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 Birmingham 1.2 Gifu, Gifu 1.3 Munich 1.4 Water supply and sanitation in the People's Republic of China 1.5 Qanat 1.6 Geography of Newfoundland and Labrador 1.7 Karnataka 1.8 The Searchers (film) 1.8.1 Comments by Erik 1.8.2 Comments by Stillstudying 1.8.3 Further comments by Erik 1.9 Tool (band) 1.10 Pearl Jam 1.11 The Age of Reason 1.12 SaarLorLux 1.13 Anabolic steroids 1.14 Diet of Japan (parliament) 1.15 Sheldon Dick 1.16 Be Here Now 1.17 Benyoucef Ben Khedda 1.18 King Crimson 1.19 Golden Film 1.20 Balboa High School (San Francisco) 1.21 Elijah 1.22 The Warlock of Firetop Mountain 1.23 United States Tax Court 1.23.1 Automated peer-review 1.23.2 Morphh's review 1.23.3 Famspear's comments 1.24 Kuiper belt 1.25 Thrud the Barbarian 1.26 Oil shale 1.27 Joseph Szigeti 1.28 The Adventures of Mao on the Long March 1.29 Past Continuous (novel) 1.30 Grand Forks, North Dakota 1.31 Goldfrapp 1.32 Piper Halliwell 1.33 Montenegro 1.33.1 RJH 1.33.2 GDallimore 1.34 Tōru Takemitsu 1.35 Artemis Fowl II 1.36 Lupin III 1.37 Soda Stereo 1.38 John Frusciante 1.38.1 Review by Karanacs 1.39 Basingstoke 1.40 QI 1.40.1 Quick Review by Verisimilus 1.41 Transformer 1.42 Police duty belt 1.42.1 SGGH 1.43 Aude 1.44 Tanner Trail 1.45 Mukhannathun 1.46 Battle of Uhud 1.46.1 old windy bear 1.46.2 Sa.vakilian 1.47 William Claiborne 1.47.1 Review by karanacs 1.48 Joe Rogan 1.48.1 Woodym555 1.49 Dave Bishop 1.50 Llama 1.50.1 Review by Verisimilus T 1.51 History of Philadelphia 1.52 Steve Nash 1.53 Estadio Monumental "U" 1.54 Maroon 5 1.54.1 Review by Fritz S. 1.55 Scottish independence 1.56 Steve Nash 1.57 E (mathematical constant) 1.57.1 Exponential growth and decay 1.57.2 Mathematical formulas 1.57.3 Redundancy 1.58 Truro 1.59 Peanuts 1.59.1 Review by karanas 1.60 Andrew Cunningham, 1st Viscount Cunningham of Hyndhope 1.61 Sai Baba of Shirdi 1.62 Max Fleischer 1.63 Heteronormativity 1.64 Presbyterian Ladies' College, Sydney 1.65 Colorado Avalanche 1.66 Operation Bot Roast 1.67 Glenrothes 1.68 Alcoholics Anonymous 1.69 Serranus Clinton Hastings 1.69.1 Review by karanacs 1.70 Constitution of Belarus 1.71 Spider Wars 1.72 Prince George, British Columbia 1.73 1981 Irish hunger strike 1.74 Redwall 1.75 I Not Stupid 1.75.1 Jayron32's response 1.75.2 Boochans Response 1.76 The Power of Nightmares 1.76.1 Belovedfreak 1.77 Póvoa de Varzim 1.78 Patrick Henry College 1.79 Ethnic conflict 1.80 Sai Baba of Shirdi 1.81 Alternative Ulster 1.82 2007 SCSSRU Premier Division Grand Final 1.83 Katie Hopkins 1.83.1 Gran2 1.83.2 Review by karanacs 1.84 Mozart piano concertos 1.84.1 Review by Awadewit 1.84.2 Review by Verisimilus 1.85 Pullman Square 1.86 Tamsin Greig 1.87 Katie Hopkins 1.88 Music of Israel 1.89 Orion (mythology) 1.90 Cohesion (chemistry) 1.91 DC++ 1.91.1 Comments by Verisimilus 1.92 Jackie Chan 1.93 The Mummy (1999 film) 1.93.1 Lenin & McCarthy 1.94 Bobby Robson 1.95 Notting Hill (film) 1.96 2007 SCSSRU Premier Division Grand Final 1.97 USB Decoration 1.98 Flag of Ireland 1.99 Battlefield Earth (film) 1.100 U.S. Città di Palermo 1.100.1 Comments from The Rambling Man 1.101 Kondō Isami 1.102 Introduction to general relativity 1.102.1 Review by Awadewit 1.103 Yuji Ide 1.103.1 Psychless 1.104 Cantabria 1.105 Io (moon) 1.106 Troy McClure 1.106.1 Review by SpecialWindler 1.107 ACT (examination) 1.107.1 Review by Anomie 1.108 The Secret (2006 film) 1.109 Chicago Board of Trade Building 1.110 Taiwan under Japanese rule 1.111 List of nationality transfers in sport 1.112 Perth Airport 1.113 Interstate 476 1.114 Wind It Up (Gwen Stefani song) 1.115 Pilot (Smallville) 1.116 Smallville pilot review 1.117 The Holocaust 1.118 Jiskairumoko 1.119 Ambulance 1.120 The Legend of Zelda: Twilight Princess 1.121 Super Nintendo Entertainment System 1.122 Back to the Future 1.123 Days of our Lives 1.123.1 Observations by J Milburn 1.123.2 Comments by Frutti di Mare 1.124 Make-Up (band) 1.125 J. R. Richard 1.126 Blyth, Northumberland 1.127 Juventus F.C. 1.127.1 Review by SpecialWindler 1.127.2 Review by The Rambling Man 1.127.3 Comments by ChrisTheDude 1.127.4 Comments by Dantetheperuvian 1.128 Molybdenum 1.128.1 Review by SpecialWindler 1.129 Battle of Arras (1917) 1.130 William Bruce (architect) 1.131 List of Connecticut tornadoes 1.132 New York Yankees 1.133 The Guerilla Filmmakers Handbook 1.134 Chris Young (pitcher) 1.134.1 Extraneous information 1.134.2 These just need to be re-written 1.134.3 Too many citations/extraneous information 1.135 Raëlian Church 1.136 Octopus card 1.137 Daniel Bernard Roumain 1.138 President of Pakistan 1.139 Habbo Hotel 1.140 AEMT-CC 1.141 Itzik Zohar 1.142 Havasupai 1.143 Eaton Canyon 1.144 Mr. Bungle 1.145 Black church 1.146 Paul Cornell (Chicago) 1.146.1 User:SpecialWindler 1.146.2 Jayron32's Review 2 Archives

[edit] Requests

[edit] Birmingham

I am looking for comments on how to improve the article up to Featured article status. I mainly want advice on the grammar and wording used, but if there are any other points about the article that you feel need to flagged up then please do so. - Erebus555 16:16, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

what i would like to see is a list of changes that would be needed to be made. when revieweing would it be possible to add it to the changes required list below? we can then address each one in turn and 'sign it off'16:23, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Better leave that for the article talk page. This is just where other editors/ users can comment on the article and give some advice. - Erebus555 16:39, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Gifu, Gifu

The whole history section is a bit uneven and I'm looking for more sources, but any advice on any section would be wonderful. Is there a subtopic that still needs to be covered?Douggers 02:04, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Munich

This is a very broad article. I would like to get a peer review to help improve to get it to GA status. I know it lack sources. What else can this article improve on? Kingjeff 19:59, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Water supply and sanitation in the People's Republic of China

I would appreciate any comments that would improve the article so that it meets the good article criteria. In particular, I would appreciate if information could be added in the sections highlighted (tariffs and cost recovery, Linkage to Water Resources-Quantity) to ensure that the article is sufficiently broad in coverage. Also, any improvements in style are welcome to make sure the article is considered well written.--Mschiffler 02:34, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Qanat

Seems an excellent candidate for featured article status. Any thoughts on this? -- maxrspct ping me 22:45, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Geography of Newfoundland and Labrador

Started this artticle back in early December when it was a child. Now it is three tims as longer. Somebody please give me a review on the article. Does it need more pictures? I think I did a great job on the prose and the citing. Any comments on the pictures. The prose is good. Any help or thoughts on shortening it. The lead is nice because I've copyedited it almost everytime. The article is very stable and is at A-class. Can you guys bump it up. Showmanship is the key 02:02, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Karnataka

This article has had a collaboration from Karnataka WikiProject members. The article has undergone a several rounds of copyedits, and is equipped with ample references, images, and significant sections that are necessary and required in an Indian state article. Each of the sections is expanded in detail in its own sub-article, for greater details covering that section. Request other members to review this article and share your comments/thoughts on further improvements. Thank you. - KNM ^Talk 17:46, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

• There are a couple of fair-use images which need some help here. Image:Karnataka emblem.png is tagged as a non-free logo; I don't know enough about Indian copyright to know whether this is the proper tag, but if it is, the image needs a fair-use rationale and needs to be discussed within the article. Image:Kuvempu.jpg is really problematic, since by my reading it claims a "non-commercial use only" licensing arrangement. This is not compatible with Wikipedia and is in fact a criterion for speedy deletion. You can get around this if you can write a fair-use justification. The copyright holder should generally not be listed in the caption; giving credit on the image description page is enough. (ESkog)^(Talk) 16:16, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

• Image:Kuvempu.jpg - Done. Fair-use justification in the image page is provided. Copyright holder information as a caption is removed from the article page. - KNM ^Talk 16:41, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

• Image:Karnataka emblem.png - Pending.

[edit] The Searchers (film)

I am nominating this for Stillstudying, who is interested in improving this film article. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 13:33, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

In line with suggestions from Erik, and in reading the guidelines, I believe a "Critical Interpretations" section would be very helpful for readers who are not familiar with the more controversial themes in The Searchers. I would appreciate imput from editors more experienced than myself, and would welcome everyone's thoughts before I attempt myself to add such a section. My long-term goal is to raise this article to be a GA at least. The movie is truly a great one, one of the all-time classics, and warrants a better article. I also thank Erik for his help (as I did not know how to post this!) Stillstudying 13:42, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Comments by Erik

• The first issue for this article are the use of non-free images. Images, especially the non-free kind, need to be more than decoration for the article. Considering this is a film whose themes and cinematic style has been commented on by many, it would be best to remove the seemingly decorative images and create prose to describe the themes/style. Off the top of my head, I recall that the framing of the Western background through a door from the inside was thematically significant. If prose can be provided, a shot of this cinematic style would be warranted. I would suggest checking out Wikipedia:Non-free content to understand how to implement such images.
• For Themes, I would suggest using more academic resources (like the ones I listed on the article's talk page) to cover the themes of the film. The current references are rather simple reviews, and I believe that using in-depth critical interpretations from those with film studies backgrounds would be much stronger attribution.
• For Cast, I would suggest using an Actor as Character format followed by a brief description of the character, as well as any information about how that particular actor was cast or how he or she portrayed his/her role. I would not be surprised if there was some controversy over the Native American casting, considering their depictions in the film.
• I would suggest removing the Release section because a list of release dates is indiscriminate and does not serve much encyclopedic value. If there was a reason for the selection of dates for territories outside of the United States, then it may warrant a mention. For example, Spider-Man 3 was released in China before the United States in order to circumvent piracy.
• For Reception, I would suggest starting off with a prose paragraph. Perhaps a list of recognitions would be warranted, but ideally, prose should be attempted before a list.
• For Influence, there needs to be attribution about the influence of The Searchers on succeeding films. The Star Wars and Dominion mentions seem to be original research and should be backed by a secondary source.
• I would suggest a Critical reaction section, both citing reviews given at the time and contemporary reviews, to reflect any change of opinion in the process.

These are my suggestions for now; there's obviously plenty to do. If you have any questions or comments, feel free to ask! —Erik (talk • contrib) - 14:03, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Comments by Stillstudying

I agree with all the above.

• On images, we do need to use those in the public realm which have great symbolic importance. For instance, as to the image of Ethan standing in the door, offhand I cannot remember the source, (but I will find it!) but a number of critics have suggested the symbolism is that Ethan is the eternal outsider, and having returned Debbie to civilization, stands alone in the door, and walks into the wild, symbolizing that his task being done, he is not part of the civilization he ostensibly champions. Still others suggest his blatant racism and hatred for practically everyone figures in his standing in the door, and walking away, as not belonging anywhere. Obviously this is a tremendously important image, and needs more explanation for those not familiar with the movie and it's symbolism.
• As to using academic sources, I would add that we have many critical reviewers who make very deep examinations of the issues Ford approached so gingerly in this movie. I agree with Erik that we need to use those, such as Brenton Priestley's explosive "Race, Racism and the Fear of Miscegenation."
• We do need to completely revamp the cast section, with an explanation of what the role of each is in terms of the symbolism of the movie. For instance, several characters are simply there for comic relief. Whether that was because Ford was afraid otherwise the movie would be unbearably bleak is a subject we can discuss, citing respectable scholars.

