. The Founder section is kind of choppy. When I started reading that section I got totally lost. I was wondering why that section went back that far. There are also a bunch of grammatical errors in that section as well.
I don’t have time to go through the rest of it, but maybe I’ll check it out later. RENTASTRAWBERRY FOR LET? röck 01:45, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

HAve to go... will review more later on.Balloonman 18:44, 29 December 2006 (UTC)


Flag of Armenia

I need feedback on how to make this article featured. I believe most of the work is done already, but reviewing wouldn't hurt. In this review, I just want to make sure that everything's done to meet FA requirements. Thank you, --Crzycheetah 20:52, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

I would provide sources on where you get the RGB colors from on both of the national flag images at Flag_of_Armenia#Design. Other than that, I believe this article is ready for FAC. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 21:13, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Response: The RGB colors were found here first, but then as Smjg mentioned, it contradicted with the colors of the flag we have here at Wikipedia; therefore he changed it.--Crzycheetah 23:02, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
One more thing, the flag is heavily mentioned in Mer Hayrenik, the national anthem of Armenia. I would also mention what flags were inspired by the Armenian flag, including the Flag of Nagorno-Karabakh. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 21:21, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Response: And you would be right to do all that. I'll work on it.--Crzycheetah 23:02, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
It strikes me that a little explanation is required regarding the common and less common versions of the flags. Is there a rationale for using the one or the other? Is it geography? Is it happenstance? And is that rationale citable anywhere? I'm also interested in the fact that there are only two versions. Is there any history over this? If so I think it would enhance the article. Fiddle Faddle 21:32, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Response: A lot of organizations use the "more common" version" including Armenian Government. At the same time, there are places where "less common" version is used, for instance, there is one flying on the building of Armenian Embassy in the US. I haven't found anything to cite all this, but I thought it should be mentioned in the article that there are two versions. There is no third version found, yet. --Crzycheetah 23:02, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
I like it so far but I believe that, yes, we should mention Mer Hayrenik and include the Karabakh flag as well as references where needed. I think we also need to go into further detail on the ancient flags of Armenia than we presently do. -- Clevelander 22:01, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
The historical flags seem fine to me, but I would discuss more of the current flags of Armenia. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 22:25, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Response:I also think that there is suffiecient info on historical flags in the article, but I can add a gallery of several ancient flags.--Crzycheetah 23:02, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
I looked through some of the current flags and most are not based off of the tricolor, except the two that we mentioned. I will drop that. I also added in the Mer Hayrenik statement myself (I have it playing in my headphones now, very pretty anthem). If historic flags are what you are wishing, I could fire up Inkscape tomorrow and see what kind of magic I can do. I would probably need some more time on the Armenian font when I do the Armenia SSR flags. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 10:19, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

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

You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, SenatorsTalk | Contribs 05:36, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

The Cat and the Canary (1927 film)

I wrote this article from scratch. I created the stub in June 2006 and largely ignored it until recently. Finding sources that discussed this article was difficult, so along with general comments about the article, if anyone can point to any other sources, primary (reviews, etc.) or academic, please do so. I plan on nominating this article for FA in the future. Note I patterned this article after other FA film article's I've written (Halloween (film), Halloween II, Halloween III: Season of the Witch, and Night of the Living Dead), so some aspects of this article will be stylistically similar to them, such as the absence of a list of cast members. Dmoon1 15:24, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Kirby: Right Back at Ya!

I've added a lot to this article in the past several months, but I'm having trouble thinking of how to improve it furthur. I have the basics covered at least, but what else needs to be done to get the article a higher assessment? Ivyna J. Spyder 09:21, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

I think that the Changes made in the 4Kids Version section could be integrated with other parts of the article. I also think that you should merge the Cast list into the character section as WikiProject Anime and manga states that people who do voices should be included in character sections. The image placement is disturbing the text in some parts of the article on the left margin. I think that the main characters descriptions could be more concise. For each point made for Kibry, for example, you need to reword it so that you get to that point and then move on - you need only to mention that Kirby is a baby once.
Your prose needs working on. "Some plot aspects are changed or removed entirely" could be reworded to "There are plot aspects that have been changed or removed entirely" as one example. You have too many additives in the article. Use find and replace to search for them and remove them. Start with "also". The word also should hardly be used throughout the article. See User:Tony1/How_to_satisfy_Criterion_2a#Eliminating_redundancy for other terms like that. --Squilibob 03:22, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
Thanks to much :D I'll definitely go with your suggestions. Ivyna J. Spyder 05:05, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Human rights in Syria

I need some help from other's interested in this subject expanding and cleaning up this article. Please edit and contribute. Thanks frummer 09:02, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

hmmmmmmmmm. Right now it should be titled, "The United States' view of HR in Syria." Not that it's necessarily wrong, but some broader sources will be necessary to make it more objective.Kaisershatner 15:39, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
See here: [4] for some other articles to use as comparison. No idea yet if they are any better, but here's the source.Kaisershatner 15:49, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Coil (band)

I would like comments that might help in eventually making this an A article. --AlexOvShaolin 17:27, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

I didn't read the whole article. Some suggestions:
  • Use the Redirect template as hatnote.
  • Erase the years of formation and disbanding on parentheses. Coil is not a person, so you may want to include those dates as text on the lead.
  • Some users don't like lists, so you maybe want to convert them to prose.
  • The article needs some more references. The first six paragraphs doesn't have any.
  • I personally don't like when a small article has so many sections. Try to make some subsections.
  • he external links section needs to be cleaned up a little. Try to include only official websites of the band members.
Hope that helped. Cheers. No-Bullet (Talk • Contribs) 04:53, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
My views:

I hope some of this helped. Seegoon 23:52, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanx for the input so far, i plan to edit the article extensively tomorrow, then if you guys are willing, maybe expand on the points i missed. --AlexOvShaolin 03:31, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Of course - if anything's confusing or you get unstuck, reply here or on my talk page and I'll do what I can. Seegoon 23:56, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Alright, i feel like i have grazed over everything mentioned, so if anyone has specific and in depth criticisms, please explain them, I can tell this article needs more work, but other than expanding the "Late Coil" section, nothing is coming to mind. --AlexOvShaolin 00:02, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Medzhybizh

This article has been greatly expanded today and I am thinking of nominating it for FA. I think a general review would be helpful.--Natl1 14:54, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

First up - a bigger lead with 2 paragraphs which summarise important points. Then as above..Cas Liber 04:48, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Ebionites

Ebionites has had a peer review by Wikipedia editors which is now archived. This second peer review should focus only on the changes needed to bring it up to FA standards if it isn't already. --Loremaster 01:16, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Aqua Teen Hunger Force

Reasons for a peer review:

- This article has a wealth of various information, and has the potential and fanbase to become a featured article

- This is a show on a major cable network, and has a good deal of popularity.

- Illuminator of the Truth 16:55, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Well you could expand the Film section, and add a lot more references. Expand the story so far in the List of Episodes section, and merge all trivia. Wiki-newbie 17:04, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, you need more references. Also, either expand the 'Episodes' and 'The Movie' sections or move the ((main)) links to the 'See Also' section.--NMajdan•talk 20:14, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Everything Master Shake throws seems to explode except for tennis rackets and chainsaws.

Portal:United States Navy

I have put the portal up for peer review for a couple of reasons one, it's my first portal and I would like to get thoughts on it and two I would like in the future to put the portal up for featured once I maintain it for a while. --Wilsbadkarma 19:01, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Kirill Lokshin

Off to a good start. A variety of potential improvements, though:

Keep up the good work! Kirill Lokshin 22:30, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

  • Ok I have made some major updates. Starting with rotating content for Article, Picture, Quotes, Bio, Equipment, and today. I have added credits to all images in the rotation. I have added an extensive list of topics, as well as a tab to categories. I have not only included a link to WP:USMIL I have give it and other related Military History Task forces their own related project section, I set up the requested articles to use a hide, show box on the main page so all those red links wouldn't automatically display, I also created a Projects and Tasks tab so that the requested projects could be displayed more prominently without cluttering up the main page with red links. The only thing that I'm still working on is to add more articles to the rotation. Currently I have between 5 and 15 articles in the rotations depending on the article type. Let me know what you think of the changes. --Wilsbadkarma 01:40, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Looks excellent! The portal should be ready to be a featured portal candidate; while more articles in the rotation would be good, the queues are large enough at this point that it ought to be able to pass even without further additions. Kirill Lokshin 01:59, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Tom Cool

I reviewed the portal and followed several links. I'm not familiar with portal design standards, so my review should be taken with a grain of salt, but I think this portal is excellent. It has a crisp, clean presentation. The content featured on the portal is interesting and pertinent. The links to naval topics, while not comprehensive, are wide-ranging and useful. I'd add some more major topic links, such as List of United States Navy ships. One small suggestion: the colors chosen for the portal don't appear very "Navy", except for the "Navy blue", which people associate with the Navy, although the Navy itself doesn't make use of it. (Since our "Service Dress Blues," in fact, are black.) You might want to play around with the colors and see if you can get an appearance that is as refined, but more "Navy." For example, you could pick colors from Navy insignia such as

these trusty Commander insignia.

Just an idea. Overall, I'd say good job. I mean, bravo zulu! Tomcool

I stand corrected! And my appreciation for your work has risen even higher. Tomcool 21:06, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Battle of Svolder

I've been working on this article for a long time now, a fresh perspective would be welcome. Haukur 08:46, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

The only thing that bugs me is the lack of final -r's in the nominative case, but that is a matter of taste. As far as I am concerned the article is ready for FA status. I hope that you will make the same kind of improvements with the Battle of the Helgeå ;-).--Berig 21:34, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
I agree with your taste, I'd prefer to use Óláfr Tryggvason etc. but I thought using some Anglicization convention for the royals would be a reasonable compromise to make the article more palatable to some people (see its talk page). The extant sources on the Battle of the Holy River are scarcer and even more confusing than those on the Battle of Svolder, so a FA candidate on the former would be much more history and much less literature than the latter. Would be interesting to work on but I don't think I'll have the needed energy to pour into another FA candidate soon. Thanks for commenting! Haukur 00:31, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Ernest Emerson

I've been working on this one article on Ernest Emerson for a bit and feel it's time to have it reviewed. I have more pictures enroute...just need some thoughts or areas for improvement, one reader thought it may be too technical one other very negative editor called it "crap". I'd like to see this as a featured article someday!

Thanks --Mike Searson 22:23, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

From SG

Why is this page noincluded, and why isn't it shown as a link on the talk page of the article? The peer review should be linked on the article talk page.

Allright, I found the link - darn stupid talk page templates, cluttering up the page, and you have to hit show to know it's there - that's not good. Sandy (Talk) 14:47, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Some responses from my talk page:

I understand the problem, Mike - the other editor was saying that the article didn't establish notability, or more specifically, bio notability - you should carefully read those two pages, as any editor can put an article up for WP:Prod or WP:AfD if notability isn't established in the article. Some of your sources aren't complete, and some of them may fail notability. So, while we're on your sources, they should all include author, article title, and publication date, when available - and they should be correctly formatted and in a consistent style throughout the article. Looking at the six sources you used in the lead - and showing you how to correctly format them (if there is no author, you can delete, but we must have article name and pub date):

The next question is whether you need these sources in the lead - the answer is no. Pls have a look at WP:LEAD for guidance on what the lead should be/do. Extraordinary facts are often sourced in the lead, but generally, the lead is a summary of facts already sourced elsewhere in the article. Seeing six sources on one statement in the lead is highly unusual and unnecessary. If you feel you must have one source in the lead to establish notability, I found one for you that should work (you can edit my page and edit copy, edit paste these sources into ref tags in your article):

I see you've used that source, but not formatted it correctly. The statements in that source - which could be quoted - establish notability ("sets the standard for combat folders", "edged weapons guru", and "makes the most sought after custom knives in the tactical world" are certainly enough to establish notability) - that one source could be used in your lead (and your lead needs to be expanded to meet WP:LEAD). You can remove the other sources from your lead, and use them in the article where necessary.

I also see you haven't learned how to use named refs when you refer to the same ref more than once. You name the ref on its first occurrence, and then just refer to that name on subsequent occurrences, so that all of those footnotes summarize into one line - you can read about that on WP:FN - let me know if you need help.

Another thing - don't use Ibid in Wiki - if another editor in the future inserts new text in between, ibid becomes invalidated - use named refs instead, to make all instances of one source point to the same line.

Also, you have a large number of blue links that should be expanded correctly in your footnotes. For example:

should be:

You have to say where you got it, since it's not from Solder of Fortune magazine - which raises another issue - it's a copyright violation. IF the link were actually to the Soldier of Fortune article, you would just include the link as the article title, rather than adding it at the end of the ref.

Other things you need to do:

Hope this helps get you going. Sandy (Talk) 14:44, 29 December 2006 (UTC)


Thanks Sandy, this is good. I did not start out to write this article, I found it by accident and tried to fix it. Eventually rewriting it. An editor with an agenda had me source every other sentence and without multiple sources was accusing me of not being neutral, sycophantic, etc.

It seemed as if it took 6 sources in one sentence to establish to this naysayer that Mr Emerson was who he claims he is!

I will work on this more today and use the guidelines you've given me for source formatting. I must have looked at them on another article and did it that way!

I don't know if I'm qualified enough to write the POST article, but maybe I'll try the Gunsite and HK ones.

Thanks again for your help! --Mike Searson 15:41, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Good luck - you've got a fine start ! Sandy (Talk) 17:39, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Yannismarou

Nice start and nice material, but, in order to become FA or at leat GA, this article needs a lot of work and a lot of wikifation. This is my review:

I suggest you make the necessary arrangements and you initiate a new peer-review. I think it is premature to go right now for GA.--Yannismarou 22:33, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Thank you, I'll make the necesarry changes you mention. As far as the empty notes, I was told by a previous reviewer to format my notes in this manner as opposed to having the same source cited throughout...which is the preferred method of doing so?--Mike Searson 23:46, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

I suppose Sandy told you to gather the same notes (with the same content I mean) together, so that they are grouped, and I agree. But I said another thing: The specific notes I mentioned have no content! They were empty! They said nothing. Now, I looked again at the article, and they look fine! You probably fixed them.--Yannismarou 09:27, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

I did, I was missing a character and I looked at some of your articles for help and found my mistake! Thanks! I've rewritten some of the prose, too. The tagging was getting in the way of my writing style. Thanks again for the help and constructive criticism. --Mike Searson 09:44, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Jeff Tweedy

After a long venture through the Greg Kot autobiography of Jeff Tweedy (which is by far the best source for this), I think this article has come a long way. I would like some feedback about the prose of the article, whether there should be some more free images, and any general improvements that you think may benefit the article. Thanks in advance! Teemu08 03:57, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Tears of the Black Tiger

I believe this is a good article. It is the most thorough compilation of facts about the film that I'm aware of. — WiseKwai 14:01, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Introduction

Plot and cast

Production

Reception

Distribution

Soundtrack, miscellanae

Comment: Thanks, again, for your hard work on this. I promise this will be the last peer review I seek for awhile. I'll try to pitch in with some myself. — WiseKwai 07:47, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

BOAC Flight 777

This article was listed as a DYK article several weeks ago. I was wondering what people thought of its potential as a FA article. Please post comments on what changes/improvements can be made.--David Straub 12:48, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

At first glance, some of the sections are too short. It would probably make sense to combine some of the sections into one larger section. For instance The attack could probably do without any further subheadings. 'Further readings' should also be bulleted. But its a good start.--NMajdan•talk 21:30, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Gosgood's comments

Cardiff Blues

General hint and tips on how to get this article to a higher standard please! References are coming.

Steve1978 03:36, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Hi, great work with re-writing the article and adding a lot more information. I have a few ideas to improve it further:
Thanks and good luck with it, it is looking good. Cvene64 08:18, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, good advice. The Crusaders site looks like a good example to base things things on.

Steve1978 12:22, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

My 2 cents:

  • Actually, say "Cardiff competes" -- you forgot the "s" for the singular verb tense.

All the best, Evan(Salad dressing is the milk of the infidel!) 13:19, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Some points in addition to the above:

Hope this helps. Oldelpaso 16:29, 22 December 2006 (UTC)


My recommendations:

- Shudda talk 04:57, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, good points, will rewrite to get rid of POV phrasing. Steve1978

Doris Miller

I have drasticly expanded this article and would like to get any further ideas to increase the rating of this article --Wilsbadkarma 01:04, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Kirill Lokshin

A good start. There's a lot of things that I would suggest further work on, though:

Working on these points would result in a significantly stronger article, in my opinion. Keep up the good work! Kirill Lokshin 03:24, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Film colorization

I think the lede discusses the technical aspects rather more than the controversy, which was rather notable. The sentence about reasons and controversy also seems vague. I think at least some of the reason should be enumerated, and at least a sentence discuss the controversy. Goldfritha 18:17, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

— Wackymacs 09:34, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Rutgers University

I just did a massive revision of this page a few days ago to pare down a lot of the bullshit that had crufted the article, and some sections still need a bit of work (are incomplete). I'm bringing this request for a Peer Review in the hopes of improving the article to bring it up to Featured Article standards within the upcoming weeks and looking for suggestions on what needs to be added, subtracted, revised, copyedited, and any other improvements that y'all can think of. Thank you in advance for your hard work and efforts in this regard. —ExplorerCDT 23:03, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Some issues that immediately strike me now that I've had more time to look at the most recent changes:
  • There are many time/date-sensitive figures and statistics presented throughout the article that do not adequately identify the timeframe for which they are accurate or representative. The present tense is used for many of these data and that presents WP:DATE issues unless they are clearly marked.
  • The Alumni section is, IMHO, too long. I know there is a separate list of "Rutgers people" but it might be best to move much of this section into a new article (the list of people conflates alumni, presidents, and faculty and this suggestion may help fix that problem, too).
  • There are several rather-prominent red links throughout the article that are referenced as "main articles" for sections. Those must be fixed, IMHO, or removed.
  • The one bullet point in the "Trivia" section is quite odd-looking. I hate trivia sections anyway but just having one bullet point in any section is, IMHO, impermissible. It should be integrated into another section or omitted as unimportant and non-notable. This would probably fit in fine in the "Student activities" section either in an existing subsection or a new one.
  • As previously related to ExplorerCDT on my Talk page, I recommend the references be changed to use the citation templates. This, however, is a minor issue at this time and one that can definitely be put off until much later.
  • I would also recommend inline citations for the "Books and printed materials" cited as references.
--ElKevbo 23:19, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
  • In particular, which time/date-sensative figures/stats do you mean?
I see several in the Academics section, particularly the "Admissions and financial aid" and "Rankings" subsections. --ElKevbo 00:26, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
  • The Alumni section is a bit bloated, and I should admit I ripped the format from the Cornell article. Who should be eliminated from the article's alumnicruft?
I defer to those more familiar with the institution and its history to make the proper judgment as to who has been more important in the institution's history. --ElKevbo 00:26, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
  • The rather prominent red links are articles I intend to start in the next day or two.
  • The single trivium will be moved up shortly.
Trivium is the singular of trivia? Huh. You learn something new every day. :) --ElKevbo 00:26, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
I knew the singular/plural only after years of studying Latin (same part of the grammar tables as referendum/referenda, addendum/addenda, datum/data), but I learned something new in reading the article Trivia about the rather funny etymological bases from where the word originates. Crazy. —ExplorerCDT 00:40, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
Just in case you want to learn two new things... "Trivium" can also refer to a group of three of the seven "liberal arts:" grammar, logic, and rhetoric. (No, I'm not going to sign such a nerdy and obnoxious remark). 00:43, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Citation style we'll worry about later ;-). —ExplorerCDT 00:07, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
I'm not a featured article expert, but you solicited my comments on my talk page so I'm going to shoot from the hip. In my mental map, Rutgers is one of an undifferentiated bunch of universities whose names I recognize and think of as being broadly in the "good school" category. But I don't know it well enough to have any real picture in my mind, literally or figuratively.
What the article fails to do is to differentiate it for me. It does make the point about Rutgers being a colonial college, a venerable old institution, and tied up with the early history of New Jersey, so I can grow some ivy on my mental picture (well, actually I already knew that from Wikipedia, mostly from the Colonial Colleges article).
I have to say that when I skimmed the article, the thing that jumped out at me was: Streptomycin? Streptomycin was discovered at Rutgers? Offhand in the great scheme of things I'd say that might be the single most important thing to date that has ever happened at Rutgers. Well, OK, maybe not quite as important as playing in the first college football game in history... Dpbsmith (talk) 23:33, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
P. S. I agree with ElKevbo that the alumni section is bloated, and for my money there's way too much rankingcruft. Dpbsmith (talk) 23:33, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
How would you recommend it be differentiated, or brought forward from the pack to make it stand out like, say, Michigan, Virginia, and other state universities. Streptomycin is big, and unfortunately things like that are pushed by the wayside given Rutgers' rise in big-time football. Also, which crufty alumni/rankings would you eliminate to improve those sections? Personally, I'd like to strip U.S. News and World Report since they use a rather subjective and shitty ranking methodology. —ExplorerCDT 00:07, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
If I knew what to say to make Rutgers stand out from the others, I'd take a stab at doing it. Does modern-day Rutgers show any visible traces whatsoever of its historical association with the Dutch Reformed church? As for rankings, if it were up to me, I'd leave them out entirely. I notice that other encyclopedias manage to do fine without them. That's probably too much to ask. How about U. S. News, which uses a subjective and shitty ranking methodology that correlates well with what ambitious, competitive parents seem to be interested in, and Shanghai Jiao Tong? Dpbsmith (talk) 00:47, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
  • You know, I could kill the rankings sections very fast by just saying it's "ranked among the best universities in the world/u.s.a." and footnote that line to death with about 7 or 8 ranking systems. —ExplorerCDT 01:02, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
I would note that the thousands of institutions of higher education in America have much more in common than they do different. That the article doesn't make Rutgers a shining beacon of uniqueness is not a concern I share as long as the article accurately reflects the institution. Maybe it is just very similar to many other American colleges and universities? --ElKevbo 00:26, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Vijayanagara Empire

After putting in several months of work on this article, I have finally nominated it for a peer review. I have tried hard to maintain a balance in information trying to portray this great Empire as a South Indian empire (which helps to keep controversies out). I am looking forward to positive inputs such as improvement in prose, grammar, format etc.Thanks.Dineshkannambadi 19:53, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

I have not read the article yet. One question, why there are two sections "History" and "Background"?--Dwaipayan (talk) 08:26, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
Reply The Background section deals with mythology of the area, the geography of the capital and issues not directly tied to the empire but of relevance from a legendary /strategical stand point. perhaps it can be renamed "Legends".thanks.Dineshkannambadi 15:30, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
I am confused about the relevance of the last sentence regarding Buddhism in religion section. --Blacksun 14:44, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Reply The sentence simply means that Buddhism started to decline in the 8th century. I have not read of any popular practice of Buddhism in the Vijayanagara era, though I will double check. Also, the citation says "A 16th century Buddhist work by Lama Taranatha speaks disparagingly of Shankaracharya as close parallels in some beliefs of Shankaracharya with Buddhist philosophy was not viewed favourably by Buddhist writers, Romila Thapar, The Penguin History of Early India, From Origin to 1300 AD, 2003, Penguin, pp 349-350, 397". Here it has been pointed by Dr. Thapar that Buddhists (apart from other Hindu Philosophers) believed Sankaracharya being strictly monistic may have had beliefs close to Buddhist belief, which did not go down well with them, as the Buddhists of his time felt Shankara was using Buddhism's strong points in his philosophy.

