Note:Peer review is the process of review by peers and usually implies a group of authoritative reviewers who are equally familiar and expert in the subject. The process represented by this page is not formal peer review in that sense and articles that undergo this process cannot be assumed to have greater authority than any other.
Wikipedia's peer review is a way to receive ideas on how to improve articles that are already decent. It may be used for potential good article nominations, potential featured article candidates, or an article of any "grade" (but if the article isn't well-developed, please read here before asking for a peer review). Follow the directions below to open a peer review. After that, the most effective way to receive review comments is by posting a request on the talk page of a volunteer.
Nominating
Anyone can request peer review. Editors submitting a new request are encouraged to review an article from those already listed, and encourage reviewers by replying promptly and appreciatively to comments.
Add {{subst:PR}} to the top of the article's talk page and save it.
Click within the notice to create a new peer review discussion page.
Complete the new page as instructed. Remember to say what kind of comments or contributions you want, and/or the sections of the article you think need reviewing.
Save the page with the four tildes (~~~~) at the end of your request to sign it. Your peer review will be automatically listed within an hour.
Avoid re-editing your own nomination. This makes your nomination disappear from the List of unanswered reviews, resulting in delays in it being picked up by a reviewer. If this has happened, add your peer review to Template:Peer review/Unanswered peer reviews sidebar by clicking here.
Please consider reciprocity and every time you nominate a review, respond or add to another review (current list here), so that you won't have to wait too long before someone comments on yours.
To change a topic
The topic parameter can be changed by altering the template {{Peer review page|topic=X}} on an article's talk page. The topic (|topic=X) on the template can be set as one of the following:
arts
langlit (language & literature)
philrelig (philosophy & religion)
everydaylife
socsci (social sciences & society)
geography
history
engtech (engineering & technology)
natsci (natural sciences & mathematics)
If no topic is chosen, the article is listed with General topics.
All types of article can be peer reviewed. Sometimes, a nominator wants a peer review before making a featured article nomination. These reviews often wait longer than others, because the type of review they need is more detailed and specialised than normal. There are some things you should know before doing this:
Have a look at advice provided at featured articles, and contact some active reviewers there to contribute to your review
Please add your article to the sidebar Template:FAC peer review sidebar, and remove when you think you have received enough feedback
Step 3: Waiting for a review
Check if your review is appearing on the unanswered list. It won't if more than a single edit has been made. If you've received minimal feedback, or have edited your review more than once, you can manually add it to the backlog list (see Step 2: Requesting a review, step 6). This ensures reviewers don't overlook your request.
Please be patient! Consider working on some other article while the review is open and remember to watch it until it is formally closed. It may take weeks before an interested volunteer spots your review.
Consult the volunteers list for assistance. An excellent way to get reviews is to review a few other requests without responses and ask for reviews in return.
Your review may be more successful if you politely request feedback on the discussion pages of related articles; send messages to Wikipedians who have contributed to the same or a related field; and also request peer review at appropriate Wikiprojects. Please do not spam many users or projects with identical requests.
Note that requests still may be closed if left unanswered for more than a month and once no more contributions seem likely. See Step 4.
Step 4: Closing a review
To close a review:
On the article's talk page, remove the {{Peer review}} tag on the article's talk page and replace this with {{subst:Close peer review|archive = N}}, where |archive=N is the number of the peer review discussion page above (e.g. |archive=1 for /archive1).
On the peer review page, remove {{Peer review page|topic=X}} and replace this with {{Closed peer review page}}.
When can a review be closed?
If you are the nominator, you can close the review at any time, although this is discouraged if a discussion is still active.
If the review is to determine whether an article can be nominated for GA, FA or FL status, and a reviewer believes it has a reasonable chance of passing these, they may close the review and encourage a direct nomination (see here).
If a review is answered and the nominator is inactive for more than one week.
There is a script to help automate closing peer reviews. To use the script:
Copy importScript('User:Writ Keeper/Scripts/peerReviewCloser.js'); into your Special:MyPage/common.js
When you view a review, click on the tab that says "More" and then "Close peer review". The tab can be found near the "History" tab. This should update the article's talk page and the review page.
I think the Recent Achievements section should be moved into the History section. A lot of people don't like having lots of short sub-sections, so it might be an idea to see if some of them could be merged. I think Celtic's European Cup finals could do with a bit more detail as well. It seems strange that there's more on John Barnes' incompetence than both of them put together. File:Yemen flag large.pngCTOAGN (talk) 17:22, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The article suffers from a severe lack of references. i.e the second paragraph ...one of the most famous football stadia in Europe. According to whom?
The article could do with an image or two.
Consider jettisoning the Famous Celtic Fans section. Anyone whose support for the club is particularly notable should have it mentioned in their article, not Celtic's.
IFK Göteborg and Arsenal F.C. are both featured articles about football clubs, and might be useful for comparison.
The phrase "one of the most famous/greatest/biggest..." is used a lot - if an instance can be backed up with references then fine, add them. Else it's just weasel words.
The History section is enormous, far too big. Ideally it should be moved to a separate article, e.g. History of Celtic F.C.. Recent Achievements should also be removed, and become a subsection of that page (and ideally slimmed down as well - does John Barnes' five-minute reign really warrant four paragraphs?) In their place, have a briefer History section written in summary style, and a link to the main article at the top.
An anti-Celtic agenda? looks quite POV - the fact there is a question mark in the header says it all. Either get rid of it, or back it up with facts and references.
Although Old Firm has its very own article, I am surprised there isn't more than a cursory mention of Celtic's Catholic heritage and the club's rivalry with Rangers in this article - a brief and neutrally-worded discussion of it (with references) would add much-needed additional context.
Top scorers should be tabulated (and the two tables should probably be combined). The number of games each player played would be useful and informative.
Separate club records from national records that the club has set; perhaps style them a little better too - e.g. in the manner of Arsenal F.C. statistics.
Get rid of famous fans section - it's an unmaintainable and possibly huge list.
Tabulate the managers list.
Un-bold the players in the Famous Celts section. Roy Keane should not be in there - he hasn't even played a match for the club yet.
External links should be organised better - separate it into official/news/fan sites.
Could do with some more photos, but I know it can be tricky finding sports pictures with free licences.
I've said it before, but I'll say it again: the article needs references from authoritative sources, especially for any specific historical claims (e.g. did Jock Stein really instigate the "Tracksuit manager" trend? Says who?).
OK folks, so this is nearly done. I have literally got about 1/3rd of a section to go, and a small section on the ALA's response to Title II, which is important as they made such a big stink about it. I am totally aware that this is rapidly approaching about 160KB (!) I've never, ever done such an ambitious project as documenting all the titles of the Patriot Act, so forgive me that the article is so darn gigantic!
Once I've done the sections, I'm going to need some serious help in splitting the article. I will most likely firstly summarise the the sections on the Patriot Debates into a Patriot Debates article. Then I will need to start to split other topics. I don't want to split the summary, and I want to keep the individual sections. I know this makes things tricky, they are each very important. Can someone give me ideas on how to deal with the massive, monster of an article?
Please note that I'd like to request that I get those two sections out of the way and then have people help me split the article. I think this is fair, no?
This is just about the biggest article I've ever seen! Too big, almost. I think you could split the commentary section in two, putting a summary of the commentary in with the summary, and the rest (probably the more technical commentary) in with the discussion of the actual text of the legislation. It might be a good idea to consolidate some of the smaller, less controversial sections into one larger unit, which is not ideal because you're going for comprehensive coverage, but it's just too long with all that detail on relatively insignificant provisions.
I hope I haven't! I know it's kinda too big. I gotta start splitting :( sad, but true. And to think, all I was trying to do was to summarise each title. Sigh. - Ta bu shi da yu14:48, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think this can become a featured list, I and a few others have put into alot of work into this and it's an in-depth and eye pleasing article. However, all of that will go for naught if those with copyright paranoia get their way, because quick frankly, I don't think this ever could become featured without screenshots of the subjects of the list: The Bountyheads of Cowboy Bebop themselves.
I'm also going to include one more from the full length movie as well as perhaps a subpage regarding a series of 30 minor ones in addition to these 19. Let me know what you think. karmafist09:49, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I wasn't aware that there was a limit to anything in article space being peer reviewed, but thank you for the feedback, Aranda. I have just one or two more sections to add and then i'm going to nominate it for WP:FL, but it's good to know that it could make it. karmafist12:26, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
You need sources!!! Very nice list, but you might have huge problems with fair use images... Also, for the sake of consistency, can you make all tables of the same width? Renata320:47, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
There's only one source: The Cowboy Bebop series and full length movie itself. I figured it was pretty evident, but i'm sure we can think of something. I know the copyright gestapo is going to have issues with this, but there was absolutely no way to make this list as good as it was without them. Also, I fudged with the tables due to the picture sizes changing, if they're all uniform, it'll be hard not to have a whole lot of white space at the bottom of each section or wildly inconsistent pictures in the infoboxes. karmafist06:33, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I get what you mean. Fan websites and such. Ok, i'll try to find some decent ones. Also, anything close to WP:NOR on there was more or less just comparison to other things on the page. karmafist09:08, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Is there an official site? Some good fan sites could also work. DVD release could also work. I could deal with white space as long as tables are of the same width (that would look reaally neat). Also, pics need fair use rationale (don't even ask me what is that) and you should check with someboody who understands fair use how to do that. Renata320:53, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This is an archive of past discussions about Wikipedia:Peer review. 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 main page.
I have to start this request for a Peer Review with an apology. I made the last request back in December when this page was obviously nowhere near FA status, and consequently received minimal feedback. However this article has improved a lot over the last two months and was recently nominated to be a Featured Article. Unfortunately, it failed to get enough votes and so I'm coming back to you, hat in my hand, asking for your advice and criticism. For those of you unfamiliar with the topic, Starship Troopers is a science fiction novel by Robert A. Heinlein about futuristic warfare from an infantryman's perspective. It helped created a sub genre of literature known as military science fiction and is the only science fiction novel on the reading list at all four United States military academies.
However, the novel is extremely controversial, and has been called militaristic, fascist, and even racist by many of its detractors. Palm_Dogg09:51, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
As has been already pointed out in the FA nomination, there seem to be quite a lot of images of covers of the book in the article and I'm not sure their use qualifies as fair use. It seems to me as if they're used more for decorational purposes than to illustrate the points of the article. The fair use rationale on all images states they are "illustrating how different individuals have visualized Starship Troopers", but they are spread rather random throughout the article and there is no mentioning of any cover in the article. They certainly are not used to illustrate anything in the sections they are placed in. --Fritz Saalfeld (Talk) 11:00, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
True, but the Wikipedia Template:bookcover does say we're allowed to use book covers "to illustrate an article discussing the book in question". I should add that I originally used images from the films, anime, and comics, but other users objected to using pictures from non-literary sources. *sigh*. I just can't win this one, can I? Palm_Dogg13:57, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, in general I agree, but the many covers in the article seem excessive and unnecessary. Most of them just jam the article and don't add anything informative to it. And as you brought that up, there's no mentioning of any of the US comic books in the article. --Fritz Saalfeld (Talk) 14:29, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, you're definitely right about them cluttering up the article so I've tried spacing them out a bit. I do think they add to the article, because in addition to being visual aids, they give multiple different perceptions of the powered armor (My personal favorite is the Polish version). I still have to rewrite the "Themes" section, so when I finish with that I think I'll redo the footnotes so that they're 'concentrated.' Palm_Dogg15:38, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Several short sections (reception, some of the adaptations).
Usually these articles have a list of references in culture.
OMG! NO WAY! You should have seen this page when I took over. At least 1/3 was taken up by Warhammer 40K and Halo fans. I had to create a seperate page for it all called Books, films, and games influenced by Starship Troopers. Palm_Dogg14:52, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There should at least be a quick section using {{main}} or {{details}}. I don't think the list is so long that it can't be boiled down to a section within the page. Circeus15:09, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
As Fritz said further above - there are 12 (!) book covers. There should be one book cover. Book covers must have a fair use rationale, and more than one is really pushing that. I quite like the article itself, although some of the sections could be merged. Do not small-font your notes, it is poor style (font should be a minimum size, particularly for those with vision problems). Proto||type15:27, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Notes have been smalled in several FA already without problems. Since the technique always involve scalable fonts, the reader is able to jack up the text size (and if he has vision problems, he probably does it by default). Circeus15:50, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have a problem with so many book covers and no other images. SilkTork 17:23, 16 February 2006 (UTC) I have just swapped two book covers for two other images. The same could be done through the rest of the article. SilkTork17:35, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The non-English book covers could be reduced and merged into a single image for the purpose of demonstrating the various languages into which the novel has been translated. Apart from stills from the movie or possibly a pic of Heinlein, however, I'm not sure what other images you're going to find. — RJH17:19, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Good idea. I'm loathe to use anything from the film for two reasons: one, this article is about the novel, not the Starship Troopers "universe"; second a lot of Heinlein fans hated the Starship Troopers film and might take it personally. ;) Palm_Dogg17:47, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The main reason this article failed in its FA nomination was a lack of copyediting. Would anyone here be able to help with that?Palm_Dogg15:33, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Long-term editors have tried to maintain a balance between keeping the article simple for those unfamiliar with the sport and accomodating people who add more detail here and there. I'm especially interested in hearing from non-Americans who don't know anything about the game, as they can say whether the article makes sense to them. -- Mwalcoff02:25, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
(Full disclosure: I'm a member of WikiProject Football, and edit articles about a very different type of football). I'm non-American and have never been able to fathom why gridiron stops all the time. Maybe now I can work it out.
Overall the article seems to do a decent job. A look at Cricket (which is featured IIRC) may help with ideas on how to explain a seemingly complex game to newcomers.
Some issues, none of them overwhelming, with two main points:
The article lacks a description or link to a description of what a tackle is and what forms of contact are permitted.
A description of the equipment necessary for teams to play a game is not included
Minor things:
The Objective sentence could do with rewording, though I'm not sure how. Rugby and Aussie rules score points for reaching the other end of the field, but association football and gaelic football do not.
Why does an NFL team have 53 players? It seems an odd number to someone like me who is unfamiliar with the game.
Is a snap always thrown between the legs? (my confusion is more due to lack of readability in the article Snap (American football) than the American football article)
Is punting the ball to a member of your own team allowed?
Thank you for your comments. This is sort of like when missionaries landed on remote Pacific islands and had to translate Bible verses about shepherds to people who had never seen animals other than fish and birds. How do you explain a tackle? This is something I'll have to think about.
Regarding some of your other questions:
The 53-man roster is a result of negotiations between NFL owners and the players' union. Obviously, the players want big rosters.
Yes, the snap must always go through the center's legs, although whether the center hands it directly to the quarterback or throws it behind him to the quarterback (or another player) depends on the offensive formation being used. I agree that snap (American football) is poorly written and needs improvement.
No, you cannot kick the ball to a teammate. As mentioned in punt (football), you can't recover a punt kicked by your own team unless the other team has touched it first. If a member of the kicking team grabbes a punted ball, the other team gets the ball at that spot. The goal is to do this really close to the other team's end zone so they have to start with really bad field position.
Very flagrant personal fouls, such as shoving the referee, can result in the player's ejection from the game in addition to the standard 15 yards. In other cases, only the team is penalized... although the coach might make sure the offending player gets a good chewing-out. -- Mwalcoff23:53, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I've just noticed that the Popularity section doesn't mention that the vast majority of American football is played in the US compared to that played elsewhere. The list of leagues mentions a Womens League, so maybe the statement in the Popularity section which says "Organized football is played almost exclusively by men and boys" needs changing. Also, if you intend to go through FAC, more references/footnotes may be needed.
I think the Taj deserves one of the best articles in the Wikipedia. I've taken a shot at developing a good basis for this, I hope, and I respectfully ask for comments, suggestions, edits and improvements. --Nemonoman01:07, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This was on my wishlist. I had hoped to get it to Featured status someday. Ok, Here goes:
The page has simply too many images. Select only the best and the most apt images
Image sizes of 455px is too large. Keep it at around 250px
The lead needs to be a bit longer. Merge the overview.
An infobox would be a good additions: Fields include: image, location, built by, descr, area. years, material etc.
The structure is lopsided. The structure should be like this:
History : History is currently very short. It needs a lot more matter.
Then comes =Site= which should be renamed as location. The exact location in Agra can be mentioned including the coordinates of the site.
Combine ==Asthetics= with =Origin and inspiriation= and =Construction and design= and rename it as =Construction=
Rename =Outlying buildings= to =Complex= and include gardens
The tomb --> Structure
merge external and internal decoration
=Legends and theories=
Avoid the use of sub headings.
References needs to be formatted correctly. Also do a google search and try and get some more information on topics which may have not been covered in standard texts on the Taj.
I have been a minor contributor to the article, so I think it must be said that Nemonoman has done an absolutely amazing job of extending it and improving it while maintaining an NPOV approach to some of the more contentious aspects of the building's history. I don't think there are too many images. In fact the variety of images gives a genuine sense of the complexity and magic of the building - bettter perhaps that any other current website on the Taj. We shouldn't sacrifice that richness for the sake of parsimony. There are some awkwardnesses - large white spaces etc - but with a bit of effort these might be dealt with without dropping the more informative and striking images. Perhaps some of the non-Taj pics can go: Humayun's tomb etc. These can be seen on the relevant pages. Paul B22:46, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Re to images: Wikipedia:What is a featured article #4 mentions: It should have images where appropriate, with succinct captions and acceptable copyright status. Excess images in an article will be objected upon when the article is nominated for FAC. The gallery tag should not be used. Galleries are meant to be in commons:=Nichalp«Talk»=05:25, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
My response was to the suggestion that the article use of gallery tags, which by the way, are suggested in the editing guidelines,
As to your comment, "excess" images are going to be a subjective assessment. When considering a single work of art that covers multiple media and several acres, etc. "excess" is a term I have considered. You really need a quick study of some basic theory to understand why the Taj is such an aesthetic triumph. Pictures make this easy.
Frankly I'd rather have the article explain the Taj in relative fullness than achieve feature article status by, in effect, lowering its quality to meet that (entirely reasonable) requirement.
Also, other editors have replaced pictures that I have removed as redundant. Every body who's been to the Taj wants to share their view. -- what's the response? Eternal vigilance? I ask this question sincerely. What's the response?--Nemonoman05:49, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Um, we do have to remember that a lot of our readers do not have the bandwith to load so many images. Excessive use of images have always been frowned upon in FAC, and this article will be no exception. I reiterate, this page should have the only best and most apt images. =Nichalp«Talk»=06:06, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Nichalp, is the issue bandwidth? At present the page is about = in kilobytes to Sicilian Baroque, which seems to me a comparable article. I have just tried a test page where with minimum compression and detail loss the page is about 1/2 the size of Sicilian Baroque. So if bandwidth is the issue, that's one approach; if the issue is simply "excess" images, then I suppose someone will need to define which are essential and which are "excess".--Nemonoman19:50, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Bandwidth is secondary. Its the visual clutter that must be cut down upon. With so many images, the article has a poor chance of getting through FAC. I can't recall the exact names, but many articles have failed FAC because of excess images. This is an old one, I can't recall the names of the ones that have failed recently. =Nichalp«Talk»=14:46, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This article has way too many POV statements. "a masterpiece of Mughal architecture that brilliantly combines elements of Persian and Hindu architecture.", "the Taj is actually a complex of elements, each making a powerful aesthetic statement, and combining to create a unique work of art", "Every element has been thoughtfully designed and carefully executed", "To achieve its astonishing beauty", "The exterior decorations of the Taj are among the finest to be found in Mughal architecture of any period" etc. Editors should not give their personal opinions in the articles, even when they believe this personal opinion is shared by lots of people. See Wikipedia:Neutral point-of-view.
I have reread the the NPOV section you cited, and do not find that it specifically supports your changes. NPOV suggests a balanced presentation of differing viewpoints. I am not familiar with anyone asserting that the Taj is NOT a complex of elements, or that it is NOT a unique work of art. Perhaps I am ill-informed?
Your edits and comments do not address POV -- but rather descriptions of quality. There is certainly a school of thought that tries to remove such writing: this approach, for example, is typical of journalism writing and technical writing. It is not by any means required or even typical of encyclopedic type articles, which often rely on authors to act as docents in their articles.
You have broken out mainly sentences dealing with beauty, and appear to suggest that the appreciation of beauty is relative. I respectfully suggest that there is a reasonable argument that certain forms and elements are practically universally pleasing, and that the human brain is wired to appreciate, much as it is wired to enjoy sweets, or certain temperatures, etc. Suggesting otherwise, while more politically correct these days, is just another POV.
That is an interesting point you make. I don't know if there is a policy or guideline for dealing with this aspect of aesthetics. I will try to research into this. JoaoRicardotalk19:28, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Also, I don't know, other than by a general consensus, one gets to identify a "masterpiece". Yet the term is applied nearly universally in books and articles about the Taj. Perhaps every adjective requires an attribution to some source other than the authors of the article? That's not a problem, as individuals far more respectable and authoritative than me have heaped on the accolades, but it is going to change the readability of the article.
For my own part, I have visited and studied at length the architecture of all the mausoleums built by and for Mughal emperors and their queens in India (not the ones in Pakistan), as well as most if not all the major Mughal-built buildings in India, and in addition, most of the minor ones in Maharashtra. I hoped in my edits to illuminate the elements that distinguish the Taj from any of its predecessors or followers. The distinguishing elements are not, for example, that it has pietra-dura inlay, but the way that inlay work is more careful in workmanship, its materials more carefully chosen and matched, the design more complicated and demanding, and the overall result more breathtaking, than any that came before. How to describe this other than by saying it? During one of my visits to the Taj, a man stood near the cenotaphs gazing that the Jali, inch by inch, for more than three hours. How to put the impact of the Taj into the article except to say so?