Personally, i would prefer to have consensus before the rewrite begins. Does anyone else wish to do the rewrite? I am willing to do so, but again, would like consensus that the type of changes Erik suggests, which I agree with, are the view of the majority of editors. That way we can avoid a great many reverts! Stillstudying 14:16, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

I think that your plan for improvement will be much stronger than anything that has come before for this article. I would suggesting being bold in making the changes; they can only benefit the article, I'm sure. (And if anyone attempts to add a Trivia section, remove it and kindly point them at WP:AVTRIV.) —Erik (talk • contrib) - 14:24, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Erik I will give this a couple of days, and then begin being being bold in making the changes. I think your suggestions are outstanding, and I will start, (if no one else more experienced comes along and wants to do it, or has good reasons we should not), with revamping the introduction, and the cast, while similtanously removing the images that have no meaning, while replacing them with those that do, along with an explanation for why they are there. I am going to work today and tomorrow on these changes, and again, waiting for input here, will begin a wholesale revamp based on what we have discussed, late tomorrow. I really appreciate your support. I strongly feel this is a genuine classic that has been badly served by our article, and that needs to change. Stillstudying 14:35, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Erik I would really appreciate your and Alien's input on the new section I just added. I was extremely careful - I worked a large part of the night on this! - to source everything and try to avoid anything super controversial, and stick to accepted language. I would really appreciate your evaluation on that new section and the updates on the cast, added language on the characters. If this is acceptable, I plan to work on the Production section next, and then finally delete meaningless pictures and add ones with great meaning - like him standing in the door! - with an explanation of why they are important. Your help is really appreciated! Stillstudying 12:43, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Further comments by Erik

Looks like you've put some serious work into it! A few formatting notes:

• For section titles, only the first letter should be capitalized, unless a later word is proper. So basically, Critical Interpretations → Critical interpretations
• There should not be any spacing between a sentence's punctuation and the reference.
• Try to use the Cite web, Cite news, and the Cite journal templates for your references. This provides easy, organized reading of the references.
• The format of a film title in the content should just be with italics, with no quotation marks needed. So basically, "The Searchers" → The Searchers
• It seems that the "Real-life inspiration" section should become part of The Searchers (novel) since the source material and its film adaptation are not always the same. What should be noted, though, is if the adaptation was faithful, or what changes John Ford made to the story. This should be done with independent, attributable sources instead of personal observations, which is original research.
• The Themes section could be merged into the Critical interpretations section. Try to see if you can subsection different critical interpretations, such as Racism and Characterization. Not sure what more there are. Obviously, with so much critical coverage of this film, this shouldn't be the end of it.
• For Cast, try to format it like below:

• John Wayne as Ethan Edwards: A Confederate veteran of the American Civil War who comes to see his brother's family after being gone for three years. (Add detail about Wayne's casting or portrayal here, with attribution.)

• I would suggest just going ahead and removing the images now. They don't serve any purpose for the article besides being decorative.
• In Critical interpretations, I would suggest that you re-read what you wrote and try to edit the content to have a more neutral tone. Some of the sentences sound casually written when they should be more formal. An example is, "This horrible outburst made clear that..." and could be rewritten not to use the word "horrible" and something more encyclopedic than "made clear". Hope you understand the suggestions I've made.

Good luck with the Production section! —Erik (talk • contrib) - 13:40, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Erik (talk • contrib Thanks, and I will get started...Stillstudying 13:57, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Tool (band)

After a first peer review, then passing the GA process, many good changes regarding broadness, style, etc. we are aiming at FA candidacy and inclusion on the next offline release version. Any suggestions are welcome. Thanks in advance, Johnnyw talk 11:54, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Pearl Jam

I'm looking to take this to featured status soon, and it would be nice to receive comments about the article's comprehensiveness and prose etc. CloudNine 11:47, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

• The album covers - Image:PJYield.jpg, Image:PearlJam-Binaural.jpg, and Image:PearlJam-RiotAct.jpg need fair-use rationales for each article they are used in. They shouldn't be used in the Pearl Jam article unless there is critical commentary on the album art in the prose of the article. (ESkog)^(Talk) 16:24, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Age of Reason

This article is about Thomas Paine's The Age of Reason, his text attacking religion. I would eventually like for it to reach FA, so please let me know what needs to be done to finish polishing it up. I am particularly interested in other editors' opinions regarding the inclusion of the "Creed" section and whether or not the prose falls into "essay style." Thanks. Awadewit | talk 10:28, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] SaarLorLux

I would like to improve the article and need some feedback. It would be nice if someone went through it and checked to see what needs to be done. Thank you kindly! --Thw1309 07:40, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Some points:

• The terms 'Macroregion' and 'Euregio' have to either be explained in this article, have their own articles, or (preferably) the latter and and bit of the former. Here, SaarLorLux is defined as being something that Wikipedia doesn't define.

As you can see, I tried to construct definitions. I think, this will require some more reading, because in the end, both terms mean the same: land on both sides of a border. If you think it´s one piece of land with a border therein, it is an euregio and if you think, there are two pieces of land on two sides of the border, then it is a macroregion or greater region. I will look for more encyclopedic definitions. You especially made me understand, that there is a need for more information on the diversity of the term saarlorlux--Thw1309 23:23, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

• The introduction is too short. I suggest that, in addition to giving summary definitions of 'Euregion' and 'macroregion', one also adds paragraphs on summaries of its characteristics (paragraph 2) and on its functions and activities (paragraph 3).

You are right. This will require some additional reading too, because it is difficult to give a short summary of a term with so many interlocked meanings. --Thw1309 23:23, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

• Names and titles should be given in English; I've changed a few of these.

I hope I found everything--Thw1309 23:23, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

• Wikilinking is required throughout much of it.

Done --Thw1309 23:23, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

• References should use the standard citation templates.
• The relationship between the text and the sources should be better established; every time a fact or statistic is given, a source should be cited. One can achieve this easily by citing a source more than once, by using the mechanism <ref="[Unique title for source]" />.

Done --Thw1309 14:21, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

• There is some awkward phraseology and under-punctuation, particularly with regards to commas. I'll probably see to this myself.

I am sorry about the phraseology, but English is not my native language. --Thw1309 23:23, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

• It isn't established how SaarLorLux relates to the similar Greater Region.

This depends on the person you ask, because the term SaarLorLux is used in many different ways, but I will investigate.--Thw1309 23:23, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

That's all I've got at the moment. Bastin 17:45, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

You were great help. Thank you very much. --Thw1309 23:23, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Anabolic steroids

Please help me review this article. I am getting ready to nominate it for a "featured article" and would like some feedback on grammar, wording, organization, what should probably be added, etc.Wikidudeman ^(talk) 03:24, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

This article is not broad in its coverage and does not remain neutral as it excludes a large body of recent scholarship on the psychiatric complications of AAS. In this way, it is not factually accurate, but rather displays only a slanted perspective on AAS. Moreover, critiques of this article are largely dismissed without serious consideration, even when critiques are offered by physicians and medical researchers whose opinions are worthy of serious consultation. Indubitocogito 07:43, 27 June 2007 (UTC)indubitocogito

ON the contrary, It explains all of the relevant facts and just the facts. You claim that it excludes a "large body of recent scholarship"? This is false. The article relies primarily on case studies and if you can cite any recent case studies from peer reviewed journals which have more citations than the ones I have already provided that you believe would be relevant, please do so. The links you provided on the talk page of the article were mostly not even studies to begin with. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 08:30, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Diet of Japan (parliament)

I realize that much of what is here can be cited by the Japanese Constitution, but I believe the structure of the article seems a bit strange. Even some of the material that is pasted here was copied from public domain sources, such as the US Government. Plus, I am not sure what to include in here and what sources I can take a peek at. Anyways, all help and suggestions are welcome and appreciated, since I believe this should be featured after some work and tender-loving care is applied to the article. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 06:08, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sheldon Dick

This is a new article on a very obscure, very strange historical figure. I would be interested in any comments, but I'm particularly eager to get feedback on a few specific issues:

1. The lead is very tricky. It's hard to say what Dick is notable for because, basically, he isn't. The murder-suicide (if that's what it was) is often mentioned (on the rare occasions you see his name in histories of photography, he is often referred to as "infamous" or "notorious"), so I thought it should be in there, but the actual details are so murky that I don't think I can characterize it more specifically then I have. This is a very tricky issue (and recall, please, that this is not all that long ago and his children are probably still alive), so I'd really appreciate help with that.
2. The formatting of the article is a little unusual: I wanted to include the images in the body, since (as I say in the article) they're the only evidence available of where he was between 1937 and 1938. Could I format it any better? Wiki-wizardry would be helpful; I think my intentions for that section are reasonably clear, but there may be a better way to present it.
3. Obviously the "Death" section was tough to write and any suggestions would be great.

Thanks very much. I'll be around off and on for the next few days. Chick Bowen 02:34, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Be Here Now

Mediocre album by a great band; there is a good story here, hope that it is conveyed. Ceoil 21:46, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

• I had a little trouble following the cast of characters. Who is McGee? In "Recording" can you specify who Morris is (I skipped the intro).
• There are a couple of small unreferenced quotes throughout, like "regular, everyday collection of tunes." and "cocaine set to music".
• "generated more hype than the British music industry had seen in decades" is quite the statement...the last 9 words are probably not necessary.
• At the end of the first paragraph of "Reception", what is the footnote (currently #19) sourcing? (Hint: the link is to the wrong site but is a copy of footnote #22) --maclean 06:32, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
• Comment The music sample description could perhaps be extended. What number track is it on the album, what characterised the piece? etc. CloudNine 11:00, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Benyoucef Ben Khedda

The first article I've really worked on. I started by translating what was on fr, then sourced using what I could find. Looking for general opinions and what can be done to improve it. Bnynms 16:11, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

• The image (Image:1101620316 400.jpeg) should probably not be included. Firstly, it has no fair-use rationale for use in this article. Secondly, if you read that licensing box carefully, it says that with few exceptions, we don't use magazine covers to illustrate articles about the people on the cover. (ESkog)^(Talk) 16:31, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] King Crimson

I am pleased with the recent GA pass this article received; it's a milestone but there's still considerable distance to go before this is a featured article, which is the stage I want to get it to. The user who passed the article said that with a few improvements, featured article status could be achieved. The following issues were highlighted:

• Not all of the citations use the citeweb template
• The 80s, 90s, and 00s sections are too short and not detailed enough
• The lead section should have another paragraph

For featured article status, I believe we'd require:

• More images with appropriate fair use rationale
• Samples of the band's music
• A general fleshing out of the information in the paragraphs, expanding them and adding more detail from the sources that are used in the article and elsewhere
• Possibly a new paragaph? I don't know what subject it could be on, but the featured article Genesis (band) for example has sections on album art, and criticism - neither of which I feel I could write a whole paragraph on.
• A check for gaps in the copyedit

Thanks.

--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 12:32, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

• Per WP:LEAD boost the lead up so that it "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".
• Fair Use images are not encouraged in featured articles. Look for free images like this one at flickr (email the uploader to licence it under GFDL here or for permission to use it) or from other fans of the band.
• The Waterboys would be a feature article to follow. --maclean 07:27, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
  • I don't see how having one single picture of Tony Levin would be that useful in a King Crimson article. The Radiohead article, which is almost FA, seems to have freely licensed images of the band members taken during concerts. I myself don't have any pictures of the band members... that's gonna be difficult.-h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 08:40, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Do you think a paragraph about the band members in the King Crimson article, like the one in The Waterboys, would be useful to replace the section about band members that currently works as a list? I could probably do that quite easily...--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 14:39, 27 June 2007 (UTC) - Done.
• The audio clips all need fair-use rationales. It may also be that seven of them is more than a "minimal use" as required by our non-free content criteria. It's not really clear to me that each of these songs is the subject of critical commentary within the article; this might simply be a matter of rearranging where they are placed among the prose a little bit. (ESkog)^(Talk) 16:34, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Golden Film

The article is assessed as GA-class since January 2007. I would like to use this peer review to find out what improvements (if any) are needed to reach A-class. – Ilse@ 00:20, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Balboa High School (San Francisco)

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

• Image:Balboa Mock Trial team 0506.JPG needs a fair-use rationale. If used with permission, the details of the permission need to be spelled out. Note that "for non-commercial use only" doesn't get us anywhere; it needs to be fully released under the GFDL if you're claiming permission here. (ESkog)^(Talk) 16:38, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Elijah

User:ThomasHartman and I have been working on this article for awhile, and feel that it is ready for a peer review to increase its quality and get more editors involved. Our goal is GA status, so please keep this in mind as you review. Thanks in advance, Wrad 23:04, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Just some referencing issues: use cite web templates to make some of the citations more than urls, there's some ref name problems as I look at the article. Nice work on structure and prose, bar a list of popular culture mentions. Remove unless you can encyclopedically study Elijah in popular culture. Alientraveller 09:31, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, we'll have to fix those refs. What do you mean by "popular culture mentions?" Wrad 12:11, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Warlock of Firetop Mountain

I've done a lot of work on this article and I'd be interested to hear how I could get it to Good Article status - and in particular whether it stays within the guidelines on fiction, since I struggled with the tone in the plot part. Thanks. EvilRedEye 19:06, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

• The book cover images each need a fair-use rationale. Please check out WP:FURG for an explanation of what one of these should look like. (ESkog)^(Talk) 16:39, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] United States Tax Court

What can be done to push this article towards featured status? Does it need images? Discussion of any other aspects of Tax Court operations? bd2412 T 18:19, 25 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.

• Per Wikipedia:Context and Wikipedia:Build the web, years with full dates should be linked; for example, link January 15, 2006.^[?]
• As per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates), dates shouldn't use ^th; for example, instead of using January 30^th was a great day, use January 30 was a great day.^[?]
• Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (headings), headings generally do not start with articles ('the', 'a(n)'). For example, if there was a section called ==The Biography==, it should be changed to ==Biography==.^[?]
• 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]^[?]

  Done Morphh ^(talk) 1:19, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

• 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) 13:04, 26 June 2007 (UTC) 13:04, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Morphh's review

• I think the Notes section should be renamed to References and the References renamed to Notes (see WP:GTL).

  Made the change Morphh ^(talk) 1:18, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

• The section "Life cycle of a Tax Court case" has too many one/two sentence paragraphs. Perhaps this can be pulled together into something more structured.
• Third sentence needs a source. While I agree, this may be considered POV or Original Research.

  Taken out for now - yes, very POV, and not more true than of other federal clerks. bd2412 T 19:52, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

• I expected to see a little bit about the criticism of a separate tax court outside of our normal judicial system, which I believe has been criticized by tax protesters (not certain of this... just remember hearing something about it). It seems to be briefly but not overtly mentioned in the second paragraph of the lead and lightly in "The Court and its jurisdiction" but it doesn't really discuss the controversy with it.
• Consider {{UStaxation}} tag.

  Added the tag (and adding the Tax Court to the template). bd2412 T 20:09, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

• The second part of the third sentence almost seems like it should be part of the first sentence. The first sentence should be a solid definition of what the Tax Court is. The current first sentence doesn't do that for me. It tells me how it was created but it doesn't say.. "it is the court for tax disputes". I guess such can be implied by the article title but it should be further defined.
• The section "Genesis of a Tax Court dispute" has a lot of "emphasis" quotes. It even had some bolding, which I changed to italic but I'm not even sure it should be that. Is there a reason for all the quotes and such?

