Wikipedia:Peer review

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Wikipedia's Peer review process exposes articles to closer scrutiny from a broader group of editors, and is intended for high-quality articles that have already undergone extensive work, often as a way of preparing a featured article candidate. It is not academic peer review by a group of experts in a particular subject, and articles that undergo this process should not be assumed to have greater authority than any other. For feedback on articles that are less developed, use the article's talk page or requests for feedback. For general editing advice, see Wikipedia style guidelines, Wikipedia how-to, "How to write a great article", and "The perfect article". Articles that need extensive basic editing should be directed to Pages needing attention, Requests for expansion or Cleanup, and content or neutrality disputes should be listed at Requests for comment.	Shortcut: WP:PR The path to a featured article Start a new article Develop the article Check against the featured article criteria Get creative feedback ← Apply for featured article status Featured articles
Nomination procedure Anyone can request peer review. The best way to get lots of reviews is to reply promptly and appreciatively on this page to any comments. If you post a request, please do not discourage reviewers by ignoring their efforts. While not required it is strongly encouraged that users submitting new peer review requests choose an article from those already listed to peer review. Preference should be given to those articles which have been listed the longest with little or no response (not including automated peer reviews). To add a nomination: Place {{peerreview}} at the top of the article's talk page, creating a peer review notice to notify other editors of the review. Within the notice, click "request has been made" to open a new discussion page. Place ===[[ARTICLE NAME]]=== at the top, with the name of your article in the link brackets, and then note the kind of comments/contributions you want, and/or the sections of the article you think need reviewing. Sign with four tildes (~~~~) and save the new page. Edit this page here, pasting {{Wikipedia:Peer review/ARTICLE NAME}} at the top of the list of nominees. Your review may be more successful if you politely request feedback on the discussion pages of related articles and/or send messages to Wikipedians who have contributed to the same or a related field. You may wish to request peer review on the appropriate Wikiproject; the request will automatically be listed here as well. How to respond to a request Review one of the articles below. If you think something is wrong—e.g., article length, the lead section, poor grammar/spelling, factual errors—post a comment in the article's section on this page. If you create a subsection within a review for your comments, please do not link your username: it is easily confused with an article title. Feel free to correct the article yourself. Please consider noting your edits here to keep others informed about the article's progress. How to remove a request In accordance with the Peer review request removal policy, you may remove to the current archive any inactive listings or listings older than one month, inappropriate or abandoned listings (where the nominator has not replied to comments) articles that have become featured article candidates After removing the listing, contributors should replace the {{peerreview}} tag on the article's talk page with {{oldpeerreview}}. How to resubmit a request If your request has been removed, please feel free to renominate it for peer review at a later time: Move the old peer review page to [[Wikipedia:Peer review/ARTICLE NAME/Archive1]] Edit [[Wikipedia:Peer review/ARTICLE NAME]], removing the redirect, and insert [[Wikipedia:Peer review/ARTICLE NAME/Archive1]] as a link to the archived discussion. Place {{Wikipedia:Peer review/ARTICLE NAME}} at the top of the list of nominees below. Current archive: June 2007 Purge server cache

Related pages:

Topic-specific peer reviews (full list):

Other peer reviews:

Contents 1 Requests 1.1 Steve Nash 1.2 E (mathematical constant) 1.3 Exponential growth and decay 1.4 Mathematical formulas 1.5 Truro 1.6 Peanuts 1.6.1 Review by karanas 1.7 Andrew Cunningham, 1st Viscount Cunningham of Hyndhope 1.8 Sai Baba of Shirdi 1.9 Max Fleischer 1.10 Heteronormativity 1.11 Presbyterian Ladies' College, Sydney 1.12 Colorado Avalanche 1.13 Operation Bot Roast 1.14 Glenrothes 1.15 Alcoholics Anonymous 1.16 Serranus Clinton Hastings 1.16.1 Review by karanacs 1.17 Constitution of Belarus 1.18 Spider Wars 1.19 Prince George, British Columbia 1.20 1981 Irish hunger strike 1.21 Redwall 1.22 I Not Stupid 1.22.1 Jayron32's response 1.22.2 Boochans Response 1.23 The Power of Nightmares 1.24 Póvoa de Varzim 1.25 Patrick Henry College 1.26 Ethnic conflict 1.27 Sai Baba of Shirdi 1.28 Alternative Ulster 1.29 2007 SCSSRU Premier Division Grand Final 1.30 Katie Hopkins 1.30.1 Gran2 1.30.2 Review by karanacs 1.31 Mozart piano concertos 1.32 Pullman Square 1.33 Tamsin Greig 1.34 Katie Hopkins 1.35 Music of Israel 1.36 Orion (mythology) 1.37 Cohesion (chemistry) 1.38 DC++ 1.39 Jackie Chan 1.40 The Mummy (1999 film) 1.40.1 Lenin & McCarthy 1.41 Bobby Robson 1.42 Notting Hill (film) 1.43 2007 SCSSRU Premier Division Grand Final 1.44 USB Decoration 1.45 Flag of Ireland 1.46 Battlefield Earth (film) 1.47 U.S. Città di Palermo 1.47.1 Comments from The Rambling Man 1.48 Kondō Isami 1.49 Introduction to general relativity 1.50 Yuji Ide 1.51 Comments by PsychLess 1.52 Transaction privilege tax 1.52.1 Automated Peer-Review 1.53 Cantabria 1.54 Io (moon) 1.55 Troy McClure 1.55.1 Review by SpecialWindler 1.56 ACT (examination) 1.56.1 Review by Anomie 1.57 The Secret (2006 film) 1.58 Chicago Board of Trade Building 1.59 Taiwan under Japanese rule 1.60 Rutger Hauer filmography 1.61 List of nationality transfers in sport 1.62 Perth Airport 1.63 Interstate 476 1.64 Natasha Bedingfield 1.65 Final Destination 1.66 Wind It Up (Gwen Stefani song) 1.67 Pilot (Smallville) 1.68 Smallville pilot review 1.69 The Holocaust 1.70 Jiskairumoko 1.71 Ambulance 1.72 The Legend of Zelda: Twilight Princess 1.73 Super Nintendo Entertainment System 1.74 Back to the Future 1.75 Days of our Lives 1.75.1 Observations by J Milburn 1.75.2 Comments by Frutti di Mare 1.76 Waite Phillips 1.77 Make-Up (band) 1.78 J. R. Richard 1.79 Radiotrophic fungus 1.80 Blyth, Northumberland 1.81 Juventus F.C. 1.81.1 Review by SpecialWindler 1.81.2 Review by The Rambling Man 1.81.3 Comments by ChrisTheDude 1.82 Molybdenum 1.82.1 Review by SpecialWindler 1.83 Terry Pratchett 1.84 Battle of Arras (1917) 1.85 Disinvestment from South Africa 1.86 Middlesbrough F.C. 1.87 William Bruce (architect) 1.88 Boar 1.89 History of poison 1.90 Cthulhu 1.91 List of Connecticut tornadoes 1.92 Carlos Zambrano 1.93 New York Yankees 1.94 The Guerilla Filmmakers Handbook 1.95 Nutrition Assistance for Puerto Rico 1.95.1 User:BirgitteSB 1.96 Chris Young (baseball pitcher) 1.96.1 Extraneous information 1.96.2 These just need to be re-written 1.97 Raëlian Church 1.98 Octopus card 1.99 Daniel Bernard Roumain 1.100 President of Pakistan 1.101 Habbo Hotel 1.102 Bratislava 1.103 AEMT-CC 1.104 Itzik Zohar 1.105 Havasupai 1.106 Sargon of Akkad 1.107 Eaton Canyon 1.108 Mr. Bungle 1.109 San Juan, Puerto Rico 1.110 Denton, Texas 1.110.1 Notable Residents 1.111 Black church 1.112 Paul Cornell (Chicago) 1.112.1 User:SpecialWindler 1.112.2 Jayron32's Review 1.113 Green Knight 1.113.1 Review by Awadewit 1.114 Harry Potter parodies 1.115 Blackstone Hotel 1.116 Merle Reskin Theatre 1.117 Ginsenoside 1.118 Azusa Street Revival 1.119 David H. Hickman High School 1.120 Cyclogenesis 1.121 The Big O 1.122 Skipper Roberts 1.123 Radiohead 1.124 Azumanga Daioh 1.125 Chad 1.125.1 Brian's review 1.126 Howitzer 1.127 Architects (Registration) Acts, 1931 to 1938 1.128 Californication (album) 1.128.1 Automated suggestions 1.128.2 Comments from CloudNine 1.128.3 LuciferMorgan 1.128.4 Comments from AllynJ 1.129 Aberdeen 1.130 Water Cycle 1.131 Nadir Afonso 2 Archives

[edit] Requests

[edit] Steve Nash

Has undergone some changes, still needs some tweaking. Some help would be much appreciated. Warrush 18:00, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] E (mathematical constant)

I'm attempting to get this core article to GA status. I previously nominated it for GA status, and the article went through several dramatic changes before being (temporarily) failed for lack of stability. I'd like to get additional feedback and suggestions for the article before I renominate. Thank you. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 14:12, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Some comments:

• I have a slight issue with the first sentence, because it appears to be using circular reasoning for the definition. e is the base of the natural logarithm, but the natural logarithm is defined as a logarithm to the base e. That doesn't seem very informative to me. The image to the right of the lead does a better job, I think, so perhaps e could also be defined in terms of the exponential function within the lead?
• It might be helpful if the "compound-interest problem" section showed how the result extended to such real-world examples as population growth, the spread of disease, and radioactive decay.
• A substantial portion of the text consists of mathematical formulae that may not be of general interest. But I'm not sure how that could be addressed.
• There is some redundancy between the "Alternative characterizations" and "Representations of e" sub-sections. Should they be consolidated? — RJH (talk) 15:36, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

I hope this was somewhat helpful. Thanks. :-) — RJH (talk) 15:36, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

I have made comments below on two of the points. These certainly merit further discussion, so I have sectioned them off accordingly. Silly rabbit 16:39, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Exponential growth and decay

All points are worth addressing, in my opinion. But allow me to zero in one the second bullet point for a moment. While it is certainly true that exponential functions play the fundamental role in all exponential growth and decay models, it is difficult to justify in general terms why one should use the peculiar base e. This is one reason for focusing on the probability applications rather than those manifestly involving exponential growth and decay: the number e arises quite naturally. It may be reasonable to include a mention of the applications of exponential functions (these are dealt with in other articles), but I would resist placing any emphasis on them here unless someone can come up with a convincing example why one would use e as the base rather than some other number. It's important to bear in mind that this article focuses on the number e rather than the function e^x. Silly rabbit 16:39, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Mathematical formulas

It's going to be hard to get rid of the mathematical formulas in the text. Already many formulas were moved to the Representations of e article. The trouble with e is that it is so intimately tied up with ideas of calculus, and to give a proper discussion seems to involve using formulas. There are levels of general interest to consider too. I doubt there is any way to make a compelling case for the number to someone who is unfamiliar with the basic ideas of differentiation, integration, and/or limits. The derangements example may come close, but that is mathematically sophisticated in other ways. Silly rabbit 16:39, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Truro

Attempting GA or FA status for the article, any ideas for improvement appreciated. --Joowwww 12:46, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Peanuts

This is a cultural masterpiece of the XXth century. The main problem with the last GAC was the lack of references. Althought this has been partially adressed, it is still very far from GA level. Please help point out the assertions for which a ref is absolutely necessary. Any other comments on how to advance to GA or FA level is welcome.

[edit] Review by karanas

• I've added the {{fact}} tag in the article where I thought citations were necessary. Sorry if it seems a little tag-heavy, but the information had to have come from somewhere, or it wouldn't be in the article, right? Basically, you need at least one citation for every paragraph. You should be especial notice to citations for the literary criticism of the work or it looks too much like Original research. Also, ALL quotations must be cited.
• Citations don't need to be placed in the middle of a sentence. Instead, put all citations for that sentence at the end of the sentence.
• Per WP:MOS, single years should not be linked (1948).
• Need a better transition between Li'l Folks info an Saturday Evening Post sentence
• The second paragraph of History section doesn't flow well - seems like two small paragraphs stuck together.
• " they decided to go for " seems too informal for an encyclopedia article.
• "By the time the first Sunday strip appeared," - this could be interpreted that it refers to the first Sunday strip ever, not the first Peanuts Sunday strip
• Do not put facts in parantheses; find a way to incorporate the info into the paragraph.
• I noticed that your time magazine source has statistics on the number of people who were following the strip. You should try to incorporate that information, as well as the info on what languages it has been translated into.
• You need to edit the article for weasel words, unless they occur in very well-cited areas. Examples: "airport's amusing logo", "most popular", "memorable"
• The sole citation in Television and film productions section is not formatted properly
• Cast recordings section needs to be reworked. IT is just a collection of one-sentence paragraphs that either need to be merged into more paragraph form or removed. Can you cite those using the recording itself?
• instead of using the word "currently", say as of 2007, because if someone reads this in 2009 that may no longer be true.
• do not include external links within the text
• I think you could probably trim a lot of the info in Other licensed appearances and merchandise and possibly in the recordings section.
• Make sure all of your citations have a publisher listed.

Karanacs 16:48, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Andrew Cunningham, 1st Viscount Cunningham of Hyndhope

Hi, this has just passed A-Class Review on the Military History project and i thought it should be reviewed here as well to even it out and get any additional comments if necessary. Thanks Woodym555 19:16, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sai Baba of Shirdi

This article is at present rated as B, I think it deserves higher rating/status. I would like to raise it first to GA status, than to A class and than to FA status. (I have already requested ordinary peer review and I already nominated the article for FA but without success). Please inform me about any mistakes in the article or things that should be improved. Kkrystian 09:12, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Max Fleischer

I have done major editing and cleanup on this article. I have concerns that much of the information on this page overlaps with Fleischer Studios. Obviously some overlap is necessary, but it's also a pain to maintain the same info in multiple places. (I believe the two articles are at least consistent.)

I believe the article is considerably improved, but since I'm fairly new at this process, I'm requesting peer review. --Bigscarymike 04:01, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Heteronormativity

I am nominating this article for review because the defense of section is problematic in several ways:

* it has NPOV issues
* it does not explain the reasoning, references, or thinkers who defend heteronormativity
* it requires prior knowledge about a celebrity "scandal" in order to be understood
* it does not engage the material in an academic manner, which is important, being that heteronormativity is an academic construct
* it does not cite appropriate sources

In addition, the section is poorly written. Jmsast 20:50, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Presbyterian Ladies' College, Sydney

I've been working on this article for quite a few months and am now a bit stuck on how to improve it further. Article was recently rated as B/High and "considered close, if not already at GA class". Would love some feedback/constructive criticism in order to reach atleast GA class. Thanks! Loopla 07:19, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

I am the one that recently gave it a assessment for WikiProject Schools following a request. I gave it B class as that was the highest I could give without a peer review. I have read through the article and I can confidently say it meets GA class - with a maybe on A or FA class. The main strengths in the article are is it covers notable topics well with sensible use of pictures and is well referenced with multiple sources used. I would also like to hear more feedback on this article so we can reach a fair rating and find any weaknesses. Camaron1 | Chris 12:14, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

I have received some feedback at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Schools/Assessment on this. Recommendations to improve the article include:

• Facilities section needs to re-organised and put into a prose format with trivial details removed.
• School uniform section should be summarised with trivial details removed.
• Some more information on the curriculum for the school to help a general audience.

Most of the feedback seems to be in reference to Wikipedia:WikiProject Schools#Structure. Camaron1 | Chris 14:18, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

I think this is v near a Good Article and will certainly be after the mods above. Well done to all concerned. Victuallers 14:34, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Colorado Avalanche

Archive 1

I'm renominating this article for peer review, aiming for FA. Most (if not all) of the issues from the previous peer review were addressed and the article was very much improved and expanded since then. So, give your suggestions and feedback on what is missing for it to become a Featured Article. Thanks--Serte ^{[ Talk · Contrib ]} 21:05, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Operation Bot Roast

Created article. Seems to be taking shape. Would like some feedback. Thanks! Jerry G. Sweeton Jr. 14:19, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Glenrothes

This article has come on leaps and bounds over the past 6 months and I think its time for a review. The article is overlong and needs some pruning (the "History" section in particular), however it is well written and very informative.

(Mcwesty 12:35, 20 June 2007 (UTC))

[edit] Alcoholics Anonymous

Feel this controversial article could still do with some real help. I feel it is biased in favour of AA. I am in an edit war, which is kind of pathetic. I would really like someone to review it, and if possible get involved. I dont think either I, or the other regular editors, are capable of being NPOV on this matter. PLEASE HELP 82.19.66.37 23:41, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm not really asking for a review for the path to featured article, but ways to improve this article. This article has a little bit of controversy, with a group of people claiming that AA is a cult, overly religous, it's validity, etc. I would like to find the best way to cover all aspects of this in the article, but it's already kind of long (with lots of great information). I'm looking for ways we can restructure the article, reorganize things, and make sure all points of view are addressed while still NPOV. Thanks!--Twintone 18:50, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

• Comment I think people saying that AA is a cult are probably wrong - Alcoholics Anonymous is a self-help group, well, as far as I'm aware. Any questions, ask on my talk page. --SunStar Net 18:54, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

AA has had accusations of being cult-like from a fairly wide variety of sources. As far as I am concerned, the jury is still out. If it is, then it is one of the less damaging ones (though that is not to say not damaging at all). I think a thorough examination of both sides of that argument would be useful. 82.19.66.37 23:41, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

on Dictionary.com they say a cult could be any system for treating human sickness that originated by a person usually claiming to have sole insight into the nature of disease, and that employs methods regarded as unorthodox or unscientific. Now, Bill never said he had "sole" insight into the disease, but that is just "usually".

a group or sect bound together by veneration of the same thing, person, ideal, etc. While AA is not bound together by veneration of the same person or thing, AA is definately bound by an ideal. Now, I don't think AA will ever order an attack on a subway with Sarin gas. I know they wont ever order suicide by drinking Vodka and taking Phenobarbital and then putting plastic over their head.-- ¢² Connor K.   20:54, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

AA does have some religious tenets, and the supreme court in America described it as such (as detailed in the articles "coercion" section). Similarly, Bill W's teachings are often held in such high regard that to question will bring a similar reaction to that of a satanist in an Easter ceremony. Read "AA Horror Stories" for examples of when these tenets have been corrupted and then exploited by cult like factions of AA, or look into the "Midtown AA Group" in Washington.

Interestingly, Bill kind of did imply that he had a "special cure" for alcoholism, with the following from the 12x12: " Any willing newcomer feels sure A.A. is the only safe harbor for the foundering vessel he has become." Twelve Steps and Twelve Traditions, William Wilson, page 35 82.19.66.37 23:41, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

From what I have read, there is a considerable insistence that AA's methods are the only effective way to control excess drinking. In fact, other people do seem to succeed by other methods (without appeal to a higher power, without total abstention, etc). Insisting that their way is the only possible way, contrary to the facts, is a cult-like behavior.

Having said that, I don't think that throwing around the word "cult" is very useful -- but it would be good if properly cited critics were properly explained. Subsolar 06:57, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Could not agree more. Was hoping to get some "unbiased" (which excludes me!) editors to do a bit of work on the AA page. I would be happy to advise, as I am sure would other regular editors on the page. I think we could do with someone interested in learning more about the subject, who is experienced with wiki, to make this article give a balanced view of AA.82.19.66.37 23:41, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Informed AA members do not insist "that AA's methods are the "only" effective way to control excess drinking." p. 20-21 of the basic text of Alcoholics Anonymous describes moderate drinkers who can take it or leave it, hard drinkers who, given "sufficiently strong reason", can stop or moderate, and then there are "real alcoholics" who have both the allergic reaction cited in the Doctor's Opinion (Silkworth) and the obsession of the mind mentioned elsewhere. The basic text says its solution is fitting for those who have progressed to the point where they are beyond human aid. Informative websites can be found by searching for "primary purpose group". Many AA members are quite willing to say, "if it works for you, great! But, if you're a real alcoholic, my experience..." user:Don Karabelnikoff Don@Karabelnikoff.net 17:57, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Many AA members do state that AA is the only way though. I have witnessed it myself. It is well documented by others (Stanton Peele, Charles Buffe, The Orange Papers website). Comments in the big book imply it strongly, such as "you may be suffering from an illness which only a spiritual experience will conquer." or "At first some of us tried to avoid the issue, hoping against hope we were not true alcoholics. But after a while we had to face the fact that we must find a spiritual basis of life -- or else." 82.19.66.37 23:41, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

• Comment Ok. This article will now be ripped apart my critique:

• "The stated "primary purpose" of A.A. members is to stay sober and help other alcoholics do the same." Grammar needs work, try this: "The official "primary purpose" of Alcoholics Anonymous is to help dipsomaniacs become sober.
• "A.A. teaches that to recover an alcoholic should abstain completely from alcohol.[1] and offers a community of recovering people who help each other and "work" the twelve steps." What ever happened to capitalizing after a period/not starting with the work and? Try: A.A teaches dipsomaniacs that complete recovery requires complete abstenance from alcohol. In place, it offers a community for recovering alcoholics who mutually assist their peers in reaching complete sobriety."
• This article uses alcoholics and A.A WAY TOO MUCH! In place of alcoholics, switch some up with dipsomaniacs, and in place of A.A, switch it up with Alcoholics Anonymous.
• "...listed as “nonalcoholic friends of the fellowship”[2])." Order of words to be changed. Citations after quotes and/or periods, periods inside quotations. Ergo, it should be like this: "...listed as "nonalcoholic friends of the fellowship.")[2] Besides this, the following is wrong, the bold comma must be inserted into the real passage: "alcoholics (aside from 7 out of 21 members of the A.A. Board of trustees, who are listed as “nonalcoholic friends of the fellowship”[2]). The previous clause is way too long not to have that comma there. Generally, 3 words in any prepositional phrase/clause requires a following comma; a good message for this article.
• NO DOUBLE DASHES!!! It's ugly and unencylcopedic. Here's a sampling of when this article does this: "Silkworth meant Jesus Christ--advice Silkworth had also given..."; "A "phenomenon of craving" -- with the first drink the alcoholic..." Stop it. Also, either put Great Physician in quotations or just come out and say G-d. It's extremely POV and horribly religiously offensive to say Jesus Christ in this sort of article. Remove this.
• Right here's a mess of miswritten code: http://www.gutenberg.org/etext/621 Varieties of Religious Experience] Silkworth had also read this book which contained many conversion accounts. Bill spent the better part of the day pouring through its contents and concluded that his experience was like those reported by James. Dale Mitchel, The Little Doctor Who Loved Drunks, Hazelden. Silkworth advised Bill that had undergone a genuine conversion. In A.A. Comes of Age, Wilson states that Dr. Silkworth "reminded me of Professor William James's observation that truly transforming spiritual experiences are nearly always founded on calamity and collapse."

Half of that was in italics, and the link should be a citation. Why is that extra ], I don't know. Fix that. I think I gave you enough work. Drop a message by when you're ready for more. Evan^{(Salad dressing is the milk of the infidel!)} 21:27, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

• Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, AZ _t 22:36, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Serranus Clinton Hastings

I think it would be interesting to have an article on an Iowa representative get GA status. I've worked fairly hard on this, but I know this would not come close to satisfying criterion 1a. If I was going for FA that is. Whether it can get GA status or not I'd just like to see the article improved from the peer review. References are a problem on this one since the ones I have are basically the only ones there are. --Psychless 04:26, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Review by karanacs

Overall, I think almost every sentence is well-written, but you need to work on your transitions between facts.