I don't think you should write about your own experience with the subject. For instance, you should not describe the impact the Taj had on you or on those who were near you when you visited it. You should rather present the view of other, notable sources on it. Please see Wikipedia:No original research. JoaoRicardotalk19:28, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
One could not explain the appeal of champagne by describing its chemical composition. It is entirely reasonable to provide some description of the quality and value of a subject. No one, I think, believes that the Wikipedia is objective; what they expect, I hope, is that the content is not colored by politics or bigotry.
Also lots of weasel terms. "The Taj (as it is often called) is among the most recoginizable and celebrated buildings in the world" Who said that? Was there a poll?
Well, let's see. It's sort of so obvious that it seems bizarre to require a source. How should this be referenced? A quick google search produces 4,400,000 taj entries with 200,000 images. Google "famous buildings" and 8 of the first 10 websites specifically mention the Taj. In a 5-year poll run by the New 7 wonders Foundation the Taj was the number 3 entry Seven wonders of the world. A brand of tea has been named for it, and a brand of beer, and a blues musician, and a porn star -- that suggests an unusual amount of noteriety.
I am sorry if I hadn't made myself clear. The problem here is that the information presented in Wikipedia should be verifiable. How does one verify the claim that the Taj Mahal is "among the most recognizable and celebrated buildings in the world"? What is the criteria for considering a specific building "one of the most recognizable and celebrated buildings in the world"? On the other hand, the poll you cited would be a verifiable information asserting the view that most people have of this subject, and therefore should be included in the article. JoaoRicardotalk19:28, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I do take some exception to your saying the "recoginizable and celebrated" are weasel words.. If the article does not state that the building is famous, the article is disingenous and does the reader a disservice.
Additionally, if the article does not describe WHY the building is famous, that also is a disservice.
It is famous because of its beauty. Is that not worth reporting? Or do you regard that clear statement as intherently POV?
"Is thought to have" is a holdover from earlier versions, I will remove it, and cite a source.
I am grateful for the suggestions, JoaoRicardo, and for those of user:Nichalp. I hope to begin to process and incorporate them.
Joao, the article *has* to be copyedited. We are lucky to have a professional copyeditor among ourselves. For one, you'd need to act on my recommendations and also convert lists to prose. Do you have the source file to the .gif image of yours? PS, that Taj parts image needs to be touched up too. =Nichalp«Talk»=13:35, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oddly enough, I have been a professional copyeditor, and am now a professional author (actually the book doesn't come out until August[1].
I can assure you that authors can not copyedit their own work successfully.
Nichalp, I don't understand what you are trying to say here. Yes, I agree that the article should be copyedited. Did I sound like I thought otherwise? JoaoRicardotalk19:28, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I am disturbed, however, by the large-scale edits made by JoaoRicardo without discussion or consultation, which seem to me to have been made without sufficient consideration. If peer review means not only critiquing but to invite wholesale edits made in such an offhand way, then I regret that I brought this article to the attention of this group.--Nemonoman17:02, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand the reason of your being disturbed. Wikipedia policies and guidelines recomend that we do not discuss edits before making them, because it slows the wiki process. Please see Wikipedia:Be bold in updating articles, which mentions copyediting. Wikipedia:Editing policy also says: "Virtually no one behaves as though previous authors need to be consulted before making changes; if we thought that, we'd make little progress." If you believe my edits are harmful or inappropriate, let's discuss it at Talk:Taj Mahal. JoaoRicardotalk19:28, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know what "join forces" means. My understanding of Wikipedia is that is by its nature collaborative. I don't really care whether the article is "featured" or not. I want the article to be of high quality, and am ready to put some muscle behind making it better, and am happy to work with others similarly inclined.
Collaborative yes but there are a lot of things that needs to be addressed before it gets featured. You have some knowledge of the Taj and I have experience in getting articles featured and reviewing other articles. I happen to be a perfectionist, and if we can arrive at the same point, the article can be featured. =Nichalp«Talk»=07:40, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I would very much like more insight into what you mean when you say "I can get you more diagrams". I'm a big fan of diagrams.--Nemonoman15:50, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
(1st peer review)
The article has been identified as a good article, however it has failed the FA nominations. I want to know what it lacks. Perhaps a better grammar, thing that I am unable to give due to not being a native speaker. That has been the major objection. Please make suggestions, I would thank you very much for your help. Afonso Silva22:42, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It's introductory paragraphs needs a lot of TLC, including some dates, reorganization and a few phrases that explain terms. I'd also mention the PIDE in conjunction with the 'repression' of the party in the '33-74 (I infer) timeframe, but also ommisions like the name of the Estado Novo regime lead to a sense of weak article. (i.e. Strong Intro implies strong article. This one is not strong. It needs a lot more text to glue the buzz words and titles into something that can serve as a synopsis of the whole. This bareboned effort is no where even close to accomplishing that.)
I'd guess the current placement of the Principles and internal organization section means that 'most of the article' never gets read! As is, the article probably looses the interest of most any reader in the 'Principles Section', which I'd recommend as a sub-page and both subsections as something to be moved much lower in the article. Idealistic lists like that make dry reading no matter where you put them, so I'd go with the sub-page, but move it's organization subsection as the main prose (organizing and anchoring the sub-page) to very late in the article (5th or 6th section).
Bringing an example or two of the 'repressions' the party endured plus a little about it's resurgence in '74-75 into the article top would probably be advisible to generate interest to continue reading further to most readers, including some mention of it's current prominence or lack thereof.
Inasmuch as the "Authoritarian" (That word should be used appropriately in the introduction) repressing regime was one of the last European authoratarian governments, and that the revolution in '74 was virtually bloodless(!), I'd suggest you work those in early, almost certainly, into the introduction as well as other such 'hook' (sympathy garnering) factoids, such as the fact that the party champions universal education of the working class which the regime opposed, etc.
All that will take a lot of effort to remain NPOV, but as is, there is no 'momentum' to help the reader to want to read on in a dry topic (No 'Narrative SNAP')... something hard to accomplish in any long writing, but I believe necessary for FA status.
I can't venture an opinion whether the primarily English speaking readers (of Wiki) personal beliefs (and consequent cultural bias away from anything socialist or communist) would affect it's chances, but you might want to bear that intangible reality in mind if additional work fails to bear fruit. The connotations of either of those two words here in America are rarely if ever posative. Well, excepting perhaps Ted Kennedy. ~:)
I strongly agree with some of FrankB's suggestions, as well as the suggestion made by Maclean25. Here are my suggestions:
I would put the "principles and and internal organization" section after the history section, or, as Fabartus suggests, even later in the article.
See if you can shorten the introductory paragraphs.
I would eliminate the tables in the electoral results section. Instead, I would replace them with short verbal summaries of the results and of long-term trends (e.g., the PCP seems to be enjoying less electoral success in the last few elections). You could put the electoral results section in a separate article (titled something like "Electoral results of the Portuguese Communist Party").
I agree with Maclean25 that the history section should be shortened.
During the past months this article, dealing with a political party that played a major role in Sri Lankan politics for decades, has expanded considerably. --Soman16:03, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I think the electoral results of the party should be present in a table or something like that. Pictures of propaganda would also be welcome. The youth wing has disappeared, but what is and was the relation between the Party and the youth movements? Afonso Silva13:09, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Electoral results (at least from post-independence era) are coming shortly. The youth wing definately needs a separate article. --Soman14:08, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Several more shots of Bulbasaur in the anime, perhaps including Bulbasaur and Melanie, pictures of Bulbasaur in the Johto League Conference, with Squirtle and/or Heracross or that Gloom he fell for in one episode, and Ash and May with their Bulbasaurs together (there was one episode after May got hers where they both had their Bulbasaurs) I would take pictures from Serebii myself and upload them, but for some reason I can't save the pictures off their site, meaning I can't just right click and save pictures to my computer; if you could tell me how to do that I'll upload some myself. Also, I don't know how legal that would be to have more pics!
A stuffed animal Bulbasaur would be cool. They sell some at this store a few blocks from me, and if I'm bored someday soon I could trek down there and take a picture of it, borrowing someone's camera.
More references would also be good, especially in the anime section; links to the episode page on Serebii.net would look great. I'll try doing that myself soon (at least, when I don't have a midterm exam in two hours!)
Also, I know this may be original research, but perhaps a section on how useful Bulbasaur can be in battle (at least, when it evolves into Venusaur). Just how it is immune to Toxic and Leech Seed, is resistant to a good number of types, and has high defense status (perhaps calling it a "Tank").
Personally I would love to see this article be FAC! While I'm not that into Pokemon anymore, I still love Bulbasaur a lot. But I know there are a lot of bashers out there that might not let that happen. This weekend, if I have some time, I'll try to improve this article myself and see what can happen! Good luck. --TheWindshield 18:46, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
Lots of people supported last time (it was very close then) and it's had a full rewrite since so it should pass with flying colours. I do agree, those bits could be made a bit more of in the relevant paragraph of the "video games" section, but make sure you don't mention "tank". --Celestianpowerháblame22:29, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Since the day I signed up to Wikipedia, I have been working on this article. I have expanded it, rephrased several parts, added templates and images and tried to make it as complete as possible. After my major revamp of today ([3]), I feel that I have completed my labours on this article. I would like to get feedback on what I believe to be one of the articles which I poured the most dedicated work into. I really do feel that this article has enough potential to become featured. -- SoothingR(pour)09:58, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
What I can suggest is have a small, approximately, 20-30 second clip of a Nightwish song. I have some recordings from the CD "Once," so let me know if you want them. Zach(Smack Back)10:03, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the offer, but I'm very well capable of doing that myself ;). I picked two samples from two different albums (Sacrament of Wilderness from Oceanborn and Nemo from Once), since I feel that it's bad to have two clips from Once. It is their latest album, but that doesn't mean that we should neglect their older work. -- SoothingR(pour)11:13, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
That's cool. Other than that, I suggest just running the article through a spellchecker and it should be good to go. Though, if possible, try to get rid of some of the redlinks that are in the article by probably writing on stuff. Zach(Smack Back)21:47, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
IMHO, it won't fly because of the many lists and galleries at the end of the article. I would also like to see something more than just descriptions of albums (critisims? involvement in politics? greepeace? smth smth?) Renata320:54, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
See alsos at the end of sections seem redundant with the section contents. There is no clear identification of reference materials.--nixie10:14, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
rework sentence to take Steve Wozniak out of brackets e.g. Jobs cofound Apple with Steve Wozniak in ....
I think that the revival of apple started before the iPod, back with the iMac
The copyright status of the first image (Steve_Jobs2.png) needs to be resolved
Early years, opening sentence, change to Steve Jobs. This paragraph is a little awkward, but I can't pin point it.
Jobs said he remained at Reed attending classes, including one in calligraphy. "If I had never dropped in on that single course in college, the Mac would have never had multiple typefaces or proportionally spaced fonts," he said. The two sentences could be combined into one, and a reference needs to be given. Certainly don't have he said at the end of the quote, break the quote and put it in the middle.
Change IPO to initial public offering.
First paragraph under departure from Apple, final sentence needs to be linked and explained more fully.
While Jobs' stint at NeXT is often glossed over in history books, the contributions of NeXT's engineers incidentally led to two unrelated events: "incidentally", in my view, is not formal enough for an article
Under return to apple it may be interesting and useful to mention the relationship of OS X to Linux and that Linus Torvalds was approached to be involved (reference: Just for fun, Torvalds autobiography)
The first three paragraphs under personal life can be combined and made a lot clearer. The entire personal life section can be improved. I fear that it reads too much like a dirt file on Steve Jobs, however, I would hate to see this information being lost to the public.
The controversey section is merely a collection of quotes and needs some editorial work if it is to be included.
In general, this is a good article. Referencing is weak and needs to be improved. I enjoyed reading this article, thank you. -Fermion06:39, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I'd like to get this featured - it was tagged with cleanup not so long ago and I worked on it a bit to its current state. What should be done to get it featured? — Wackymacs02:11, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Needs a copyedit.
MoS units: 8 MHz --> 8 MHz
Lead needs to be a little longer
Round Rock, Texas, United States --> Round Rock, Texas in the United States
one of the the world's largest computer hardware companies, --> can you get a specific ranking
=Histroy= lacks Dell's expansions. Mention about the company's expansion into major world markets.
Some people believe that --> Weasel phrase used. Should be removed
Dell's international operations seems to be muted.
Avoid fragmenting =Corporate affairs=
=Criticism= should be converted to prose
www.ihatedell.net --> Forum links are not useful; Yellowikis too
Images seem to be lacking. Is it possible to get a free image of Michael Dell? Some non copyrighted images of the headquarters? Take a look at Brihanmumbai Electric Supply and Transport. The =Organisation= anf =Finances= have some great accompanying charts.
Pic of a Dell Machine should be obtained.
The DELL logo should be converted to an SVG image
Images should not be placed at the bottom of a section
Some corporate information such as the company's vision, mission statement and goals would be helpful.
Try and fill up the red links in the article. It looks much neater that way.
I to request the peer review of this article. Or: Geez, we have so many American users here, lets push this for "featured". ;-) The topic surely deserves it. Please help since I am already fully convinced of the article - but that's surely only POV. :-) --Predator capitalism11:19, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
If you want to get this featured I'd suggest sorting out the awfully messy 'Organization' section which is just a bunch of lists which should be converted into prose. There are more lists in other sections, the same thing should be done with those too. The main thing this article needs is References and in-line citations in the form of footnotes. — Wackymacs12:01, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
There, I did some for you and cleaned up some sections. Now you need to work on getting references and putting footnotes in the article. — Wackymacs08:40, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
All up the article is informative and well structured. Writing as an Australian, I'm happy to report that the article is free of the US-centalism which blights many articles on US institutions written by Americans. I do, however, feel that the article covers a bit too much ground and should perhaps be split into seperate articles (for instance, the history of the USMC is a rich and interesting topic which deserves its own section).
Some more specific sugestions are:
The 'creation and history' section would benefit from some sub-headings.
should mention the USMC's involvement in Afghanistan in the Corps recent history
The section on the 'Reputation of the Marine Corps' is rather lightweight at present. More substantive criticisms of the marines, such as whether their role is necessary, whether they take too many casualties and so on are more significant than incidents which earned some bad PR.
Should the Warrior's creed and the Marines' Hymn be added as examples of Marine culture? Possibly I could also add the cadence lines which explain the Marine Corps colours since they aren't yet. Cadences are a good point too, by the way, but are they really relevant? --Predator capitalism16:57, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The pages orginzation needs help, and the Marines deployed in Wars area has some sections that really ought to be expanded. Another thing I would do is line up the wartime pictures with the corresponding wartime history. And I did not see any references to Marine security for the president or embassies or anything of that nature. TomStar8121:25, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much, TomStar. I still have a little question: why should there be a reference for somethind that is quite extensively being discussed in lanked WP article?
BTW, this is not "my" article....somebody with a bit more time could work these suggestions in, although I'd be glad to help. --Predator capitalism05:08, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I guess I missed that link. 21:25 UTC translates to something like 4:30 AM here; under those circumstances it would be easy to miss alot :-).
I have been working on this article lately and I know it's not, or even close to featured article status yet but I would really like to know what I need to work at before moving it up to the next level. Thanks --Jarandawat's sup05:39, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Inline citiations would be nice. It would also be good to turn the stats into a table. Generally, though, expansion is the key -- the article is a bit short. Getting ahold of some print resources (e.g., Bradshaw has written at least two partly auto-biographical books) would help you a lot in providing some more detail. If you can't access any of these, let me know and I'll see what I can find myself at the library. Christopher Parham(talk)06:33, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I'm done with turning the stats into a table, and I'm going to check tommorrow if I could find any of those autobiography books in my local library or in Barnes and Noble. After that I will do the inline citiations. Thanks! --Jarandawat's sup19:26, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This is a good start. I think the first step to making this a featured article would be a good copy edit. There are some awkward sentences (Bradshaw is best known for his winning skills.) and some run-ons (Bradshaw attended Woodlawn High School in Shreveport, Louisiana and was a student at Louisiana Tech where in 1969 he was considered by most pro scouts to be the most outstanding college football player.). I would also add info about his college career and some more year-by-year detail about his pro career. -- Mwalcoff02:20, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Some ideas: "Bradshaw is best known for his ability to win" in the lead is POV. According to who? Better to just describe his biggest wins and then quote someone saying he was the greatest quarterback of all time or something. The sentence containing "considered by most pro scouts" in the college section definitely needs a reference. In NFL career, where you're talking about "his fourth-quarter touchdown pass to Lynn Swann", why is that important, and how does it coincide with a 24-7 score? They won by three scores, so how is one of them a "winning score"? I also agree with the comments about needing inline citations and a copyedit. --Spangineeres(háblame)01:55, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I nominated this article for peer review because I know that whilst it is somewhat comprehensive and informative, it could be greatly imporoved with some help. It was created in 2003 I think and since then alot of individuals have contributed to it. I started on it about a month or two ago. Any comments, edits or suggestions would be very appreciated! (Smerk03:30, 26 December 2005 (UTC))[reply]
Hey, I majorly tweaked the article, I hope you like it. We don't really need a huge full fimography if we're linking to the IMDB (since full filmographies are the only thing the IMDB is good for anyway) and since we mention most of his credits in the entry. So I tightened the filmography to include only his big theatrical releases, I think it's best reflective of his career and his period of popularity. Not sure if we should have a section for grosses there too, maybe. 24.226.10.9807:59, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, I just saw all the work you did. It looks great. I noticed you removed the quotes about films, not Haim himself. I know that it is not directly about Haim, but I think it kind of represents what height his career was at during that period, with comments like those. Anyway, thanks for taking the time to check it out. Anything more we can do to improve it? (Smerk08:06, 26 December 2005 (UTC))[reply]
Well, we could have stuff like "the film was well-reviewed" and link to some positive review, instead of having a full sentence or two about the film. In fact, I think this is already done a couple of times, i.e. the Lost Boys (I think I used "well received") to describe it. As for the article as a whole, there's nothing inherently wrong with it. I suppose like most articles it could use a little tightening up, but certainly pretty good overall. Vulturell08:11, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oh yeah, and I bet you didn't know Prayer of the Rollerboys played in theatres. The gross doesn't show up on the IMDB, but if you subscribe to the free trial over at www.variety.com you can look the box office info for it up. It was a pretty short run in August of 1991, made something like $78,000 dollars and it, not 1989's Dream, was his last theatrical film. Vulturell08:14, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Yep I guess its not totally needed. There is still one by Ebert at the top, but its more about Haim and his potential, so maybe that is more appropriate? And thank-you for the info regarding Rollerboys I searched eeverywhere for comfirmation regarding its release.
There are too many short - or sentence long paragraphs. All the fair use images need fair use rationales, most of the images will need to be removed as there are far too many to actually be considered fair use.--nixie10:18, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Merged majority of the short paragraphs so it's less scrappy. Removed three images and added two fair use rationales. Cheers for the advice Smerk14:01, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This article documents a seemingly simple topic and thus seems like it could be on its way to Featured Article status. I recently made major changes to the article and so I would like to know how it can be improved. joturner23:23, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I'm afraid I can't be so optimistic about its prospects of becoming an FA in the short term. But, here's what I notice on first glance.
Referencing - this article has no footnote system or referencing system. It also appears that most sources aren't exactly the most reliable. Not that there is too much scholarly work on mosques in themselves... but, it could be better.
Britannica references types of mosques: masjid jami (large collective mosques) and normal mosques. An interesting and important thing.
Mentioning of the "maqsurah"
diacritics. Imam -> Imām to make this more professional.
Pictures, we need the most notable and the best examples. During the salah section a picture of prayer... maybe pictures of wudu rooms.
I do think it's almost as good as the Britannica article (with some prose cleanup) but to be an FA it should be better. So that should maybe include.
Types of mosques. We have the grand mosques of Cairo, etc. and then the rowshouses of Eastham... I think something on that would be nice but not necessary.
"Men and women in the mosque" needs to be expanded a lot with reliable sources.
There may be quite a bit of redundancy here, asgrenhit submit before I could. ;) A few comments. I think what you have is well-written. However, your main problem is that this article isn't very complete and comprehensive. Below are a few suggestions on how to flesh out your article. Best of luck when you bring this article to its featured article candidacy!
References. When scanning through the article, this is likely the very first thing FAC reviewers will look at. This is not to say that you need to reference every fact in the article - that is, of course, ludicrous. However, you need to, for example, cite where you found out which mosque was the "first mosque in the world." It's easiest to do this mostly through inline citations; check other featured articles for an example. If you need any help, don't hesitate to drop me a note on my talk page.
"Men and women in the mosque". This is such a small section. Is there anything you can do to expand on it? If not, perhaps it would be best to merge it within another section.
"Types of mosque". You give an excellent introduction outlining the various types of mosques around the world. It would be nice if you could expand on this, however. What is a "T-type mosque?" What is a "central dome" mosque? Again, we need more content and context for things like this. -Rebelguys223:51, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Both of your reviews are very helpful. I didn't actually expect the article from a terrible article to featured article status in one day. I must point out gren, however, that those Britannica articles require a username and password, which I assume cost money. joturner00:26, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, sorry. I have access through my university. Not sure how to get you access. I only linked for those with acccess. I am not sure how to get you access. grenグレン01:05, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I've tried to expand this article into a relatively high level overview of this WWI front, and I think it now covers all the important battles and related aspects in sufficient detail. Apart from better maps, what else needs to be done to make this FA-quality? Any syntax lapses or stylistic improvements needed? Thank you. :) — RJH19:50, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
A few suggestions below. It's, overall, a very well done and informative article. Best of luck on your FAC, and Happy Holidays! (or whatever's politically correct these days)
Fixing prose. Scanning through, I caught a few typos and ambiguous sentences. "eastern europe" isn't capitalized - go through a fix typos like this. "the British air crews lost 316 aircrews to the German 114" is ambiguous - did the German lose 114 aircrews, or did the British lose to some German 114th Squadron? - clarify figures like this.