  I reordered the first paragraph and added a history section as well. Don't know about the bold/italics. bd2412 T 00:39, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Famspear's comments

I don't know if I can or should "review" this article, since I contributed so much to it. Is there a rule on this?

No rule that I'm aware of! bd2412 T 20:02, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

I will provide a few comments. I agree with Morphh's comment about the third sentence of the article (the reference to law clerks, etc.). I agree with the article's statement about the law clerks, but the statement is opinion and is really appears unencyclopedic. I would say it could even be deleted, but sourced at a minimum if it's kept.

On the note about the Tax Court being outside of our normal (i.e., Article III) judicial system, I agree that this is something that some tax protesters have argued. From a legal standpoint, however, the validity and jurisdiction of the Tax Court, as an Article I court is well-settled. I believe the Court of Federal Claims is also an Article I court. Even bankruptcy judges, who are a "unit" of the Article III district courts, are themselves considered Article I judges if I recall correctly. Judges of the Tax Court, the Court of Federal Claims, and the Bankruptcy Courts do not have life tenure; they serve a specific term of years. I would suggest keeping discussion of tax protester arguments on the Tax Court out of this article if possible, as such arguments tend to give misleading undue weight to theories that the courts have ruled have no legal merit. Something on that could be added to Tax protester constitutional arguments, if desired.

I pretty much agree with editor Morphh's other comments. Yours, Famspear 15:38, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Kuiper belt

old peer review

This article is a bit of a mess; I've done my best to at least get it up to civilised standard, but it will need a major cleanup. Any advice you can offer on how to go about it would be appreciated. Serendipodous 18:11, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Thrud the Barbarian

I've been working on this article on and off since the end of March, expanding it from a stub to get it on DYK and continuing to add as much referenced material as I could find. I think I've said everything I want to say and think it's now a darn fine article! Be nice if other people thought that way. Let me know what you think and please do anything you can to improve it, maybe to FA status.

I have also requested a peer review from Wikiproject Comics, but in the absence of replies thought I'd open it up to a wider audience. GDallimore (Talk) 09:50, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

I'd forgotten all about the old Thrud series, but I do remember them as a highlight of the White Dwarf magazine. The article seems to be in pretty good condition; I didn't find anything major to grumble about. Didn't the artist do a cameo in one or two of the Thrud strips? If so you might mention it. Thank you for the nostalgia trip. — RJH (talk) 21:21, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

You're right, he did. I thought about putting it in but, ultimately, Critchlow as a character doesn't do a great deal so there's not a huge amount to say about his persona or actions in the same way as the other characters. Shame... GDallimore (Talk) 22:22, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

To me it seems appropriate to mention it briefly so that the article is comprehensive. But no matter. — RJH (talk) 18:45, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Oil shale

During several years the article on oil shale has developed significantly. Right now the intention is to prepare this article for the FA nomination. As probably both, content and format, needs some more work to be done, every comment how to improve this article is welcome. Some things to do are listed also at the talk page.Beagel 09:17, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Joseph Szigeti

I've been working on this for a while, and I'd very much like to see it as a Featured Article sometime in the not-too-distant future. I know it's nowhere near FA caliber yet, but I'm not entirely sure what I should focus on improving to move towards that goal. Suggestions, general comments and constructive criticisms would be much appreciated. K. Lásztocska 01:47, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

• A couple of quick things:
  • There's a bit of a sense of pageant here--a succession of accomplishments. Can you find sources that comment on his style, on his interpretive influences and positions, on the things, in short, that make him stand out? Not just what makes him good, but what makes him Szigeti.
  • By the same token, you may be relying a bit much on the autobiography. Musicologists writing on Szigeti may help provide context—to what extent he was a product of his time and place, to what extent he was different; that sort of thing. One thing I would definitely flesh out is what is now the second paragraph of the "Maturity" section, which discusses the composers whose works he premiered. Isn't his interpretation of those works his chief contribution?
  • Full citation is only needed for each source the first time. After that you can abbreviate. "With Strings Attached, p. 36," or whatever.
  • If you bring this to WP:FA, they'll want you to tone down the prose a bit and avoid peacock terms.
• I'm very glad to see this article improving! It was sorely in need of it. Keep up the good work. Chick Bowen 05:12, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Excellent advice, thank you. I had been planning to add a whole second part to the article about critical response, comments on his style, his influence on other violinists etc. Basically the whole first thing you suggested--I've been awfully busy in real life and I somehow completely forgot my plans for this article. Thanks for reminding me!

As for the autobiography, I was afraid of that. To my knowledge there has never been a biography written of him by anyone else, so for life details that's pretty much all I'm going on at this point. Once I add more info about style, reception, legacy etc., I'll certainly be able to find other sources.

I know...peacock terms...that's what happens when you let me write an article about my favorite violinist ever. :-) Don't worry, I know how to be neutral, I'll tone it down eventually.

Thanks again for the excellent critique--I'll start work on implementing these suggestions as soon as I can. K. Lásztocska 14:12, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Adventures of Mao on the Long March

Brand spanking new article; eager to hear your impressions.AshcroftIleum 23:10, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

• Read WP:LEAD and WP:CITE.--Rmky87 13:48, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Past Continuous (novel)

I've added significant amount of material to this article, specifically in themes, extensive quotes and criticisms.AshcroftIleum 23:03, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Grand Forks, North Dakota

previous PR

When I first nominated this article for FA status, it was a complete mess. It should have been delisted from GA status. There were only about 15 references, and now there are over 100. I added and reorganized sections for the important aspects of the city, and tried to make this article to be an overview of the city rather than just isolated useless information. It would be nice to see this become a Featured Article soon. I also worked on elaborated and organized most of the lists, since the second half of the article was primarily lists. I would appreciate feedback on how this can be improved more (it's far from being perfect), so it can hopefully reach FA status.--milk the cows (Talk) 16:37, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Hi Milk. Do you mind checking the talk page for WikiProjects and the history for main contributors and notifying them about the FAR with {{subst:FARMessage|Articlename}}? Make a note here once you've done so. Marskell 17:08, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

This page is for reviewing current featured articles. I think you're looking for Wikipedia:Peer review or Wikipedia:Featured article candidates. --- RockMFR 17:09, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Sorry about that. I notified MatthewUND and Weatherman90 so they know about it.--milk the cows (Talk) 17:32, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

The article has improved quite a bit since being nominated for FA status, but I'm not sure I would call the previous version "a complete mess." Actually, milkthecows called it "very well written" when nominating it for FA status...I don't think he would have nominated it if it was a "complete mess." I don't want to be picky here...I just don't like seeing the prior version of the article denigrated so much. Almost all of the framework and text was there...the only things that really needed to be changed were adding refs (which milkthecows did a wonderful job of doing) and turning a couple of lists into prose (most lists had actually been turned into prose or spun off into their own articles prior to the FA nomination). Except for its former lack of refs, this article has actually been in reasonably good shape for a year or more (June 06). I do agree that it has gotten even better in recent days though. I think FA status is deserved and attainable. After all of the work we have put into this article in the last couple of years, I would be very happy to see it given FA designation. BTW, I too am a little confused why this article is on here...should we instead be getting a peer review or re-applying for FA status? --MatthewUND^(talk) 22:38, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

From instructions at WP:FAR: This page facilitates the review of featured articles and the subsequent removal of the featured status of those that still fail to meet the featured article criteria after the review process. Removing this from FAR since the article is not a featured article; suggest a peer review. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:39, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Goldfrapp

I have given this article a complete rewrite and would like to take it to FAC in the near future. It is already a good article, but I am not very confident in my writing skills. Any feedback on prose, grammar, etc. would be greatly appreciated. -- Underneath-it-All 17:34, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Piper Halliwell

I think this article is one of the best fictional charecter articles there is and I thought it should have a peer review before nominating it for promotion. LizzieHarrison 15:39, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

The lead needs expanding per WP:LEAD - each section should be distilled into a sentence or paragraph and put in the lead. Also, the article is very in-universe - has the actress ever done interviews where she's talked about playing Piper Halliwell? -Malkinann 03:07, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Montenegro

General peer review to see if it is ready for, or what needs improving to make it ready for, either 'good article' status or 'featured article' status. --CrnaGora 15:20, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] RJH

The article appears to be in fairly decent condition, but there are a few details needing work. Here's some comments of a general nature:

• More inline citations are needed in several sections. The Geography, Government and politics, Economy, and Miscellaneous sections have no citations at all, but most of those that do have citations are in need of more. That information had to have come from somewhere.
• The later part of the article has too many one-sentence paragraphs.
• I don't think the gallery is really appropriate for an encyclopedic article. None of the FA'd nation-state articles appear to include a gallery. My suggestion would be to move the appropriate images to the Commons and set up a gallery page there.
• The references are not set up in the standard citation format. I recommend using Wikipedia:Citation templates throughout.

I hope these were of some help. — RJH (talk) 22:12, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] GDallimore

I'm not an expert on international economics, but the economics section and the associated main article seem somewhat lacking in terms of the effect on the economy of the split from Serbia. I know it's early days yet, but how are the Montenegrins doing in managing their economy?

The reason I mention this side of things is that I've been following the development of Montenegro's intellectual property laws since their split from Serbia. Perhaps some of these sources could help beef up the relevant sections:

• IP treaties still applicable to Montenegro
• Notice from the European Patent Office dated 23 May 2007

Hope it helps. Overall the article looks to be in great shape for some final tidying up. GDallimore (Talk) 10:02, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Tōru Takemitsu

Hi I've been working on this article on my favourite composer of the second half of the 20th century for ages now, mainly on my own. I've used as many sources as I've been able to get hold of to get all the info, and I've tried to be as thorough as possible, using the Messiaen article as a guide at times.

It's not all finished, the last two sections of the biography need a lot more, and I think the presentation of the awards section could do with some work. But I need some people to have a good look, see what they think, and suggest any changes, improvements etc. - hopefully with some knowledge of Contemporary Classical music, and at least a decent knowledge of 20th Century Classical music.

Cheers. Matt.kaner 14:27, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Artemis Fowl II

General peer review to see if it is ready for, or what needs imroving to make it ready for, either 'good article' status or 'featured article' status. Jhfireboy 12:49, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

• Reorganise Character traits to group together related points (although don't create subsections). Example:
  

1. Date of birth, brief introduction of character (current second paragraph) and physical attributes
2. Relationships: Family + the Butlers, Minerva, LEP, Section Eight, Mulch etc.
3. Intellectual characteristics
4. Social skills (link from previous paragraph e.g. "Despite his intellect, Artemis shows limited social skills...)
5. Likes and dislikes
6. Motto
   

• Leave personality/character development and character history as they are.
• Insert note in his physical attributes about his index and middle finger on his left hand being switched around in Lost Colony
• Slim down the paragraph on Book Five to bring it in line with the other books, moving comments about stolen magic to personality or character traits, along with the "humorous subplot" in the current last paragraph
• Move images of book covers for Arctic Incident and Eternity Code to the Books section - makes more sense
• General proofread for copyediting e.g. in infobox Deep Blue should be Deep blue - grammar
  

Hope this helps. Editus Reloaded 13:53, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Lupin III

Since the creation of the page, it has been improved very much. A large amount of information has been added and the page went through several phases of improvement. It would be nice if someone went through it and checked to see what else needs to be done :) thank you kindly! AutoGyro 09:57, 24 June 2007 (UTC) AutoGyro

You don't really have a plot or setup section in the article (which should go before characters), just something to say that the story is serial, and it usually involves Lupin and Jigen finding a mark, Fujiko muscling in on it, and sometimes Goemon comes in to save Lupin and Jigen. "Recurring themes" *needs* inline, reliable, citations. Beyond that, here's some automated suggestions to think about:

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

• Please expand the lead to conform with guidelines at Wikipedia:Lead. The article should have an appropriate number of paragraphs as is shown on WP:LEAD, and should adequately summarize the article.^[?]
• Per Wikipedia:Context and Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates), months and days of the week generally should not be linked. Years, decades, and centuries can be linked if they provide context for the article.^[?]
• See if possible if there is a free use image that can go on the top right corner of this article.^[?]
• Per Wikipedia:Context and Wikipedia:Build the web, years with full dates should be linked; for example, link January 15, 2006.^[?]
• As per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates), dates shouldn't use ^th; for example, instead of using January 30^th was a great day, use January 30 was a great day.^[?]
• As per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (headings), please do not link words in headings.^[?]
• 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.^[?]
• Watch for redundancies that make the article too wordy instead of being crisp and concise. (You may wish to try Tony1's redundancy exercises.)
  • While additive terms like “also”, “in addition”, “additionally”, “moreover”, and “furthermore” may sometimes be useful, overusing them when they aren't necessary can instead detract from the brilliancy of the article. This article has 22 additive terms, a bit too much.
  • 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.”
• Avoid using contractions like (outside of quotations): didn't, doesn't.
• 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, Malkinann 03:01, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Soda Stereo

It's a good article and I'm looking for feedback to improve it to FA status. Any suggestions or comments would be very appreciated. No-Bullet (Talk • Contribs) 06:51, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] John Frusciante

I and a few other editors have gone through great-lengths recently to greatly improve this article. I want to eventually nominate this article for featured status, but before we get way too ahead of ourselves, I thought a peer-review would be helpful. If anyone wants to look over this article and give us some pointers or offer some constructive criticism as to how we can further improve this article, then please, by all means. Our main concern with the article at this juncture is then equipment section. Although I have gone to great lengths to cite every piece of equipment listed, it's possible that further improvement could be made to the formatting or presentation of the section. Thanks. Grim-Gym 05:11, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Review by Karanacs

• Hi. This was a pretty informative article; I didn't know anything about him before I read it and it felt like you gave a pretty comprehensive overview of him as a person and his musical style. I think it could use some improvement, though.
• per WP:MOSBIO, after you establish his name, just use the surname, Frusciante, instead of John Frusciante. For other people in the article who do not share his surname, after the first instance use only their surname, not their first name or fullname. This is a problem with references to Hillel Slovak.
• Need citations!!! You should have at least one citation per paragraph, and more where necessary.
• The early life section is out of order. Since you talk about him moving to LA in paragraph 2, it shouldn't be in the first paragraph.
• Many of your paragraphs have sentences that all begin the same. Four sentences in a row that begin with "He" is a little excessive, so try to mix those up a bit.
• Some parts of your article sound a little too magaziney. For example, "Strangely enough, "
• There are other prose issues where the sentences are structured awkwardly. Here are a few examples
  • "When Frusciante was later inquired about the response he gave to his rapid sanction into the Red Hot Chili Peppers"
  • "By this time, he had developed serious drug habits as a result of touring with the band during the previous four years; similarly, during the time interval, Kiedis embarked on a drug-pillage, once again after being clean for five years."
• This seems to be contradictory: "fell into a docile and volatile depression,"
• You don't need to specify that River Phoenix is dead.
• Some parts of the 2004 recordings section appear more like trivia
• Do you really need the equipment section?
• Some of your citations are formatted incorrectly or are not using a proper template. These have the author's first name first instead of last name first.

