Wikipedia's peer review is a way to receive ideas on how to improve articles that are already decent. It may be used for potential good article nominations, potential featured article candidates, or an article of any "grade" (but if the article isn't well-developed, please read here before asking for a peer review). Follow the directions below to open a peer review. After that, the most effective way to receive review comments is by posting a request on the talk page of a volunteer.
Anyone can request peer review. Editors submitting a new request are encouraged to review an article from those already listed, and encourage reviewers by replying promptly and appreciatively to comments.
Add {{subst:PR}} to the top of the article's talk page and save it.
Click within the notice to create a new peer review discussion page.
Complete the new page as instructed. Remember to say what kind of comments or contributions you want, and/or the sections of the article you think need reviewing.
Save the page with the four tildes (~~~~) at the end of your request to sign it. Your peer review will be automatically listed within an hour.
Avoid re-editing your own nomination. This makes your nomination disappear from the List of unanswered reviews, resulting in delays in it being picked up by a reviewer. If this has happened, add your peer review to Template:Peer review/Unanswered peer reviews sidebar by clicking here.
Please consider reciprocity and every time you nominate a review, respond or add to another review (current list here), so that you won't have to wait too long before someone comments on yours.
To change a topic
The topic parameter can be changed by altering the template {{Peer review page|topic=X}} on an article's talk page. The topic (|topic=X) on the template can be set as one of the following:
arts
langlit (language & literature)
philrelig (philosophy & religion)
everydaylife
socsci (social sciences & society)
geography
history
engtech (engineering & technology)
natsci (natural sciences & mathematics)
If no topic is chosen, the article is listed with General topics.
All types of article can be peer reviewed. Sometimes, a nominator wants a peer review before making a featured article nomination. These reviews often wait longer than others, because the type of review they need is more detailed and specialised than normal. There are some things you should know before doing this:
Have a look at advice provided at featured articles, and contact some active reviewers there to contribute to your review
Please add your article to the sidebar Template:FAC peer review sidebar, and remove when you think you have received enough feedback
Step 3: Waiting for a review
Check if your review is appearing on the unanswered list. It won't if more than a single edit has been made. If you've received minimal feedback, or have edited your review more than once, you can manually add it to the backlog list (see Step 2: Requesting a review, step 6). This ensures reviewers don't overlook your request.
Please be patient! Consider working on some other article while the review is open and remember to watch it until it is formally closed. It may take weeks before an interested volunteer spots your review.
Consult the volunteers list for assistance. An excellent way to get reviews is to review a few other requests without responses and ask for reviews in return.
Your review may be more successful if you politely request feedback on the discussion pages of related articles; send messages to Wikipedians who have contributed to the same or a related field; and also request peer review at appropriate Wikiprojects. Please do not spam many users or projects with identical requests.
Note that requests still may be closed if left unanswered for more than a month and once no more contributions seem likely. See Step 4.
Step 4: Closing a review
To close a review:
On the article's talk page, remove the {{Peer review}} tag on the article's talk page and replace this with {{subst:Close peer review|archive = N}}, where |archive=N is the number of the peer review discussion page above (e.g. |archive=1 for /archive1).
On the peer review page, remove {{Peer review page|topic=X}} and replace this with {{Closed peer review page}}.
When can a review be closed?
If you are the nominator, you can close the review at any time, although this is discouraged if a discussion is still active.
If the review is to determine whether an article can be nominated for GA, FA or FL status, and a reviewer believes it has a reasonable chance of passing these, they may close the review and encourage a direct nomination (see here).
If a review is answered and the nominator is inactive for more than one week.
If a request is unanswered for more than three months.
There is a script to help automate closing peer reviews. To use the script:
Copy importScript('User:Writ Keeper/Scripts/peerReviewCloser.js'); into your Special:MyPage/common.js
When you view a review, click on the tab that says "More" and then "Close peer review". The tab can be found near the "History" tab. This should update the article's talk page and the review page.
If you think something is wrong, or could be improved, post a comment on the peer review page.
Feel free to improve the article yourself!
Interested in reviewing articles of your subject area? Add your name to the volunteer list.
For easier navigation, a list of peer reviews, without the reviews themselves included, can be found here. A chronological peer reviews list (not sorted by topic) can be found here.
I've created this article, drawing info from others and adding as much as I can think of. Would appreciate others taking a look, especially if they're looking at the Twin / Multiple birth article as listed below. violet/riga(t) 18:58, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)
I've reworked the twin article adding lots of things and bringing in information from identical twin (which I now think should just be a redirect. It may even be worth merging twin into multiple birth. I think this could work its way towards being a featured article but I'm pretty much out of things I can think of adding. Would appreciate any comments, additions or changes. violet/riga(t) 18:41, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)
I have listed some proposed improvements on grammar as well as proposals for reworing the existing text and elaborating on certain parts of it, please comment on it. --ÆvarArnfjörðBjarmason 10:13, 2004 Sep 12 (UTC)
I think this has the potential to be much bigger, but I've just about racked my brain dry. I think that just about anyone could make a contribution. -Litefantastic 02:00, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Could probably add a thousand more, even a hundred thousand more. There are hundreds of thousands of historical novels set in various periods, often with protagonists being mainly fictional but with real people in the background and sometimes also very much in the foreground. You are spreading your net far to wide. Jallan 02:32, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Guilty as charged. And yet, perhaps someday somebody might need to know these things. It can't hurt to try.
I put together a brief article on the Waved Albatross, a breed that nests in the Galapagos Islands. I tried to get the scientific information correct, but could somebody double-check it? Thank you. — RJH 18:25, 11 Sep 2004 (UTC)
I've just written a small article on Grico, the Greek language spoken in the Magna Graecia region. Anyone who is interested may contribute to this by adding linguistic, ethnographic, or other information. Thank you in advance.