Dramatizations. There's undoubtedly been more dramatizations of WWI than just that novel; regardless, there's been several movies based off of that book in any case. What makes this one so special to be listed by itself? If you're going to list anything at all, be a little more complete and add some more content.
I added a bunch more. Probably not a complete list, but the ones that are there are among the more notable. RJH
Consequences. I know that this section is simply going to be a summary of the overall consequences article. If you're going to reference to the number of deaths from Spanish flu, isn't it notable enough to summarize in numbers the deaths and costs of fighting on the western front all in one place at the end? I understand this section is a summary, but it seems to pull a lot of random details, ignoring others, and not conclusively ending this article as a whole. -Rebelguys200:15, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I did a rewrite. Hopefully that's sufficient now. I didn't want to do a comprehensive consequences of the war as that should be covered on the main WWI page. (Besides it could be an entire article onto itself.) Thanks for the feedback! — RJH16:53, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The Rock Cycle is an important fundamental concept to geology. This article with help from a peer review has potential to make FA status. So I'd like to request the help of editors here to bring the Rock Cycle up to FA standards. --ZeWrestlerTalk04:56, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Hi there! A few suggestions below. Best of luck with the future FAC - FA is definitely in this article's future. Happy holidays!
Wikification. Remember: save for the first word in a title or heading, nothing should be capitalized unless it's a proper noun. - taken care of ZeWrestlerTalk05:47, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
NPOV/Referencing. You say that the rock cycle is "usually attributed" to someone. Can you explicity reference this somewhere? Can you give us some alternatives? I hate to start up a big NPOV issue about rocks, but this historical debate could show us some more sides to it, since the writing itself seems so wishy-washy.
Historical development. Flesh this section out a bit. What was the "plate tectonics revolution?" What is "uniformitarianism?" I'm assuming some of it may be covered in one of the forked articles, but you need to give us a better context to read it here. Each article should be able to stand on its own, and not depend on forks. -Rebelguys200:03, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
More and more this article is starting to look as though it may be eligable for featured status; however, before I create a Featured Article Canidate for this page I would like to have some feedback on what could be improved. Bear in mind that this article is largly historical, and that details on things like this ships engines and main armorement are discussed at length in the article Iowa class battleship. TomStar8120:13, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I think you've got a great article here; lots of info, great pics, nice infobox. Well done! I do have a few points to make, but really, I think you have a great potential FA there. So:
Needs a real lead section. The lead section currently seems to be simply the first part of the article — ie. her early history. It's supposed to be a short summary of the entire article (see WP:LS). The early history should be moved to a named section.
Maybe info on why she was built, but I guess that's just WW2. Maybe something like "... as part of the Iowa battleship program to build X battleships for Y...".
"... named in honor of the 30th state" — I think the lead section should aim to be as clear as possible, so I would just say "the state of Wisconsin". The fact that it's "30th" (which to a Brit like me means very little) really belongs in the Wisconsin article.
You could note that she was one of the widest ships ever to transit the Panama Canal — max. beam today is 107 ft. On one hand it's not much of a deal, on the other Panama Canal is my baby I mean it was a really tight fit. ;-)
The table breaks her armament down by her three major versions — you could do the same for radar etc., or at least note which version they relate to.
Wikilink SRBOC, barbette, ...
I like the detailed wartime history, but I think it's a bit too general — I think it should be cut down to focus more on Wisconsin, and read less like a general history of the Pacific war. For example: "As a result, they shot down 322 enemy planes ..., all this damage to the enemy had cost the American Navy only 49 planes." This is more about the carriers than Wisconsin. Ditto the two following paragraphs. That other material is great, but belongs in the appropriate article.
The post-Korea history seems a bit too detailed. "Took part in 2 springboard exercises in 1955" might be a more appropriate level of detail for what seems to me to be pretty routine peacetime operations.
"just had she had done in Korea some forty years ago" — should be "40 years previously".
Some paragraphs could be broken up, eg. "Both Wisconsin and Missouri passed the million-pound mark of ordnance delivered on Iraqi targets" needs to start a new paragraph.
I think the sections are a bit big, and could be broken up; eg. the recomissioning, Gulf War, and decomissioning could be separate sections.
According to the box, she was refitted in 1968. Is this an error, or is there a chunk of history (between 1958 and 1986) missing? Or what triggered that refit?
Right now, the article basically consists of one section, History. Maybe you could break "History" into three sections for each of her three major incarnations, and then break each of those into subsections.
"Wisconsin reached Valencia, Spain, on 10 May ... Departing Valencia on 17 April, ..." HUH??? Dates are wacky!
Do the decorations belong in a separate section? More detail for each decoration?
I feel uneasy about the level of referencing; seems like a lot of facts with very few inline source citations. But I guess you got it all from those books...
The inline source citations which are present use an inconsistent style. The preferred style for FAs seems to be to use {{ref|name}} for the reference, linking to a {{note|name}} in the References section; the entry in the References section then links to the off-site source, if any. See eg. U.S. Navy Marine Mammal Program.
I rewrote the lead to reflect on the ships entire history. Hows this?
Maybe info on why she was built...
To be frank I don't know why she was built; however, an educated guess would be that Wisconsin was built as a symbol of power. At the time she was laid down we (meaning the US) were not at war, and this was before the rise of the aircraft carrier. I will do some digging to see if I can tighten that up some.
"... named in honor of the 30th state"
Reworded to reflect on which state.
You could note that she was one of the widest ships ever to transit the Panama Canal
Actually, this is noted on the page Iowa class battleship, and the USS Missouri (BB-63) article also happens to include a nice picture of Missouri in the canal as an illistration (Mr. Panama Canal Man ;).
The table breaks her armament down by her three major versions — you could do the same for radar etc., or at least note which version they relate to.
Those were originally taken from the USS Missouri article; they were added by User:Durin while Missouri was a featured article canidate. I will drop a note on his talk page and see if he knows what year(s) the equipment is from.
Wikilink SRBOC, barbette
Done.
I think it should be cut down to focus more on Wisconsin, and read less like a general history of the Pacific war.
I can do that, but it can get tricky. Ships of the South Dakota-class and Iowa-class could steam on or around 32 knots, meaning they could keep up with the aircraft carriers of the day, so these battleships spent a lot of thier time as floating anti-aircraft platforms for the carriers. No promises, but I will see what I can do.
The post-Korea history seems a bit too detailed.
Ohh, but you can never have to many details, especially in an encyclopedia! Seriously though, thats a six year span of history, so the length seems aproriet for the time spent in commission, although I suppose I could see about trimming out some excess information.
"just had she had done in Korea some forty years ago" — should be "40 years previously".
Duly noted
Some paragraphs could be broken up, eg. "Both Wisconsin and Missouri passed the million-pound mark of ordnance delivered on Iraqi targets" needs to start a new paragraph.
Broken up per your suggestion.
I think the sections are a bit big, and could be broken up; eg. the recomissioning, Gulf War, and decomissioning could be separate sections
This orginization is patterned after the layout on the page USS Missouri (BB-63), which has already achived featured status. My philosophy on such matters is not to mess with a winning hand unless I absolutly have to, but I will take you suggestion under advisement.
According to the box, she was refitted in 1968. Is this an error, or is there a chunk of history (between 1958 and 1986) missing? Or what triggered that refit?
Ooops, I forgot to change that. There was no 1968 refit, that would have been for USS New Jersey for her Vietnam war action. M'bad.
Right now, the article basically consists of one section, History. Maybe you could break "History" into three sections for each of her three major incarnations, and then break each of those into subsections.
Again, Wisconsins orginization is patterned after the layout on the USS Missouri (BB-63) page, which has already achived featured status. My philosophy on such matters, as noted above, is not to mess with a winning hand unless I absolutly have to, but as before I will take you suggestion under advisement.
"Wisconsin reached Valencia, Spain, on 10 May ... Departing Valencia on 17 April, ..."
I can’t find this typo (probably because this darn cold is messing with my eyes)(and nose)(and throat)(and...well, you get the idea).
Do the decorations belong in a separate section? More detail for each decoration?
A)No, decorations are usually listed just above the line advising people to see USS Whatever-the-name-of-the-ship-is for a complete list of ships by that name. B)The decorations are wikilinked to pages where the award is explained in more detail. In short, battlestars are for action against an enemy and the Naval Unit Citation is for outstanding performance not suffecient to justify the Presidential Unit Citation. I'm not sure what Wisconsin recieved her NUC for exactly, but I will look into it.
I feel uneasy about the level of referencing; seems like a lot of facts with very few inline source citations. But I guess you got it all from those books...
Actually, this was largly a copy/paste from the Dictionary of American Naval Fighting Ships. The other books include detailed information on Wisconsins war particiaption in the gulf. Some of that information also comes from the websites included in the external links section. In short, don't worry to much about it.
The inline source citations which are present use an inconsistent style...
I rewrote the lead to reflect on the ships entire history. Hows this?
Excellent!
Maybe info on why she was built...
To be frank I don't know why she was built; ...
What I mean is, if I look at USS Missouri (BB-63), I see "She was one of the Iowa-class "fast battleship" designs planned in 1938 by the Preliminary Design Branch at the Bureau of Construction and Repair." Ie. a little about what department ordered her, or the act of congress that authorised it, etc. Not a big deal though.
You could note that she was one of the widest ships ever to transit the Panama Canal
Actually, this is noted on the page Iowa class battleship, and the USS Missouri (BB-63) article also happens to include a nice picture of Missouri in the canal as an illistration (Mr. Panama Canal Man ;).
Fair enough... ;-) Actually, that's an awseome picture -- think I'll snarf it for History of the Panama Canal!
The post-Korea history seems a bit too detailed.
Ohh, but you can never have to many details, especially in an encyclopedia! Seriously though, thats a six year span of history, so the length seems aproriet for the time spent in commission, although I suppose I could see about trimming out some excess information.
I agree that it's nice to have the info preserved; but I just think it could be a bit more compact. It reads rather dry right now.
I think the sections are a bit big, and could be broken up; eg. the recomissioning, Gulf War, and decomissioning could be separate sections
This orginization is patterned after the layout on the page USS Missouri (BB-63), which has already achived featured status. My philosophy on such matters is not to mess with a winning hand unless I absolutly have to, but I will take you suggestion under advisement.
I would make the same comment about Missouri, actually; I do think that, for example, the "Gulf War" bit contains three pretty separate topics -- refit, Gulf War, and mothballing.
"Wisconsin reached Valencia, Spain, on 10 May ... Departing Valencia on 17 April, ..."
I can’t find this typo (probably because this darn cold is messing with my eyes)(and nose)(and throat)(and...well, you get the idea).
I think that the article is pretty good, and is one of the better written Wikipedia articles I've read. My suggestions for how it could be improved are:
The lead paragraphs should be more neutral in tone. For instance, given the limited role the BBs played during the 1991 Gulf War I think that 'served with distinction' is over-stating things somewhat.
The WW2 section needs sub-headings. At the moment it's too big a lump of text to be easily readable.
Much of the WW2 section seems to cover the forces the ship operated with, and not the Wisconsin herself. While it is, of course, difficult to separate the two, I think that this section could be pruned back a little.
Thanks for the comments. I am currently playing around with some of the sections in my sandbox to try and condense the text some; the problem here is that one has to take out just the right amount, you know? I hope to have the condensing done this year, but it may not be finished until next year. I will see what I can do with the intro paragraph as well. TomStar8120:46, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Good News, Everyone! I have condensed both the World War II section and the Post Korean War section. Let me know what you think! TomStar8101:33, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Looking a lot better. A few comments:
Just as the lead needs to summarise the entire article, the article itself needs to be complete. I've had a go at adding a Construction section to cover the first part of her history, using some detail moved from the lead. Feel free to hack on it.
I've copy-edited a little bit (a few minor typos).
Towards the end of "Post-Korean war", it still says
"Wisconsin reached Valencia, Spain, on 10 May ... Departing Valencia on 17 April, ...".
Maybe the dates are back to front?
Moved her decorations out from "Museum Ship (1992-present)" to a new section.
I took the liberty of inserting three subeaders into Wisconsin's WWII history. However, major issue:
"The battleship continued naval gunfire support duties on the "bombline," shelling enemy bunkers, command posts, artillery positions, and trench systems through 14 December. She departed the "bombline" on that day to render special gunfire support duties in the Kojo area blasting coastal targets in support of United Nations (UN) troops ashore. That same day, she returned to the Kasong-Kosong area. On 15 December, she disembarked Admiral Thurber by helicopter. The next day, Wisconsin departed Korean waters, heading for Sasebo to rearm.
Returning to the combat zone on 17 December, Wisconsin embarked United States Senator Homer Ferguson of Michigan on 18 December. That day, the battleship supported the 11th ROK invasion with night illumination fire that enabled the ROK troops to repulse
a communist assault with heavy enemy casualties. Departing the "bombline" on 19 December, the battleship later that day transferred her distinguished passenger, Senator Ferguson, by helicopter to the carrier
Valley Forge (CV-45)."
The dates are correct. The vast majority of the text up until Wisconsin’s 1986 reactivation is essentially a text dump from the public domain, specifically from the Dictionary of American Naval Fighting Ships. Every website reporting on the history of the battleship has it written the same way. Two things that should be noted when reading this: 1) "returning to the combat zone" does not mean the ship is instantly engaged in combat. Rather, it merely denotes that the ship was ready for combat should the need arise. 2) Most of the WWII logistical support lessons were being applied in Korea; these logistical support lines could supply any ship with fuel, food, ammo, mail, VIPs, and so on. Sesbo is not that far from Korea; at 33 knots the ship could probably make it no time.
The article reads like a list dumped into a paragraph. It does not flow nicely at all.
Huh. Could you, pleeease, supply an article you think flows very nicely? Thing is, I agree with you my prose is somewhat list-like, and would like to improve it...
Well, every fact in the article is taken from pages listed in References section. That's not good enough? If not, for which sentences should I quote sources directly, in the text? I mean, it's silly to cite source after every sentence... or is it not?
Surely there is more information somewhere about his childhood, family and training.
I googled real hard, but couldn't find anything. Thing is, although he is rather important person in Croatia as he sparked some of the largest protests in Croatia ever, nobody seems to be iterested in his childhood. :-(
Thanks for your interest in your role played with the Mirko Norac article. I was in the process of reading the Afd about it and was in the middle of leaving a reply that I thought it should be kept but edited, made neutral or etc in the case that it wasn't neutral. Right as I tried to leave my reply I saw that Adam Bishop had deleted it I think on the grounds for being bad faith. I hope you don't mind but I undeleted the article and did my best to edit it and make it neutral
Personally, I'd had no knowledge of Mirko Norac and am neutral as far as to whatever his or his followers or dejectors have to say about him. But in all due respect I hate seeing one's ideas censored. I think we should encourage others to make Wikipedia the best we can. If what I've submitted is neutral, I hope that not anyone else reverts it to an unneutral article.
It's a bit past the stub phase, but i'm wondering what to add now. More statistics? List of stores? Events going on in the mall? More about the mall's impact on the city as a whole? Where does this article go from here? karmafist10:46, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
There we go. That's what i'm trying to brainstorm with you. What would make this article more interesting? I mean, there are a few facts in there making it fairly notable (largest mall in NH, would be one of the largest cities in NH if it was a city and you counted people in the mall during the holiday season, its a mecca for sales tax dodgers from Mass., it transformed Nashua as a whole, etc.)
I do have a few ideas for things I could add..
History: Originally, the land which the mall was built upon almost became a dog track. However, in the 16 years since its opening, the almost empty landscape from Exit 1 to the Mass border now has zero open space.
Rivalries: It creates one of the focal points for one of the three anchors of the Golden Triangle, and the other two also have malls that drastically transformed the commercial development zones surrounding it.
More Indepth on the Mall itself: It's hard not to go into cruft here, but one of the mall's plaza pimps the local New England motif with a Ralph Waldo Emerson poem surrounding a 40x40 ft.(or so) byzantine mosaic of New England scenes on the floor.
Stats: Parking spaces, stores, square footage, rental costs per sq. ft, gross sales, etc.
Maps: Both of the mall and surrounding it.
Other than that, the only real difference is that this mall has been a major part of my life. I've had three jobs there, and spent countless hours there while growing up. It's unique to me, but I guess sometimes on Wikipedia, that just isn't enough. karmafist06:46, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Would like comments as to what external views are about the balance of the article (natural vs. military, theory, external links) and stylish concerns (level of detail right?). Is this article close to FA level ? novacatz03:31, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Close but still lots of stuff to be done:
Lead size is inadequate: Please expand to 250-300 words
Images are poorly placed. Please test them on 800x600 resolution.
Mil vs Natural is unbalanced. Consider summarising the mil topics, and moving detail to a separate page.
Topic outlines mostly western countries. What about other countries?
Camouflage in snow?
William MacKay... Naval Consulting Board of which country?
Bill Jordan??
I think invisibility should be under a separate heading.
Predator is a Hollywood movie. Mention that
See alsos should be pruned
Sections 2.1 and 4.1 are unnecessary. Min 2 subsections are needed to merit the use of a subheading.
=People who served as camouflage experts= is a subjective list. Please remove.
Something can be mentioned on the LTTE's striped camouflage?
Cholesterol is always considered a lipid in a medical & human physiology context, and this would be a common reason for a reader to look at this article. We need a section on cholesterol and other sterols explaining how they differ from triglycerides and in what contexts they are or are not considered lipids. alteripse14:08, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
1> It needs to be dumbed down by explaining what those linked terms mean: Quarks are one of the two basic constituents of matter in the Standard Model of particle physics. Greek and Latin to non-science students. 2. Photographs/diagrams if possible 3. Problems with uneven sections. Reduce unnecessary heading or balance sections. =Nichalp«Talk»=10:08, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Quite the lengthy and interesting article. I enjoyed it and most of your facts seem accurate as far as I know personally. Things that could use some work:
Sentence structure is a little choppy and places and just needs a little work to make it flow easier.
Your facts come on very fast and in a huge group. Perhaps a little more explanation and a little less numbers would make the article sound better? --Andrew401002:23, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
As I am not a native English speaker, my prose usually needs some polishing (pun not intended) - but this is not something I can do. Which sections would benefit from more prose? I don't want to remove numbers, unless they are duplicated elsewhere, though.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul PiotrusTalk17:15, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Haven't read it through but what about the "The Killings" heading. Is the K there supposed to be capitalized, as some sort of proper noun? Mrtea(talk)06:42, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Using primary sources when writing historical encylopedic articles as an amateur is not advisable. They are often difficult to interpret, can easily lead to POV-conflicts and Wikipedia's objective is not to nurture investigative journalism, produce bleeding edge history writing or to uncover The Truth. Try to rely on what the current consensus is among scholars rather than attempting to write history. Leave that to professional historians.
The footnote system is also very hard to penetrate and, as is the rage right now, very bloated. Please remove the ref-links that don't lead to a source of their own. If a previous footnote has established the use of a source, there's no need to refer to it again. Don't double-reference a sentence (42/43, 57/58, 59/70/71, etc) and try to cut down on the amount of references as well. I don't believe for a second that the article can be covered with just a handful of comprehensive books on the subject. PeterIsotalo23:12, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see why we should not provide links for primary souces, if they are mentioned in other referenced materials. Most of the primary sources are reproduced on sites with secondary level of analysis and such anyway.
While footnoes are extensive, I think they at least provide easy way to reference all controversial facts. If you know how to improve them, go ahead - but I spent hours simply on turning inline hyperlinks into inline footnotes, and I think I had enough of footnote conversions this for a few month.
I am not sure how to understand your last sentence. Do you suggest 'less references is better?' I'd think the contrary is true. I think that this article has one of the best footnote/reference section in Wikipedia (ATM, our standards are constantly improving).--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul PiotrusTalk21:23, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Several months ago, I consolidated two groups of articles into comprehensive articles on these relative concepts, then tweaked and expanded from there. It has occurred to me that these might be on the path to being featured articles, and could benefit from peer review. I present them together because the style and organization is prety much the same for both, so I assume they share the same faults. BD2412T23:03, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Yup. They share the same faults.
Insufficient lead text in one,
sections are lopsided. Balance the content in sections and avoid the usage of subheadings as far as possible.
This one-day article needs looking at just because it's an obscure civil engineering topic (civil engineering topics shouldn't be obscure, but they are). Some concerns off the top of my head...
Additional categories?
What pictures should I use, when most of the system is underground? I suppose I could do the reservoirs...
There's no one that can really take credit for such a large, complicated, long project. How should attribution go?
Created about an hour ago, MORE INFORMATION needed, and I hope I can recruit efforts by listing it here. I will do more tomorrow with it, and I hope others are willing to join in the effort. εγκυκλοπαίδεια*02:52, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Since I uploaded my initial major revision of this article in late-March of 2005, I have been polishing its wording and contents. Now, I would appreciate comments, suggestions, and improvements to this article in hopes of eventually nominating it to Featured Article status. Bart01:16, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This is a very nice looking article but it needs some work before it should go up on FAC.
The first major problem that needs to be worked on is the lack of references. Your notes only come from the Hal Burton book though you mention the book by Thomas and Morgan in the text. Perhaps see what information you can glean from that book as well as the external links and whatever else you may find at your local library. I have a book that includes the Morro Castle and I'll see what I can find and add. Another source might be period newspaper coverage of the incident. If you have access to a public library they would likely have back editions of major nearby newspaper (perhaps major Chicago papers since you are near there) and many libaries also have the NY Times on microfilm. Are the papers of any of the inquiries published? If they are available you might request them through Interlibrary Loan.