This paragraph needs some more info on growth of Islam and Christianity in South India which I shall add today.thanks.Dineshkannambadi 18:09, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

But why do we care about Buddhism declining in 8th century in the context of this article? --Blacksun 14:00, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Reply->The issue of Buddhism cropped up under Hoysala Empire (11th-14th century). I was only covering all bases. If it is considered unimportant, I can remove it.thanks.Dineshkannambadi 20:57, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Copyedits user:Mattisse will be helping us with the copyedits to this page. She does a good job and I trust her.thanks.Dineshkannambadi 17:55, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Proposed Format

non-indented headings are main sections
Items in (( )) are attached subarticles
Indented items are subheadings under main sections
sorry to take up so much space

((ORIGIN OF VIJAYANAGARA)) ((Choice of Capital)) ((Battle of Talikota))
summarise existing content

extracts from Ancient City of Vijayanagara and Life in Vijayanagara Empire+other sources

extracts from Life in Vijayanagara Empire+other sources

((Haridasas of Vijayanagar Empire))
summarise existing content

extracts from Ancient City of Vijayanagara and Life in Vijayanagara Empire+other sources

((Vijayanagara Empire Literature))
focus on trends

((Vijayanagara Architecture)), ((Vijayanagara)), and ((Hampi))
summarise existing content

The ((choise of capital)) will be a page created out of current "BACKGROUND" section. the two sections Ancient City of Vijayanagara and Life in Vijayanagara Empire are currently sitting there with mixed information. If anyone has any further ideas, please feel free to share it.thanks.Dineshkannambadi 02:10, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Something close to Hoysala Empire and other FA articles on Indian kingdoms should do? --Blacksun 14:01, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Reply. Ok. The proposed format resembles Hoysala article closely. This format change may take a few days but I will work on it quickly. thanks.Dineshkannambadi 14:42, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Yes, following this proposed format would be better. Slowly an ideal format for indian kingdom articles may emerge.--Dwaipayan (talk) 16:29, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Hi it may look that I am taking a revenge against Mr.Kannambadi but i really want to give my opinion for the sake of respect of history. I own a reference text about ancient India which is based on bibliography and not original research which is prescribed by Nagpur university and as ref by Pune university. (Bharatacha Itihaas by Dr.Kolarkar) It doesnt have a word about Kannada in it(in Vijayanagara empire section). It talks about growth and enrichment of Telugu language only. So probably like other articles this article is fallen prey to regional chauvinism of few editors. 59.95.20.149 11:20, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
Reply The above unsigned message is from a user who has been indef-banned for obstruction and sock-puppetry and is the same guy who tried to obstruct the Hoysala Empire FAC.thanks.Dineshkannambadi 02:26, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
Comment - The comments received in the PR in no way have any bearing on the pssoible future FAC of any article, and thus, attacks are irrelevant. If a sock is used on FA, or an attack is made in an obstructionist manner, User:Raul654, the person who makes the verdict, will ignore. He is a long time arbitrator and isn't going to be fooled by an SPA attack or criticism which is not an "actionable objkection. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 03:41, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
Woah!! My blocking and so called obstuction is irrelavent here. Comment on content, not editors. I have not voted and I am neither a sockpuppet. It is the gang of Mr.Kannambadi and others who's trying hard to hide the truth. Btw the talk page of Vijayanagara empire is open for all to see if i am lieing or not. Of course the old tactics of sockpuppetry. It takes nothing to allege anyone,so perhaps bl is sockpuppet of dinesh!!

Language school

I remade this page as the previous text was more of a short, poor version of a how-to guide for picking a language school, not being able to define what a language school actually is. I attempted to give at least some idea of the nature of language schools and a couple of trends surrounding it. It would be appreciated if I could receive some pointers on how else to improve this article. Thanks! Roehl Sybing 19:12, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm not really sure how much an article about this could be expanded, but you could add a history section, detailing the history of language schools, why they became originally necessary, where they originated, and such. Pepsidrinka 20:53, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

J. P. Morgan

I've been working on this article a bit to improve its quality and expand it. I would like to see this featured eventually. Any suggestions for things to add and ways to improve it are appreciated. Thanks. — Wackymacs


Things I would like to see:

Hope that helps! :) Cburnett 23:42, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

aviper2k7

Those are some things I could think of. More could be added to the article as it's not very long. It's written pretty well, but it could use some more inline citations. The lead could probably use a bit more information if you add to the article as it's on the short side right now.++aviper2k7++ 04:30, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

  • Thanks for the feedback. I have fixed the references per WP:CITE (I still need to add the citation templates, though.) - The part about Indian Picture Opera is talking about Curtis, not Morgan (the reference mentions Curtis). See also section has been fixed per your suggestion. Both career sections have been merged. There was criticism of Morgan, but nothing I could source from a look around the web (the books about him probably describe the criticism). Thanks again for your feedback. — Wackymacs 10:19, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

From Yannismarou

Aikido

I would like this article peer reviewed with an eye to making it either Featured Article or A-class. There has been an ongoing effort to improve the quality and provide a balanced look on a martial art which not only has a broad following but quite a variation in how it is practiced.Peter Rehse 04:45, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

It looks pretty good to me. I just have a few brief comments:
  • The introduction could do with expansion so it briefly covers the main points of the article.
  • The page could use some more citations, particularly in those sections that currently lack any.
  • I believe that aikido techniques are taught to a number of police departments, but this is not mentioned. It would be good to include this and to provide some information about why this is a favored technique of police officers.
  • Some coverage of safe practices and potential injuries would be beneficial.
Thanks. — RJH (talk) 19:30, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Most of the comments have been taken to heart over the past month and a half - I will submit the article for Featured Article review in one week.

  • The introduction has been expanded - adequetly I think.
  • Citations have been added - basically I think there are enough now but more are always welcome.
  • Although true about the police departments this is a difficult thing to incorporate and adequetly cite. It seems every martial art claims to teach SWAT, elite military units, etc. Yes some aikido techniques are taught to police but those techniques are not necessarily unique to Aikido. Yoshinkan Aikido headquarters teaches a year long course to the Tokyo Riot police but that is as much about spirit as technique - other members of the organization do Judo and Kendo for much the same reasons. My own teacher in Osaka taught the Osaka police but again its not so much aikido but a selection of techniques.
  • Safe practice has been described - with a link to two articles.Peter Rehse 03:32, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Saner Wonggoun

I hoped to move this on to WP:GA review, but wanted to first get WPBIO's peer review, following with a general peer review. Thank you. — pd_THOR | =/\= | 21:22, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Yannismarou

The article as it is now is a stub. It is well sourced and with a quite good prose but it needs expansion and more infos. It must be organized per WP:LAYOUT with a proper structure, with a lead per WP:LEAD and the proper sections (or even sub-sections) if necessary. The current version is quite premature for a thorough peer-review. I would also like to stress that in some parts (e.g., "United States Code Title 10, Subtitle A, Part II, Chapter 47, Subchapter I, Section 801, § 885 & 918 (also the Uniform Code of Military Justice Articles 85 and 118)") the langage is not as encyclopedic as it should be (the above sentence reads like a legal document and not an encyclopedic article). Continue the good work!--Yannismarou 21:57, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

The article and it's information as they stand now are all that I could (at the time) learn about the subject. If I cannot find more information (and even before making those efforts), do you still recommend the subdivision of the article into sections? Reading WP:LEAD, I'll work more on fleshing that out to fully summarize the whole article. And the last, I just rather enjoyed researching exactly what statutes dictated what; maybe I should just reference them (with [ref]s)? — pd_THOR | =/\= | 22:15, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
Well, if you cannot find further infos, the article, as it is now, remains a stub. And with sub-sections or not I'm afraid this could be a problem in GAC. Now I am also a jurist and I know about legal provisions! But, you know, I see here too many numbers, titles, chapters, sections, subchapters etc in a row! Why don't you just say: According to the Title 10 of the United States Code and articles 85 and 118 of the Uniform COde of Military Justice ... And again! It is still too legal!! If you put them in a note, I think they wouldn't be a burdain for the main text. But again, this is my personal opinion and not the one correct opinion. You can have more of them, in order to make your mind!--Yannismarou 22:40, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
Opinions are why I brought it here! I went ahead and dropped all the legal references into a citation, and it should read better now. I'll go ahead and look for more from my military sources if I can, but in the interim -- should I subdivide it as it is now, or wait to see if I get more? — pd_THOR | =/\= | 23:12, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
My opinion is gather more material and then sub-divide it. Reasearch and material is the first step towards a good article. Good structure comes next!--Yannismarou 09:23, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

MindVox

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

The article should say clearly in the first sentence what MindVox is. I was confused until I looked back at your above peerreview request. Seabhcán 11:40, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
Woah, weird, I totally didn't even see that. Thanks, will fix! Sdedeo 13:06, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
A quick cursory glance, will have more later -
  1. the text in the external links section should be sameplace else and instead the links should be described one by one.
  2. Embedded links are bad for FA - use ref/note or something :)
  3. Paragraphs too short and there are one-sentence paragraphs
  4. Intro should probably be just slightly longer, like a sentence or two

Looks good! Take care! Ryan Norton T | @ | C 23:08, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

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

reopening peer review request

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

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

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

Moscone-Milk Assassinations

This article I want to be in a little better shape then it is now. I don't really want anything added to it because it shows the whole story on it but it could use some comments here and there to give more thought into the article. I want to get this whole article checked over badly because I wrote this in a hurry and didn't really check my work but it has gotten fixed a lot since I've created the article but I'm not sure if its completely in a great shape but it also might need editing to it also. Just do the best you can on this. Thanks for the help --Gndawydiak 08:39, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

To reiterate, this is a great start. Try to expand a bit, find some references and include more information.--DaveOinSF 19:19, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Erin Davis

a previous peer review was conducted on January 2nd, 2007 and is now archived here

It's been over a year and a half since the last review. Since then I've cleaned up and reorganized the article, and added more references to improve it. I'd like to get some fresh advice from the community regarding what else I should do to continue improving the article towards Good Article status. --Maelwys (talk) 14:52, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Review by User:Anne Teedham

I would like to suggest to you that you reach out to a copy-edit volunteer. Anne Teedham (talk) 17:52, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

B-17 Flying Fortress

I've worked very hard over the past few weeks, referencing and cleaning up this already extensive article. I could use a few unbiased eyes to pick out problems I'm missing, especially POV problems, and other things that will hinder an FAC. - Trevor MacInnis (Contribs) 21:28, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

You should probably move the quotes to WikiQuote. I believe those would hinder an FAC.--NMajdan•talk 23:27, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
Sure, I think it may even be against policy/guidelines to have quotation sections in articles, but I can't recall the specific policy right now. I think the third quote could be merged into the text as an example/source for the plane's toughness. - Trevor MacInnis (Contribs) 23:49, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
A lot of the content is lists; some of this should be converted into prose.--HereToHelp 23:47, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
Done. - Trevor MacInnis (Contribs) 21:35, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

J. K. Rowling

Suprised looking at this that it's not at least been nominated.

Stephen Barrett

The article could use the help of experienced, patient editors with the NPOV and BPL problems and disputes that have been going on since early last year. If nothing else, some advise to the current editors would be appreciated. Ronz 05:45, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Just took a quick look - things I would do. Morphh (talk) 16:50, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Add Infobox for main pic - see Infoboxes
  • No space between ref and punctuation per WP:FOOT
  • See also goes before Refs (should probably be "Notes") per WP:GTL
I added an infobox,however I would suggest --Maniwar (talk) 21:47, 18 December 2006 (UTC):
  • Finding out his birth month and day
  • Adding Birth city and state
  • I'd like to see more paragraph structure and less bullet structure
  • The bio seems lacking. What about his early life as an MD...where is that?
  • Move the Recognition section down lower in the article
Thanks for the suggestions! I tried to track down more biographical information on him and found little other than birthplace and wife's name. Seems to be a very private person given all the opportunities he has to give more information. --Ronz 20:30, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Yannismarou

From SG

I would offer to help, but there are names in the edit history indicating you've got a very tough row to hoe - sorry, but this article may end up at ArbCom. Sandy (Talk) 17:54, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Biff Rose

This article needs a good dea lof clarification on the man's later life, which seems to be rabidly guarded by a fan who doesn't want it to represent all the facts.Macinneedofhelp

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

You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas.

Regards,
Anthonycfc [T • C] 22:41, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Green Day

Just became a GA. Looking now to get it up to FA standard.Buc 19:40, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

We ought to be able to find at least a fair use image of the Woodstock performance, since it's pretty notable. WesleyDodds 05:49, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Grand Duchess Tatiana Nikolaevna of Russia

I'd like to bring this article up to a good article rating. Please suggest any improvements. Also please look at the images used with this article, comment on whether they are appropriate and whether they are in the public domain.--Bookworm857158367 05:52, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Yannismarou

Nice work. For me, definitely GA quality. Therefore, I'm more orientated towards FA criteria (after all, IMO this is the best of your articles I've written). This is my review:

Thanks. I've made most of the revisions you've suggested. I also think this is probably the best written of the four grand duchess articles I've contributed to. I'm a journalist, so I'm used to using quotes. It's hard to curtail the impulse! --Bookworm857158367 04:48, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Andreas Thorkildsen

I did a complete rewrite/expansion of this article today. It is very well referenced, and comprehensible. It has a free image. The lead could perhaps be better, and the construction is pretty good but perhaps becomes a little disorganized towards the end. What improvements does it need to become a good article? Punkmorten 22:21, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Alien (film)

Any comments or contributions are helpful. Comments regarding tone, style and page structure would be useful. - Zepheus <ツィフィアス> 21:46, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Fann Wong

Hello. I'm trying to get this article up to GA-status, and I could use any feedback you can give that could possibly improve it. Thanks in advance! -ryand 13:51, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Nice, well written, and well cited article. Some suggestions:
  • Combine the '2003: Hollywood' and 'Recent years' section. '2003' is too short to be its one section. Can be combined to 'Recent years' or something else.
  • I'd be careful about your usage of the Dragon Eye Congee movie poster. I don't know if your usage there meets WP:FUC since there is not analysis of the movie in the section you are using it. Same thing for Girl, Illustrated.
  • What's the difference between 'Films' and 'Dramas'? Also, there should be some text in the Works section. There are too many consecutive blank subheadings.
  • There are a couple single sentence paragraphs that should either be combined or lengthened.--NMajdan•talk 15:38, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for your comments! 'Dramas' actually refers to 'television dramas' - on hindsight, it is kind of ambiguous, and I've since merged the two television sections together. I've also removed the iffy movie poster and moved the book image to a more relevant section. I'll be working on the rest of your comments soon. Once again, thanks for your help! -ryand 17:39, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

My 2 cents:

Until I read the end of the sentence, I wasn't sure what you were trying to say. Instead of what you have there, say "Born in Singapore to Hakka middle-class tailor parents..."

Evan(Salad dressing is the milk of the infidel!) 20:37, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your feedback! I've read through your points and tried my best to address them:
  • Stage name vs. birth name: This has been changed. Thanks for pointing it out!
  • Lead: I'm working on it!
  • "Hakka": Thanks for pointing this out, I've replaced the sentence with your clearer one!
  • Spelling: "Modelling" is spelt with a single l in American English, but with two ls in British English. As an article about a Singaporean actress, I felt the Commonwealth English spelling would be most appropriate. But I'll run the article through spellcheck again to check for stray typos.
  • Prose: You're right, the prose is choppy and doesn't flow too well at parts. I'll work on it.
  • Charts: I thought the charts were cluttered, but I'm not sure how this can be changed and still maintain all the information in the article. Could you give some suggestions?
Again, thanks for your help :) -ryand 13:27, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

I left comments on the article's talk page. CyberAnth 00:02, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Winnipeg

Article about a Canadian provincial capital, with plenty of information, would need suggestions for improvement.jdobbin 01:12, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

From SG

Thanks. I will look at San Francisco, California as guide. I think I need all the help I can get though as it is getting way too long. jdobbin 02:50, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
You can easily solve that be spinning your residents' list into a daughter article. Sandy (Talk) 21:50, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
Did that just now. And I am working on citations for verifiable facts in the body of the article. Thanks for looking in the article. I have a long way to go cutting the article down to size.jdobbin 02:46, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
I'll look at moving much that section to a sub-article. Thanks. jdobbin 03:42, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

from Bobanny

Good luck with this. There’s no reason why this couldn’t make it to featured status with a bit of elbow grease. Bobanny 07:21, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I will start on your list of things. I hope I get some help on it because there are probably people out there with far more skill at citations. jdobbin 03:44, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Hurdy gurdy

Extensive work has gone into this page by many editors since it was last reviewed slightly over a year ago. Some of the work has gone to resolving points raised at that time by MyNameIsNotBob. While additional citation is needed (and in the works), any feedback on areas needing expansion or clarification for a non-expert audience (particularly by musicians not familiar with the instrument) would be appreciated. What would be needed to raise this to the level of a featured article, as proposed by malber a little over a year ago? --Fenevad 15:52, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Old peer review is here: Wikipedia:Peer_review/Hurdy_gurdy/archive1 --Fenevad 16:05, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

External Links - suggested removal

The following external links (see the Hurdy gurdy talk page for the list - Added Fenevad) violate the guidelines WP:EL and I'd recommend removing them. Keep in mind, Wikipedia is not a link repository +Nposs 18:33, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

I have removed the offending links and replaced one with a link to a non-mailing list reference instead. Thanks. +Fenevad 21:56, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Addition comments on talk page

Some additional comments have been posted on the article's talk page and addressed there. Thank you to everyone who responded. +Fenevad 13:55, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Eric Clapton

The article is very good, and fairly close to featured status, but needs a little bit of help. Dennis Kussinich 08 02:32, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

It's not particularly close to featured, but the FAC give you plenty to work on: to start with, it needs to be thoroughly cited. Have a look at AC/DC which is also going through FAC right now. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:38, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Fertility awareness

I believe up to this point most major editors to this article have already been familiar with the topic. I'm interested in how it reads for people to whom the topic is new. Are the sections ordered correctly? Is there too much/too little emphasize on certain aspects? Anything particularly confusing? Irrelevant?

I'm also looking for comments on what sections are most in need of sources. The article is largely only loosely or not at all cited, but guidance on what should come first would be helpful. Lyrl Talk C 03:15, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Have a look at WP:MOS and WP:MSH - section headings need to be fixed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:40, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
I've fixed capitalization, removed repetition of the title, and reduced verb usage in the headings. Were there other problems you had in mind? Lyrl Talk C 21:54, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Baby Gender Mentor

I would appreciate any and all additional feedback on this article. The article has previously had a peer review which was very helpful. Following the peer review, and with some more work and discussion, the article was recognized as a Good Article. I've done some more work and reviewed the Featured Article criteria, and I believe the article now meets FA standards. Before submitting it for FA, I would like to solicit other opinions about what could be improved. I welcome your feedback on the article. Best, Johntex\talk 05:47, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Overall, a very good article. A couple small points:
  1. Last paragraph in the lead needs citations.
  2. Last paragraph in the "Accuracy of the test disputed" section needs some punctuation corrections.
  3. Reword the opening few sentences in "About AcuGen." They don't flow well to me, since they both are so short. Maybe something like your opening, "AcuGen is a biotech company in Mass and is led by Cheng Wang, the company's President." Or something like that.
Other than that, to me, it meets all criteria of WP:WIAFA. Well written, comprehensive, stable, accurate, neutral.--NMajdan•talk 18:45, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
Thank you very much Nmajdan. I will work on the above points. I am just about to finish reviewing University of Oklahoma for you. Johntex\talk 03:30, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
Thanks again, Nmajdan. I have now made the changes you suggest above. I am hopeful to receive additional comments if anyone has time. Johntex\talk 05:29, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

History of the battery

The Last Waltz

I think this is possibly a good article, or maybe even featured article. I've put a lot of work into it, but feel it probably needs more. I'm hoping some other folks can help out and possibly get me pointed in the right direction. — WiseKwai 20:52, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

--Supernumerary 23:05, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

I think it should easily pass the GA process. As for FA, I'm not as familiar with that process. FA would probably frown on the many fair use images and the lists. They're very careful about the style of the prose. They might also want additional cites. Oh, I just noticed you didn't use cite web or cite news. Both GA and FA will want that so go get them here. (You could also take a look at categories to see if anymore apply (like English language films and American films).)

As for the automated peer review, here is a link to it. It's easy to use once you install it. Here is what it generates when I run it for the article:

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

You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, Supernumerary 20:40, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments. Sorry it has taken me so many days to come back to this page and respond. I don't see any problems with the images in either Firefox or Explorer. The right-facing Danko image is so placed per suggestions in the Manual of Style. The table also renders just fine for my eyes today. I'm not trying to argue that there aren't problems. I just can't see them. — WiseKwai 09:00, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Military brat (U.S. subculture)

Prior review: Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Peer review/Military brat (U.S. subculture)/Archive 1

I'm getting ready to re-nominate this article for FA and would like some serious nitpicks on this article... particularly around the issue of prose. Balloonman 06:15, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Kirill Lokshin

Looks very good now; a few minor points to fix, though:

The prose seems a little choppy (too many short and simple sentences, and so forth); but I tend to go for rather convoluted prose, so take my opinion on this with a grain of salt. ;-) Kirill Lokshin 06:28, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Kirill... could you point out a few of the places where you thought it was choppy? I tend to go for short and simple, not liking convoluted prose, but if it is choppy and needs to be longer... ;-) Balloonman 16:55, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
Well, one example that stood out would be the first paragraph of the "Classism" section:

Military life is strictly segregated by class, centered around one's rank.[45] The facilities provided for officers and enlisted personnel differ dramatically. For example, on base housing for officers will be significantly nicer than those for enlisted personnel. The officers' housing will generally be more accessible to base activities, larger in size, and better landscaped. Occasionally, on larger bases, the officers' housing will be broken down into different categories. Senior officers housing may be slightly larger and more opulent than their lower ranking counterparts. On the largest bases, there might be a row of opulent houses referred to as "Colonels' Row" or "Generals' Row." In these houses the highest ranking personnel on the base reside. On the other end of the spectrum, are the enlisted quarters. Oftentimes enlisted personnel might be assigned apartments and only then if space is available.[45]

I'd probably chop the number of separate sentences here in half by using more semicolons and nested clauses; but this may be a matter of personal preference, so I wouldn't worry too much about trying to impose a more complicated structure if that's not a writing style that you're in favor of. Kirill Lokshin 19:30, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
Made those changes... BTW is there a guideline on the "See Also" section. When this went up for FAC before, it was criticized because it didn't have a see also section (I had removed it based on your oriignal peer review comments.) Balloonman 10:20, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Sandy

Congratulations on your persistent hard work.

I still don't like the idea of the parenthetical U.S. subculture in the title, and hope someone will come up with something to address that.

I also dislike the non-standard placement of the Table of Contents; in fact, there must be something somewhere in WP:MOS about that, and if there's not, there should be. Please use a standard layout for lead and table of contents.

I just corrected a section heading for WP:MSH - please try to watch items pertaining to WP:MOS and WP:LAYOUT :-) I also deleted several articles from See also which are already linked in the text: See also should be minimal, and confined to articles not already linked in the text.

I correct some refs that pointed to the same source - pls remember to used named refs for those cases.

Many of the images have non-standard placement: I don't know where to find the guiding policy on this, but I've seen them corrected often when on the main page - you have images placed so that they extend into section headings, distorting the section headings.

I switched some Lambert (author) to Lamberg, and used named refs for those.

Be sure to include last access date on all web sources, for example, Lamberg (2004) p 1541. See also The National Childhood Traumatic Stress Network Pls doublecheck that all web sources have last access date.