Was reading through this article and noticed it is not featured. It is a well writen article covering many aspects of the painting - history, sitter, the aesthetics. Even if it is not quite feature-worthy yet, please add constructive criticism to help make it such. --[[User:OldakQuill|OldakQuill]] 10:22, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Refer to Wikipedia:Peer review; there's just too many things that need work. I've noted a few of them on the article's talk page, and have started to try and fix them. I agree that such an important painting deserves a featured article, but it's not there yet. • Benc • 21:42, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Agreed. It needs some fairly significant copy editing and structuring. Eudyptes 22:15 30 Aug 2004 UTC
I have added a couple of restructuring suggestions to the todo on the talk page. I may come back and implement these is time allows. Filiocht 08:39, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)
I originally wrote this, but some have suggested it needs a good copyedit. It's had a few, but I guess it needs more. Also, if anyone has any pictures that would be suitable, please add. Any other additions you feel are pertinent, of course please add also. — Frecklefoot | Talk 14:25, Sep 9, 2004 (UTC)
I did a total rewrite on this a month ago, and think I did a fairly decent job - and I think the others who have helped afterwards have too. Still, I would like to bring it up to the standard of a Featured Atricle - so all the attention you could give it would be good I think. Perhaps someone could find some non-copyrighted images to place in the article as well, all the images I've found so far has been copyrighted and my attemts to contact the owners has not meet with success. Some more info on the danish and american patterns would be good as well, and perhaps a few words on it's use in the Werhmacht during WWII if someone knows anything. WegianWarrior 07:50, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)
I think I've done a fairly good job on it, but it needs a disinterested eye to spot omissions, POV, and/or mistakes, that's all. (Also spelling, grammar, and formatting comments are always useful and welcome.) —No-OneJones 20:10, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Nice work. A few things that could be added include perception and coverage of Attila in pop culture and throughout history. That he probably or possibly was not as barbaric as the Roman's portrayed him, because they called anyone not exactly like them barbaric to some extent. Why is he so much more popular and well known than any other barbaric leader or other leaders from his time? More info on the culture and characteristics of Attila, the huns in general, and their way of life would be great. You don't need to be as detailed as what is or should be in the main article on the huns, but the basics would be good. - Taxman 21:41, Sep 8, 2004 (UTC)
Thanks for the insightful comments. I could dig up a bit more from Priscus, or maybe Jordanes, to deal with contemporaneous and near-contemporaneous perceptions of Attila. Then Attila, King of the Huns: The Man and the Myth (ISBN 0760700338) covers some portrayals of him in different eras; beyond that I think I'd be limited to primary research (i.e. watching bad movies and reading fiction of wildly-varying quality :). —No-OneJones 22:11, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)
fr:Attila#L'image légendaire d'Attila has some worthwhile material on this. I could have a go at translating it. I've done what I can with the French material. —No-OneJones 04:23, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)
The usual, Beatles song article, have expanded it... Johnleemk | Talk 16:05, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Well written and excellent information about the origin and development of the song. Maybe too much, because not much else is covered. Especially how did it do in the charts/sales? What about this ban? Was it permanent? Did it impact anything? How was it famous? Similar reactions in the US or elsewhere? - Taxman 04:12, Sep 9, 2004 (UTC)
The charts in those days did not include individual songs unless they were released on singles. I've added more on the ban. (It took me ages to find anyone that said anything about the ban beyond just that "the BBC banned it, how could they?" or for the satanic conspiracy theorists, "the BBC banned it, see, the Beatles were evil.") Unfortunately the ban's become so famous that it's drowned out other items of interest about the song — I can't find anything related to the American public's response. Johnleemk | Talk 16:04, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)
"The ban remains in place until today" oh yeh? True it hasn't played on Radio One, but it has been played (partially at least) on BBC radio three, specifically on an arts program in the early 70s evaluating the musical abilities of the Beatles.
Ogg 12:04, 11 Sep 2004 (UTC)
I am nominating this for AotW in the hopes that we can get it ready in time for the (likely) expiration of the Assault Weapon Ban on September 13th. It would be great to have it as FA for that day. It's sort of o.k., now, but it isn't great. Jimbo Wales 00:03, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Doesn't fit normal guidelines, but clearly needs alot of work, and with His Lairdship Jimbo's support seems like a shoe-in. Here's hoping the assault weapons ban goes out w a bang, Sam [Spade] 00:22, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Oh dear: I fear this is in the same category as Alan Keyes (removed the other day) in that Wikipedia:Peer Review it is more approraite place for it. -- ALoan(Talk) 09:27, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC)
I've started some work on the article. It turns out it had the wrong definition for the ban this whole time! AWB banned on weapons with TWO or more characteristics, not one like the article said, which is a big difference. Wodan 17:09, Aug 24, 2004 (UTC)
Hmm, I'd have to agree with ALoan - per the guidlines of this page, this should go to peer review. - Taxman 19:58, Aug 24, 2004 (UTC)
Agreed, this is not a candidate for COTW, its already too substantial. —siroχo 19:33, Sep 3, 2004 (UTC)
In the spirit of "we're all equal" this nomination should be deleted from here and moved to peer review. This article is in no way a stub. Davodd 18:19, Sep 5, 2004 (UTC)
Well the navigation box and the article text implies that the assault weapons ban is a part of the act you reference. That should mean they are different and likely should not be merged. The two articles do mention different dates which I'm not sure which is correct. It does also have horrid POV problems, with many many comments against the ban, some with no attribution at all. - Taxman 03:35, Sep 9, 2004 (UTC)
I'm considering working this into a featured article. What more does it need, besides references and a picture or two? Johnleemk | Talk 13:04, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)
It's a little on the brief side. It could use more detail on the various internecine maneuverings of the 70s and 80s. I've been meaning to write about this and perhaps I will increase its relative priority on my to-do list. - Nat Krause 12:03, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)
I've been doing some work on this recently logged in and as anaon 145.36.24.29. A number of other editors have also done some good stuff. Joyce is a key figure in world culture and it would be good to have a really top class article on him. I'll be glad to do what I can to impleent suggestions. Bmills 10:57, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)
James Joyce lived briefly in London, at 28b Campden Grove in Kensington in 1931. He went to London to marry Nora. How about adding the words "... in London" in the sentence where you say he married Nora.
I originally wrote this article but would like to ask for help from professionals.
I would appreciate any psycologist/psychiatrist, etc. to edit or improve or even totally rewrite the article( with insights , phsycological comments, etc). I feel that this article and the book( Waking the Tiger) is very relevant. Thanks. --Jondel 01:12, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Is the first paragraph of Copyleft sufficently NPOV? In particular, should the use of the phrase 'intellectual property regime' be replaced by 'intellectual property law'? 'Regime' is generally but not always perjorative, but I don't believe that is the case when speaking of a body of law. Anybody know if there's a specific legal meaning? Google reveals the phrase 'intellectual property regime' seems to be used in a neutral sense, for example in the Australian Government's announcement of the Australia-United States Free Trade Agreement. Regardless, in the context of the sentence, which is to describe the point of copyleft, any of these sorts of laws are frowned upon. Does this make it ok? On the third hand, what I really mean by the phrase is 'intellectual property body of law' and I believe this really is the established meaning of the phrase 'intellectual property regime', which reads better. I haven't had to deal with NPOV before so it seems safest to ask. (As far as the rest of the article goes, I don't know that it's ready for peer review.) -- kop 23:09, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)
the very term intellectual property its self is POV and is in many ways quite undefined. It's better to specify what you mean; e.g. say copyright, trademark or patent, which are properly defined terms. Intellectual Property regime, is not POV in the sense that you worry about, however; it's standard usage by people who talk about "intellectual property". Mozzerati 21:54, 2004 Sep 8 (UTC)
I'm not sure if I can add requests unilaterally or if it should be discussed with other editors first, but I think this article could use some outside eyes. Recently, a college prof made some complaints on the talk page, and in response, the article has more than doubled in size in about a month, with only two major editors in that time. Some possible problems are that it may be just too big, and may be too repetitive, both internally and with the general crusade article. Thanks! Adam Bishop 23:26, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)
The history description in the section "Unemployment" seems to rest on the Phillips_curve / NAIRU theory of a trade-off between inflation and unemployment. Economics not being my specialist field, I still feel this being something of a contested issue. Could someone take a look at the section and possibly de-POV it? Alarm 13:38, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Yes, that was pretty egregious. I made an attempt at a fix. Even Phillips didn't posit such a strong causal relationship. What the section really lacks is what was done, if anything, to attempt to reach the employment goals. And was the action the real thing that caused the unemployment to go down? The section reads like an essay without having any sources cited. - Taxman 03:25, Sep 11, 2004 (UTC)
Yet another Beatles song article rewrite. Comments? Johnleemk | Talk 18:28, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Made a couple of small copy edits. Just wonder if the story about the sixth chord doesn't belong in the Working in the studio section? Otherwise a really good read. Thanks. Bmills 12:04, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)
needs French speaker to correctly pluralise the term, it is currently pluralised as agents provocateurs
also some examples from the war protest movements in the late 20th century?Pedant 16:32, 2004 Sep 3 (UTC)
It's also the name of a reasonably well-known company specialising in ladies' undergarments here in the UK, but I'm not sure that warrants a mention in the article... Angmering 00:16, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)
The plural form here is quite correct. In the future, for short passages, I advise you to consult Wikipedia:Wikipedians/Translators and ask the members. ;) --Liberlogos 08:11, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Can somebody else help us decide the NPOVness of the article, and comment on other areas that need sprucing up? Johnleemk | Talk 10:29, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)
ACCORDING TO THE CURRENT LISTING OF HENRY HOESE IN THE WIKIPEDIA LIST OF LORD WARDENS OF THE CINQUE PORTS FOR WHICH THIS ITEM HAS BEEN SUBMITTED HENRY LORD WARDEN CAN NOT BE EITHER THE FIRST OR SECOND LORD AS CITED BELOW. Thus it would seem his listing is incorrectly placed or the Lord Warden and was infact from an earlier generation of this family.