The article seems to be too heavy on the disaster with too little information on the ship. Next to nothing is said on the subject of the ship's interiors as well as amenities. The first link in the external links section has postcards of interiors. I'm not sure what their copyright status is, but you might consider emailing the article's author and asking permission to use a few images.
I cannot find the total number of crew onboard at the time of the disaster.
There is also a discrepency in the total casualties. 137 in the intro and 135 in the last paragraph of the disaster section. In addition, one of the links states 133. Which is correct?
There is a mention of inquiries into the disaster. By whom?
The Contributing Factors to the Fire section should be in prose.
Neither of the images you have used have copyright tags.
A few more images would certainly be nice, especially one of the shots of the Morro Castle after it beached itself in Asbury Park. The library of Congress has two available images of the ship. Go to LOC Prints and Photograph Division search page and type in Morro Castle and a number of images come up. Most of the ship are restricted, but there are two that might be helpful.
Be very wary of POV statements especially in the disaster section. Certainly the line about "gallant heroes and shameless cowards among both the passengers and crew" is just a bit POV.
Did the disaster have any impact on the Ward Line or other lines of this period?
So here's the deal: I had this requested for a peer review before, the article looks pretty good - aside from the need for citations. This really is a request, but please consider this a recruitment as well! Are you good with military history? Please help edit - I have had some external factors inhibiting me from editing that article like I should have! Please see the first archive here. εγκυκλοπαίδεια*20:01, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Good article. A couple of things. You should try to avoid wikilinking words in section headers (like 20th century) and don't overlink too much. I found 19th century and United States linked over 5 times. It's unnecessary. It's a good article overall, though. :) GfloresTalk22:14, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This article has been substantially expanded and mostly re-written since its previous attempt at FA status. I believe that all the issues raised in the previous FAC have been dealt with. I think it's now pretty much ready for FAC, and I'd like to have some input as to what remains to be done to get it there. Thanks in advance... — Johantheghost15:12, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for looking at it, but can you clarify what you mean please? What do you mean by "presence of list material"? Obviously there are lists, but the MoS allows that. And what do you mean by "ugly subsections" specifically? I'll bring the units in line with MoS as per your comment. — Johantheghost13:14, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
You've used a lot of bulleted text. It will need to be rewritten into prose.
Each section needs to have about two paragraphs. Some sections such as the lake is a bit short of material. =The future= needs to be merged with History.
I'm sorry, where does it say I can't use lists? There are 3 lists in the article, which is not what I would consider "a lot", and in each case the lists are genuinely describing list-type information. The layout of the canal could be made into prose, but I think is far clearer as a list of stages; the list of crossings and the list of improvements are obviously lists, and making them into prose would be a mess.
"Each section needs to have about two paragraphs" — can you show me that rule in the MoS? In fact, the MoS itself has lots of one-paragraph sections. I don't think there's anything wrong with that, depending on context; eg. Alajuela Lake is clearly one of a series of sections, which in general clearly deserve to be sections. Yes, the bit on Alajuela Lake could be longer, but I don't really know what else there is to say. As for merging The Future with History, I really have trouble seeing your logic here. The sequence "History" - "Current Issues" - "Future" makes a lot of sense to me, and they clearly deserve to be separate sections.
"Wikify it"? What new article? You mean an article about the ACP? Actually, the manual of style specifically says "A link going straight to the target is preferred over a link relying on a redirect.", and shows an example equivalent to what I've done (see WP:MOS-L). Since this is not a reference about the entity under discussion, but a link to the entity under discussion, I believe this is the appropriate style for this situation. — Johantheghost14:24, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
You needn't get so defensive over the comments. :) It is generally accepted that the article should be mostly prose, and if it is possible to convert lists to prose then it should be done. Other than the last list, I think the first two can easily be converted to prose. The MoS in question actually talks about the =External links= section. As I've said, having the link inline is considered bad style, it disrupts the print and aural rendering of the text. You've given valid reasons for the rest, so I won't press on, though ideally the =Future= section is really an extension of the history. =Nichalp«Talk»=05:13, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry if I sound defensive, but I'm struggling to understand your points here. The article is mostly prose, and I just can't see how I can rewrite the Layout as prose -- keeping all the distances, heights, etc. -- without it being an unreadable mess. Want to have a try? But as it stands, I think it's a lot more useful to anyone who wants to extract information from that list -- eg. how many miles of man-made channel are there, how many miles in fresh water, etc.
"The MoS in question actually talks about the =External links= section" -- no, I was quoting the "Internal Links" section -- look down towards the end of that section. But I didn't know about external links disrupting the aural rendering -- what is the problem with that? How is it different from Wikilinks? Does WP:MOS-L need changing?
It's true that Future is really an extension of History, but so is Current Issues, so they could all be merged into one huge section. But it's better to break things up, isn't it? Actually, the Future section as it stands is much more an extension of Current Issues than it is of the History section. — Johantheghost12:52, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Why dont you give prosifying a shot? I can do it, but I don't have much time on my hands these days. As for the aural rendering, its to do with inline text linking, not at the =external links= section. =Nichalp«Talk»=11:09, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I did; it looked like a horrible mass of figures, so I didn't even bother committing it. Re "=external links= section", what I actually said was "I was quoting the Internal Links section" of WP:MOS-L -- please refer to my earlier comment. If you can let me know what the actual problem is, I'll see about fixing it. — Johantheghost14:12, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The problem with the inline links recommended in WP:MOS-L is that in the printer-friendly and aural versions of the page, the URL is rendered inline, which — particularly for aural rendering — disrupts the flow of the text to an unacceptable degree. I've therefore created the Panama Canal Authority article and linked to it, as recommended by Nichalp. — Johantheghost16:27, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
It looks quite good, but you'll need to cite your sources. Also, I feel that a picture of the Center itself (instead of the view you get when you're in it) would be helpful. I've remedied some minor style issues, such as the Unneeded Capitalization In Section Headings (you might want to consult the Manual of Style). — mark✎11:12, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Is the link to the Center's page at the bottom, from which I derived all the information, not enough of a citation? All the little numbers would link to it, so it seems that citations would simply make the article harder to read. Also, I don't have a picture of the Center itself, though I agree it would be more helpful.--YixilTesiphonSay helloBe shallow14:59, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Also, all the section headings are proper nouns (Playing for Peace is the name of the program, Apple Hill Chamber Players is the name of the group, and Summer Festival is referred to as a proper noun, as can be seen from the website, so I reverted your changes to the section headings. --YixilTesiphonSay helloBe shallow15:06, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
It has been suggested to me that this article be peer reviewed. It is the first and only article I have written, and so I am a little unsure how it stands up. Comments welcome. Commking23:50, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I've tried to improve this article from this to its current state, but I've run out of things to say. I've added references, illustrations and some more info, I could just do with some further pointers to what the article is missing, what people think needs to be added etc.
The preceeding comment was by FrancisTyers, 21:38, 21 December 2005 — please sign!
The lead section should briefly summarise the whole article, so add a few words about mischief and shoe-making; that would fill out the third para. of the lead
In Appearance, some words about pre-Yeats ideas of leprechaun appearance; the picture caption mentions that there was less of a stereotyped idea, this could be mentioned/expanded in the text, which is currently a little terse
Yeah, I'm looking at the moment, its difficult to find good info on the internet though, I might try adding some stuff from the irish emigrant site or finding the McAnally book which both that and Yeats reference. - FrancisTyers21:28, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Pop Culture might be better organised, maybe as a list
Re "an episode of The Simpsons" — it would be really cool to say which episode
For a dash separating clauses in a sentence, use the "em dash" instead of a single or double normal dash. The em dash looks like this — a bit longer than a normal dash, so it looks a bit less dwarfed by the spaces either side. Get an em dash by clicking on it in the list under the edit window, by typing "—", or (on Linux) by typing the shortcut "Compose dash dash dash". Compose is often the right alt key. (See Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dashes).)
I think it's a little terse overall, and I actually think that some of the material from the older version could be restored. Eg. in pop culture, entries like this would be appropriate:
"In an episode of The Simpsons, Bartender Moe Syzlak suggests to Homer Simpson that he use a leprechaun to get rid of a curse, claiming that they arrive in the U.S. in the wheel-wells of the aircraft of Irish airline Aer Lingus."
Hmm, maybe, I was trying to get away from a list of pop-culture references that the original was, although maybe if the article had more in terms of the other sections it wouldn't look so skewed. - FrancisTyers21:28, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Man, you are one crazy editor, good job! My main comment, that first paragraph needs to be reworked. Particularly the sentence In 1845...', which is very long and runs on. By the way, how do you manage to produce so much work in so short a time? I'd love to be able to edit like that. If you have the time give me some pointers at my talk page. Thanks. MyNameIsNotBob11:22, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Short time? Are you kidding? I've been working off-line on this for weeks now! You're right about that lead paragraph; I've rewritten it somewhat to get rid of this overly long sentence (a weakness of mine, I know). Lupo11:45, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Much better, although I think you could possibly better tell the reader about the purpose of the article a lot quicker or more precisely than you have. MyNameIsNotBob12:23, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Help me do it, take a shot at it yourself! I'm not feeling possessive about this article (if I did, I shouldn't have uploaded it here), and having spent so much time on this subject it may well be that I don't see the wood for the trees. Lupo12:29, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
VERY nice. Just I would like to see more on his work (ie not random samples of his paintings, but some sort of development: like say he started in this style and later progressed into some other style). Or maybe some influence he had for future painters. That's if you really want to take it five steps further :) Renata321:15, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for this great suggestion. I'll try to place him in context within Canadian art history, but as I'm no art historian, I'll have to dig out some useful reference books. It might take some time. You wouldn't have access to Denis Reid, A Concise History of Canadian Painting, ISBN 0-195-40663-X, so you could look up what he has to say on that subject? Sadly, my library here doesn't carry that book... As to the images: they're not a random sample at all. I've amended the image captions in an attempt to explain why I have chosen these images, and I'll add a few more to illustrate the earlier paragraphs. Lupo09:35, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
All right. I've added a section on "legacy and influence". It appears that there are very few clearly traceable influences from his style on the work of later painters. This is not surprising, as Kane's style was not particularly innovative; it was his choice of subject matter that was extraordinary for the time and made him famous. Lupo08:24, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That section is really something :) I like it a lot. I checked the book, my college does not have it also. I run out of comments or constructive critisism (well except that now there is a white gap between pictures in Works section, but that can be fixed in asecond). If you FAC it - let me know on my talk page and you got 1 support. Renata300:39, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Alinor and I have been doing a lot of work on this article, and we're still updating minor bits and pieces. We'd greatly appreciate input from other editors on what could be changed and improved upon. Thanks! ナイトスタリオン✉06:31, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
It appears that most of the article is just a list of which countries belong to what trade blocs, rather than dealing with the economics, diplomacy, politics, legality and cultural aspects of the blocs themselves. While it's a good start, I somehow find it unsatisfying. Even the NAFTA article seems better developed. Sorry. So I think this page could use some more work. — RJH15:36, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I wasn't really suggesting a move so much as an expansion of the text content, in order to give the article more "meat". :) — RJH15:32, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Gryffindor and I would like to improve this article, but right now, we don't really know what else to add (besides a map, but we'd need to have someone else do that). Any ideas are appreciated! ナイトスタリオン✉06:30, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
One thing that strikes me is that Hungarians and others might have considered this a divide and rule-type strategy to maintain the power of the ethnic German aristocracy– I would like more on their reaction. Also, weren't there some other alternative proposals at the same time to reorganize Austria-Hungary? Another question is what was the historical development of the idea in the eight years between Popovici's initial proposal and the Archduke's assassination? Another aspect: Was the idea directly inspired by the federalism of the United States of America– this should be detailed. We should also have more details on the proposed language and cultural status of each province. One other thing alludes me- who are the "other nine" ethnic groups besides the Germans and the Hungarians?--Pharos20:57, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I'll try to get all that done after the holidays, when I should be able to get one or two reference books from either the Universitätsbibliothek or the Österreichische Nationalbibliothek. For now, I've added the nine other ethnic groups, and I'm trying to get someone to make a map. Further comments are, of course, appreciated! And thanks to you, Pharos. Nightstallion✉06:39, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
please confirm the flag. the real one afaik was the black/yellow. and: are you sure bukowina was supposed to be part of transsylvania? i'm sure it was supposed to be a federal state of it's own, maybe in later editions. will there be a German translation? 7 October 2006
There are a few sections where lists would be better converted to prose, like Terminology and varieties of vegetarianism and Vegetarian societies (the article doesn't even explain why these organisation are significant - and should probably just be merged into the history). Country specific information read like it was copied from a travel guide for vegetarians, and probably isn't worth keeping in the article as suitable sources would be difficult, and I don't see a great deal of use in applying blanket warnings to were food is and isn't safe for vegetarians - so I think it'd be best to cut it from the article. Why are religious and spiritial motivations in separate sections, are Aesthetic motivations really a separate concept to Physiological motivations. Referencing needs work, beyond the missing information, html links in text are not suitable for FAs, all the details of the source need to be fully cited for future tracability - look at using the ref/not footnote system throughout the article. Were possible cite reputable sources rather than something like this. The TIME cover needs a fair use rationale for use in this article.--nixie05:59, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I would say Spiritual and Religious motivations are very different. Spiritual is based on personal choice, experience and experimentation (i.e. "want to", see Spirituality) and Religious is based on doctrine (i.e. "have to"). Would suggest that motivations are listed alphabatically in the interests of neutrality (i.e. one cannot list motivations in order of importance without a POV dispute). --nirvana201313:01, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree with this statement. It is a Christo-centric (or possibly New Age) false dichotomy that does not apply to many non-Western or tribal cultures. In fact, it doesn't even apply to Judaism -- there is no separate word for "religion" in either Hebrew or Yiddish, and I have long argued that being Jewish is closer to belonging to a tribal culture than to a "religion" in the Western European sense. Jewish spirituality is integrated into the rituals and practices of Judaism which, in turn, are integrated into daily life. The same could be said for many Native American tribes (which also do not make such a distinction.) As a Jewish vegetarian I am BOTH "religious" and "spiritual" at the same time. Rooster61318:58, 25 December 2005 (UTC)Rooster613[reply]
There is much that is good about this article, but the sections dealing with motivations are extremely patchy. The section on ethical motivations is particularly poor, almost non-existent. I'd recommend that you take a look at articles and books by the philosopher Peter Singer, who is a fine guide the growing body of moral arguments for vegetarianism. In particular, I'd include what seems to me a quite basic underlying moral principle that motivates much ethical vegetarianism, namely, that it is wrong to cause suffering to any being capable of experiencing suffering except for exceptionally good reasons (and liking the taste of that being is not such a reason).--Irishtimes04:12, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Page size is huge. Please summarise the content and move details to dedicated daughter articles. Reduce the subheadings.
=Terminology= can be converted to a table
Hunzas live in Pakistan-administered Kashmir.
In the U.S., as of 2000, 2.5 to 3% said they never eat meat.. not needed
=Recent trends= should be merged with History
Please do not embed external links inside the text. Use footnotes and invisible footnotes {{inote}}.
116°F (46.7°C). Metric units should come first as this is a universal topic.
Needs a heavy copyedit. Most of the text seems to be personal accounts.
=Country specific information= needs to be shifted to another page
Nothing mentioned about the Jain diet. It is stricter than normal vegetarian food. Garlic, onion etc is not consumed.
I've been gathering sources and working on this article for about a month, and would greatly appreciate criticism, comments, and contributions. Thank you. Volatile21:07, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, what a great actor he really was. The article is also great, as it should be. Good work! But i think footnotes (see Wikipedia:Footnotes) would be a nice addition to cite several parts of the article, and also more References or further reading. Is there any reason for the coloring in the 'Awards' table? Looking pretty good, has potential as a featured article candidate. — Wackymacs21:10, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Excellent job on James Stewart. As mentioned above, footnotes adds a lot to a page. It's one of my favorites as far as actor pages go. Have you ever read the Henry Fonda page? Keep up the great work!Steve-O21:37, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your comments, Wackymacs and Steve. I'll see what I can do about footnotes and references. The coloring of the Awards table is more for aesthetic reasons. I also used it for the Henry Fonda page. I don't think there is an accepted three-toned (for three-tiers: Award, won/nominated, and film/award title) table. Volatile22:51, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
George Washington Dixon was an early blackface performer and newspaper editor in the United States. He was the 19th-century equivalent to performers like Celine Dion or the Backstreet Boys — hated by the press and critics but loved by the common people. He's less well known than his contemporary Thomas D. Rice, so it was quite interesting to research and write about him. The piece draws heavily from Cockrell, as he is the only modern writer to have written much of anything on Dixon.
I plan to nominate this for Featured Article status after the holidays. In the meantime, I'd appreciate any suggestions on what should be changed and tweaked to help my chances over there and to make this an overall better article. More images would of course be good, but they may have to be tertiary to the topic at hand. For example, I can add a picture of the Bowery Theatre, but I don't have any images of Dixon at the Bowery Theatre. — BrianSmithson16:10, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
It looks like a good article about a very colorful character. Thanks. It's also an interesting insight into the press practices of the day. Did he ever have a wife or kids? It doesn't sound like it. I can't think of much else that needs adding; it appears fine as it is, at least to me. — RJH23:42, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the comments! I'm filling in a few more red links and waiting on one more source to arrive (one about Madame Restell, and one of only three sources that talk about Dixon in depth). The article mentions some rumors that he was to get married, but Cockrell (the source of that part) couldn't find any records to back it up. — BrianSmithson02:38, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've been working on this article for several months now and I think it can use a fresh pair of eyes. I'm looking for some feedback and/or fellow editors to critique, edit, and help improve this article. Thanks! Yorick, Jester of Elsinore08:12, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Step one: get rid of the giant ugly redundant infobox. All the information in that box should already be mentioned in the article text, much of it in the lead paragraphs, and repeating it all in a stylized box created for aesthetic reasons is unencyclopedic, as well as being useless to the people articles are actually written for: people who know little to nothing about the subject matter, not the kind of person who would understand the significance of a long list of random buzzwords and dates presented in an out-of-context box. -Silence16:10, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
the artcile is TOO LONG!! It is 79 KB. My artcile on Jeryry Fodor is 50 KB and I am being lambasted by undergrad students to keep it below 32!! cut out the fat. What do you think this is? The Stanford Encycopedia of Philophy where artciles can often be printed out on 35 pages hard copy?? Jeeesh!!--Lacatosias09:53, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This is a VERY minor point, but I noticed you double spaced after each period. It seems to be the convention on wikipedia to single space. It will likely become very difficult to maintain this style for the article as it is edited overtime. Might as well nip the problem in the butt before the formatting begins to look funny. Shaggorama23:53, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This article provides good coverage of a historically significant tank. It deserves to be polished up as a potential Featured Article. —MichaelZ. 2005-12-20 06:24 Z
I'll go through the article, and see where they are needed to support particular statements or figures (the table is already sourced this way). Are there any particular places in the article which you think need a citation? —MichaelZ. 2005-12-20 20:23 Z
I have gone through the article, adding some inline citations requests in several places. Those should be enough. The article is close to FAC, after those inline citations are added, I would be glad to support it during FAC.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul PiotrusTalk00:58, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks—I've adjusted some footnotes, and added a note to talk:T-34#Footnotes. I'll replace some of the requests with citations in few days. —MichaelZ. 2005-12-24 16:39 Z
Subsections in Production History and Combat History (i.e. During WWII, After WWII) may be helpful to digest the text. Also, there are quite many photos in Combat History. Are all of them needed to illustrate the main idea(s)? I would also suggest a more thrilling title instead of "Importance" subsection. Something like "Legacy" - to underscore that T-34 became a cultural phenomenon rather than just a weapon. Sashazlv01:00, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Subsections are a good idea; I've been worried that at least "Production history" was too long, although I'd be reticent to drop anything. I suppose, we may eventually break off some articles from this one.
The first two photos in "Combat history" illustrate some tank modifications, better than a description alone would—the first is integral, the second a good lead-in to the topic of shaped-charge HEAT munitions. The last two just help to put the tank's history into perspective visually, but are not critical to the article. If they're too much, perhaps some could be put into a gallery.
"Legacy" sounds good too. —MichaelZ. 2005-12-22 06:17 Z
It's looking really good, consider cleaning up some of the red-links. I've made stub articles for a couple, but it would be nice if there were none :) Consider breaking the combat history out into a separate article Combat history of the T-34. The photos are excellent! Hard factors, Soft factor? (You only list one). Cite sources (I see you have citation neededs outstanding). Perhaps split variants out into a separate article? List of variants of the T-34 maybe? - FrancisTyers01:33, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Francis, the red links need to be filled or removed. But, overall, this is a pretty good article and I would love to see this become an FA. Zach(Smack Back)04:45, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Francis, can you be a little more specific on what needs to be added regarding hard & soft factors? —MichaelZ. 2005-12-27 07:33 Z
No problem, I'm referring to Combat effectiveness of early war T-34s can best be evaluated in terms of 'hard' factors—armour, firepower, and mobility—and 'soft' factors—ergonomics. The T-34 was outstanding in hard factors and poor in soft ones.. Ergonomics might be more than one factor, but it just reads strangely (to have 'factors' then a list and then 'factors' and only one item). - FrancisTyers14:53, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for clarifying. I have added training and tactics, which belong in this list also (although the ergonomic problems in early T-34s could be considered a whole list of factors). —MichaelZ. 2005-12-27 19:55 Z
I am not sure about this recent edit. The original comment is valid and I may have written that poorly-worded sentence. "Ergonomics" sounds plural but isn't really. My bad.