• Lead should be expanded a bit.
• When did Iowa become a territory (for those of us not from the state)
• I'm confused about the 1838 election -- were his two terms consecutive or concurrent and was he elected to both of them at the same time (or was one of them in 1839)?
• Last four sentences of the first paragraph of career seem to be kind of thrown in there -- don't flow at all with each other or the paragraph before.
• When did Iowa become a state?
• Why was his first term in the federal legislature so short?
• Need to transition more smoothly between march 3, 1847 and Gov. Ansel Briss appointed him...
• Any information on why he decided to move to California?

*Is it important that he converted to Catholicism? If you can't find any information on his reasons or whether it affected his life, this is trivia and could be removed. Likewise, the information on his personal appearance could be considered trivia unless you can find a better way to work it into the article. Done Good luck! Karanacs 02:03, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't know why he moved to California, and can't find any source that tells why he did. I've removed the personal life section and incorporated the marraige and children bit into the career section of the article. Catholicism is just listed as his religion in the infobox now. I've tried to expand the lead as best I can. Any further comments on the article would be appreciated. Psychless 23:11, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Your changes look good. Here are some additional suggestions

• suggestion: "When Iowa became a territory in 1838, he got involved in the territory's politics. In 1838, he was elected as a member of the House of the First Legislative Assembly." -> "When Iowa became a territory in 1838, he became involved in politics, winning election to be a member of the House of the First Lesiglative Assembly."
• You might be able to expand the article a bit by talking a little about the "Blue Book" of Iowa laws. What did it encompass and what is its importance? You could also mention some of the early laws that were passed by the assemblies in which he served.
• The two sentences on the border conflict with Missouri should be rewritten. Possibly expand.
• You mention in the lead that the law school he founded is now the Law Department at UC. This should also be mentioned in the body of the article.

Karanacs 17:39, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Constitution of Belarus

After about a few months of tinkering and still trying to achieve good article status, I feel the article is ready to march towards possible featured status. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 22:14, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Spider Wars

What I hope to get out of this review are ways to improve upon wording, phrasing and just and overall opinion on where this article is at the moment. Some suggestions regarding the pictures would be nice as well. --Spikeleefan 21:56, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

• Sorry to have to be so negative, but... this article is in effect one long plot summary, which is not recommended per Wikipedia:Notability (fiction). It's also nearly devoid of references and has very little detail on real world factors such as production costs, where the cells were painted, the producer and editor, &c. The trivia should be folded into the article or eliminated, per Wikipedia:Avoid trivia sections in articles. — RJH (talk) 22:33, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Prince George, British Columbia

See my comments on the talk page [1] and the page history [2]. I think we need some expert advice here before things start looking sloppy.CindyBo 19:20, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 1981 Irish hunger strike

Recently passed GA, and I would like comments on how to improve the article for FA status. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 12:41, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

I love the article and don't see anything I would directly change, however it might be better if you allow the strikers tables to be sorted. For information on sortable tables, go to http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Help:Sorting Professor Davies 17:42, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll take a look. I know very little about tables, so any help with those is appreciated. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 17:52, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Redwall

Redwall is one of the most well-known fantasy series of the past 20 years, attracting fans of all ages. This is the page for the overall series, not one individual novel. The article has improved quite a bit over the past year or so, but it still lacks content, editing, and refinement before it can trult be considered a "Good" article. I think it could benefit from a quality peer review. - Runch 18:17, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Excellent! I was a fan of these books when I was younger. Glad to see people are working on this article. One big thing I see is that a lot of the summary section could be moved to the characters and locations sections. Most of this section is well written, I just think a summary section should include more of the basic plot of the stories and less of commentary and heavy universe description. Wrad 21:35, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] I Not Stupid

On 26 December 2006, the article's GA nomination was failed by ExplorerCDT (who has not edited since 8 February 2007). He cited the following two reasons for failing the article:

• The prose is choppy and the article contains too many two-sentence paragraphs and short sections.
• The images are poorly placed.

Please offer advice and suggestions on addressing these concerns, so I Not Stupid can become a GA. Note that due to external systemic bias, finding referenced information on Singaporean movies is difficult. This has hindered my ability to add information to and improve the prose in the Production section. For more information, you may wish to read the mini-argument between ExplorerCDT, myself and several of my Wikifriends shortly after the GA nomination was failed.

The lack of referenced information means that I Not Stupid will never become an FA, so I do not need advice on meeting criteria that apply to FA status but not GA status.

This article has previously undergone two peer reviews:

• The first peer review, filed to prepare the GA nomination.
• The second peer review, filed after the GA nomination failed, received very little response.

--J.L.W.S. The Special One 01:34, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Jayron32's response

As a frequent GA reviewer, and also frequent FA reviewer, I must note that the differences between GA and FA status are not as great as usually assumed. The 3 main differences between the two types of reviews are:

1. GA's require only "broad" coverage while FA's require "comprehensive" coverage; thus GA status may be accorded to articles that are often far too short to be considered Featurable.
2. GA's require correct grammar, spelling, and no overt violations of the Manual of Style with regard to article organization. FA's require brilliant, compelling prose, with a strict adherance to ALL aspects of the MOS. Thus, GA's may be passed with less stringent requirements on the quality of writing.
3. GA's require a single reviewer to apply the criteria to the article. FA's require a consensus of several reviewers to pass.

It should be noted specifically, that in other areas, such as verifiability(referencing), neutrality, and stability, the criteria for GA's and FA's are nearly IDENTICAL. As applies to this article, the referencing requirments for a GA are NOT less stringent than for an FA. If you read the two standards: WP:WIAGA and WP:WIAFA you find that:

• A Good Article requires: a) references to sources used b) cites reliable sources for quotations and for material that is challenged or likely to be challenged, preferably using inline citations for longer articles c) contains no original research.
• A Featured Article requires: claims are verifiable against reliable sources and accurately represent the related body of published knowledge. Claims are supported with specific evidence and external citations; this involves the provision of a "References" section in which sources are set out, complemented by inline citations for quotations and for material that is challenged or likely to be challenged.

The only real difference is that the guidelines were written by different editors and so use a few different words; in spirit GA's and FA's have the same referencing standards. If, as you say, the references needed to bring this up to standard simply don't exist, than (and I feel bad about saying this) the article will probably never be even a GA. It should not stop you from TRYING to improve the article until it meets as much of the requirments as possible; but the non-existance of source material does not simply eliminate the requirement that the article be properly referenced. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 04:02, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Jayron32, thanks for providing information on the differences between the FA criteria and GA criteria.

References are few, but they do exist (as the 28 citations prove). Are the few references that are available sufficient for GA status? Probably, if we use them well (a reference can be used multiple times) and are not overly stringent on reliability.

With the few references available, writing most sections (except the Plot section, where the movie is the assumed reference point) is a matter of perusing each reference for information, and adding any useful information I can find to the article, mentioning the reference it came from. This leads to poorly-organised information and low-quality prose. The Production section is the most glaring example of this.

As my command of English is of a near-native level, not a native level, I don't think I can produce "brilliant, compelling prose" (although I aspire to be a professional writer). However, I believe I am perfectly capable of writing prose that meets GA criterion 1a. Perhaps you could evaluate the prose in each section, fixing any spelling or grammatical errors you spot (note that the article is written in British English) and offering advice on improving the prose to ensure it meets criterion 1a.

You mentioned that the FA criteria demands "comprehensiveness" while the GA criteria only requires "broad coverage". After you read the article, do you think the following comment by ExplorerCDT would only apply if I was aiming for "comprehensiveness", but does not apply since only "broad coverage" is needed for GA?

"[The article offers] only a cursory or perfunctory examination of subject and its reception or effects on possible reforms [sic] Singapore's education system. Does not delve into depth concerning the extent of the satire and satirical devices, omits a few important themes of the movie."

Lastly, what advice do you have to offer regarding images? (NOTE: In my entire reply, by "you", I am referring not only to Jayron32, but to anyone who reviews this article.)

--J.L.W.S. The Special One 06:32, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Some notes on expanding the article:

• Consider turing the cast section into prose, perhaps by expanding each main character into a paragraph long description of that character, and/or specific critical reviews of performance of the actors that played them.
• Shorter paragraphs could be expanded by including specific examples and quotes, perhaps. For examples:

• you could expand on the concept of streaming, in the "Political satire" section.
• You could expand the paragraph beginning with "other issues" by including specific examples of each issue you raise from the film.
• You could expand the paragraph "Following its success in Singapore..." by including specific critical reviews of the film from each country cited and perhaps commercial success or total viewership data for each nation, or for those where it can be found.
• You could expand the paragraph "Critics gave generally positive reviews " by quoting and paraphrasing several SPECIFIC reviews.

Overall the article is fairly good. I only hope you can find the references to provide for expanding the paragraphs I noted above. I would recommend, if it can be expanded in these ways, to possibly run it by GAC again.--Jayron32|talk|contribs 00:28, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Simply following your suggestions for expanding the article won't cause a second GA nomination to succeed. The other concerns - choppy prose and images - also need to be addressed. Could you offer advice on addressing the issues with images, and evaluate the prose in each section, giving suggestions on how the prose in each section can be approved?

That being said, thanks for your suggestions for expanding the article. Following them would certainly cut down the number of two-sentence paragraphs outside the Plot section (those in the Plot section should be addressed seperately).

Although I don't wish to rely on it, IMDB provides some information on I Not Stupid's release in other countries and its performance at the Hong Kong box office. Quoting specific reviews would be trival, but expanding the "Political satire" section would be harder - in fact, I had to remove several sentences I wrote in that section, as they were original research. Nevertheless, I'll do my best.

--J.L.W.S. The Special One 09:28, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I myself am not that great at copyediting. My best skills are in organization and flow of articles. I can read an article and tell if it is "good" or not WRT its prose, but I am not very good at fixing articles with poor prose. There is an active project, The League of Copyeditors, who ARE very good at that. Once the article is long enough and broad enough so that the ONLY thing left is the choppy prose, you can ask for a review there. They are backlogged, and a review can take a few weeks to complete, BUT they usually always get to every article, and are quite good and throrough. Articles I have requested that they copyedit have always come out better. Good luck! --Jayron32|talk|contribs 16:01, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Sorry for the late response. My computer couldn't have chosen a worse time to break down - just after the mid-year exams. Thankfully everything's up and running again.

I filed a request with the League of Copyeditors after the article's GA nomination failed. Last week, I filed a request for the article on the movie's sequel - I Not Stupid Too - which is also on peer review. Once they complete that request, I'll file another request for I Not Stupid.

Since you are able to read an article and quickly assess the quality of its prose, could you do so for I Not Stupid, with a review of the prose in each section? --J.L.W.S. The Special One 14:51, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

As per your suggestions, I have expanded the Recetpion section by quoting specific reviews and adding information on I Not Stupid's screening in other countries (I also found some information on VCD sales). I will continue to look for referenced information to add to the atricle, especially in the Production section. Since you aren't good at copy-editing, perhaps you could give advice regarding the image issues? --J.L.W.S. The Special One 07:20, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

• Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, APR _t 23:58, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
• Did some space-trimming using script. A cursory look shows at least one instance of WP:MOSDATE non-compliance (time is to be written as 9 a.m., not 9 am). Will check prose later. Resurgent insurgent 04:19, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Boochans Response

I don't respond often to peer reviews or other internal evaluations but I have seen this article grow in the past year or thereabouts to when I first glanced at the article, admittedly while I was reading up on the Singaporean Education System. The way the article is written does certainly suit the way the story seems to go in this film, as each paragraph in the plot section does explain the movie sequentially, and if they were not separated the article would read differently to how it does now. How its paragraphed compared to how it was has worked out to an improved article. None of the sections are terribly short and each section does provide sufficient cited information, and as the maintainer has explained the systemic bias will restrict the article to an extent.

The Images simply cannot be changed, as they are relavant to the plot as the plot is explained. More images would probably break up the article too much and overload the article viewer, as checking other quality film articles you see a similar amount of images to do with the film as you see on this article. The images are irrelevant to other sections of the article, and at the same time other sections of the article in my belief do not require further images, or further images would not increase the quality of the article.

I cannot comment on prose or the way the article is written because it certainly isn't my strong point as well. From what I can tell after throughly reading the article, the previous peer reviews, nominations and the above suggestions I do believe that despite some flaws that have been glossed over before, and somewhat improved since the last peer review that this article does meet the criteria for a Good Article, after a final "polish over" (i.e getting someone to copyedit it). It would be nice to see more opinions or to see a good copyediter to evaluate the article and check for any problems in that regard. - Boochan 11:48, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your review, Boochan. Although you did not really suggest how I can improve the article, at least you told me what I did right. --J.L.W.S. The Special One 14:04, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Power of Nightmares

Controversial BBC documentary. As of the 17th, this is awaiting a review at WP:GAC, and I am interested in how much it would take to get this to featured article status someday. Not a lot is known about production, and judging by the documentary (a montage of BBC archive footage) it doesn't look like there's much to know about it. --Lenin and McCarthy | (Complain here) 16:46, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Póvoa de Varzim

• I again need help if someone is willing to review the English of this article, no bots, I want to try an FA status and I think the English maybe its only problem, I'll get some more pics. If you want to help choose a section of the article and review its English. thx in advance. Maybe the lead section needs a rewrite too. --Pedro 23:04, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Patrick Henry College

We recently reached GA status and now we want to make it even better. All constructive criticism is greatly appreciated. Thanks in advance! Professor Davies 18:53, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ethnic conflict

I'd appreciate some views on this article, which I found in a bit of a sorry state and have added references to and tidied up. Would be good to get advice on what changes to make, as well as how to expand it further. Cordless Larry 16:46, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

• The lead needs to be much longer than that.--Rmky87 14:02, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sai Baba of Shirdi

This article has already been nominated for FA and failed and I have made significant improvements. Please inform me about stylistic mistakes, too few sources cited (if such a situation occurs) and other mistakes. I would also be grateful if you told me how much you think is necessary to bring the article to GA and then to A class and FA status. Kkrystian 16:32, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Alternative Ulster

I would like to request a peer review for Alternative Ulster, the magazine. I wish to improve on the article and would greatly appreciate any comments or suggestions.Ryannus 11:31, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Guideline and To-Do list

• Comprehensive history of magazine, including images to accompany.
• List of past staff.
• A little bit of information on the 1977 fanzine. (Or else create a new page regarding it)
• Information on the headquarters.
• Sponsors ie. who has sponsored the magazine in the past.
• Festivals etc. that the magazine insists on reviewing.
• Events, Festival etc. that the magazine has supported or sponsored.
• More information on the AU Army and its foundation etc.
• More comprehenisive information on the sub sections within the magazine.

_{To be continued} Ryannus 15:49, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Comment - I think that the article could at least be raised to B-Article standard.Ryannus 20:08, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 2007 SCSSRU Premier Division Grand Final

I want this article to be at either GA or A standard. I'm not sure on how to approach improving this article. I have a video of the game available if need be. RockerballAustralia 07:25, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Katie Hopkins

Myself and some other editors are trying to improve this artice, and I would like to see it at G or F status sometime in the future. Please can you inform us about any changes you think needed to be made and which sections are the poorest. We have previously been informed that the "Romantic Interests" section is poor and suffers from poor sentencing/wording. If you agree, please copy/paste the related sentences here and make any corrections you see fit. Thanks. Dalejenkins 13:18, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Gran2

Okay, overall its pretty good, and well sourced, but here are a few problems.

• The image is a fair use image, its needs to go. It either can be replaced by a free use image, (an image you or another ha taken themselves, or has been uploaded by someone else to Flickr under an appropriate license) or just have no image at all.
• The lead needs to be expanded, with info about here early life and personal life, and any other projects. Also a little more info about her appearance on the Apprentice. See WP:LEAD for more info, the lead needs to summarise the article. The "Exeter, Devon, England" birth location can go in the lead as well. Katie Hopkins (born 1976, in Exeter, Devon, England)
• I would rename "Romantic Interests" to "Personal life".
• All section headers should not be capitalised on both words. For example, "Early Life" needs to be "Early life", and so on.
• Ref 38 is broken.
• Ref 1 needs to be properly formated with cite news.
• In the response section (this so very minor, more a personal request), could you change "Love, Actually and Four Weddings and a Funeral writer Richard Curtis" to "Four Weddings and a Funeral and Notting Hill writer Richard Curtis". As his most famous film, FWaaF should go first, and NH was more of a critical and commercial sucess than LA so is probably his second most sucessful film. But this doesn't really matter, as said, it would be a personal request as I got NH to GA status and want to have the article linked as much as possible. Also, the sentence could work fine with just saying "Richard Curtis", as he is a well known person anyway.
• As for the prose, I'm not really much of a copy-editer. If you don't get many other comments about it from other people, I suggest submitting the article to WP:LOCE.

Hope this helps. Gran² 14:36, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

I've just noticed that most of the refs have (English) written after them. This isn't needed as this is the English Wikipedia, meaning most refs are in English. Its only needed when its in another language. Gran² 17:42, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Review by karanacs

This article is unfortunately nowhere near GA-ready. If you are willing to do a bit of work you should be able to bring it up to that level, however. The biggest issues are the structure and the fact that the prose is not formal enough.

• Lead
  • Does Reality TV need to be capitalized? I think this should be lower case
  • "You're Fired leads to a disambig page. It is really necessary?
  • The lead is a tad short -- it should be at least twice this long.
• An encyclopedia should use a more formal tone, so refer to her as Hopkins instead of Katie. This is also the rule for others, such as Paul Collins (after first reference, refer to him only as Collins, not Paul and not his full name again).
• The structure of this article needs a lot of work. I think you should try for a more chronological organization. Instead of having a separate personal life section, incorporate that information into the other parts of the article (it is confusing to talk about her relationship with Paul Callaghan in detail, and then to go back in the Apprentice section and talk about the same relationship. Likewise, the early life section does not really cover her early life; it's just a hodgepodge of facts about her.
  • A lot of the first half of the article borders on trivia, which shoud not be included in the article. Is it really important that she thinks she can out press up most men?
  • If possible, I'd like to see more information about her professional background. There had to be a reason that she was included on The Apprentice -- what about her previous profession was notable, other than lots of travel?
  • I'd like to see more information about her performance on the Apprentice. Did her team win when she was Project Manager? What did the tasks include during her project management stint, and what did her teammates think of her leadership skills? Why was she brought into the boardroom by the other contestants?
  • In what way did the tabloids compare her to real people? A few quotes (if they are printable) might be good.
• The tone of the article overall also needs to be more encyclopediac. There are many instances, but these are a few that jumped out at me as needing fixing: "hit the headlines," "walked", "slammed"
• full dates need to be wikilinked (June 12, 2007); partial dates should not be wikilinked (May 2007)
• Citations
  • Citations should not occur in the middle of sentences; you can consolidate them at the end of the sentence instead. This helps to improve readability.
  • Need a citation for the salary information
  • Need to use cite news or citation template for the references to newspapers. That will help properly format the names of the newspapers.
  • Must include date of newspaper/tabloid articles, and the author if there was one.
  • The Internet Forum will most likely not be considered a quality source when you get to a GA or FA review. Try to find different sources for those facts.
  • Citations 53, 58 do not have a publisher listed
• This is not a complete sentence: "Although, Mel Collins found out about both this new affair and the fact that she was expecting another child." Also, who was expecting another child -- Katie or Mel?

Karanacs 01:50, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Mozart piano concertos

Would be grateful for review of length, style, content etc!

--Grahbudd 21:34, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

I really liked your piece - fascinating, enlightening, well written.

I would have nothing to say about it if you hadn't asked for a peer review. That kind of obligates me to make some kind of criticism, so here goes:

• I think the lead paragraph doesn't really focus on the main stuff. I would take all the information about the history of analysis, and move it into a separate section. Instead of it, I would write something about the importance of these concertos to the history of piano concertos - something like, "With these concertos, Mozart created a new mold that changed the way composers would handle piano in an orchestral context."

• In the section 1786 you write that "... a set of variations, is commonly called "sublime": it is a work that even Glenn Gould, not known for being a great supporter of Mozart, expressed some reluctant admiration for." First of all, if you use quotation marks, it means a quote. Who are you quoting? In any case, a statement like that requires attribution. Secondly, the part about Glenn Gould is painfully awkward. How about something like, "... that even Glenn Gould, not known as a great Mozart supporter, admired."

• There are a few other places where you make value judgments like the one above, without attribution, but I was so carried away by the content that I forgot to mark them. So you will have to find them yourself.

Thank you for an enjoyable read. --Ravpapa 17:08, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

A good article. It provides lots of useful information, but it only has one image. Perhaps a scan of the sheet music of one of them? - E2MB the museblogger 23:57, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Pullman Square

• General editing help would be appreciated, especially in the Construction and opening sub, where it was recently converted from bullet to paragraph format. I will be doing minor edits to see if it can be managed easier, but sometimes a fresh pair of eyes can be better. I believe I have covered the history of the project extensively, and cannot see it being expanded further unless there are new articles (which appear almost weekly it seems). Seicer (talk) (contribs) 19:04, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Tamsin Greig

The main areas of concern in this article are the filmography and the number of external links, although all improvements are welcome. ISD 15:20, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

• References are needed almost EVERYWHERE.
• Remove the fan site external links, keep only IMDb and other reliables.
• Non-free picture-->remove ASAP
• Remove "Interviews" section etc and turn into referneces.

Dalejenkins 17:44, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Okay lets see.

• In the filmography, axe the "Television (herself)" section. It doesn't really add anything. I did te same with David Mitchell and its a GA now.
• The references need to be cleaned up, they arn't properly formatted, so I suggest the cite web and cite news formats.
• Remove the Green Wing, Black Books, Love Soup and Sally Hope Associates external links, they're to do with the shows and agency themselves, not Greig.