This user (Faedra) invites further research by anyone with the time, and ability to correct this confusion. This item may therefore need to be renamed or moved? It will not bother me if it is deleted, if a resolution can not be found....
Was on PR before, but some changes have been made since then. Is it ready to be featured? Fishal 03:15, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)
How about listing some books on this topic? That way, someone who got interested in this topic can start a study on his own. Revth 13:22, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Agreed, the article definitely needs some more external sources. - Taxman 23:20, Sep 2, 2004 (UTC)
All right, the next phase of my editing will be assembling a bibliography. Thanks for the advice! Fishal 12:12, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)
I think this one is getting very good. Probably not quite a featured-level yet, but I'd appreciate suggestions on what it would take to get it there. -- Jmabel 21:11, Sep 1, 2004 (UTC)
More prose would be an obvious start. Also, might there be a way to reduce the space the lists take up, or possibly move them to another list article? IMO, the article will be drastically long if you add more prose but keep the lists. Johnleemk | Talk 06:47, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)
TNX. Guess that's all I'm getting. Feel free to delete or archive the request. -- Jmabel 04:57, Sep 9, 2004 (UTC)
Just rewrote the article completely. I want to put this on WP:FAC. What do you guys think? Is it featured-level yet? How could it be improved? Johnleemk | Talk 14:27, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Another excellent piece. I've taken the liberty of doing a couple of minor edits - just tidying up some phrases here and there, such as swapping "in Abbey Road at Studio 2" to "at Abbey Road in Studio 2", stuff like that. But aside from that, as I said, another great article! You'll soon have more featured Beatles songs than Emsworth has featured nobility! :-) Angmering 15:29, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)
I believe it should be IN Abbey Road, it's In Abbey Road Studios, and the album is also called "... in Abbey Road"Pedant 16:35, 2004 Sep 3 (UTC)
Hmmmmmmmm, well I'd respectfully disagree. "In Abbey Road", in my opinion, makes it sound like you're in the middle of the Road itself... Now, of course "at Abbey Road" doesn't sound that much different (in fact "at Abbey Road Studios" would probably be better, although I didn't add the Studios in my original edit because I thought it was well-known enough not to need it...). In my experience of reading articles on albums, television programmes and films, they are nearly always made "at Pinewood Studios", or "at the Record Plant" or "at BBC Television Centre" and so forth, with "in" being used to clarify exactly where. (Although of course if it were a film, you'd probably say "on" Sound Stage so-and-so, but I digress!). Angmering 18:15, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Forgot to mention — this is now on WP:FAC. Johnleemk | Talk 07:46, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)
I have just created this article, as I felt that the topic warranted coverage here, but was too long to fit into any of the existing BBC television articles. I am quite pleased with it, but a little worried that it may seem too unwieldy or just plain dull, so I'd welcome some other opinions. Angmering 15:23, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)
The lead needs work (especially the last phrase, which seems trite). Additionally, you may want to add wiki links to supporting articles (drama, broadcasting) and consider changing the article name to something that reflects its content better, i.e.: History of BBC television drama. Davodd 17:53, Sep 5, 2004 (UTC)
Hi - thanks for the comments. I've tried adjusting the lead section, which you were right about. Instead of the trite last phrase I've tried replacing it with a more specific example, which I hope works better. As for moving it... Personally I think it's okay as it is, but of course if others think it should be moved to the more specific title then that's what should be done. I've linked in drama and broadcasting as you suggested, both in the main part of the text and as part of a new 'see also' section at the end. Angmering 20:46, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)
I think I've more or less completed this article. Please have a look; I'm not sure whether I've put everything in sufficient context. - Mustafaa 03:20, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Well it needs comparison to the other languages it is geographically and/or linguistically close to. What makes it different? Also the intro has way too many red links. If you know what those things are, try to create at least the Perfect stub article - Taxman 17:12, Aug 31, 2004 (UTC)
The first draft of this article is now complete. Please have a look.