Good luck! 15:06, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Wow, this is very helpful, thank you. As you can see, I've already addressed the smaller points you made, we'll start work on the larger ones right away. I removed the "magaziney" statement you referred to. Was this the only example of this you could see, or were there others? The equipment section is becoming a scourge upon this article, and I must concede that it may be for the best if we removed it. This was tremendously helpful, thank you. If anyone else wants to help look over this article for other points that could be improved, that would be greatly helpful. Grim-Gym 17:52, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Basingstoke

I've made a few addtions and changes to this page over the last few weeks, but I'm still new to this and I'm starting to get a bit cross-eyed with the overall picture that the article paints, would appreciate any comments from detached editors on general areas that still need significant work and any suggested improvements. Mighty Antar 23:55, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] QI

I personally think that areas that may need attention are images, the external links and the highlights section (I'm not sure if it is needed). ISD 15:08, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

The main problems with the article is that it gives no information as to QI's production, filming and such like. And also no reception, critical acclaim or awards. Gran² 15:18, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

I've added the sections you've asked for.ISD 20:44, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Quick Review by Verisimilus

• The article goes into dare I say obsessive detail about the performance of Alan Davies. And is anyone likely to update the 6.122% after each show?
• Short sections towards the end of the article should be expanded or merged

Verisimilus T 22:50, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

I've removed certain parts and expanded on sections that can be expanded. I don't think the "Awards" section can be lengthed but, the culture section has. ISD 07:02, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Transformer

This article on an important electrical topic has had quite a varied history, but has stabilised to a point here where I feel it would benefit from peer review. Any comments for improvement would be welcomed. Thanks! — BillC ^talk 10:54, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Police duty belt

Would like to see whether any improvements can be made and whether it would pass GA status, and any other comments/questions are very welcome! Dep. Garcia ( Talk + | Help Desk | Complaints ) 08:49, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] SGGH

• My first main thought is that it doesn't cover beyond the US and Europe, and it would be good to get some other perspectives from non-western police forces if possible.
• You may want to expand the lead slightly to include a summary of more than just the equipment it holds.
• The "colour" section (which should be color according to MoS) could use a cite
• The huge coverage of every kind of equipment holder is excellent! Though a couple more cites would be good.
• "Country-specific equipment" ought to be expanded beyond the US and the UK, as I mentioned above.
• I think the link to Bianchi International could be placed in the history or somewhere in the prose rather than a see also, which I generally find to be pretty redundant in this article, but that's just me :)
• Good reference summary
• Great images, the handcuff key one should be a little bigger, possibly add one about the fasteners?
• " Truncheons themselves had been introduced as early as 1764[6], however it was not until 1994 that police forces started to introduce the duty belt to contain such equipment,[7] as a alternative to having their staff carry equipment in their handbags or pockets, or in the case of the earliest officers, carrying a cutlass or firearm clipped to the belt of the frock coat." this sentence is huge (admittedly I did write some of it) so it does need cutting down a little.

Good article though, great work Dep. You suprised me with how much you found to talk about :) SGGH ^speak! 11:12, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the review, I'll work on some of these issues which you have stated above! Dep. Garcia ( Talk + | Help Desk | Complaints ) 14:13, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Changed "Colour" to "Color" per MoS. Moved link to Bianchi to prose. Made image of handcuff key bigger, and added picture of "three way buckle". Working on the other points! Dep. Garcia ( Talk + | Help Desk | Complaints ) 14:55, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Most redirects I've ever seen! :O SGGH ^speak! 19:22, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Aude

Impressive work on the article, so far, in such a short amount of time.

• Suggest the "A popular product in this range is this." and "A good demo of this can be seen here." be removed or converted into proper cites.
• Overall, the article needs more references.
• Other equipment sometimes includes speedloader
• Other manufacturers beside Bianchi International include Gould & Goodrich [1] and Michaels of Oregon ("Uncle Mike's") - 1998 Canadian Police Research Centre report
• Holsters made by Uncle Mike's and Safariland
• Here are some articles that may be good references [2]
• 1995 Canadian Police Research Centre (CPRC) report [3] highlights health and safety concerns due to the size, weight, and overcrowding of duty belts, especially for officers of smaller stature. Health problems include back strain.
• Leather vs. nylon duty belts - nylon belts are much more comfortable, easier to adjust, and did not slip on the waist, easier to maintain (washable, maintains color, and "virtually no care" needed). [4]
• Leather vs. nylon - I can't find it online, but there is an article, "Consistent Evolution in Belt Gear" in Law and Order Volume:47 Issue:1 Dated:February 2000. I might be able to get a copy of it. [5]
• How about types of duty belts used by corrections officers and other types of officers? this talks some about equipment
• Differences in equipment for mounted police, bike patrol, etc. [6]

That's all I can think of at the moment. These are just suggestions and possible ideas for improving the article, but not obliged to cover all these points. --Aude (talk) 15:48, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

More comments - I notice the article already references the 1995 CPRC report. The Wikipedia article says "supposedly rigid nylon belts and so many forces are now switching to leather belts as they are considered by some as more flexible." with reference to the CPRC report. I looked at the CPRC report again, but it talks about 83% of the officers preferring the Nylon belts, that they offered more comfort, etc. On page 17, they recommend that the Ontario Provincial Police purchase nylon belts, and not leather belts. So, I'm perplexed why the police duty belt seems to say the opposite of what the reference says. --Aude (talk) 15:57, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the review, i will work on some of the issues you have raised! Dep. Garcia ( Talk + | Help Desk | Complaints ) 16:01, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Tanner Trail

Just had a major expansion. I would like to know if anything should be added, and it would be great if you are familiar with grading the article, to grade it because it is no longer a stub. Any other suggestions or comments would be great. Thanks. Josh Matthews

Some nice work. A few pointers:

• The lead is too short at only two sentences and does not sum up the article, nor would it stand in isolation on its own. Done
• I would place 'History' as the first subsection after the lead. Done
• The words 'the trail' occur more times than might be necessary, and some tweaking to the wording to lessen their frequency might help. Done
• The tone at times is inappropriate for an encyclopaedia article: "it still descends at a nice rate", "Please remember that the sand dunes to west are off-limits". Done
• http://www.bobspixels.com may not be a suitable source for citing from, being a personal website, though it makes a good external link. You can probably find the same information in printed form, and can cite from that instead.
• You might want to expand on 'History', for example: when was the trail officially recognised, and provided with protection? Have any books been written about the trail, and has it featured in any hiking documentaries, or on film?
• A map would be useful.

I hope these can be helpful. Regards, — BillC ^talk 10:07, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Mukhannathun

What I am looking for is guidance from anyone who is knowledgeable of this subject matter. Secular GLBT editors, Perhaps a more traditional muslim scholar. Such people could give feedback on the content of the article. Specifically the gender identity and sexual orientation of the Mukhannathun. I have read many websites on this. Some that are by conservative scholars are very frank in saying that these men were not straight but they were not openly flaunting sodomy either. Some websites by Muslims who are GLBT make these people out as being totally equivalent to transsexuals if the author of the webpage is a transsexual. Others by GLBT muslims interpret them as simply being very flamboyant homosexual males. Still others deny that the mukhannathun were any kind of GLBT person at all. Given the many and varied interpretations of this subject matter I feel it would be prudent to solicit comments from any experts wikipedia may have on Islam. I myself being a MTF transsexual who is a muslim will see things differently to other muslims and other GLBT people.

Furtheremore I am looking for criticism of the generally structure flow and dynamics of the writing. Is it any good? Should I have summarized the passages I quoted? Should I somehow seek pictures of the subject? etc. etc. Hfarmer 00:30, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Battle of Uhud

just passed GA... was wondering what in terms of content, style, expression (or anything else) could be done to improve the article and raise it to featured quality. ITAQALLAH 18:01, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] old windy bear

ITAQALLAH I have read the article carefully, and it is just my opinion, but it might benefit from citing from another couple of detailed military analysis of the battle itself, but it is generally quite good and manages to steer the narrow line between religion and history that is inevitable with the early battles during the rise of Islam. old windy bear 21:10, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

• i'm currently in the process of looking to see if i can get any more in terms of narrative or analysis of this event. Watt's books and the Encyclopedia of Islam cover it quite comprehensively, and most biographies don't tend to go into meticulous detail about it. i'll see what i can dig up. ITAQALLAH 04:48, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

ITAQALLAH Watt is my source also, but I will check further too, but I think you covered it pretty thoroughly. It would be nice to have another good source analysis or two, but as you say, most histories of the period don't go into tremendous detail about the Battle of Uhad.old windy bear 20:58, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

[User:Itaqallah|ITAQALLAH]] In a final review of the article, I added the fact that Khalid ibn al-Walid(ra) emerged as a brilliant general in this battle, displaying his talent for the first time as he would go on to conquer the Sassanids. Other than that, I think you did a superior job. Nice work! old windy bear 10:20, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

thank you Oldwindybear. i've got a hold of Tor Andrae's book ("Mohammad: The Man and His Faith"), and i'll see if there's anything else i can add. ITAQALLAH 15:56, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sa.vakilian

1. I checked the article and put some comments in the talk page. But why don't you use Arabic histories like Tabari and Ibn Athir. We can't find most of the details in the western histories.
2. You can use Battle of Badr which is an FA article to complete the prelude and get some ideas about what sections can be added like Badr in the Qur'an and Important participants.--Sa.vakilian(t-c) 05:11, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

The participants idea is a good one, actually. Certainly the Shiites make a great deal out of Ali's role in the Battle. I still think the article is a good one as he constructed it, but a participants section is a good idea. Ibn Athir does not have many more details than are currently in the article, as I recollect it concentrates most heavily on Battle of Badr ?old windy bear 09:47, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] William Claiborne

Recently expanded. General comments welcome, but think could most use advice on whether the narrative of the biography makes sense and whether the events in Claiborne's life have enough historical context. Geraldk 16:46, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Review by karanacs

This was a really informative article! I thought you did a good job covering the details of the colonial days (although I'll qualify that by saying I love history and probably know more than a lot of people). There are some minor changes you can make that would improve readability and help you get ready for a future FA bid. Most of your prose is good, but there are some more informal word choices that should be fixed. Sometimes it helps to read the article out loud and see what sounds weird (although I recommend you do this only when you are alone!).

• DoneI recommend wikilinks for all place names, but I don't know if that's a standard.
• DoneYou really should have a wikilink for King James I, Privy Council, English Civil War, and for all of the governors if they have articles created
• Doneheading titles should have only first word and proper names capitalized (so should be Early life and emigration to America)
• DoneNeed metric conversions for all measurements.
• DoneThe article needs a spellcheck -- there are a few minor mistakes.
• DonePer WP:MOSBIO, all references to the subject after the first instance should be by surname only (Claiborne, not William)
• DoneFirst paragraph in Early life section doesn't flow well. It also leaves open some questions that you may not be able to answer -- why did an alderman and lord mayor leave home and move somewhere else? Was Thomas Clayborn opening a new branch of the family business? Was the elder son really apprenticed to make the family rich, to learn the family business, or just to help them get by? Do you know the name of his brother or how old william would have been when the brother was apprenticed?

I might rephrase the paragraph as such --

William Claiborne was born in Kent, England in 1660 to Thomas Clayborn, a small-time merchant, alderman, and lord mayor from King's Lynn, Norfolk, and Sarah Smith, the daughter of a London brewer. Claiborne, who was baptized on August 10, 1660, was the youngest of two sons. His elder brother, <insert name if you know it>, was apprenticed to a London merchant in <year if known> in order to help the family.

• DoneYou should probably point out that the attacks were made by the native peoples.
• DoneThe first paragraph of the Kent Island section (except the first sentence), does not read well. Some of the verbiage could be formalized a bit more (for exampl, instead of "wanted to get a charter for a portion of the land that the Virginians considered their own," you could say something along the lines of "desired a charter for a portion of the land claimed by Virginians.")
• DoneWhere did claiborne get Kent Island settlers? Were they already there? Did he recruit them (and if so, from the colonies or from England
• DoneThe sentence about claiborne's marriage throws off the flow of that paragraph. Also, she couldn't have remained his wife through 1688 if he died in 1677.
• DoneWas Claiborne ever charged with inciting the natives? By saying that he was never convicted, the sentence implies that he was charged.
• DoneI would start a new paragraph at "In 1635, a Maryland commissioner named"

*I would flesh out the paragraph on Rich Island. How was the colony destroyed and how was that related to Spanish power in the area

• DoneRichard Ingle is described as a Puritan twice in the same sentence (and it might be good to wikilink puritan).

*I don't understand why Ingle's ships would have been seized?

• DoneIs Cecil Calvert the same as the son of the first Calvert? His name should be consistent.
• DoneThe sentence that begins "Claiborne made no over legal attempts" is a little unwieldy
• DoneThis sentence is more trivia and doesn't really belong--"Interestingly, these Puritans had been invited by Stone to settle in Maryland some years before when Puritans had not been welcome in largely Anglican Virginia"
• Donehis death date is wrong in the text of the article

*There are many places in the prose that could be improved to a more formal tone. At times, it sounds like someone is telling it as a story ("But he was, after all, "), when it should read as a more factual encyclopedia.

• DoneI would remove the legacy section. The quotation is nice, and should be incorporated into the text. You could include a family section instead that mentions his wife, anything you know about how many children he had, and then that some of his descendants were famous.