Aside from that its good, the prose could use some expansion, as the page seems a little short. And it could use a free use image, and the scrapping of one of the fair use ones, possibly the Fran Katzenjammer one. But everything is referenced so it probably would pass a GAC. Gran² 14:56, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Katie Hopkins

Myself and some other editors are trying to improve this artice, and I would like to see it at G or F status sometime in the future. Please can you inform us about any changes you think needed to be made and which sections are the poorest. We have previously been informed that the "Romantic Interests" section is poor and suffers from poor sentencing/wording. If you agree, please copy/paste the related sentences here and make any corrections you see fit. Thanks. Dalejenkins 10:51, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Music of Israel

• The layout is very drab. Are there any images that could be used to break it up a bit? Cordless Larry 16:59, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Cordless, you are absolutely right! It was in the back of my mind, but I was so hyped about the writing I forgot. Give me a day or two. --Ravpapa 04:49, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Done --Ravpapa 08:45, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

• I think it would benefit by having fewer subsections, some of which are rather short. Consider moving some of the detail to daughter articles and combining subsections.
• The section titles seem rather long and should be simplified.
• It should probably also have subsections on music education and the music industry.
• I think for an article on such a large topic, it would be better to have broad subsections with detailed subarticles -- see for example music of the United States (which, in the interest of fair disclosure, I mostly wrote, though I see it has since been messed up with an overwhelming focus on grunge and alternative rock -- ignore those sections for this purpose). Much of music of Israel would be better off, IMO, as the basis for a music history of Israel subarticle, with this article taking a broader focus. I guess fundamentally, I see "music of Israel" as being a basic introduction to how music plays a role in Israeli life today, and should thus cover in roughly equal amounts topics like "education", "economics (music industry)", "history", "social identity", "legal and political stuff", "holidays and festivals", etc. The article as it stands goes into those areas, but primarily seems to approach them from a historical standpoint.
• This approach would give a broader scope to this article, while allowing subarticles (e.g. music history of Israel, music education in Israel, Israeli pop music, music and cultural identity in Israel, as examples) to be more specific and focused.
• I'll also note that, on a casual read-through, this seems to be mostly about "Israeli music" and only covers topics like Russian immigrant folk music inasmuch as it has affected music that is considered "Israeli" - surely in a country with as many recent immigrants from as many areas as Israel, topics like Russian folk music are still relevant to a portion of Israelis today, and should be covered here appropriately. I do agree that "music of Israel" should focus on the aspects of music that are specifically Israeli in character, but a subsection on "folk music in immigrant communities" would be reasonable, as an example. (note: I know little about Israeli music and haven't even read this article thoroughly, so I may be off base with that, but it's worth considering.)
• Anyway, sorry for the rambling - I think there's a lot of good content here, and with a little bit of work, this could be a great article with great subarticles too. Tuf-Kat 00:37, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Orion (mythology)

I am particularly interested if the telling of the actual stories of Orion is clear and flows smoothly. There is no standard telling, but several almost consistent versions. Rather than synthesizing one, this article stresses the variety of the sources. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:55, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't have much to say story-wise; the telling was clear to me, although a bit dry. It didn't flow for me though: the reference markers got in the way of the story, and the telling seems as fragmentary as the sources are stated to be. I'm not sure how to fix it, and maybe with the sources available there is no fixing it.

As far as the article goes,

• IMO, at least one of "constellation of the same name" in the lead or the first mention of Orion the constellation in the first section should link to Orion (constellation).
  • Quite right. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:33, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
• The final paragraph under Variants sounds odd. Also, if you keep the dash you should use — (—) instead of -.
  • Better? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:38, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
    • It still sounded odd; how does the change I just made sound to you? Anomie 23:53, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
      • I tweaked it a bit for emphasis. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:45, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
• Maybe there isn't anything, but has the myth had any influence on later culture besides naming a constellation and giving mythologists something to talk about? I know there are a ton of things named after the constellation, which doesn't really count. The Literary culture section is a start.
  • Not as far as I know; most of these sources are very obscure, and without them, Orion comes across as "he was a giant hunter, killed by Scorpio". But I really haven't looked. Thank you for the idea. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:33, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Anomie 03:51, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Cohesion (chemistry)

It's embarrassing how limited this article is, considering its top importance rating in WikiProject Physics. High school classes encounter this topic more frequently than ever, and frankly I think we can do a better job with this. WikiProject Molecular and Cellular Biology vowed to improve the article but the project hasn't lived up to its promise. As the talk page says, the article, or rather paragraph, is copied and pasted from somewhere else. I was looking for information on chromatography and since cohesion is a very big part of the topic, I would have definitely though that the article would have more information on the relationship between cohesion and chromatography. Because of the article's length and the lack of response from the Wikipedian community, I would like to see this article's content be enriched by a professional in the field of physics. Regards, --Gabycs 23:01, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

I have transcluded this also into WP:PR to get more input. I will also ask the chemists to look at it. It is certainly pretty bad right now. I am not sure whether it shoudl be made a redirect somewhere elese or rewritten. --Bduke 00:31, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] DC++

I'm interested in getting feedback about the article on DC++ here at Wikipedia. Of particular interest is how to best address (or not) the list of DC++ based software that has grown into the article. I'm not sure what the notability guidelines say about software, but I think the number of end users, if nothing else, of each derivative may be small. I don't think the method of covering forks helps readers. The article may also benefit from some more defined sections, which would in turn allow expansion of the text. (In interests of disclosure, I am closely associated with DC++, and I have edited the article, keeping WP:NPOV and WP:COI in mind.) --GargoyleMT 21:57, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Jackie Chan

Jackie Chan is currently a GA class article. I've made some substantial edits to his biography, and rewrote the entire trivia section into prose. (Image and Celebrity Status) A new section has been created about his stunts, and the injuries list is linked to it. I hope to make the article eventually achieve FA status.--Kylohk 15:07, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Mummy (1999 film)

I feel that this successful popcorn film that kickstarted a franchise could be easily upgraded to GA status with a little more work. Any comments, suggestions or help would be greatly appreciated. --J.D. 14:16, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Lenin & McCarthy

First, try to find some way of merging the "Book of Amon-Ra" section into the main text of the article.

Second, the picture in the plot summary doesn't really illustrate the text well. I thought that in the film they actually had a creepy-looking CG mummy. Perhaps a picture of him would be better.

Third, there are still a few sentences in the "production" section that don't have a citation. To get this to GA that will have to be remedied.

Fourth, the reception section doesn't really have a proper comment on the general perception of the film. Something like "reviews were mixed, with critics commenting on (whatever they took note of)" that may incorporate some of the quoted reviews. The rating aggregation sites will also need citations.--Lenin and McCarthy | (Complain here) 15:54, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Bobby Robson

This article has undergone a relatively large overhaul from four or five editors, has had a number of references added, and a couple of images. It's much more compliant with the manual of style now as well, and I would like to see it peer reviewed with featured article candidacy in mind. I am aware of a few outstanding citations required, any help with these would be excellent. Otherwise, all comments gratefully accepted. The Rambling Man 10:43, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

• commons:Image:Bobby Robson Statue Closeup.jpg needs a license tag. MaxSem 11:27, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

• Done, it was my own work so I've applied a pd-self tag to it. Thanks. The Rambling Man 11:49, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

• The article still has two unsourced statements, first of them (about "political, diplomatic situation") seems to be impossible to confirm[3].

• Yes, I've had trouble myself with that quotation. It may well be in his book which I'll have to go dig out later next week. I'll keep it there for now and if I can't find it, I'll blow it away. The Rambling Man 16:43, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

• The personal life section needs expansion.

• I think I can expand this once I've got hold of his book next week.... The Rambling Man 16:43, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

• I should be able to help with this too at some point in the next week or two when I can get a copy. Dave101→talk  19:32, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

• The article still has one-sentence paragraphs.

• I'll see what I can do about those...cheers. The Rambling Man 16:43, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
• Cleared up now, hopefully, but as we expand the article we'll have to keep an eye on this. The Rambling Man 10:38, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

MaxSem 16:13, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks MaxSem, while I can't do much now, I'll get on with the comments asap. The Rambling Man 16:43, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

• More information on on his playing career is needed.

• Well, possibly, but while he gained quite a few England caps, his domestic career wasn't particularly notable, and he is considerably better known as a manager than as a player. However, I'll see if there's anything more that can be added. The Rambling Man 10:38, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

MaxSem 08:34, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

• Unfortunately, Robson found himself at odds with the millionaire lifestyles of his players at Newcastle... is a personal opinion, and contains facts that need to be sourced. MaxSem 08:34, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

• I'll see what I can do with that when I get hold of his book. Thanks for your comments, much appreciated. Dave101→talk  10:29, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Notting Hill (film)

I got this to GA in less than a week and would like some comments before it can get any higher quality. I don't know, maybe I can get this to FA in the future but not for a while. So any comments at all would be good. Gran² 17:04, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 2007 SCSSRU Premier Division Grand Final

I want this article to be at either GA or A standard. I'm not sure on how to approach improving this article. I have a video of the game available if need be. RockerballAustralia 07:25, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] USB Decoration

Hey everyone, I would like some comments on what I can do to improve the article, hopefully to GA status. Any comments are appreciated! Thanks, Matt/TheFearow (Talk) (Contribs) (Bot) 06:54, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Flag of Ireland

I have added references and am eager to hear suggestions as to what might help the article's chances of becoming a featured article. Danny Invincible^Talk|Edits 03:50, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Battlefield Earth (film)

• Mangojuice (talk · contribs) passed this article into Wikipedia:Good articles, on 19 April 2007. Would be interested in hearing from the community, some pointers and steps to improve this article's quality to Wikipedia:Featured articles. Thank you for your time. Yours, Smee 03:20, 15 June 2007 (UTC).

• Some comments:

  • The lead section seems too short. Perhaps a paragraph could be added to summarize the Development section?
  • I don't see a lot of discussion of the special effects. Some reviewers had at least a modicum of praise for a few of the effects. Perhaps the article could expand on this, and also cover why most of the effects were bad.
  • It could mention any Scientology influence on the plot, or lack thereof.
  • "Scientology factor" should be explained for those readers who may unfamiliar with the cult.

  That's all I've got. =) — RJH (talk) 22:15, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

  • Thank you very much for providing your feedback here. Smee 04:46, 20 June 2007 (UTC).

[edit] U.S. Città di Palermo

This is a second submission of this article for Peer Review. I did my best to follow all earlier suggestions and obtained this article to be accepted as Good Article. Now it's time for a step forward, i.e. reaching a Featured Article status for this article. Please look at it and let me know your opinions and suggestions to improve it.

• Archive: Wikipedia:Peer review/U.S. Città di Palermo/Archive1

Thanks in advance, --Angelo 17:42, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Comments from The Rambling Man

Okay, off to a good start but FA you want, FA comments forthcoming!

• Reduce width of infobox by breaking the original name.

Done. --Angelo 21:25, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

• Link Palermo in the lead.

Done. --Angelo 21:25, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

• Ensure references comply with WP:CITE, in short, don't have spaces between the [ref] and the text, and try to put the [ref] after punctuation (e.g. move ref [6] to the other side of the comma)

Done. --Angelo 21:25, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

• Three images in first History section feels cluttered.

Done. --Angelo 21:38, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

• ...just after World War I; Palermo competed in..., not a semi-colon, perhaps a comma?

Done. --Angelo 21:25, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

• League graph is great but not where it is, probably belongs in records/stats section.

Done. --Angelo 21:25, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

• WP:DASH for seasons, so not 1934-35, instead use en-dash, so 1934–35.

Done. --Angelo 21:38, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Not quite, I can see a few more (e.g. in the "See also" under "Back in Serie A", and "1953-54" in "Post-war Palermo" section

You're right. Now it's done. --Angelo 18:50, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

• ...decent side... is a bit over familiar. Perhaps something like ...made Palermo a well-established side... or something...

Done. --Angelo 21:25, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

• About five whole sections in History without a single citation - this is a problem.
• The image of the 1969–70 team, what's the significance?

Removed. --Angelo 21:38, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

• Wikilink years to the relevant Italian football seasons.

What do you mean with "relevant"? --Angelo 21:38, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

By this I mean when you refer to, say, "2002–03", you can wikilink that as 2002–03

I am doing this for all seasons for which a Wikipedia article exists (I even created by myself a couple of them). --Angelo 18:50, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

• History section needs to be sub-paged - see Arsenal F.C. for guidance - then in the main article perhaps six or seven large paragraphs can be used.
• Squad needs update - it says "as of January 31, 2007", we're now June.

It's the same than January, actually. --Angelo 21:25, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

• Youth squad isn't particularly relevant.

Yeah, but this is subtly subjective, say this to the ones who created articles such as F.C. Internazionale Milano Primavera. --Angelo 21:25, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps, but can you find examples of featured articles where this information is in the main team page? I'd suggest that you make it a subpage.

Okay, I removed it. Done. --Angelo 18:50, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

• What makes the selection of "notable players" notable?

In fact I opened a discussion in the WikiProject Football to discuss this issue for all teams. --Angelo 21:26, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Sounds like a good idea, it's always brought up at WP:FAC and, again, checking out featured articles such as Arsenal F.C. you'll find, again, that a both a subpage was created with a specified set of criteria applied for players inclusion.

A subpage already existed. In fact now the paragraph contains only a link to that one. --Angelo 18:50, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

• Stadium section has too many short paragraphs.

Done. --Angelo 21:38, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

• Honours could be tablified and records should be made into prose.

Done. --Angelo 21:38, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Hope this helps, let me know if there's anything I can help you with. The Rambling Man 19:10, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

• • Thanks for your suggestions. As you can see, the issues I already fixed have been marked with a tick. Some of your suggestions instead deserve to be discussed to find a common solution, and others will be fixed as soon as possible. --Angelo 21:25, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

I made a number of massive edits in order to comply with your suggestions, including creating a history article. Let me know how the article looks now. --Angelo 04:47, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Kondō Isami

If anyone can make any suggestions on how to elaborate, or what to add or clarify, or anything like that, it'd be much appreciated. -Tadakuni 15:46, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

The first sentence of the Shinsengumi section has a variety of different romanization styles; these can be unified. There's a link to Tosa, which leads to a disambiguation page; this should lead to the Tosa Domain or (second choice) Tosa Province. The trivia section should be removed, and in the Fiction section ("fiction" should be lowercase) the reference to the NHK series should be a direct link to the series. The Shinsengumi is an extremely popular subject in Japanese film and television and this can be developed further. The "Papuwa" paragraph should be removed. Fg2 10:04, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Introduction to general relativity

Introduction to general relativity has recently been overhauled, streamlined, and given a fair number of references and images, with the aim of eventually bringing it to featured article status. In preparation for that process, I would appreciate feedback especially on the following:

• Is anything missing? Since this is only an introduction (there is a main article general relativity), it doesn't need to provide all the details, but it should still cover all important points.
• Previous versions of this article were deemed too technical (see the discussion page). Is the present version accessible enough, and if not, what could be improved? I haven't participated in this kind of review process before, but I understand that the review request will also be posted to the standard WP:Peer review - since this article is meant to be accessible for everybody, feedback from non-scientists would be very helpful.

Of course, any suggestions on how to improve presentation, style, grammar etc. are welcome as well. Many thanks in advance! Markus Poessel 08:46, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

I have also transcluded this into WP:PR. --Bduke 12:33, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Yuji Ide

Someone with a very brief F1 career. I've added references, copyedited and given serious attention to this article, but I am looking to make this even stronger. I want to get ol' Yuji up to B-class in part for sh--- and giggles. Guroadrunner 14:23, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Comments by PsychLess

This article covers his racing career very well and is well referenced. The only problem is it really doesn't tell me much about him as a person, just as a racing driver. It needs some info on his childhood, family, personal life, religion, etc. If you can do that the article would be great, I would peer review it for you. Oh, and if you could find a picture that would improve it as well. Pictures that wikipedia can use are always hell to find though... Regards, Psychless 19:41, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Transaction privilege tax

I'd like to receive an initial assessment and feedback on what additional information the reviewer believes would enhance the article. (Hsin Pai 16:18, 13 June 2007 (UTC))

• May want to add a See also section to related articles. Ran an automated peer-review that covers some other points I would have made. Morphh ^(talk) 16:41, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Automated Peer-Review

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

• Consider adding more links to the article; per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (links) and Wikipedia:Build the web, create links to relevant articles.^[?]
• This article has no images. Please see if there are any free use images that fall under the Wikipedia:Image use policy and fit under one of the Wikipedia:Image copyright tags that can be uploaded. To upload images on Wikipedia, go to Special:Upload; to upload non-fair use images on the Wikimedia Commons, go to commons:special:upload.^[?]
• See if possible if there is a free use image that can go on the top right corner of this article.^[?]
• Per Wikipedia:Context and Wikipedia:Build the web, years with full dates should be linked; for example, link January 15, 2006.^[?]
• This article is a bit too short, and therefore may not be as comprehensive as WP:WIAFA critera 1(b) is looking for. Please see if anything can be expanded upon.^[?]
• As done in WP:FOOTNOTE, footnotes usually are located right after a punctuation mark (as recommended by the CMS, but not mandatory), such that there is no space in between. For example, the sun is larger than the moon [2]. is usually written as the sun is larger than the moon.[2]^[?]
• Please ensure that the article has gone through a thorough copyediting so that it exemplifies some of Wikipedia's best work. See also User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 1a.^[?]

You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, Morphh ^(talk) 16:41, 13 June 2007 (UTC) 16:41, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Cantabria

Cantabria is a Spanish and Esperanto language featured article translated to English by the collaborative proyect "Spanish Translation of the Week". This article has been recommended a Peer review, in a FAC discussion, to help prepare for FAC, including work on WP:LEAD, cleaning up listiness, referencing, formatting sources, and other MOS issues (such as the rambling TOC, 500px images and what looks like an oversized infobox). I ask for help mainly in tidying the article and technical hitchs in italics. Thanks. Uhanu 09:49, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Io (moon)

I am submitting this article for scientific peer review with intention of later submitting the article for reinstatement as a featured article. My main purpose for this review is to try to gather opinions as to the use of jargon. I have tried to reduce such usage as much as possible, and provided wikilinks where jargon was used. I also request a peer review as to the general content of the article, and whether it is ready for a featured article candidate run, and what fixes should be made before such a nomination be put forward. --Volcanopele 20:01, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Request transcluded to WP:PR. --Volcanopele 22:22, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

• Overall the article looks pretty good. However there might be an issue for some readers with the amount of specialized jargon employed. For example: "high-phase observations", "pyroclastic" "anti-correlated", "morphologies", "collimated streams" and "polar ionosphere". (See Wikipedia:Explain jargon.) The term "patera" is used several times in the article before it is explained; "mafic to ultramafic" is explained at it's second occurance rather than the first. — RJH (talk) 17:54, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Thank you for the review. For some of these I replaced the term with less jargon text, particularly when a term is only used once, like "high-phase observations" or "anti-correlated". Others, I added some explanatory text. Patera was never used as a term, but as part of the name of the feature, until it was explained in the text. However, I did add some text in the Name section to explain what each of the feature name types means in the context of Io, like patera. Morphology is explained in the same area. For pyroclastic, I added the words "silicate" and "like ash" to the its first usage in the text, as well as wikilinked to Pyroclastic rock. --Volcanopele 20:09, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
    • Thanks. The one other item that stands out for me is the surprising amount of restraint in the number of images. There are sections that are downright sparse, yet Io is quite photogenic. For example, a quality image of the lava lake at Loki Patera or a size comparison image with Jupiter could be of interest to the casual reader. Just a suggestion, of course. — RJH (talk) 16:53, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
      • Certainly more Io images would be great, but at the same time, the images should be within the appropriate section and there should be too many images. I think one more in the Galileo Section might be appropriate, maybe one of the close approach images. --Volcanopele 02:52, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Should the article have a link to Io with {{dablink}}? I was suprised that this was not the premier article, as it is a very important astronomical body, while the mythological entity is less important (this coming from a scientist of course). -RunningOnBrains 03:00, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

• While I agree that Io is a very important astronomical body, it has become a common convention to use " (moon)" for planetary satellite articles, rather than make them the premier article. --Volcanopele 18:38, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Troy McClure

I've pretty much re-written this article from scratch, in an out of universe perspective over the past week and have now gone as far as I can. I hope to get this to GA one day, but that won't be for a while. So I would like any comments at all on the page, other sources people have found and any prose improvements needed. Gran² 18:27, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Well it is a GA now, so this is now a peer-review for hoping to get this to FA. Gran² 18:49, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Review by SpecialWindler

I can understand that articles like these may have a hard time to find sources for information, but it may need a little expanding. However it is a very well written article. Here a some pointers

• A short pargraph in "Cultural influence and legacy", consider merging or expanding.
• You also have a long paragraph in "Cultural influence and legacy", consider spliting
• Rather than replace Hartman with a new voice actor, McClure was retired from the show.[10] Who retired him? Producers, Mat Groening, (If its unknown, ignore, but its interesting to know)
• Hartman was cast before his death as Zapp Brannigan in Matt Groening's Futurama. Billy West took over the role, and based his vocal performance on Hartman's characterizations, particularly McClure.[16] You have a picture below, consider moving up.
• You use James L. Brooks in the "Development" section, although it's wikilinked could you state what he was eg. director James L. Brooks or writer James L. Brooks...
• Phil Hartman was cast in the role due to his ability to pull "the maximum amount of humour" out of any line he was given. could you expand to perhaps discuss Hartman's opinion on the role (I know hes dead, but is there anything)
• Could you mention (in the "Role in The Simpsons" section) that he presented "spin-off shows" rather than main Simpsons episodes. A regular Simpsons watcher, will not know what "presenting" a Simpsons episode means. (for those who haven't watched them)
  • Although it's mentioned in the sentence after, it still can be confusing. (well, thats the way I read it)
• I don't have a problem with it but much of the "Role in The Simpsons" probably actually belongs in the "Character" section, like statements below
  • McClure drives a De Lorean DMC-12 and lives in an "ultramodern" house that was based on the Chemosphere from the film Body Double.
  • "Hi, I'm Troy McClure. You may remember me from such [films, educational videos, voiceovers, etc.] as..."
• You could perhaps have the above quote in a quote template (just a suggestion), as it is very important aspect of this character.
• You may be unable to change the template in the right upper corner, but seeing this is a former character, you might want to add a Last appearence to it.
• In the lead. You have one long paragraph and one short.
  • Consider having one paragraph about the character's performance in the Simpsons which is stuff about "First appearence, last, how he retired"
  • The second paragraph on the character himself. Eg "Traits (that quote), Notable appearences (eg. marrying selma)

Hope you use this information well, noting that I used Consider. SpecialWindler talk 07:36, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the review, I'll look into the stuff you have raised, when I have more time. Gran² 15:45, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] ACT (examination)

I am Looking to improve the article to achieve GA status towards the ultimate goal of being a featured article. I no it is not their yet but I do not know where to go from here.Zginder 21:14, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Review by Anomie

Here are a few comments to get you started:

• Most sections could use expansion; compare to similar sections in SAT. Look for secondary sources discussing various aspects of the test.
• If there are official composite statistics, those should generally be used instead of the 2006 statistics.
• The text gets squished between the two images in Use. I would move the graph down to Score percentiles, along with the second paragraph of the section.
• In the Format summary chart, the information in the Content column could better be described in the prose.
• Inline links should be turned into <ref> tags, and should be after punctuation ("foo.[1]" rather than "foo[1]."). Also, you should either use the citation templates or format the references in similar style.
• Swap the order of Taking the tests and Score Percentiles, to put Score Percentiles next to Score comparison with SAT.
• I might rename Taking the tests to something like "Test availability".
• A Criticism section could be interesting, if you can find good sources.

Hope this helps! Anomie 20:08, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

I have incorporated some of you edits. what do you mean on your second point.Zginder 12:15, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

If ACT or some reliable source publishes statistics that average over the past few years, those might be more helpful than 2006 statistics. If not, the 2006 statistics are fine. Anomie 12:31, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

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

• Please expand the lead to conform with guidelines at Wikipedia:Lead. The article should have an appropriate number of paragraphs as is shown on WP:LEAD, and should adequately summarize the article.^[?]
• Per Wikipedia:What is a featured article?, Images should have concise captions.^[?]
• There may be an applicable infobox for this article. For example, see Template:Infobox Biography, Template:Infobox School, or Template:Infobox City.^[?] (Note that there might not be an applicable infobox; remember that these suggestions are not generated manually)
• Per Wikipedia:Context and Wikipedia:Build the web, years with full dates should be linked; for example, link January 15, 2006.^[?]
• Please reorder/rename the last few sections to follow guidelines at Wikipedia:Guide to layout.^[?]
• Watch for redundancies that make the article too wordy instead of being crisp and concise. (You may wish to try Tony1's redundancy exercises.)
  • Vague terms of size often are unnecessary and redundant - “some”, “a variety/number/majority of”, “several”, “a few”, “many”, “any”, and “all”. For example, “All pigs are pink, so we thought of a number of ways to turn them green.”
• As done in WP:FOOTNOTE, footnotes usually are located right after a punctuation mark (as recommended by the CMS, but not mandatory), such that there is no space in between. For example, the sun is larger than the moon [2]. is usually written as the sun is larger than the moon.[2]^[?]
• Please provide citations for all of the {{fact}}s.^[?]
• Please ensure that the article has gone through a thorough copyediting so that it exemplifies some of Wikipedia's best work. See also User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 1a.^[?]