--mike40033 02:21, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)
A very nice article. You might consider using the name polychoron for a 4-dimensional polytope. As well as (or maybe instead of) the animated image of the 24-cell, I'd like a static image showing several slices (Wikipedia has a general bias against animated images because they don't transfer well to print). The article needs to be integrated with the other content at Wikipedia, so that all the related articles can benefit from your work. In particular, some of the material would fit well in the articles polygon, polyhedron, polytope, Platonic solid, Archimedean solid, and others (in some cases the other article should have a summary, with a link to regular polytope for the full story, but in others, e.g. "Polytopes in nature", I think other article should have the details, with merely a link from regular polytope.) Gdr 13:00, 2004 Aug 30 (UTC)
I started this article as there used to be a large cult following surrounding this short lived failed soda by The Coca-Cola Company. After the Coca-Cola article was featured a few days ago, I wondered why we didn't have an article on this cola at all. I'd love to have more OK Soda fans contribute to this, and eventually get it up to featured status. --DropDeadGorgias(talk) 01:14, Aug 30, 2004 (UTC)
Very thorough job. Needs: I would consider putting a caption under the logo since unlike GE, McDonalds and Coke, the OK brand is not a household name; I think you should mention that "OK" also is a reflection (a mirror reflection almost) of "KO," Coca-Cola's ticker symbol; and it would be nice to have something with an ISBN # that details the OK brand. Davodd 16:14, Sep 9, 2004 (UTC)
I was also surprised that there was no information on the McDonald's Arch Deluxe, also an example of failed rebel advertising in the mid-90s. I'd love to hear other people's opinions on this article, and any suggestions they might have. --DropDeadGorgias(talk) 01:14, Aug 30, 2004 (UTC)
This article is about an important, historical and historic, political documentary on the 2003 Quebec general election. I have written all of this article and worked on it for hours. It is now one of my proudest achievements (so, in featured article candidates-speak, it is a self-nomination). I wish to sumbit it for featured article candidates someday, and I now would like your opinion. I feel that there is close to nothing that could be added to it (realistically, humanly speaking) and I wish to know from those who agree and those who have suggestions on what to add to it and maybe make it even better. Thank you; I look forward to be reading your comments. --Liberlogos 05:59, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)
I just did a major edit to this to add a lot more history and statistics. It is my first ever post on Wikipedia. If anyone has any interest in rugby, or Australian sport, or would simply like to help me, if you could just read through the post and give me some pointers it would be great. Thanks alot. --Jimm dodd 03:45, Aug 29, 2004 (UTC)
This article has been through here once before, but has undergone considerable tweaking since. I'd like to submit it for featured article. Comments, please. Denni☯ 20:49, 2004 Aug 28 (UTC)
I just created my first wikipedia article, inspired by Ben Goldacre's [recent] "Bad Science" coloumn for The Guardian. I'm reasonably proud of the accomplishment, but am uncertain that I've attained the heady heights of NPOV. My POV, clearly, is that she is a fraudulent quack. Would it help to attribute the criticism to Goldacre rather than incorporate it into the factual exposition? --Si 22:24, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Good for you for getting involved. Being an Ohioan, I'm not familiar with this woman. Is she one of those perennial guests that plague the chat shows? (We have a number of them here as well.) As for her criticism of her as a quack, has anyone else besides Goldacre raised this issue? Because dieting is such a fiercely disputed issue, I'd attribute criticism to your columnist rather than stating it flat out. I also wonder if you had any solid biographical data, such as how old she is, where's she from, where's she's worked? Stylistically, you could combine some of your sentences, something like "She claims to have degrees from . . . when they were actually issued by so and so, unaccredited schools not recognized by the Education Department, etc." Makes it flow better. Certainly a worthy start. Glad to have you aboard. PedanticallySpeaking 16:49, Aug 30, 2004 (UTC)
Firstly, sorry for the delayed response. I've been in Edinburgh for the Festival, and forgot that the rest of my life (including Wikipedia) still existed. As regards her status as a quack, the fact that she works in the field of nutrition doesn't have a bearing on the outright fallacies brought out by Goldacre in his second column. For example:
"Several of you are fans of Ms McKeith, and wrote to express how upset you were that I had childishly attacked her reputation, and not her theories. Well. Let's pick a quote at random. Chlorophyll is "high in oxygen". And the darker leaves on plants are good for you, she explains, because they contain "chlorophyll - the 'blood' of the plant - which will really oxygenate your blood." Here we run into a classic Bad Science problem. It may be immediately obvious to you that this is pseudoscientific, made up nonsense (and from the TV personality the Radio Times described as "no nonsense", no less). If it's not obvious nonsense to you, then, OK, just this once: the real science. Chlorophyll is a small green molecule that uses the energy from light to convert carbon dioxide and water into sugar and oxygen. Plants then use this sugar energy to make everything else they need, like protein, and you breathe in the oxygen, and maybe you even eat the plants. You also breathe out carbon dioxide. It's all so beautiful, so gracefully simple, yet so rewardingly complex, so neatly connected, not to mention true, that I can't imagine why you'd want to invent nonsense to believe instead. But there you go. That's alternative therapists all over."
Outright scientific rubbish, when coupled with a fraudulent academic history and various papers prepared but enver submitted for peer review add up to make, in my opinion, a quack. However, I never alleged that she was a fraud in the article - I merely said that was my POV. In the article, I only reported the fraudulent history by a series of objective and verifiable facts. I didn't even mention the scientific controversies, though now that you've mentioned it I might.
On style, the rephrase which you suggest ("She claims to have degrees from . . . when they were actually issued by so and so, unaccredited schools not recognized by the Education Department, etc.") is actually rather misleading, since it suggests that what she got were not really degrees when, legally, I think they were. Correct me if I'm wrong, of course. That the Ed Dep doesn't recognize them shows that they're not educationally valid degrees, not that they're not degrees per se. However, I accept the stylistic note --in general-- =) thanks for the tip. There are certainly improvements to be made.
And yes, she is one of those "Media Medics" (wheeeeeee look mummy I coined an alliterative phrase!). Thanks for your support and welcome =) --Si 21:03, Sep 4, 2004 (UTC)
It was a little bit too overtly political when I came to it this morning. I've done some work on it; however, it may require further attention. Crocogator 18:36, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)
The bulk of the article seems to be a portrayal of the issues surrounding socialized health care in the U.S., with an undercurrent of justifying use of the phrase that should be the main topic of the article. The article quotes no sources for the following assertions:
"The United States is the only nation in the developed world that does not provide subsidized healthcare for all citizens"
"A large proportion of its citizens, however, feel that..."
"A large proportion of the uninsured are lower-income children, who have a higher risk of preventable death than middle- and upper-income children and, to a degree, healthcare costs are responsible."
The article also makes statements that are essentially content-free due to their vagueness or tautological nature, and some are POV in their choice of what to emphasize. They include:
"On this controversial issue, political beliefs occupy a wide range."
"Some propose" X, "while others believe" rebut X, affirm Y (and alternatives Z through RR are not remarked upon)
"Even some liberals believe that..." (pattern here is: Even some STEREOTYPICAL_LABEL believe that AUTHOR'S_FAVORITE_IDEA)
In addition, I think much of this background stuff (especially the second paragraph) is extraneous and belongs better as a "See also" link at the bottom of the article. I'd like to see some information about who coined the term, in what contexts it has been used and with what persons or groups it has been identified, how popular it is in political discourse, etc. In short, the article should focus on not just the idea behind the phrase, but its origins and use.