Good luck! Karanacs 01:48, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Joe Rogan

Let's try and clean this up and get it to good article quality Embassy 15:18, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Woodym555

It is a start. There are many things that can be done to improve it though.

• The lead section needs extending. You may find it helpful to read this guideline to get an idea of how long this section should be and what it should contain.
• A good lead section is built around a strong and full article which it currently is not. Most if not all sections need expanding such as UFC and early life. These are all stubs at the moment.
• The television career section needs to be turned into prose. It is currently just a list.

There is a basis for a good article but it needs a lot of cleanup and the point of view questions will obviously need to be addressed. I hope that this is of some help. Woodym555 21:20, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Dave Bishop

I'd like to get this up to at least GA standard Embassy 14:49, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Llama

Thank you for taking your time to review this article. I am initially looking for a beginner's grade for the article and guidance to eventually GA and then FA status. All constructive criticisms are welcome. --BlindEagle^{talk~contribs} 12:27, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Review by Verisimilus T

Hi, there's quite a bit to say about this article, My main concern is that it reads very little like an encyclopaedia. A couple of brief points:

lede 

The lede strikes me as a little odd. Rather than informing me what a llama is, you've told me what it's not... Have a look at WP:LEDE, which advises that the lede provides a succinct summary of the ensuing article.

First draft of first 3 paragraphs complete. Please review at your leisure and rip apart as you see fit. I reviewed your link and also reviewed several other animal articles that have either received grades or are being promoted. The format of the lead paragraphs are generally in this order: 1) quick intro, 2) about the animal, 3) a bit of history. I tried to stay in the intro-format of other articles. --BlindEagle^{talk~contribs} 18:44, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Classification 

This strikes me as quite a heavy start to the article, dropping me straight into specialist language which the average reader is unlikely to follow. Could the information perhaps be better conveyed in a graphical fashion?

Characteristics 

Again, does not read like an encyclopaedia - more like a taxonomist's handbook.

Both Classification and Characteristics are from the original scanned article. I'm digging for a cite. --BlindEagle^{talk~contribs} 15:18, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Order 

I'd perhaps move Classification later in the article, as it is arguably of less key importance to what a llama is, or why I should be interested in them. I think it would be fair to suggest that most casual readers would be most interested in characteristics, behaviour and mating - maybe these sections should come earlier, to make the reader want to know more than they came for.

In popular culture 

As well as a "see main article", you should include a brief summary of that article in the main one. Again, draw the reader in - make them want to click that blue link!

Added intro para. --BlindEagle^{talk~contribs} 13:39, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Be concise 

Wikipedia is (unfortunately, to my thinking) an encyclopaedia, not a collection of knowledge. I wouldn't expect a paper encyclopaedia to have a list of the diameters of different types fur, or nutritional requirements. If you think the information is crucial to our understanding of llamas, it would be wise to explain why in the article - I must admit to being slightly confused as to the reason for its inclusion. Maybe just a sentence such as Llama fur is much thicker than that of sheep, making fabrics made from llamas more scratchy would be of more use than the table? There are a few areas in the article which I think the painful decision to trim unnecessary information would improve the article as a whole. It's always nice if you can follow an article without having to stop and follow links in order to keep up.

Behaviour 

This section is written in many short, simple sentences. It could benefit from a rewrite in order to improve its flow. Further, it does not come across in an encyclopaedic tone.

Testing for pregnancy 

reads like instructions from a vet's handbook... Also, perhaps goes into unnecessary detail.

Fossil llamas 

Perhaps this would be better housed in the "history" section? And few readers will be geologists - I'd explain the significance of the Tertiary, etc, in the article.

Reproduction 

Is made up of many short sections. I'd remove some section headings and go for a coherent paragraph, but you may want to expand constituent sections instead.

Breeding situations 

Incorporate into text - you need at least to use full sentences.

Feel free to address those points - I'll happily review the article more thoroughly at a later date. But your first priority should definitely to be to attain a more encyclopaedic tone that is accessible and instantly engaging to an uneducated reader. Verisimilus T 22:36, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] History of Philadelphia

I finally updated the article to the present and am wondering if there are any problems. I'm looking for any issues with length, content, whether the article makes sense to people who don't live in Philadelphia and other comments. Medvedenko 03:35, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

• I think you did a great job. Kitia 15:41, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Steve Nash

Hi i am putting this article up for a peer review at the bequest of Warrush. I am sure that all comments will be greatly appreciated. Thanks Woodym555 18:03, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Estadio Monumental "U"

How can this article be improved? It seems too small.MicroX 23:56, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Maroon 5

I do Good Article reviews all the time and I know what sort of things to look for, but, for what ever reason, I can't easily spot issues within articles I've read a dozen or more times. My goal is to eventually bring this article up to FA, hopefully. A task I have not yet attempted. LaraLove^T/_C 21:50, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Review by Fritz S.

In general, there are very little references. Many more of the statements could/should be referenced. Not even the quote given prominently in the Formation section is sourced. (Speaking of which, I don't see why this particular quote is formatted in cquotetxt, while others aren't).

Block quote states that block quotes are generally used for quotes that are four lines or more, which this quote is. It also says that it can be used stylistically for shorter quotes. WP:QUOTE, although currently inactive, states that block quotes can also be used when the quote is a major part of the article's topic. In this case, it was a turning point for the band, something that, as stated in the quote, had a "profound impact" on Levine's songwriting (which ultimately transformed their sound, leading to their success).

Here are some other things:

• "backing vocals" is overlinked in the lead Done
• Singles should be linked in the lead (if they have articles) Done
• Caption in the infobox shouldn't be in italics. Done

• Image has been deleted, per my nomination for lack of justifiable fair use rationale, and replaced with previous concert photo.

• Genres should all be in one line, seperated by commas. Done

• This varies between articles of various quality standards. I'm looking into whether or not one is preferred. I've changed this before (not sure if it was for this article or not), and my change was reverted. To avoid issues, I'm getting verification.

• Okay. I based that on the example given in the template instructions. I just checked a couple of FAs and most of them list them without brakes. --Fritz S. (Talk) 09:48, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

• Good enough for me. Hopefully this isn't the article I had the issue with previously. I'm not in the mood for revert warring. :p LaraLove^T/_C 05:42, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

• Dashes are wrong throughout the article. See WP:DASH

• Are you referring to the dashes used in the Awards section? I looked through other FAs and GAs to see what format others used for listing awards and I could not find one article with an awards section, except for Mariah Carey, but it was a separate article regarding only Grammy nominations/wins. Is there some standard against awards sections? LaraLove^T/_C 05:42, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

I actually meant the use of dashes when it comes to time spans (e.g. "2003 - 2005", which should be "2003–2005"), there are a couple of these in the lead and in the infobox. --Fritz S. (Talk) 08:56, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

• "Maroon 5 returned with new music for the first time in five years with the release of It Won't Be Soon Before Long in May 2007" I think this is simply wrong since they did release a couple of new tracks on compilations in those five years. Done

• The new sentence now states "Maroon 5 returned with a new album for the first time in five years" although they released two live albums in between... --Fritz S. (Talk) 09:48, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

• I'll have to get someone to help me word this. The new album is their first full album since Songs About Jane. I don't think that's accurate terminology, though. However, the current wording in the article is how it was referred to in Rolling Stone Magazine. I can source it, if that would make it acceptable. LaraLove^T/_C 05:42, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

How about "Maroon 5 released their second studio album, It Won't Be Soon Before Long in May 2007, five years after Songs About Jane." ? --Fritz S. (Talk) 08:56, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

• "In his section of Midnight Miles, Dusick detailed" should not include external link (especially since it's dead), but proper citation. Done

• It was cited, there just isn't an article for Midnight Miles. I've changed it to link to Wikipedia's book source page.

• By "proper citation" I meant a reference tag and {{cite book}}, for example. --Fritz S. (Talk) 09:48, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

• I don't have the book, so there's no way for me to do this. It's also not available at the library, and I love the band, but not enough to buy this book. The comment used in the article is taken from the source that follows it. LaraLove^T/_C 05:42, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Then it should be cited with {{cite web}} instead of an inline link. You could also check if there is a mirror of that site at the Wayback Machine or Google Cache. --Fritz S. (Talk) 08:56, 28 June 2007 (UTC). Just noticed this is there. Sorry. --Fritz S. (Talk) 09:01, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

• "Maroon 5's second album, It Won't Be Soon Before Long (A&M/Octone Records) was released worldwide." I think that part in parenthesis should either be removed, or properly incorporated into the sentence. Done
• "After its release, the record broke iTunes sales records its week of release, selling over 101,000 albums." It might be a little confusing to have record in that sentence twice with different meanings. Maybe album instead for the first time? Done
• "To support the album, from May 30 to June 11, the band will be on the road" out of date. The next sentence as well. Done
• The two album covers used lack fair use rationales, and aren't really necessary anyway. Done However, a screenshot from "This Love" for the Controversy section might be a good idea (and easier to justify fair use wise).

• I added fair use rationales. I feel the covers add context. I'm looking for a good shot. None that I've currently found show the controversial computer-generated flowers. I may end up taking it myself, but probably not until I get the high-gain antenna for my wireless access point.

• Many editors at WP:FU feel that the use of album artwork is only justified if the cover itself (not just the album) is being discussed. The current use seems to violate WP:FUC #8. --Fritz S. (Talk) 09:48, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

• Wikipedia:WikiProject My Chemical Romance is going to be shattered when they hear that! I'll see what I can do about replacing them. LaraLove^T/_C 05:42, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

I think that's it for now... --Fritz S. (Talk) 09:33, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Changes and above comments by LaraLove^T/_C 04:49, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

I still think many more statements should be sourced. If it helps I can go through it again and add {{fact}} whereever a statement should have a reference. --Fritz S. (Talk) 09:48, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Yea, I didn't have time to address that suggestion yet. I would appreciate the fact tags. I don't currently have a lot of time to edit, plus my connection is like AOL in 1996 right now... I think some of my edits would go through faster if I wrote them out and mailed them in to someone via USPS! LaraLove^T/_C 05:42, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I'll see what I can do. --Fritz S. (Talk) 08:56, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Scottish independence

This article has undergone a fairly extensive rewrite over the last couple weeks and I would like to see where other editors feel it now stands. I feel input from non-Scottish editors may be especially useful. I am aware of the outstanding citations required, any help with those would be great. Kanaye 21:24, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

This is a good article, well done. A hasty (by no means thorough) review...

• I don't like the bracketed i.e. in the lede. Can you find a way of rewording this that avoids needing to explain yourself?
• Scotland and it's populace --> its!
• POV - The Anti-devolution view is, as you suspect, under-represented. As far as I understand the situation, both sides of the argument are equally keenly fought - hence they ought really receive a similar amount of coverage.
• Perhaps put the 'location of Scotland' image earlier in the article. If I didn't know it, I'd want to know before that stage of the article...

Thanks for your input, I've revised the article accordingly. I've beefed up the anti-devolution viewpoint, although I wasn't sure whether you were specifically referring to the the devolution section or the article in general. Kanaye 15:55, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

[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?
  • Not circular, merely complicated. "Natural log" is the basic concept here; e, and bases, can be defined in terms of it. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:09, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
• 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)

But wouldn't e naturally arise as the necessary base of the solution to certain differential equations? (E.g. Radioactive_decay#Decay_timing.) Especially since the article spends an entire section on e in calculus. — RJH (talk) 22:02, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

I see. Yes, certainly. If we are allowed to pursue the differential equations route, this could easily be worked into the e in calculus section. Silly rabbit 22:19, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

I started to bring in the radioactive decay timing example you suggested, but it did not seem to be popular with the other editors. Silly rabbit 16:22, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

No problem. These are only suggestions, after all. — RJH (talk) 18:06, 23 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)

Just to clarify, I don't have an issue with the presence of the formulae in the text. But they may deter some readers. So additional clarification may be needed. — RJH (talk) 22:04, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Clarification is always good. But the equations should not be trimmed; this is an encyclopedia, not Richard Feynman's publisher, who told him that every equation would halve his sales. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:07, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

I concur with Septentrionalis' points there. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 01:01, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Redundancy

With regard to the redundancy, I'm not sure how to tackle this problem. I would like to get rid of the two redundant representations of e, since these are already discussed at length during the preceding sections. However, that would leave only the continued fraction representation, and this gives a rather misleading impression to the reader about its relative importance. It may be appropriate to reassess the inclusion of a few select candidates from the Representations of e article. It would be nice if we could say why the selected representations are important as well. Silly rabbit 10:42, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps then the article could give a mathematical representation of the software algorithm used to compute the digits e? (Presumably because it is the most efficient known means to compute said digits.) I think I would find that of interest. Thanks. — RJH (talk) 17:52, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I thought that was a rather odd ommission as well, given that there is a big table of the number of digits computed. ;-) Silly rabbit 18:05, 24 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 to take it up to FA. 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)

Your nomination appears to imply you will not be working on the article. Do you yourself intend to address concerns, or someone on the article? Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 17:47, 24 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)

Thanks for the feedback everyone!! It's much appreciated. Will make the necessary changes as soon as possible. Thanks again! Loopla 08:39, 23 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)

Done-ish. It's now a good article candidate. If anyone has any more suggestions feel free to leave them. --Psychless 18:21, 22 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)

• Ok, it got GA now. Lead expanded, looking for pics. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 08:41, 22 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 [7] and the page history [8]. I think we need some expert advice here before things start looking sloppy.CindyBo 19:20, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Done*Remove the Cougars and Spruce Kings logos, per Fair Use requirements.

Done*The History section should be expanded beyond community's origins.

Done*In the Economy section "Prince George is now experiencing a modest growth." - in terms of what? and accoring to who/what?

Done*Avoid external links in the middle of text as seen in the Culture section.

Done*I suggest integrating the "Local attractions" section into the rest of the article, like orchestra, playhouse, museum stuff into the Culture section; the local wild edible fruit stuff into the Geography section (with other native plants/animals); and parks either to the Geography or Recreation section.

Done*I have never liked listing famous/notable people, seems trivial and peripheral to the purpose/focus of city articles. But if they have to be listed provide a line on what they meant to the city (with a reference, of course).