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

[edit] The Secret (2006 film)

Looking to improve the article to achieve GA status towards the ultimate goal of being a featured article. FYI: Taken as a whole, the film is essentially a self-help work, although the content of this film touches on many discplines: film, religion, philosophy, self-help, mysticism, pseudoscience, new age, and new thought. —WikiLen 19:37, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Chicago Board of Trade Building

Of all of our successful COTWs, this is probably the best article produced by the WP:CHICOTW. I am considering moving it along to the WP:FAC. I need some feedback on its current state of progress. TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 19:22, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

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

• Please expand the lead to conform with guidelines at Wikipedia:Lead. The article should have an appropriate number of paragraphs as is shown on WP:LEAD, and should adequately summarize the article.^[?]
• See if possible if there is a free use image that can go on the top right corner of this article.^[?]
• Avoid including galleries in articles, as per Wikipedia:Galleries. Common solutions to this problem include moving the gallery to a separate page, like Gallery of Chicago Board of Trade Building.^[?]
• Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (numbers), there should be a non-breaking space -   between a number and the unit of measurement. For example, instead of 199 meters, use 199 meters, which when you are editing the page, should look like: 199&nbsp;meters.^[?]
  • Done. LurkingInChicago 14:35, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
• Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (numbers), when doing conversions, please use standard abbreviations: for example, miles -> mi, kilometers squared -> km², and pounds -> lb.^[?]
• Please reorder/rename the last few sections to follow guidelines at Wikipedia:Guide to layout.^[?]
• Per WP:WIAFA, this article's table of contents (ToC) may be too long- consider shrinking it down by merging short sections or using a proper system of daughter pages as per Wikipedia:Summary style.^[?]
• Please ensure that the article has gone through a thorough copyediting so that it exemplifies some of Wikipedia's best work. See also User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 1a.^[?]

You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 03:23, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Taiwan under Japanese rule

I think this article is good enough to be a Featured Article, but I want to see if anyone has any suggestions.--Jerry 17:32, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Rutger Hauer filmography

I would like to achieve featured list quality for this article, and use this peer review for feedback on the completeness of the introduction, whether (and how) or not his television roles should be included, and general quality of this list article. – Ilse@ 11:04, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

• Comment Well, I think the article should also give an account of his stints as director and other roles in films as filmography is not limited to acting only and they should also be incorporated within the list. DSachan 12:00, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

  I added TV roles for the 1960s and 1970s, I think it is still readable this way. – Ilse@ 14:10, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

  Though I am not familiar with the subject of article, the issue is that imdb says he has produced and directed a couple of films as well besides doing acting but your lead mentions only about his acting, which alone cannot be taken for the comprehensive account of his filmography. I hope I made myself clear. DSachan 18:27, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

  Yes I think you have, I will soon change the intro. – Ilse@ 14:06, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] List of nationality transfers in sport

I would like to know what needs to be added to this list to make it reach Featured List status. Referencing? Context? More wikilinks? More subpages? Cows fly kites (Aecis) ^{Rule/Contributions} 09:51, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Okay, few things:

• The "list of sports persons who have moved to compete for another country" in the lead needs to be bolded.
• This appears to be the main thing, there is just one reference. Do you have any others at hand, because it cannot make FL status with just one reference. Everything needs to be referenced.

That's all I can see right now. Gran² 18:35, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Perth Airport

I am looking for input on this article to see how it currently stands in the context of the criteria for FA status and to look for ideas on possible improvements which could be made for it to attain that level. All comments and contributions appreciated. Thewinchester ^(talk) 04:00, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

• I just found this page trawling the Western Australia WikiProject. The article is excellent; with a couple of changes I feel it would easily become a GA, and with a couple of added bits and a bit of editing, a potential FA. My problems stem from the latter half of the article; the first part is generally of high standard. Here's some suggestions:
  • To be a Featured Article, I would expect a few more images - perhaps of one each terminal, and an historical photo in the history section somewhere? The overview picture and control tower picture are fine for their respective places, but some more pictures would significantly improve the article.
  • The future section contains quite a few {{fact}} tags. These will need fixing before even becoming a GA.
  • The "Federal operation and future expansion" and "2001 onwards" subsections of the history part need expansion, and/or a possible merger if two complete sections aren't possible. I'm sure there's information out there given it covers the most recent episodes in the airport's history.
  • Looking at some other articles on airports around the world, a lot of them include information about the flight patterns and holding patterns of the major airports. Is there any information about that?
  • I think the facilities section could be expanded, though I'm not sure what you could add - it also needs at least one reference to verify the claims in that section of the article.
  • The statistics section need to be presented in a more informative way, and not just a table with no explanation.
  • Without it becoming a directory or something suitable for Wikitravel, I would include something about the ground transportation services. The lead paragraph mentions the connection to the Tonkin Highway and the bus services from the airport as a bit of detail in how public transport to Perth's airport works. You could perhaps tie in the proposed rail line there as well - although the "Future" section is more appropriate for a detailed discussion of that.
  • Do the scheduled passenger services need referencing?
  • Is there any connection with Jandakot Airport or any other airport in the vicinity of Perth? At the very least it should be in the See Also section.
  • Surrounding lands and third runway expansion subsections in the "Future" part need expansion and updating (if necessary).

Hope that helps. JRG 13:33, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Interstate 476

• old review

This article has been improved again. I would like some feedback regarding the writing, sourcing, and anything out of the FA criteria before this goes to FAC. (→zelzany - review) 22:57, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Natasha Bedingfield

I have recently added to this article about Natasha Bedingfield. Any suggestions on how to improve the article would be greatly appreciated, as hopefully it can be promoted to feature article status in the future. -- Underneath-it-All 19:32, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

• Nice article.
  • I'd like to know more about The DNA Algorithm. Now, I'm sure The DNA Algorithm has more detail, but it'd be good to include information on Natasha's role in the group. For example, the Gwen Stefani article discusses how her personal life influenced No Doubt's lyrics and how her public image was a major factor in the band's breakthrough and success. What exactly was Natasha's role in the group in terms of songwriting, production, etc. and how did this influence her solo career?
  • The last paragraph in Early life is very short. It should be expanded or merged into another paragraph.
  • "Her recording have appeared on the church's live album Shout God's Fame and the children's album Jesus Is My Superhero in 2004 and .[10]" Looks like something may have accidentally gotten deleted.
  • The part about her philanthropy seems incomplete. Is there more specific information on her work with Stop the Traffik, including any major events or campaigns?
  • There should probably be samples of the best-known or most representative song from Unwritten and one of "I Wanna Have Your Babies" to illustrate discussion of her work.
• All in all, a good article. I would try to expand the article where appropriate, since it doesn't give the feel that her life and work is being covered in enough detail. I also have to ask out of curiosity, do parts of this use Gwen Stefani as a guide? I can't help but think that some of the phrases sound familiar. ShadowHalo 20:05, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your suggestions! I've added them to the article. And yes, I did use the Gwen Stefani article as a guide. I hope you don't mind. It was well written! :) -- Underneath-it-All 16:25, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Final Destination

Look, this peer review can't be ignored. We need it done, so I can figure out and get some help getting it to GA. Immediatly. Francisco Tevez 19:05, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Okay, here's my suggestions for getting it to GA status:

1. There is a slight 'narrative' tone to the article; it needs to be taken out. Things like "causes a ruckus", "kicked off the plane", "Billy was lucky enough", etc. sound somewhat like a story, and could be replaced with other, toned-down phrases.
2. The cast and characters section is a tad lengthy. Here's what a cast section should really look there. There's no need for a long explanation of the characters and their actions; the section should just list the actors and who they played. There can, in certain cases, be articles that give short descriptions of characters, but - and this is just my personal belief - articles seem much more professional if they're concise.
3. The section on death is also longer than it needs to be. Whereas the article now gives an in-depth look as to how each person dies and gives us a complete description, all that's really needed is a short list (or something to that affect) that tells how the characters died without going too far into it.
4. The trivia section should be omitted altogether. Although you do see a lot of 'trivia' sections in articles, there is a rule against them, albeit a rarely enforced on. But when trying to get articles to GA or FA status, the trivia sections are almost always removed.
5. I would consider adding 'production' and 'reception' sections. Production sections should be in-depth and give good details about how, when, and where the film was made. Reception sections are usually one to two paragraphs and give the general consensus of the film and then usually compare two polar opposite reviewers (one who hated the film and one who loved it).
6. And most importantly, there need to be way more references. Here's two good examples of what a reference section should look like: [4] [5]. Don't reference things in the plot, but reference everything else. And if you do add a 'production' or 'reception' section, be sure to reference them, too.

I think that this article definitely needs some work, but it has promise. The technical structure of the writing is excellent (not a comma out of place), and it would work as a news story or book, but to get to GA (or, eventually, FA) status, it needs to be changed to meet Wikipedia article standards. I hope this helped. Good luck! --Captain Wikify ^Argh! 20:28, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

It definitely looks better now. I'd continue referencing as much as possible. --Captain Wikify ^Argh! 18:41, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wind It Up (Gwen Stefani song)

This article is very well written and deserves to be Featured Article.But in order to avoid haste and carelessness, just thaught of asking for a Peer Review to know some defects.The article will be the first single by her to reach FA outside the Love.Angel.Music.Baby series if it manages to become FA Class.The article is very informative.All are requested to kindly review the article and express your views. User:Luxurious.gaurav

[edit] Pilot (Smallville)

I'm working to get this episode up to featured status. I'd like some suggestions for improvement. I think it's one of the better episode articles, but I'm a biased observer.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 17:36, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

• The second paragraph of the lead is stubby and the lead does not cover the production as mcuh as it could (casting, filming, and effects aren't mentioned even though each have their own sections). There's probably a "two birds with one stone" solution here. Jay32183 21:30, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
  • How does it look now?  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 21:46, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
    • That's a lot better. You're probably close to FA status, but I'm not a 1a(prose) guy. You're good on 1b, d, and e, and with 1c the only uncited section is the plot. Generally, no one will complain about that since the source is intuitive, but adding minutes couldn't hurt if you've got the time and resources. Hopefully, you get some more reviewers during the peer review so the FAC will run smoothly. Jay32183 22:01, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
      • LOL, citing the minutes. I have to honestly say that that is the first I'm I've heard that. It's good to know I guess; if someone says something in the FAC at least I can't say I've never heard that, now. Thanks for the criticism.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 22:08, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Smallville pilot review

Here is my review of Pilot (Smallville). Feel free to paste it somewhere more convenient.

Content:

• The lead seemed off to me somehow. I have not read any other wikipedia pages on TV episodes, but this one seemed to contain too much detail, such as the five months bit, and yet not enough information for the lead to be a true summary of the article. This was just the impression I received when I read it. According to WP:LEAD: "The lead should be capable of standing alone as a concise overview of the article, establishing context, summarizing the most important points, explaining why the subject is interesting or notable, and briefly describing its notable controversies, if there are any. The emphasis given to material in the lead should roughly reflect its importance to the topic according to reliable, published sources." - I did not get the idea that it could stand alone or that the emphasis in the lead matched that of the article.

• While I admire the short plot summary (way too many pages have exhaustive plot narrations, not plot summaries), I wonder if the summary emphasizes the crucial events in the episode (happily, I have seen a lot of Smallville, including this episode). It seems to focus too much on the details of the "introductory" material and not enough on the "meat" of the episode. The prose is also much too choppy.

• Annette O'Toole, who was fresh off the recent cancellation of her television series The Huntress, was cast in Ettinger's place. - I think that you should mention she played Lana Lang in a Superman movie - it's a nice metatextual connection.

• When David Nutter joined the project, he joined with the belief that the show should be fun and smart, and at the same time respect their audience. - This implies that the show changed character and Nutter was no longer happy with it - is that true? If so, might you mention why?

• Close-ups of Whitney were shot under a football stadium, while close-ups of Lana were shot in a potato factory. Um, why?

• One of the major themes was relationship triangles. - "relationship triangles" is difficult to call a theme - it might be better classified as the plot element that leads to a theme like "unrequited love" or something like that - what are the ideas or concepts associated with the triangles?

• Loneliness was a theme Gough and Millar wanted to attribute to Clark, Lana, and Lex. - themes are not really "attributed to" characters in this way - how about "Clark, Lana, and Lex exemplified the theme of loneliness that Gough and Millar wanted to emphasize" or "Loneliness, represented by Clark, Lana, and Lex's life stories, was an important theme to Gough and Millar."

• One theme, kryptonite enhancing the sins of the antagonist, was created to help provide the stories from week to week. Instead of creating physical monsters, the kryptonite would enhance their personal demons, as well as give them powers. This was seen in a more literal sense in the later episodes. - This is a plot device, not a theme.

• Another major theme, designed to run the course of the series, was of the yin and yang relationship between Clark and Lex. In the pilot, this is played out when Clark saves Lex's life early in the episode when he saves him from drowning; it is reciprocated when Lex pulls Clark from the scarecrow stand, allowing the kryptonite around his neck to fall away, saving his life. - This is a plot device as you have described it - there are thematic elements to it, but you have not discussed them.

Prose:

• They received Kristin Kreuk's audition tape, and liked it so much they immediately showed her to the network. - I wonder if it would be a good idea to remind audiences what characters the actors play. I myself never remember actors' names - I only remember the roles they play.

• Tom Welling, after initially turning down the producers twice, was cast as Clark Kent. - shouldn't it be something like "accepted the role of"? I found the sentence confusing.

• Gough believed Schneider's experience from The Dukes of Hazzard added belief that he could have grown up running a farm. - "added belief" is awkward phrasing - perhaps "added believability to the idea that he could have grown up running a farm" or someething like that

• The character was created just for the series,[1] and was intended to have an ethnic background. - "intended to have an ethnic background" sounds very awkward - was the character supposed to be a minority?

• Nutter crafted the scene of Clark and Lana in the barn to be the final scene for the pilot, as he saw it as the moment that expressed what the show was all about. - repetitious and awkward; how about "Nutter crafted the final scene, which shows Clark and Lana [doing what exactly?]; he saw [what is the "it"?] as the moment that expressed the show's essence."

• Initially, production was going to be in Australia, but Vancouver, Canada had more of the "Middle America landscape" the creators were looking for. - "going to be" sounds a little plain and vague; also, don't end a sentence on a preposition (general rule); how about "Production was initially slated to take place in Australia, but Vancouver, Canada had more of the "middle America" feel for which the creators were looking."

• The area provided a site for the Kent farm, and their barn; the city itself doubled as Metropolis. - slightly awkward; how about "The area provided a site for the Kent farm, including their barn, and the city itself doubled as Metropolis."

• Nutter spent sixteen days on main unit filming, and an additional five days for second unit filming. - Are there any appropriate links for "main unit filming" and "second unit filming" for uninformed readers?

• The limited time forced Nutter to shoot the opening teaser of the meteor shower based on an extensive 150 page storyboard, which was drawn by Adrien Van Viersen. - meaning is unclear - what would he have shot from if he had had more time? also the "extensive 150" pages doesn't make it sound difficult to shoot in limited time

• Shannon Mews was used as an interior set for the Dark Angel pilot and the film Along Came a Spider. - A footnote perhaps? This information is not connected to the rest of the paragraph.

• The crash site of Clark's ship was shot at the sandpits where they filmed Mission to Mars. - not relevant; mere trivia - perhaps a footnote, again

• A couple set pieces were built just for the pilot. - Literally two? Use "two" then; if not, then "several."

• Corn was a major problem the director faced, as it was a necessity for a show based in Kansas. - awkward syntax

• Another theme introduced in the pilot, and one connected to the theme of triangle relationships, is that of the three leads all being orphans. - wordy

• For Clark, it was the idea of "a young man with a secret," which is illustrated in the scene where he watches Lana and Whitney through his telescope in his barn. - wordy

• For Lex, he is given everything anyone could ever want, except love. - awkward and vague

• The "Themes" section feels like a list. Several sentences begin "Another theme..." I have tried to change some of these, but you should try to tell the reader what the dominant themes are and what the subthemes are - make a distinction.

Here are some sources you might find useful:

• "The Wonder Woman Precedent: Female (Super)Heroism on Trial" By: O'Reilly, Julie D.; Journal of American Culture, 2005 Sept; 28 (3): 273-83

• "Smallville’s Sexual Symbolism: From Queer Repression to Fans’ Queered Expressions" by A Kustritz - 2005 - Refractory

• "Superman and Super Myth: Mapping Intertextuality in Smallville" KA Simmons, Dept. of Speech Communication - 2006 - Colorado State University (This is a dissertation.)

• Jes Battis, "The Kryptonite closet: Silence and queer secrecy in Smallville," Jump Cut, No. 48, winter 2006

• Robinson, Michael G. "The Day Superman Changed.” Refractory, vol 6, 2004: 1-15. (perhaps) Awadewit | talk 08:18, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

• • I've tried to expand this some more. The edit summary tries to explain what is going on. Nutter apparently was specifically going for that "fun, smart..." in the pilot, as that is his style. The multiple locations was generally because time did not allow them to do many reshoots in the same spot. I can only assume that was the problem with the Lana and Whitney scene on her porch. Your concerns about the theme can only be addressed when I have more sources for it. I'm not going to rewrite it to include original research on my part. If it is listed as a "theme" that is because Gough, Millar, and Nutter used that word specifically. They did not elaborate anymore than what is there, and thus it will have to wait till I get more sources. I added Kristin's character to that statement, and clarified Welling's casting. It actually read like he took the role, but in fact he still had to audition. Had they not liked him his readings I'm sure he wouldn't have been cast. I can only put what Nutter says, and that is the final scene showed, in his opinion, what the show was supposed to be about. I can't elaborate on something he didn't elaborate on. I can explain the scene better (which I just did), which is a fantasy Clark has about dancing with Lana, but I can't put words in his mouth. He didn't precisely say "the moment shows Clark's longing for Lana, and exemplifies that unrequited love that he has, blah blah blah", as he didn't say anything of the sort. Apparently, there are no direct links to "main unit" and "second unit" filming. They both take place in "production", but I don't see where that article explains that the difference between the two. I could try and find a definition of the two for the article, or do you think a red link should be placed there for someone to fill in? Had Nutter had more time he would have had the chance to deviate from the script a bit, but limited time forced him to stick to the storyboards. 150 pages of anything is extensive, even more so for just an opening segment. I'll try and find a source that states the usual storyboard amount for an entire episode so that we have a comparison. How would you suggest including it as a "footnote", as I'm not familiar with that usage for a Wikipedia article. Tried to explain what Lex gets. I'll have to go through the themes section again, and I'll try and find those resources you listed. Bignole 14:07, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

A 150 page storyboard is not extensive, really, not for an hour long show such as this one with all the effects. Heck I've had 8 pages for a 3 minute production before, with very boring shoots. And this for a local industrial film. Also, I don't know how to explain unit filming to add to the article. "Main unit" filming involves the more important scenes, the main scenes. The "second unit" filming is for close ups, adding scenery, filler for continuity, adding special effects, perhaps snippets of couples, groups, etc, different locations shoots, etc., etc. All to be edited later in the editing room. I wouldn't know how to write that without confusing people more as it's a lot more complicated than what I wrote. - Jeeny ^Talk 06:42, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Oops, I just noticed it was for the opening teaser, not the whole pilot. Hmmm. Again, with all the effects I would think it would involve an extensive storyboard anyway. - Jeeny ^Talk 06:49, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, lets go by your personal experience. 8 pages for 3 minutes, that's 336 pages for 42 minutes, and way less than 100 for the opening teaser which probably lasted a little less than 10 minutes (i don't actually recall). 150 is rather large for such a short segment, especially if you cannot deviate at all from it. Regardless, I am again using Nutter's words to describe the boards, so to him they were extensive for that one segment. I think special effects are post-production. The setup for those effects would be second unit. Also, I saw you changed the Welling audition. If you accept the role, or at least if you write that, it appears as though he had nothing else to do after saying "yes". But he still had to audition, and if he had to audition then he had the chance to be rejected by the studio. I put "accepted the chance" so illustrate the next sentence that states he had to go in for auditions.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 11:29, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Holocaust

This article is important and well referenced and I think, rather well written, but it isnt formatted properly. Any suggestions as to how to improve it, and maybe get it featured? Cheers Brent Ward 11:25, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Jiskairumoko

I have attempted to provide clear description and thorough referencing of research and results at the Peruvian Late Archaic archaeological site of Jiskairumoko. Feedback regarding ways to improve the entry would be greatly appreciated. --Nathancraig 19:18, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ambulance

This article has been given 'Good Article' status, and named as one of the best articles on the Medicine WikiProject. I would now like to bring this article to full featured status, and would value the input of any wiki editors who can help achieve this.

Many thanks in advance for your input. Owain.davies 18:23, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Legend of Zelda: Twilight Princess

Hello, everybody! This article is looking pretty good so far. The only things we need to do now IMHO are to copyedit and any other problems in this article. I was considering getting this nominated for FA again, since the last FAC didn't work. This article needs a lot of work for this article. I consider it the best game article and certainly the best of Wikipedia IMHO. May the force be with you... Sjones23 17:57, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

P.S. Also, any recommendations in improvement shall be appreciated. Thanks. Sjones23 18:02, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

this game is cool--S200048 19:23, 10 June 2007 (UTC)s200048

Any ideas on improving this article? Thanks. Sjones23 20:50, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

No response yet, huh? Well, I guess this will have to wait until anyone responds or puts an Automated PR response. Sjones23 22:32, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Duuude, calm down. It's a big article, and PR isn't terribly active. That having been said:

• The lead needs some work. It's currently one medium-big paragraph followed by a one-sentence paragraph, and basically says "It was delayed, released, released, and rated." The lead should cover all major points of the article, not just the development history. Sales numbers?
• There's a bit of difference between the "approximately 100 years" in the article and the "few decades" stated in the source it cites.
• Consider organizing the plot in a manner other than that revealed to the player (which leads to a lot of short, choppy "Link does this, Zelda explains that, Link and Midna go, etc" sentences, and often introduces characters before they've had a proper description). Most of our plot-heavy FAs (Final Fantasy) go setting, characters, story. Majora's Mask goes setting, story. Most also put gameplay before plot, but this is mostly a style issue.
• The gameplay section, the items section in particular, is perhaps too devoted to specifics. I think one sentence per item is too much. How you go about condensing it is your choice, but take a look at our FAs to get an idea of what detail is appropriate.
• You've got a {{cite}} tag in the TP on Wii section.
• Lastly, make sure you've covered everything from the previous FAC. I see a lot of my comments mirror theirs.