It seems to me that this article endorses the POV of "pro-life" groups in the US that equate abortion to murder, which is a whole another issue, separate from the debate whether healthcare should be universal or restricted. Etz Haim 22:18, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)
The article was very pro-Aum POV before some edits I made yesterday, and still needs a lot of work. A quick perusal of the group (now known as Aleph)'s website shows that our article ignores some major doctrinal points. This is to say nothing of most of the other sites on the web about the group, which bare little or no resemblance to the Wikipedia article. - Nat Krause 05:31, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Obviously a major subject, but the article is organized poorly and much too long (40+k). I have placed some ideas on the talk page, and may be tinkering a quite a bit in the next few days. I'd love some help, especially from a Brit and/or other non-Americans. Tuf-Kat 21:43, Aug 26, 2004 (UTC)
Someone put up a request for this article and I have obliged. Someone deleted my section heads, but otherwise no editorial changes have been offered. Anyone have any comments on it? Ave atque vale! PedanticallySpeaking 20:12, Aug 26, 2004 (UTC)
I like the article and have very little criticism to make. Having heard those two words many times at an age at which my ideas of constitutional law were not well formed, I'm glad to learn at last what it was about. And I have some degree of sympathy for the concerns it tried to deal with, which raises a point that the article might want to cover: at the moment, it's not so much conservatives who worry about treaties and executive agreements as it is anti-globalists. This group, generally left of center, worries a great deal about loss of national rights by means of trade agreements. Also, is there any more to say about what treaties can and cannot do? The Supreme Court has ruled against certain direct abuses of the bill of Rights, but the limits don't seem clear. Perhaps the only law is a small amount of case law, and no more can be said? Finally, has any legal distinction been made in this connection between treaties and executive agreements? (Raising this many questions after saying I had hardly any criticisms is evidence that it got me thinking.) Dandrake 20:31, Aug 27, 2004 (UTC)
Thank you for your kind words. You are right to remark about the "anti-globalists," which would be appropriate terminology for today. But for that time, "conservative" seems more apt and "anti-globalism" is not a term Bricker or those sympathetic to his goals would recognize. The Republican party barely accepted the idea of a United Nations at the time, especially in the Midwestern wing that John Bricker represented. These are the folks who nearly got Robert A. Taft nominated in 1952 rather than Dwight Eisenhower. I'll check into the case law regarding treaties and executive agreements. I expect it to be rather slim, as the Supreme Court has tried to steer clear of the whole issue of Presidents and treaties in recent years--for example, when Goldwater sued Carter over recognizing Red China and dropping recognition of the Taiwanese the Court refused to decide the case on the merits saying it was a political question--but I could be mistaken. I'll have to look at the Guantanmo cases for they dealt with treaties and the reach of the Constitution; they could be relevant. Ave! PedanticallySpeaking 15:34, Aug 30, 2004 (UTC)
A controversial subject. I think it's missing something, but I'm not sure what. I've probably worked on it for too long, so some fresh eyes would help. Some NPOV touch-up would probably be good. Thanks! -- style 13:11, 2004 Aug 25 (UTC)
Opening paragraph should say what the current status of the theory is. Consensus against, consensus in favor, more evidence needed? Gdr 18:14, 2004 Aug 25 (UTC)
Good point, fixed, although it's hard to say exactly what the consensus of medical science is about a widely-ignored theory. -- style 00:04, 2004 Aug 26 (UTC)
What's the "dirty needle theory" doing in the opening paragraph? That's a theory about the spread of HIV, not its origin. Gdr 17:14, 2004 Aug 26 (UTC)
I see what you mean, but the OPV AIDS hypothesis involves both the origin and spread of HIV. Because HIV had multiple (4) origins, and some of the variants (i.e HIV-2) have spread little whereas HIV-1 is a global epidemic, the reasons behind the spread of HIV is just as important as the actual viral point of origin. But I'll remove the sentence, as it is only confusing to the main issues and doesn't necessarily compete with OPV (although it does provide an important alternate explanation). -- style 08:29, 2004 Aug 27 (UTC)
Wow, nice article on something I'd never heard of. Only thing I can think of is more direct in article citations such as (Pascal, 1990 pp 100-102). That makes an article that much more reliable, NPOV and credible. Also, more sources in general if possible, especially from the journal articles mentioned which discredit the theory. But more sources from both sides would help. Currently the article seems to lean towards supporting the theory, as the criticisms are dismissed a bit. - Taxman 13:48, Aug 27, 2004 (UTC)
Thanks! I wasn't sure how much detail was wanted in citations, so in future I'll be more specific. As to more sources, unfortunately I don't have access to the critical journal articles in question and am talking about them second-hand; but I'll try to add whatever I find on the web. -- style 14:12, 2004 Aug 28 (UTC)
I would like for this article - not to mention the related ones I’ve written around it - to be as helpful and factually accurate as possible. With that aim in mind, I’m posting it here for scrutiny. Kael (Aug. 25)
A good article, with only a bit more work needed. I'd suggest adding the the Guide dog section, and I hope you can also clean up some of the red links. While I understand your purpose in doing so, it's probably not a good idea to put uncreated links in the See also section, since there isn't anything to see. Keep up the great work! Denni☯ 21:19, 2004 Aug 28 (UTC)
Thank you for the feedback. I did add to the guide dog section, in addition to putting a stub tag on it, but I'll be circling back soon enough. Kael
How about adding things on how construction standards changed to better accomodate blind people? I know traffic lights that play a music when it's safe to cross and fences with automatic doors that open up when a train arrives. Revth 13:34, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Maybe some treatment of web accessibility for the visually impaired? some info here: www.w3.org/WAI ... if you write some of that up, I'd be happy to massage it a little. I don't really have time right now to do morePedant
Both good ideas - although I think accessibility for the visually impaired should be a separate article. Kael
I seem to be the only person left editing this article. While I have not removed any information, I have done some substantial rewording, including on potentially controversial topics -- I would be grateful for comments on (N)POV. Dbachmann 10:14, 24 Aug 2004 (UTC)
If I understand rightly, this is an overview of a whole subject area, whose more detailed articles are listed in the navigation box. Could you make it more like the format recommended at Wikipedia:Summary style, with links to the main articles for each section? Put the important stuff first, move the section about the name to near the end. It would be nice to have a brief example to show how the comparative method works. It would also be nice to have a sentence or two about the range of languages in the family (the details and the full list can be left to other articles of course, but a summary would explain why the concept is so important). Gdr 17:56, 2004 Aug 24 (UTC)
I'm not sure it is a summary article. I'm not entirely happy with the navigation box, because it lists some loosely related concepts (Aryan invasion). As I understand it, there are articles about the Indo-European languages, the Proto-Indo-European language and Indo-European religion, but neither explains the term Indo-European itself. So the job of Indo-European is (a) to explain the term and (b) to explain what is known about the people (apart from the language). Hence the emphasis on the history of the term, but you may be right in that maybe it really should be made a summary article, with links to eg. languages, proto-language, origins, religion, history, i.e. replacing the navigation box? Originally, my concern was with politics/POV, but I think I will give this a try.
I am done with re-organizing the article into a summary and would welcome comments on any of the articles in Template:Indo-European. dab 13:58, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC)
The article is a bit weak on examples. Here's a few:
(1) almost all Indo-European languages use a variant of the word copper/kupfer to designate that metal because the main source of easily-mined copper was Cyprus.
(2) almost all Indo-Eurpean languages use the word salt/sal/saltz to designate sodium carbonate because an important source of easily-found salt was Salz (now Salzburg).
(3) almost all Indo-European languages use variations of the words papa/mama to designate mother/father
There must be dozens more examples.
Ogg 12:21, 11 Sep 2004 (UTC)
On the article about Thessaloniki, user Crculver has added the following paragraph:
For a time in the 9th century the city appears to had some population of speakers of Old Church Slavonic. Saint Cyril and his brother Methodius were born in Thessaloniki and the Byzantine Emperor Michael III, saying that "the inhabitants of Thessaloniki speak Slavonic quite well", encouraged them to visit northern Slavic regions from there as missionaries.
which I consider misleading. In particular, it is the first sentence mentioning speakers of Old Church Slavonic which I think is the source of the controversy. For more details, you may refer to the talk page of the article.