Now, looking at prose:

OK, that's as far as I got, but that gives you an idea of the kind of wording I'd like to see tightened up with respect to strength and validity of study results, attribution of generalizing statements, and examination of study populations. Take care that X study showing Y conclusion doesn't equate to a fact, since studies have limitations - wording has to account for that. (For example, you handled this well in the abuse and alcoholism section, by presenting conflicting studies.) Amazing progress so far - I think you're just about there !!! Sandy (Talk) 21:12, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Sandy, you are awesome... I changed many of the pictures, but couldn't get all to work. The Lamberg article was not one that I accessed via the internet, it is one that I have originals from the library. The name, I too would like something better than the US Subculture, but I don't know what that might be. I prefer "most children" over "other teenagers." Too me, other children sounds more absolute because it is saying "all others" while most implies that it isn't just brats. Your children may not be brats, but they have experienced more than most other teenagers. The "studies" on behavior of brats are numerous and repeated. It is a consistent theme in much of the brat research. As for the Ender research, it was a study of over 500 brats who filled out a questionaire and then conducted interviews with Ender. The problem with the study is that he obtained his sample via Brat Organizations and the Internet, thus may have selection bias in identifying more educated brats.Balloonman 10:52, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
Made most of the changes indicated above, except for where I explained why I didn't here.

Yannismarou

Very very interesting article of unique quality! This is my review:

Yuck... I didn't see that paragraph with the "truisms" snuck in there. The person who added it, did some other good edits when adding it that I didn't notice it. Thanks for catching it. I'll look over it in closer detail and either find citations for it or get rid of it. I don't want to discard another persons contributions to the article, but it does need to be cited---and I do not like the way it it written. As for your other comments, thanks I'll definately incorporate them.Balloonman 20:40, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
BTW, is unique quality a good thing or a bad thing ;-) Balloonman 20:41, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
Good! Why bad?--Yannismarou 14:45, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
It was half in jest... "That is a unique choice in color" could be an insult.... but I figured based on your comment that it was good ;-)66.7.182.35 16:00, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
Ah! You know I am not a native English speaker, and even if I wanted to insult, I could not have been that good!--Yannismarou 19:50, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
No, I didn't know that you aren't a native English Speaker... your English is much better than my German. I wouldn't even try to edit something in German---I'd have to use a dictionary just to understand it all. But yeah, saying something is "unique" can sometimes be a veiled insult in English. EG you say it's unique because nobody else in the world would like it. I knew that's not what you were saying ;-) Balloonman 20:06, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Hakeem Olajuwon

I was originally going to send this article to the Good Article review committee, but I figured that it should have a peer review done to address any concerns. I would like to see what sections need improving, or if there are any problems with the article. (For example, post-nba has an expansion tag on it, but I don't know if that's necessary or not). User:Quadzilla99 would be able to answer any questions put forth, he's the one that did all the work on the article. --Wizardman 17:04, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

  • The lead could be expanded greatly. Three sentences is hardly sufficient of a lead to any article. See Wayne Gretzky or Sandy Koufax on articles about athletes with good leads.
Done. Quadzilla99 04:15, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Personal life section should be made into parenthetical form.
Done. Quadzilla99 04:15, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
  • There is no section on his early life/youth - that is, prior to his time at UH.
Done. Quadzilla99 04:15, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
  • He is not an author and should not have a section for his books. The one sentence can be assimilated into another section.
Done. Quadzilla99 04:15, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Trivia section should be removed or assimilated into the rest of article where needed/desired.
Done. Quadzilla99 04:15, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Post-NBA section does need to be expanded.
Done. Quadzilla99 04:15, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Copyedit the article. Pepsidrinka 00:01, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
I believe that's done. Quadzilla99 04:15, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
Good job on the work that has been done thus far. Here are a few more suggestions:
#Refrain from referring to him as "Hakeem" - use "Olajuwon" instead.
Ok. Quadzilla99 22:23, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
#There are some places where there are many statistics reported but there are no citations
Done. Quadzilla99 22:23,
I'm not sure about the fair-use rationales on the images. The first one says it was taken by a flickr user, but it obviously wasn't taken by him. The image is a copyright violation. For the other images; fair-use has been discussed like hell, but there never seems to be an agreement on what is allowed and what is not.++aviper2k7++ 05:05, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
The lower two seem to be fine to me. But yeah, change the license on the first one or have it deleted (I have no idea how to fix licenses on images or else I'd do it). --Wizardman 05:10, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
Okay I'll remove the first. It's my understanding the second two can stay because he is retired and it will be very hard to find ones to represent his playing career in the public domain (I've tried). The first is a portrait and can be one like Charles Barkley's and just be one of him now so I don't think it qualifies as having no fair use substitute. Quadzilla99 08:35, 2 January 2007 (UTC)


Hi, as the main author of the Bill Russell article, one of two good articles of NBA players (Kirk Hinrich is the other), I am very pleased with the development of this article. Kudos to the authors, and I feel that this article is near to GA range. Here are my improvement proposals, assume good faith please:

I believe that's done. Quadzilla99 01:31, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Done. Quadzilla99 01:31, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Done. Quadzilla99 01:48, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Done thanks to Raetzsch. Quadzilla99 01:31, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Done but it looks kinda ugly. I propose we remove them off of the awards list and keep them for the statements/sentences. Quadzilla99 04:33, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Done. Quadzilla99 02:45, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Done. Quadzilla99 03:27, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Comment can be expanded. I will do so in the next couple of days. Quadzilla99 03:27, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Comment I would tend to disagree here as in FA's Sandy Koufax, Cynna Kydd, and Moe Berg. Quadzilla99 02:59, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Done. Quadzilla99 03:27, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Comment I would also tend to disagree with this as Wayne Gretzky and Sandy Koufax both FA's have sections (skills and mechanics respectively) where they talk about the player's playing style and what they did in playing that made them great. Legacy has an entirely different meaning imo. Quadzilla99 01:45, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Done fight is mentioned in Muslim heading minor incident. Quadzilla99 01:45, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Comment NBA videos on youtube are generally off limits. I don't know where else to get one. I am going to hold off on merging the two sections, Dream Shake is a subsection and it is considered a legendary set of moves that is often talked about in almost reverant tones by other NBA Hall of Fame calibre big men.[6] It's kind of like Kareem's Sky Hook or Mariano Rivera's cutter. It really was that feared and held in esteem. Quadzilla99 01:31, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

* I am pretty sure that Hakeem unknowlingly gave money to al-Qaeda [7]

Comment Hakeem's church (that he founded and gives money to) and an Islamic relief fund he donated to gave money to those groups without his knowledge to my understanding. Basically this was one of those unresponsible stories where they use the Headline "Olajuwon Funds Terrorrists" to sell papers then as soon as you read the story you realize it's bunk. I say leave it out until it's shown he was the one deciding where to give the money.[8] Quadzilla99 02:08, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Wow, so much stuff, sounds very negative, but assume good faith, it sure is not meant like that. I just like this article very much and would love to see Hakeem get a GOOD ARTICLE rating :D. Before you do propose it, read WP:WIAGA first. —Onomatopoeia 11:55, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

USS Texas (BB-35)

I got to work on this battleship becuase the World War I portal should have at least one piece of hardware rated FA class. I am looking for any further suggestions as to how the article can be improved; I intend to take the all the way to FA status. As per the Emt147 declaration, do not object on the basis of week citations, add ((fact)) tags to stuff that you as the editers feel is not cited and I will address it accordingly (assuming that it has not already been addressed). Note that as a US ship article composed largely of historical information, this article is almost entirely an NPOV copy/paste from the PD Dictionary of American Naval Fighting Ships. TomStar81 (Talk) 03:05, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Kirill Lokshin

Looks pretty good. The citations seem sufficient, given that this is mostly DANFS material; beyond that, there's a number of other things to look at:

Kirill Lokshin 03:59, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Made some changes as per your suggestions. I am still not entirely sure what I want to do with the "Film Career" section; narrowly speaking it is noteworthy, in a broader sense it could be conisidered a "Pop Culture" section, which would warrent a removal. What do you think? TomStar81 (Talk) 03:18, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Well, it's not that much material; maybe just mention it at the end of the "Museum Ship" section? Both of the films were made during that period, after all. Kirill Lokshin 04:58, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Merged the section as per your suggestion. TomStar81 (Talk) 00:44, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Yannismarou

Nice job. These are my suggestions:

USS Texas (BB-35) was a New York-class battleship, and was (see the repetition too close in the same sentence: was ... and was) the second ship of the United States Navy named to honor Texas, the 28th state. Texas' keel was laid down on 17 April 1911 at Newport News, Virginia, by the Newport News Shipbuilding Company. She was launched on 18 May 1912 sponsored by Miss Claudia Lyon, and commissioned on 12 March 1914 with Captain Albert W. Grant in command.

Well too many "was" for me. Not "brillian" the prose here IMO, and it is the lead!

  • Ok, I like a challenge. From the top: I inserted that missing "to" for the commericial radar. Good catch. Citation numbers are now in correct order. I have adressed the [citation needed] tag you inserted, the information was from DANFS. According to Wikipedia, Mikasa is older, but I suppose I need to find someone else to state that so I can properly cite it. The part about anti-ship missiles caught me off guard, I included that in ref tabs so others would also be suprised. I am working on that angle at the moment, when I get more info you will to. "The Battleships" is a small book with fun tibits about the nations that built and operated battleships since there inception. Most of what is stated in the book is stated here from other sources. In this case specifically, the info on Texas comes from the last chapter, which notes in part that "...the United States has preserved by far the greatest number [of battleships], 8 in all, including the vintage WWI Texas," and later noting that "...only Japan has preserved a battleship [in the modern sense of the word], Mikasa, Admiral Togo's flagship..." I have not yet had a chance to thoughly investigate this source for additional info on Texas, though I suspect that there may be some info in with the battle sections. I was unaware that the books in question had been added to the "Notes" section, that is why they are cited twice. They are not there now. Categoris have been aplhabetized. Finally, American battleships are like american presidents: there are a few that stand out immediately and recieve a disproportionately large amount of the lime light, and there are those that come under the head of "whats his name". Texas is in with the latter category; there have been no major works published about her battle history beyond DANFS, therefore the article draws on DANFS for most of its information. It isn't that I am not willing to add more sources, its just that no one has taken the time to publish accounts exclusive to the ship in question. DANFS reliance should not be counted against this article: Wikipedia has long reconginzed its importance, and DANFS material is what makes up nearly all of the US ship pages here. You will note that when aplicable, I have used sources other than DANFS for the citing, such as in the sections on D-Day, which draw not from DANFS but from the Historical Naval Ships Visitors Guide. TomStar81 (Talk) 01:14, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Leeds United A.F.C.

Been working on this for a while. Interested to know where it stand in terms of it' quality.Buc 16:58, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

I found this page by what links to recentism... just wanted to comment that "The aim should not be to remove information about recent events (see wikipedia:deletionism and wikipedia:inclusionism), but to add information of the same detail to other events." ... IOW I think history shouldn't be deleted just because you can't find information on older years. Peace, MPS 22:57, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

In terms of quality, the article is better than most, but if you are intending to take the article to good or featured status there is still more to do. Good article standard isn't too far off though. More or less all of the things I would recommend are already mentioned by Qwghlm, a couple of additions:

Hope this helps. Oldelpaso 12:02, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Have met most of the suggestions made.

Buc 16:36, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Further thoughts, above to the ones which still stand:
  • Article is still over-wikified in places (e.g. First Division is still linked to multiple times in the History section)
  • The prose needs some polishing up. It's unwieldy - the tone is not formal enough, facts are not put succinctly, and there is too much repetition of terms and use of filler words: e.g.:
At the start of the season, Graham brought in some bargain buys and introduced Australian youngster Harry Kewell from the youth team. At the end of the season Leeds booked its place in the UEFA Cup for the next season. The 1998-99 season saw Graham move to become manager of the north London club Tottenham Hotspur.
  • Which could be much more simply expressed:
At the start of 1997-98, Graham brought in some inexpensive signings and Australian youngster Harry Kewell, and Leeds qualified for the UEFA Cup that season. The next season, however, Graham left for Tottenham Hotspur.
  • Still some weasel words (though I have tagged them) and POV terms (which should be obvious).
  • Don't put current injury status in the current squad section - it's not what they're meant for and WP:NOT a news service.
  • As United are a separate club from Leeds City, Herbert Chapman should not be included in the list of notable managers and the founding date should only 1919.
  • There's something terrifically ugly about that list of sponsors. Perhaps it's the blank dark grey cell in the top right, or the fact the with many the same words are repeated several times over in adjacent cells - maybe use the rowspan attribute and merge them together? Qwghlm 22:31, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
  • One last thing - the ((fc)) template should be substituted. Qwghlm 22:33, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
I've addressed some of these problems. Not sure what the rowspan attribute is but I've tried to tidy the table up anyway. Two major problems still stand out though:

Buc 17:54, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Still tidying up the text, trying to make it a bit more concise and objective - a few more typos/grammar issues to sort out as well. Can I ask whether anyone wants the "Rivalries" and "Supporters" sections? I don't think they add anything to the article and are probably subjective. Thoughts/comments?

Coopuk 18:08, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Not fussed if the sections are removed but I think the info in them should be kept in some form.Buc 19:44, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Any ideas/thoughts on where those two sections could/should be placed? I don't think they are in keeping with the main article, as I think you could argue that the content of both is subjective. I don't think they should reside under the "Leeds United History" page either. Coopuk 12:06, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Supporters under Stadium and Rivalries could be removed, since it's really about Leeds, or brefly mentioned in the lead. Crest and colours sections needs exspanding.Buc 11:11, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Pound Puppies and the Legend of Big Paw

As I promised on my list of things to do, I've been spending the last few days of 2006 working on this article about a kids' film that very few have ever had the chance to watch. Without the DVD release of the film, the page would have looked more or less like this, and it would have taken forever to get it all done.

Everything has all been set, but, redlinks aside, a few things, like grammar and verification check-up in some places, would need to be done. To me, it looks so good, I just can't decide whether to put it up for GAC or FAC. What do you film fans make of it? --Slgrandson (page - messages - contribs) 21:24, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

†Concerns addressed with this edit --Slgrandson (page - messages - contribs) 01:24, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
‡Concerns addressed after this edit --Slgrandson (page - messages - contribs) 01:28, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

RahXephon

Presenting to the public before nominating for GAC. Please advise regarding format, out-of-universe perspective, prose, and comprehensivity. Thanksin advance for your advice and comments.--SidiLemine 16:07, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

I'd like to move this towards FA rather than GA; it certainly is a topic and article large enough to warrant it. As a major contributor, I'll respond to feedback, starting with automated review. --GunnarRene 16:23, 5 January 2007 (UTC) Addendum: Large article doesn't mean that it's automatically "featured"; point is that GA is a simpler process for smaller articles. --GunnarRene 23:06, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Automated review

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

You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, GunnarRene 17:36, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Automated review passed or adressed. Only point left is a visit from an experienced copy editor.--GunnarRene 05:54, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Non-automatic reviews

The article's really good, and you seem to have invested a lot into it, but it just seems to pull in a lot of directions. At first glance this is what I'd do, this is what seems sensible to me:

Great article, 3 comments:

Good luck at FAC! — Tutmosis 02:46, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Miami, Florida

I been working in this article recently and I think it may be ready for FA standards, I got the History of Miami, Florida one to FA, and I want this one to be next. Any advise before I continue? Thanks --Jaranda wat's sup 23:48, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

I renominated this page because it has improved since it's last peer review, and would like to see it as a featured article. --Arigont 8:41, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

The Big O

I'd like to know how The Big O article rates right now, (it's been classified as Start-class for too long) and what needs to be done to improve it further.--Nohansen 15:48, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

A lot of the article doesn't appear to be written in an encyclopedic style - "... and the American fanbase asked for more", "But Jason DeMarco, executive producer for Season Two, doesn't think it can happen.", "There's no denying the similarities between Batman and The Big O." - it reads a lot more like an anime review than an encyclopedia article. Work needs to be done on that. -ryand 14:00, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
Is that it? Am I done?--Nohansen 20:51, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
Too many fair use images. The JPStalk to me 22:21, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Looks good, and I like lots of images. Too much bold font, if I were to nitpick :) -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  20:07, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Removed bold font where it seemed like "too much." By the way, what does "Too many fair use images" mean? Because User:Piotrus "like[s] lots of images" --Nohansen 14:59, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Looks good too me, except i think there are way too many links in the article. When I was browsing the article it looked like someone just linked every word they found with an article. --Malevious Userpage •Talk Page• Contributions 19:57, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Oklahoma Sooners football

I feel this article is nearing FA quality and was about to nominate it until I realized it had not been peer reviewed yet. I believe the article is well written, well cited, and thorough. I am on OU alum so this article has been reviewed by the College football WikiProject to ensure it is NPOV. The article is currently a Good Article. I would appreciate any help and I am open to any comments that will help get this article featured.--NMajdan•talk 19:36, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

SkyTrain (Vancouver)

It's on it way to becoming an FA. Is there any major details that the article lacks? Is there any bad prose? All comments are appreciated -- Selmo (talk) 05:25, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Here a few quick minor details that could be fixed up. Using AndyZpeerreviewer.

OmenTFL

Any suggestion from roleplayers/wikipedia enthusiasts at how I can improve the article? Also, my spelling is notoriously bad, please correct it ruthlessly OmenTFL

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

You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, SenatorsTalk | Contribs 00:35, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Triceratops

Hi, this article is scrubbing up OK on its way to FAC. We worked on Stegosaurus and Diplodocus , both of which are now Featured Articles. Anyone see some other issues before having a tilt at FAC? cheers Cas Liber 10:36, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Some issues at hand:
(OK, rewritten that one to sound less vague)
(I've created stubs for Rudolph Zallinger (solved a few redlinks that one :)), Schlaikjer and Erickson - the individual Triceratops species prbably shouldn't have them. Will go down the page. Time for breakfast now...)
(commas are generally considered better to use thn parentheses, however it does cause confusion sometimes. I'll try and split or tweak a few sentences)
(thanks for pointing out that sentence, I have rewritten it - as far as it being unsourced, I figured the length of the pop culture refs would be self-explanatory in highlighting its commonness in use)
(As they are scientific names, the standard practice on all the dino pages has been italics)
(PS: Thanks for all the input - gittin' there...............) Cas Liber 21:31, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Léonce Perret

This article was recently translated from French to English. It went through the process of editing, revising and proofreading by multiple users. If it is possible, could you make some comments regarding the article's content and possible errors in the editing. Would you also comment on the article's potential as a good/featured article as well (and where to develop)? Thank you very much in advance! :) --lovelaughterlife♥talk? 02:59, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Yannismarou

Informative article, but, in order to be GA or FA in the English Encyclopedia, it needs work. This is my review:

An update:

You can use French sources, but the majority IMO should be in English.--Yannismarou 21:22, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
If you go in FAC with a trivia section like this one you will probably face criticisms.--Yannismarou 21:22, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
The trend is against "See also" sections. If you decide to keep it, make sure you don't repeat articles already linked in the main article.--Yannismarou 21:22, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

--Thanks for the comments. --lovelaughterlife♥talk? 20:47, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Fahd of Saudi Arabia

In Wikipedia's list of long pages, this is tops among articles written about people, living or dead (at 220 KBs). This is almost close to FA level (I can feel it), but what needs to be taken care of before we take such a chance? --Slgrandson (page - messages - contribs) 23:24, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Jeffpw

Sorry to disappoint you, but this article is nowhere near FA status. There's not one single reference in this article, so it fails WP:V right off the bat. You (or somebody) will be busy for months citing every fact in an article of this length. There's also only one small picture at the bottom of this loooooong article. It needs a thorough copy editing, too. Additionally, the article (the parts I read, anyway) reads like a promotional piece for the Kingdom. Whole swaths could be deleted from the article, since they are more about the Kingdom than the King. I don't mean to be discouraging, but you asked for opinions. Jeffpw 23:49, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

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

Avoid misplaced formality: “in order to/for” (-> to/for), “thereupon”, “notwithstanding”, etc.

You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, SenatorsTalk | Contribs 00:34, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Yannismarou

An article needing work. Probably a new review will be needed after the suggestions of this one are implemented. These are some initial remarks:

BackupHDDVD

Wikipedia:Peer review/BackupHDDVD/archive1

Having recently failed an FA nomination with a combination of nit-picking and serious concerns, this article needs quite a bit of improvement. I'm looking to iron out every seam and any advice to that end is greatly appreciated. Noclip 15:18, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Black Book (film)

Lead

Plot

Cast

Production

Reception

List of nominations and awards

Other

Vatican City

I would like to get this article to FA or GA status. The article had another peer review in January, but it did not get that much feedback. I have made the few changes outlined in that review and am wondering if you could assit me by providing comments on the article. Thanks, Cbrown1023 talk 02:07, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Simply more references-the article is very undercited for such a topic. -Fsotrain09 21:02, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
Most of my activity on the article has been in adding citations, I was the one who added the ((fact)) tag to the only remaining statement that needs citing. I find it disheartening that you say "More citations!" but don't even state where or if they are needed. Cbrown1023 talk 23:31, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
Alright. Here are specific statements that really should be cited:


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:Manual of Style (numbers), there should be a non-breaking space - &nbsp; between a number and the unit of measurement. For example, instead of 4 ft, use 4 ft, which when you are editing the page, should look like: 4&nbsp;ft.[?]
  • Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (numbers), please spell out source units of measurements in text; for example, the Moon is 380,000 kilometres (240,000 mi) from Earth.[?] Specifically, an example is 4 ft.
  • Per Wikipedia:Context and Wikipedia:Build the web, years with full dates should be linked; for example, link January 15, 2006.[?]
  • Please reorder/rename the last few sections to follow guidelines at Wikipedia:Guide to layout.[?]
  • Please make the spelling of English words consistent with either American or British spelling, depending upon the subject of the article. Examples include: neighbour (B) (American: neighbor), meter (A) (British: metre), metre (B) (American: meter), defense (A) (British: defence), offense (A) (British: offence), organize (A) (British: organise), recognize (A) (British: recognise), ization (A) (British: isation).
  • 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, APR t 22:16, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Review by Awadewit

This article looks pretty good. Here are my suggestions:

Nice work. Awadewit 09:54, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Dannii Minogue

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)

User:Yannismarou

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)

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)

Questionable Content

The kind of comments I want (and/or contributions if possible) are what the article needs to be bumped up in quality. Probably to at least A-class. At this point, the article is very good (in my opinion), but it still could use some work regardless. This is one of the better articles in Project Webcomics, but I still think that maybe it could get to GA status at one point. :) ~ EdBoy[c] 00:24, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

A lot of work to be done, goodluck M3tal H3ad 10:22, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

The one thing you absolutely need is a well-referenced reception section a la Megatokyo or other FAs. That means doing research, finding out what others have said about QC, and generally turning your attention away from simply describing the comic towards giving it its due worth. Nifboy 07:37, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't know what I could do about that, but maybe others could help. ~ EdBoy[c] 02:33, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Kaldari 06:21, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Done with those, but I'm not sure what to put into the intro so I just added a few small things. ~ EdBoy[c] 01:33, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Chelsea F.C.

Considering making this a FAC. Just want to see if this article needs anything more.Buc 01:33, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

The article is very good, close to FA standard.

**Bates finally reunited the stadium freehold with the club by doing a deal with the banks of the property developers, who had been bankrupted by a market crash **Stamford Bridge was designed for the Mears family by the noted football architect Archibald Leitch **if someone tries to move the football club to a new stadium they could not use the name.

*Remove the list of minor club officials

Other than that the article is pretty much there, I look forward to giving my support on FAC soon. Oldelpaso 12:25, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Not bad, a few minor issues:

*"...narrowly missed out on winning the title in 1964-65" - third place, five points behind (under 2 points for a win) is not narrow, in my opinion.

*"...something deemed as necessary for Chelsea to compete with their rivals. - more weasel words.

*I agree with Oldelpaso that the rivalry with other London clubs is a bit overplayed, and could be replaced with a single sentence, and I don't think Chelsea have much of a rivalry with Liverpool or Man U - the phrase could be added to the list is a weasel-worded way of saying so and suggests it cannot be backed up. *Notable former players needs some objective and agreed criteria for inclusion; it is maybe worth just getting rid of and having the player of the year awards only. *No need for such a long list of club personnel.