That should be enough to get you started. Nifboy 22:43, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

That should work, Nifboy and thanks. Anyone else? Sjones23 22:05, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Just to let you know that this is the second peer review, the first is at Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Peer review/The Legend of Zelda: Twilight Princess. Sjones23 02:44, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Any other things? Sjones23 16:17, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

• Some sections lack adequate referencing, ex Game Play, Collectibles, Abilities, and Music. I'd recommend trimming the plot section down even further, remove anything that is not needed or break it up into Setting and Plot section. It would also be a good idea to cite the Wii/GC official guide. Consider ripping out the last section of the sales section, unless you can cite it. The article would also look better if the two sentences paragraphs were merged with other more substantial paragraphs.

Other than that, everything looks great. Being a huge LOZ fan, I'd like to help clean the article up, but I'm kinda busy pushing the Michael Barrett article up to GA status. --►ShadowJester07  09:30, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Super Nintendo Entertainment System

Previous peer review: 10 September 2006

We have done quite a bit of work updating this article based on the points raised in the previous peer review. Before submitting it as a GAC or FAC, I'd like one more round of comments to try to make that process go as smoothly as possible.

I've also addressed the issues raised by the lazy automatic reviewer. There are three points remaining:

• A warning about abbreviations, which is incorrectly picking up "program)" at the end of a parenthetical.
• A warning regarding "vague terms of size", which itself is too vague to be useful.
• The standard warning that always shows up.

Please be as specific as possible in your suggestions. Thank you. Anomie 15:44, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

With all the extra references I've added while waiting for someone to respond to this review, it now triggers a "summary style" warning from the automatic reviewer for being over 50 KB. However, after stripping the images, tables, footnotes, references, and such as recommended by WP:SIZE it is under 30 KB (and under 5000 words). Anomie 18:52, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Back to the Future

Tring to get this up to GA status. I know it needs more refs, is there anything eles? Buc 09:53, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Days of our Lives

User:Elonka and I are trying to work to bring this article up to good or featured standard. It's in flux right now; half of it is sourced and sourced again, and the other half are remnants from the previous versions. I would like advice as to what to do from here to bring it up to a higher standard (any new sections to add, which ones to remove, what/how to source other sections). I've rewritten the lead to comply with WP:LEAD, and Elonka helped move a lot of extraneous information to daughter articles. If any of you have edited television articles and moved them to higher standard, that would also be a plus in helping us. Thank you. Mike H. I did "That's hot" first! 07:26, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Observations by J Milburn

Not quite sure how peer review works, but here comes some comments:

• It would quick-fail a GA review- none of the fair use images have rationales. That needs sorting ASAP.
• Some refs have spaces in front of them. Only a little thing, but it should be [Fact].^[1] and not [Fact]^[2]. or [Fact]. ^[3]
• The table of opening titles is unreferenced, which could constitute original research.
• The opening music and Friends sections are also unreferenced.
• In fact, quite a lot of it is unreferenced- I think you are going to need to work on the references at this point. Every statement should be referenced. Well, should have a reference connected to it, if a whole paragraph is referenced to the same thing, you needn't put the same reference at the end of each line.
• I have never heard of this programme before, but, I instantly thought of Pygmoelian, an episode of The Simpsons where they parody it. Now I get the joke! You mention the programme in Friends, and I am sure that it will have been referenced elsewhere on top of a single Simpsons episode. Perhaps it is worth considering placing information about other references? However, I would advise you to be careful, that kind of thing often lets down good articles. See Battle of Normandy for instance...

Right, I hope that has given you a couple of things to consider. J Milburn 08:26, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

I know it's not ready for a GA at all. I want more comments to help me edit to eventually get to that point, which you have provided. Let me read over them and see what I can do about everything. Thank you! Mike H. I did "That's hot" first! 08:31, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm going to put a checklist here and edit it when I've completed the task. 08:59, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

• Fair use rationales for pictures: Resized pictures that were too large, and put fair use rationales on every picture. 11:12, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
• Spaces before references: Done. 08:59, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
• Referencing opening titles table: Done. I used Beth's Days Page, which is still a fan site but it's fairly neutral, very comprehensive and one of the most highly regarded and trafficked, with over 8 million visitors. 09:37, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
• Referencing opening music section: Referenced as to who wrote it. Could not reference 2004 section, searching for sources turned up nothing, but...it DID HAPPEN. I was watching the show then. How do I get past this problem? 09:37, 10 June 2007 (UTC) I since reworded this section, but still lacks source. 12:47, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
• Referencing Friends section: Done. 10:22, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Laura Horton is redlinked, as well as Ken Corday, and Margaret DePriest. And some others. ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 22:01, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Elonka wanted them to be redlinked for a bit, but I can remove them. What do you suggest? Yes? Mike H. I did "That's hot" first! 22:17, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Removed all red links. Mike H. I did "That's hot" first! 23:54, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

My take on it:

• The "Days in other media" and "Famous fans" sections strike me as pretty marginal trivia, even though they are cited.
• The "Best remembered stories" section title should have a hyphen in it, I feel.
• The infobox says "Alternate titles — Days (referenced as DAYS in some publications)". Is mere full capitalisation of the alternate title listed there really worthy of a note with reference?
• The article switches between calling the program "Days of our Lives" and just "Days" randomly. This could do with being made uniform throughout the article one way or the other.
• The article also uses "AW" to refer to "Another World", I think, which I feel would be too confusing for someone who has never heard of Another World.
• In the box of opening credits, it says "save for the removal of the copyright notice of said titles". Using "said titles" in that way is not plain English and could be improved, perhaps to "save for the removal of the copyright notice from the bottom of the screen" or something like that.

That's about it for now from me. - Mark 04:53, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

I disagree with the first bullet point, because to make these sorts of articles featured, you have to show their impact on people and pop culture, which those sections accomplish. Since Soap Opera Digest uses DAYS and not Days, yes, I do think that needs a citation. Please tell me where it switches and how we should do it uniformly. Days should be the uniform throughout the entire article, just to be simple. I can change the AW references. The copyright notice thing will be changed, too. Mike H. I did "That's hot" first! 04:59, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Comments by Frutti di Mare

Hi, this is a very well-written article, but I see some problems, especially with the use of sources. Here are a couple of points about the lead and the "Storyline" section, to be going on with.

1. Bell being credited with saving the show from cancellation doesn't deserve to be in the lead, IMO. The lead is supposed to summarize the article. The mysterious little factoid of Bell saving the show (save it why, where, how?) doesn't summarize anything in the article text, or even in the source—in fact, the source, a very brief obituary of Bell, has even less info than your lead (there's nothing there about the cancellation having been "imminent"). I've removed it, plus done a little general copyediting of the first sections, please see what you think and note some minor requests in the edit summaries.
2. I don't think "which critics immediately panned, as it was seen as a departure from more realistic storylines for which the show had originally become known" is borne out, much, by the sources given. I expect the statement is true, but could you find something more like a "panning" to source it from? And with some suggestion of a comparison with former realistic storylines? The current references in footnotes 15 and 16 ain't it.
3. "Best-remembered stories." Not a good use of a source (Jason Bonderoff). In the first place, you rip off Bonderoff's wording too much; while probably not a copyright vio, I would call it plagiarism. Secondly, to claim that the storylines mentioned "were most remembered by viewers", in a serious tone as if it was a statistical fact, with a note pointing at Bonderoff, is just misleading. I checked out the source, expecting some kind of survey of what viewers do remember... but no, Bonderoff simply makes a personal selection of the storylines that he thinks are "unforgettable". The whole section needs to go back to the drawing-board. Is it wanted at all? It's very unshapely to have the "Storyline" section consist of text one level higher, plus this one subsection. Not good structure.

I'll try to be back with more comments later. Good luck, the article is in some ways very professional! Frutti di Mare 13:34, 12 June 2007 (UTC).

A little more:

• "Cast": note 31, this photo page, is an odd source for the 27 actors and the 40 actors. Am I supposed to count the people in the photos..? Could you find a more professional source? I don't mean that the site is unprofessional, but that the photo page is, for this purpose.
• Consider this sentence: "The cast stayed more or less at this size [meaning 11 actors] until 1974; by this time 27 actors were in different storylines, as the show planned to expand to an hour in length." I don't understand how the statements before and after the semicolon can both be true. 27 isn't, not even "more or less", the same size as 11. I have rephrased, on the supposition that you meant "at" this time rather than "by" this time.
• Er, the show "planned" to expand to an hour in 1974? Very anthropomorhic of it... and why talk about plans in any case—did it expand to an hour or not?
• "Days in other media? Not to quibble or anything, but TV is TV. Friends is in the same medium as Days. Can you phrase the heading differently?
• "Famous fans": I have to agree with Mark that this section is excessively trivial. (I don't agree about Friends, though. That section gives a certain perspective.) You say that it shows the "impact on people", but what's really needed to make the article FA quality is cultural context on a much higher level. Impact on famous people is gossip rather than context. Can you perhaps find some more academic media analysis that's pertinent? Frutti di Mare 20:20, 12 June 2007 (UTC).

(/Me talks to self.) "Thanks for your review, Frutti di Mare. I may address your points some day." —"You're welcome, Frutti di Mare." (/Me cheers up.) Frutti di Mare 09:21, 16 June 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Waite Phillips

Thank you for considering my Peer Review. Expanding the Waite Phillips stub was my first experience writing biographical information on Wikipedia, and I want to make sure that I am not violating any consensus rules that I'm not aware of. Also, I'd like to know how I can improve my writing. I don't think that I'll have time to take it to FA, but I would be happy with good article status. I went of on a Philmont trek last year, so the topic has a personal connection for me.
Thanks for looking it over,
Pnswmr 00:30, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

• Comment Citations need to be added to the article. Oneworld25 06:08, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
• Article changes reverted June 10, 2007 due to copyright violation. Don't worry about further peer review yet, I need to find new sources. Sorry about the confusion! Pnswmr 16:18, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Make-Up (band)

After working on this page for quite some time, I hope to have it assessed as a Good-Article or possibly, though unlikely, a Featured-Article. Please leaves some comments if there is room for improvement. Thanks! Drewcifer3000 01:19, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

• comments - the article needs work on punctuation and grammar. examples include, but are not limited to:

1. in the musical ideology section, the first sentence has a misplaced period after the word glance. within the same section, the words "its" in the second sentence of the first quote should be "it's" to indicate "it is" rather than the possesive form.
2. the term "rock and roll" appears in different formats in the article, e.g. rock'n'roll, rock and roll, etc. using a single format would increase consistency across sections.
3. the word "their" appears throughout the article, sometimes multiple times in the same sentence. reducing the occurence of the word will likely increase the descriptiveness of the article and improve readability.

a good start overall, but probably not ready for GAC based on the comments above. ChicagoPimp 23:07, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Fixed all of the issues above, except when contained within a direct quote (such as the its vs it's and one instance of "rock 'n' roll"). Also, for readability's sake, I left some "their's" in the article, but took out about half. I'll read through the article one more time, just to try and find anything else. A reevaluation would be greatly appreciated. Drewcifer3000 23:44, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Please Note: I added quite a bit of content to the "History" and "Politics" sections. Sorry for doing this after peer review is already underway: I just got inspired. Drewcifer3000 08:10, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] J. R. Richard

This is currently at FAC, and it has run into some snags regarding grammar, style and such. I would really appreciate it if some editors could take a look at the article and make some copyediting corrections soon. Thanks, Nishkid64 (talk) 20:06, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Radiotrophic fungus

I can’t think of much to add to this article. I found out about these particular fungi recently and thought it would be interesting to create a Wikipedia article on it. I don’t know if this article is anything like adequate yet and I actually created the term “radiotrophic” myself, for want of a better name. Can anybody tell what needs to added or subtracted to bring this article up to an acceptable standard? --Simpsons contributor 15:40, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

It's an interesting article but it seems a little brief. The introduction of the Dadachova et al (2007) paper mentions a number of other related ideas for "melanotic fungi" that would be intriguing to explore (if there are sufficient sources). For example, the relation of this fungi to mass extinctions and growth of melanotic fungi in Antarctica. — RJH (talk) 22:17, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Blyth, Northumberland

I've been working on this article for a while now and have expanded it considerably. I want to nominate it for GA status and would like some advice on any improvements necessary to achieve this, or perhaps even a higher rating. Any help will be very much appreciated. Dbam ^Talk/_{Contributions} 13:05, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Juventus F.C.

I have been working on this article a lot lately in an effort to bring it up from B rating to Good Article status. Most of the work seems to be done now, but is there anything else that could be done to it? Regards. - The Daddy 02:20, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Review by SpecialWindler

It seems a very good article, and definetly has the attributes to be GA and beyond. Some suggestions

• The first paragraph of the LEAD is only one sentence, this isn't a big issue though. Done
• Alot of the "history" section is uncited, how do i know (not really knowing the game of soccer) that it's total jiberish.
• The "Players currently on loan" looks a little messy Done
• What is "retired numbers", it dosen't elaborate on it
  • Although it has a main article attached, you should elaborate why and how Gianluca Pessotto got it.
• The "Notable former players" section is messy as well Done
• Again with sources how do I know the "Managerial history" section is total jibberish
• The "Club statistics and records" section should be written in paragraphs rather than dot points
• The "Colours, badge and nicknames" has a quote, it is a little unclear who said that quote (was it John Savage or his friend)
• Can the lists in the "Juventus Football Club as a company" become tables Done
  • Again, can it be sources.

Thats a quick review. SpecialWindler 09:07, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the review I'll tick each one off with a "done" tag when they've been sorted. - The Daddy 08:32, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Review by The Rambling Man

Okay, good so far. My comments will reflect what I think is needed for an WP:FA so if WP:GA is all you have in mind then you may be able to overlook some of them.

• Move all citations in accordance with WP:CITE, e.g. most of them need to be moved to behind punctuation marks with no spaces between the [ref] and the mark.
• WP:DASH should be applied for the seasons, e.g. 1998–99 instead of 1998-99.
• Unwikilink club, no need.
• Reduce width of infobox by adding a <br> between Ranieri and his appointment date.
• For section headings, avoid re-use of the word "Juventus" and don't over-capitilise (i.e. "Supporters and rivalries" rather than "Supporters and Rivalries")
• Why two stadium capacities in infobox (presumably seated/standing?), this is confusing.
• player at the club; John Savage, not a semi-colon here I think, more likely a comma.
• Specifically for WP:FAC, you could create a History of Juventus F.C. and leave a brief six or so paragraphs in this article.
• Move Pessotto picture up one paragraph to tie it to text.
• Consistent date formats needed (you have "December 15, 2006", "Jan. 14, 2007", "May 19, 2007" in one paragraph) - standardise and wikilink significant dates.
• Explanation of "Primavera/Berretti" would help the non-expert reader.
• What makes the Notable Players notable? See Arsenal F.C. and subpages for how to handle this subjectivity.
• Turn stats section into prose.
• Move one of the images in the "Colours, badge and nicknames" section to the right hand side.
• No citations on kit sponsors.

Hope that helps a bit. All the best, The Rambling Man 18:09, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Comments by ChrisTheDude

My esteemed colleagues seem to have picked up most of the issues with this article, but I'd also draw your attention to some extremely poorly worded sentences e.g. in the "Colours, badge and nicknames" section what on earth does this actually mean: "This nickname, globally famous, was derived by the standard of living of then founders, all young torinesi students, in the latest years of the nineteenth century."? Not only does it not make grammatical sense, it doesn't actually explain the origin of the nickname "The Old Lady", which is the point it is supposed to be qualifying (certainly if there's an obvious connection between the founders of the club being poor students and the club winding up being known as The Old Lady I can't see it.....) ChrisTheDude 09:41, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Molybdenum

Well, molybdenum was pretty fleshed-out before I started working on it. My main goal was to just find good sources. I'd appreciate any feedback at all, especially regarding missing information or not-comprehensive-enough parts. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 23:02, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

I've also added it to WP:PR so you should get some feedback here from there too. --Bduke 00:41, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! I can never figure out how to transclude reviews. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 15:38, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Review by SpecialWindler

Some suggestions

• For a transition metal, can the Characteristics be expanded?
• The first paragraph of Applications, could be split into two paragraphs done
• The following sections are stubs and should probably be merged or expanded
  • Copper-molybdenum antagonism
  • Isotopes
    • Although there is a main article for that, it should be expanded a little
  • Precautions
• Category's should be in alphebetical order (numbers then letters) done
• Do you have a citation for this statement
  • "In 2005, USA was the top producer of molybdenum with about 30% world share followed by Chile and China, reports the British Geological Survey."
• There is an external link that links to wikipedia, this should be moved to "See Also" done

Thats a quick review. SpecialWindler 09:15, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, Windler. I'm going to go back to the library to get some more isotope information. I know exactly what I want to get. I'll also try to expand the other sections. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 15:38, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

I put some literature onto the talk page which might help in a history section, the chemistry and the toxicology.--Stone 11:41, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Additional Climax, Colorado as one of the biggest Molybdenum mines between 1915 and 1980 should be mentioned.--Stone 14:53, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

The production of pure Mo from MoO₃ and H₂ and the production of FeMo from iron and molybdenum oxides in a electrical oven should be mentioned.--Stone 14:15, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Terry Pratchett

Looking to get this to GA status, general comments on what needs work.

Why is there information about the adaptations of his work in his article? Wouldn't that be better suited to the articles about the works? (unless he was involved heavily in the process of adaptation, perhaps...) -Malkinann 03:18, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm going to address that by creating a new article (Adaptations of...), but he indeed was involved heavily in many adaptations. That's why I, for example, removed list of plays because they have more to do with Stephen Briggs (author of those plays) and Discworld and less with Pratchett, but left computer games there.
Could you possibly comment on style, grammar and such?--Svetovid 16:28, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Usually, adaptations are dealt with on the page of the work, unless they're notable in their own right. Sometimes I think the writing could be a bit more succinct. I don't get, for example, this: "These footnotes usually involve a comic departure from the narrative or a commentary on the narrative and occur in various numbers.[38]" Do you really need to say how a footnote works? If so, why not link footnote? -Malkinann 22:12, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Battle of Arras (1917)

Recently passed a project A-Class review through WP:MILHIST, and I am hoping to advance this to FAC in (relatively) short order. All comments and criticisms welcome and appreciated, especially those with an eye towards the FA criteria. Carom 04:52, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

I have a few comments that I hope are of some use, and are mostly related to the organizational flow. Please don't take them too negatively as the article has good content.

To me the introduction doesn't satisfy the Wikipedia:Lead section guidelines as a concise, stand-alone overview of the article. The second paragraph of the lead belongs in the Overview section. The first three paragraphs of the Overview section begins with the battle already over, and they look like they belong in the lead section. A number of the subsequent sections consist of only a single paragraph; some of which are quite long (which makes for more tedious reading). This organization results in a table of contents that is much longer than necessary.

Thank you. — RJH (talk) 16:51, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

After a few abortive attempts to address your comments, I've made a few changes to the first part of the article. Hopefully the lead and dirst section fit together a little more logically now; let me know if (and how) you think it can still be improved. Regarding your second point, I'm not entirely sure how to address this. I believe you are referring to the short paragraphs on the local actions subsequent to the initial offensive. I don't believe these actions should be folded together, as they are generally treated individually in both the primary and secondary literature. Any suggestions on how this might be reworked? (Thanks for your comments, by the way). Carom 00:43, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Disinvestment from South Africa

I just put together the page this past week with a DYK entry making the main page today. I myself am not that familiar with the disinvestment campaign nor the general circumstances surrounding it as I am not South African nor was I alive at the time of this campaign. As such, I am looking for feedback in the following areas:

• Is the topic adequately covered? Are there any major aspects of the campaign or its effects that I missed?
• Is the article organization sufficient?
• General constructive criticism of any nature.

Last, but not least, I am admittedly not the most skilled writer, thus any copy editing help is most than welcome. --CGM1980 01:47, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

• Get rid of things like "According to Lisson" and "Knight writes"; this isn't an essay for university (it could almost double as one, though—it smells like university material).
• It is organised and written well. Any prose concerns would be largely negligible.
• Scrap the criticism section and integrate this into the article itself.
• Enlarge the "Effects on South Africa" section. The article seems to be a lot of talk, talk, talk (the campaign) and then we only have a few paragraphs about its actual effects (the economics).

Michael ^talk 01:57, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

It needs a more global perspective. For example, in New Zealand the New Zealand Insurance (NZI) company was picked by the anti-apartheid movement as one company which invested in South Africa, and some hundreds of people bought a minimum parcel of shares in the company each and then turned up en masse to AGMs to ask awkward questions and move motions for the company to disinvest. The anti-apartheid protesters made up a sizable proportion of the people attending the AGMs and couldn't be excluded because they were shareholders, but they had a tiny proportion of the votes. I think the campaign wound up when NZI sold its South African subsidiary. A similar campaign was waged on South British Insurance. I'd add this myself but I don't know of any reliable sources to cite. http://unctc.unctad.org/data/e84iia5.pdf mentions these two companies in relation to South Africa, but not the campaign waged in New Zealand. Anti-apartheid organisations in other countries doubtless pursued their own strategies.-gadfium 04:44, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Found a couple of partial sources: [6] and [7].-gadfium 04:51, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Middlesbrough F.C.

We're attempting to get the article up to Good Article status(and then hopefully onto FAC/FA status, and would like some comments on how the article can be brought up to those standards. Thanks. --Simmo676 23:07, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Quite a lot of points here, but you did say you were aspiring to FA status... :-)

• The "Stadium" section could do with expansion.

Done Expanded.

• The "Media relations" section is rather fluffy and contains little of substance. That some ex-Boro players work in the media is unremarkable; there are a plethora of pundits in the media, and pretty much every club can list a number of ex-players who do such work. The other bits can probably be merged into the Supporters section, though the tone needs a little work in places. Phrases such as FMTTM is now available online as well as in its original paper format come across as promotional in style.
• Remove the "famous fans" listed in the Supporters section, consensus across a number of other football articles and the Football WikiProject is that such lists should not be included. If someone's support for the club is of particular note, it should be mentioned in their article instead of that of the club.

Done Removed. --Simmo676 10:05, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

• There's a couple of instances where the articles displays a "fan point of view": "resulting in relegation, which still remains a sore spot with fans to this day.", "He was to prove a revelation". The Supporters section is perhaps a little too flattering in tone.

Done Tried to remove the flattering inclinations. --Simmo676 10:05, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

• Avoid using colloquial terms such as "bounce back"and "yo-yoing"; write Manchester City, not Man City.

Done Changed to more suitable phrases. --Simmo676 10:05, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

• Remove the lists of the youth team squad and minor staff members. Putting "no players out on loan" is redundant information.

Done Removed loan info. Will move youth team to new youth team article as per other teams soon. --Simmo676 10:35, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

• Are the "Notable former players" chosen using specific criteria or listed arbitrarily based on the personal opinions of editors?

Were at the moment arbitrary, working on List of Middlesbrough F.C. players which includes finding appearances/goals, to provide better notability criteria. --Simmo676 10:35, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

• A "for more details" header is only for internal links, not external links (Managers section). If the site was used as a reference, list it in the references section. If not, remove it entirely.

Done Changed to reference. --Simmo676 10:35, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

• A pedantic one: it's anachronistic to describe the early Middlesbrough kit as "AC Milan style" - Milan didn't form until 1899.