I worked on this article all night last night (Aug 22), and the section Career Summary was the only one left partially intact. This is my first article, also, and someone completely discarded the in-depth discography I had created. If I've done this wrong, please tell me. Also, this Michael/Dispute was added and none of the information was changed, only the deletion of the discography. Is this the problem? -K1da1
We have a vandal here called Michael. Well vandal is really the correct word, but it'll do. Basically Micheal likes to make stuff up. He adds loads of info to music related articles none of which is true. He edits from AOL. Checking his edits for factual correctness, is just too difficult. People tried but they couldn't keep up with him ( It's much easy to write rubbish than it is to check if it's true or not) So he was banned. Now because he edits from AOL we cannot block him from editing without blocking the whole of AOL. So what we do is revert everything he writes. It's unfortunatee that you have got caught up in this but if you also are an AOL customer, it's possible that you were mistaken for him. Add the discography back in under you logged in name (you can get it from the page history) and all should be well. Theresa Knott 22:34, 23 Aug 2004 (UTC)
I've worked on this article for about 2 months now. I think it's good and could be a featured article... only problem is it's size, but it deals with a historically very important and well documented city, and I think it's comprehensive enough to overcome this. I've just come back from vacation there and can add more pictures later. But before I make a self-nomination for featured article status I'm putting it here to see what concerns people may have. Hopefully you can help me fix any problems. - Asim Led 19:22, 23 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Yes, it's greatest objection is likely to be its length. So continue moving material into sub-articles and leave summaries in the article. Especially the government, communications and media, culture, tourism, and the municipalities sections. All contain information hard to justify in an overview of a city. In addition many other facts are included that would be hard to justify as encyclopedic such as the quotations. Also the Historical population section still has some NPOV and grammar troubles, specifically with the sentence "Combined with horrific living conditions forced upon by the besieging forces, the result was...". I would fix that, but I'm not sure what was supposed to be combined. There's for starters. In general, that is an amazing amount of information on a city. Great work so far. - Taxman 20:00, Aug 23, 2004 (UTC)
I like some of the recent work, continue on that path, moving some of the excess detail out. I hope you have maintained it in subarticles. Removing good info from wikipedia is never good I think. Also, the sections on historical population need some sort of reference, such as a book or webpage those figures came from. The 2002 population listed there differs from the figure quoted in the intro section. - Taxman 20:00, Sep 10, 2004 (UTC)
Seems to me that this article has been pushed into pretty good shape, conceivably being a prospect for FAC. Before that, it needs some independent examination. (Clearly, it needs an illustration, and the sort of thing is abvious. Haven't found a good one in the public domain yet.) Dandrake 01:13, Aug 23, 2004 (UTC)
I've added one. Theresa Knott 09:32, 23 Aug 2004 (UTC)
The red dot (Mercury, I suppose) appears outside of its orbit (or out of the ecliptic) in one frame, kind of above the sun and to the left. But the image explains the concept pretty well. Mpolo 18:46, Aug 24, 2004 (UTC)
This is my first ever entry. I need some suggestions to help improve, espcially concerning the format/style. Thanks! Cacophony
Try looking around wikipedia for other great articles on musicians and emulate those. Strive to reach the impossible ideal as discussed in Wikipedia:The_perfect_article. Especially the part regarding citing your sources in a 'References' section or similar. If you haven't used any, that would be a great start, to research and add more material. Also consider adding a 'See also' section to link to similar articles. Wikipedia's best articles have a freely licensed image reflecting the topic too. HTH - Taxman 19:38, Aug 23, 2004 (UTC)
Needs a picture, ideally a photo of Hardin performing. Needs a category. The opening paragraph needs to explain why he is worth writing about. What is his significance? Was he a virtuoso? Innovative? Popular? The rest of the article should back this up. Did he influence other musicians? What is his legacy? Gdr 11:30, 2004 Aug 24 (UTC)
I was told it would be a good idea to put this here, before I run it for a Featured Article again. Any of you who actually saw this film in its original cold war context would be of great help. -Litefantastic 16:41, 22 Aug 2004 (UTC)
There are three rock operas on this page. they are all 'the first rock opera'... can someone more familiar with Frank Zappa's and The Who's music edit this page to make it factual? I think only the FIRST one should be called the first, but I'm not sure what is and isn't 'rock', "opera", or 'rock opera'Pedant 07:18, 2004 Aug 22 (UTC)
this article is locked in an edit war, could use some level heads and neutral Points of View... maybe especially from wikipedians outside the U.S.A. Since this is a highly visible page, it seems to me unsuitable to keep it protected. See what you can do to help reach consensus. Thanks.Pedant 08:48, 2004 Aug 22 (UTC)
The article seems fine for now. Because of vandalism and edit wars, I see no reason it should not remain locked until after the U.S. elections in November. Davodd 23:22, Sep 10, 2004 (UTC)
Yes it seems okay. I think the one part that could be improved is in the foreign policy section; giving a rationale behind the various policy decisions. RJH 09:56, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)
It's always been pretty good, but never great. Went through WP:FAC once but didn't pass - criticisms were that it was too disorganized, inconsistently used British and American spellings, used informal and colloquial language, etc. I've contributed a lot but everyone needs an editor! Thanks a bunch. Ðåñηÿßôý | Talk 07:26, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC)
This article seems rather one-sided. It is almost uniformly critical of the theory, and the single contributor who has written most of it seems fond of rhetorical flourishes that have no place in a neutral source. This article needs to be cleaned up by someone more persistent and knowledgeable than myself.
Seems to me that what it needs is an advocate for the theory. As it stands, the POV is pervasive, but mere copy editing wouldn't do enough to improve it. Dandrake 08:39, Aug 24, 2004 (UTC)
Also could do with the "To do with..." sentences being turned into full sentences. ··gracefool |☺ 09:21, 24 Aug 2004 (UTC)
It's a great Primus album, and deserves a much more in-depth and neutral entry from someone more qualified than myself. 12.25.45.101 19:02, 19 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Just finished reading the book, so I've tried to precis it down, focussing on the horse rather than the jockey / trainer owner GWO 12:26, 19 Aug 2004 (UTC)
This article was on the "new additions" list a day or two ago. I think it has the makings of a "featured article". It seems reasonably comprehensive to me, but really it needs other reviewers. There are two photos now though, as well as a diagram! If there's not much comment, I'll move this to FAC. zoney | talk 23:18, 18 Aug 2004 (UTC)
I read it too, and liked it. But it needs more info on history and all around expansion before it is FA quality. --mav 06:13, 19 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Perhaps the GWR broad gauge/standard gauge dual gauge railway needs to be brought forward in prominence - I should find out if it was the first. There isn't much more one can write about history of it! Apart from that - I can't see how one would expand other sections! Could you be more precise? zoney | talk 10:32, 21 Aug 2004 (UTC)
"railroad engineers... ...had responded, in general, that 4 feet, 8-1/2 inches was slightly suboptimal, and that something around 5 feet 0 would have been better."