*FA Youth Cup is a minor competition not contested by the first team and should be removed from Honours. *Cup Winners Cup succession boxes should be removed (sets a dangerous precedent) *"International Record" is a bit crufty, Chelsea F.C. seasons is a better place for such information. Qwghlm 17:46, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Did what is now striked. Also added citation notes where requested. BTW are you aware "Sexy Football" is refrence to something the then manager Ruud Gullit once said.Buc 18:20, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Indeed - although Gullit said it as a TV pundit during Euro 96,[11] and not in reference to his own team. Chelsea played some good football under Gullit but they also did so under Vialli and Hoddle; the "sexy football" is more popular mythology than a proper critical description. Qwghlm 18:44, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
"Sexy football" is only an informal term, more or less unverifiable, and imo can be removed altogether.
Re the 1955 picture. I've tagged it as PUI, but the uploader says that it is not copyrighted. The issue should be resolved in the next few days. I've added a few more citations and will try to add the rest. SteveO 19:26, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

There's not much point in having a seperate page for managers and listing ALL the managers in the main article as well. I'd cut some of them like Sheffield Wednesday F.C.#Managers and players HornetMike 19:45, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

The 'Glanvill' citations are for Rick Glanvill's Chelsea FC: The Official Biography - The Definitive Story of the First 100 Years (ISBN 0-7553-1466-2), which is in the references. It's an unfortunate coincidence that works by Brian Glanville are also cited, but surely it's not necessary to write the full details of the book in each footnote. Perhaps write it once and then put op cit?
I've also removed the 'sexy football' and 'widely seen as the worst ever' comments. SteveO 22:12, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
Oh, my bad. You'd not think it such a popular name for football journalists specialising in Chelsea. Maybe it's a family tradition and one of them is dyslexic. Seegoon 17:09, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
It might be worth adding initials (R. Glanvill and B. Glanville) to their surnames in the references, just to make it clearer. Incidentally it's unlikely they're related as Brian Glanville's real surname is Goldberg, from what I recall. Qwghlm 12:33, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
I've followed Qwghlm's suggestion and Glanvill's initial to the references. SteveO 15:11, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Once the issue with the 1955 team photo is resloved I'm going to make this a FAC.Buc 21:51, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

The Well of Loneliness

I've expanded this article about a famous banned lesbian novel from a near-stub. It's now heavily referenced to scholarly sources and covers responses to the book from 1928 to the present, as well as its themes and content. What can I do to help it pass FAC? —Celithemis 04:14, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

An interesting article that is nicely written and well referenced, in my opinion. A link to the Sexual inversion dab would be helpful. Unless I am mistaken, there appear to be a few issues with the use of punctuation in combination with quotations. (See WP:MoS#Punctuation.) What are the three-digit numbers in parentheses? Are those page number in an edition of the book? It is unclear. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by RJHall (talk • contribs)
Thanks for your comments. I've added the wikilink you suggested, and I think I've found all of the "illogical" punctuation.
The parenthetical citations are indeed to The Well of Loneliness, as explained in the first footnote. This seems to be a fairly common system when writing about literature -- several of the sources I cite use it. I like it because it reduces footnote clutter and makes it obvious whether a primary or a secondary source is being cited for a particular claim about the book. What I've done is to change the first reference to The Well so that the first time you see a page number in parentheses, there is a footnote right there that explains it. Does that work? —Celithemis 12:11, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
That should probably work, although I'd be tempted to put a "p." in front of the page numbers so that it is clear. Might I also suggest nominating this as a good article candidate (albeit LONG)? To me it looks ready. (But if not you'll likely get more feedback.) Thanks. — RJH (talk) 15:23, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
I gave the (p. 373) format a try but on preview found it too obtrusive. I think I will probably just give up the parenthetical page numbers as a failed experiment, but I want to think about it a bit more first.
Also, I've submitted it as a good article candicate, as you suggested. Thanks again! —Celithemis 14:24, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Mutual Broadcasting System

A very fine, potential choice for what may be Wikipedia's first FA or GA on a radio station. With so many refs in the page, everything's almost looking good. How close has it come to such otustanding levels? --Slgrandson (page - messages - contribs) 23:27, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

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

You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, SenatorsTalk | Contribs 00:34, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Henry Pittock

Would like third-party assessment, and advice to bring up to GA level. -- "J-M" (Jgilhousen) 08:55, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

This article is of very high quality; congradulations are in order! I would say that you have a 50:50 chance of this article passing a WP:GA review - it would solely depend on the leniency of the editors who review it. I would like to, however, make a few constructive comments about the article; these may seem picky - and also, I can fix them myself - but I would like to offer you the opportunity to do so as the main contributor. Firstly, the final sentence of the introductory paragraph reads rather clumsily and perhaps you ought to re-write that. Secondly; the opening sentence of the final paragraph of the section Oregonian publisher and editor: clarify what "it" (first word) is. Lastly, try to either find sources for or re-use existing sources for the opening paragraph. I often find that sources are second most effective in the opening paragraph - after, obviously, controversial statements - as they seem to make a bold statement saying "this article is well-researched and worth your time to read". That's it! Well done, and I would advise after both these advised changes and a little expansion (remember your sources - see WP:CITE) and your sailing that Good Article review! If you have any questions, in particular about my review, please don't hesitate to ask me at my talk page. Regards, Anthonycfc [T • C] 03:42, 8 January 2007 (UTC)


"J-M" (Jgilhousen)

MLilburne

I think this article is most of the way there. Just a few things...

Hope these comments are useful to you. MLilburne 16:21, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

They are indeed. Since they involve recrafting some major portions of text, rather than just quick error correction, they will take me some time to implement. The barefoot reference is ubiquitous in the work of his biographers, including those I included as "general references." There are bits from those two sources in virtually every paragraph, and marking them all seemed to have a significant impact on readability. I'll revisit that issue in view of your remarks. The "conclusion" sentence and Horatio Algier remark attempts (obviously unsuccessful) at adding color, which my writing has been criticized for lacking... I tend to favor a much more dry style that some people seem to find dull. I'll rework them. All in all, thank you. I'll make a note here when I've completed a redraft. -- "J-M" (Jgilhousen) 04:08, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Yannismarou

I think the article is too close to GA status. This is my review:

Life of Joseph Smith, Jr. from 1827 to 1830

I'd like a few people, if possible, to check some of the citations in this heavily-cited article and make sure everything is accurate and NPOV. COGDEN 21:05, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

"In late May 1829, Samuel Smith returned home to Palmyra, and his report to the family and community prompted Lucy Harris, wife of Martin Harris, to file a lawsuit against Joseph Smith, in absentia, before a judge in Lyons, New York. (Smith 1853, p. 132)." There seems to be some context missing here. What was the lawsuit about? Kaldari 08:05, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
Good question. I'm pretty sure that Lucy Harris was charging Smith with defrauding her husband, but I'll try to find a source. COGDEN 01:53, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
I've addressed this by adding context. COGDEN 19:59, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Electronic voice phenomenon

A good page that's now stalled for various reasons. Hoping to submit for a GA/FA soon, but need suggestions for how to bring it up to standard. --InShaneee 20:39, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Review by aviper2k7

I thought the article was pretty good, but it's not clear enough for people unfamiliar with the subject. It's pretty well referenced, but still needs some more in places. I don't think the article really needs the unsourced template anymore.++aviper2k7++ 00:58, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Review by Perfectblue97

This page talks far too much about dabblings into EVP, but contains very little about what EVP actually is. At present, what we have is a potted history of people trying to prove or disprove something, but very little about said something.

What are the characteristics of an EVP and how would I know if I got one? How do you go about getting one? Do they co-relate with haunting sites? What equipment do they appear on?

I'm also extremely concerned that there is a lot of factional POV pushing going on, with one faction seemingly intent on placing skeptical comments everywhere, and continually calling things into question using science standards rather than pseudo science standards (as would be correct in this instance), and another faction adding in content from special interest website that make statements without offering any data to back them up (when claiming a result, I'd like to see the analysis).

With all due respect to the editors who have put a lot of time into this (often at crossed purposes), I think that page needs to be sliced down to:

I also strongly suggest that no image caption ever include text along the lines of "This has not been pier reviewed", or "This has not been proven". Putting such text in such a promenant place is POV pushing in the extreme as it seeks to create a vivid impression in the mind of the reader.

perfectblue 13:26, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Comment by LuckyLouie

I agree with Perfectblue's suggestions. There should be no need for text (such as the image caption) that denigrates the subject.

I might add that Wikipedia's policy regarding pseudoscience actually dictates that the article has a POV, which, according to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/FAQ#Pseudoscience is...

"The task before us is not to describe disputes as though, for example, pseudoscience were on a par with science; rather, the task is to represent the majority (scientific) view as the majority view and the minority (sometimes pseudoscientific) view as the minority view"

In the case of EVP, the majority (mainstream science) does not support the beliefs of the minority (EVP researchers), and I believe this can be stated by the article briefly, simply, fairly, and without rancor.

I have watched this article for a long time, and have observed that when one side decides to "pump up the volume" by adding more data to make its case, the other side responds in kind, and pretty soon the article is a mess of point-counterpoint. I will also go on record as registering my opinion that the "subject matter expert" chosen for this article was more of a hinderance than an asset. I found his advice to be counterproductive to the process of writing an encyclopedia article, e.g. "Study A is bunk and should not be mentioned since Study B is what our organization favors" and "Technique A is considered amateurish and should not be mentioned since we always use Technique B"

--- LuckyLouie 06:08, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Mourning Dove

First time

I am trying to get this article to featured status. Last time, I failed it due to several objections based on the style of writing at the need for copyediting. Please provide comments on the prose (and on everything else). Thanks. Miss Madeline | Talk to Madeline 00:23, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

I felt like I got to know all I wanted to know about this bird, and the article seems well written and very well sourced.

Otherwise, a good article. --GunnarRene 05:01, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Kurt Welter

Kurt Welter seems to be a controversial character. Some references claim that he is the highest scoring Jet Ace of World War II and other references indicate that his claims are exaggerated above and beyond what seems "normal". First, I want this article reviewed since I am relatively new to Wikipedia and want to uphold its quality standards. Secondly I want to avoid a situation where continuous reverting of the content takes place Erwin Rommel is a good example here. I also would like to know where to get a Wikipedia compliant picture from.MisterBee1966 12:35, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Kirill Lokshin

This article still has a lot of work ahead of it. The main problems:

As far as images go, I'm not sure. Are there any official photographs of him produced by the Luftwaffe? Kirill Lokshin 20:02, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Yannismarou

Tenacious D

This article has been peer reviewed previously, and I feel I addressed the issues raised.

The article was recently rated good, and I would appreciate further suggestions in order for it to meet FA specifications.

Tenacious D Fans (talk) 19:12, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

A Series of Unfortunate Events

Wikipedia:Peer review/A Series of Unfortunate Events/archive1 - Archived Discussion

This page has been peer-reviewed before, but recieved very little attention. This is only at B class and one of WP:ASUE's goals is to get this page to featured status. <3Clamster 23:30, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Start off with a History section perhaps: has Handler ever stated his inspiration to write a miserable tale for children? Wiki-newbie 21:47, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Awadewit

I agree with your description of "undersourced". The page needs sourcing, but I've found it dificult to find critical reviews as this is generally considered a childen's series. Currently, I don't have enough time to search for sources, but I hope other contributors will take the iniative. <3Clamster 00:38, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
Even putting "Lemony Snicket" into google scholar will get you a few basics. Awadewit 01:48, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
Still, it's quite difficult to find detailed analysis and, frankly, I believe it is extremely to promote literature-related articles to FA status, as the themes' meanings are usually decided by the individual readers, meaning it's difficult to achieve NPOV.--Orthologist 20:51, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Harry Potter

I was shocked to find the other day that no Harry Potter article is as of yet a FA. This it the core article which is already a GA. What needs to be done to get is up to FA standard?Buc 10:09, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm not going through a full peer review here, but the article is 73 kb long, well over the recommended limit. The article should be split up and reduced. Please see WP:SIZE. I don't think at this size, the article can achieve FA status.++aviper2k7++ 01:11, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

I'd recommend cutting it down to the 60-65 KB, but length isn't that big an issue. Wiki-newbie 19:28, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

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

Avoid misplaced formality: “in order to/for” (-> to/for), “thereupon”, “notwithstanding”, etc.

You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, SenatorsTalk | Contribs 03:53, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Eskaya

So much recent work has been done on the article. Any feedback is needed on what needs to be cleaned up? What's broken, incorrect, needs fixing? --Pinay (talk•email) 04:33, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

First of all I give the article 9.2 out of 10.

I have no knowledge what so ever about Eskaya, but by simple look and read exercises I found that more information is needed, pictures will need to be added. Once this has been done nominated it for good article status. Also can you review or grammar check my article Ford BA Falcon and if it is good enough nominate it for Good Article status.SenatorsTalk | Contribs 00:20, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Rocky Balboa (film)

The article is coming along; I'm just wondering what kind of things need to be fixed/tidied up/overhauled to get this up to a featured article-class entry. Theirishpianist 16:20, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Wiki-newbie 19:47, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Good job on the expansion, but the Budget and Timeline as well as Distribution is uncited. Keep going, and mine the external links. Wiki-newbie 19:00, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Texas hold 'em

Old Peer Review

Hello, this is the second request for peer review. The article has had several changes since the previous one. I think that its getting close to FA standard, but I would like to solicit some other opinions. Thank you very much for your time! --best, kevin [kzollman][talk] 20:39, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

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

You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, SenatorsTalk | Contribs 03:50, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for the comments. As a suggestion for the program, it would really help if you could point out where the offending bits are. It's very hard, for instance, to go through each and every footnote looking to see which one is before the punctuation. I suspect this wouldn't be a hard modification, although what do I know ;) I'll look through the article and find them. --best, kevin [kzollman][talk] 04:10, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Bodil Joensen

This biography is cited, and pictured, and has been stable long term.

Comments requested on how it's shaping up towards Featured Article status, or any other improvements people would look for. FT2 (Talk | email) 01:35, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

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

You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, SenatorsTalk | Contribs 03:47, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Ford BA Falcon

Please write what you think about this article if there is anything that i have missed please tell me. Senators 01:18, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

There is a lot wrong with this article - too much to spell out in detail.
  • This image Image:55142 3mg.jpg is an unnecessary 'fair use' image. You already have photos of the car - it only ceased production last year so there is ample prospect for obtaining new photos. Fair use does not apply under these circumstances - so this photo has to go.
  • There is a confusing switch of tenses in the introduction: "the car is manufactured by..." - yet the car ceased production over a year ago. This confusion of tenses pervades the article. There are still switches of tense throughout the remainder of the article.
  • The quality of spelling, punctuation and grammar needs a lot of work. Elementary mistakes like 'where' instead of 'were'...or: In the BA range there is six models (are six models!). There are far too many problems to list here - the entire article needs a thorough copy-edit.
  • There are many unlinked terms, eg: The ANCAP gave the car 4 out of 5 stars - what the heck is 'ANCAP'?!? Even fairly obvious terms such as 'LCD' need to be either linked or expanded (eg 'liquid crystal display (LCD)').
  • Also, there many weasel-words: (people speculate that... - which people?
  • Factual/technical problems: therfore the car may use an extra 1.5 liters of fuel in the real environment - 1.5 liters over the life of the car? 1.5 liters per day? 1.5 liters per kilometer? What?
  • When you use metric measurements, please put the imperial equivelents in brackets afterwards.
  • SPELL CHECK THIS ARTICLE! There is no excuse for desinged, whanted, etc.
  • Some things are clearly nonsense: the driver moves the gear stick to the left and the vehicle will change gears according to the driver's liking and acceleration. The car is not telepathic - it doesn't know the 'driver's liking'. Tell us what it actually does.
  • You tell us that they were to hard to get in to because a user's head would always hit the top - always'?!? Even little old ladies? People afflicted with dwarfism that are only 3 feet tall? No - of course not - this is a ridiculous statement. The article is full of junk like that. This is an encyclopedia - you have to be really, really careful about exaggerating. Keep to the actual facts.
  • The level of detail in the article fluctuates wildly. You tell us microscopic details such as how the colour of the knobs on the radio changed from one version of the car to another - yet you never tell us fundamental things like what size wheels the thing has. I'm not saying that we need all of that other stuff - but if you are writing a high-ish level article then please leave out the silly little details and if you are attempting an unbelievably detailed description then we need a lot more detail about the rest of the car!
As I said, this article needs a heck of a lot of work.
SteveBaker 03:58, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
The article has improved immensely over the last few days. I've struck out the things from my list of comments (above) that have now been fixed - but the language use is still very sloppy - there are lots of grammatical and punctuation problems remaining. I wouldn't want to accept this as a WP:GA. SteveBaker 02:22, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

From SG

I was requested to review this article for GA status: I don't participate in GA, but can review it anyway. I fixed some things.

Didn't have time to read the article. Sandy (Talk) 02:29, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Ford BA Falcon

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

Motorcycle

With nearly 2,000 edits since first started this article really seems pretty well formed and ready for some additional input by other editors. As one of the foundation articles of the recently formed, but ever expanding, Motorcycling WikiProject this could do with some critical opinions to improve it to possible GA or FA status. TIA for the input. ww2censor 16:34, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Is the TOC not a bit imposing? Seegoon 18:02, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

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

Avoid misplaced formality: “in order to/for” (-> to/for), “thereupon”, “notwithstanding”, etc.

You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, SenatorsTalk | Contribs 03:51, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Complete Rewrite - initial proposal

Comments by User:Manning Bartlett copied here from the Motorcycle Talk page because it relates to this peer review.

OK, I saw the request for peer review, so here are my thoughts. This article is loaded with excellent content, but fails in its primary task of being the foundation of "all things motorcycle in the 'pedia".

From a knowledge framework, this article is a "parent" article. Motorcycle represents a subject that is multi-facted, and the authors of this article cannot safely presuppose the objectives of its readers. A reader may arrive here seeking to understand a) the socio-economic significance of 3rd world transport b) Hollywood treatment of the topic c) different valve configurations d) etc.

Hence the purpose of this article is to be sufficiently generic across the topic, while giving its readers an easy path to the specific knowledge they seek. As I read this article (Jan 9 07), I find it confusing and lacking a sensible structure. It tries to be comprehensive in some areas, is clearly inadequate in others, and intimidates the reader, rather than exciting them with the prospect of new knowledge discoveries.

I feel a complete rewrite is in order, but this rewrite should be coordinated and follow a pre-determined Heading/Subheading structure (which I think should be discussed thoroughly here before embarking on it). A need for various subarticles will emerge, but before diving off and creating them all, consensus should be obtained.

So here are some basic questions: 1 - Why would a reader surf into this article? Try to identify as many candidate reasons and then generalise them. (Eg - motorcycles in movies, custom chopper building, Paris Dakar racing, internal combustion engines, 3rd world transport, luxury lifestyle symbols, bikie gang violence, military history, vintage marques, etc, etc).

2 - Presume (for the sake of the exercise) that this article consists of nothing more than links to external articles (headings and sub-headings). How should it be laid out?

If the above two steps are completed to exeryone's satisfaction, then the content of the article will become largely self guiding. As I said, all of the text I read was high quality, it is the structure which makes this parent article hard to digest. Regards Manning 01:51, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Caterham CSR

Hi, I've basically written this whole article, so I'm sure it suffers from a very distinct personal writing style. If anyone can pick up on some of those and provide alternatives, that would be great. Also, I'm wondering if I should even have comparisons to other sports cars. On the one hand, it detracts from the topic of the article, but on the other hand, it puts it into better perspective. Thoughts? Since I built one of these cars, I have a bunch more pictures that I can add, so if there's a section that you think needs a picture, please request it. Thanks, Riguy talk/contribs 09:11, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

My principal gripe about the article (not the car -- I've always had a desire to at least drive one of these things since I saw one on The Prisoner while still an impressionable child) is that you add the page titles or document titles whenever you supply a URL in your references. It may be my own very distinct personal style, but seeing a bare URL without any external clue what it is linking to looks a little too amateurish, even for Wikipedia. -- llywrch 22:25, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
OK Thanks. I'm a little confused what you mean. Do you mean all the references how they are simply URL's and that the external links section simply has the page titles? Also, I'm not entirely sure how to change references. I'm still a little new to Wikipedia, so I'm still trying to wrap my head around all the coding stuff. Thanks for your help. Riguy talk/contribs 22:47, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
I made a few edits to your footnotes (specifically #11 & #12) to show you what I was talking about. Having given this article a second look, I'll add another suggestion: you may want to removed the sub-section headers from the "Improvements" section: having headers followed by single paragraphs is not good style. -- llywrch 22:23, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
OK, thanks for your help. I'll update all the footnotes sometime in the future. I suppose I'll just combine all the paragraphs under "Inprovements" into one section without subsections as well. Do you think I should apply for "good article" status yet? Thanks, Riguy talk/contribs 01:39, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

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

You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, SenatorsTalk | Contribs 05:42, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Battle of Beruna Ford

I just nominated this article for GA status and it was failed for the lead not being written in the fictional present tense. I fixed this, and spoke to the reviewer, who suggested it was still not ready due to being too in-universe. Is this too in-universe, and if so, suggestions on how to fix it? Thanks, Fbv65edel / ☑t / ☛c || 04:35, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Kanon

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)

Semi-automatic

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

You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, GunnarRene 22:20, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

GunnarRene
I'll get on that.--十八 00:23, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

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:

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)
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)
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)

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)

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)
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)
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)
I've removed them.--十八 00:23, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
I'll get on that.--十八 00:24, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

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)

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)

Maserati MC12

I put this article up for peer review at the end of November (see Wikipedia:Peer review/Maserati MC12/archive1). If you suggested before please don't feel obliged to again, though all comments are very welcome. I know the first reference (Motor Trend Magazine Review) is heavily used, but if you see their article it is very comprehensive, much more so than any other source. I'm looking to get this up to FA so the things I want to know specifically are:

Please be very harsh so it improves greatly. Thanks in advance. James086Talk | Contribs 08:59, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Dr. Billy Campbell

I'd like to improve upon this article and bring it up to a good or a good article rating. Please make any suggestions necessary. GA Eulogy4Afriend 18:34, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Yannismarou

It needs work. Some suggestions:

Social psychology (psychology)

Hi, some users think this article deserves a FA status, others, even not a GA. I would like to get opinion and/or suggestions from users who usually writes on psychology or not. Each comment is welcomed (structure, content, etc...). Thanks.Frédérick Lacasse 15:20, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Joe Sehee

I'd like to improve upon this article and bring it up to a good or a good article rating. Please make any suggestions necessary. Eulogy4Afriend 18:51, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Yannismarou

Again, another stub. Expand, restrucure (per WP:LEAD and WP:LAYOUT) the article and cite it properly (per WP:CITE). Check also WP:MoS; it could be useful. I don't think a review is now very useful; the article must first be expanded in order to reach B-Class status. Again, the same comment for the "See also" section: do you really need it (why don't you incorporate the links in the main prose, if they are important)? If yes, why is there a red link? Is it going to be fixed. Alphabetize categories at the end of the article.--Yannismarou 21:08, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Wesley Clark

Tweaked intro. Kaisershatner 14:21, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
  • I included the valedictorian bit you added to the lead, but quite a bit of that made strange decisions (like a 2 sentence paragraph just to have another paragraph), hiding a link to awards and decorations in the phrase "distinguished career", and saying his service at NATO was after the US Army when it was a part of his US Army command. Staxringold talkcontribs 22:28, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Arbroath

Just looking for some general comments, thoughts, pointers, people to run through the article and correct any spelling or grammatical errors I've let slip in or not edited out. Any other thoughts would also be appreciated. I've followed Dundee in trying to get this article upto FA status and I'd really like to get the article upto that standard. --Kind Regards - Heligoland | Talk | Contribs 04:09, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

"It is the home of 45 Commando" in the intro should be moved to the third paragraph; also consider "Since 19XX it has been the home of..." Give the long history of this place I doubt its role as a garrison town should be so prominently noted. Kaisershatner 14:05, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Léonce Perret

This article was recently translated from French to English. It went through the process of editing, revising and proofreading by multiple users. If it is possible, could you make some comments regarding the article's content and possible errors in the editing. Would you also comment on the article's potential as a good/featured article as well (and where to develop)? Thank you very much in advance! :) --lovelaughterlife♥talk? 05:56, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I've copied the automated comments from here to this page: --lovelaughterlife♥talk? 21:43, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

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

You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, APR t 21:01, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Bang Cartoon

I've visted this site once or twice and I was pleased to see it has a article. I think it needs exspanding though. 82.6.164.68 23:10, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Detroit, Kansas

I'm looking for further ideas of the types of information that would be good to add to this article and general review. I'm working on seveal small-town articles at this time: this one, Jamestown, Kansas and Concordia, Kansas.