Done Fixed. --Simmo676 10:35, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

• "However, rumours abound that the band will not be on the next incarnation of the home strip - a move proving controversial with Boro fans": remove, Wikipedia is not a crystal ball
• "Middlesbrough also have a historical rivalry with Chelsea" Is this really a rivalry, or merely a way of saying the clubs have contested a number of important matches? Needs citations.

Done Removed it since no source can be found and have never heard anyone describe it as a rivalry. --Simmo676 10:05, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

• People like User:Qwghlm know more about this sort of thing than me, but you might want to double check the validity of the fair use rationale on the image of the programme.

Will check that with Qwghlm. --Simmo676 10:05, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

• A lot of the paragraphs in the History section are only one or two sentences long, giving a choppy feel. Some of these should be merged; it may require some rewording to get them to flow more easily.

Done Done some work. Hopefully it flows better now. --Simmo676 10:05, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

• There are a number of copyediting issues. Take this paragraph as an example:
  • Before the season restarted, Boro were victorious in the Northern Victory League, but the team's chance at the league championship had faded and they finished mid-table. They remained there for the next few seasons, before finally slipping to relegation in 1923-24, finishing 22nd of 22, ten points adrift of their nearest rivals.

No season restarted, the suspension of football ended and a new season began. Consider Before competitive football resumed.... Saying that a club was victorious in the Victory league is jarring due to the repetition of "victory", using "won" would be simpler. Similarly, "bottom" has more effect than "22nd of 22". The paragraph could instead read something like

• Before competitive football resumed Middlesbrough won the Northern Victory League, but the team were unable to sustain their form and finished the 1918-19 season in mid-table. The club remained in the First Division for the next few seasons, but were relegated in 1923-24 after finishing bottom, ten points adrift of their nearest rivals.

If you want further help with copyediting, drop a note on my talk page.

Done Fixed up those and will have a look for some others. Will drop you a note if I need more help. --Simmo676 10:05, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Hope this helps. Oldelpaso 15:49, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Cheers! It certainly did help. Will work on the rest of the comments. Thanks again. --Simmo676 10:05, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] William Bruce (architect)

I've put a fair bit of work into this over the last couple of weeks. I'd welcome any comments which would help it get to GA quality (or better!). Thanks, Edward Waverley 13:20, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Boar

I have never before requested a peer review, so please bear (boar) with me, haha. I stumbled across this article and have been doing some minor cleanup. It seemse the sort of article that could quickly be polished to good or featured status. I am hoping for constructive criticism and guidance to improve this article. thanks. —Gaff ^ταλκ 19:29, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

• This article needs to be more completely referenced and the internal jumps cleaned up. Also it could use sections on "Anatomy" and "Habitat".--BirgitteSB 15:09, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

• I'll keep digging for references. Could you expand on what you mean by "internal jumps"? I'll also work on the habitiat and anatomy. Good ideas! —Gaff ^ταλκ 18:01, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Internal jumps are link to external websites within the main prose as opposed to in the references or external links sections.--BirgitteSB 18:49, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

   Doing...  

At the moment I'm afraid it's quite far from even GA status. It contains a good deal of information, however, and with some clean-up it could be a decent article. Here are my main objections:

• It needs more references. The info on weight and on the size of the sounders need to be referenced, but these are only examples, it should be referenced throughout. Also, the references that are there need to be more uniform. Rather than links in the text to external sites, there should be footnotes. Especially web links such as the ones in the section about WWT are not good. The same goes for "See also medieval hunting". "See also" should be kept to its own section at the bottom.

   Doing...  

• Much of the information is in "bullet point" form; it should be written in more continuous prose. Detached 1-sentence paragraphs such as "Also, in Hindu mythology, the third avatar of the Lord Vishnu was Varaha, a boar", and "The wild boar was a symbol of Richard III of England" should be avoided. The sentence on the Grimsby coat of arms following directly upon the story of Shahrbaraz (without even punctuation!) is quite simply bizarre.

   Doing...  

• Pictures: at the moment there are probably too many, some of them could safely be moved to Commons.

Done

Good luck! Lampman ^{Talk to me!}

By the way, there's an interesting anecdote about how John of Gaunt supposedly killed the last boar in England. You can find it here. Lampman ^{Talk to me!}

   Doing...  

I agree that it has a long way to go to become even a good article. That's part of the fun, since ultimately this article should reach Featured (it did in German). I know its going to take some doing and I am in no hurry. Your comments are much appreciated. —Gaff ^ταλκ 08:32, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] History of poison

This article started out as a DYK back in April. Since then, it has been vastly improved and expanded, and gained GA status on May 22. User:Anonymous Dissident and I would like to know how to improve the article, specifically, what points might we want to expand to, if the present tone, quotations, and content are encyclopedic, or just a general review of the article. If there are any questions or concerns, please contact me or User:Anonymous Dissident. bibliomaniac15 An age old question... 02:00, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks biblio, by the way, for creating the page. I hope we get some good feedback. Anonymous Dissident ^Utter 07:42, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

A few observations: The lead section should be expanded to comply with WP:LEAD. Also, I notice at least two significant poison themes/stories that are not mentioned. Shakespeare's use of poison in his plays deserves at least a little mention, I think, as well as Socrates' death by poisoning in Greek History. Wrad 23:17, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

• I found this article difficult to read. There is a real problem with the flow of the article as a whole. It seems to be made up endless examples of poison mentioned in various times, with without enough analysis or context. This makes me think the article might simply need better quaility sources. The section "Borgia family" goes into too much depth for such a general article and writing is especially poor. Also the transitions betweens the sub-sections are either awkward or non-existent. Missing is a discussion of radiation poisoning. --BirgitteSB 14:20, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Cthulhu

Greetings! I decided to put up Cthulhu article for peer review. Waiting eagerly for your comments and suggestions on improving the article. --VR999 20:13, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

It's referenced almost entirely to primary sources (Lovecraft's writing). There are many, many secondary sources available about Lovecraft's work. Please use them. - Merzbow 05:03, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. Though Lovecraft is the top source, the article could benefit from more references by Lovecraft scholars/peers. In all, though, a well-researched article. As a Lovecraft fan, I'm impressed. --Ispy1981 05:34, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] List of Connecticut tornadoes

This article is somewhat of an experiment for me. First, it is my first list here on Wikipedia. Second, there are no other lists of weather events by state, save tropical cyclones, so I'm not sure if this idea will carry well for further articles (i.e. List of Delaware tornadoes). Regardless, please let me know what you think. -RunningOnBrains 06:28, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Carlos Zambrano

I've created this peer review in order to find suggestions on how to properly deal with this article's lengthy size, numerous subheaders, and seemingly over-abundance of quotes. Thanks in advance. --  ShadowJester07  ►Talk  21:04, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Comments This article has several major problems, and I'll point 'em out for you:

• First off, the lead is way too long. Take a look at some articles that are already FA-status, and you will see what a good lead looks like. The lead is basically supposed to sum up the article, so when you go to fix it, think to yourself "what material sums up the entire article best?" Keep it short, sweet and coherent. Something like "is a Real Madrid supporter" certainly does not belong there, if you know what I mean. (And you don't need to say where he was raised in the first sentence, just where he was born).
• The article needs more pictures, especially one main one at the top. Even a bad one looks better than not having one at all.
• The stats section belongs below all the prose, not above it. Where exactly, is up to you. Also, the stats look very weird on the MiLB one, and are incomplete on the other. They should have the format of the MLB table, but with cities filled in.
• There are too many section titles throughout the article. Since he has only played professionally since 2001, it's not a terrible idea to have one section per season, but all of the subsections are unnecessary. If you ever must use a subsection, and it only has a short amount of prose after it, consider using the h3 section title format (bracket-bracket-h3|section title-bracket-bracket) instead of ===section title===. Your table of contents will appreciate it.
• The quotes, as you said, are a little out of control. Pick the best three or four that you can find and stick to that limit. Cquotes are supposed to be very powerful and prolific, which is why they get to stand out. It detracts from the article when you have so many though.
• The references need to be formatted properly, with authors (when necessary), access dates and publisher information. Any featured article will be a good example to look at for proper formatting.
• The neutrality dispute is a big problem, as a good encyclopedia article should be unbiased in all facets. Make sure you take a good look at the entire article and remove any opinions.
• The prose of the article, as a whole, needs a copyedit. For example, sometimes it says "Carlos", and other times it says "Zambrano". Stick to his last name only, and the use of "he". Also be on the lookout for poor grammar, which I noticed in several places.

That's what I see after taking a good look at this article. Although it needs a lot of improvement, it has the potential to be a good article, so don't get discouraged. At 39 kilobytes, it is not too long to handle. You just need to combine paragraphs (don't leave any with 1-2 sentences only) and make the article flow well. Just take down one problem at a time, and you'll have a better article in no time. Sportskido8 06:44, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

• I know this was said above, but to reiterate, way too many quotes. Knock out at least half of them, then trim some of the others. They don't all need to be in the large quotespaces. This is just from a skim through, I can't give a full evaluation yet.--Wizardman 03:06, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] New York Yankees

This article has recently passed GA-status but I still think it has some kinks that need to be worked out. I would love to hear some outside opinions on how this can be worked towards a featured article. For an archived peer review, see Archive 1. Sportskido8 17:08, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Guerilla Filmmakers Handbook

The article is still too short, but it's difficult to say what else should be added. If anyone has any comments on the notability of the book, it'd be great to hear them at this stage. JMalky 14:56, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Nutrition Assistance for Puerto Rico

Recent Good Article, plenty of sources and a NPOV despite various controversies. I feel it has potential of reaching FA, but I need a fair and balanced review of the article, offering suggestions on how to improve it so that it reaches FA. - Mtmelendez ^{(Talk|UB|Home)} 01:39, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] User:BirgitteSB

I think this is a very strong article; Good work.

• You seemed to be confused on "Notes" vs "References". What you have under the notes section are the references and I believe what you list as references is only repetition. Look at other recently featured articles and see how they handle this. Done
• Criticism and advocacy:I would rather see these issues worked in throughout the article. It very strange to have a section on "Program administration" and not mention the defects at that place.
• I am left wondering what the cost of living on PR is compared to the rest of the US. The chart showing US territories (many of them islands) having higher average benefits that the 50 states would be more useful if there was a column for cost of living. I believe food is generally more expensive on islands because of transportation costs.
• The chart "Income-based eligibility" has an external jump. Done
• See also: These links should be incorporated into the article and the section eliminated. Done

--BirgitteSB 15:34, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Response: Your suggestions are welcome to this article. I agree that the criticism section could be merged with the rest of the article, so I'll get to that soon, and I'll try to include the information you inquired since it is relevant to the article. But yes, I am confused. I included under notes the specific reference to pages and paragraphs within the main references, while including the complete reference title and name under the References section. I thought this was the best way to list references, but I might be mistaken. Could you please expand your suggestion to references? - Mtmelendez ^{(Talk|UB|Home)} 00:54, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Never mind about the references/notes. That is not the way I am used to seeing it handled but I just looked at some other FA and there does not seems to be any unifomity on these issues. So it does not seem to matter after all.--BirgitteSB 16:38, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, putting this issue aside, I'm really grateful for your suggestions. Thanks again for your time. - Mtmelendez ^{(Talk|UB|Home)} 00:06, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Chris Young (baseball pitcher)

I put this up for peer review a few weeks ago and was encouraged to expand the article. I have now and would like feedback before submitting for WP:FAC. TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 17:48, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

P.S. Here are the changes since the last comment on the original peer review.TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 18:01, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

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

• Per Wikipedia:Context and Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates), months and days of the week generally should not be linked. Years, decades, and centuries can be linked if they provide context for the article.^[?]
• See if possible if there is a free use image that can go on the top right corner of this article.^[?]
• Avoid including galleries in articles, as per Wikipedia:Galleries. Common solutions to this problem include moving the gallery to a separate page, like Gallery of Chris Young (baseball pitcher).^[?]
• Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (numbers), there should be a non-breaking space -   between a number and the unit of measurement. For example, instead of 2006 NL, use 2006 NL, which when you are editing the page, should look like: 2006&nbsp;NL.^[?]
• Per Wikipedia:Context and Wikipedia:Build the web, years with full dates should be linked; for example, link January 15, 2006.^[?]
• As per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates), dates shouldn't use ^th; for example, instead of using January 30^th was a great day, use January 30 was a great day.^[?]
• This article may need to undergo summary style, where a series of appropriate subpages are used. For example, if the article is United States, than an appropriate subpage would be History of the United States, such that a summary of the subpage exists on the mother article, while the subpage goes into more detail.^[?]
• As done in WP:FOOTNOTE, footnotes usually are located right after a punctuation mark (as recommended by the CMS, but not mandatory), such that there is no space in between. For example, the sun is larger than the moon [2]. is usually written as the sun is larger than the moon.[2]^[?]
• Please ensure that the article has gone through a thorough copyediting so that it exemplifies some of Wikipedia's best work. See also User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 1a.^[?]

You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 03:24, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Extraneous information

Expanding the article is fine, but I think the pendulum may have swung too far in the other direction. There can be too much information, especially when it becomes as esoteric as it can become in this article. The article (as about 90% of those on WP) also has a current day bias. I think the 2007 section discusses half of his starts this season.

I am not trying to beat you up here. And I am sure that lots of the obscure stuff is not all your doing. But at some point, reading an article becomes sort of unbearable if you have to sit for a moment and think about whether some random statistic is actually relevant.

But as to some specifics:

• Young took a no-hitter into the sixth inning of his 2nd Triple-A start on August 2, 2004 against the Sacramento River Cats.
  • Minor league details are uncommon in WP articles, but if you are going to create a paragraph for his Triple A career, this is probably an important part of the description. TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 17:10, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
• Other Princeton baseball players who played in the major leagues include Moe Berg, Charlie Caldwell, and John Easton.[32] The other Ivy League players to have played for the Texas Rangers are Pete Broberg (Dartmouth College) and Doug Glanville (University of Pennsylvania). OK that's good, but is it necessary?
  • He has many Ivy League fans who wonder this kind of stuff, especially the first sentence. TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 17:10, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
• This was the first Ranger 1-0 victory since August 25, 2000 against the Toronto Blue Jays,[43] a stretch of 669 games.[24]. The club went 5-2 in his brief 2004 stint with the club. How important is that to the article. Its fun to think that the team went 5-2 with him on the team, but I cannot believe that his mere presence is correlated with victory
  • Clarified 5-2. TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 17:10, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
• May included his season high 13.2 scoreless innings recorded in May 3 - May 9, 2005. Is this all that impressive? A lot of guys throw 13 scoreless innings
  • Admittedly, this is not a Fernando Valenzuela start, but a pretty good rookie scoreless streak. I am not sure how many rookies record such streaks. I would imagine that a streak like this might be the longest American League rookie streak in more years than not. TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 17:10, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
• Young's closest no-hitter was 5.2 innings of hitless pitching against the Houston Astros before allowing a Craig Biggio single in the sixth inning on June 25, 2007 at Houston. About a thousand other guys have taken no-hitters into the sixth inning. Is that impressive or notable
  • I view this article as a setup for 3 years from now when Young is the next Randy Johnson bidding on no-hitters left and right. TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 17:10, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
• He went 3-1, 2.59 over 24.1 IP in four starts in interleague play giving him the 10th-best (tied) interleague ERA in the American League. 10th best?
  • O.K. this can go. TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 17:10, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
• Young, the former Princeton Tiger athlete, started seven games alongside former University of Pennsylvania infielder Mark DeRosa making them the second Ivy League tandem in the last 50 years to start for the same team, the other being Ron Darling (Yale University) and Bill Almon (Brown University) of the 1987 New York Mets. I think the Ron Darling part is unecessary.
  • See above on Ivy League trivia. Consider the fact that trivia sections are now discouraged so that trivia will be interspersed into articles. TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 17:10, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
• Allie Reynolds set the record at 25 straight road starts spanning the 1948 and 1949 seasons that Russ Meyer almost matched with his 24 straight road contests spanning the 1953 and 1954 seasons. OK, Young had a great road stretch. Probably enough to mention that it was the last time since Allie Reynolds and move on
  • This streak is on the short list of most important accomplishments to date and should be properly set up. TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 17:19, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
• This would have been the first no-hitter in San Diego Padres history.[62] It was the first time a Padre had taken a no hitter into the ninth inning since Andy Ashby on September 5, 1997 vs. the Atlanta Braves (8.0 innings). The Padres are joined by the New York Mets, Colorado Rockies and Tampa Bay Devil Rays as the only franchises who have never pitched no-hitters. The last part is irrelevant to Chris Young
  • It is part of the story of what he is trying to do. TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 17:16, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
• During Young's next start on June 4, 2006 at Pittsburgh he did not allow a hit for the first 5 1/3 innings,[68][69] making him one of only two pitchers (Steve Trachsel—June 20–25, 2002)[70][71] to have consecutive starts with at least five hitless innings since the 2000 season. this may be one of the most obscure statistics I have ever seen
  • It is interesting, IMO TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 17:10, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
• He pitched 6 2/3rds shutout innings facing twenty-five batters and throwing 102 pitches (63 of them for strikes Pitching 6 2/3 shutout innings is really notable, his pitch count really isn't
  • O.K. TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 17:10, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
• Young's 6–0 2006 road performance was one of forty-nine undefeated road seasons with at least five victories by pitchers since post-season play began in 1903. It is the first, however, to be followed by a post-season road victory. I'm sorry, this is the most obscure statistic ever
  • Come on. Isn't that great. TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 17:10, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
• Allie Reynolds is the only other pitcher to go twenty-five road starts without a loss.[57] Reynolds' twenty-five game streak spanned the 1948 and 1949 seasons.[3] The last of the nine other pitchers to go twenty consecutive road starts without a loss was Greg Maddux who went twenty-two starts without a loss during the 1997 and 1998 OK, we get it, good road pitcher, Reynolds
  • This streak was a big deal and its significance must be properly established. It must be clear that even among modern pitchers it is significant. TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 17:16, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
• Young continued his mastery over the Pittsburgh Pirates against whom he twice took no-hitters into the 6th inning in 2006. He posted 7 shutout innings and has now allowed only 7 hits against the Pirates in 23 2/3 innings I am surprised that every pitcher in the national league can't claim utter superiority over the Pirates.
  • :)17:10, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
• The day before, Alfonso Soriano homered off David Wells, and upset the Padres with his admiration and celebration of his own work. He stopped at the plate to admire the ball and then started his home run trot with a few steps backward.Maybe this is valid, maybe not. I just cannot imagine how a fight takes as much time to discuss as his entire minor league career
  • In an attempt to add breadth I had to add some outside the lines stuff for his major league career. This is it so far. TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 17:10, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] These just need to be re-written

• In fifteen straight starts from April 16 and July 4, 2002, Young took the win-loss decision. Done with revised wikilink TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 17:40, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
• May 9th was one of two times your recorded came within an inning of a shutout by pitching eight scoreless innings and August 17, 2007 against the Cleveland Indians was the other.[50][51] Done TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 17:40, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

• • Normally I would just rewrite an article myself and fry some of the more random stuff. But you have made the effort to ask for input so that's my two cents. Take it for what its worth. Montco 03:00, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Raëlian Church

/Archive 1

• It's time for another peer review of this article.☺▬█ ♪♪♫ I M Kmarinas86 U O 2¢ 15:29, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Octopus card

The article had been listed as FA for nearly 2 years when it failed an FAR in January and was demoted. Lack of sources was a problem and so was some of the section structuring. Since then, work has been done to improve the article. It was subsequently promoted as a GA article a few days ago, and now I'd like to request a peer review before nominating it for FA again. I'd like to make the FAC as smooth as possible so please take a look to see if there's any problems with the article. Thanks. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 06:08, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Daniel Bernard Roumain

This article IMO is in need of a rewrite and re-organization to save it from a possible speedy delete. Right now there is an advert tag at the top. This artist is highly notable IMO and several sources can most likely be pulled from the popular press and well as classical music-related sources to make a good re-started article on an exciting young musical star.--Msr69er 04:23, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] President of Pakistan

The article is fairly comprehensive about the list of Pakistani presidents with sources and some notes. It could use some hints on how to proceed to become a FA list as I've noticed several similarities to other good FA lists on similar topics. Additional help would also be welcome to improve the article. Thanks. --Idleguy 01:31, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Habbo Hotel has had a peer review by Wikipedia editors which is now archived.

[edit] Habbo Hotel

Myself and other editors have been working hard on this article and to gain a higher grade on the WP:1.0 assessment scale. It was recently promoted to B class, but I would be interested to know what else could the article include, remove, reword, etc to hopefully upgrade it to Good article or A class, and then possibly onto featured article.

I also requested peer review at WP:CVG, but I have not received any comments yet. I figured peer reviewing here would be a better choice, and hopefully receive some comments. Thanks, –Sebi ~ 23:06, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Bratislava

This article has recently passed GA process and now I would like to get feedback on how the article can be improved for eventual FA candidature. Among other things, I would like to get comments particularly in three things: the unresolved name issue, which can be seen on the Talk page and archives, and to the Economy and Culture and entertainment sections, if there can be something improved. Any comments or suggestions are welcome. MarkBA ^t/c/@ 16:48, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Note: if you will post link to an automated peer review, please note that it was run already once, and results can be seen here. MarkBA ^t/c/@ 12:10, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Comment This has developed extremely well in the last few months, the article was a pleasure to read concise, well structured providing all the information you would expect in a FA standard article. The article summarizes major topics particularly well. However one or two minor quabbles. Firstly I'd like to see more references particularly on broad statements that will need verification to reach an FA status. In many places referencing is still rather sparse and needs consolidation throughout and reliability of all sources checking before the proposal. Secondly there are one or two unencyclopedic sentences which will need to be factualized. For instance "Bratislava is an hour's drive from the Czech Republic" - maybe so but this is highly dependent on traffic, speed, automobile etc. Stick to fact as much as possible, which you genrally have very well. Thirdly I'd like to see the government and politics section written more coherently and a bit more detail given-this for me was the only flawed section I could see in the article. I have adjusted the structure of the article in places which are related to geography first and beleive this is the structure that will take this to FA. Other than these very minor flaws it is a very good article for the world to read and believe that with a bit of work should reach FA requirments. Well done Mark and to all who have worked on this - ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ ^{"Expecting you" Contribs} 10:13, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

• As to the distance, this is an old unsourced fact, which I replaced with concrete distance and sourced. Strange that I haven't noticed that earlier.
• To the Government section, it could be done more coherently but not sure about political parties. There are no notable local parties, only state parties make their business.
• And finally to the source reliability and count, we have replaced some of the questionable sources with better ones and are trying to balance the coverage. MarkBA ^t/c/@ 14:19, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] AEMT-CC

I've reworked this page and would like it reviewed for clarity, grammar, etc. --Demantos 16:09, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Itzik Zohar

• I hope to get this page as good as it possibly can be. Perhaps in the distant future, a featured article. But that would take many more resources and perhaps for the subject to gain some worldwide recognition. -NYC2TLV 07:20, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Havasupai

This is my first real creation of an article. It was a really small stub before i got my hands on it so I just want an overall assessment and any additions that may need to be added. I am an expert on this subject, as I have been down to Havasupai over 15 times, and have researched it pretty good, so I am pretty confident on the content. it is mostly formatting, and additions that could be added, and maybe better wording/editing. Any good criticism would be good. Also this article needs a new grade, as it is no longer a stub. And since i am a little biased and have never graded an article i didnt want to it myself. So that would be good too. Thanks --Josh Matthews 06:57, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sargon of Akkad

This article has undergone extensive revisions and has recently been accorded GA status. Am trying to get it up to FA standards. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 03:37, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Eaton Canyon

I'd like a fresh set of eyeballs to help me improve this article. Thanks. --evrik ^(talk) 18:10, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Mr. Bungle

I have been working on this article over the last while adding references and such and would like some comments, paticularly in how it reads, what parts should be improved? and is the lead section lacking a little? Thank you - Mr Bungle 02:06, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

I have noticed you have done many good edits to the article. I am going to read it later this week and tell you what parts should be improved! :) Zouavman Le Zouave _{(Talk to me!)} 06:27, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Sorry I haven't had much time to read the article. However, I have printed the article and am going to read it and write notes about how it could be improved. Expect the peer reviewing in the following days, although there may be a delay due to the fact that I do not have internet at home. ZOUAVMAN LE ZOUAVE 10:25, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Heh, had to blink a few times to figure out that your username is also Mr. Bungle... you must be a fan. :) Overall, an enjoyable read, but there's work to do here:

• Need to mention in fair-use image and sound clip description pages where the image or sound clip is being used on Wikipedia; put this in the rationale itself (i.e. name the article, Mr. Bungle, where you're using it).