There we go, the Irish 5 ft 3 in (1600 mm) gauge is best :o) zoney ███ talk 00:03, 24 Aug 2004 (UTC)
A general article about the Great Jubilee of 2000. Could someone look it over for completeness and POV? Unfortunately, the only free photos I could find are a bit small... Mpolo 19:58, Aug 18, 2004 (UTC)
Maybe a brief treatment on the significance of the 'holy door' being opened during Jubilee years?Pedant
Nominated on Article of the Week but removed as clearly not a stub. However, there were the following comments: -- ALoan(Talk) 19:39, 18 Aug 2004 (UTC)
This nomination blatantly violates the rule that nominated articles should be nonexistent or stubs. I nominate it anyway because Keyes is in a contested U.S. Senate race, and the article on his opponent, Barack Obama, is being featured. On Talk:Barack Obama, several people have expressed concern about the appearance of partisanship on the part of Wikipedia. I think it would be advisable for us to feature the article on Obama's opponent, and a period of intense review seems to be the best way to make sure it's worthy of being featured in its own right, not just for the sake of balance. JamesMLane 16:26, 18 Aug 2004 (UTC)
If you know it violates the guidelines, then why nominate it here? List it at peer review or FAC. - Taxman 19:02, Aug 18, 2004 (UTC)
This is clearly not an appropriate article for AotW. From a quick skim of Alan Keyes, it looks close to being ready for Wikipedia:featured article candidates, so why not nominate it there instead? Alternatively, Wikipedia:peer review would give it some polish if it needs some. Barack Obama managed to get featured without being an AotW. (And before I am accused of partisanship, I am in the UK and know next to nothing about either of the gentlemen concerned: however, just because one of them has a featured article does not mean that the other has to as well.) -- ALoan(Talk) 17:43, 18 Aug 2004 (UTC)
The only expansion it needs is in the areas of his UN service, Maryland Senate runs, and possibly presidential runs. Unfortunately, these are the areas I'm least equipped to research, at least w/o finding a decent biography of him--and school starts soon, so I doubt I'd have time anyway. Anybody? [[User:Meelar|Meelar(talk)]] 18:10, 2004 Aug 18 (UTC)
Also the intro mentions his distinguished foreign service. That needs to be made NPOV, either by adding objective mentions of what made it distinguished, or removing the word distinguished. The mention of buying office supplies, etc in the post nomination section seems a little un-encyclopedic. It could just be said: "while preparing a campaign office and preparing his campaign, his conservatives stances ...". - Taxman 22:14, Aug 18, 2004 (UTC)
For the upcoming battles on the Fascism and especially the Nazism article, I plan to remove the word "reactionary" from the article. All my facts are placed here for your reading enjoyment--Talk:Nazism/Revolutionary not ReactionaryWHEELER 16:41, 18 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Interesting points, but we shouldn't be basing our articles off Nazi propaganda. "Reactionary" and "Revolutionary" are words with many connotations, and I feel that both should be avoided. The first one, I don't like in any context, and the second as a noun, rather than an adjective... --Tothebarricades.tk 13:33, 22 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Revolutionary viz. evolutionary. Nazi ideology is reactionary (and even millenarian) in that it attempted to preserve and revive various 'Germanic' components from the past and was very much against the (conventionally-viewed) 'revolutionary' political parties (SPD and KPD). On the same token, its racist doctrine and racialist policy was, in a sense, revolutionary. It all depends on the context provided. The vague manner in which this polemic has been phrased, it is largely a play with semantics, and as such, valueless. El_C
I think this could be a featured article at some point: too often, when this subject arises, someone will briefly refer to one selected aspect of the issue as if it was the only aspect worth mentioning. This article is the only treatment I've seen that gives a comprehensive, neutral overview of all aspects. Now, I think it could use some review for POV, etc. (See the questions at the end of its Discussion page.) Thanks! Neow 18:47, Aug 17, 2004 (UTC)
A few issues: 1. The "who is to blame" section doesn't seem to add anything to the article, and is full of weasel words and/or POV. I'd remove it. 2. No definition is given for "civilian"--is there a distinction between a Sadr militiaman and a collateral damage victim? How is that distinction made? Other than that, not bad. [[User:Meelar|Meelar(talk)]] 19:43, 2004 Aug 18 (UTC)
Arlo Guthrie "...they fly them in at midnight and unload the body sacks..."
I wrote this about a month ago. I'd like other people to look at it, I'm afraid my inherent sympathy may have made it POV despite attempts to make it at least reasonably objective. I'd like it to be a featured article some day, but it needs some work, preferably not all from me. --Tothebarricades.tk 03:45, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)
I wrote this a little while ago and it has not since been edited by another person, so if anyone has some improvements or articles that should link to this one, fire away. - Centrx 23:00, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Opening paragraphs are rather confusing. Make clear the three elements: (1) the participants; (2) the law they challenged; (3) the judgement. At the moment these are all mixed up. It would be nice to set the case in a bit of context (by linking to an article about the line item veto act, if one exists, otherwise by writing a paragraph about why it was passed). What happened next? Needs the code for the case, and a category. Gdr 11:38, 2004 Aug 24 (UTC)
You have good material here, but I would rewrite that first sentence so what you're defining comes first, e.g. "Clinton v. City of New York is a Supreme Court decision regarding the Line Item Veto Act.". You should also include the citation to the U.S. Reports right after the first reference. While briefs or the opinion may say "et al", they aren't used anywhere else. Just put Clinton v. City of New York and it'll look fine. Did you include a link to the text of the case, either to Findlaw or the database at Cornell's law school? Ave atque vale!PedanticallySpeaking 19:59, Aug 26, 2004 (UTC)
The article is unnecessarily legalistic and verbose, e.g. "duly enacted statutues", "in a concurrence of the opinion." The substance is there, it just reads like a lawyer's brief. The Supremes are an interest of mine; if I can help, please let me know. Ave! PedanticallySpeaking 16:38, Aug 30, 2004 (UTC)
This article claims ammonium hydroxide is fictional, but seems to have been written too quickly to be coherent. What of this article is correct? --Eequor 02:33, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)
It's pretty much all correct, albeit worded awkwardly. Notice how it speaks of the Bronsted-Lowry theory, which completely explains how the Arrhenius theory, which only applys to certain chemical doesn't work. Actually, where does it say what you claim? The article is fine. -- KneeLess 07:16, 18 Aug 2004 (UTC)
I think the "fictitious" refers to the text 'It is sometimes convenient to refer to these ions as "ammonium hydroxide". However this is a wrong way...' This certainly sounds as if it's saying that a molecule "ammonium hydroxide" doesn't really exist, but is just a convenient way of talking about aqueous ammonia, and an inaccurate way as well. OTOH the ammonia article explicitly says (under Properties) that a small amount of NH4OH exists in solution. At least one of these ought to be amended. I sure can't say which. Dandrake 19:55, Aug 19, 2004 (UTC)
This article just had major surgery to cure some POV ills. It could use a fresh inspection. It also sorely needs more info on the history, the ideology, and criticisms of Progressivism, if anyone here happens to be familar with or interested in the subject. See the talk page for details. -- Beland 09:20, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC)
I got sucked into this on a copyedit request, but the article seems to be almost a fan page for the theories of Dorian Aescher, who, after some research, seems to be obscure and uninfluential. The article also refers to the "pandecimal metric system," which gets no hits on Google except on the Wikipedia article itself. The pandecimal system is referred to by Aescher as "Tempus Spatium," so I don't know where the anonymous author got "pandecimal."