--Paul McDonald 15:17, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Concordia, Kansas

I'm looking for further ideas of the types of information that would be good to add to this article and general review. I'm working on seveal small-town articles at this time: this one, Jamestown, Kansas and Detroit, Kansas.

Yeast

This recently was voted for the article improvement drive and many good additions have been made. I hope now that some people can peer review this article to give us an idea of what still needs to be done. I would very much appreciate any comments. Benbread 02:40, 29 December 2006 (UTC)


David.Throop 18:22, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Black Marsh

I've been developing this article for some time, following recommendations from Wikiproject Elder Scrolls, a previous Peer Review, and a Good Article nomination. The article is now a Good Article, and as the other sources have run dry in recommendations, I'd like to request comments here before moving forward. Any criticism or comment is welcome. Thank you. Geuiwogbil 05:37, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

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

You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, JACOPLANE • 2007-01-11 15:12

Threshing-board

This article was recently the Wikipedia:Spanish Translation of the Week. The article was translated in its entirety from the article trillo, which is a featured article on the Spanish wikipedia.

Now that the article has been translated, it would be helpful to have a fresh set of eyes look it over - especially people who have not read the corresponding article in Spanish and therefore do not already know what it is trying to say.

We are looking for any advice on how to improve the article. Given the high quality of the original article, it should be possible to improve this to a good article and eventually to a featured article. Here are a few topics for possible comments, but feel free to comment on other things as well:
1) general comprehensability to people new to the topic
2) organization
3) formatting of references / other technical issues
4) material that might be better off removed
5) You will notice that the article has a heavy emphasis on Spain. It would be better to make the article more balanced, but the editors are not familiar with threshing-boards in other countries, so it will be somewhat difficult to add more information about other countries. Still, any specific suggestions on how to add more geographical balance would be much appreaciated.
--Fagles 19:24, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

I'll try to figure out how to shrink the images and see what's wrong with the section headings. Fagles 23:50, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:16, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Good point. It's now gone forever. Fagles 23:50, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Thank you to SandyGeorgia for the excellent suggestions and improvements. I think we have addressed all the issues that were raised. Any additional advice from peer reviewers would be much appreciated. Fagles 02:06, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Joyce Kilmer

I've done a lot of work to bring this article from stub to where it is now. (It was just named a Good Article today, only a mere 1 hour and 56 minutes after I nominated it.) I'd like to improve it, as it's always possible to improve things, and I wonder if this is worthy for inclusion among the Featured Articles. Thank you in advance for comments, suggestions and efforts in this regard. —ExplorerCDT 00:19, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Ellis Paul

I'm a relatively new Wiki editor. Would like constructive feedback in my goal to reach FA status and would like a few members of the WikiBioProject to rate the article. Thank you in advance for your assistance. Kmzundel 00:08, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

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

You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, SenatorsTalk | Contribs 03:48, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Yannismarou

Nice job. But it needs some work to be in accord with Wikipedia's standards and criteria. This is my review:

The lead is the only paragraph I did NOT write and was hesitant to remove it, but I will re-work it, taking your comments into consideration.Kmzundel
Not my work either. Thought it was odd. Will remove. Kmzundel
After trying for five years, Paul was invited to play the Kerrville Folk Festival in 1994. He won the Kerrville New Folk Award that year." Just an example of choppy prose.
Understood. Kmzundel
That is the next area I planned to tackle. Kmzundel
Will take all comments under advisement and continue editing. Thank you! Kmzundel 19:42, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
Incorporated many of your suggestions! Thank you again! Kmzundel 02:48, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Truthiness

I am looking for any advice on how to improve this article. Anything that can be thought of. The Filmaker 23:28, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

It looks very good generally, with plenty of references (the advantage of recent popular culture). The factiness subsection could be incorporated into somewhere else. There are the odd stubby paragraphs with only one or two sentences which should probably be linked. The final section about the correspondents dinner looks a bit odd with the text squeezed into the middle, so one of the images could be moved down a bit. Not a lot to say really, it's a great article. Trebor 21:21, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

List of recordings preserved in the United States National Recording Registry

I would like to nominate this list as a featured list. Please review accordingly. TonyTheTiger 06:49, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

I am not sure if the phrasing of the above statement threw reviewers off. I meant please review in a way that will help me toward that end, which is probably the normal way a list would be reviewed. TonyTheTiger 01:50, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

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

You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, SenatorsTalk | Contribs 05:35, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

It's a little unclear what the years refer to, do they correspond to the year the recording was seletcted? At any rate, it could be clarified in the lead. Are there any appropriate images for this to add some variation to the article? Trebor 19:43, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Extreme ironing

Any advice for this article? -- Zanimum 15:10, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

A few things come to mind after a read:

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

You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, SenatorsTalk | Contribs 00:36, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Hasmonean

This article concerns the history of the Hasmonean Dynasty, in a period that includes the aftermath of Alexander the Great's Empire, the conflict between Ptolemaic Egypt and the Seleucid Empire; significant events in Jewish history such as the festival of Hannukah and the achievement of Jewish national self-determination; the rise of the Roman Republic and Roman Empire, and wars involving among others: Julius Caesar, Pompey the Great, and Mark Antony. Not to mention a period of time encompassing early Christianity. I have been unable to attract any interest at WikiProject Jewish History, or WP:Requests for feedback. Since I have been staring at my own prose for about two weeks I can't even see the spelling errors anymore, and I'm not sure that the narrative flow of the article is all that good. Thus, I thought some Peer Review would be useful.

I realize better sourcing is needed. I am not sure if the timeline really adds to the article. I would welcome any other suggestions or contributions. Kaisershatner 13:58, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

As you say, sourcing is an issue - there need to be more. Focusing on prose though:

In my opinion, the lead should be a bit simpler and written in more straightforward English, perhaps sacrificing some of the less important details for clarity. Sentences with lots of sub-clauses and asides become very difficult to follow. Skimming the rest of the article (I can look at it in more detail if you want):

On the whole, it seems very good. Just need to sort out the rest of the referencing and give it a copyedit, and it'll be excellent. Trebor 18:45, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Fahd of Saudi Arabia

In Wikipedia's list of long pages, this is tops among articles written about people, living or dead (at 220 KBs). This is almost close to FA level (I can feel it), but what needs to be taken care of before we take such a chance? --Slgrandson (page - messages - contribs) 23:24, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Jeffpw

Sorry to disappoint you, but this article is nowhere near FA status. There's not one single reference in this article, so it fails WP:V right off the bat. You (or somebody) will be busy for months citing every fact in an article of this length. There's also only one small picture at the bottom of this loooooong article. It needs a thorough copy editing, too. Additionally, the article (the parts I read, anyway) reads like a promotional piece for the Kingdom. Whole swaths could be deleted from the article, since they are more about the Kingdom than the King. I don't mean to be discouraging, but you asked for opinions. Jeffpw 23:49, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

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

Avoid misplaced formality: “in order to/for” (-> to/for), “thereupon”, “notwithstanding”, etc.

You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, SenatorsTalk | Contribs 00:34, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Yannismarou

An article needing work. Probably a new review will be needed after the suggestions of this one are implemented. These are some initial remarks:

Devil May Cry 2

Recently, I've done a lot of work on the Devil May Cry 2 page, and I'm currently trying to get it to Featured Article status. Right now the Gameplay section does require a bit of sourcing (something I'm in the process of working on), but overall I'm fairly proud of the work I've done. It'd help if I could get a few eyes on the article to help me identify the problems I'm blind to because I've been working it so long.

To summarize my changes:

Thanks in advance.

Cheers, Lankybugger 03:07, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

  • References go after punctuation, .[10], not [10].
  • There are too many one sentence paragraphs, try merge them with others
  • Images need fair use rationales. M3tal H3ad 07:17, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

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

You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, JACOPLANE • 2007-01-11 15:04 15:04, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

This is a good start, but a fair amount of work is still required. It needs a thorough copyedit: the 4 paragraphs in the lead could easily be condensed to 2. The majority of the article isn't wikilinked. The Gameplay subsection is largely unreferenced, while the Plot subsection had too many notes (it isn't necessary to include so much of the dialogue). Reaction subsection is mostly good, although the cites could do with formatting (go to Template:Cite and choose the correct one for the source in question). It also seems to be written too much in-universe (see WP:WAF), try to find sources that have commented on the gameplay of it. A section on Development would be good too. Look at articles like Final Fantasy X or Shadow of the Colossus for ideas. Trebor 16:56, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Aaron Sorkin

I started making edits to the Aaron Sorkin article in late 2006 and have recently finished what I believe to be a complete biography of his life. The goal was to chronicle his rise as a Screenwriter and to figure out how to write the life of a Screenwriter at Wikipedia. I believe if Aaron Sorkin's article reaches featured article status (which is the goal) it will be the first featured article about a Screenwriter. A definite plus for Wikipedia. This article is also a part of the nascent Screenwriters Wikiproject.

Anyways, please help by vetting what I've done. Experimental sections such as 'Writing style and habits' could be debated. I think the section is important but how it's done could use a discussion. It will set a precedent for other articles about Screenwriters (such as the David Mamet article).-BiancaOfHell 01:09, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi, I'll have a good look over the article at a later time, but with the quick glance I've had I'll mention a few things.
Okay, thanks for the review. I think the lead section is expanded enough now, but is it informative enough? Does it perhaps need more details? Should I maybe talk about his drug addiction problems, or is that inappropriate? seems kinda inappropriate.
Split the Lead up like the whole article, so if the article is 1/2 career, 1/2 controversies, then split the lead up the same way. You should mention some of the controversies, maybe two sentences. You should also mention "Writing style and habits", because thats a major section of the article. - Shudda talk 09:17, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
Okay, I think I got all of that in the new lead section. What do you think of the Infobox? Should it maybe have more information in it, or is it satisfactory?-BiancaOfHell 09:46, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
Have a section on his awards or plays, movies etc. This could get to big though. You are probably the best judge of what is most important in the infobox. - Shudda talk 10:01, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
Okay, I'll leave the Infobox alone, unless I come up with something. I think I tackled the awards section. Thanks alot for all the help. If you see anything else, let me know. Preferably let me know over at the Featured Article candidates page where I'm trying (probably futiley) to get this article escalated to an FA. Tak!-BiancaOfHell 10:29, 25 January 2007 (UTC)


  • Merge some of the smaller sections (eg the Call girl and Drugs sections could maybe be combined).
If I combined the two controversy sections it would link them together and the one has nothing to do with the other (at least as far as has been proven). I don't think there are any other small sections hanging around.
Well, both of those things seems like personal life issues, rather then professional ones like the others. So maybe, "personal life" or something. - Shudda talk 09:17, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
You're right. Done.-BiancaOfHell 09:24, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
  • The honours and awards could be delisted, you could create a new article such as List of the honours and awards of Aaron Sorkin (or a better title), and then summarise the section (much more fun to read a couple of paragraphs then a list).
I will delist the honours and awards section... and do as you have recommended. In it's place should be a wikilink, and a paragraph of prose, I guess. Will let you know when this is done.-BiancaOfHell 05:41, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
Done. Still wondering though if a paragraph of prose is needed.-BiancaOfHell 05:48, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
Yes, a paragraph of prose is definitely needed! Sorry if I didn't make that clear. I would mention major awards in the paragraph etc. Maybe two paragraphs? - Shudda talk 09:17, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
Prose done. Exhausting writing about someone else's awards. 2 paragraphs should be good enough. -BiancaOfHell 10:29, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
Sorry but that is all I have for now. Good luck! - Shudda talk 04:16, 25 January 2007 (UTC)


It looks in pretty good shape. Two things that stand out though:

Done.-BiancaOfHell 05:41, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
I corrected the one, or I should say moved it to the right, down in the Writing style and habits section. Are the image boxes in The West Wing section problematic? Are there any that specifically jump out at you as being a problem? Thanks for taking the time to review. -BiancaOfHell 05:41, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
I believe the image boxes are all perfect now. I find some rules in the Manual of style and followed them. Looks better.-BiancaOfHell 06:40, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

FA candidate?

So a few of the criticisms are sticking with me:

Done. Fixed.-BiancaOfHell 06:40, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
Yes, I think I should. And I have. Thanks for peer reviewing my article!-BiancaOfHell 07:03, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Same-sex marriage in Spain

This article is already a GA, and I believe it could be a FA one day. Suggestion to improve it to this end are greatly appreciated. Raystorm 11:21, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Dev920

Good article (well, obviously), here's some stuff I found:

That's all I can think of at the moment. I'll add to it if I find anything. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 11:54, 21 January 2007 (UTC)


Thanks for taking the time to review the article!
  • Sorry. Seems my Legal English isn't as fantastic as I thought. How do you call the process a law must undergo to finally become a law?
ratification (I am starting my own peer review now). Jeffpw 13:01, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
  • With the marriage numbers, we tried to provide the estimations from a conservative source (La Razon), the LGTB Spanish organization and a Government officer. What other references should be added? I'll try to see what I can find for the Residency section.
  • The sentence about Canada is because there was some confusion about which country had become the third to allow gay marriage. In fact, some news sources list Spain as being the 4th country to allow it, instead of the third. I'll try to cut it down, but I think it's important to keep.
  • Ahhh, that's the mistery about the PP! In the previous 8 years, while they governed, they took no steps to provide equal rights to gays. In fact, they shot down several propositions from the opposition. They argue that if they had won the elections they would have regulated by law gay unions, but we will never know will we? They have gone to demonstrations against gay marriage, saying their problem is the use of the word 'marriage', not gay people per se. So you could say they opposed gay marriage at the Senate because they were both being contrary (they've seldom agreed with the Government in anything) and because they did not support gay marriage.
  • *Grin* Okay, the exorcism sentence might be slightly POV. I think I added it to provide a counter balance to Polaino's previous statements. I figured it'd be 'informative' to let people know that the guy who said such things about gays had also written articles based on religious beliefs as opposed to hard science (that would be relevant explaining his gay statements, don't you think?). An article is provided as a ref too, so it isn't just hearsay. But if it is a big problem it can be removed or reworded.
  • The lesbian marriage sentence. Well, I also don't like it too much. The 'from whatever means' refers to the several possibilities (in vitro, male friend) a lesbian could get pregnant. It makes no difference the way a lesbian gets pregnant. It's not a strong sentence, I'll see if I can reword it.
  • Well, the problem is the definition of Catholic. Most Spaniards are Catholic because they were baptised at birth, and that fact is recorded and cannot be changed even if the person later rejects the Catholic creed. As baptism is a tradition in Spain, most Spaniards are Catholic. I could say 'Catholic authorities' to prevent confusion.
  • I thought the dates were okay? Well, I'll change them then.
  • You mean the paragraph about gay adoption being legal in several Spanish cities? Alright. I'll see if I can make some sort of wiki link to the Gay Rights in Spain article.
Thanks again Dev920! :) I'll try to make the changes asap. Cheers! Raystorm 12:24, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

I think this article does have a good shot at FA, but you must get a good copyeditor to go through it first. There are some prose issues that I cannot help you with. I've fixed some rogue footnotes, so do be careful about this with your next article. Otherwise, I cannot think of anything else to say about this article. Well done! Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 22:20, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Already requested a copyeditor to go through it. :) Thanks! Raystorm 22:41, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
PS: Does this mean it might now rate A-class at the Wikiproject? ;P Raystorm 23:15, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Jeffpw's review

Double use of officially is jarring
rather high:--seems weaselly to me. Can you provide actual figures?
Ditto for the sentence about Catholics; you should also modify this per Dev's comment.
decided to challenge. Did they challenge or not? Simply saying challenged is less ambiguous.
delete and only if from sentence about foreigners marrying (it's redundant)
breakup is a colloquialism; if the relationship ended might be a better term.
about marriage is rather clunky. Consider changing to in matters relating to marriage.
  • Check the entire article for use of passive voice. I thought I noticed it a few times in the article.
the day of his inauguration. Changing to AT his inauguration will read better.
  • only wikify dates if year is also included, per WP:MOS
Remove Canada sentence, per Dev--it's just unnecessary.
critic about--you mean critcal of

It argued that said extension was not demanded by the Spanish Constitution, and that the same result (end of discrimination) could be achieved through other legal means. Clarify this, please. Do you mean the expansion of rights to marry?

previsions:Do you mean provisions? I would suggest deleting that clause, as it does not add to sentence.
no effect in a childs' development--ON a child's.
affirmations. I think you mean assertions.
(with the girls): change to regarding girls; same with the part about boys.
exorcisms per Dev (but I like it!).
uplifted the veto--clarify please. I have no idea what you mean.
The uplifting of the veto supposed its definite approval as law. Ditto.
sanctioned could better be written as endorsed.
True enough, the king of Spain would later proceed to give his Royal Assent to the law. Remove true enough. It's just plain awkward.
Belgium and Netherlands only marries residents--cite please. Also, wikilink to relevant articles about sema-sex marriage in the countries, not the countries themselves.
divorces consummated: granted might be a more regular word choice.
Two weeks after this rally, and coinciding with the Gay Pride Day, 2.0 million people marched in favour of the new law for gays and lesbians, organizers claimed (official sources accounted 97,000). This is an odd sentence construction. Insert the final clause at the beginning of sentence.
matrimonio Is there some reason you wish to use this word, and then define it? Youcan also just say matrimony.
bringing up is an idiomatic phrase--raising is a better word choice.

All in all, this is an excellent article. I suggest you submit it to the League of copyeditors for a thorough edit, since English is your second language. After they have vetted it, please submit it for Good Article status. I would happily support its becoming a GA.


Err, it's already a GA. :) Law 13/2005 is the official name of the law. Spain is bolded because the articles' name is same-sex marriage in Spain (besides, followed Same-sex marriage in Canada lead for this per request of GA reviewer, check talk page). The 'rather high' comment is properly referenced at the reactions section, do I reference it again at the lead? I was just summarizing some sections' contents at the lead.
It argued that said extension was not demanded by the Spanish Constitution, and that the same result (end of discrimination) could be achieved through other legal means. Clarify this, please. Do you mean the expansion of rights to marry?
Well, it means that marriage wasn't necessary per se. Discrimination could be avoided by some kind of civil union regulation instead. I'll try to find a less confusing way to express this.
uplifted the veto--clarify please. I have no idea what you mean.
It means they took away the veto, it stopped having effect. I use British English, and I'm starting to realise some words are different from American English. (Just FYI, English is not my second language -I simply wasn't the only editor writing the article!). :)
AHA! In Americanspeak, that's "Override". Thanks for clarifying it for me. I hadn't heard the British term.
The marriage numbers. An online reference isn't provided, true, but the newspaper and agency that did these estimations are mentioned both by name and date. I thought that was valid?
I'll proceed with all the other changes asap (It's gonna be fun trying to find out if there's a Spanish Consulate in South Africa...). Thank you very much for taking the time to review the article! Cheers Raystorm, 21 January 2006, 17:25 UTC
Oops! I just went to the peer review from the LGBT page, so didn't look at the talk page tag, and only skimmed the rest of the stuff on this page. My apologies for not seeing that. Also, in rereading my review, I realize I may have come across as a pedantic dickhead, which was cewrtainly not my intention. I am doing 8 things at once, and was typing quickly (and a bit tersely, in retrospect). After you implement the suggested changes, consider submitting it for Featured status. At the very worst, you'll get more valuable feedback; and I think it has a very good shot at FA. Cheers, Jeffpw 18:00, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
Not at all mate, I honestly appreciate the feedback. Seeing lots of emoticons might make for a pleasant review, true, but it certainly isn't required. :) I'd rather have some good FB thrown back at me instead. Plus I understand all about time constraints, believe me. I'm glad you were able to drop your two cents in making this (hopefully) a FA one day. Cheers! Raystorm 18:14, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Automated peer review

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

You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, If you have any questions, please contact me at my talk page. Ian Manka 18:51, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

*Blink* Except for the image on the top right corner thing, I think everything else is covered. Raystorm 18:57, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
I've added a legislation infobox and juggled the images in the article a bit. How does it look now? Should I take it off or leave it? Raystorm 21:11, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
PS: Obviously I'm not asking the bot, but other humans. ;) Raystorm 21:15, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
Do you think you can add one more image to the top, or move one of the lower images? It looks a little stark, with the new infobox added. Jeffpw 21:34, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
It does, doesn't it? Let's see what I can do about it... Raystorm 21:56, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
Better now? :) Raystorm 21:59, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
Much! I know it seems strange, that the Spain box should be lower than the LGBT box, but the LGBT one is just so much more colorful. Visual appeal is a factor...to me, anyway. Call it the Queer Eye. :-) Jeffpw 22:03, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
I agree. I wasn't liking too much the outcome either after I added the Spain infobox, but figured it was a necessary addition. It does look better now. We are all visual animals anyway. :) Raystorm 22:09, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

GameFAQs

We're hoping to eventually get this to FA. Some things that I think need specifically looked at: the lead section, the Contests section (how to organize this information, expanding/cutting, etc), and use of images within the article. Also, I've been looking at Gmail and wondering whether the GameFAQs article should have a similar "competition" section. --- RockMFR 02:58, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

  • There is more info known about this, but unfortunately most of it comes from message boards (which really aren't reliable). The authors were paid $500 each. Sales, revenue, profit, reception completely unknown. From my own first-hand knowledge, I know they were sold in some parts of the United States at various stores. --- RockMFR 19:35, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
  • You're correct, most of it probably doesn't exist. However, what I've found out: edited by Corey Cohen [12], The Ultimate PS2 Strategy Guide reached a sales rank of at least #418,303[13], and The Ultimate XBox Strategy Guide reached a sales rank of at least #1,035,875.[14] Either way, there is some information out there you can expand on, albeit not much. --TheEmulatorGuy 21:08, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Editor name added, thanks (unfortunately I don't own hard copies of these guides). The sales data doesn't seem very useful and/or reliable. I imagine it was all taken from amazon, but ranks that low don't give much information. --- RockMFR 21:26, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
  • I've added a brief mention of the contributor recognition section. I'm not sure what could be added about the contribution system itself that would be encyclopedic. --- RockMFR 23:26, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

I really don't see how a competition section would work. Gmail is clearly in direct competition with other sites. I believe it's also a commercial service (it sells its AdSense ads), and of course Hotmail and Yahoo also sell special upgraded services as well. But GF is not commercial, at least in the same sense; FAQs are free, there aren't any premium features or anything. I'm not sure how you could say how, say, Cheat CC is competing with GF when both sites don't charge visitors to view FAQs (my apologies if CCC does charge). Hbdragon88 17:49, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Automated suggestions from AndyZ's peerreviewer

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

You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas.

College of the Holy Cross

This week I'm working on a deeper history, better sports section, and update to the notable alumni section.

I guess I should wait till then, but I'd really like some feedback now since I want to keep going in right direction and I see how helpful everyone is!