Done

• Image:MrBungle99.JPG is too small; the MOS allows you to specify a larger size for a thumbnail if the image's aspect ratio is such that otherwise it would look weird, like here. I suggest 220px.

Done

• Image:91SantaClaraMike.jpg could be too large; I don't like how it pokes down into the "Anthony Kiedis and Mr. Bungle feud" section following it. Once you shrink the size, you can absolutely prevent any poking with a trailing <br clear="all"> in the "Stage shows" section.

Done Still hangs down a bit giving white space below it

• Would be nice to have some critical commentary on the music clips in the clip boxes themselves (may even be necessary for fair use).

Done

• Should list the band's primary founders and most important members in the lead somewhere.

Done

• Sometimes you don't properly format album and song names correctly in the text (for example, italicize the former, double-quote the latter); I suggest going through the guidelines at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Music/MUSTARD in detail.

Done

• Issues with references:

• Lots of references need publisher fields.

Done

• bunglefever.com - looks like a fan site, not sure about its reliability. I'm very concerned about the large amount of information in the text cited to the Mr. Bungle FAQ - are the authors of this FAQ just fans? If so, I don't think it's reliable. I'm not confident myself about when and how fan sites can be considered reliable; the MUSTARD guidelines seem to suggest top-of-the-line fan sites can be used if they provide a unique resource and/or have a connection to the band. Can any other project members chime in here?

This website has been mentioned as “semi official”, whatever that means, I would assume it is a fan site but without it I’m unsure how this information could be properly referenced. Most the bunglefever information is reliable and of all the information on the web I would put this website as the best (and I think it does provide a unique resource).

• Bungle Grind - ditto. I notice this site contains copies of articles from notable magazines like Revolver - it's OK to cite them here as long as you're sure there's no copyvio (e.g. does Bungle Grind have permission to reproduce?)

This website seems to be a less well organized fan site and probably should go. As for it hosting articles that were published in reputable magazines, I’m unsure if it has the right to reproduce (I would assume not), I could just discard the | url = | section and not actually link to site, I just figured any source where people can read the article for themselves would be useful and wasn’t sure if Wikipedia frowned on links to external sites being a copyvio.

• Goblin Magazine - seems to be an archive of some magazine called Goblin... was this a notable magazine... does this site have permission to reproduce?

To tell you the truth I’d never heard of it before researching this article and looks like it is now defunct, it appears the site is the actual magazines site now just hosting old articles (so it probably can reproduce their old articles)

• ram.org is certainly not reliable, it's some professor's personal page.

Gone

• Reference 23 is broken (and appears of questionable reliability from the URL).

Done Found the original interview in a online magazine

• A lot of other references are from web zines that are probably OK if used sparingly, but I think there's just too many. I would suggest replacing some with articles from reliable print newspapers/magazines (perhaps findarticles.com would be useful).

Some replaced, some kept

• History section sub-section titles should have year ranges in them.

Done Pretty much was just following Nirvana and Pixies here but other FAs (Slayer, The Smashing Pumpkins) do put the years in so followed suit

• Any non-trivial music analysis or musical value judgment should be referenced to a critic who makes that analysis or value judgment (footnote close to the sentence in question, plus you should usually name the critic/publication in the text itself for really deep analyses and for value judgments).

   Doing...   Trying to list analysis with specific critic/publications

• The "Style and influence" section is too listy — do you need to list so musical styles? Remember, these all must have been mentioned by critics.

   Doing...   I have referenced their genres to critics opinions but still think it looks too listy, should this list just be deleted or just mention a few genres (where to draw the line)?

• The "Anthony Kiedis and Mr. Bungle feud" section has a "Quotes" sub-section, which is discouraged by guidelines. Do away with the "Quotes" sub-section, and expand the parent section with more prose that contains smaller quotes worked into the text.

Done

• The article overall needs a moderate copyedit (many run-on sentences, for example). I could help with this, but after the other issues are resolved and the text stabilizes.

- Merzbow 08:20, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks again for the comments - Mr Bungle | talk 06:30, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] San Juan, Puerto Rico

This article has been under work by me and several other members of WikiProject Puerto Rico and we have worked hard on raising this page to where we believe it should be in the process managing to get it pass Good Article. To reviewers please judge this article as if you where judging a Featured Article Candidate cause that is where we are headed, any concerns presented will be attended by me or by any other member of WikiProject Puerto Rico, thanks for your time. -凶 13:55, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Some points to consider:

• Go easy on the sub-headings. Some, like "Subjected to attacks", break the narrative flow (they are unnecessary) and some, like "Subdivisions", don't have enough meat to justify itself ("Subdivisions" is only two sentences long).
• In "Demographics" place the boxes to one side and allow the text to flow around them. Having them in the middle creates a lot of white space on both sides.
• What source did the climate figures come from? Please provide a footnote.
• A map of the city, with such features as roads, rail, watercourses, landmarks, etc. would be great.
• The "Sports" section only consists of a list and a box. Prose is encouraged.
• Personal opinion: I don't like "Notable residents" sections. Little info, little relevance, a lot of space.
• This link [8] provides a good guide of sections and content that could be valuable to add. --maclean 06:11, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

We Got Homework, i definitely agree with points mentioned above.

We should look at other cities articles, the Charts we have look like big rocks that we have to climb over, we still got an overdose of References, Miami with three times more population has only a third of the References, Las Angeles 10 times more a handful for its size, most of ours should go to External links, we're out of balance! it seems we are just filling-in to make article seem longer or for lack of info, hey guys'n gals, Where’s The Meat?, We have to look into having sections like:

• Arts, Culture and Fine Arts
• Economy
• Tourism
• Parks and recreation
• Government
• Education
• Ecology
• Bibliography

These are all things We Stand Out (or we should). San Juan shines when we get into music, (Education section) and we don't just play the guitar and drums, we excel in wind instruments amongst others but zilch, why are we in such a hurry to get a GA nomination when so much stuff is missing, how did we get a GA nomination just bogs my mind, lets make this a World Class Article, lets get the homework done ~ Moebiusuibeom-en 17:04, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Thank for reviewing, I will get to work now. -凶 19:23, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Lets continue - Moebiusuibeom-en 19:49, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

So much silence, any commentaries? Did some adjustments in Transportation section, added more “Meat”

Also added positive aspect of Tren Urbano and some Link shuffling, moved link about negative aspects of Tren Urbano and placed it in Tren's Urbano article where "i believe" it should be, (let me know thoughts!) sort of hid the truth, or in other words if reader wants more detailed info please refer to Main article: Tren Urbano in this case. furthermore articles line; "2006 has reported a 7.5% increase in ridership over 2005" should have a link, news is available in el Nuevo Día but is not digitalisized!

Who knows how to place Demographics charts on right side as per peer view suggestions?! Hey, lets keep fine tuning Moebiusuibeom-en 16:04, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

I tried, but the format seems to be failing, I presume it's because of the way the tables are constructed I think we should be using graphs to illustrate this, they take less space and look better. -凶 20:46, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

• Yes. I've tried too, try using graphs then, sounds like a good idea!~ Moebiusuibeom-en 21:43, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

This is what Peer review maclean may mean:

[edit] Denton, Texas

[edit] Notable Residents

Main article: List of notable residents of Denton, Texas

Denton's position as a cultural and educational center for the Dallas-Fort Worth Metroplex has resulted in many notable people having resided in the city.

Who's going to do it?! ~ Moebiusuibeom-en 22:10, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

• I can take care of that, can you look for the graphs? I can't believe Wikipedia doesn't have a code for graphs, we need to look for them in books and I'm short on that area. -凶 22:31, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

The biggest problem with the "Notable residents" section (now list-article) is that it was unreferenced. Each person should have a footnote indicating what their relationship is with the city (to illustrate the relevance). The article is looking good. That is the first time I've seen show/hide used with charts. --maclean 09:10, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Further comments @ User talk:Dark Dragon Flame ~ Moebiusuibeom-en 16:53, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Black church

I'm working on getting this article up to good article status. Any advice for getting it there would be helpful. Thank you. CJ 15:25, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Paul Cornell (Chicago)

This article has been thrice rejected at WP:GAC. Critical review would be appreciated. TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 14:12, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] User:SpecialWindler

Some quick pointers

• May I suggest you move the page to Paul Cornell (lawyer) rather than Chicago. Done TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 21:29, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
• You need a space between the two dates and the dash (have 2002 - 2005 rather than 2002-2005)
  • according to WP:DASH that is not the majority opinion. Switched to –
    • News to me, thanks for alerting me SpecialWindler 10:11, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
• You have stubby section, consider merging them with others. Otherwise expand them. Sections include
  • Background
  • Hyde Park Hotel
  • Grand Crossing
  • Chatham
  • Oak Woods Cementary
  • Other ventures
  • Family
  • Memorials
  • Other references Done TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 16:58, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
• Maybe add a external links section.
  • Unsure what you want to see there. The notes cover almost everything. TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 21:19, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
    • What notes???
• Maybe the prose needs to be better,
  • See WP:COPYEDIT
    • not my strong suit. Would appreciate assistance. I read the page and then my article with no feeling of need for editing. TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 21:39, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
    • Add {{copyedit}} to top of article.
• Category's need to be in alphebetic order (numbers then letters) DoneTonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 20:48, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
• Avoid red links, just leave them without a link Done (decided to leave 2) TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 20:51, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
• Sort the section "Civic Leadership" into paragraphs instead of one big jab of information. Done TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 21:15, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
• Do you have a source for his birth and death days. Done TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 20:48, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Thats a quick review. SpecialWindler 06:59, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Jayron32's Review

Honestly, had I reviewed this for GAC, I would have easily passed it. I see nothing to give me pause as a good article. It meets WP:WIAGA criteria well. That having been said, it is far from perfect:

• There are too many stubby, one-sentance sections. Consider expansion or collapsing. The Later ventures section suffers from this quite a bit. Done TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 16:58, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
• The Hyde Park section is jumpy and choppy in places, for example, the paragraph beginning "He planned and advocated a..." seems out of place. Doesn't this information belong more towards the start of the section? There are other issues with flow here that make this section less than briliant on the FA scale.
• The Family section needs some cleanup. Also, why is this not part of the background section. Done TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 16:58, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
• The memorials section seems a bit incomplete. You have a picture of one that isn't even listed.
• As a whole, the article could stand for a better organization scheme, such as maybe: Done TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 16:58, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Personal life
    • Early life and ancestry
    • Marriage and family
  • Professional life
    • Lawyer
    • Founder of Hyde Park
    • Civic leadership
    • Other ventures
  • Memorials

Just some general ideas to improve the article. As I said, I most likely, had I reviewed this, would have passed it as a GA. Still has lots of room for improvement though. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 04:52, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for taking another look. I think in general I am suffering from lack of info. With the latest changes I will take another shot at WP:GAC. TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 17:01, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

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

• Please expand the lead to conform with guidelines at Wikipedia:Lead. The article should have an appropriate number of paragraphs as is shown on WP:LEAD, and should adequately summarize the article.^[?]
• See if possible if there is a free use image that can go on the top right corner of this article.^[?]
• If this article is about a person, please add {{persondata|PLEASE SEE [[WP:PDATA]]!}} along with the required parameters to the article - see Wikipedia:Persondata for more information.^[?]
• Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (numbers), there should be a non-breaking space -   between a number and the unit of measurement. For example, instead of 15 foot, use 15 foot, which when you are editing the page, should look like: 15&nbsp;foot.^[?]
• Please ensure that the article has gone through a thorough copyediting so that it exemplifies some of Wikipedia's best work. See also User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 1a.^[?]

You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 03:26, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Green Knight

This article just passed for GA status, and we're shooting for FA. Look for copyedit, format, comprehension, and whatever else you think it may need before becoming a candidate. Wrad 02:27, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Review by Awadewit

A very nice article. Most of my comments address prose problems.

On content:

• I wonder if it is possible to give some historical background to these poems - approximate dates; where they were supposedly written; and their relationship to the culture at large - who were they written for and why?
  • Wouldn't that be better for each poem's individual article? Wrad 03:19, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
    • I'm not talking about extensive information - just the basics. Right now, the poems are kind of in a historical vacuum for the uninformed reader. Awadewit ^Talk 08:24, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
  • So basics like general time period, Celtic culture, etc? Wrad 19:21, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
    • • Exactly - imagine an undergraduate coming to the page who has a smidgen of knowledge regarding English literature. What basic information might they need to situate the piece of literature in their timeline of Chaucer to Shakespeare to Dickens to American Idol? Just positioning it for them in reference to things like Chaucer, major medieval historical events (with dates) and providing some details of the culture surrounding the text really helps people get a handle on how this literature was used. Seriously, people might actually think it was published in thousands of copies and everyone went to a bookstore and bought it if you don't tell them differently. (I once saw a student ask why Benjamin Franklin couldn't spell better in his autobiography - they simply didn't know that spelling hadn't been standardized yet. Everything has to be explained.) Awadewit ^Talk 19:41, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
      • I did some work on this, adding a few sentences to put them in context. Does it need some more?--Cúchullain ^t/c 21:11, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

I would say a bit more. Maybe something on the audience for the poems. Also, you say the dates are conjectural - can you give some of the conjectures and source them? Awadewit ^Talk 21:33, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

• I adjusted this more in preparation for a shrinking "Role in Literature" section. Sources should follow soon. Wrad 23:37, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Done sources added. Wrad 21:41, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

• The plot summary almost outweighs the interpretation here, thus if there is nothing else to add to the interpretation, I would suggest trying to cut down on the summary.

Done

On prose:

• He is Bercilak de Hautdesert[1] in Sir Gawain, while The Greene Knight names him "Bredbeddle". - This sentence is confusing. Why not just "He is called Bercilak de Hautdesert in Sir Gawain and Bredbeddle in The Greene Knight."
• Tolkein described him as being "as vivid and concrete as any image in literature." Other scholars have called him the "most difficult character" to interpret in his most famous poem Sir Gawain and the Green Knight. His overall role in Arthurian literature includes being a judge and tester of knights, and thus he is both terrifying, friendly, and somewhat mysterious to other characters. - It would seem that the description of the Knight should come before the interpretation. Leads are particularly important for those unfamiliar with a subject, so they should be constructed with such readers particularly in mind.
• In Sir Gawain and the Green Knight, Bercilak is transformed into the Green Knight by Morgan le Fay, an enemy of King Arthur, in order to test his court. In the Greene Knight he is transformed by another woman for the same purpose. In both stories he sends his wife to seduce Gawain as a further test. - The difference between le Fay and the "other woman" does not seem vital for a lead. What about simply say that the character is transformed into the Knight by a woman in order to test Arthur's court. Also, adding something more about that test would be helpful.
• The Knight is similar to many other characters in literature, before and after, but is the only one of them to be completely green (at least in the Sir Gawain poem). - This is a very odd sentence. Usually one does not compare a character to the entirety of literature. Could you come up with a more reasonable comparison or simply leave that part of the sentence out? You could just say that the Knight is unique in literature by virtue of his greenness, but even that seems like a too large a claim to be supportable.
• The name 'Bertilak' seems to derive from 'bachlach', a Celtic word meaning 'churl'. - Unfortunately, I think that you are going to have to define "churl" for the reader or link it to wiktionary.
• He is described as being completely green: skin, hair, dress, and everything. - the "and everything" has a slangy ring to it; How about "He is described as being completely green, from his skin to his hair to his dress" or something like that.
• He is holding a sprig of holly, which the poet points out is green at this time of year. - the poet or the narrator of the poem?
• Beyond his greenness, he is described as very comely, strong, and well built, and having long hair. - not a parallel structure
• The next time we meet the Knight, he is in the form of Bercilak de Hautedesert, lord of a large castle, who freely invites Gawain in as he journeys to the Green Chapel. - "we" constructions are generally frowned upon at wikipedia
• In the end, however, he fails in accepting a green girdle from the lady, and not giving it to Bercilak. - awkward; perhaps "he fails when he accepts...and does not give it to..."?
• Again, Gawain falters in his knighthood in accepting a girdle from her, and the Green Knight's purpose is fulfilled in a small sense. - "knighthood" does not seem the right word here - perhaps something along the line of honor or duty?
• The earliest story with the beheading game element is the Middle Irish tale Bricriu's Feast. - "beheading game element" is an awkward phrase
• Stories of the medieval period portray it as representing love and the amorous in life,[12] and the base, natural desires of man - awkward phrasing; perhaps "Stories of the medieval period use it to represent..." or "In the medieval period, green often represented.."
• Despite the many characters similar to him, the Green Knight is the first of his parallels to be green. - "parallels" is awkward diction
• In one interpretation, it is thought that the Green Knight, as the "Lord of Hades," has come to challenge the noble knights of King Arthur's court. - wordy; how about "In one interpretation, the Green Knight..."
• Another possible interpretation of the Green Knight is to view him as a fusion of these two deities, at once representing both good and evil and life and death as self-proliferating cycles. - wordy
• The final meeting at the Green Chapel has led many scholars to draw religious connections. - connections between what and what?
• On the top of the garland is a quane, or a group of bright flowers. At the end of a ceremony, the quayne is taken off the garland and placed at the top of the church tower. - consistent spelling
• Due to the nature imagery associated with the Green Knight, scholars have seen the ceremony as possibly deriving from his famous beheading in the Gawain poem, the quane removal being symbolic of the loss of the knight's head. - wordy
  • I've tried to work on some of this.--Cúchullain ^t/c 04:44, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

On organization:

• It would seem that much of the information in the first paragraph of the "Interpretations" section should go under "Significance of the colour green," perhaps subheaded as "Interpretations."

Done I think. Wrad 00:10, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

• Why do you list only one book in the "References"? I would suggest that you either list all of the sources you used in the article (for ease of consultation by the reader) or change it into a "Further Reading" section. Right now, it is unclear what that section's purpose is.

Done erased the section. Wrad 00:10, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Various and sundry:

• Footnote 8 is unclear to me. Is it a book?

Done fixed Wrad 03:18, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

• All of the footnotes need to be formatted the same way (11-15, 17-21 for example, are different than the rest and a bit confusing because of the lack of italics).

Done fixed Wrad 23:16, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

• Might you wikilink a bit more in the article, particularly Sir Gawain, which is only linked in the lead? Awadewit ^Talk 11:49, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
• Done

[edit] Harry Potter parodies

archive

Moving this back up, as it now requires a separate peer review. Serendipodous 16:51, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Blackstone Hotel

This is a failed WP:GAC. I would like further critical review before renominating. TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 15:24, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

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

• Per Wikipedia:Context and Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates), months and days of the week generally should not be linked. Years, decades, and centuries can be linked if they provide context for the article.^[?]
• See if possible if there is a free use image that can go on the top right corner of this article.^[?]
• This article is a bit too short, and therefore may not be as comprehensive as WP:WIAFA critera 1(b) is looking for. Please see if anything can be expanded upon.^[?]
• Please ensure that the article has gone through a thorough copyediting so that it exemplifies some of Wikipedia's best work. See also User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 1a.^[?]

You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 03:27, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Merle Reskin Theatre

I hope to renominate this for WP:GA and wanted further advice. TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 03:56, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

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

• Per Wikipedia:Context and Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates), months and days of the week generally should not be linked. Years, decades, and centuries can be linked if they provide context for the article.^[?]
• See if possible if there is a free use image that can go on the top right corner of this article.^[?]
• Per Wikipedia:Context and Wikipedia:Build the web, years with full dates should be linked; for example, link January 15, 2006.^[?]
• Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (headings), headings generally should not repeat the title of the article. For example, if the article was Ferdinand Magellan, instead of using the heading ==Magellan's journey==, use ==Journey==.^[?]
• Please ensure that the article has gone through a thorough copyediting so that it exemplifies some of Wikipedia's best work. See also User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 1a.^[?]

You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 03:29, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ginsenoside

Please state what you want out of the review. --Bduke 08:37, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

The user who added this for review staed in reply to my request on his talk page:

I am a new comer at Wikipedia, so not very confident. I just want experts to validate my work and receive ideas for further improvement. dick 00:23, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

I will add this to the normal WP:PR by transclusion so both debates are in the same place. --Bduke 02:45, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, there seem to be a lot of good resources being used in this article. However, there is also a plethora of formatting issues:

• Sections should not be created with '''Bold Text''', but instead with hierarchal ===Section Headings===.
• Every sentence should be part of either a decent-sized paragraph or a list. There should be no one-sentence paragraphs.
• The diagram you uploaded must have a licensing tag. It looks like you scanned it from a chemistry handbook. The image page must document the image's source.
• Reference tags should go immediately after punctuation marks without spaces between them, like this.^[19]
• Avoid using fragments, such as "Appears to be most abundant in Panax quinquefolius (American Ginseng)".
• Avoid unencyclopedic tone, such as "Rb1 seems to affect..."

I also recommend a thorough reading-through of the Manual of Style and its relevant subpages. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 23:20, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Azusa Street Revival

I've just completed a full re-write on this article, and I'm hoping to soon get a GA, and eventually a FA. Article currently is ~33k, has 24 sources and 9 images. The subject has had a tremendous effect on modern Christianity, and is considered by historians to be the birthplace of the Pentecostal movement. I think that with a decent review and some new viewpoints on where it should go from here, it'll soon be a GA, and an FA not long after. I've put 150+ edits into it in the last two weeks or so, and I just don't know where to go from here. Any advice would be very appreciated! Nswinton\^talk 02:31, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] David H. Hickman High School

This article is slowly becoming a fairly well-rounded article. I would love comments about POV (as I have a bias related to this page), syntax, and suggest subject to cover. Grey Wanderer | Talk 02:15, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Cyclogenesis

Per comments on the article's talk page, I have submitted the article for peer review in order to ready it for FAC. Comments are welcome. Thegreatdr 12:58, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

• The main concerns I have with this article are: (1) the extensive use of meteorological jargon, and (2) the number of short, one-paragraph sections. You might take a look at Wikipedia:Explain jargon. Also there are a few possible spelling errors (perpedicular, prexisting, organised, exisitng, horizonal) that may need addressing. (Not sure if "horizonal" is an error or jargon.) Otherwise it was interesting content. I hope these comments were somewhat helpful. Thanks. — RJH (talk) 15:58, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Big O

Second Peer Review.