However, if we are writing about hardware, adding things such as training and tactics into the evaluation of the design is tough territory to get into. Was the Pzkw-II a good tank because German crews were well-trained? No. Likewise, although doctrine certainly informs design, I don't think we can cite tactics or trainign as weaknesses of the T-34. They were weaknesses of the Red Army, and even the excellence of the T-34 design could not fully overcome those weaknesses in 1941-42.
Maybe it would be better to slightly edit the original sentence and then discuss the individual ergonomic weaknesses of the tank? I am thinking of very poor vision, poor crew layout, terrible floor layout, cramped size, etc.
Quite right—the theoretical effectiveness of the design is only part of the factors affecting the tank's historical combat performance. I think this section should cover the latter, larger subject, but it's important that it's written with the differences clearly defined. Needs some copy-editing, or a minor rewrite. —MichaelZ. 2005-12-27 21:18 Z
Please wikify the dates
Those quotes should not be in the article. Please move it to wikiquote
Explain terms such as medium tank in the lead. A user should not click to find out what is a medium tank.
That could be difficult. It is hard to briefly explain different tank classifications and there is a very good separate article on the subject. DMorpheus15:35, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
MoS for units not followed 76.2mm --> 76.2 mm
Text needs a light copyedit. eg. Phrases such as all over the globe
The list in the =variants= sections would look neater in a table. Make sure that the table width is set to 100% or <600px
=Soviet medium tank models of World War Two= : would look better if the table contents were left aligned. The heading is a bit too long. try =WWII models=
=After the Second World War= : heading not needed
What was "revolutionary" about the design. Suggest you rename the title.
Establishing and maintaining production --> Production
Avoid left-aligning images that push a heading to the right. The hungarians.jpg image pushes the =after= heading to the right
How many countries bought the tank? What about countries like India and China which bought most of their military hardware from the USSR?
Quotes: each quote directly supports the text—these short quotes are more effective inline than they would be in footnotes, where they would disrupt the flow of reading.
Medium tank is self-explanatory; the history and implications of the medium tank class belong in another article (although the T-34's history sheds some light). But what other terms need explication?
Units format: 76.2mm is only used in adjectival phrases, which the MOS doesn't cover sufficiently; this is an acceptable format (eg, the Economist's style guide [4]) used in many AFV books and WP AFV articles, and reduces visual clutter when calibres are referred to often.
Long heading: reduced to "Soviet medium tank models of WWII"
"Revolutionary design" is contrasted with a following heading "Evolutionary development", and the two together sum up the history of Soviet tank design since 1939. The T-34 was revolutionary in being the very first tank that was envisioned by its designers to be a "universal tank", fulfilling the roles of reconnaissance, breakthrough, and infantry tanks, and in achieving the balance of firepower, mobility, and protection to successfully do so. I'll see if I can brush up the copy to better convey this. "The revolutionary combination of thick, angled armour, heavy firepower and superb mobility placed it in a class above its closest German contemporaries, the Pz Kpfw III and Pz Kpfw IV." (Zaloga 1984:129)
"Production" sounds slightly redundant as a section in "Production history". But perhaps "Establishing and maintaining production" could be improved? Is "Battle of the factories" too cliché?
"Hungarians" image: should all the images in that section be moved up by one paragraph, or switch some to the right?
Employment: good question; it doesn't look like all countries are covered.
Thanks for the comments. I'll try to resolve all of these issues within a week or two, but please feel free to do some copy-editing. —MichaelZ. 2005-12-28 18:08 Z
Regarding the quotes, an article should have quotes only when its absolutely relavent to the context of the paragraph. The quotes are out of place here and should be moved to wikiquote. This is a valid objection and in the past quotes have been moved to wikiquote.
The "hungarian" image problem has been rectified by removing the solitary subheading.
Use the footnote style of referencing or the inote style instead of placing the reference directly inside the paragraph. This is recommended for for aural and print renditions.
I think =maintaining production= would be better.
yeah, the MoS for adjective based units could be updated, but the units in the infoboxes need to adhere to the MoS
Regarding the "medium tank" bit: How about this rewrite: The T-34 was a Soviet tank often credited as the best and most influential tank of the Second World War. The tank, classified by weight as a medium tank....
Quotes: which of the quotes are not relevant in the context of their section?
Citation style: WP:CITE lists Harvard style as the most common style. Footnote style is not appropriate, since these are all not footnotes but citations. What is inote? Who recommends "footnote" and "inote" for aural and print renditions? Since this is primarily a Web encyclopedia, and not an aural or print encyclopedia, why do you suggest changing the style of the citations?
Unit notation: MOS:NUM offers the adjectival example "155-millimetre projectile", but does not offer an abbreviated version, or even mention adjectival usage at all. The current version is a good example of writing style, and doesn't contradict the MOS.
'Medium' tank: the suggested wording sounds awkward. What is so puzzling about medium tank? It's not too big, not too small: just right. The precise definition of the term could be expanded a bit later in the article, but the introduction needn't be cluttered with an explanation of a technical term whose essential meaning is self-evident. —MichaelZ. 2005-12-29 08:36 Z
Inote or invisible notes are essentially inline citiations that are visible only in edit mode. See template:inote and the discussion on its talk page. Inotes offer a neater interface and are more suited for less controversial or less sensational information. Inotes are extensively used in this article: Economy of India. Use {{explain-inote}} in the =references= to allow a person interested in crosschecking the them use the edit mode to hunt for them. Unit notation: I was referring to the infoboxes in the second post. As far as the quotes are concerned, they need to be moved to wikiquote. Objections for the same have been raised in the past in FAC (I can't remember which ones). Can't the wording of medium tank be improved upon instead of linking? The word medium itself is a relative term. =Nichalp«Talk»=16:06, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for clarifying. Since the citations have been added recently and a few are yet to come, I'd like to leave them all visible for now, but I can see the utility of inotes.
I'm not convinced about the quotes yet; I still think they all support the text. I agree that they should be added to wikiquote (there are more, and longer versions in talk:T-34).
Since the T-34 was instrumental in changing tank classification during and after the war, it may be justified to add a very short section on the subject. I'll think about writing something. —MichaelZ. 2005-12-29 21:09 Z
I would like to see this become a featured article. Even considering the subject matter I believe the article meets all of the Wikipedia standards and has some really good prose. Triddle22:26, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I did some spelling cleanup. Also there is a word in the article that is sometimes spelled "spotty" and sometimes "spottie." From what I saw, there's no explanation for the duplicate spellings, and since I know nothing about bongs, I'm just letting you know.--Esprit15d14:38, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Question: What would you like to see cited? I've had a hard time figuring out exactly what should be cited. As it stands now the definition of a bong is cited, and the claim that bong water filters out more THC than anything else (which is counter intuitive and contrary to popular belief) is cited too. Other than that the article does not claim anything extraordinary. Can you elaborate a little please? I'm willing to dig up the citations I just don't know what should be cited. Triddle19:18, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
A generally successful method is to run through the article as if from someone that doesn't believe the material. What could they object to? Overall, prioritize the facts in the article from the standpoint of what are the most important, central, and/or contentious claims. Cite those, and then cite any specific facts in any tables and quotes or whatever. Aim for 20 or so citations to high quality sources. The subject in question may be hard to get good sources for, but see what you can do. - TaxmanTalk22:37, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The article could use a history section. I already did a little digging on this and did not have very positive results. Perhaps someone else can suggest where I might find some bong history resources? Triddle00:00, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Not bad, I'd change the cleaning section to make it sound less like an instruction manual, though. And perhaps something to relate bongs to other types of pipes and water pipes. --BadSeed21:47, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed - thanks for the comments. I'll try to integrate a history section and your comparison ideas together into a short first section of the article. Triddle17:21, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This article has come a long way since its beginning - a fair resemblance of the path to a featured article (though not exact) - and I reckon it could be looking at FA candidacy some time. There are some minor touch-ups that I can't do (namely, sourcing of the history section, and an image with player positions indicated) but I think it could have a go, and I wanted to see what everyone else thought. Neonumbers11:29, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Needs a much longer lead (one or two paragraphs long that summarize the entire article concisely, see WP:Lead). Needs more references and possibly footnotes for some inline citations (see Wikipedia:Footnote). A color photo for the top would be good instead of a black and white one. Looking good so far, has potential as a featured article candidate. — Wackymacs13:37, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I've expanded the lead section; come take a look at it. (The article is in danger of oversize again... as long as it doesn't grow more it should be fine.) Neonumbers08:10, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I would put the rules first after the introduction and try to make them super-simple for people (say, Pakistanis) who are new to the sport. See the American football article for an attempt to do this. -- Mwalcoff00:30, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I could try, but this will be a very difficult task. Basketball's nature is not simple, and the current rules section is already very simplified. (In fact, I have on many occasions simplified and in some cases even reverted changes to that section, which added more detail than I considered necessary, and also put comments at the top of each rules sub-section to discourage people from adding over-detailed information.) Without defending the article, I would put the history section first; I think that is more appropriate. However, this gives me an idea: to put basic ideas (of rules) into the lead paragraph. Thanks for your comment, very much appreciated. Neonumbers07:17, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Scotch College, Perth recently was a FA candidate and failed. I would like to see this article be FAed, so I have come here to fix the final problems. This article has been Peer reviewed before ((earlier review)). I have addressed these issues. Here is the FA page - FA candidate.
"The project consists of researching the topic, producing the article and doing a maximum 5000 word write up on the project. The project is marked from 1 - 7 with 2 being a pass mark." - is this really necessary?--HamedogTalk|@08:48, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It has been suggested that this article could be cleaned up and/or restructured. Personally, I think it looks ok if a bit bland. The information seems to be all accurate... I'm working towards submitting this page as a FA candidate. KC.04:56, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know how to fix this, but the article is nearly all lists. Unless you're going to put it up for WP:FLC, it doesn't have enough prose to be considered a FA. Surely the qualifications section, and the small list about eligibility under Current programs could be turned into prose. That's the most glaring problem with this being a FAC. Harro523:17, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Yup! That's just about exactly what I was looking for! I've begun a major rewrite and edit-with 3 sections so far done (everything up to International COllege Program) with more to come in the next 2 days. Any further input you have will be much apprectiated. Thanks for your input so far, Harro5! KC.04:03, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Also, just looking now, don't you think the headings need a re-work? Particularly the subheadings - these are very long by Wikipedia standards - and most headings aren't capitalised properly per the WP:MOS (only caps for first word and proper nouns). I'd try to make them shorter, or just merge these sub-sections to leave just Level2 headings if possible. Again, the more prose, the easier that fluidity becomes. Good luck with the major edit promised on the page. Harro509:46, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Even after the re-write, both my comments are yet to be addressed. Also, you need to use the old {{ref}} and {{note}} system for inline citations. Harro500:47, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Erm, Firstly, I took out the level 3 subheadings and merged it to level 2 subheadings only. I shortened the subheadings names and capitalised them properly... Cultural Representative Program and International College Program were left in all capitals as they are proper nouns. I'll see what I can do with regards to note and ref tagging. KC.17:21, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
If you take a look at the history of the article, it was originally just titles with little prose. It's since had a huge amount of prose added to it. Still, any comments on how it could be improved upon with regards to making it less listy? KC.20:05, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Took a look, its amazing what a little time and work will do. Both this and the WDWCP are very complex programs, ergo there is going to be alot of information and lists are unavoidable. I really think it has FA potential. When you are done on the IP, come over to the CP page and work some magic.Shifter5506:12, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
If this is the wrong place to do this, please help me out by removing my text to the righ place. I have just noticed that a user called User:Parav has made massive changes to dozens of wiki pages relating to Saint Thomas Christians. Now as far as i know Saint Thomas Christians were stranded pockets of Christians in and around India thought to have been established by Saint Thomas. They belonged to the Assyrian Church of the east and abroad until some adopted miaphysite beliefs in response ot Romanisation during the Goa inquisitions. Parav seems to be trying to change appelations to suit his/her own Church of the East & Abroad agenda. Anyway it seems Parav is a sockpuppet and that there are numerous other people working on the same area, not being an admin I cannot see if they are all sharing the same IP or not, but I suspect many of them are. If anyone can help keep an eye on it all that would be great.Budo02:44, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Try "pages needing attention", as mentioned at the top of this page. Otherwise, all I can suggest is that if you believe your text was correct and you have the solid references to back it up, be persistent. Add the page to your watch list. Mention the dispute on the talk page. Try to cover the topic with multiple, neutral points of view, so as to be inclusive. Thanks. — RJH15:34, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This article covers the topic completely. It is well written, accurate, sourced, and readable. I would like to recieve more feedback before I nominate it as an FA candidate.
Per WP:CONTEXT and WP:MOSDATE, years, decades, and centuries without full dates generally should not be linked. For example, January2006 should not be linked, instead change it to January 2006. Also, please note WP:BTW and WP:CONTEXT, which state that years with full dates should be linked. For example, February 28, 2006, should be come February 28, 2006.
Per WP:MOS#Headings, headings generally do not start with the word "The". For example, ==The Biography== would be changed to ==Biography==.
I think "History" can still be made more comprehensive
Per WP:CONTEXT and WP:BTW, years with full dates should be linked; for example, link January 15, 2006, but do not link January 2006.
It seems as though all of your concerns have been addressed, except perhaps adding to the history section. What would you want added there?--Urthogie10:27, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The external links section describes the BBC page as a wiki. Is this accurate? Tim Ivorson2006-05-28
The flow section has a link labelled "prosody", which points to a disambiguation page. I don't know which of the, presumably related, meanings of prosody is intended, but one of them is meter (poetry), which is linked from the next paragraph. If they both mean the same thing, only one of them needs to be a link, according to WP:MOS-L#Internal links.
In the same section, it would be nice to expand the discussion of metre. The article mentions Run-DMC as employing trochaic pentameter, but I found a web disussion, [5] which quotes Dana Gioia as using Run-DMC as an example of accentual metre (rather than accentual-syllabic metre, of which trochaic pentameter is an example):
Rap consciously exploits stress-meter's ability to stretch and contract in syllable count. In fact, playing the syllable count against the beat is the basic metrical technique of rap. Like jazz, rap extravagantly syncopates a flexible rhythm against a fixed metrical beat thereby turning a traditional English folk meter into something distinctly African-American. By hitting the metrical beat strongly while exploiting other elements of word music, rappers play interesting and elaborate games with the total rhythm of their lines. Here is a syncopated couplet from Run DMC:
He's the better of the best, best believe he's the baddest
Perfect timing when I'm climbing I'm the rhyming acrobatist
(14 and 16 syllables respectively)
. . . .
If rap were a written form of poetry, its complex syncopation would frequently push the meter to a breaking point. A reader would not always know exactly where the strong stresses fell. See how difficult it is to discern the four strong stresses in the first Run DMC couplet quoted, simply from the printed text . . . . Anglo-Saxon poets understood the problem inherent in strong-stress verse. That is at least one reason why they added alliteration to reinforce the meter. In rap the meter is also enforced by what its performers call "the beat," usually a pre-recorded digitally sampled rhythm-track. Traditional prosody describes the rhythm of poetry as the meaningful counterpoint of speech pattern against a fixed abstract meter. That same principle of expressive counterpoint is quite literally what rap does and its audience hears and enjoys.
This is my first major article. I'm not expecting it to be featured, I'm just looking for constructive criticism of any kind. Daykart22:36, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Its is a very go article but I would suggest adding a "see also" section, and an "external links" section to the article. I would also recommen adding a refrences. Tarret23:07, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This article is a very important climate related article. This is just one of the many reasons for it to be a featured article. Please feel free to leave a suggestion to help improve it. Tarret22:29, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Not really that happy that Kyoto treaty didn't redirect to it. It's normally called this in the UK. I belive the map may need updating becuase, didn't George Bush (even although he didn't sign the Kyoto Protocol) agree to at least help combat carbon emissons? --Kilo-Lima00:15, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Kyoto treaty would be technically inaccurate, but a redirect would not do any harm. The map shows the status of the Kyoto protocol in different countries. This has not changed in the US. I'm also somewhat sceptical about non-concrete, non-binding statements of politicians, but that's another topic. --Stephan Schulz13:43, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
In the introduction, what does IPCC stand for. I think that consideration may need to be taken to avoid confusing acronyms throughout the article. Perhatps just using one or two words form the names of the organisations to refer to them would be a good idea. MyNameIsNotBob03:39, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Without full citations a refernce section for each html link in text, this article won't pass FAC. The information for each website needs to be correctly cited for future tracability and so the reader knows where they are actually being sent when they click on something.--nixie06:51, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I myself have no objection to people using the inline Harvard system (though I dislike the non-inline footnote system). But I can't (yet) be bothered to do it myself, since I don't find it very interesting. I think its a shame that FAC should depend on this; but if it does, so much the worse for FAC. William M. Connolley09:54, 24 December 2005 (UTC).[reply]
I nominated Battle of Vaslui for FA (self-nom) in October, but back then, the article lacked many things: no battle map, no image of the battle, few references, and the info was not well expanded. I've now fixed all of those things, with the help of others, and I think the article looks good. I have many references, but only one is in English; but it's still good, I think. I would like to receive some feedback on what else could be added to the article, and, if it stands a chance for being chosen as FA. Thanks. --Anittas19:15, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The references are there, but needs to be organised in accordance to MoS. See Wikipedia:Cite sources. Avoid presenting the images in the form of a gallery (it make one think that this is Commons), try and display in the 'regular' format as any other encyclopedic articles. - Mailer Diablo15:26, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This is a wonderful site I use regularly for information related to Star Trek, and I want to return the favor by giving it a great page on Wikipedia. I have put a good deal of effort into summarizing its history, structure and canon policy, but I am particularly interested in hearing opinions on the completeness of the article. For example, should there be more detail in any given section, should I add a section on something else, etc. Thanks! Narco21:29, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Well done. I can't think of anything major in terms of sections to be added, but maybe the issue of fan fiction, fan films, etc and MA's expanding mandate (e.g. it's covering stuff now it wouldn't have before, like the parodies page) would be good. You could also use a citation or two about the debate over featured articles; Solbor's nomination and that of "Crossover" are good examples of this. "Crossover", in particular, could be used as a segue to the question of whether or not unanimity is a viable policy; I know Wikipedia wouldn't survive a day with that policy. :) --Vedek DukatTalk01:08, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
It's a nice surprise seeing an article for this website, which I, as a trekker wannabe, find a very interesting project. However, it shows that it was written by a fan. I removed some POV statements, like saying that the site "grew exponentially". I would like some reference for the claim that there is competition between Wikipedia and Memory Alpha. Also, the article should deal with any "bad" aspect of the website. For instance, was there any significant fight that threatened to disrupt the project or caused a fork? Or is there significant criticism towards the wiki's administrators? JoaoRicardotalk06:58, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I have made a lot of contributions to this page, and it looks pretty good. It went from a fawning fan fluff piece to a bit more of an encyclopedic entry.
There is small additional work that needs to be done (character names for the filmography will need to be imported from imdb), but we need input on what else might need to be done. --Yoasif20:43, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
You would need a free image of Amitabh
Lead should be ~250-300 words
Remove bold text
A paragraph should have 8-10 sentences
The filmography table looks tacky
Model the article in chronological order of his life
The article has grown quite a lot recently. We'd appreciate any wider feedback on how to improve it further. I know the article is quite weak on Hammer's non-horror related films, and I'd particularly like some advice on the notes. When I expanded the article I made sure to note the source of each fact. I figured that too much info was better than too little when citing sources. - Motor (talk)19:59, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Not bad, but there are a lot of red links. Another concern is the number of orphan words, too many words are left in their own sentence at the end of paragraphs — I suggest a copy-edit. More pictures would be nice. Looking good so far. — Wackymacs20:26, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
A Notes section should be used to store all inline citations in, see Wikipedia:Footnotes. Also, the lead need expanding greatly based on the length of the article, the lead should summarize concisely the entire article into one or two paragraphs, see WP:Lead. I'm not too keen on the amount of tables in the article either. Looking good so far, though. — Wackymacs20:29, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the tables take up a lot of space but so far are the best way to organize the numerous factors. Maybe I should try reducing the table text size to 90% or 80%. (SEWilco20:32, 16 December 2005 (UTC))[reply]
While it is a somewhat lengthy article, the section on "past changes in sea level" seems unfortunately short and could stand some expansion. I'd like to see coverage of prior geological epochs. I also see too many bulleted lists in the text: those should either be converted to tables or to prose. Also doesn't the article need to cover deluge events, such as the Black Sea deluge theory and possibly the Mediterranean. Otherwise it's looking good. Thanks. — RJH22:05, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Events on geological time scales is a good idea. I'll see what can be done with the lists. The Mediterranean event should be in a recent geological period. (SEWilco04:56, 19 December 2005 (UTC))[reply]
Just a note, it has long been suggested that this should be broken up into two articles, one at sea level rise covering modern changes and probably the last interglacial transition, and one at sea level change (presently a redirect to "sea level rise") dealing with processes on geologic time scales. In talk, such a division has generally been seen as agood idea, though no one (myself included) has been eager to work on breaking it up. Dragons flight05:45, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, but I wasn't watching either page at the time and I complained when I finally noticed (not the first complaint, I might add). Subsequent discussions favored breaking them up again. Dragons flight07:02, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I'm missing a lot of information about the history of the place along with the effects the tsunami had on the area. Mentioning the Shrine Vailankanni Basilica as an important location is all right, but I really think it should be fully described in a separate article about the church. This article should be about the place. If you want to know what a featured article about an Indian city/village looks like, try Mumbai or any of the other articles listed at "Geography and places" of WP:FA. - Mgm|(talk)11:20, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I've been trying to improve the Cheers article as much as I can. Other than a screenshot of the Simpsons crossover (I have a request out), however, I'm not sure what to do next. Despite the recent FA'ing of Arrested Development and The West Wing (which I helped with), there is no truly consistent style to follow, so any help would be great! Thanks! Staxringold01:18, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry this took so long but I've completed a full review and posted it here. Here are my main concerns from the top of the article:
Consistent usage of "character (actor)" format
Consistent usage of literary present tense, when applicable
Grammar needs a complete read through when content issues are resolved
I cannot cannot canot say it enough: REF/NOTE! Almost everything needs a reference... this is the downfall of many a decent article. Find those references!