Anyway biggest issues are:

1. Copy editing and style (I followed outline for UNIVERSITIES but would love any tips/advice on how to make better than is) 2. Finding pictures and understanding how to use (All I get so far is that anything shot before 1923 is A-OK to use within fair use guidelines) 3. Citing sources (Have we done it right??)

If you see anything else let me or the discussion page know.

Thanks Destinvil 09:37, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm quite impressed, nice work! I'm not an expert on style guidelines, but since there doesn't seem to be a response here I'll do my best. I'd especially really like to see images of campus, architecture, sports, famous alumni, or anything. Having someone take and make available free-use (GFDL/etc) images is far preferable to trying to find fair-use images (I am not a copyright expert/etc). Checking images on (for example) MIT or University of California, Berkeley shows that this is the case for most of their images. Perhaps there is someone in the area who could do this? I'm also not a citation expert, but I would like to see book titles, at the very least, in the reference section for non-web sources (not just "last name, year, link to Amazon"). There is quite possibly another person named Kuzniewski who published something in 1999. WP:REF gives lots of discretion though. As less important, extremely tedious quibbles: adding a "Retrieved on" (see WP:REF) to web references would be ideal if extremely tedious. Also, the date these references were created is present on at least some of the originals, that could be parenthesized. As a last tiny quibble, the "Lift up the Cross" paragraph is exactly duplicated in the Background and Recent History sections; I don't know if that's intentional. It's really quite good, my biggest issue is with the lack of pictures. skip (t / c) 14:26, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for that help. I'll definitely check on those tips

1. I didnt know it repeated, haha. I can delete that easily. 2. I didnt know the 'retrieve' issue but it makes sense after reading that section. I'll try to get on that. 3. We can definitely look around for friends with pictures or on personal web pages.Destinvil 22:23, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Again, great work so far on the article. The new picture looks great, but it is not public domain. The source you provided lists it as licensed under CC by-nc-sa. This seems okay, but the image use policy says that non-commercial use only images aren't acceptable, even CC nc. I'm really not a copyright nut, but it's certainly going to come up eventually. It's a shame - the picture is quite good. By the way, is it Fenwick (per the filename) or Kane (per the caption) Hall? skip (t / c) 05:40, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

I re-did the copyright since I actually picked wrong heading for it so it should be fine now. It's O'Kane Hall but I named wrong on my pictures list. I have a couple more public campus picks to upload at later time. Thanks againDestinvil 08:55, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Blue Network

I respectfully request peer review comments on this article. The top priority is suggestions for stylistic formatting of references, footnotes and bibliography. The next priority is suggestions realting to the structure of the article. I will, naturally, be keenly interested in any other suggestions that occur to editors. If by any chance editors happen to have material directly relating to the Blue Network, I would be delighted to see it.

Sincerely yours,

Eric O. Costello 20:26, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

I've changed the rating of the article to A-class, for which it clearly qualifies under the criteria. The two things I see it needs at this point to go forward to a Featured Article candidacy, which it's deserving of:
(A) An expansion of the lede to two or three paragraphs, summarizing the main points of the article, with an eye toward explaining to the passing reader (one who is not planning to dive into the whole piece) what made NBC Blue important (it might get them to dive).
(B) A copyedit just to streamline the language a bit, format headers, etc. I enjoy copyediting and would be happy to do that, if you're comfortable with it.
As I go through it again, I may find specific points that need clarification, but unquestionably you've done an excellent job all around. Best, Dan—DCGeist 21:41, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Yabasic

Hi. I'd like the article on the programming language Yabasic to be reviewed by a wider group of editors; what needs to be done to improve it? References are obviously a start, but I welcome any critism and suggestions on how this article could be made better. Yuser31415 06:30, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

I wouldn't make an Example the first section, I'd put something else first (also avoiding the problem of the code box overlapping the infobox). Could there be more information on the background and history f the language, when it began and so on? And as you say, references are obviously needed. Trebor 19:19, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Chrysiridia rhipheus

I've been working on this article a lot, and would like to know how to improve it more. Pro bug catcher 03:17, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

It's well-referenced and provides all the main details, but very short. Is there anything more that can be written about this moth (I know very little about the topic)? If not, then there doesn't seem much point in splitting it into multiple sections: there's only 3-4 paragraphs of information there, and stubby sections and paragraphs don't read well. Trebor 16:38, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
I've seen in two sources that it can be a migrating moth, but haven't understood completely (not enough to put it in Wikipedia), when I do understant I'll add it to the Range or Habits section. The paragraphs (even though stubby) were made to use the Lepidoptera Wikiproject Aticle formats. And by the way thanks for the review. What grade do you think it should be (Start, B, Good, A, FA... I can always dream)?Pro bug catcher 16:57, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
Um, to be honest, I have no idea what grade it should be. I was never very good at this kind of thing. Could you ask someone on the Wikiproject to assess it? Trebor 19:02, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
Ok, I'll try that. Thanks again.Pro bug catcher 02:37, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Jack Sheppard

As an antidote to our fine article on the self-proclaimed "Thief-Taker General" and all-round bad egg, Jonathan Wild, here is another 18th-century thief, but a working-class hero this time. This is largely based on Lucy Moore's 2000 The Thieves' Opera. Suggestions for additional content or other sources are very welcome. -- ALoan (Talk) 13:38, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Star Cops

I feel I've taken this article as far as I can go with it on my own and at this stage would appreciate some constructive feedback. Joe King 17:19, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

The cast should be put in their own section, without the table. - Peregrine Fisher 20:37, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
Since the cast are already listed in the infobox, the principal characters section and the episode guide, I fail to see what value creating a new section to an already long article adds.
Joe King 19:20, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
I'm talking about the cast in the episode guide. Formatting it as a giant header doesn't seem the right way. If it's already listed two other times, maybe just remove it. - Peregrine Fisher 19:54, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
Ah, I see what you mean now. You may be right. Actually, the cast and crew info in the episode guide might be overkill for an encyclopaedia article and there are resources like IMDB that do this sort of thing already. Let me have a think for a while before I decide what to do. Joe King 12:13, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
... from User:MatthewFenton
The article reads very nicely, good work, and it's mostly formatted very well, though I do suggest aligning the cast photo to the right, and both images require fair use rationales (Wikipedia:Image_description_page#Fair_use_rationale). Other then that it was an enjoyable read, you should also consider using ((UK)) for the country variable within the infobox. Very nice article. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 23:44, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
Made those changes. Thanks very much for your kind words. Joe King 19:20, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

The Who

The Whole thing to be reviewed if possible, please list the strengths and weaknesses, thanks. Dennis Kussinich 08 00:12, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

I didn't read the article, so there's maybe problems with the prose, but I found some things to fix:
  • Fix the subsections, make an "history" section and add the first five sections there.
  • In the discography section, remove the covers of the albums and make a simple list or maybe a table, see Wikipedia:Manual of Style (lists of works).
  • All the quotes in the "quotes" sections needs a reference.
  • Use the Template:cite web instead of those links.
  • If a date doesn't include month and day, don't link anything, for example: "...Live at Leeds album, on which, recently, the entire 1970 concert is now..." 1970 shouldn't be linked.
  • Remove the see also section, incorporate the link in the body of the article.
  • Remove most of the external links. See Wikipedia:External links.
  • The article is way too long (62 kb), you need to move the "performance" and "in the studio" sections to new articles.
Ok, that's it. If something is not clear, ask on my talk page or here, someone will answer. Cheers. No-Bullet (Talk • Contribs) 02:36, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Yankee Hotel Foxtrot

I would like some feedback on how to better develop this article. Any tips (such as prose, content recommendations) on how to improve this article to possibly FA status would be greatly appreciated. Teemu08 22:05, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

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

You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, — WiseKwai 23:49, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Mike Salisbury

I'd like to improve upon this article and bring it up to a good or a good article rating. Please make any suggestions necessary. Eulogy4Afriend 18:46, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Anthony_cfc

This article is currently at starting quality; there is much need for improvement, as it currently is nothing but a shell of information. Also, goodness knows why it is listed as a "death-related article" using the template ((death-stub))! Good work so far, but consider getting some external resources (perhaps from your local library) if you really want to get this article going. Regards, Anthonycfc [T • C] 16:09, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Yannismarou

First of all, the article needs expansio. I do not think a peer-review is much useful, if the article does not first reach B-Class status. Try to gather more infos, and check also WP:LEAD and WP:LAYOUT for a better structure. And why do I see a red link in "See also" section? Do you intend to create it soon?--Yannismarou 21:03, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Pinguicula moranensis

I wrote this article last week. This species is probably the most taxanomically challenging one in the genus, and this article is the only thorough overview of this species in the English language. Nearly every work ever published on this species is integrated somewhere. I would appreciate:

Thanks in advance for any help. --NoahElhardt 01:25, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

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

You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, SenatorsTalk | Contribs 03:48, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

  • The lead is a bit dense with plant terms that will be unfamiliar to outsiders, some of which aren't wikilinked: succulent, mucilaginous, etc. Similarly, is "substrate" the soil, or is there a more specific meaning? I'm not sure that the various redefinitions of the species need to be in the lead, or at least not with the names mentioned in such detail. The lead should summarize the whole article, so less history and more "other stuff" would be better - for example, mention the distinct summer and winter rosettes.
  • I've linked succulent, mucilagenous, substrate (and a few other words), and re-organized the lead paragraphs, balancing them to better reflect the weight of the article.
  • The images near the beginning of the article, especially after the 'winter rosette' section, appear rather crowded.
  • Are you referring to the image illustrating the 'Winter rosette' section, the the ones in the following 'Flowers' section? I selected the three flower images because I wanted to show both the external anatomy/morphology of the flower, as well as the unusual variability that exists in the species.
Yes, those are the ones - the images themselves are well chosen; they just lay out awkwardly. However, take this with a grain of salt - I usually browse at very high resolution, so it looks like there's not enough text to fill around all the images. I looked at it at 1600x1200 and it looks okay. Opabinia regalis 05:20, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Same 'plant jargon' as in the lead comes up in the text: phrases like "obovate leaves", which have a clearly defined meaning, could use an appositive explanation.
  • I can't avoid some morphological terms in the morphology section, but I think I've linked them all now.
Point taken :) Much better. Opabinia regalis 05:20, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
  • As a biochemist, I'd like to see more on the enzymes involved in carnivory, especially if there's anything unique about those expressed in this species or genus.
The enzymes are a genus-wide characteristic, and so more detail is probably not appropriate for this article. The paper from which I got the list of enzymes didn't cite sources, but I'll try to dig some more information up for you and add it to the Pinguicula article. NoahElhardt 05:09, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Some context would be useful for the 'great variation' in flower color and morphology; I'm not a botanist and I see a bunch of similar-looking pinkish-purple flowers. The caption to this figure would be more helpful if it pointed out some of the flowers' specific traits that vary. Is it unusual for a single species' flower color to vary this much? What about the size?
  • I've added information to the caption. Unless you look closely, you WILL only see similar-looking flowers. But in most plant populations you look at, flowers will look generally the same or have really minor differences even if you DO look closely.
That's more useful, I think. Opabinia regalis 05:20, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Since this is a cultivated plant, is it important or relevant in local culture? Grown outside of Mexico for any reason? Has its wild habitat been altered or threatened in any way by local development?
I haven't ever read or heard of known cultural relevance. It is grown outside of Mexico horticulturally (mainly by carnivorous plant hobbyists), as stated in the "Cultivation" section. Since it is a widespread plant, grows mainly in mountainous areas, and colonizes disturbed areas such as road cuts, the survival of the species has not been threatened by development. There isn't really any data that I can use in the article, since nobody has bothered to investigate the impact of development.NoahElhardt 05:09, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
For some reason I had the impression that a lot of carnivorous plants were threatened or endangered. Shows what I know. Opabinia regalis 01:51, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
That impression was correct - you are more informed than most folks out there. The reason for this is that many carnivorous plants grow in wetlands, which in developing countries are usually drained to make room for development. Other CP's (such as Sarracenia oreophila and Nepenthes rajah) have such a limited distribution that any development in the area would threaten their survival. (Check out the timeline at the bottom of the N. rajah article btw. It is hidden by default but can be expanded using the "show" link. That's what I had in mind for the parsimony trees.) NoahElhardt 02:09, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
I think that is a fairly common impression. Maybe it'd be worth a sentence to mention that unlike some other carnivorous plants, this one's habitat is not threatened by development?
I can try, but as I've mentioned, I don't really have any data/sources to back that up. Does stating that it isn't endangered inferred from its known large distribution and habitat preference count as original research? Or can I say it isn't endangered just based on the fact that it doesn't show up on the IUCN Red List? -NoahElhardt 05:25, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
I'd think not on the red list would be enough. Opabinia regalis 02:45, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
As for the phylogenetic trees - I'm not sure about hiding them by default unless they're so big that they can't fit in the article with the text. I'd either put a combined diagram or choose one tree that is from the most notable/authoritative/widely accepted study. Opabinia regalis 04:52, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
There's the hangup: I really can't quite tell which diagram is most authoritative because I don't understand the studies behind them well enough. As far as being widely accepted, its hard to tell at this point; one was published in 2001 and the other in 2005. I'll do a more thorough read through of the articles this weekend and see if I can get some kind of feel for how they were set up differently, how exactly their results differ, and how best to summarize that in a NPOV way. -NoahElhardt 05:25, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Can you expand on the descriptions of the cultivars? This information might be better presented in a table.
  • I can expand in some cases. Good idea on the table - I'll work on converting it into one.
  • The references need a bit of formatting work; there's some in the refs list that aren't in the notes. It'd be better to have separate sections for 'cited references' and 'further reading'. Opabinia regalis 04:45, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
  • The notes only list inline citations. I listed some of the references because they provided background information during my research or because an the publication was mentioned in the text. In the history sections, I mentioned authors who had published various species or taxanomic works. I only inline cited my source of that historical information, but then listed the original publications in the references. Is there a better way to do this? Should these publications be inline cited as well, even though I haven't (and can't) actually read most of them?
I usually see people list the ones they didn't directly cite in a subsection like "general references". But I rarely use that style - maybe something to ask User:SandyGeorgia, she's the resident FAC reference expert. Opabinia regalis 05:20, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
I haven't addressed all your points yet, I'll get to the rest tomorrow. Thanks for taking the time to review the article - I appreciate it. NoahElhardt 06:28, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
I have three different trees I could use for the article, but since they give different results and I don't want to (a) clutter the article or (b) make a judgement call (POV) on which tree is most accurate without a much better understanding of both studies involved, I'd rather leave them out for now. Should I add at least two of them though and make them collapsed so that they don't clutter? NoahElhardt 05:46, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
I'm not sure; what do you mean by 'make them collapsed'? Depending how different they are, maybe you could make a combined diagram that shows the major points of agreement between the three as well as the alternative placements of this particular species. Opabinia regalis 01:51, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
I'll read through those sections with that in mind - you are probably right in that I could drop several names.
I have one question: Several of the publications I referenced ARE available online, but I am somewhat hesitant to link to them since they are on a page marked "You are in a restricted area, publications are for a private use only as needed material for [name of webpage]". Nevertheless, I'd like readers/reviewers to be able to look up the original sources as much as possible. Your thoughts? NoahElhardt 05:46, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
Hard to tell without looking at the site - maybe just include it as an external link, and mention that it hosts reprints of the papers? (Assuming it has permission to host them and they're freely available.) It's become common in bio FAs to include PubMed IDs for references to papers; if the journals you're citing are indexed in PubMed (or a similar database), that would be a useful set of links. Also someone will ask you to include ISBNs for the book sources, most likely. Opabinia regalis 01:51, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
The site probably does not have permission to host them. Here's the link to the parent site [19], and the page itself [20]. NoahElhardt 02:09, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
Definitely don't link to a site that is redistributing content without permission, but linking to PubMed or an equivalent database, if one exists, is convenient for readers. Alternatively link directly to the journal, with a note if they're open-access or pay sites. Opabinia regalis 04:52, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
Not really. Although I was able to find one website listing the common name "Mexican Butterwort", this is a generic name widely applied to all (or most) butterworts native to Mexico (>30 species). Since it is both ambiguous and not in common usage (botanists and hobbyists alike refer to it by the latin name), I didn't list the common name. --NoahElhardt 05:09, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
Might be wise to add a note to the effect that it doesn't have a general agreed English name. I wondered why it wasn't there -- a note would make it clear that it's not a hole in the article. Goldfritha 02:23, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
On that subject, is there a common name in Spanish? Opabinia regalis 04:52, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
Not that I've run across. I'll add a footnote to that effect shortly.--NoahElhardt 05:25, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

List of Stratocaster players

O.K, I have compleatly renovated this list, and I still provide it loving care :). I do know that there should be a citation for every entry, but once that is done (I will work on finding some books) then I want to know if this has a shot for WP:FL. So besides the citations what should be done. Another thing to note that the list is created similar to the style of List of Telecaster players which is also a featured article. Also every section has a non-fair use image of a Strat player. Thanks and review is greatly appreciated. Arjun 19:20, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

It looks very good to me, a good list (well modelled on the Telecaster one) with some nice free use images. Aside from the citations, I can't see anything else to do. Good job. Trebor 23:14, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, great work, but some editors might criticize the lead section, so you maybe want to expand it a little. In the next days I'll try to help with sources. Cheers. No-Bullet (Talk • Contribs) 23:33, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

  • No need for the subsections; the list isn't that long after all, and the divisions are rather arbitrary.
  • What does "who have made notable use" mean? Same thing with the last sentence of the lead (The musicians listed here...). This gets really tough to judge. Why not just go with WP:V and say that anyone who has used the guitar and has been documented in a reliable source gets added? Presumably, the majority of such people will have articles (since they are being mentioned in a reliable source), so there shouldn't be a problem there.
  • Once you cut out the fluff (all the stuff in my previous point that shouldn't even be mentioned), there's not much of a lead. Why is this list worth looking at? What makes the Fender Stratocaster so important?
Hope this helps. --Spangineerws (háblame) 05:52, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
Okay thanks, the reason why it looks so small right now is because we have just taken out all the guitarists without citations. Arjun 14:31, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Raven banner

Relatively new article, recent GA. Would like to get it up to FA status. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 16:59, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

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

You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, SenatorsTalk | Contribs 00:39, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Maria Callas

This article is about a 20th century opera star and I believe its notability of subject, abundance of references, quality associated pictures recommend it as a good candidate for a featured article. However, weighing against it are its possibly excessive length, its lack in places of consistent encyclopedic tone and neutral point of view (particularly in the introduction), and its irregularity of verifiability in a number of its more challengeable assertions. There has already been extensive discussion on the article's talk page, but little acknowledgement of the article's actual problems, which may prevent it from achieving featured status. I appreciate all input other editors can provide. Robert K S 19:42, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

The Flood (Halo)

I've been working on this article, trying to clean it up and get it out-of-universe. In that respect, am I doing ok? Dåvid ƒuchs (talk • contribs) 19:25, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Defense of the Ancients

I've been trying to get this article into better shape, quality wise, and clean up the tone. I think a fresh pair of eyes would help to see what isn't explained to someone who doesn't know the gametype, and what gets confusingly obtuse or blatantly non-neutral. Dåvid ƒuchs (talk • contribs) 18:14, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

London Underground

This has had a lot of cleanup by various editors, with short sections expanded and other things. What will it take for this to acheive FA status again? Simply south 13:11, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Portal:Current events/Canada

The Canadian Current Events portal as part of the Portal:Current events is a simple portal, but has the notability and finese to be a featured portal considering its purpose. Lily Towerstalk 09:35, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Newport Aquarium

Roman-Spartan War

Previous peer review

I just withdrew the article's FA and I want some advice and to see what can be done to improve the article before I re nominated it in the future. Kyriakos 02:32, 4 January 2007 (UTC)


Kirill Lokshin

Well, at this point, the most sensible thing would probably be to focus on the objections raised during the FAC. The chief ones seem to be:

I remove the comments about Nabis' title and put them in the notes section.

Hope that helps! Kirill Lokshin 05:42, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Yannismarou

Per Kirill on the sources. I think the most important thing in this article is now further and more thorough research based on both primary (in case, you have missed any - something I do not believe) and (most importantly) secondary sources. This is I believe the main problem that impeded FA promotion.

The prose looked and looks to me fine. It has been copy-edited by an excellent copy-editor, and it has been well worked by the main editor. Maybe, a second addition external copy-editing wouldn't hurt. In some of my articles, I have asked the assistance of more than one copy-editors.

More photos incoroporated in the article (not just "external photos") would help the article to "show" better. It is not the most important thing, but it definitely matters.