• Lists of radio and tv stations can be done in tables or templates (like Template:Dawson Creek TV), and write prose descriptions/summaries in the body.

-- maclean 19:22, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your advice. I agree with all of your suggestions and will be working on the article, section by section, this weekend. So those fair use images should only be on the Prince George Cougars and Prince George Spruce Kings articles, period? Is there a way to get permission to keep them in the Prince George article?CindyBo^talk 19:46, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Read about fair use a bit, they're gone until we get permission to use them.CindyBo^talk 20:13, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

• For the logos, fair use prohibits their decorative uses and in this article they are not contributing anything more than what the words "Prince George Cougars and Prince George Spruce Kings" say. They have been removed on the same decorative from Vancouver#Sports and recreation, Boston, Massachusetts#Sports, Seattle, Washington#Sports, and all other similar featured articles. To keep them, explicit permission from the copyright holders would have to be emailed to the foundation, or have them re-licensed. And, by the way, to keep them in the Prince George Cougars and Prince George Spruce Kings articles their copyright tags need to be completed with fair use rationales. --maclean 20:16, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I'm on it, then I'll work on the rest tomorrow. Thanks again.CindyBo^talk 20:28, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

I took out a couple of dead links in external links as well as some advertising links. Then I integrated the local attractions as you suggested, and ended up coming up with more recreational activities and local events as it seems like there was quite a few important ones missing. I ended up adding an annual events section, which seems to make sense to me and should work quite nicely, once the blanks are filled in. I had no idea where to put Mr. PG. He's not that artsy, but he has to go somewhere. As for the famous people, I just gave them their own section...for now, but, I think you're right and they should probably go, or be tied in in some other manner. I just removed the modest growth sentence for now, actually the census stats speak against that anyway, although other things like housing prices seem to tilt it the other way. I'll have to dig around for some references. Anyway, I think the basic format is a little better now, but I still have a lot more to reference and explain, particulary for the annual events that I added. Once the rest of the article is in shape, I'll do the history section.CindyBo^talk 10:38, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I removed the famous people entirely and added more information on the annual events and that 8 way geography chart. However, I found this template here for the media as you mentioned[9] but I have no idea what to do with it. I usually just write history articles and I have no experience with charts and templates (outside of simple copy, paste and edit ones). Could you walk me through how I'm supposed to add the information and how to put it in the article?CindyBo^talk 19:37, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Oh, and by the way, what should bibliography mean in this context?General books about Prince George or just books that were used in compiling the information for the article, or both?CindyBo^talk 20:58, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

I expanded the history section, probably overdid it, but it's hard to squeeze 200 years of history into under a thousand words. If you think it should be a main article, that's fine, I'll keep a copy of it in my sandox, so I can easily make a full article on it anytime and chop the Prince George article down a bit.CindyBo^talk 08:27, 25 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&nbsp;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] Belovedfreak

Looks pretty good. A couple of small things I noticed:

• Shouldn't "Synopsys" be "Synopsis"?
• In the "Part 1 - Baby It's Cold Outside" section, it says "at a church-organised dance for young people", but you have used ize versions of words through the rest of the article.

That's all I can see at the moment. --Belovedfreak 21:15, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

• • Done. --Lenin and McCarthy | (Complain here) 22:44, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Comment by Erik

• Should I assume that you're not a fan of the Cite news template? I found the date and accessdate attributes' bare-bones display odd and wasn't sure if you had a reason for not using the template, which would format the attributes based on the viewer's preferences.
  • I'll admit, I never actually stated using that template. I could theoretically reformat the applicable refs. --Lenin and McCarthy | (Complain here) 18:38, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
• Is there a reason for the Islamism template at the end? Usually, I see such templates used when the article's subject (meaning the documentary) is a part of it. This does not seem to be the specific case here. A more appropriate template would be one for Adam Curtis's productions. (Maybe the "See also" section can be removed and links be placed in such a template.) Readers can visit wiki-links in the article and find out more about the subject matter, including the Islamism template.
  • It was there when I first started rewriting. I'll replace it with an applicable categorization, but I don't really know that much about making templates. --Lenin and McCarthy | (Complain here) 18:38, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
• Is there a way to break up the Reactions section? Not by positive/negative, but perhaps by local and international? It's just a rather long body of text.
  • That could probably be done, and I'd probably find more specific reviews for the film in the process. --Lenin and McCarthy | (Complain here) 18:38, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Possible issue: I don't know where to find "international" reviews outside the US. I'll check Google, but I don't know. --Lenin and McCarthy | (Complain here) 00:03, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
    • Doesn't necessarily have to be by region, but by the type of criticism... like for the technical aspect of the documentary format, and the accuracy/inaccuracy of information. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 16:14, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
• There seem to be some minor copy-editing issues, but I hate to write out whole sentences to say that it's missing this kind of punctuation. I will see if I can brush anything up personally and save you the trouble.
  • Thanks. --Lenin and McCarthy | (Complain here) 18:38, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Hope you can make use of my suggestions. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 14:21, 27 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] Review by Awadewit

This is in many ways a very good article. I have played the piano for twenty-five years (even a Mozart concerto!) and I learned a lot from it. What needs to be done is to make sure that it complies with the most important policies at wikipedia. The language in many places could also be more precise. Here are my suggestions for improvement.

Lead: The lead is not a standalone summary of the article per 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 would aim for 3-4 paragraphs for this article, as recommended in the guidelines. Be sure to include a mention of all of the major topics the article addresses.

• The Mozart piano concertos are piano concertos by Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart (1756–1791). - A bit redundant don't you think? The piano concertos are piano concertos? The Mozart concertos are by Mozart? I realize you want Mozart's full name in there, but there must be a better way.
• These works, many of which Mozart composed for himself to play in the Vienna concert series of 1784–86 held a special place for him - "held a special place for him" is vague and awkward - can you be more specific?
• These works, many of which Mozart composed for himself to play in the Vienna concert series of 1784–86 held a special place for him; indeed, Mozart's father apparently interrupted him composing a "harpsichord concerto" at age 4. - I don't see how the "indeed" logically follows.
• For a long time relatively neglected, they have come to be seen as containing some of his greatest achievements. - awkward and unspecific - Can you say "Neglected for [time span], they are now considered some of his greatest works" or something like that?
• Tovey championed them in his Essay on the Classical Concerto in 1903, and later came the famous books by Cuthbert Girdlestone and Arthur Hutchings in 1940 (originally published in French) and 1948, respectively. Hans Tischler published a structural and thematic analysis of the concertos in 1966, followed by the important works by Charles Rosen, and Leeson and Robert Levin. - too detailed for a lead - I would give only the first or most important "champion".
• In recent years, two of the concertos have also been covered in the Cambridge Music Handbook series. - unnecessary in a lead
• The first complete edition was not until that of Richault from around 1850; and since then the scores and autographs have become widely available through the publications of eg Norton, Eulenberg (edited by Friedrich Blume) and Dover. - too much detail for the lead - perhaps mention the first edition and then say it is currently widely available without listing all of them? That kind of list can come in the article itself.

Sources: The article needs to be cited to reliable sources (in this case, books and articles by musicologists). Your list of references looks good, although I am sure it could be expanded. Use those books to provide the reader with inline citations (footnotes) so that s/he knows where each piece of information is coming from. See citations and reliable sources. Here are some examples of sentences needing citation:

• The next concerto, KV. 449 in E flat major, ushers in a period of creativity that has certainly never been surpassed in piano concerto production. - Statements like this are considered "point of view" (WP:NPOV) unless they have a reliable source backing them up.
• The final work of the year, No. 25, KV. 503, sometimes referred to as "Mozart's Emperor Concerto" - We need to know where this is coming from.
• The prelude is invariably rich in thematic material, with as many as six or more well-defined themes being introduced. However, the concertos fall into two rather marked groups as to what sort of themes they possess.
• The genius of Mozart's mature movements, therefore, is to be able to manipulate a mass of thematic material without compromising the broader scale conception; and the listener, rather than being given the impression of "fiddling" with all the themes, instead is left with the ritornellic impression: Mozart truly uses "art to conceal art". - Quotations in particular must be sourced.
• Girdlestone considers the slow movements to fall into five main groups, i.e. "galant", "romance", "dream", "meditative" and the "minor" ones. - Any ideas attributed to a specific writer must also be sourced.
• Today, at least three of these works (nos 20, 21 and 23) are among the most recorded and popular classical works in the repertoire
• For example, a search on Amazon.com for "K. 467, Mozart" (No. 21, by far the most recorded of the concertos, especially its slow movement) will give almost 600 hits - Eek! Why not use a reputable publication that lists all of the recordings?

General comments:

• Instead of moving backwards in time in the "Origins" section, why don't you move forward? It is a little difficult to follow the way it is now.
• Linking of individual years is usually discouraged, unless you are linking to something like "1776 in music."
• Can you make the KV links clearer by perhaps including the KV in the linked phrase? Sometimes the typography becomes confusing. You do this sometimes in the article, but not always.
• It is standard practice to link something the first time it appears in a section (Beethoven is linked later in the "First movement" section, for example.)
• In the "Second movement" section, I would suggest listing only the types and explaining what they are rather than giving the reader the detailed list.
• I do not mind your long paragraphs, but if you intend to go for GA or FA with this article, you might think about breaking them up. I have noticed a distinct preference for short paragraphs among wikipedia editors.
• I would focus the "Discography" on famous and influential recordings rather than complete recordings or at least add a section on famous performances and interpretations of the Mozart concertos.
• The "Piano concertos in films" section seems superfluous to me. As it is only a list, I would create a "Mozart piano concertos in popular culture" page and put it there. Those pages seem to be only lists of these kinds of things.
• Can you include more sound clips?
• I would add bullets to all lists to make them easier to read.
• I would cite the Henle editions of Mozart's concertos - they are generally regarded as superior to Dover editions.
• Again, if you want to submit this to FA, you will probably need to add more categories and more images (I added one of a fortepiano.)

One consistent problem that I saw in the article's prose was a tendency to make vague claims. Here are some examples of what I mean:

• The next two, Nos 7–8 (KV. 242 and KV. 246) are generally not regarded as demonstrating much of an advance - an advance in what?
• although No. 7, the concerto for three pianos, is quite well known - why is it well-known?
• it is often described as "Tyrolean", and stands some comparison with the later A major concerto, KV. 488 - Why can it be compared with the later concerto?
• The last of these three, No. 13, KV. 415, is an ambitious, perhaps even overambitious work, that introduces the first, military theme in a canon in an impressive orchestral opening: the last movement is considered to be the best. - Why "overambitious"? Considered to be the best by whom?
• The advance in technique and structure from the early Vienna examples is marked from the very first of this mature series. - What specifically are the changes in technique and structure?

Another problem is that the writing at times assumes that the reader has a lot of specialized knowledge. Here are some examples:

• so that some older works (e.g. Girdlestone) - Who is this? A scholar or a bibliographer? Be as clear as possible - perhaps something like "some older lists of Mozart's works, such as [first name] Girdlestone's"
• KV. 451 is a not very well known work (Hutchings appears not to have liked it particularly, although Girdlestone ranks it highly). - Who is Hutchings?
• His later concertos are truly described as concertos for "piano and orchestra" rather than the more obviously "piano" concertos of the nineteenth century (e.g. that of Grieg etc). - Tell the reader Grieg's entire name and eliminate the "etc." or fill in other examples (such as Franz Liszt).
• Beethoven was clearly impressed by them, even if the anecdotal story about his comments to Ferdinand Ries about no. 24 is legendary - what anecdotal story?

Prose:

• Early keyboard concertos were written by, among others, C.P.E. Bach, J.C. Bach, Soler, Wagenseil, Schobert, Vanhall and Haydn. - It is a good idea to include first names for each composer the first time you mention them, as a courtesy to the reader.
• the tradition of Baroque operatic arias, from which the first movements of Mozart's piano concertos inherited their basic ritornellic structure - It is a good idea to explain basic concepts that are important to the topic at hand in a phrase even if you have the word linked. Users can only click so many times.
• Mozart also wrote three arrangements of piano sonatas by J. C. Bach (Op 5. No. 2 in D major; Opus 5. No. 3 in G Major and Opus 5. No. 4 in E flat major, all composed by 1766), catalogued under KV. 107/1, 2 and 3 respectively. These works were written in 1771–1772, based on handwriting analysis of the autographs. - Confusing - they were written by 1766 or in 1771?
• was his first real effort in the genre, and one that proved enduringly popular at the time - "enduringly popular" seems to contradict "at the time"
• The final concerto Mozart wrote before the end of his Salzburg period was the well-known concerto No. 10 for two pianos - Perhaps you could mention at the beginning of the paragraph/section that this is considered Mozart's Salzburg period?
• The next concerto in B flat, KV. 456, was for a long time considered to be written for the blind pianist Maria Theresa von Paradis to play in Paris - Is it no longer considered to be written for her? Confusing.
• In the works of his mature series, Mozart created a unique conception of the piano concerto that attempted to solve the ongoing problem of how thematic material is dealt with by the orchestra and piano - vague
• He strives to maintain a mean between a sort of symphony with piano solos stuffed in here and there, and a virtuoso piano fantasia with orchestral accompaniment; twin traps that later composers were not always able to avoid - "stuffed in here and there" is colloquial language
• The form of Mozart's piano concerto first movements has generated much discussion, of which modern instances were initiated by the highly influential analysis provided by Tovey in his Essay. - awkward
• ending in a shake in the dominant (for major key concertos) or the relative major (for minor key concertos) - I have never heard the word "shake" before in reference to piano music - what does it mean?
• To express it in another way, in sonata form, the first group of subjects is linked to and generates an expectation of the second group, which would tend to detract attention away from the piano entry - a point that, as Tovey points out, was only grasped by Beethoven rather belatedly. - wordy
• In other concertos, such as No. 16, there is no such thing. - "no such thing" is colloquial
• In the earlier concertos, such as the not totally successful No. 13 in C major, and even more so, perforce, in the concertos for two and three pianos - "perforce" sounds stilted
• However, two of his most important finales, that to KV. 453, and to KV. 491, are in variation form, and both these are generally regarded to be among his best. - Would this not be "theme and variation" form?
• In addition, three more concertos, KV. 450, 451 and 467 can be regarded as being in rondo-sonata form - wordy
• All of Mozart's mature concertos were concertos for the piano and not the harpsichord - wouldn't this be fortepiano? Awadewit | talk 04:00, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Review by Verisimilus

A fine article. It would be easy to get bogged down in Wikipedia's style guidelines but I've always valued readability more highly - and this is a pleasure to read in its own right, a rare thing in the often over-formalised Wikipedia!