Nice work, it's much better than it was. So a few observations. 1) If international syndication was important, the lead should mention it too. Not if not of course. 2) The trivia section has got to go. You'll get killed for that at FAC. Points in there are either better off merged in somewhere else, or not important enough to be in the article at all. 3) Eliminate the one or two sentence paragraphs. They show areas that should either be merged with related material, expanded, or removed. 4) The themes section should either be renamed to something like 'Other recurring thems' or similar or merged in with the rest of the Plot section which could easily be seen as themes. The feminism bit is probably given waay too much space for it's relative importance on the show. A FA should be organized in relation to the importance of each subtopic. I think the cast table really breaks up the article, but I can't think of a better way. - TaxmanTalk22:59, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Editing up the sections to remove trivia, combine short paragraphs, and altered some sections/subsections. No mention of international syndication in the lead other than the "long and successful syndication run" mention, but a syndication section. Let me know what you think! Staxringold03:56, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Yup, improvements overall, the biggest problem left is #3 above. I can see why you've done it in some cases, but it still isn't great writing. A FA should be able to be structured in a way that it doesn't need any. The romance section could use another couple sentences for ex, and the one sentence paragraphs leading off some of the sections could probably just be merged with the next paragraph. The other's just need creative expansion or merging. With that done, there's nothing I can think of that it is missing to be ready for FAC. - TaxmanTalk14:18, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Tried to further touch-up per your request. Also revamped images (replaced a couple dull images with clearer, more colorful, better images) and added the kiss image for romance. Staxringold00:14, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Lilith, when first mentioned, was both unlinked and unexplained (ppl who have not seen Frasier will not know who she is). I have corrected it and done some minor tweaks. Nice use of inline citations to explain and document important facts. Issue to expand upon: write more upon the 'classic' Cheers opening theme.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul PiotrusTalk13:40, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
It's looking very good compared to the first time I saw it. All in all, though, it seems very fragmented. There seems to be little meat regarding the show itself with the exception of a fragmented Plot section that isn't consistent in its discussion topics at all. Here's a few comments for now:
Critical reactions. This is a really skimpy section. With a show as big and as important in our cultural zeitgeist as this one is, I'd expect much more meat to this section. Try a local library; for The West Wing (television), Scm83x were able to head to ours and find a few books filled with essays and such regarding the show. Cheers might take a bit more work, as it's not, let's say, academically useful as TWW, but, regardless, this section needs some fleshing out.
Plot. I'm one to prefer how you did the plot section. However, in FAC, you're going to get eaten alive for not having a summary of the entire show's plot in your article. There's no section simply dealing with what happened in each season. Is it necessary? I'm not so sure. But it's definitely not going to fly with the people at FAC. In addition, the way you've done all the subsections seems very fragmented. Some sections are really, really small; regardless, "Social class in Cheers" is not under the same type of discussion as "The Finale."
Maybe mix some of the subsections for just "Social Issues in Cheers"? Dunno, again, after the holidays I'll make some major additions. Staxringold02:40, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Post-Cheers. I'm having some problems distinguishing between this section and "Spinoffs and Crossovers." In addition, how important is the careers of all of the actors after the show? This is an article about the show, not the actor's lives. -Rebelguys221:40, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I tried to keep it as connected to Cheers as I could. And I thought it was interesting how Cheers (despite it's success) is somewhat like Seinfeld and the Seinfeld curse in basically no one having a truly successful project after Cheers (save Grammer, like Seinfeld, as the one success). Staxringold02:40, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Ok folks, I've melded the sections into Social Issues and added addiction, and I'm working on the critical reaction section right now. Any other big ideas that need adding or mistakes that need polishing? Staxringold23:35, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I'd appreciate input on whether derived units should be included, whether epoch and/or era belong here, and any units that I've missed. This is for the category entitled 'Human-based units of measure'.
--Cybercobra05:23, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Why not make derived units a sub-category? An era can cover geological periods, so I wouldn't necessarily consider it to be human-based. You could consider turning the "units of measurement" article into FA quality and cover this topic therein. Thanks. — RJH16:16, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I've addressed the deficiency of references in this article. They are now there. I still think this article has potential being that it is a comic book character that is obscure, non superhero, yet interesting.Mr. ATOZ03:16, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
It's great that you decided to bring this to peer review. A few pointers (some taken from the FAC nomination of this article);
Article has come a long way, but still needs work. It's been cited by several media organizations and therefore should be brought up to a Featured Article status, as such it needs Peer Review first. Please, rather than getting into a debate about how X is mentioned but Y isnt, lets start by identifying what is outright WRONG first:
Are there grammar, punctuation, or spelling issues?
Are there any significant formatting issues per WP:MoS?
Are there any specific content issues?
Last time (I believe it was in 2003) this was discussed people (Larry Sanger for one) ignored it saying it wasnt encyclopedic and gave very few specifics, merely rants about bias. ALKIVAR™22:24, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps the biggest, and most obvious, obstacle from this article reaching FA status is the use of unnecessary markup, nonstandard headings, and numerous numbered and bulleted lists. The Wikipedia Manual of Style asks that you use == for headings, instead of ''' markup. There are a number of reasons you did what you did, however, and I understand them - most likely to reducde clutter in the contents and to set paragraphs aside. However, all your various spacing doesn't look good on every browser, and, more importantly, those headings are often unnecessary. They can be removed to make for more flowing sections, and will make sense regardless if you write well enough. With the removal of sub-sub-sub-...-heading clutter to make for better writing, you might also want to consider converting several, though admittedly not all, of the lists into prose. -Rebelguys206:34, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Your assumption of my effort to reduce the size of the TOC is correct, that is why many sub sections use ''' instead of ===. You should have seen the List to Prose ratio BEFORE I got to it... as it stands now, I think the list to prose ratio is quite good. The problem is most of the currently remaining lists are lists with each entry being a small paragraph, by changing it into several large paragraphs I actually find the readability rate drops. I made a clone of the article on my home wikiserver and experimented with that, I found it much harder to follow. Do you see anything else more specific that would assist down these lines, your responses seem very general/broad. ALKIVAR™09:03, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
minor question, what is the difference between the Evil workprint rip off and the other workprint copy screenshots of American Pie. Also, the link to the see another screenshot from A night to Roxbury goes to a deleted image. Garion96(talk)12:28, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The EViL version was a bootleg notorious for release before the movie hit theaters, however it did not have a counter in the frame of the shot. As the commentary regarding workprints mentions the counter, I looked for a version of the film that had the counter, that second workprint shot came from a DVD extra to American Pie. I could have used another movie, but I happened to have a DVD copy of American Pie handy. The other image should not have been deleted as it was not an orphan... ALKIVAR™20:41, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
GMaxwell's bot is misbehaving, its been blocked, and a post left. Either way, image is now gone and I dont have a backup copy... So i've been forced to remove the link. ALKIVAR™21:04, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I'm going to have to agree with Rebelguys2 (talk·contribs) that you absolutely must standardize the headings. Making an article featured is supposed to be hard, we do it not because it is easy, but because it is hard (cribbing JFK). Odd use of headings and grammatical errors have to be addressed before the sorts of things that peer reviews are supposed to be about are addressed. If the headings are a no-go, then this article will never make it past its current state. For grammar, I find it best to set aside an hour or two and have a friend (who has never read the article) read it aloud to you, stopping everytime something doesn't sound right. This can fix huge problems in continuity and grammar. -Scm83x09:52, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Well i've gone and made the heading changes requested... TOC is now 2.5x as long, and at 800x600 is now more than a page long, which is what I had been trying to avoid to begin with as this is something i'm going to be told to fix during FAC. Is there anything else you see that needs formatting changes? Can we now get on to the specific content i.e. the whole reason I asked for peer review? ALKIVAR™10:11, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
If you're concerned about length of the TOC, you should really consider whether all of the second and third level sub heading you're using are necessary or whether you can just fold some sections together. Also, take a look at some of the TOCs for other FAs. They generally aren't as brief as you want this one to be; if you're going to be thorough, you need a lot of organized content. The content is organized by the headers. And hey, if you write a gripping lead, the user will be sure to scroll down past the TOC, even at 640x480 ;-) -Scm83x11:16, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
It's a good article, but still quite cluttered. A few issues:
Take a look at the three sub-sub-headings starting with "Popularity of computers." Are they even necessary? Probably not. They're part of the "rise of software piracy," and the section seems a lot more tight without the clutter of the headings and "These are some causes which have accelerated its growth." It's redundant to have a heading for every topic; dividing your prose into paragraphs is enough for the reader to know you're moving on.
If you're worried about the article getting too long - you're probably right. An article should flow well, look compact yet informative, and ideally stay under 32 KB. If you think "History of Warez" is getting too long, create a page named History of Warez and add a link to the main article instead. One example is the abortion article; they moved a large section dealing with controversy to abortion debate.
I'm not a huge fan of the table right now; it feels too cluttered. Perhaps you could create a cell that horizontally spans over Type, Label, and Rarity, and have the image vertically span over the two rows of Type/Label/Rarity and the description. Since we're looking for "brilliant prose" here, I'd fix the sentence fragments in there, i.e. "A copy made in a cinema using a camcorder, possibly mounted on a tripod."
I'm not a real fan of the table either, but I think its better than a list for displaying this data, I will keep working on its layout til I get something I'm satisfied with. Ok i'll get to the text content of the descriptions as well. ALKIVAR™01:17, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I saw the debate on the pronunciation of "warez." ;) Juárez isn't exactly pronounced "where-eS," as there's more of an "h" sound followed by an "ah" sound with an emphasis on the first syllable in Juárez. I don't think either of our descriptions are entirely accurate, though I don't know how easy it's going to be to find a definitive reference regarding word etymology and pronunciation.
Biggest problem, is its pronounced so many different ways depending on region and dialect that its quite a difficult issue to solve. To-MAY-to, To-MAH-to, and so forth, there are many acceptable variations. ALKIVAR™01:17, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I do not agree with the pronunciation presented on this page, as I took many years of Spanish through my education. However, if the pronunciation of the term is contentious, perhaps a section ==Pronunciation== is necessary. Just a thought. -Scm83x10:21, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Finally, I finally scrolled down to the "Legality" section today. As such an important and touchy legal issue these days, I think this section could really use some fleshing out. I'm not asking to see the entirely of legal proceedings for and against, but we might look at, for example, the legal precedents set by the RIAA. We could analyze the response and statements of artists working for ASCAP/SESAC/BMI and those organizations themselves. There's no analysis of the very important DMCA and other similar laws. If you feel that you've covered these topics sufficiently in other sections (which I don't), then what is the need for such a small, skimpy section? -Rebelguys222:06, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I've asked WikiProject Law to get on the Legality section, part of the reason I posted this PEER REVIEW was to get people knowledgeable in such fields to CONTRIBUTE, Lately it seems the only active editors to the article are vandals and myself. ALKIVAR™01:17, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the legal section needs to be updated. Its too short and too much emphasis on the USA. It's not my main legal expertise but I will try to expand it, (if I have time). Otherwise I hope the wikiproject law can indeed help. Btw, I really like the new layout for cam, telesync etc. Garion96(talk)14:48, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I agree those should be linked... but I disagree that they should be the entire contents of the legality section. If anything i think there should be a Legality of copyright infringement article to which all 3 link to. Its too important an issue for small sections in several articles. ALKIVAR™05:05, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I created this article a few days ago (I'm the only editor so far) and I've been adding quite a few things to it since. I want to get it featured soon, has anyone got any suggestions? — Wackymacs16:47, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
A Microsoft Windows-compatible version was also developed. A sequel titled New Centurions was released. The two sentences tie together very poorly. I merged them.
A screenshot of the Game cover would be nice.
The media, system requirements, and input sections of the gamebox should all be easy to fill in.
A specific release date perhaps. GameFaqs say the game was released in 1993. I tend to trust GameFaqs more, so are you sure aboutt he 1994 release?
Gamespy say the game has a rating of Rating Pending. Perhaps that could be added?
In the Story section, it says In the game the player is a group of adventurers...shouldn't it be The player takes control of a group of adventurers? The former sounds very confusing.
I believe the Image license tages should {{Game-screenshot}}, as the game was also released for Windows, not Just Mac.
A game cover does not exist, this game was distributed through the Internet, magazine disks and CD-ROMs and you ordered the game directly from Fantasoft, LLC back when they sold it. I am inclined to keep the release date as 1994 as the Realmz manual is copyrighted from 1994 (and was written by the developer, Tim Philips), the game itself is also copyrighted from 1994 throughout. I've added extra info to the infobox at your request. I don't see any point in entering the Rating when it hasn't got one (maybe put 'n/a' instead?). I have retagged the images and added fair use rationales to them as well, just to be sure. I've slightly changed the wording in the 'Story' section. Thanks for your comments/suggestions. — Wackymacs21:18, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Ha, I remember playing this game years ago. Um, let's see...
Clarify that the "Story" section only deals with one of the official scenarios. Since there are actually several available scenarios in the registered version, maybe they should all be given concise descriptions.
There needs to be mention of the different aspects of character creation, especially race and class, that are available in Realmz. As it stands these are only briefly mentioned in the Character editor section.
I personally think the article is far too short to be featured. Perhaps the Gameplay section should be split up into sections; for example, exploration, quests, and battle, which itself would have subsections on things like combat movement and spells.
With a complete "has no idea what realmz is" view, the article needs serious beefing up. It is way too short. Other than that, pretty good. Spawn Man03:11, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for all the comments, I'm going to add more details to the gameplay section and add separate 'Races' and 'Character' sections, a 'Spells' section might be due as well. — Wackymacs07:42, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I remember this game, and even played a couple of scenarios. It seemed to be a response to the low number of ports of the old gold box games. It was entertaining for a little while. :) — RJH23:00, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Needs sources and more information. As of now it's basically just the definition. Perhaps think about expanding the article a little bit, I don't know exactly how much can be covered her. But definitely provide sources. --MateoP15:34, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
In addition to the above, I suggest giving more background on "tactical units or task forces" (probably examples), giving examples of what actions (deployment, maybe?) would be decided at the tactical level, and what kinds of officers (generals? colonels?) are responsible for tactical level decisions. Also, it would be good to have a few examples of conflicts in which tactical level decisions made a significant difference. Deltabeignet03:11, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I really don't see the merit of a separate entry. Military tactic is tiny and this could be elaborated there or perhaps in just tactics. The official military status of a term doesn't automatically qualify it as an encyclopedic concept. Not even if it's American. :-p
Eventually would want it to become a Featured Article. Requesting for suggestions on how to expand, and new sections that may not be covered under the article at this time. - Mailer Diablo08:15, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
It would be very helpful to have a section on foreign responses, if possible. I'm sure at least one NGO has condemned it, if not a head of state or two. Deltabeignet03:15, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I would like to improve this article to the quality of a featured article. This was first a stub linked from the now featured article tooth enamel but remained very much a stub for a while. Wikipedia has very few articles on dental topics generally (and very very few of high quality). Thus, the more high-quality dental articles on wikipedia, the merrier! -Dozenisttalk04:20, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The article is really well done, but like the tooth enamel article initially, it doesn't mention tooth development in other species. There are some really interesting variations on tooth develpment in the animal kingdom. So I'd add some detail or move the article to Human tooth development.
On the technical side, if you want to shorten the notes list, you can link multiple instances of the same note using a template, you can see it in use on Canberra.--nixie05:42, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Concerning the note list, would it be a problem that I have listed the page numbers to many of the references and many of them are different? If so, then I would think it may be a good idea to keep the notes listed separately so that the pages are listed (the books are pretty big books). If not, then that sounds like a great idea.
Concerning tooth development in different animals, that information is going to be a little more difficult for me to find, as opposed to the broader topic of enamel in animals, but let me see what I can find before giving up and moving the article. -Dozenisttalk13:15, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Since human and animal tooth development is generally very similar, this article will really describe tooth development for both (with the focus obviously on humans). Nonetheless, I put a little section in the article and a link to an article focusing on variations/differences in animal tooth development. For now, I think I'm going to keep the notes the way they are because the footnotes in the article are labeled by the subject matter and page number. That way, if I ever need to look up a reference in the book, or if someone wants to verify it, we will all be able to see the exact idea I was referring to and the page number used in the book. -Dozenisttalk01:08, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
A search for odontogenesis should bring this article up.
maybe tooth development in humans and certain animals is similar (not that I say certain), but more is known about tooth development in animals than in humans. Tummers11:24, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Previously submitted to peer review before (see archive), the article has been reformatted to be clearer and more concise. Two album covers have been added and more of his works have been added to the table at the bottom. I'm hoping to get some feedback regarding the content (what needs to be improved upon, what should be expanded, what is unclear etc.); layout; and any other general comments.
As there is nothing (that I know of) about Dennis Berry in print, it's difficult to cite references. The only things I have are the actual records he made (and I assume there are some documents concerning those and their production), Performing Rights Society (PRS) royalties breakdowns which document where his work is currently being used, and what I have learnt through discussions with my grandmother and my mother. I have been able to find a few websites which mention him, which have also been added to the article.
Howie☎02:20, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The article is just generally lacking context. The 'Early life' and 'Marriage and family' sections are just too short, maybe they could be merged together and retitled. The lead is very short, the lead of an article should summarize all the details into one or two concise paragraphs (see WP:Lead). There are lots of red links in the Career section which you may want to fix. There is also a lack of external links, I was expecting quite a few more other websites than just IMDB. Good work so far, keep it up. — Wackymacs16:54, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the feedback! I'll get on and sort out the early life/marrige parts - I'm sure I can find out more about that from my grandmother, As for the external links... well there's not much else I can provide other than the IDMb listing, and the references. He seems to be continuously left out of most sites regarding light music, or he barely gets a mention; and there is certainly no official site or anything like that. Not sure what else I can really add to that. Howie☎17:51, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Try reducing the size of the lead image (only by a little bit) as it takes up too much text space.
It is not indicated which person is Cisneros in the lead image. (Forgive me if it is obvious, but I am like that sometimes)
The article needs a thorough copy-edit; one sentence strikes me the most; He was giveing to all, and founded and maintained very many benevolent institutions in his diocese. I'll give it a shot, but I'm no expert.
Hi thank you. I've addressed #1 and #2 .. #3 your right, the article originated as a EB1911 and had had heavy copedits allready to bring up to modern standards but another pass through from someone elses perspective would help. #4 there's nothing to caption but the obvious "Portrait of Cisneros" and I thought it looked better left unsaid with no thumb-box, but if this is a requirement will add it. thanks again. --Stbalbach02:13, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
One of the world's greatest cities (twice voted World's Most Liveable City), and a very comprehensive article. Covers most areas I can think of, and I'm hoping to hear some thoughts on what others think. Thanks. Harro523:48, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
From a quick glance I agree with Mailer above. Here are some comments on hurdles you might hit if going up for FAC:
It needs to be properly referenced with extensive footnotes (this seems to have become a requirement at FAC).
Some of the sections are too short. Culprits include Geography, Education, Transport, Landmarks and tourist information and Media. Some of these seem to have taken the summary style to the extreme, and are now way too short. For example, why do Melbourne's Trams only deserve half a sentence while subjects like popular music get three paragraphs. The Education section seems to be a list of universities.
The layout of the Melbourne population by year data is confusing. Could this be made into a graph or formatted in a table or something to make it more clear?
Third level headings in Sport should be avoided if possible.
The Second level headings in People are probably redundant.
External links in the article should be moved to External links or Notes.