I promise I'll soon read the article once again in detail, but I really think (and I agree on that with Kirill) that what it really needs now is "fresh eyes", which will feed it with "fresh nurture": fresh ideas and fresh conceptions. The article is definitely on the right track, but the FAC reviewers seemed to believe that it lacked the "spark" a FA has to have.--Yannismarou 19:47, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Piotrus

A map of troop movements would be invaluable. There seem to be some confusion between notes (two systems) and references, please streamline.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  20:10, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Would any one be able to make a map about the troop movement? Kyriakos 20:27, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanatosimii

I haven't looked at it yet but I plan on giving it a thorough going over tomorrow. Do you want copyedit/prose concerns adressed, or were the objections that lead to your withdrawl more content oriented? Thanatosimii 05:16, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
The big problem is and was the prose. Wandalstouring 01:17, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Iron Maiden

This article has formerly been a Featured Article and has appeared on the main page in 2005. It recently lost its FA status. Since then, it has undergone a lot of cleanup, and I think it is now closer to current FA standards; however, it has also attracted a certain amount of additional original research, leading me to slap several citation tags on it. I'd like to see the article restored to its former glory and would appreciate any comments on what should now be done. Note that I am far from being a main author of this; I have a vague interest in the subject matter and arguably some copyediting skills, but that's all. I'd need a lot of help in areas such as referencing, but my suspicion is that some of the unreferenced claims should simply be deleted. Comments? Metamagician3000 06:26, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Goodluck with this, and finding all those citations. M3tal H3ad 03:08, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

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

You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Automated review, M3tal H3ad 09:04, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Prospect Park Zoo

This is the first peer review request for this article, which covers the wildlife conservation center in Prospect Park, Brooklyn, New York City. After rewrites by myself and others about a year ago, it has been reasonably stable and is possibly at it's endgame in terms of contributions by the local editing community. In other words, familiarity may be blinding us to obvious flaws. I, as a significant contributor, would like this article to reach Wikipedia:Good articles status, and feel a peer review would be the most appropriate at this stage. Constructive comments (personal and automated) that help in this respect would be highly appreciated. In particular, I am seeking guidance on balance: are the discussions on history and the present day facility in good proportion with one another? Thank you in advance to all. Gosgood 18:35, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

aviper2k7's comments

Headers should be lowercased per WP:MOS++aviper2k7++ 21:50, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Cburnett's comments

I would recommend the following:

Cburnett 23:54, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Ginkgo100's comments

Hope these comments help! --Ginkgo100 talk 19:47, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

To do list

These are all very useful. I've set up a list of items to do, based on these comments, some of my own observations, and the criteria for a good article. It's located on the article talk page. Thank you all for your quick and comprehensive responses. Gosgood 10:38, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Draft

I have a draft in my sandbox implementing the reviewers suggestions: User:Gosgood/Sandbox|Prospect Park Zoo (Draft). It is rather more done at the top than at the bottom; comments welcome. — Gosgood 00:07, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Draft Release

I have merged the main article and my sandbox draft into a new version of the article. If reviewers have a moment to look (and comment (and edit)), I'd much appreciate it. Thanks! Gosgood 18:13, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm happy with the changes. Good work! Cburnett 21:08, 14 January 2007 (UTC)


The Update

Cheers for the update Well Done Keep Up The Good Work.CheetahKeeper 00:58, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Moon

Previous PR: Wikipedia:Peer review/Moon/archive1

This page is starting to shape up pretty nicely now, thanks to much work by Lunokhod and others. It has reached GA status, and should be ready for a FAC with some additional work. Could you suggest any changes that will bring this up to FA status? Thank you! — RJH (talk) 18:35, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Aristotle's division of the world into the sublunar, changable world, and the world above it, that did not change, was so prominent in ancient and medieval accounts of the universe that I think that it should probably be mentioned. The part on mythology is a little weak, as well. Goldfritha 01:21, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

In fact, I've added Aristotle myself. Goldfritha 01:33, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Thank you. — RJH (talk) 15:43, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
Sorry I saw this so late, and now I only have time to make some suggestions to the lead, but here they are. In general a lot of the lead is a bit verbose with minor factoids, which makes it longer and more confusing than it needs to be.
  1. The average distance from the Earth to the Moon is 384,399 kilometres (238,854 miles), which is about 30 times the diameter of the Earth. could be simplified to On average, the Moon is 384,399 kilometers (238,854 miles) from the Earth.
  2. At this distance, it takes sunlight reflected from the lunar surface approximately 1.3 seconds to reach Earth. It's interesting but doesn't tell us anything about the Moon.
  3. The Moon's diameter is 3,474 kilometres (2,159 miles),[1] which is about 3.7 times smaller than the Earth, making it the Solar System's fifth largest moon, both by diameter and mass, ranking behind Ganymede, Titan, Callisto, and Io. Oi. Four ideas in five phrases and only one sentence. Suggestion: The Moon is about one-third the size of the Earth and has a diameter of 3,474 kilometres (2,159 miles). It is the fifth largest moon in the solar system behind Ganymede, Titan, Callisto, and Io.
  4. The gravitational attraction of the Moon is responsible for the tides on Earth. This doesn't seem to fit with the rest of the paragraph, which is discussing the Moon's physical characteristics.
  5. The Soviet Union's (USSR) Luna program was the first to reach the Moon with unmanned spacecraft. Unnecessary because the next two sentences tell us the same thing but in more detail.
  6. The United States' Apollo program achieved the first (and only) manned missions to the Moon. Same thing here.
  7. The first manned mission to orbit the Moon was Apollo 8 in 1968, and the first people to land and walk on the Moon came aboard Apollo 11 in 1969. The wording of the second phrase is a bit confusing (it seems like they're "climbing aboard Apollo 11", rather than going to the moon on Apollo 11).
  8. Half of the lead is about human exploration of the moon, which seems out of proportion with the main part of the article. And there is no mention of the moon's geology, surface features, or formation, which comprise a large portion of the article. Perhaps it could be reworked to be a more representative overview.
I'll try to get around to reading the rest of the article with some more suggestions soon. Good luck!--Will.i.am 03:42, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

No Doubt

I've been working on rewriting and referencing much of the article, but it could still use some work. It'd be especially nice for someone to check any POV that I may have introduced or suggest ways that the article could be expanded/reformatted. —ShadowHalo 11:24, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Reasonably solid article. I assume that you are considering taking it WP:FAC. Before you do, there are some image problems here. The gallery of album covers should go per Wikipedia:Fair use criteria. Image:Nd band shot.jpg is improperly sourced -- "rebelwaltz.com" is unlikely to be the copyright holder, and there is no indication of any "implicit license to redistribute". Someone needs to invest some time tracking down images of the band and sending out some Wikipedia:Boilerplate requests for permission to get some correctly licensed images for the article. On the other hand, most band pages heading for WP:FAC include some short song samples, so you should look into creating some with proper fair use rationales. The "In popular culture" section is, well, trivial and list-formatted. The television appearances should probably just be deleted, while the song references could be worked into the text under "Mainstream success". Check your text; "...highly anticipated follow-up..." is cliched marketing-speak. Lose the inlined external link to Invincible Overlord. Nothing else jumped out at me. Hope the above helps. Jkelly 22:08, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
I'm not looking at WP:FAC yet. Right now, it needs to get to WP:GA status. When you say "correctly licensed", do you mean that an image that can be verified as being promotional is needed or that a free image is needed? Also, I can create some song samples (and have for some of the song/album pages), but where do you recommend that they be added? As it stands, the article doesn't seem long enough to justify a box for several albums, each containing multiple songs, and added at the end of the article is discouraged per Wikipedia:Music samples. I've moved three of the pop culture references to the article and deleted the rest of it, and I made the last two changes. Thanks for all your help so far. —ShadowHalo 23:30, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Looks like it should pass Wikipedia:Good articles standards. It's well-sourced and well-written. Jkelly 00:19, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
Based on your comment, I've nominated it at WP:GAN. —ShadowHalo 00:56, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Automated review

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

You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas.

Andrew Orlowski

How much about Wikipedia should remain in this article? He makes it a focus of his works, but self-referencing is quite pointless. -- Zanimum 17:17, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

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

Yannismarou

A critic of Wikipedia ! This is my review:

What happens when a person keeps their pre-career life private? -- Zanimum 19:06, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
Then, our cabability of improving the article is limited.--Yannismarou 10:39, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Al-Kindi

Hello everyone,

The importance of al-Kindi as a figure in the historical development of Islamic thought cannot be understated. His works on philosophy and science would have far reaching consequences, not just for the Muslim world, but for Europe as well. To that end, alot of work has been put into the article in bringing it up to GA status, with the aim of taking it to FA.

We would welcome any comments you have on the article, but the area that will need most attention will be the clarity of expression (especially of philosophical ideas) which is crucial.

Thankyou in advance for your help,

Alexander.Hainy 00:57, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

  • References go after punctuation with no space, ex .[10] i saw it like this [10]. and . [10]
  • Your web sources are not formatted properly, please check ((cite web))
  • For the "quotation" section there is a wiki for quotes where it should be moved
  • Alphabetize categories
  • There are a few one sentence 'paragraphs' remove merge or expand
  • After these problems are dealt with it will only be the text that needs work, i haven't read it though just thought i would help you with the obvious problems. M3tal H3ad 07:37, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

My two cents:

Drop a line when you're ready for more. I've been really busy this month, so don't expect any quick replies. Permission to respond ex post facto to this, meaning after the PR? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Esoltas (talk • contribs).

Anas Salloum

Great job! Nice work on the article. With some effort, I think it has a good chance of becoming a good or even a featured article.

If not busy, I'll be reading the article later today and returning with more suggestions if I find any. Good luck! ← ANAS Talk? 12:59, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Carabinieri

Other than that, the article looks great. Good work!--Carabinieri 19:17, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

You could also add a "selected works" section listing the most "important" (whatever that means) books of his with a link to a sub-page listing all books whose titles are known. That might be a good idea, but it's just a suggestion.--Carabinieri 20:17, 14 January 2007 (UTC)


Tenacious D discography

What can I do to improve this page?

I think I need more sources possibly, but I am not sure.

Tenacious D Fans 11:21, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure if the covers are covered by fair use. See Wikipedia:Manual of Style (lists of works), Wikipedia:WikiProject Music/MUSTARD/Discography and Wikipedia:WikiProject Music/MUSTARD/Images. I don't think you need more sources, but I added the References sections that was missing. Also, expand the lead section a bit more. No-Bullet (Talk • Contribs) 07:22, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
The discography section on the Tenacious D article was more detailed and I moved that info to this article. I've replaced it with a simple list with a link to the discography article. No-Bullet (Talk • Contribs) 07:49, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
Thanks a lot. It looks much better. I will consult the automated peer review suggestions. Tenacious D Fans (talk) 13:16, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Gorillaz

Resubmitting for peer review. Recently I've been adding citations and cutting down the fancruft. I'd appreciate any suggestions on what could be improved or expanded, notes on the interestingness of the writing and also whether the article meets Good Article status. - kollision 07:54, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

  1. The "Fictional band history" section is much too long and should be trimmed drastically. It probably shouldn't need to be longer than 1/2 of its current length. This section also needs to be edited to have a more encyclopedic tone; its currently written a too stylistically and dramatically.
  2. There many very short paragraphs section "Phase Two: Slowboat to Hades (2004 – present)" and in the other sections to a lesser extent. These should be integrated into larger paragraphs and rewritten to allow better flow of the text.
  3. More inline citations are needed, each paragraph should have a few at least
  4. Material such as "This can be seen as the genesis of the musical style that continued into Gorillaz' first album" reads as original research and should be cited or removed
  5. The live performances section should be narrowed down to two or three of their most notable performances. If you can't write more than a decent-sized paragraph on a tour, it doesn't need its own section.
  6. There's a lot of speculation/original research/uncited material on the status of their website at various points in time. These really need citations from reliable sources, or else removed.
  7. Needs much copyediting - I'd save this until after the above issues are fixed, however. I highly suggest reading through the sections on eliminating redundancy and improving sentence flow in User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 1a and trying the exercises User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 1a: redundancy exercises. The prose doesn't need to be perfect for a GA, but this will certainly make it easier to get this article to a GA. Best of luck! Wickethewok 09:12, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Tears of the Black Tiger

I believe this is a good article. It is the most thorough compilation of facts about the film that I'm aware of. — WiseKwai 14:01, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Introduction

Plot and cast

Production

Reception

Distribution

Soundtrack, miscellanae

Comment: Thanks, again, for your hard work on this. I promise this will be the last peer review I seek for awhile. I'll try to pitch in with some myself. — WiseKwai 07:47, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Kumi Koda

I am looking to make this article informative to all interested in this singer. In order to accomplish that, I would like to know what changes I should make to the article, whether I should leave out certain details, reorganize the article, etc. Also, I would like to know what I can do for events in her career that were not documented by news sources (just due to her being virtually unknown).

-XaiTerran 02:22, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Well documented, well linked to the other wikipedia entries; no comments there. Biography needs improvement, as she would have been 9 years old in 3rd grade (1989) and the biography doesn't resume until 2000. One question arrose for me while I was reading the article: Why did producers stick with her even though her singles continually flopped? -- Nictius 14:59, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

I would recommend finding someone to do a thorough copyedit of the article. There are a lot of minor problems with the writing. For example, I see at least one sentence fragment, album articles should be italicized (without quotation marks), and one of the headers is improperly spelled (US should be U.S.). Per WP:TRIV, the trivia section should be scrapped, and any useful information in it should moved to the main text of the article. Any fair use images on the page need fair use rationales (see WP:FURG for information on how to do that). —ShadowHalo 23:00, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

After just a brief look at it, I would say that the article is over-illustrated. Is it really necessary to include every album cover? How about just her best selling/critically aclaimed ones? Also the end of the article is just a lot of big lists. I don't know how other musician articles avoid this, but I advise you check some Featured Articles that feature musicians to get an idea. Nice work though. Keep it up! Bobo12345 05:41, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Reign in Blood

This is pretty short and on a CD. I want to bring it up to GA class. I need to know whats it missing, what can be expanded and how to word the response section better, etc. Thanks M3tal H3ad 12:18, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Wouldn't the Columbia Records ban be better under the "Controversy" section? LuciferMorgan 00:40, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
The Unholy Trinity of 1986 - never heard this phrase before. An inline citation please? LuciferMorgan 00:41, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
Information on the recording of the album please? LuciferMorgan 00:41, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
What specific info on recording the album. M3tal H3ad 00:51, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
Something like is done on Chill Out (KLF album). LuciferMorgan 00:53, 9 January 2007 (UTC)


Igor Cavalera, the former Sepultura drummer, cites 'Reign in Blood' as an influence in this Blabbermouth post. LuciferMorgan 00:53, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Dave Lombardo interview where 'Reign in Blood' is mentioned here and there. Some info might be useful. LuciferMorgan 00:58, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
The 'Still Reigning' DVD could be mentioned where the album was done in full - here's a Blabbermouth post where producer Kevin Shirley comments on mixing sound on the DVD. LuciferMorgan 01:02, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
Tom Araya interview where he comments on 'Reign in Blood'. He says "'Christ Illusion' comes close, but, in my opinion, nothing can surpass 'Reign in Blood' for intensity and impact. No one had heard anything like it before. In the 20 years since then, people have got more desensitised. What was over the top then, might not be now." LuciferMorgan 01:08, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
Kerry King interview where he comments on Rick Rubin's production on 'Reign in Blood'. LuciferMorgan 01:12, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
Blender magazine call the album's cover art as amongst the top 10 of all time. LuciferMorgan 01:15, 9 January 2007 (UTC)


O.O Thanks I'll see what i can do. M3tal H3ad 01:18, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Larry Carroll did the cover art for 'Reign in Blood', and subsequently for 'South of Heaven', 'Seasons in the Abyss' and 'Christ Illusion'. This might be worth a mention. LuciferMorgan 08:58, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
A guy for the Montreal Mirror refers to 'Reign in Blood' as a thrash metal classic etc. in an intro to this Lombardo interview . LuciferMorgan 09:03, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
Cheers, with the location would i put it under the Production and marketing(is that even a good title :S) section, and the time it took to record? which I'm sure wont be hard to find. M3tal H3ad 09:28, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
The chart performance and sales I'd put under the "Reviews" section and rename that specific section. The location I'd put under "Production and marketing" yes - I'd drop the marketing name as I don't think it has anything to do with the article. I'd rename the section "Recording of the album" or something along those lines, and add the location, recording time etc. LuciferMorgan 09:43, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
An excerpt from August 2006's Decibel magazine, which offers an oral history of the band. There's a whole ton of quotes from the band on the album. Of particular interest to me is a Larry Carroll quote which relates a bit of information on how he came to do the cover art - this could form part of two possible subsections in the "Controversy" section ;
  1. First on the cover art, such as how Carroll got involved etc. which can be rewritten from the quote in the article, other info from the second Carroll quote, Columbia's refusal (already written in the article), and then the Blender magazine top 10 cover art list which is linked above.
  1. Second on the Mengele controversy as you've already done. I'd replace the Rockdetector cite with a Lombardo quote from the Decibel article where he says Columbia dropped them etc. Rockdetector is known for being inaccurate at times and is unreliable as it relies solely on ordinary people sending in information - all you gotta do is email info (whether true or false) to info@rockdetector.com and its then included in a band bio. That makes its reliability flimsy. To make this subsection altogether more astute in its observations, you could briefly mention Slayer went on to utilize Nazi imagery such as in the band logo and later did the song "SS-3" about the prominent Nazi Reinhard Heydrich (its worth noting that Hanneman also wrote the lyrics to this song). If you wished to really get into the whole 'Angel of Death' saga you could rewrite the song's actual article if you wanted. LuciferMorgan 09:43, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
Woo, thanks for all the help. I changed almost everything you mentioned, still looking for recording location, (will post on slayer board when my account is activated). As for Rock detector when reading it from top to bottom i encountered only 3 errors, year of judgment night soundtrack release, a track that said Godzilla soundtrack when it was Spawn and something else, (sent an e-mail just earlier today). I tried to change some references but it is a good site for info, regarding who they toured with, how they get a contract and stuff. If it was nominated for Fa would you object because of this?, i can try change some references if you wish, thx again M3tal H3ad 10:48, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
o and do you think its worth creating a stub on Carroll, get rid of the red-link which stands out a lot. M3tal H3ad 10:54, 9 January 2007 (UTC)


Rockdetector has more errors than you think - I used to do interviews for them (check the name Anthony Morgan under their 'Interviews' section) and I've picked out a few errors too. I don't do interviews for them anymore due to copyright reasons etc. If you could change the RD cites with other sources, that'd be best I think - I always prefer interviews to use. For old touring buddies, I'd use old interviews. Would I object? Nope, but I wouldn't support either. LuciferMorgan 08:49, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
It's up to you whether to create a stub on Carroll - I'm not sure what else he has done apart from some Slayer artwork covers. LuciferMorgan 08:49, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
The way the info is arranged under the "Controversy" section is odd to be honest. You've mentioned the artwork won an award before even saying who did it etc, - its poorly arranged. LuciferMorgan 08:52, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Changed controversy, the only other thing i got on him is whats mentioned here (NYT etc) :\. I'll see what i can do regarding sources. thx M3tal H3ad 08:56, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

I changed the "Controversy" section again as the arrangement was changed to another odd one. Each section in the article should have an intro - mentioning who created the artwork and then saying about controversy is an odd arrangement, but saying the album was controversial and then the subsections going on to explain why is much better and more accessible to readers I feel. If you dislike it you can always change it. LuciferMorgan 08:59, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
Official Metal Hammer Golden Gods Awards listings for this year - where 'Reign in Blood' won the award for Best Album of the Last 20 Years. I'd add the cite myself, but your inline citing style is much different to mine. LuciferMorgan 09:11, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
Jeff Hanneman interview where he names the album as his fave and explains why. LuciferMorgan 09:20, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
What section would comments made on the album by members go under. I also remember something that AOD and necro had like 200bpm or something(can find it out) not sure where it would go though. M3tal H3ad 09:25, 10 January 2007 (UTC)


Comments regarding the quality of the album. by Slayer members, or other bands, would go under "Significance". LuciferMorgan 01:56, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
Ok, I'll see what i can do tomorrow, thanks. M3tal H3ad 13:24, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

New Tom Araya interview where he compares the differences in lyrical matter from Hell Awaits to Reign in Blood. LuciferMorgan 23:02, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Amenhotep I

I've been working on this article off and on for about six months, and since it just passed GA, I believe it time to expose it to greater scrutiny. Its major failing is that I alone have written most of the text, and accordingly it may read perfectly fine to me, since I have experience in the field, but it may not make a lot of sense to a layperson, and that is the kind of problem I want to flush out to fix. In general, confusing areas, styalistically awkward places, and big blank spots where you think somthing hasn't been covered enough would be good things to point out. Thanatosimii 05:21, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Isiah Leggett

I'm pretty new at this, so I'd love comments on making the article match what WP expects for GA, which is what I'm workinjg it towards. Especially useful are suggestions about length, referencing, and quality of prose. And I know about the fair use issues with the image and am working on that. Mocko13 20:44, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

You might want to check out the article on fellow Montgomery County politician Saqib Ali which recently received GA status SUBWAYguy 21:17, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

New Zealand

Essentially a blanket peer review. As much information as possible to bring up to at least good article or featured article status. --Midnighttonight (rendezvous) 02:23, 8 January 2007 (UTC)


One thing you need to address is that there need to be more resources cited in the article. For example, how could I prove that New Zealanders are the 16 highest beer consumers? Every statistic like that has to be sourced. I would also make an attempt to find sources backing up the historical claims that you make about New Zealand. How would I as an American know where to begin to find the information that you listed about the history. It is not common information here and as such should be sourced. I am sure that people in other parts of the world would have no clue where you learned this to prove it. In the very least provide the sources that are used on the subtopic pages for this kind of information. Andrew D White 22:35, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

I'll just comment on two things until I have a chance to look the article over properly:

I'll add more later. - Shudda talk 01:02, 12 January 2007 (UTC) Have done govt and culture:

  • First paragraph seems ok.
  • "Māori culture survives as Māori continue to support and develop their culture on their own terms and conditions - much as any other living and thriving culture does in the world." Does this sentence say or mean anything?
  • The paragraph on the Maori language is good, however Language may need it's own section?
  • The sentence on film probably focuses too much on recent films, doesn't really mention any local programmes (ie produced for NZ). Nor does it mention the broadcasting commission or film commission. Maybe needs to focus less on film & tv aimed at international audiences.
  • "Taumatawhakatangihangakoauauotamateapokaiwhenuakitanatahu is the longest Māori word. It is the name of a hill in the Hawke's Bay region of the North Island. The Guinness Book of World Records lists this as the longest geographical name in the world." This sentence is trivial, and if it weren't wouldn't it go in the geography section?
  • I don't like the last paragraph at all. NZ's domestic music scene is so diverse "New Zealand's music is influenced by the indigenous Māori and immigrants from the Pacific region." is mentioned before the mention of British, American influences. Makes it seem like some influences are greater then others, but this is prob not true. Prob needs a good rewrite. May want to mention Flying Nun? Also, should prob remove "New Zealand music is a vibrant expression of the culture of New Zealand." seems rather POV.

Super 14

I havn't worked on this article but I believe that a peer-review is necessary. Please be specific, we should be aiming to get this article to Good Article standard at least. - Shudda talk 23:37, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

My ideas for improvement:
  • The lead section needs to be rewritten, especially the second paragraph. Also, needs to add some information on the history of the competition, especially past winners, possibly some of the major records as well.
  • Should be a section competition format and sponsorship. That would include information on the naming rights as well the competition section.
  • The SANZAR section should be near the top, and should be rewritten. It's in need of some references.
  • The history section needs a lot of work. The origins is good, however the Super 12 section is far to small. The expansion section of the history part should be about the Super 14 and the inclusion of the new teams. The information about the Spears could maybe go in the teams section, also, I think it should be summarised, far to much info there.
  • The teams section could include discussion on who the teams represent. The New Zealand, Australian and South African teams are all organised and structured differently. New Zealand has a franchise system, each team is owned by the NZRU, Australia it's mainly State teams and South Africa I'm not sure.
  • Below the Super 14 could be expanded, especially the impact that the Super 14 has had on those competitions (they've been around since before the Super 12).
  • Media coverage section needs to be expanded. Is there a good reason the video game section even exists?
  • The firsts in the records section should be removed.
  • Remove unnecessary external links.
  • More references are needed, especially inline citations.
Any comments? - Shudda talk 02:30, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

All of your points will be great for improving the article. I've got a few ideas:

Just a quick review for the moment:

--Bob 08:41, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Dominick Argento

I have been working steadily on this for a while and would like input from other editors as I am pretty much the only one who has touched it. Any and all comments would be helpful; I have fantasies of bringing this to FA status some day. I know there are a couple of redlinks to be fixed, and I know there is a lack of pictures - I would love suggestions on how to get more pictures into the article. Thanks!--Dmz5*Edits**Talk* 16:40, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Miami International Airport

I would love to see this article becmoe featured. If you have any comments on how this can happen please do so. Arigont 21:10, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Trebor

This is a long way of featured at the moment. Main problems are a lack of referencing (and an inconsistent style within the article - some are inline citations, others are embedded external links), far too listy, and not enough content. See Montréal-Mirabel International Airport for an airport featured article (albeit one that also has referencing issues). Trebor 16:54, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

High School Musical

Article is starting too look pretty good and has been cleaned up a lot. I'd like to know what else we can do to help the article. --Malevious Userpage •Talk Page• Contributions 23:01, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Trebor

As a general pointer, you may like to look at the Wikiproject Film Style guidelines. My thoughts:

I notice there's currently no section on critical reception. Consider adding one, with quotations and references to reviews of the movie and/or soundtrack. —ShadowHalo 08:38, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

F-Zero GX

Needs a push to get to FA. Any thoughts?--Clyde (talk) 22:56, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Trebor

There's potential, but it needs a fair amount of work before getting near featured standard. Trebor 16:49, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

All the easy stuff has been taken care of, and I added fact tags for future work.--Clyde (talk) 23:13, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
Good work, I'll give it another run through tomorrow :) Trebor 23:17, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Munir Bashir

My main question about this article is, well is it long enough? Do you think it has enough information, or does it make you feel like you wanted to read more in the end? Any ways of improving the article? An overall review of this article would be greatly appreciated. Chaldean 18:59, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

I have not read it in detail, but one thing is for sure: the article needs inline citations per WP:CITE and WP:FOOTNOTES, if you intend to go for GAC or FAC.--Yannismarou 21:26, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Bonny Hicks

Please provide perspective as to what this article may yet need to become a Good Article per Wikipedia:What is a good article?. Thanks! CyberAnth 07:36, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

AC/DC remasters

Hi, I think this article can be a Featured list soon, but first I want to know if it can be improved in any way. Thanks. No-Bullet (Talk • Contribs) 05:50, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Magicians in fantasy

Just generally: what needs to be done to improve the article? Goldfritha 03:58, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