There are just a couple of points which I'd personally have avoided; most strikingly, the abundance of lists and listy sentences. From a readability perspective, I found myself skimming over lists containing more than three or four terms. Perhaps some lists (e.g. origins) could be abbreviated; elsewhere the information may be better conveyed as a table, which would also go some way to break up large blocks of text. I'd query how essential the list in, for example, the "second movenemt structure" section is with regards to this article.

Further, the "first movement structure" section is very long; Maybe consider adding sub-headings, or failing that, something else to break up the daunting-looking page of text.

The other thing I was going to mention was the lead. It gives a good introduction but not much of an overview. I'd mirror the previous comment with just a note that with such a long article, it may be ambitious to cram everything into 3 paragraphs whilst maintaining a readable style and capturing the reader's interest... it often boils down to a matter of personal choice which side of the fence one falls!

Verisimilus T 22:02, 23 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)

Sorry for not responding sooner to your excellent and detailed critique. There are things I agree with and other things that I don't, but I haven't had the time to deal with your comments in detail and with the attention they deserve. I promise to get back within a week or so. --Ravpapa 05:06, 22 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] Comments by Verisimilus

• Could the lede be made more concise and encyclopaedic? For example, I'd remove 'A partial list of DC++ mods is given below..
• The article reads in places like a technical specification of manual. I didn't expect the first paragraph of the body to be on the support of addresses...
• There are a lot of low-content lists. See WP:LISTS for details on the manual of style's advice.

My personal approach would be to list only the names of major mods, with a note on its distinguishing features. As a non-DC expert, I can't currently see what sets those mods apart as interesting from an encyclopaedic perspective. Yes, they're useful if I want to decide which mod to download, but not if I'm interested in the software from an academic point of view. See WP:NOT.

• The information in the article is poorly distributed. Check out the WP:LEDE guidelines and consider including information on the origin of the program, controversies over its use in illegal media-sharing, and an explanation of what it does. I consider myself something of a geek but had I not encountered the program myself, I'd have difficulty working out what it was - what is a hub? a mod? even the term client is unfamiliar, I'd suggest, to a significant proportion of the population.

To summarise, this article would be improved most effectively by incorporating a sense of development - the first section introducing the computer-illiterate, perhaps the next providing a history, the next maybe its notability (controversies, width of use, use in DOS attacks), and then a short section detailing any technical specifications you'd expect to find in an encyclopaedia, with perhaps a short list of mods appended.

In answer to your mod question, I suppose I'd follow the line that if the mod merits its own page, create it and provide details there - but if it does not differ sufficiently from DC++, then it's probably not worth mentioning as anything more than an external link.

I hope that's helpful, and it is of course simply my personal views... Verisimilus T 23:08, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

The following comments have been copied from my talk page for ease of access. Verisimilus T

Thanks for your feedback about the article on DC++. It is appreciated, especially the specificity of the comments. The project (and the entire DC network) has been largely low-profile, with few news articles about it. I'll see what I can do without engaging in too much original research. As a side note, some of the DC++ offshoots have had their own project pages (ex: StrongDC, BCDC++), but were merged back in due to notability concerns. (I'm not sure if this is supposed to go on the peer review page, but I won't be able to give the article the attention it deserves for at least a couple of days, and acknowledging your review of it is paramount.) --GargoyleMT 14:14, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

My pleasure. Perhaps it would be appropriate to create a section in this article to describe each of the projects that once had their own page - if the sections would have enough content to justify their inclusion, anyway. Verisimilus T 14:31, 24 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.

I ended up cutting it out completely. It wasn't really necessary. --J.D. 20:40, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

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.

Removed picture. --J.D. 20:40, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

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)

Comments by Erik

• Fraser and Weisz should be wiki-linked in the Plot section like everyone else. Wiki-links can be redundant for each new section.
• Is there a need for Characters related to The Mummy? It seems that any important actions by the characters would already be mentioned in Plot, and a brief background description can be provided for each character in Cast. Also, can the Cast section be expanded to have some detail about the casting of each actor or how they carried out their role? (For example, is Rick O'Connell based on anyone real or fictional? Why was Arnold Vosloo chosen as the antagonist?)
• The picture of Rachel Weisz as Evelyn at the beginning of Production seems purely decorative; she's already displayed with the other protagonists in Cast. I suggest removal of this image. If you want to break the monotony of the text, I would suggest implement quoteboxes (see Aaron Sorkin) of any significant quotes.
• I see the Casting section now. Could this be merged into Cast? It would make the Cast section more than just a dry list.
• Is there a need for the Soundtrack section for The Mummy? If it was notable, it would be better to mention critical reaction to the music, and background to the music, instead of the track listing and the soundtrack template.
• Reception should reflect when the first festival release of this film, if any, took place, and also the opening date of this film (which does not seem to be mentioned here). I would also cite the editing in England, which I assume was done by the BBFC. Also, it may be an issue to quote three reviewers at length. There are better ways to write a Critical reaction section, in my opinion -- see Spider-Man 3#Critical reaction.
• In External links, I don't think that the Angelfire.com link is appropriate for inclusion.

Hope you can make use of my suggestions. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 14:39, 27 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[10].

• 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)

Images in the article but no lead image? Seems a bit odd. Buc 20:19, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, if you read the talk page you'll see I'm trying to source a usable image of Sir Bobby without all the associated paraphernalia like statues, book covers etc. Patience... The Rambling Man 21:51, 26 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)

Structurally everything seems sound, and it looks like the Rambling Man has picked up most things. Before going to FAC it could do with a light copyedit from a native English speaker. I'll run through it when I get the chance, and bring up any further issues as I do so. Oldelpaso 22:15, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Can you wait for a couple of weeks? Just because I am supposed next week to go in Florence at the National Library to have a look at a few very reliable sources for the club foundation. --Angelo 22:25, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Sure. Drop a note on my talk page when you're ready. Oldelpaso 22:34, 21 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] Review by Awadewit

I am an English graduate student who is an avid reader of popular science books, so my review will focus on accessibility and prose. I found this article to be, in general, remarkably clear and easy to follow. I am curious as to who you believe your audience will be. My roommate, who is an undergraduate physics major, learned nothing from this page, so I am assuming that you are aiming exclusively for lay readers?

Sentences and sections that may be too technical:

• General relativity (GR) is Albert Einstein's theory of gravitation, first published in 1916. It is based on Einstein's earlier theory of special relativity and the equivalence principle, and utilizes the mathematics of Riemannian geometry. - not clear to a non-scientist - Don't scare readers away with the first sentence!
• The image in the "Physical consequences" section could be explained better. When I first looked at it, I dumbly thought "that wave isn't going up or down, it is going straight."
• "Physical consequences" section - explain "downward" and "upward" more clearly as "down" and "up" into the gravitational field (this is done better later in the section, but should be done the first time such terms are mentioned).
• I found the "From acceleration to gravity" section a bit technical and hard to follow.
• But in relativity, mass and energy are equivalent (expressed by the famous formula E = mc²), and energy is intertwined with momentum (just as space is intertwined with time). - Explain equation and subsequent claims more clearly.
• In the section on "Einstein's field equation", the phrases "right-hand" and "left-hand" are confusing when you don't have the equation.
• The section on "Einstein's field equation" is a bit confusing overall.
• The anomalous precession of the orbit of Mercury and other planets (anomalous perihelion shift) has been measured using VLBI observations. - Readers can't click on everything - any terms that are crucial to sentences, such as "precession," should be quickly defined.

Other concerns:

• The lead lacks enough detail to be a standalone summary of the article as required by WP:LEAD.
• In the "Gravity and acceleration" section, the numbered list is oddly positioned next to the picture. It is hard to see the numbers at a glance.
• So far, general relativity is consistent with all available measurements of large-scale phenomena. - What does large-scale mean? What about small-scale? Does "quantum gravity" apply at that scale?

Prose:

• I do not mind "essay style" (e.g. So much for the effects of curved spacetime, but what causes the curvature in the first place?) but some editors at FA do.
• Still, a number of open questions remain, notably the question of how the theory can be reconciled with quantum theory, resulting in a theory of quantum gravity. - repetition of the word "theory"
• This gave Einstein a first clue about the nature of gravity - Don't begin a paragraph with "this" - it is not always clear what the referent is.
• Following earlier ideas by Ernst Mach, Einstein also explored centrifugal forces and their gravitational analogue. - This statement could be clearer and more precise.
• Using the analogy between gravitational and inertial effects, as well as the insight that, for an observer in free fall, the laws of physics are approximately those of special relativity, Einstein was able to derive a number of interesting consequences of the new approach to gravity. - unclear and long
• In his considerations, Einstein had come across - Considerations of what? Always be absolutely clear at the beginning of a paragraph or section to what you are referring.
• Going from an inertial to a rotating reference frame is analogous to going from a Cartesian to a curved coordinate system. - "Going" is colloquial and imprecise.
• While the geometric analogy had set Einstein onto the right track - colloquial language
• The analogue of the curved, two-dimensional surface is four-dimensional spacetime, a geometric entity that had been introduced in 1907 by Hermann Minkowski as part of a geometric formulation of special relativity in which it unifies and replaces the separate entities space and time. - Too long
• In the third paragraph of "From acceleration to gravity" "Einstein" is used repetitiously.
• Paraphrasing John Wheeler - Who is he? Why should we care what he said? At least say something like "Paraphrasing the physicist John Wheeler" or "Paraphrasing the great physicist..." or "Paraphrasing an expert in general relativity..."
• For comparatively low-mass objects such as those we know from everyday life (such as our own bodies) - Two "such as" constructions in a row - perhaps eliminate the "everyday life" part and just use "our own bodies"?
• In Newtonian gravity, the gravitation force is caused by matter, more precisely - Should that be "gravitational"?
• The key part of general relativity are Einstein's equations - verb tense - should be "is" since "part" is the subject of the sentence
• These equations are formulated using Riemannian geometry, where the geometry of spacetime is defined by an object called the metric. - "in which" instead of "where" - Riemannian geometry is not a place
• the crucial observations that justified the adoption of general relativity over Newtonian gravity - awkward - perhaps "justified replacing Newtonian gravity with general relativity"?
• notably VLBI observations of the deflection of the light of distant quasars by the sun, have confirmed Eddington's results with significantly higher accuracy - Do not use abbreviations without explanation
• To this day, scientists try to challenge general relativity with more and more precise experiments and observations - Why are they still testing it? Also, "challenge" is not the best word - for lay readers it sounds like they want to overturn all of realativity theory (creationists challenge evolution, for example).
• and the success of these models is further indirect evidence of the theory's validity - Just how "indirect" is it? Reading this sentence as a lay person, I think to myself - only indirect? Pshaw - they have nothing.
• such as quasars and other types of active galactic nucleus - "nucleus" should be plural
• The current cosmological models, the Big Bang models which postulate the emergence of our present expanding universe - repetition of "model"
• It is a longstanding hope that the theory of quantum gravity would also do away with a rather disturbing feature of general relativity: The presence of spacetime singularities – spacetime boundaries at which geometry becomes ill-defined – in the interior of black holes and at the beginning of the universe (the big bang) that general relativity predicts via the so-called singularity theorems. - too long

Minor style details:

• It is traditional to use a lower-case letter after a colon. This article sometimes uses upper-case letters (there is no pattern to the choice, either). Find a style and stick to it.
• The "See also" section should not include articles that have already been linked.
• Make it clear if the online tutorials are for a lay audience or not.

Two suggestions from my live-in physics expert:

• Perhaps the page should recommend that users read the Introduction to special relativity article before reading this one?
• Would a paragraph on GPS be helpful here? It would give readers a real-world example of the usefulness of general relativity. Astrophysics is fascinating to some (myself included) and I don't think that section should be deleted or cut down, but many more people know what GPS is and would be intrigued to know more about how it works. Awadewit | talk 01:21, 28 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] 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] 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.^[?] Done mostly using Conversion templates. TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 18:03, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
• 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] 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)

My comments:

• I think the lead needs to be delisted. Then inclusion criteria can have it's own section. I think that you may want to be very clear on the criteria, maybe summarising it in two or three sentences exactly what the list is about. Then having a more detailed section with criteria for inclusion etc.
• The list is bound to be full of errors unless every entry has a reference. I know mainly about rugby union, and I am confused as to whether or not some of those players should be included. For example, in rugby union, if you have played Test rugby for one nation you are not allowed to play for another. But if you play age grade level (like under 19, under 21) then I think you can. It's complicated, and not just based on where you are born.
• I think a comprehensive list (like one you would need for a FL) would be massive using the current criteria. You may want to change the criteria, so that the list is smaller. Otherwise you will need to split the page up, into different lists for different sports.

Thats all I have. - Shudda ^talk 01:11, 26 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)

• It seems good. I would like to see if the Americans have any interest in service to Perth. I am also into airplanes. Talk to me if you have any questions, primarily about commercial service.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Plane nerd (talk • contribs).

[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] 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?

Nutter apparently was specifically going for that "fun, smart..." in the pilot, as that is his style.

Can you make this more clear, then? Awadewit | talk 04:48, 27 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)

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

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.

Can you make this more clear, then? Awadewit | talk 04:48, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

• 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.

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 would either put this information under "plot summary" or under a section on "structure of episode" or something like that. Awadewit | talk 04:48, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

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.

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.

• 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."

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.

That is fine, then. Part of the problem was the missing details. Awadewit | talk 04:48, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

• 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?

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?

I would definitely red-link them - they are important film terms. Awadewit | talk 04:48, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

• 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

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.

Then you need to emphasize the fact that he had to stick to the storyboards. Right now the sentence emphasizes the 150 storyboards. Awadewit | talk 04:48, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

• 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.

How would you suggest including it as a "footnote", as I'm not familiar with that usage for a Wikipedia article.