Several one sentence paragraphs in Melbourne in culture
Perhaps there should be something about the bay and it's uses: Sailing, Fishing, Swimming, Sunbaking, Jogging around, Skating around, Surfing? I also recall bayside festivals, markets, performers and a massive kitesurfing community --Metta Bubble07:49, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
As well as some paragraphs being short as mentioned above, I really don't like the new infobox. The whole article is clearly talking about the whole metropolitan area, so it is inappropriate to include the City of Melbourne local government area info in the infobox. JPD (talk) 09:56, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Try and model the structure, i.e. the section headings and section length, of the article on Ann Arbor, Michigan, Canberra or any of the recently featured cities. Ideally this article would borrow a lot from Canberra where appropriate, mirroring the level of detail in the deographics, education and culture, since they are both Australian cities. I also agree with JPD, the infobox is not appropriate for the article since it mixes non-applicable city council information with metropolitan details, that is why we made the Aus-city box which appears on Canberra. There is no excuse for lists in this kind of article- tunr them to prose, or ask someone to make a graph of data. References are very important for any statistcs quoted, use a reputable source like the ABS.--nixie10:07, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I agree about the infobox. Uniformity amoung Australian city infoboxes would be a good thing. Also the City council info is not relavent to the majority of Melbourne. --Martyman-(talk)06:34, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Is the mayor of most cities the mayor of the greater city area or just the central "city" area? This could probably be implemented as an optional fiel din the standard template. --Martyman-(talk)09:33, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Um, no. That is the whole point, optional field make no differnce to existing implementaitons of a template. The Mayor field is already active and the daylight savings field is now optional as well. --Martyman-(talk)22:51, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Harro, I completely agree with your culling of the majority of Vincentshia's photos as they were not all particularly relevent to Melbourne itself, and I do agree that there were perhaps too many photos, but I think you've overculled them and some good photos were lost, while lower quality photos were retained. We don't have a single good 'representative' photo of 'Melbourne' left on the article. We have a panorama (mine, actually) which is demonstrative of the Yarra in relation to Southbank and the CBD, and we have a view from the Rialto Towers, but no 'typical' view as of your last edit[6]. Also, I don't think the image of Parliament is worthy as it relates more so to the state of Victoria than Melbourne, and is a poorly framed photo. I'm going to re-add a few as I think there is still room for some well-placed, well-selected images. Regardless, it is good to see a bit of a shake-up there. Diliff | (Talk)(Contribs)22:08, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The Parliament photo could probably go, and I agree with what you are saying. There was one night-time view of the city from the Rialto (here), but in my view it's pretty blurry and could be any city around the world. I love the photo looking up the Yarra, and the CBD from the Rialto, but prehaps this could be re-added. My only problem with this is that all the images seem to be different views of the same buildings. I'd be interested to hear more thoughts. Harro522:15, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I agree with some of what you said about the night-time shot from the Rialto - it is a little blurry when viewed at 100% res, but I can recognise certain features in it. I guess the thing is that it might be so useful for someone who is looking at Melbourne for the first time. :) In any case, I've linked that image to the Melbourne Docklands article, since it is somewhat more relevent and interesting in there. As for all the images being different views of the same buildings, well, you're correct to an extent.. It is the CBD, so of course you're going to see the same buildings - however, due to the slopes of the land and due to the fact that most of the skyscrapers are centred around the north and south ends of Bourke and Collins streets, with a shopping district in the middle, certain buildings are completely hidden in some views and not in others. We used to have a lot more varied photos of Melbourne transport (taxis, trams, and trams) and landmarks... Where have they all gone? Diliff | (Talk)(Contribs)22:58, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I think the article could do with more images, especially if some of the overly short sections are expanded. For example the sport section could do with an illustration, maybe the MCG or some other venue. Education could support an image too, maybe a nice one of Melbourne Uni. --Martyman-(talk)23:05, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The problem with the Melbourne Coat of Arms is that it relates to the City of Melbourne, which covers only the CBD and parts of neighbouring suburbs, as opposed to Greater Melbourne, which is what the main article is. I really like the shrine pic and I'm surprised Fir002 never included it for the shrine article (which I have edited recently and likewise removed a large number of redundant photos, including some of his), as it is probably his best image. I'd include that shrine image. I don't particularly like the photo of the taxis and trams although it is a nice idea to try to include both. Its just the photo itself that sucks, basically. :) Sorry, I'm picky with photos. The image of the trains at flinders st isn't bad though, until someone can provide a better one, anyway. Diliff | (Talk)(Contribs)23:25, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I find it confusing that "Melbourne In Culture" appears in the "Culture" section. Let's try something like:
Arts -- change to --> Performing Arts
Melbourne In Culture -- change to --> Visual Arts
Or something along those lines. Maybe even add a Film & Television section. If you read the content in those sections you'll see what I mean. Peace. Metta Bubble03:48, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
My only quibble is that the last picture of Steve Jobs looks out of place. It either needs to be larger or higher up on the page so it doesn't get cut off by the section below's line. Spawn Man03:15, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
If you're looking to get this to FA, it's got a ways to go. 1) The list of products would need to be moved off to its own list article and replaced with a well written summary of the most important products. 2) The slogans just need to be moved out entirely with perhaps the most important one or two discussed in a good summary paragraph. 3) The litigation section is way too long and should be moved out to it's own article and summarized here. 4) Needs more and better references. Some of the books listed in the further reading section would be good places to start and cite important material to them. Using only online references and not formatting them properly as references (see Wikipedia:Cite sources) is not a good FA level practice. - TaxmanTalk23:18, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
OK, here's my take: there is nothing on Scully, who Apple brought in. He was a soft-drink executive for goodness sake! Info needs to be incorporated in about the various CEOs. One source (which I own) is Sculley's Pepsi to Apple. Might be worthwhile incorporating into the article.
We need more info about the past products and software. We only have current products - and I notice that in the infobox there is a link to Apple Computer#Products, which does not exist! What about information about the different corporate divisions that make up the company? Marketing strategies? There is much more to Apple Computer than just the technology, after all. - Ta bu shi da yu04:00, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have expanded the article slightly, and as with the previous peer review, I have re-organized the timeline and the information that many people may not need. I have also cleaned up the page. After this, I hope it will bewcome a featured article. I have, unfortunately, been unable to find any sales figures. These would be most handy for a further expansion. --Kilo-Lima15:27, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think the timeline should be converted into prose, that is paragraph form. The paragraphs are rather wimpy and only contain as little as a sentence per heading; perhaps some of the sections could be merged. The History section generally appears first; I suggest that the Varieties and Cost be merged into the popularity section as one single section. The two references also have to be properly cited; the actual URL has to be provided. AndyZ22:54, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This article could use much more work to become a featured article; the article World War II is being considered by many as not worthy of FA status. From my objection on the article, lots of editing needs to be done to correct the article grammatically, I helped to clean it up a slight bit. AndyZ21:08, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It's a pretty good article and the explanations seem clear to me, but that may be due to prior exposure. I'm not so sure how clear this would be to a newcomer. The text could probably be usefully supplemented by several good-quality illustrations. Also the applications section is rather brief, with only one example. Thanks. :) — RJH15:41, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I don't really like the Duality of light section. It's short and unclear in its purpose or relationship to other sections. Also, the applications section needs expanding. — Laura Scudder☎19:31, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
To be a FA it's going to need a longer lead section, and generally longer and more cohesive sections. Merge related material or expand short paragraphs until they are full complete ideas and flow well. It's also going to need more references (shoot for 10) and inline citations of important points. There should be plenty of good references out there. Feynman's lectures would probably be good ones, but any good QM textbooks would be a start. - TaxmanTalk23:23, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I don't like the emphasis on differential equations; classical fields obey differential equations, while quantum fields might not (or at least, the equations they obey can be quite different from the classical analogue). There is no mention of localisation (and issues regarding masslessness), or Fourier transforms, or complementarity. The excuse that there isn't enough room to give a modern treatment in this article holds no water. Are you only interested in a historical synopsis? The theoretical review should be 3/4 of the article, in my opinion. -lethetalk15:58, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I thought about this for a while, and couldn't figure out what the "theoretical review" is. There is no "modern treatment" or "Theory of wave-particle duality" that I know of, and this is one reason why I focused on the history. One could say, "study wave equations, study Fourier transforms, study the hydrogen atom, study the simple harmonic oscillator, study Hilbert spaces, and study second quantization and how the uncertainty principle is just Pontryagin duality then you will "get it"". I suppose one might try to describe a phonon as an example of a particle that's a wave, but a review of phonons is tricky, would require hand-waving to get to photons anyway. It could be wiser to just spend more time explaining the photoelectric effect in greater detail, or explaining the Schrodinger atom vs. Bohr atom. Ideas? linas23:43, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Quantum mechanics is also governed by differential equations (all of physics is really). Therefore for a full treatment of this subject there should be at least some discussion on differential equations. I also wonder if it would be appropriate to mention Max Planck in the history section as he was the one who came up with the idea of photons (even if he didn't view them as real). In addition to be more technical, the Schrodinger equation is a non-relativistic equation, and the key equation that is used to provide realistic models is the Dirac Equation, which essentially is a relativistic Schrodinger Equation. Also, Linas is correct, there is no "theory of wave-particle duality". This is a phenomena imposed on us by the basic principles of quantum mechanics itself, mainly the uncertainty principle. As such it makes no sense to refer to the "modern treatment" of wave-particle duality as such phenomena was not even around until quantum mechanics was developed. Indeed there should be focus on some of the interpretations of what this duality represents and how it is dealt with in the various interpretations, such as the Copenhagen Interpretation or Feynman sum over histories. I will do what I can, but I am new to the Wikipedia interface and so will be inefficient. SciBrad04:20, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This article is tagged as a "good article," and I believe it has potential to become a featured article. Nevertheless, I appreciate more ideas to get the article to that point. Pentawing23:12, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This article looks like it has developed fairly piecemeal over time, and would hugely benefit from one editor thoroughly honing the prose to make it flow better. I'm not sure the current organisation is the best or most logical and it could do with some thought. I think I added some of the references, but probably a few more are needed for quoted facts. The enormous table showing dates of elongations seems pretty pointless to me, something for wikisource maybe but not an encyclopaedia. Also, the Mercury in fiction sections seems far too large; it could be trimmed substantially. I'll read the article more thoroughly over coming days and see if I can make any meaty content suggestions. Worldtraveller01:39, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I'll try to read through the article and repair the prose, but I would need someone to confirm some of the information. The table of elongations also appears in the other planet articles, so I am not sure if the table should be removed. As for the "Mercury in fiction" section, should it be moved into its own subarticle? Pentawing01:47, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I moved the "Mercury in fiction" section to its own subarticle. I also read through the article and tried to repair as much of the prose as possible. Pentawing05:35, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The article is looking good, on the whole. Here are some more comments:
Occasional bits of awkward prose still need fixing, eg "which is over 300 times smaller than that of Jupiter, which is..."
Some statements need expanding, and sources citing. Why is the axial inclination so low? Who has suggested that it might be a Chthonian planet? Is there a source for the quote that it takes more fuel to reach Mercury than to escape from the Solar System?
I think everything important about the planet is covered, but some sections could do with expanding a bit: Historical understanding (much more could be said here I think), Interior composition, Magnetosphere, and the space missions section. The Mariner missions deserve a couple more paragraphs, and there is plenty of info on the upcoming missions which could be interesting.
The intro needs work, I think, to be more of a summary of the whole article content. The middle paragraph is good (although the word "nevertheless" seems a bit of a non sequitur), but for example in the third paragraph it seems strange not to mention why it was thought to be two objects. Worldtraveller20:27, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, I don't understand German very well. Could you point out some things that the German article has that the English article lacks? Pentawing02:01, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
A pretty straightforward biography of a rather contentious character. I think it does a pretty good job of covering his major aspects of his life while being even-handed (pretty difficult given all the bad blood there is around this guy). What else should be in this? Anything that should be expanded upon? Anything that should be shrunk? Your suggestions are desired. --Fastfission03:20, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Without any previous knowledge and without commenting on any specific factual content, the structure of the article as a whole looks very good. The amount of information given seems pretty much ideal.
This article has been up for FA twice, however, it got rejected both times. What I (and I'm sure others) want to know is what needs to be done to make such a nice-looking article into a featured article. —MESSEDROCKER (talk) 23:21, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting. I say use this image in the lead; it's more well known, if of lesser quality. Looks nicely referenced... And yes, reply to the objections of those who shot it down from FA. But the issue here is, I'm sorry to say—and you probably knew this anyway—is length. Length, length, length. Although I do not like the limit, nor do I like making you kill good content (move it elsewhere), 58k is just too long. I'm really sorry—it's a great article—but it's just too long. --HereToHelp (talk) 04:33, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I'm going to have to take that back; Diamond is FA and 6o something k. Although some trimming might be nice, go easy. What you should do is address the reasons why it failed its FA nomination. --HereToHelp (talk) 22:02, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
If length is the sticking point then consider branching off the photo gallery and trivia to a separate article. Those minor extras give the impression of an article in need of editing even though I can't point to any essay text that should go. I agree that the famous 1960 photo belongs at the top of the article. The captions aren't up to the quality of the rest of the writing. Many are too short. A few ramble. Caption style doesn't meet Wikipedia guidelines. A caption should enhance the reader's understanding of the main text. Some of these captions seem decorative. The Joan of Arc images and captions might illustrate what I mean. I agree this is very close to a successful featured article. The edges are a little rough - and rough in ways that a newcomer would spot sooner than a regular contributor. Step back from the text and skim for a change. Then compare the look and feel of successful featured articles. Best wishes for your fine efforts. This is very good writing. Maybe the third nomination will succeed. Durova03:02, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
References are all over the place. This needs a separate references section, where all of the references used are included, and then use notes to connect the text to the page in the reference. Including references in the "Guerrilla fighter" section doesn't make sense to me—if they were used to reference that section, put notes there and list the references in a separate section at the bottom. I'd also say get rid of the "gallery" section—all those images are already on Wikimedia commons (or they should be!) and there's a link to them on the page already. If you're especially attached to one or two of them, work them into the article. I've fixed many of the formatting issues, though there still may be some. I'd suggest moving the content about him playing chess and such to other sections, or expand that section. Also, I've renamed the Trivia section to Popular culture, since that's really what it's talking about. Probably will want more prose there. And the external links and further reading sections need to be cut down—further reading shouldn't have online resources in it, for one thing. --Spangineeres(háblame)22:38, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This article had a peer review over a year ago and a highly unsuccessful FA candidacy. I've tried to address the concerns there and add some needed sections, and I've nominated it for GA status. I'd like to see the article reach FA status in the near future, so any recommendations would be very welcome. —ShadowHalo05:58, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
To me, the "Music and structure" section reads as a little soulless. The prose certainly isn't compelling. I don't know what to advise in terms of improvement, but "Hey Jude" and "Layla" both have interestingly written musicological analyses. As for your references, I'm not sure it's completely necessary to put the title of each article in quotation marks, but I'm not a hundred percent on that. Overall, it's certainly a well referenced and obscenely informative article. Good luck! Seegoon17:33, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your comments. I've been having some trouble with the "Music and structure" section. It'd be nice to expand it some so it's not so...technical and soulless, but I can't think of any information that would be helpful. One of the biggest problems is that there are so few instrumentals (those six notes in the sheet music just about sum it up). Any idea what else could be added? —ShadowHalo18:12, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm I'm not sure. The thing is, it doesn't really describe the actual sound of the song. My advice is to expand upon how it combines "old school hip hop with dance music"; paint the reader a more evocative picture of the sound of the song. Exactly how to do that I have no idea. Seegoon20:25, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is generally very good, I've only got some minor niggles with bits of it:
Williams was also impressed with the song - "impressed" seems like an odd word to use, considering he wrote the song - perhaps "pleased" (although there's probably a better word than that).
Rolling Stone was pleased with the song - the opposite of the above - perhaps "was positive".
was not thrilled - not a very encyclopaedic phrase.
For the first time in music history - what other kind of history would this be happening in, in fact, when else would it be happening other than in history? Couldn't it just be "This was the first time a single..."
The first four paragraphs of "Chart performance" could be structured better. At present it goes: immediate single sales; year single and digital sales; radio airplay; digital sales. The digital sales paragraph could be moved up perhaps, to link in better.
Do a search through the whole article for the word "also" and check it's needed. Two paragraphs in chart performance begin with "was also", but it's throughout the text. It's redundant in most cases, I think, particularly at the start of a paragraph.
However, in the United Kingdom - however is probably stronger after Kingdom, although it could be removed altogether.
filmed in Van Nuys, California, United States.[30] Stefani is spending time - sudden change from background information to description of the music video; it could do with something to say that it is.
The whole first paragraph is a bit choppy, with needlessly long phrases like "Following this incident" ("then") and changes between very short and very long sentences.
with the words "Hollaback Girl" in calligraphy, drawn by artist J. Martin - the sentence is ambiguous; did the artist draw the painting (a strange phrase to use) or just the calligraphy? And did he draw the original or the one on the car (or both)?
"Hollaback Girl" proved successful on different video-chart programs. - whole sentence could be seen as redundant, but at the very least the word "different" is unnecessary.
I really like this guy as a historical character, and would like to give him his due here at Wikipedia. I've been working on this article a lot recently and just thought it would be a good time to get some other eyes on it and see if this could become a FA. — Laura Scudder☎00:42, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
If you want to get this to FA standard, I would suggest expanding the lead (see Wikipedia:Lead) and try and find a painting of some form of Adriaen van der Donck to add to the top of the article. Early life section is very short. It is looking good so far though! — Wackymacs09:38, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I understand what you're saying about the lead. I'll get on it.
Unfortunately there's only one portrait traditionally identified with him [7], but apparently it's subject is now disputed. I guess it passed through the hands of some shady art dealers in the past. But I could add it if you still think it'd help. — Laura Scudder☎15:41, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
One of the points you could mention in an expanded lead is how, if I remember correctly, Russell Shorto champions Van der Donck as one of the unsung heroes of New World representative government. Give a sense of his importance, and perhaps talk about how documents that were only recently translated have enhanced his reputation. --Kevin Myers | (complaint dept.)15:43, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
What do you guys think of the lead section now? Did I hit on everything I should?
As to the early life section, even Shorto's book (which practically drools over every aspect of Van der Donck's life) is mostly interpolation before his applying to Van Renssalaer. I could flesh out the influence of Grotius probably along with religious affiliation and such. We also know about his family background, but I'm not sure how important it is to know that his grandfather was a local hero who helped recapture Breda from Hapsburg forces. Any thoughts? — Laura Scudder☎20:28, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I'm in the process of merging in material from a duplicate article at Adriaen Van der Donck that was just pointed out, so the article probably warrants another look. The Early life and leads sections have gotten longer, and the period in Rensselaerwyck has been fleshed out.
Also, question for anyone out there: the article I'm merging from lists quite a lot of references, but nothing is specifically cited. I think I'm just going to move the new non-primary sources to a Further reading section until I take a look at them, but what about the primary sources — should I just go ahead and list his most famous writings? — Laura Scudder☎21:01, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I was hoping that following the amount of time and effort put in since the last peer review of the BBC World article, that new ideas and suggestions could be put forward. THank you to all participants. Wikiwoohoo19:36, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Previous review from December 2005
This article seems to be coming along nicely, but it would be great for other users to help out and point out what is missing and/or needs improving. Thanks.Wikiwoohoo18:58, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
My comments:
Where is the History section? Expand the History section into good long paragraphs.
Sectioning is confusing and illogical - no need for 'Censorships' subsection - It should follow a convention such as History -> Programmes -> Criticism -> Influence -> See also -> References -> External links , or something along those lines. - This still needs work.
Needs a references section, what sources were used to write the info in the article?The references are disappointing.
How is it different to the BBC News, BBC One, BBC Two and BBC Three channels? - This still needs to be mentioned.
Missing pictures of a broadcast (the studio, a presenter, etc)
Is it worth mentioning any notable presenters, news readers, etc who have been on BBC World?
Does BBC World work both in Television and in Radio and the Internet? Accessibility should be mentioned, with methods of viewing it
Explaining how it is available would be useful with lots of detail
The language in the 'Newsworthiness, bias and propaganda' section is terrible.
I suggest you rename the section 'Newsworthiness, bias and propaganda' to 'Criticism' or 'Concerns'
The "Reputation and Criticisms" section is a little rocky. The second sentence wanders, and in the third sentence, it would make things clearer to mention that the hoaxer was from The Yes Men and pretending to be from Dow Chemical. Finally, the end of the "censorships" section is unsatisfying. How are the details unclear? Why are they unclear? If you can't find any more information than what's stated, it might be preferable to end the sentence after the word Pakistan. Katsam
References are all there. It's complete in every way I can see. Maybe a bit of style work is needed. I'm submitting this one more time to Peer Review one more time to check for any little changes that need to be made for FA status. I'm No Parking and I approved this message17:27, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I have put a lot of effort into this page and its "daughter articles", and many other Wikipedians have worked on it as well. Therefore, I submit the Michigan State University main article for peer review to get it into shape to be a featured article. — Lovelac705:32, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Known for - MSU has one of the top packing programmes
Campus section
The size of the campus (>5000 acres, >2000 acres developed) is highly notable
Not sure why the mention of Lake Lansing is mentioned in this section
The distinction between north campus and south campus is worth making
Athletics - no mention of records, basketball success in the last few years, lack of football success
Student life - no mention of the Peanut Barrel? the Dairy Store?
Other - the article should include mention of KBS, of the Kresge Art Museum, of the Beal experiment, of the history - figures like Beal and Hannah, also mention of Liberty Hyde Bailey. Guettarda05:46, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The sentence:
Michigan State University was founded as the Agricultural College of the State of Michigan in 1855 as an act of the Michigan Legislature; the school was the first agricultural college in the United States and served as a prototype for future agricultural institutions as would be defined by the Morrill Act.
This is from a Michigan Wolverine who worked on getting the University of Michigan (Go blue!) article featured, but I am willing to help (this is Wikipedia after all, where collaboration is important :-). Anyways, there are several immediate problems:
There are too many lists. For an FA, this is highly discouraged. Prose should be used throughout.
The "rankings and notes" is a mess. Are you trying to create a list of footnotes, and if so why are they in the middle of the article?
If you make a claim (e.g. this program is one of the best in the nation), you must have a solid source to back it up (otherwise, your claims are nothing but hot air). Use of footnotes is highly recommended.
I didn't check the images, but if they were of the modern campus, I suggest you go about and take some pictures (which qualify for GFDL-compatible licenses). Copyrighted images are frowned upon for FA unless there are no free alternatives.
What's distinctive or worth mentioning about Moo U? I think it was once the largest single campus university in the US. The sheer size dominates its character for both good and bad; you could spend a few years there like a few years in a big city, with lots of choices but leaving no connections or trace whatsoever. The course catalog used to be nearly an inch thick. Some of the residential college programs contained in a single residence hall used to be unique. Do they still have one of the best African languages programs in the country? The police administration ("pig ad" in 1970) program was also touted as the top in the world. They used to heavily recruit out-of-state Merit Finalists to populate the Honors College; is that still true?