I guess highlighting their development in literature. Earthsea was important as I think it would have been the first book where a wizard was the 'hero' character. Other early roles had them more avuncular, like T.H. White's Merlin and Tolkien's Gandalf Cas Liber 09:24, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
Okay, may have to do some more research on that -- I put something of that under "Character function." Do you think it should be a separate section? Goldfritha 01:12, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
That section has been expanded. Goldfritha 05:42, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Cricket World Cup

This is a Peer Review for the article Cricket World Cup which now bears quite a lot of the qualities presented by other FAs such as FIFA World Cup and Rugby World Cup and may better them in some aspects. Please provide constructive criticism for it. Nobleeagle [TALK] [C] 04:47, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

  • There is a little too much about individual competitions than that is strictly necessary. The extensive details can be left to the article about the tournament. There should be more about things like the background of the world cups and the political issues. Re politics, it should be difficult to get it from a single source as each one (incl. Wisden) has a strong POV one way or the other. We will have to read up all the arguments and present a summary.
  • We should not get too chatty about miscellaneous facts. The tournament reports contain phrases like "1987 Cricket World Cup held in India and Pakistan was the first World Cup hosted outside of England." "The 1996 championships were held in the Indian subcontinent for the second time", "The 1999 event returned to England after sixteen years", which are all unnecessary because it will be obvious to the reader from the earlier paragraphs. Or if you look at the Cricket_World_Cup#Performance_of_teams, there is some text and a table accompanying it. There is very little in the text that cannot be deduced from the table.
  • Not happy about some sources and the way they are interpreted. The media coverage has the line "The Cricket World Cup is televised in over 200 countries, with over 2 billion television viewers". I had added an invisible comment to it but somebody deleted it silently. This comes from http://www.cricketworldcup.com/icc-marketing.html which is a marketing site which means that we cannot readily believe everything that it says. According to List of countries, there are only 202 sovereign countries, so "over 200 countries" is at the least an exaggeration. A reading of the source would show "over 200 countries" and "televised to over 2 billion" are just estimates for 2007 (and that coming from a promotional site) and not facts. It is best to get the data for 2003 if we want to put it here. I have already corrected some misinterpretations like this and there may be more. Tintin (talk) 06:27, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
I agree with all of Tintin's comments. I believe someone with little knowledge of cricket and the World Cup will prefer reading a concise but well written article rather than a detailed one which may bore them. I suspected the media coverage section will cause problems. I couldn't find any good statistics for the 03 WC on the web so we may have to turn to the books for sources. Tony Cozier, a Cricinfo journalist, recently wrote "History of the Cricket World Cup," which will probably have the figures needed. I also agree with avoiding the hosts redudancies pointed out by Tintin. In addition, we should find someone with relative little knowledge of cricket and the World Cup to copyedit or comment on the article. I have a feeling some parts of the article won't be understood well by those outside the cricket world. GizzaChat © 12:05, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
I don't believe the infobox needs removing because it is more informative then a picture of the world cup alone. It is not more or less useful than a biography article having an infobox about the person's death, birth and occupation etc. As all these things are presented in the article itself. Nobleeagle [TALK] [C] 04:27, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
i guess it passed as far as the article being too confusing to the casual people(not into cricket much). and i quote "

Finally read the article. It looks like a pretty good summary. I'm not sure what they mean by "platonic dimensions", or whatever it was. That could use a one-line explanation. It was interesting to note the subtle variations in the short form of the game since 1975. If that version had existed in the 1800s, maybe cricket would be more popular in the U.S. It once was popular, but if they were playing 5-day matches, that would have limited its audience, as most folks had to work for a living, but they could see the occasional baseball game, and you know who won that duel. d:) Wahkeenah 02:42, 23 January 2007 (UTC)"

so i guess it's ok on that--Thugchildz

The Turk

Completely rewritten, source-o-riffic, I'm looking to get this to featured level. To do list involves diversifying a few sources and fixing up the "see also" area, perhaps adding an external link/further reading area with the texts I don't end up using for the article. Any other help is very appreciated. --badlydrawnjeff talk 23:19, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Its very good. Try to wrtie the main section of the article like no one read the introduction, so you should reintroduce Wolfgang von Kempelen in the Construction section. I think the sentence that explains how the Turk's operator knew which piece was moved needs more clarification. I'm not sure I understand how he could tell the magnets apart. Also, is there any information how and when the general public learned of how the Turk worked? Was it when it was put on display at the museum? Those are the only problems I noticed. (I know how Frederick the Great felt, I would have been very dissapointed too.) Medvedenko 17:02, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
Excellent input, thanks. I'll add more about Kempelen, the operator, and the magnets. As for how the general public learned, good question. I'll have to look to see if there's any info on it that I missed. --badlydrawnjeff talk 18:16, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
Perhaps too many red links in some sections. Try to create stubs for the really notable ones and do not link the rest. --Ioannes Pragensis 14:39, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
I'm working on that. I've got one more section to complete, and then the redlinks'll start getting chopped down. --badlydrawnjeff talk 14:43, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

AnonEMouse's comments

I'm taking the liberty of comandeering a subsection of my own, first, since my review experience shows that these are helpful to deal with one person's comments at a time, and second, since I suspect my comments may be voluminous.

Reorder the second clause first again to get rid of a comma, but I'd also recommend breaking it into several sentences. Either stop after "metronome" and restart, or reorder to something like: "Sometime before 1808, Kempelen's son decided to attempt to sell the machine to Johann Nepomuk Mälzel, who had attempted to purchase the Turk once before, prior to Wolfgang von Kempelen's death. Mälzel was a Bavarian musician with an interest in various machines and devices, including patenting a metronome." Note that he didn't patent "the" metronome, just a variant.

Matisyahu

The article has just undergone some fairly significant rewriting and improvement, I'd like some feedback as to other areas of the article that could be improved in the hopes of nominating it for good article status soon. Thanks for your input! -- Chabuk [ T • C ] 06:00, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

– Heaven's Wrath   Talk  05:52, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Done. -- Chabuk [ T • C ] 22:45, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Controlled demolition hypothesis for the collapse of the World Trade Center

This article was created as a valid content fork (note, not a POV fork) from 9/11 conspiracy theories where the related section had simply grown too long. It was born in controversy and was nominated twice in close succession for deletion. The editors who took it on since its survival have striven to render it wholly NPOV, and have also striven to remove, where the discussion of a hypothesis allows, any weasel words.

The overall objective since that time has been to create an article of sufficient quality that it could be nominated for Featured Article Status with a good chance of success.

Part of the challenge in editing the article has been to document the facts of the controlled demolition hypothesis without either seeming to validate the hypothesis or invalidating it. People have misunderstood the article at times and stated that its existence at all gives credence to the hypothesis.

All editors are interested in comments on all aspects of the article ranging through the whole gamut from style to the actuality of the NPOV and the position of neither endorsing the hypothesis nor refuting it, but simply documenting in a cited manner that facts about the hypothesis. The article is about the hypothesis, not about the collapse itself. Our objective to to have a robust and excellent article that withstands the test of time. Fiddle Faddle 13:23, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Contributors to the review should be aware that there is now a new AfD running on the article currently. It was not unexpected since the article has been nominated for deletion twice before. This makes the receipt of review suggestions even more pressing. Fiddle Faddle 23:21, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Please do keep the comments coming. Looking at the AfD there is a pretty strong consensus currently in favour of keeping the article. I know an AfD tends to put people off spending time looking at things, but, unless things change substantially, it is likely that the article will survive. Fiddle Faddle 12:20, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
The article survived AfD. Interestingly the outcome was declared as "Turnip" which was translated to "Keep". Fiddle Faddle 00:23, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

RJH and related comments

Thanks. We're waiting a while until we implement suggestions, and will gather consensus before many of them. Fiddle Faddle 23:40, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
I agree with RJH about the quotations marks, they are not needed and they do imply the authors think the official eplanation is a falsehood. Johntex\talk 06:01, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Hmm, this is more complicated. This discussion is relevant to this matter and the quotation marks are there not because an editor wanted to imply falsehood but because some editors were unhappy with calling this explanation "official" (there were voices that it's rather a "mainstream" one, etc.). Anyways, I agree they better be removed. SalvNaut 09:06, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
The quotation marks are removed, and struck through to indicate completion. RJH's other comment remains for consideration. I am adding it to the "ToDo List" on the article talk page. Fiddle Faddle 09:17, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
The sentence "Jones concentrates on the physical implausibility of the official explanation and on aspects of the collapses that seem easier to explain with controlled demolition." has been raised on the talk page for careful discussion. Fiddle Faddle 12:38, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
This has now been edited and documented on the talk page. It is struck out (far) above to indicate completion Fiddle Faddle 14:01, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Kesh comments

Thanks. Added to the to do list. We will report back on completion Fiddle Faddle 19:31, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Bullet point item complete, struck out to show completion. Wording remains for thought. Fiddle Faddle 19:37, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
That has concerned us, too. The issue is challenging. For example, one such video is the only shot we have been able to find which shows or purports to show the molten metal flowing from the building. We've been scratching our heads over this one. Thoughts on how this could be handled would be appreciated. The article is better for it, but Wikipedia is probably not. Fiddle Faddle 07:18, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
I don't think the image itself is necessary from video, and I'm sure I've seen stills of it elsewhere. Again, copyright could be an issue with the stills. Best would be to find a written account of it and cite that. -- Kesh 17:45, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
The difficult thing is that people seem to need to "see" (eg) a flow of molten metal with their own computer screen. It seems to me that the best of all outcomes is to seek a source that is correctly released, and, in the interim, to remove the links with an html comment inthe text to say what has been done Fiddle Faddle 20:39, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
Honestly, I don't see the video or photo as relevant. Probably best would be to link to a web site that has a photo, but it doesn't really apply. It's well established that the "molten metal" existed from photos and interviews, but what metal it was is the point of contention. That's not something that can be answered from a picture, so a photo wouldn't help. -- Kesh 20:53, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
The only added value a picture brings is the posisbility to see the colour. I take your point and have fed it in to the article's talk page. Fiddle Faddle 21:18, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
The first pass on commenting the potential copyright videos is complete (and struck out, above, to signify that) in that they have been removed. New citations have not yet been supplied. Item is on the talk page for further work if necessary, but the legality issue is now solved. Fiddle Faddle 22:34, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

sthomson06 comments

Good point well made re the parenthesised phrase. I have added your comments to the to do list. Regarding the "Seasoned Editor" element, is there anyone you feel happy to nominate? Fiddle Faddle 19:31, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Parenthesised phrased now handled. Ref also moved to correct punctuation point. No striking out above because this is simply an example of an entire and large task Fiddle Faddle 19:45, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

RedHillian comments

Thanks for your encouragement. Fiddle Faddle 10:24, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Christopher Parham comments

A couple or more questions on this:
  • The opening sentence is "The controlled demolition hypothesis is the controversial proposition that the World Trade Center was not destroyed by the planes that crashed into it as part of the September 11th attacks, nor by the fires that followed, but by explosives or other devices planted in the buildings in advance." Is it simply the word "conspiracy" that you feel is absent, or do you find other issues with the sentence? I suspect we felt that the word was covered in the article title, but there is nothing against including it in the text in the lead
I have now added that element. struck out above to signifiy completion. Fiddle Faddle 10:59, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Because there are so many proponents of the hypothesis, I'm thinking that the wording could be "major proponents of the CD Hypothesis include...", but would appreciate your comments.
Added to the lead paraghraph, and struck out above to signify completion Fiddle Faddle 20:22, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
  • The tone: Part of the challenge of editing an article is that one can stand too close to it to be able to see what others see. The consensus of those who have worked on it is that it was rendered, so far, unbiased either way, and simply factual. You obviously see something different. Further examples would be appreciated, please. We may need to "tune in again" to get this right.
I or anther editor will add your comments to the "ToDo list" once we have a closer understanding of your comments. Fiddle Faddle 10:22, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for your work, the lead in the current version of the article is much improved and does a better job summarizing the article. As far as the tone, I think that has also improved since I last looked. Tone-wise, the biggest obstacle to overcome is that the article is broken up into proponent and critic sections; it's difficult to take a neutral tone when you are only presenting the one side of an issue at a time.
As another question, what is up with the footnote on Bloomberg's comment at the end of the 'destruction of the crime scene' section? It doesn't appear to be a complete quote, but if it's not there's a lot of bad editorializing there. Christopher Parham (talk) 04:13, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
The reference looks very much like a careless edit. The ref tag is now completed. The tone element is being taken to the talk page. Fiddle Faddle 08:23, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Gazpacho comments

Gazpacho 01:25, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Minor note: the section you added (Engineering Consensus) is completely without citations. Yes, it is the accepted model, but we still need to verify that through citation. -- Kesh 02:03, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
We do not currently agree that the description of the collapses or the engineering consensus have a place in this article, but see them as more for an article about the collapse. This article is about the hypothesis and refers explicitly to the collapse article. The same comment applies to that about a controlled demolition. That is well referenced as it stands. We have taken this to the talk page of the article.
We will look at the rebuttal proximity on the talk page and build consensus. Fiddle Faddle 08:12, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
Who's "we"? Gazpacho
Those of us who are working on the article?--Thomas Basboll 09:52, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
Probably more correctly, "those who have been working in this article long term." I'm sorry, my "we" looked elitist or cliquey. That was not intended. Gazpacho is also working within the article. Fiddle Faddle 10:19, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
Rebuttals task is complete, and struck out to signify completion. Fiddle Faddle 20:57, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

MONGO Comments

Coronation Street

I have recently given this former Featured Article a massive overhaul, changed many of its sections and dealt with the problems it had that ultimately led to its FA withdrawal. I would really like some feedback and comments from other Wikipedians to see what you think of the improvements and if anything else should be done. I am intending to subit the article for FA status again once any problems and issues are ironed out. Thankyou for your time! Ben 23:43, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Jeff Hanneman

I wish to bring this up to GA status, second peer review. I have implemented all suggestions on the last peer review and have since added two new sections and more references. Thanks M3tal H3ad 08:45, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Automated

Yannismarou

Minor things! The article seems set for GA status. These are my remarks:

History of Milton Keynes

I would like help to make this FA in at least on portal:United Kingdom for 23 January 2007, the 40th anniversary of the foundation of the modern Milton Keynes in 1967. Help and advice welcome - might make Wikipedia FA in 2017!

The web citations all need to be changed to the long form style, which I am working on. --Concrete Cowboy 22:22, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

All citations done. --Concrete Cowboy 17:49, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

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

You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, SenatorsTalk | Contribs 00:38, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Very useful - I've not seen these principles before so I will work through them. --Concrete Cowboy 18:42, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for these suggestions which have improved the article. --Concrete Cowboy 23:22, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Egyptian Invasion of Mani

I just finished the inprovement of this article. I added the three battles of the camppaign into one article. I want to improve this article and every suggestion is well come. Kyriakos 23:29, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Kirill Lokshin

A number of points that can still be improved on, I think:

Done
Done
Barrow and Fermor are the only ones I can find so far, I'll for some others.

Hope that helps! Kirill Lokshin 03:02, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Tutmosis

Can the image usage rationale be expanded. Specifically where they came from. Especially Image:Ibrahim.PNG, who granted it permission to be used under GNU? Full dates should be wikilinked, while single months/years should be de-wikilinked, Example from text: August. I noticed that some of the footnotes are exactly the same, please refer to this guide on how to combine some of them. Thanks. — Tutmosis 18:02, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

PocklingtonDan

Just a few minor points, since I'm not sure if this peer review is still actively ongoing or not:

HM-15

As this article represents the first submission by this submitter, this submitter is looking for constructive comments. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Duane Phillips (talk • contribs)

Thanks for the note on "personal experience" - point well taken. I am concerned about the "Other Notables" section of the page. Three of the four items listed are not likely to be referenced by any third party. I have been searching high and low for any write-up that former Commanders of that squadron should have written, but alas, there are no online reports for the years during the USN/USNR integration. I now understand that WikiPedia is a source of reference, not truth, as the wide open contribution paradigm has no ability to be a validating source of previously undocumented truth. --Duane Phillips 22:07, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Trebor

I would work on finding reliable references. Unfortunately, your reference of "Originating author personal experience" is in violation of our "no original research" policy which prevents people from writing information that isn't verifiable. Trebor 23:25, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Looper5920

Go easy on this. I think the user sent this thing up a bit to early. Give some more experienced military editors a few days to work on it and it will look much better. Right now it has some serious issues and really shouldn't be here. --Looper5920 00:06, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Execution of Saddam Hussein

Overall peer review, as requested by IP user on talk page. ~ UBeR 16:52, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Hardly does the job. ~ UBeR 22:10, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Air (visual novel)

I have requested a peer review to Air (visual novel) so that perhaps the article could be built up to Featured Article status.---- (十八) 02:19, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

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

You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, SenatorsTalk | Contribs 03:05, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure I entirely agree when looking at such featured articles as Serial Experiments Lain and Excel Saga that seem to have almost no Japanese reviews of the series.---- (十八) 07:58, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
Excel Saga got a lot of flak about it though. I was actually surprised it was able to pass with those objects still unanswered. Plus, I think the FA reviewers might expect reviews for a game more than a TV show. Additionally, considering the series has not been licensed outside of Japan, I think reviewers may be less lenient. Filling up with a bunch of reviews for an English release is one thing, but only having English reviews of a Japanese exclusive is a bit unbalanced. All I'm saying is that the issue is bound to come up in a FAC, so we should try to deal with it ahead of time.--SeizureDog 09:50, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Aquinas College, Perth

Apples and oranges

Any advice for this article? -- Zanimum 15:10, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

I didn't read the article, but these are some suggestions:
  • Use the template:This as a hatnote.
  • the word "idiom" is used a lot of times in the first sections, replace it sometimes with other words.
  • Use the template:cite web instead of those external links.
I'll read the article on the next days and then I'll give you other suggestions. Cheers. No-Bullet (Talk • Contribs) 02:40, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
Question, before I get down to brass tacks... how is template:This relevant? The article isn't protected, and doesn't use any templates. -- Zanimum 14:32, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
Template:This isn't about protection, it's the template itself that is protected. It's for other uses of the word; in this case, Template:For was more applicable and I've added it to the article. Trebor 18:17, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Generally seems pretty good, a few thoughts:

Trebor 18:17, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Consider finding/creating/requesting a picture of an apple and orange next to each other. That may be more effective than separate pictures. —ShadowHalo 04:48, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

The Origin of Species

Dave and I have been doing a lot of recent work on this article and I would like some other feedback on how we (or I, if Dave is too busy) can improve it. Thanks. StudyAndBeWise 03:38, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

--- Automated peer review through script ---

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

You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, StudyAndBeWise 05:37, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

--- END Automated peer review through script ---

I just spent some time updating a different article, I found on the request for peer review page, but a review of The Origin of Species would be appreciated. Thanks.

StudyAndBeWise 01:38, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Charter Oath

Well, this article was just promoted to GA status, with the reviewer commenting that major aspects still perhaps need to be covered. I think that two weaknesses are the importance of the Oath as a symbol among the populace, and whatever if any subsequent effect it might have had on Japanese law and jurisprudence. Perhaps a historical context section, but I'd hate to duplicate Boshin War, Meiji Restoration and Bakumatsu more than necessary. I have my eye on one new source, but I think I've tapped out two major, generalist history texts. I'm perhaps too close to the article. Outside comment and help, obviously and sincerely, desired.--Monocrat 03:54, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Outriggr's comments

I can't speak to comprehensiveness, but a couple of small points:

–Outriggr § 04:26, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Outriggr, thanks for spotting those! I think I've addressed them. The Taika comment was unsourced, and I haven't been able to find anything, so I've cut it for now.--Monocrat 04:47, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

You're welcome! Also, may I suggest rearranging the sentence order in the lead to make the topic initially clearer:

The Charter Oath is considered by political historians to be the first constitution of modern Japan. The Oath outlined the main aims and the course of action to be followed during Emperor Meiji's reign, setting the legal stage for Japan's modernization. It was promulgated at the coronation of Emperor Meiji of Japan on April 7, 1868. It remained influential, if less for governing than inspiring, throughout the Meiji era and into the twentieth century.

–Outriggr § 05:17, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

The lead generally needs expansion and reorganization, so I'll keep that in mind for now. If you spot anything else, let me know!--Monocrat 05:21, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Interstate 90

See Interstate 95's peer review for reason. V60 VTalk - VDemolitions 02:17, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Hollywood North

This article has been having a bit of a rough time in the last month or so. It's been greatly expanded and the neutrality of it continues to come into question. It would be nice for some outside opinions on the direction of the article. Mkdwtalk 10:44, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Robert Wilkins

I would like feedback on whether the section I have marked as dubious should be removed or not. I am by no means an expert on blues music, I only know what I have read on the relationship between the song "Catfish Blues" by Robert Petway and "Rollin' Stone" by Muddy Waters. No other site mentioned the Robert Wilkins song, so I'm inclined to think that there is no connection between "Rolling Stone" and "Rollin' Stone". However, as I mentioned in the talk section, there is a lot of confusion and ambiguity within the early history of the blues itself, so I would rather be proven wrong (by a credible source) then to just delete the fact from the wiki article. If nothing else, I would like a peer review to confirm for me that I should just remove it. But once again, I wanted to give the article the burden of proof before I just removed something I couldn't verify.Crazytonyi 08:40, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

University of Oklahoma

The is the 4th PR for this article. It's been awhile since the previous PR but I was going to try to get this FA if it is ready and would appreciate any and all feedback. Cool BlueLight my Fire! 00:29, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Be on the look out for weasel words and peacock words: "By far, OU's most famous and storied athletic program is the football program", "a long and bitter rivalry", "This rivalry is often thought of as a contest of state pride". Pagrashtak 00:57, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, Ruhrfisch 02:41, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
This looks pretty good to me. A few comments though. I think the Academic profile section could be expanded some. For example rather have the grab bag of majors at the beginning of the section, there could be a longer discussion of each College which would discuss the range of majors offered by that school. Some indication should be given on the range of graduate programs as well. It would be a good thing to get a better idea of the range of sports the atheletic department competes in. At bare minimum a statement along the lines of "OU competes in X NCAA division IA men's sports and Y women's sports. Even better would be a complete list for both men and women, although space restrictions might preclude it. I think some mention should be made of the 47 game winning streak the football. There are four structures on campus that on the NRHP (Beta Theta Pi House, Bizzell Library, Casa Blanca (Alpha Chi Omega Sorority House), and Boyd House) perhaps these could be mentioned, although again space restrictions might preclude this. The second paragraph of the Norman Campus subsection of the Academic profile section starts oddly. "More OU-Norman students (37%) are in the College of Arts & Sciences." I'm not sure what this means. More than what? The Lloyd Noble Center is mentioned at least twice, without defining what it is. I'm not sure where would be the best place to define it would be but readers shouldn't have to leave the article to figure that its a basketball arena. The section on Student organizations starts off with
There are over 350 student organizations at Oklahoma. Focuses of these organizations range from ethnic to political, religious to special interests. For example, the College Republicans at OU has over 1,800 members, nearly 10% of the Norman campus undergraduate population. In addition, OU has around 20 organizations related to Christian ideals.
By focusing on these 21 out of 350 groups, it feels as if the article is trying to imply something without actually saying it. Either the paragraph should say what it implies (with proper referencing) or it should be dropped. (How large is the College Democrats, and why give percentages of undergraduates, are graduate students not allowed to join? Why the focus on Christian groups?) Most of these points are minor, and some are probably optional. The History section is quite good, as are the discussions of the libraries and the museums. I love the picture of Bizzell with the lightning. Dsmdgold 03:51, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Wow that was fast. Good work Dsmdgold 01:01, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

  1. ^ a b c d See footnote
  2. ^ a b c d e f See footnote
  3. ^ See footnote
  4. ^ a b c See footnote
  5. ^ a b c See footnote
  6. ^ a b See footnote
  7. ^ Soldier of Fortune Magazine July,1997
  8. ^ ref
  9. ^ ref
  10. ^ ref
  11. ^ See footnote
More