<ref>Shannon Mews was used as an interior set for the Dark Angel pilot and the film Along Came a Spider.</ref> Awadewit | talk 04:48, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

• 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

Tried to explain what Lex gets.

• 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. . . . 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)
    • What about Second unit director? Do anyone think we could pipe "Second unit filming" to that?  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 14:27, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
      • For now, but obviously it would be best to have an entire article. Awadewit | talk 04:48, 27 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)

I haven't read all the way down yet, but I can that there is some overlinking, specifically "Jehovah's Witnesses". They're linked in the lead, why link them again in the body of the text? Also, do you have a cite for many Jews preferring "Shoah" over "Holocaust"? I don't remember getting that sense from any of the Jews I went to shul with.--Rmky87 17:47, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

To be clear: this means that even that really annoying Hebrew School teacher who chewed out one of my classmates for skipping (Hebrew) school to finish his real homework (she simply had no idea how much more homework you get in a public compared to that fancy dumb-bunny school she was sending her kids to) never berated us for using the word "Holocaust".--Rmky87 17:57, 27 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)

• That lead is really shrimpy. Thanks for having a production section.--Rmky87 17:38, 27 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] 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)

Done 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] 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)

See the article "Trivia" in Juventus' article in it-wiki (Curiosita' sulla JFC). --Dantetheperuvian 20:45, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Comments by Dantetheperuvian

• Urgent insert explanation of "Managerial history" would help the non-expert reader and -principally- the English readers (Managerial responsability in UK is not the same respect a Italy, Spain and Latin-America for example).
• Insert Stadium (and Project Stadium) information (see the same article in it-wiki).
• Insert + info for "Supporters" (is not the same respect to UK)...
• Urgent make the article "History of Juventus F.C." (see the same article in it-wiki). In this moment this section is poor (and principally talks for Calciopoli). Very poor IN THIS MOMENT for one of most legendary clubs of the world according FIFA...
• Insert Article "Juventus F.C. seasons" (exist only for 2006-07. The club was founded in 1897).
  
• Insert some historical and present photos.
• Insert Juventus Center and Juventus Channel links here:

Juventus F.C. v • d • e
Juventus F.C. Players | Honours | Coaches | Statistics 2006-07 Stadio delle Alpi | Stadio Olimpico di Torino Derby d'Italia

Sorry for my poor English, it's not my native languaje. --Dantetheperuvian 20:45, 23 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] 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] 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] 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] 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] Chris Young (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] Too many citations/extraneous information

But there are some parts of the article that have numerous citations for the same sentence, like this: "His five starts in June were highlighted by a career high twelve strikeout performance on June 9, 2006 against the Florida Marlins and a June 21, 2006 win over his former team, the Texas Rangers.^{[45][58][59][60][61]}" I don't think you really need 5 citations for one sentence. Another thing that kinda bothers me about this is the fact that it jumps from 45 to 61, meaning that in between the first time "reference 45" is used to here, there are (at least) 16 other citations.

I am considering using either the box score citation or the game summary/recap. This change would take a sentence like the above from 5 to 3 citations.

Jumping citations are caused when a very important reference is used throughout a well cited article. This is a good thing. It says we have cited several important claims and that we have found a very important resource. Recall WP is a tertiary resource that relies on credible secondary resources. TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 17:25, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm aware that proves that the source is a really good source. But I think that if you have a lot of information from one source, then you could just group all that stuff together. --Ksy92003(talk) 18:59, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Reference 1: cited 8 times.

Reference 16: cited 9 times.

Reference 24: cited 15 times.

Reference 44: cited 13 times.

Again, this is an indicator that we have found a credible secondary source chock full of interesting claims. This is a sign of a high caliber WP article. It is a common feature of WP:FAs. Not so common in stubs and start class articles. TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 17:25, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

I also think this could all be grouped together so the site only needs to be referenced once. --Ksy92003(talk) 18:59, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Now here are the similar references I've spotted, followed by how many references I think are necessary:

References 97-103: 2

When this goes through WP:FAC next month we will get much broader feedback on this issue. TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 17:25, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

That would be good. --Ksy92003(talk) 18:59, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

There are also several parts of this article that are unrelated to Young, which I think can be removed (not in any particular order, just the order that I found it in). These following sections could be better placed in San Diego Padres:

"Young was overshadowed by teammate Jake Peavy (4-0, 0.79 ERA) for the National League Pitcher of the Month in a month where teammate Trevor Hoffman (0.00 ERA, 11 saves) was also a contender.^[94]"

Explains why his performance was better than the month he won the award last year, but did not win. TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 17:25, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Young's performance is independant of that of Jake Peavy or Trevor Hoffman. What they do doesn't affect Young. He didn't win the award, so it doesn't need to be mentioned. --Ksy92003(talk) 18:59, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes but Young's story is intertwined with Peavy's. See the latest addition from this weekend's activities. TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 21:03, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

"...when the Cubs travelled to play Young's former team the Texas Rangers, whose Sammy Sosa hit his 600th home run during the series against his former Cubs team"

Will be removed soon. TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 17:25, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Should be removed, this is only in the article because of Sosa through the Rangers through the Cubs through Derrek Lee through Young. This is a five-link chain created by Young. Additionally, what Young does doesn't change the schedule. The Cubs would play the Rangers, no matter what. --Ksy92003(talk) 18:59, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

All gone. TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 21:03, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

"However, Carlos Zambrano continued his no hit bid into the 8th inning, but took the l-0 loss by surrendering a home run.^[103]"

Young got ejected in the fourth when both had no hitters going. This may be modified, but is part of the story. TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 17:25, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Again, what Zambrano does has absolutely no affect on Young's performance. And this isn't an article for the story. Zambrano's no-hit bid is completely irrelevant to the events that occurred earlier in the game and it is completely irrelevant to Young in anyway. --Ksy92003(talk) 18:59, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

It is a reminder that it could have been a nohit duel. TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 21:03, 26 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).^[24]"

Believe me his numerous Ivy League fans find this to be an encyclopedic claim. TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 17:25, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Um... how are you able to prove this "claim?" How are you able to prove that he has numerous Ivy League fans and that they find this claim notable? The Ivy League players who played in the MLB don't affect him and him playing in the MLB. --Ksy92003(talk) 18:59, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Proof would be its source who is meeting the interests of its audience. TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 21:03, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Three other current and previous pitchers--Randy Johnson,^[34] Andrew Sisco,^[35] and Eric Hillman^[36]--are also 6 ft 10 in (2.08 m). "

Better to say he is among only 4 6 ft 10 in major league pitchers ever than to say he is 6 ft 10 in. TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 17:25, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Again, it isn't really important to list the other 6'10" players. I actually think it would be preferrable to only say that he is 6'10" without listing the other players. --Ksy92003(talk) 18:59, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Watch for WP:FAC and the majority will rule. TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 21:03, 26 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]"

May be removed. TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 17:25, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, more about the Rangers than Young. --Ksy92003(talk) 18:59, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Probably after a few all-star games this kind of stuff will be less important. It is probably still topical now. Again, watch for WP:FAC

"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.^[62]"

Every time Young pitches he will be shooting to erase the Padre name from this list. As a tertiary resource we report what is important according to secondary resources. TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 17:25, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

If you said that every single night, a player has the chance of hitting 6 home runs in a game, then you would say on every single article "[Player] hasn't hit 6 home runs in a game in his career. Additionally, you can't be sure that Young will be the pitcher to throw the Padres' first no-hitter. --Ksy92003(talk) 18:59, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

We report what secondary sources include. If it is important enough to include in a news story, it may be important enough for this. Watch for FAC.

"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]" (is that Reference 3 again? From 57 to 3?

Common when one uses a cited WP:LEAD to have such skips. If a fact is important it will be cited in the lead and then again wherever it occurs.TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 17:25, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Somebody else performing a particular feat doesn't affect another player's odds of performing that same feat. --Ksy92003(talk) 18:59, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Don't understand point.TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 21:03, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

"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.^[85]"

His streak was an important accomplishment. He must put it in context. TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 17:25, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't matter who was the last player to accomplish the feat, that still doesn't affect Young's chances of performing that same feat. --Ksy92003(talk) 18:59, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

It is an odd streak. This helps people get a perspective of how commonly it occurs. TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 21:03, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

And I still think that only one reference is needed for one sentence, not five, four, or more.

Reference 24 is his player profile. It doesn't need to be referenced 15 times. It's his player profile for the 2004 season, which I believe is only necessary at the end of the 2004 season section.

If this were the only reference for this section I would do that. However, with numerous references, people need to know where the claims are coming from.TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 17:25, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Simply group all that information together and reference it at the end of the section. --Ksy92003(talk) 18:59, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Reference 16 is "The Top 20 Greatest Athletes." Why is that referencing his personal life?

Look at article and see claim cited. TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 17:25, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm not gonna worry about this. --Ksy92003(talk) 18:59, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Reference 44 is his player profile for 2005. Again, I believe it is only necessary to reference it at the end of the 2005 season section.

We'll get feedback on this at WP:FAC, however, see above. TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 17:25, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Same thing as above. --Ksy92003(talk) 18:59, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Reference 56 is his player profile for 2006. "Broken record," end of 2006 season section

Same as above. --Ksy92003(talk) 18:59, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

References 97-103 are about the Cubs/Padres brawl. I believe that it is only necessary to have one reference for the fight and one for the suspension. The other 5 we can do away with.

Each story has bits of the claim. TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 17:25, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

I still don't understand how one or two references can't be used for this. And if the references contain parts and parts of the whole story, then simply find a source that contains the whole story. --Ksy92003(talk) 18:59, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Reference 77 is a blog written by Young. A blog itself isn't valid as a source, even an autobiographical blog.

"In November 2006, he traveled to Japan to take part in the Major League Baseball Japan All-Star Series.^[77][78] Young was the starter in an exhibition game against the Yomiuri Giants which was memorable for the Major leaguers' three run ninth inning rally to earn a tie.^[79] This game was the prelude to the 5-game series which began with three games at the Tokyo Dome and was followed by games in Osaka, Japan and Fukuoka, Japan.^[80] Young pitched the fourth game of the series. Young also blogged on behalf of mlb.com about daily life during the trip. He detailed visits with United States Ambassador to Japan Tom Schieffer, time in the Harajuku, and travels on the Bullet Train.^[77]"

I believe this is far too much info to talk about one event. If it were me, I'd simply say that he traveled to Japan to participate in a baseball game against the Yomiuri Giants. The last part, "He detailed visits with United States Ambassador to Japan Tom Schieffer, time in the Harajuku, and travels on the Bullet Train.^[77]," seems too biographical for an encyclopedia.

A common complaint is that an article is not broad enough. We have to focus as much as we can on things outside the lines when they are relevant. TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 17:25, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Young's performance didn't determine the rally, it didn't determine that three games were played here and the other two were played here. I would just say "In November 2006, Young traveled to Japan and pitched in an exhibition game against Japanese All-Stars." --Ksy92003(talk) 18:59, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Again, not every single game needs to be mentioned. I would mention games like his closest no-hitter, career-high for strikeouts in a game, the brawl, team/rookie records, and I don't think that every single season needs its own section, maybe a section for his pre-MLB years, a section for his Rangers years, and a section for his Padres years. I would remove anything that doesn't directly relate to Chris Young, like Trevor Hoffman and Jake Peavy in the competition for the NL Pitcher of the Month award. The part that says, "The day before the fracus, 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," isn't directly related to Young, but is indirectly. First, it should be before the mention of the HBP. Second, shorten it to saying something like "the Padres weren't happy that Alfonso Soriano took his time to round the bases."

Personally, I think that a lot of the abbreviated versions you suggest are a good way to take a viable WP:FAC and send it back to WP:GA status. I will make some changes to this one. TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 17:25, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Not only does not every game need to be mentioned, but the ones that are don't need to be sourced. Game stats aren't something that somebody will come to and argue about. I think you've over-referenced the article. --Ksy92003(talk) 18:59, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Also, the pictures in the 2005 season section are just pictures of him warming up before a game. First, I would remove those pictures because it isn't any different than his picture in the infobox, just a different angle of a different pitch. Second, those pictures would belong in the 2007 season, anyway.

This is a really good article, no doubt. But it has way too much information. This isn't a game-by-game biography of Chris Young. I believe only the most important, extremely crucial stats should be included such as the aforementioned personal bests, team/rookie records, notable events like the brawl, how close he came to that no hitter in 2005, etc.

I counted over 200 times in the article that something was referenced. I don't think any FA comes close to that amount. It's very hard to read the article to see ^{[1][5][48][38][2][7][4][85][35][74]} everywhere. It needs flow so it's easier to read, and by that I mean the references are distracting and make it more difficult to read. A lot of duplicate references I think need to be removed and a lot of the excess information about every single game should be cut and only kept in if it's notable, such as those career/team highs, etc. --Ksy92003(talk) 14:37, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Many FAs have twice as many citations as this one. I will likely eliminate dual references from the same publisher for the same game as I mentioned before. TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 17:25, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

In my opinion, there are too many references here and every little detail is referenced by about 3 sources. Most of them can be combined by finding one source that contains all that information and can group together information. The others are mostly sentences which don't even need to be referenced. And true, many FAs have more citations than this one; however, those FAs also are a lot longer and the references are throughout the article and spread out throughout the article. Those FAs don't have a reference/citation every 1.5 sentences.

At FAC I have personally had people add such citations to sports articles such as Toronto Raptors and Dominik Hasek. A general reference verifying claim is useful, but an additional box score or game recap is encyclopedic.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 21:03, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Also, in my opinion, I don't think this article will become a FA in its current state because it's far too challenging to read the article. The large amount of references disrupts the flow in the article and you can't read it without being disrupted by ^{...[23][4]...[23][86][32]...[64][24]...[43][27]...[83]}. It really makes it hard to read. Also, it's too much like a biography as opposed to an encyclopedia, which is what it should be. --Ksy92003(talk) 18:59, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

You are under no obligation to stop and read each reference. I think this has a good shot at FAC. How many FAC's have you been involved in? TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 21:03, 26 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] 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] 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)

• Bueller? --evrik ^(talk) 21:40, 22 June 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] 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)

Since this article has reached WP:GA and there's no point making this request again, please offer advice on getting this article to WP:FA. CJ 17:03, 25 June 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] 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