The state legislature, dominated by lawyers from Michigan, regularly screwed them around. A medical school was blocked for years in the 1960s until the osteopathic lobby pushed the legislature for a state DO school, so MSU got a combined MD and DO school-- one school, one set of preclinical classes, no onsite hospital but two administrative superstructures and two types of degrees-- like one bottling plant putting the same thing in Coke and Pepsi bottles. When the medical school was founded around 1972 it was designed and claimed to be uniquely "humanistic" in its training-- I don't know how distinct it tries to be anymore.
MSU was nationally domininant in football in the 1960s coached by Duffy Dougherty (sp?), and in the late 60s student seats for basketball games in Jenison (?) fieldhouse went unfilled for 25 cents. Basketball took off after Magic Johnson led them to their NCAA title in 1979.
Good point - largest non-military cafeteria, largest on-campus resident population, largest single-campus population. And Magic Johnson. Guettarda06:47, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I'd pretty much echo Pentawing's suggestions, with a few more specifics. 1) The three remaining lists (programs board members, and lingo) probably need to go. A FA shouldn't have a list in it unless the list is really, truly needed in order for the article to be comprehensible. Instead they should be linked to where appropriate, or not if they really aren't truly important. 2) A FA should properly prioritize what it covers. The most important topics should get the most coverage, and less important topics should get covered less, not at all, and/or in subarticles depending on the topic. 3) There's no info on the town v students or town v campus tension. Maybe not a lot needs to be covered here, since that's more important to EL than it is to MSU, but consider it. 4) Too many fragmented paragraphs. One or two sentence paragraphs usually highlight things that should either be combined with related material, expanded into a full idea worthy of a full paragraph of it's own, or simply removed, as per suggestion #2. A FA usually doesn't need any orphan paragraphs, much less the large number that a typical unpolished Wikipedia article has. 5) More high quality sources always helps. A trudge to the library or bookstore to find a good overview book on the uni would go a long way. A well done work will give you an idea of what to prioritize and of course good material to cite.
If you were thinking of listing the article for FAC soon, I would warn you it has a pretty long way to go, no offense. I have quite a bit of experience on what will pass FA and when an article meets the FA criteria, so nudge me after you feel you've implimented the suggestions in this peer review and I'll review it again, for what that's worth. - TaxmanTalk16:56, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
No offense taken, Taxman. I figure this article has a way to go, but now I have a lot of good suggestions on how to clean it up. — Lovelac718:26, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Excellent improvements indeed. The biggest problem left is the referencing. People are really going to look for facts to be cited inline to a specific authoritative source. Especially specific stats or important points or potentially contentious ones. I'd recommend shooting for the top 20 facts based on importance and disputability to be cited either Harvard style or with footnotes. After this Siegenthaler incident, I think people are going to clammor for better referencing, and I'd have to agree that's a good thing. - TaxmanTalk15:02, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding town-student issues as Taxman mentioned, how about
mention that EL's primaries are held when students are out of town (unless this has now changed)
You might mention we won the first ACM International Collegiate Programming Contest back in 1977. We had a pretty decent (one of the earliest) Computer Science program. I supposed the current claim of reflected fame would be that Ralph Page was a prof, and his son co-founded Google -- but studied EECS at Umich.edu. William Allen Simpson21:26, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Good job with the improvements. Could also add mention the Kellogg Center in there somewhere. Student life could mention the dorms, Spartan Village, University Village, Cherry Lane. The history section could say something beyond the sequence of names - originally a farm school where they had to work in the fields, the first female students, etc. Guettarda15:25, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
On a related note to the article, that template down the bottom about notabel locations needs a cleanup. The red means redlinks look like blank spots in the writing, it's near impossible to focus on all the colors to read, and the comments in brackets don't really belong in a template. A bit of a tangent there, but worth commenting on in this forum. Harro506:43, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Is that painted rock really the first image of the university the reader should see?
The "Master Plan for the year 2020" should be referenced.
"The campus defines and dominates life at the university." and "Michigan State University is well-known as a research university." are odd statements that just don't seem to read well (conclusions used as introductions)
Reference all quotations, including "make men farmers, but farmers men", "train both the hand and the head.", "educating boys away from the farm", "comparable to those of the University of Michigan", "Our graduates show that a love...",
Also please reference:
"Often called the "Father of American Horticulture",..."
"...MSU and U-M has been referred to as "the fiercest rivalry on ice,"
"Free copies of the paper are online..." (send the reader there)
The sub-section "Fight Song" should be merged with the intro to the sports section because it is not very elaborate and it is not parallel with the other sub-sections (football, hockey, basketball). --maclean2506:08, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
If you are interested in Michigan State Sports you should check out http://www.detroitsportsonline.com This site has a lot of coverage about State.
Lloyd Bentsen's famous retort and one of my favorite moments in political history. Read my lips: this will never become an FA, but I wanna make it as good as I possibly can. ;)
I think some context would be nice. Poll figures before and after, for example. An explnation of the effect of the quote on the campaigns (obviously it didn't help too much, because he lost). References (where did the trascript come from?) would be nice. BrokenS04:26, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I meant make it footnote style (but in retrospect that's not necessary). Also, I meant more references, not just the one. What day was the quote said on?, that should be included. BrokenS05:22, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I take it that a picture of Quayle with the caption "No Jack Kennedy" would be POV or inappropriate, right? I'm No Parking and I approved this message
a picture of him would be fine. That quote is a bit too much. Somthing mentionign the quote in the caption would be alright though. Optimally a picture from the debate should be used. BrokenS23:16, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
In the Popular Culture section, you probably want to change "George W. Bush" to "George H. W. Bush", because your citation is about the 1992 Presidential election. Jlove198205:04, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
As someone who remembers the event I find the article delightful. I'm not certain this provides enough context for people who didn't observe its effect. Vice presidential nominations seldom make more than a couple of percentage points of difference in the polls. This exchange was the most memorable moment from a vice presidential debate in two or three decades. Although it incensed some conservatives, I seem to remember widespread public agreement that Bentsen had won the debate. Durova10:34, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Any polling data available before and after the debate to back this up? It could be very useful. Or an old opinion piece in a major newspaper? This is probably a stretch, but worth a look. Harro507:07, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
More context on the campaign and the aftermath would be helpful. . .especially the reasons for Quayle's selection as VP. I think the idea for the Bush campaign was to have a younger candidate balancing with the older Bush. But it backfired and Quayle was perceived as a political lightweight. This quote cemented that image in the public mind. There was pressure for Bush to find a new running mate in the 1992 campaign, and Qualye has never been able to re-emerge as a serious national candidate. TMS6311219:51, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Need more immediate context: the first sentence should mention that this is Ireland, for example.
Similarly, a broader category (e.g. one that mentions Ireland somehow) would be nice.
The opening paragraph could flow a little smoother: some sentences seem a little fragmented. For example, Ptolomy's map (compiled about A.D. 150 from many earlier sources) shows them ... who is Ptolomy? Why does he have a map? There is a link to Ptolomy, but a little more (again) context on the page would be nice.
It's not clear if the list of pre-historic kings is in any particular order. Can you put dates next to some?
Wikipedia style calls for it to be "Pre-historic kings" (caps). Same for the other section.
The infobox needs the area and population either filled in or blanked.
An image of any of the kings, even an image with a king in it, would be a nice addition to the page.
In the image caption, make "hill fort" two words and wikify it, as it is not a generally common phrase.
This is a subject that every Wikipedia reader has been in touch with in some way or another. It is a frightening condition, and there is a lot of disinformation about it. This article has been edited into shape over the last few months and has now reached a stage where all the major points have been covered. There is a lot to say about cancers, but most of this should be on individual subpages, because cancer is not actually one disease but a group of diseases with pathogenetic similarities. I've got some specific points for this peer review request:
Do we need more sources than the present ones? If so, what source could possibly cover this apart from whole textbooks? What textbooks would be suitable to quote?
Are there any points that should be addressed in more (or less) detail?
There's little one can do about the subsections, which are needed IMHO. Same goes for the lists - I can think of only one that would benefit from prosaification. What do you mean by "inline citations"? JFW | T@lk03:57, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Inline citations = footnotes. See Wikipedia:Footnotes. If you want to get this article featured, people will highlight on the FAC that there are lists and too many sections. (which is why I mentioned them)— Wackymacs09:04, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The number of citations will definitely be an issue on FAC. The references section should, among other things, help point readers to authoritative references. What are the "standard textbooks" about cancer? What would you expect to see used in a medical school class? What books would you expect every oncologist to be familiar with?
Specific footnotes will probably be requested for most/all of the research-supported facts in the article; for example, the "Coping with cancer" section mentions that "studies show that having someone to talk to reduces stress...". In a case like this, where you're summarizing multiple studies, the most useful reference would be to a secondary source (a textbook that makes the same statement with a lot of individual references, or a summary paper), rather than to a single study showing this result.
To repeat one of my earlier Talk page comments, I still don't feel that this article does a good job of clarifying why cancer is fatal. This is one of the biggest aspects of the disease.
One of my most common FAC complaints is that an article does not provide enough background material or context. I think that this article would be somewhat difficult for a non-medically-educated reader to read from beginning to end without detouring to another article. It often uses medical jargon in contexts that don't illuminate the terms, relying on wikilinks to provide meaning. However, this article is very comprehensive and informative, and is a very good reference. And frankly, I expect that many of the people who find this article most useful will, unfortunately, already know much of the basic information. So I wouldn't object to the article on these grounds. -- Creidieki20:45, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This is a very comprehensive article. Disclaimer: I contributed to it substantially about a year ago. Kudos to those have kept the crackpot cancer stuff out of here. Rereading it now, I see one gap. This covers human cancers comprehensively. There is one comment about cancers in birds and how it is very different. It raises the question: what about cancers in other animals/organisms? Jpbrody20:29, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
There should be a seperate article about cancer in animals. While there are numerous animal models, little is known about the ideal diagnostic and therapeutic management in animals. Do you give chemo to birds? JFW | T@lk10:03, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, good detailed article. It just needs some fine-tuning and it will be ready for FAC. Here are some comments...
"Adult cancers" may benefit with two parallel tables with the type of cancer and incidence/proportion in pop (one table for men, one for women). Try experimenting to see what it might look like. This could possibly eliminate the subsections "Adult cancers" and "Childhood cancers". This section on "Types of cancer" may benefit from an explanation of what the difference is between brain, prostate, etc, cancers (are they the same but just named after where the tumor was found?)
Wikilink "p53" in "Causes and pathophysiology" sooner.
The sub-section "Origins of cancer" probably isn't required and can just serve as the introduction to the "Causes and pathophysiology" super-section. Same with the first paragraph of "Molecular biology" sub-seciton.
Probably shouldn't mention "Quackwatch" directly in the article. Just say there are different viewpoints about alternative treatments and keep Quackwatch in the footnotes.
Please reference:
"such testing has been followed by a dramatic reduction of cervical cancer..."
"...self-examination is recommended ..."
"...recently been criticisms that breast screening programs in some countries ..."
"While some people are reluctant to seek counseling, studies show that "
"Once referred to as "the C-word,""
For the statement "...cancer is presently responsible for about 25% of all deaths..." the references says 22.8% (second to heart disease) and was the "0.5% of the population " calculated from there, too?
"In some Western countries, such as the USA[1] and the UK[4], cancer is overtaking cardiovascular disease as the leading cause of death." This seems a little misleading. Please explain this a little further...for example, cancer is the #2 cause of death...rates are growing while heart disease rates are shrinking...because of better medicines, healthier foods, etc...
Finally, a general comment: while it is not a FA requirement, this article could benefit greatly from the overuse of footnotes. There are certainly many sources to draw from. I think it would be great to see a footnote in each section to a study or resource that details the subject in more depth. This could be especially useful in such sections as "Chemotherapy", "Immunotherapy", "Cancer vaccines", "Types of cancer", etc. It might be able to beat Hugo Chavez#Notes's 80 footnotes. Also, for the section "Environment and diet", and especially "Cancer research", there really should be many more references to studies related to Environment and diet, and the development of Cancer research (or historic/groundbreaking studies). --maclean2519:50, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Further, the classification section is good, but it is very technical. Can we summarise what each of those terms mean? It's quite confusing to me... I think we need to keep an audience that doesn't have a medical background in mind here, sort of like what was done with Pneumonia. - Ta bu shi da yu03:10, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
wikification
There was a complaint about wikification. That has been fixed. Earlier, an anon contributor, nevertheless knowledgeable about oncology but less so for Wikipedia overwrote wikified text with non-wikified text. The issue has now been resolved. -- Natalinasmpf17:13, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
A couple of textbooks with reasonably detailed molecular biology sections on cancer are "Molecular Cell Biology - Lodish, Berk, Matsudaira, Kaiser, Krieger, Scott, Zipursky, Darnell" and "Genes VIII - Lewin" --Sinkingpie16:50, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It's a good article and appears to be a fairly thorough treatment of the subject. About the only thing missing would be some information on the actual winners of the world championships. Their names, finish times, nations of origin, and so forth. Thanks. — RJH16:26, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I think that this would be too cumbersome. In each world championships, there are nine age/gender entry categories for two meters and nine age/gender categories for eighty meters, which is 18 winners per year for 13 world championships, not to mention the team rankings, which is all a bit much. I also think this is a level of detail that isn't really appropriate for an encyclopedic article; none of the other wikipedia articles about sports (i.e. basketball, lacrosse, rugby union, etc.) go into that level of detail. This might be more appropriate for a list article to accompany this one.--Kharker04:10, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Excellent article. I've never heard of this sport before. Several comments:
What's the deal with the 2 meters and 80 meters? what the difference, why those? it seems important...
I've added several additional sentences to that paragraph that I hope answer these questions adequately. I'm also adding a reference to one of the articles that discusses it in more depth.--Kharker15:27, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
"The first events of this nature were held in England and Denmark..." what events? contests, conferences, etc. the reference doesn't explain it either.
I've clarified this sentence. Although the source infers that competitions were being held in England and Denmark then (and they were), it is most specifically referring to the creation of formal rules.--Kharker15:27, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Russia ARDF Team web site is not a very useful as a reference. I'm not sure of the policy for foreign language references but the point of these inline citations is for easy verification of facts (and further reading on the point). Same with German in Note 18.
"Map and course details" section could use an illustrative image.
Agreed. This is a challenge, however, as essentially all ARDF/orienteering maps are owned by clubs that have paid a significant amount (tens of thousands of dollars in many cases) to have them made. The orienteering article faces the same challenge. I will ask around and see if anyone has an older map or portion of a map they are willing to release under a suitable license.--Kharker 04:10, 16 December 2005 (UTC)--Kharker04:10, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
"It immediately became popular in..." what would lead me to believe this? is there a reference that could illustrate this claim?
"As of 2005, there has been no organized ARDF activity..." as far as you know, sounds like a bold statement (open to intpretation) so should probably get a reference. Otherwise re-phrase to 'there are no registered societies' or 'no teams from x, y, z that compete in the championships'...just something more concrete.
Yes, it is harder to prove absence than existence. I've just removed that sentence - I don't think its elimination will detract from the rest of the paragraph.--Kharker15:27, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I found this as a one-sentence stub, but as I expanded it, I realized there were two concepts here. I'm not so sure the first one goes by this term. I would appreciate any suggestions or ideas on how it might be improved because I think both definitions deserve a mention. --DanielCD19:02, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
My overall impression of the article is that it is too short for the subject matter. Could you expand on what is meant by "emotional systems that are in overdrive"? You could also include material on treatments, and perhaps an explanation of why this behavior evolved the way it did. I suspect that further research on this topic will disclose additional interesting material that can be edited and merged. The page could also use some references, and perhaps an image or two. Thank you. — RJH16:08, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This article has undergone a great deal of really quality improvement since its appearance on Articles needing attention several months ago. I feel it is ready for a review in order to hear suggestions on improvements. KillerChihuahua18:51, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Lots of good stuff there, but like much writing on Native Americans, it essentially locks its subject matter in the past: most of this article could fall under the heading "Comanches in the 19th century". More information on the people in the present, and over the last 100 years, is needed, as well as letting readers know which parts of the "culture" section refers only to traditional culture, as opposed to current practices. --Kevin Myers | (complaint dept.)13:31, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you so much for your response and insight! I had thought that myself, but have been uncertain how best to address it. I was thinking of creating a Comanche nation article, and making it more clear in the article intro that the article Comanche was about the historical Comanche people. This would address the issue without making the current article even longer. Of course any modern or current content would be moved to the new article. I would appreciate feedback on that idea. KillerChihuahua13:59, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Very good article. Few comments: it could benefit from an image & description of their villages/camps (eg. the layout, organization, locational decision, etc.). I agree with Kevin Myers above that the history is not balanced, it needs more 20th century discussion. The "Culture" section could use a small re-organization. This section is very long compared to the previous one. It could have the Childbirth/Raising Children/Coming of Age/Marriage/Death sub-sections form their own section about their lifecycle. Even Clothing/Hair and headgear/Body Decoration could form another section about their dress. Anyways, whatever is chosen try to avoid sections without any text (like "Culture"), use that area to bring the main points of sub-sections together so the reader has an initial picture in their head about what is about to be discussed in detail. --maclean2519:22, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Check all the blue links and make sure they link to the proper location and not to disambig pages.
The technicality of this article sometimes gets really thick. In other words, try reading this as someone who has little or no knowledge of codes. I think you might make some room to briefly explain some of the technical aspects of codes and code-breaking.
The sections on Rejewski's personal life are all fairly short. Perhaps they could be combined into one section?
The Posthumous recognition sections seems very short...perhaps combine it with personal life?
The image of the cyclometer is not tagged. I think the image also needs to be enlarged so that the letters are visible without having to click on the image.
Thanks for the encouraging comments, Ganymead. In the last couple of weeks, the sections on Rejewski's personal life and post-war life/recognition have both been expanded (and other sections have been beefed up a little, too). I've replaced the image of the cyclometer with a new image. — Matt Crypto17:03, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Add more hyperlinks. For example, in the first para of the lead, terms like 'war' (which one?) or 'defeat of Germany' can be linked to more specific articles, and I can see several similar possible links in the following paragraphs.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul PiotrusTalk22:31, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This article has improved alot since it last had a peer review. It has gone from a long choppy list to a detailed and well referanced article(it has 59 seperate sources). It details the background to the event and the effects as well as details of day itself.
I believe the artile is comprehensive, factually accurate, neutral, and stable and would like to know how it can improved further so that it could achive featured article status.--JK the unwise14:10, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Terms in bold in the lead should not be linked (at least that's what I remember the last time I checked, I can't seem to verify that now)
Per WP:MOS, the first letters of words in heading should not be capitalized unless: 1) it is a proper noun or 2) it is the first word of the heading.
Changed "Other Areas in Asia" to "Other areas in Asia" which was the only one that I could find. I am assuming that "Western Europe" is a proper noun.--JK the unwise13:28, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
As is done in WP:FOOTNOTE, for footnotes, the footnote should be located right after the punctuation mark, such that there is no space inbetween. For example, change blah blah [2]. to blah blah.[2]
D'oh!, I have just reolised that I misread this comment and I have changed all the fullstops in the wroung direction! I'll have to fix this tommorrow.--JK the unwise14:40, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Per WP:CONTEXT and WP:MOSDATE, years, decades, and centuries without full dates generally should not be linked. For example, January2006 should not be linked, instead change it to January 2006. Also, please note WP:BTW and WP:CONTEXT, which state that years with full dates should be linked. For example, February 28, 2006, should be come February 28, 2006.
There are a few sections that are too short and that should be either expanded or merged. For example, Polar is/are a bit short.
Per WP:MOSNUM, at Units of measurement, numbers with SI units of measure should have conversions in US customary units and vice versa. These conversions should keep to similar values of precision. For example, "the Moon is 380,000 kilometres (240,000 mi) from Earth". Note that the converted unit of measure uses a standard abbreviation, while the source unit is spelled out in the text.
Added km coversion of distance of Glasglow march and °F conversion for tempreture of Canada protests and mi/h conversion for windspeed on a Canada demo.--JK the unwise10:43, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Per WP:MOSNUM, there should be a no-break space - between a number and the unit of measurement. For example, instead of 18mm, use 18 mm, which when you are editing the page, should look like: 18 mm.
J. S. Woodsworth is the founding father of Canada's third largest political party. This article tells his story concisely, and, I hope, engagingly. What does it need to bring it to FA status? Denni☯02:55, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The lead could be expanded to 2 paragraphs, the second should mention what did in his political career. I think the childhood and early ministry sections should be merged since the childhood section is really quite short - perhaps just called early life and ministry. I think the prose could use some work, there are quite a few paragraphs begining in year x he did y. I also didn't get a good idea of what his socialist ideals were when I read the article.
I would also suggest updating the image copyright info on the first image so that it meets all the fair use requirements- since the non-commercial licence will probablt be an issue on FAC.--nixie22:29, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion on what Wooodsworth did as leader of the CCF between 1932 and 1939 is rather thin. One minor point, maybe the ISBNs of Woodsworth's books could be supplied if they exist. Other than that, an excellent, well written article almost there as a FAC. Luigizanasi05:35, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The quotations will need references (if from books, then to specific page numbers). Can the influence from his grandfather be expanded - I didn't understand the 1837 Rebellions-grandfather-J.S.W. connection. Being in London in the 1890s is pretty big in terms of public health and social activism so this could be expanded upon. A really good book on this is Atlantic Crossings: Social politics in a progressive age ISBN 0674002016 which describes how such social politics made its way from Britain to North America (and vice versa) during the turn-of-the-century. If it mentions Woodsworth specifically then it would be very valuable for this article. I would like to see a more detailed description of his activities as an MP. Also, the NDP abandoning "Woodsworth's idealistic vision" thing should probably be more specific. Otherwise, it is a great article, well on its way to becoming a FA. --maclean2518:20, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
![[7]](http://www.nnp.org/newvtour/images/van_der_donck.jpg){kind=link}