Since making GA on January 2007, the article has gone through some changes. The prose is tighter, the lead is longer and useless sections and images have been eliminated. I would like comments on current content and further improvements so that we can try for a FA nomination.

Archive of first peer review

[edit] Skipper Roberts

The old peer review is archived here: Wikipedia:Peer review/Skipper Roberts/Archive1.

I'd like to know what this needs to reach good article status. Should it be rewritten, should information be added/removed, and are there any formatting errors? If so, what are they? Tikallover 02:04, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Is there any more information on what trends the different Skippers were created to take advantage of? A few more citations could be nice - as a rule of thumb, anything that's controversial, any quotes or dates need citing. Any less direct assertions need citing too - "some collectors say this", for example. The history of the doll's shape is quite complete, which is good, but it feels lacking in how the doll was recieved in the wider world. How popular was Skipper compared to Barbie? Some of the doll-collectors' terms such as Mint In Box could use a wiki link, or a Wiktionary link. -Malkinann 13:24, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks; I'll try to fix those problems. Tikallover 17:08, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

What kind of dollars are you using for prices? US$? CA$? FJ$? AU$? NZ$? -Malkinann 00:55, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

It's US dollars, and I tried to fix it. Thanks for pointing that out. Tikallover 01:53, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Radiohead

Since the last peer review, the recommended changes were made. Also, the article has failed a FA candidacy, so please could you have another look at it and make some recommendations, particularly focussing on gaps in the copyedit. Thanks - Alex valavanis 10:12, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

The "Kid A, Amnesiac and a change in sound" section is massive, which might make editing difficult for some users. I know a lot of stuff was moved to the Kid A article, but is there a way to further trim it? WesleyDodds 19:26, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks - I'll see what I can do - Alex valavanis 21:38, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

The article is in a good shape but

• I don't think mentioning On a Friday in the first line is necessary. It isn't even necessary anywhere in the lead; lots of bands have name changes in the beginning of their careers.

  I agree Done - Alex valavanis 22:05, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

• "Radiohead's lineup, which has never changed, consists of..." is better than "Radiohead's lineup has never changed, and the band consists of...".

  Done

• "Although criticised for a lack of cohesion, Amnesiac was critically acclaimed and a commercial success." - Unreferenced statement. Done
• Maybe the discography can have a gallery of the album covers, as there are only 6 of them so far.

Tommy Stardust 19:56, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Galleries of album covers are frowned up, because they're hard to rationalize under fair use. WesleyDodds 21:48, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

The references could do with some attention. Some are lacking dates, publishers, etc. They're also a mismatch of styles. Sometimes the date is included in the external link (it generally shouldn't be, to allow wikilinking for date preferences), sometimes italicised sometimes the same information is repeated (check #55: "BBC, BBC"). Compare all the citations to BBC News to see how different they are. Needs someone to go through and standardise.

Ref #3 is just user-submitted reviews, and not enough to support the sentence. Ref #4 doesn't show that Radiohead reached their "peak of global popularity" (doesn't show it's their peak, and it doesn't show it's "global", just U.S.). Fact-checking is important.

Done Ref #3 replaced - Alex valavanis 15:37, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

"See also" sections are generally frowned upon; work the links into text if possible (Dead Air Space is already in the text, so shouldn't be in "See also"). I have no idea what Radiohead trivia is supposed to be, but it should be deleted (WP:NOT#IINFO, WP:TRIVIA). Trebor 14:11, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Done See also and trivia have been merged into text. - Alex valavanis 18:59, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

It would also be nice if anyone could comment on the third paragraph of the intro, which I wrote and seem to be the only one editing. Thanks. ErleGrey (talk) 20:15, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

I think "Radiohead released their first single... named a landmark record of the 1990s." should be a different paragraph. Done

As for the third paragraph, the first 4 sentences can be incorporated into the previous paragraph; the rest can be done away with altogether because a)reference10 is a really biased opinion, Kid A did win a Grammy, and b)ref 11 is a wiki article of Radiohead covers which hardly implies their latter albums' influence.

So, in effect, by splitting the first paragraph and dispensing with the third, there will be totally 3 paras Tommy Stardust 17:10, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Done Lead has been reworked somewhat, please could someone have another quick look? Thanks - Alex valavanis 18:59, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

I cannot see anything preventing this from becoming a featured article at the moment, but I am slightly concerned about some uncited sentences towards the end of the article. Do these need to be referenced? In the "solo work" section particularly, but also the "collaborators" sub-section. Aside from that, there are no obvious obstacles to FA status, and the more hidden obstacles seem to have been adequately addressed.-h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 14:16, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Please could you {{fact}} tag the sentences you are talking about? I'll try to find suitable references. Thanks - Alex valavanis 18:59, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Azumanga Daioh

Second Peer Review.

Once again, I would like people to comment on thing to improve this article and grade the content value, general interest, etc, anything else that the editors of this article have missed so that we can try for a GA nomination. --Squilibob 10:39, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Archive of first peer review

Looks like it's improved since the las go-around. :) Anyway, after just a glance, I'd say the two biggest issues from my perspective are the lack of a production section (which probably can't be helped), and the overly large character section: by the looks of it, the section simply reproduces part of the list of characters, so (per summary style) you can get away with condensing the character descriptions in the main article and providing a "Main article" reference. At the very least (and the following applies also to the character list article), would it be possible to shift to a simple dictionary list? In either case, I think the MoS frowns on the use of wikilinks in headers, and the presentation of the Japanese so prominently (rather than in the actual text) makes that section kind of unattractive. The use of the anime-voices template disrupts the flow, too; perhaps add a line at the end of each character's description that she was voiced by So-and-so in Japanese and Such-and-such in English?--Monocrat 13:29, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

With the section headers, it certainly wasn't like that at last peer review and can be changed back. I have personally trimmed each characters section down a few times but it is difficult summarizing them when the story is so character driven to begin with. I will take your suggestion in full and condense and simplify the characters section though. --Squilibob 13:35, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Since the lead should summarize, and they don't appear in the body of the article, the stuff about the Very Short Movie and Web Daioh seem out of place in the lead. Maybe you could combine it with the "Title" section into something about the origin of the TV series. Also, the stuff about the hoax could be moved down to the article.

Also, does every character need an article? They could just as well be merged into the list. (which is a mess right now; it looks like the character section before Squilibob fixed it)--Nohansen 14:30, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

I have moved the suggested material into an adaptation section since it seemed out of place in the Title section. The individual articles would require merge proposals, which will take time to gain consensus. --Squilibob 22:40, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Some of the citations could be more detailed - see WP:CITE#Full citations. I'm also not so sure that you need Image:Azuarticlepic.PNG in the article - the caption and fair use rationale doesn't make enough of a case for me. The lead needs some work - it doesn't summarise the article properly. As a whole, the article seems a bit short. -Malkinann 23:55, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Ok I will work on the lead and the citations. I have changed the caption to the image, as I think the editors of the article may want to keep it as it has been associated with the article for ages.--Squilibob 05:46, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

The more I look at the article, the more I think the adaptations section and the media section could be combined into one section called media. -Malkinann 07:30, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Ok, done that and it reads well thanks.--Squilibob 10:14, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

"Title" seems too short to be a section. Maybe you could turn it into a note, like how the Excel Saga article explains Koushi Rikudou's spelling. I did the same thing for explaining Harlock's name a few weeks back. The stuff about "Azumanga" being used for Kiyohiko Azuma's other works could be moved to his article.--Nohansen 15:27, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Chad

I've been intensively behind this country article since April 19, attempting to provide a good, or at least decent, article. I've (and I hope Brian won't take offence of this ;-)) used as a model the Cameroon FA; I've done my best to be concise (which is not generally one of my best qualities), but mostly I'm worried that the English may not be fluid enough. The last section (culture) is a bit too brief, but I must admit I'm having considerable difficulties finding reliable sources here.--Aldux 00:05, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Brian's review

Wow! Very impressive work from Aldux has transformed this page over the past couple months. I went ahead and did an initial copy edit (mostly removing redundant language and clarifying points); I'll try to make another pass as the piece progresses. I also removed a bunch of links that I felt were not particularly relevant to the piece. For example, it's doubtful someone will gain much more understanding of Chad by clicking a link to the Netherlands. Here are the issues that I think remain:

• Copy editing, especially in the use of Commonwealth vs. American English and in the use of the serial comma. I tried to change all regional English to Commonwealth, but I'm not sure which is preferable here since English isn't a major language in Chad. If necessary, we can check the revision history and change to the variety used by the earliest contributor. I'll try to do more work on this front unless Aldux gets there first.
  • Just FYI, the earliest major revision uses American English. It seems to be a text dump from the CIA, though, so I'm not sure it counts. — Brian (talk) 01:13, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
    • Fully agree with your opting for Commonwealth English: while, as you noted, English isn't a major language here, Commonwealth English should be generally preferred for the Continent.--Aldux 11:31, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

• There should be no need for footnotes/references in the lead section of the article. Be sure that all information in the lead is repeated in the article body and cite it there. For example, I don't think the stuff about Lake Chad being Chad's biggest lake and Africa's second largest is repeated in the body.
  • Done: the references are now in the geography section.--Aldux 12:03, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
• One instance of weasel words remains: ". . . it has been argued that . . . " Please reword this to say exaclty who argues this.
  • Should have mended this.--Aldux 15:58, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
• There was a lot of history about the administrative subdivisions in that section. I tried to reword things to emphasize how the country is subdivided now, but I may have deleted too much. Take a look.
  • Ah, fault of my historical forma mentis. I've read the new elaboration, and haven't found anything to object.--Aldux 15:58, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
• All metric measurements should be accompanied by the equivalent in Imperial units and vice versa.
  • Done.--Aldux 15:58, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
• Be sure to insert a non-breaking space between all numbers and units of measurement.
• Can we get specific months for the wet season and dry season?
  • This is, unfortunately, simply impossible: the range of variations between the extreme south and the north are enormous, with a wet season ranging from a few days to many months.--Aldux 15:58, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
    • Ah, understood. The same happens in Cameroon, so I should have expected this. — Brian (talk) 00:52, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
• The discussion of Chad's row with the World Bank over development money smacks of recentism. It would probably be better to boil the dispute down to a few lines at most.
  • Hmm... I'm not sore I fully agree here. I've cut down a bit, but I remain of the opinion that the rupture is an event of great importance for Chadian history and for its future relations with international organizations.--Aldux 15:58, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
    • Well, you know more about it than I. I faced a similar problem with Cameroon's treatment of the Bakassi dispute with Nigeria; the issue has dominated (non-football) headlines on Cameroon for the past year or so, but it's hard to judge how important the events are in comparison to things like Fulani jihads or French colonialism. It's a tough balancing act. — Brian (talk) 00:52, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
• I'm not sure I'm comfortable with listing ethnic groups in phrases such as "In the Sahel sedentary peoples, such as the Barma, Kotoko, Kanembu and Bilala, live side-by-side with nomadic ones, such as the Arabs, Daza and Kreda." I tried to avoid this in Cameroon for fear that members of other ethnic groups who edit Wikipedia might insist that their group be listed too. I tried to only mention a group by name if there was another reason to do so (such as Chad's assertion that the Sara are the most numerous group). But that's just my opinion, of course.
  • While I must admit I doubt I'll see many hordes of Chadian editors running to correct this article ;-), I see your point. I've kept the mention of three ethnic groups, as the three most relevant in the respective geographic areas.--Aldux 15:58, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
• Make sure the information in the infobox matches the data quoted in the article.
  • Done.--Aldux 17:10, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
• Make sure only the first instance of a term is wikilinked and delink the rest (excluding the infobox, lead, and images).
  • Done.--Aldux 17:10, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
• Make sure links go where they're supposed to, not to redirects or disambiguation pages.
  • Should be ok.--Aldux 17:10, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
• And perhaps the largest problem: The "Culture" section is way too short! I know you said you're having a problem with this part, but this section cannot be comprehensive until it covers at least most of the topics of Chad's literature, film, cuisine, dress, dance, music, and sport. Further sources might be found at Google Books (do a search for each bit, such as Sport in Chad or somesuch). I know that there is a historical dictionary of Chad that can be had used for about $30. The volume from this series on Cameroon was invaluable in writing the Cameroon article.This book, while seemingly aimed at children, might also be of help.
  • While I absolutely agree that the Historical dictionaries are grand, it may be that the scope of Decalo's Historical dictionary of Chad is a bit different from that of the Historical dictionary of Cameroon. This is a book that I've already started using and will use a lot, because without it it would be impossible to move myself in the jungle of rebel and pre-independence factions and leaders; but you won't find anything that can help to fill the culture section there, this is mostly a book of political history. As for the Amazon book, it's a bit too costly and and I'm reluctant to buy a book I would only rarely use. What I mostly miss is a general panoramic, even if I found something good on the Toubous, and more important, this from a Chadian magazine, Tchad et Culture, that has published a dossier titled "L' industrie artistique au Tchad: un trésor mal exploité". Unfortunataly traditional culture is not covered, and I haven't found much on sport.--Aldux 17:38, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
    • Glad to see the section has beefed up. I think it's adequate now, though it would still be nice to expand it more with information on Chadian writers or filmmakers, and traditional crafts. I guess my recommendation would be to keep looking for more sources, which I'm sure you're already doing. — Brian (talk) 00:52, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
      • Actually, I hadn't completely finished the section, and what's missing is exactly, as you guessed, a section on writers and cinema. These should be helpful [9],[10].--Aldux 13:10, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
        • Finished with Culture now, after inserting some info on cinema; generally all the article should be now, for what regards the content side, more or less complete.--Aldux 22:15, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
• The stuff on education should probably be moved to the government section. Education is in the national control and is not really an element of culture as Wikipedia country articles define the concept.
  • Done.--Aldux 17:40, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
• There are some good images in the article, but there are also some duds. It would be nice if a better image of Déby could be found, and the picture of the Sara girl is kind of boring; she could be a girl at a disco in any country from Senegal to South Africa. Yesterday, I culled public-domain image resources and uloaded a ton of pictures to Wikimedia Commons; see if anything looks promising.
  • Oh God! When you said you had uploaded a certain number of images I hadn't exactly understood how many... To say I'm impressed would be a gross understatement, I'm still gasping, I really don't know how to thank you. As for the two main problems, il try to replace them with the new images.--Aldux 21:13, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
    • He he; well, I had some free time over the weekend and was curious about our Wikipedia:Public domain image resources page. It was actually quite useful for both Chad and Cameroon (the problem with the former being that searches also bring up lots of irrelevant photos of guys named Chad . . . .). Flickr's also got some great freely licensed images (though I've uploaded most of the ones I found for Chad). — Brian (talk) 00:52, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
      • Ah, don't speak me of the Chad name story; it's been a constant source of irritation turning in many searchs with all these Chad buddies... As you have some experience with uploading images, do you thing that the images from Chad: a country study. The text is certainly public domain, but I'm not sure regarding the images, that can be useful for several articles: a Sao bracelet; map of Sahelian empires; photo of Faya; monument to Leclerc and Gentil; Tombalbaye in a parade; Fountain in N'Djamena; a mud hut; Daza people; ethno-linguistic map; young woman in the Chari-Baguirmi; Quranic school; N'Djamena cathedral; primary school; typical Chadian village; livestock market; cotton being unloaded; irrigation farming; a ferry over the Chari; trucks; a tailor; PPT headquarters; troops in 1970; effects of the civil war; Habré; delivery of weapons; Foreign Legion fort; military parade; anti-tank instructions; Presidential Guard officers; Tibesti PoW. These images should all be public domain, as they are repeated in other websites, but I would like to have some assurance. Ciao,--Aldux 13:10, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
        • Cool; I'll check for any copyright info in that document, but it would seem those images should be PD. I may have some time this weekend to tackle the situation. :) — Brian (talk) 22:32, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
        • Hmm. The Library of Congress study includes this note: "Finally, the authors acknowledge the generosity of the many individuals and public and private agencies who allowed their photographs to be used in this study. They are indebted especially to those who contributed original work not previously published." This would seem to imply that these photos were not necessarily taken by U.S. government employees, and that we can't use them without some further indication. :( — Brian (talk) 08:36, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

I think this article has taken great strides. With a bit more tender, loving care, I think it will have a good shot at achieiving Featured Article status. Let me know if I can help further. — Brian (talk) 08:12, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

• One additional problem I noted is that the last two footnotes (the ones that reference the Canadian PDF paper) are external jumps. I'd rather see the paper fully cited with author, date, title, publisher, ISBN, etc. The external jump can be embedded with the title. — Brian (talk) 00:52, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
• I copy edited the piece one more time. This involved combining or splitting a few paragraphs, so sorry that the changes aren't all that evident by comparing the pre- and post-copy-edit versions. I noticed one final problem: There are several mm rainfall measurements given in the "Geography" section that have no Imperial equivalents. Likewise, there are some parts of that section that use Imperial first and convert to metric rather than the reverse as it should. Once this is fixed, I think the article will be ready for FAC! — Brian (talk) 12:55, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Howitzer

Could someone give me all the things I could add to this article so I could bring this to featured article. I already did a few changes. Thanks Flubeca (t) 23:29, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

A few problems/suggestions:

• The lede paragraph is unreferenced. There are also many other statements in other paragraphs without references that should definately have them.    Doing...  
• "In 1939 they started dropping the words "Gun" and "Howitzer" from their artillery nomenclature." This seems like a typo...the British no longer use the word gun? Or is it that they dropped the "Gun" from "Gun-Howitzer"?
• The bulleted list at the beginning of the History section is awkward, should be converted to prose. Done Flubeca (t) 23:41, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
• Needs a lot more on Howitzers after WWI...if they are still widely used.
• On that subject, you should decide whether this article will cover only weapons called "Howitzer" or if it will cover "Gun-Howitzers" as well.

Hope I've been a help. -RunningOnBrains 20:05, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Architects (Registration) Acts, 1931 to 1938

General comments; accuracy; usefulness to the very small readership that will have a close interest in the subject matter. Salisian 19:06, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

• I should have said: I am not the author, but I am interested. Salisian 20:40, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Californication (album)

This is the first WikiProject Red Hot Chili Peppers article to get to GA status and it needs some fresh eyes to look over it and point out areas for improvement so that we can pull it up to FA :) Any and all comments are appreciated! Kamryn Matika 12:30, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Automated suggestions

I went ahead and used the javascript thingy to make these;

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

• Per Wikipedia:Context and Wikipedia:Build the web, years with full dates should be linked; for example, link January 15, 2006.^[?] Done
• Please ensure that the article has gone through a thorough copyediting so that it exemplifies some of Wikipedia's best work. See also User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 1a.^[?]

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

[edit] Comments from CloudNine

Here's a few points to help you improve the article. I'll add more as I go through it:

• "Pre-composition"? "Background" works better as a section title in my opinion. Done Kamryn Matika 15:18, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
• Is there any information on Californication's release? What formats was it released in, where did it chart (it's nice to have such information in prose form), when did it achieve gold, what are the album's current sales? etc. See Surfer Rosa#Release and Doolittle (album)#Release for an example.
• "In March 2006, the Red Hot Chili Peppers' albums were made available to purchase on iTunes. Albums bought there included new previously unreleased tracks. The original tracks, unlike the bonus tracks, were not remastered." Personally, I don't think this is worthy of note in the lead. This is an ideal candidate for inclusion in a Release section.
• You may want an "Accolades" section; have a search around AcclaimedMusic.net. Done NSR77 ^{(Talk|Contribs)} 19:38, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure I see an Accolades section. Is the information about accolades part of the Critical recognition section? CloudNine 19:40, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

• This is purely a stylistic point, but the book reference should be "lastName, year. p. page". Just a preference of mine.
• An external links section would be helpful. I recommend links to Google Music, All Music Guide and Last.fm (et al), and perhaps a {{Wikiquote}} box if there were any interesting Californication quotations. Done Kamryn Matika 15:16, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
• In general, take a look at some featured album articles (I've written Doolittle (album) and Surfer Rosa) for general layout and tips.

Hope that's enough to keep you going for now; good work so far! Feel free to strike out points if you feel you've addressed them. By the way, you may want to consider listing this at the alternative music project's peer review page. CloudNine 14:56, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Wow, thanks a lot - this will be hugely helpful :) Working on it now. Kamryn Matika 15:16, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] LuciferMorgan

• Consider merging the "Critical recognition" and "Release" sections into one section like I did with "Christ Illusion" (FA). Currently the article is chronologically incorrect in the sense it mentions the recognition before it mentions it being released.

• The album has received criticism for what some perceive to be excessive compression and distortion in the process of digital remastering - This is a misleading statement since "some" implies several, whereas Tim Anderson is the person saying this. It'd be much better to say; Tim Anderson of The Guardian noted how the album has received criticism "for excessive compression and distortion".

• This change has been attributed by some to the return of Frusciante to the lineup. Has the same problem, since "some" is incorrect. What's correct to say is; Music.com's Greg Prato attributed this change to the return of Frusciante to the lineup.

• Citation 20, a link to Amazon.com, is unsuitable and cannot be used since Amazon is a commercial website.LuciferMorgan 23:04, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

I think all of your concerns have been dealt with, thanks a lot for pointing them out. Kamryn Matika 04:24, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

No problem, just trying to help you improve the article. :) LuciferMorgan 01:43, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Comments from AllynJ

Nothing major from me, the prose reads fine as it is as far as I can tell. Two points:

• Why is Fortune Faded listed under singles? It's a single from Greatest Hits, not Californication, no?

• It may simply be that it's just a small number of people calling for it, but Californication has been one of the most criticised albums for it's mastering as a part of the loudness war; certainly by audiophile and music engineering circles - perhaps it's me but I certainly think it could do with its own paragraph (at least!). Couple of sources that would be appropriate for it: The Guardian, Stylus Magazine.

Thanks. AllynJ 13:15, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Ooh, thanks for the Stylus source! The Guardian one is already in the article but I couldn't find any more sources so I couldn't expand the comment about mastering. I'll take a look in a bit and try to improve it. Kamryn Matika 16:51, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Aberdeen

Since the first peer review on 21/02/2007 (Wikipedia:Peer review/Aberdeen (archive1)), a lot has been changed particulalry the formatting, style and prose has been vastly improved. As with any article the eventual aim is FA status, I think the current B status could be improved. Thanks, Bobbacon 09:08, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Water Cycle

Somehow, this article became GA back in November despite a dearth of references. It needs work. Fresh eyes would be appreciated. Thegreatdr 14:44, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Nadir Afonso

I just created this article on the geometric abstract painter. I made an effort to go through all his monographs (luckily, providing lots of sources) and to document pictorially the evolution of his style. As this is my first arts-related article, I would like some specialized peer feedback. Thank you. --maf (talk-cont) 13:40, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Archives

• 2007:
  • June (current)
  • January, February, March, April, May
• 2006:
  • January, February, March, April, May, June, July, August, September, October, November, December
• 2005:
  • January, February, March, April, May, June, July, August, September, October, November, December
• Wikipedia:Peer review/December 2004
• Wikipedia:Peer review/Archive 3, Wikipedia:Peer review/Archive 2, Wikipedia:Peer review/Archive 1