Otherwise, the article has some good, if convoluted, information about attempts at creating decimal/metric time systems, but I think that pandecimal bit needs a once-over from someone familiar with decimal time and/or futurism and futurists. The problematic section is in the talk page. --Dablaze 05:45, Aug 15, 2004 (UTC)
We have lots and lots of information on the UN in the main article and in subtopics, as well as a large category tree. But what is missing? Help composing a to-do list for bringing this large article up to featured article standards. [[User:Sverdrup|User:Sverdrup]] 02:59, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC)
As someone mentioned on the talk page, the Reforming the UN section needs a lot of NPOVing work. Markalexander100 05:53, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Thinking of nominating this for featured status. Anyone interested in helping? Seems to be a very good start. Alanyst 02:52, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC)
The opening sentence seems a bit odd- it defines the slide rule solely by contrasting it with an instrument that replaced it. How about someting saying what the slide rule is, not what it isn't? Markalexander100 05:56, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Good suggestion. I have revised the intro. Anything else? Alanyst 15:00, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Good article. I like it. A few notes: The history section needs to be expanded. When were they first used or developed, and what were the precursors? Also the section on standard linear rules says 2 or 3 significant figures of precision are possible, but I thought with custom, longer units, higher precision was possible? I remember looking at the Guiness record for the longest slide rule. In addition a picture of a circular slide rule would be very good to show the contrast. I had never reallized there were circular slide rules. Mention of the cultural impact of slide rules being so widespread and then replaced so that current students only learn about them as a history lesson might be appropriate. I think the slide rule is the MIT or MIT math club symbol too. - Taxman 20:39, Aug 19, 2004 (UTC)
I rewrote this article. Did some research into the issue a couple of years ago as a part of my undergrad thesis. The article could use some copy editing. Additionally, I think it would be a good idea for someone who also knows the issue to give it a good once-over. –Floorsheim 03:43, 14 Aug 2004 (UTC)
I did some editing. --Nabla 12:48, 2004 Aug 14 (UTC)
I've added a diagram, though my explanation might need some tweaking. [[User:Theresa knott|]] 20:08, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC)
And a beauty it is! What software do you use? (I need to do a few myself...). Oh! the text is good enough IMO --Nabla 00:19, 2004 Aug 21 (UTC)
I used Serif DrawPlus for that one, but I've done quite a few with the drawing tools that come with microsoft word (no kidding - honest) If you are interested take a look at my image gallery [[User:Theresa knott|]] 00:25, 21 Aug 2004 (UTC)
In the picture, the circle should be labelled "visible universe", not just "universe". Something's wrong with the formatting of 10^-32. Gdr 18:13, 2004 Aug 24 (UTC)
Did a little internet research and fixed this article to save it from deletion. Please check for accuracy. Also, there are a couple of rough spots that could use some copy editing. –Floorsheim 03:43, 14 Aug 2004 (UTC)
I'd like to nominate this for featured status, but I want to make sure it's good enough. What needs to be done? [[User:Meelar|Meelar(talk)]] 19:19, 2004 Aug 13 (UTC)
It's quite good. I would agree with mav and say the Administration table absolutely needs to go into a separate article. Additionally I'd like to see more on the platforms he proposed in campaign and especially in the beginning of his presidency. He is notable for being one of the presidents with the fewest platforms he proposed getting accomplished. Notably his national health care and all other major proposals that I can recall being unsuccessful. - Taxman 17:00, Aug 17, 2004 (UTC)
I don't know if this is worth adding to the article but I will note about Bill Clinton's skin problems (redness) caused by Rosacea that plagued him throught the end of his term in office.--Clawed 12:09, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC)
I just expanded this one quite a bit, from being a stub. I'd like suggestions on disposition and subject, what needs to be expanded etc. [[User:Sverdrup|User:Sverdrup]] 22:27, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Nice work! It seems to have everything (subject-wise) I would put into a national park article except for the WikiProject Protected Areas table. --mav 03:43, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)
I have added a table and a location map. I'm missing some statistics though (long, lat and visitaiton), but I'll see if I can find it. [[User:Sverdrup|User:Sverdrup]] 08:39, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)
I'm narrowing down instructions, so I can maybe get someone interested in giving the article a little peer review. I have the question: What is missing in the article for making it a featured article? I know that my language is not perfect, so I could use someone copyediting/language-checking my text. [[User:Sverdrup|User:Sverdrup]] 19:44, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)
This is an article on what appears to be a fringe movement in physics/new age religion. As of right now, the article is poorly written and very non-NPOV. If anyone can improve it, please do so. Otherwise I'm putting it on the VfD. –Floorsheim 00:59, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)
This was at WP:FAC, but I should've put it here to begin with. ··gracefool |☺ 22:28, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)
The statement about the Hurd is wrong, for one. Just for starters, it was not started in 1984. Suggest time on Wikipedia:Peer Review. Dan Gardner 04:22, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)
It's awfully short. →Raul654 05:13, Aug 11, 2004 (UTC)
Objection/Comment. Not sure if this can ever be much of an article to feature. I mean you've got what vapourware is (two lines enough?) and then it's just examples. If there is a way to expand it, I suppose it is an interesting topic to feature - non-techies may not be familiar with it. But it should be moved to vapourware (just kidding). Zoney 14:51, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Not sure whether this article belongs here, but since it's my first attempt at a complete article I thought I'd list it here and see what happens. I don't expect this article to be all that popular, but any feedback of any kind would be appreciated. Paul August 20:07, Aug 11, 2004 (UTC)
I found the article interesting and informative and it told me clear information about something I knew nothing about before, so I consider it to be a success! Very well done for a first attempt I would say, and well-written too. The only slight niggle I had was with the last sentence of the intro: "Perhaps best known as the founder of Massilia (modern Marseilles)". It's not entirely clear to me what this means - presumably that a group of Phocaeans founded the city, but this doesn't seem to be made entirely clear in the article. Angmering 21:06, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Thanks for the feedback, and for your kind words. As to your confusion about Phocaea being "best known as the founder of Massilia (modern Marseilles)" - Yes, it means, as you suppose, that Phocaeans founded the city. Can you suggest alternate wording that would make this more clear? Paul August 17:11, Aug 12, 2004 (UTC)
Hmmmmm, it doesn't really need that much changing. Perhaps something like: The Phocaeans' most lasting legacy was the foundation by a group of their people of the city of Massilia, now modern day Marseilles in France. How does that sound? Angmering 17:55, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Massilia is the Roman name of the city. Its ancient (and modern) Greek name is Massalía (Μασσαλία).
Was recently shot down as a FAC, with very valid comments (Thanks!). The biggest problem is size: c. 70KB long, caused doubly by the subject matter and lack of planning. Would appreciate help and suggestions from people with more editorial experience about how to chop it down into smaller articles. (Lack of dilligence note: I haven't yet done a survey of other grammar pages, so please don't hesitate to point me to other well done examples.) Any feedback appreciated, TIA, etc. Kaustuv 09:18, 2004 Aug 11 (UTC)
Needs an introduction. The first sentence jumps directly into verb morphology, a narrow subtopic that belongs in the Verbs section. Likewise, each major heading needs an introduction. If a reader sees the table of contents and clicks on "Verbs", the first sentence he or she sees is "Verbs in Japanese are rigidly constrained to the ends of clauses in what is known as the predicate position." This is valid information for the article, but it doesn't lead the reader into the topic.
Needs more, and more accessible, information for non-specialist in grammar as well. If you read each topic, and ask the question, "Where will the non-specialist give up in despair?" you'll see what I mean. If you provide the information the non-specialist needs first, and then delve into detail for the interested few, you'll better serve the readership.
Does not consistently follow Wikipedia:Manual of Style for Japan-related articles in matters such as romanization. Even single expressions mix romanization styles, for example, "SA-gyou henkaku katsuyō". Other oddities include macrons over e and i (へー, いいえ), romanizing katakana words in full caps and dashes for some double vowels as in Meri-.
Uses abbreviations such as aka.
Needs attention to words like pikuniku --> pikunikku, bagu --> baggu.
Assumes the reader knows Japanese. Only readers who already know Japanese will understand the significance of underlining "o yoso ni" in this example:
兄は両親の心配をよそに、大学をやめてしまった。
ani wa ryōshin no shinpai o yoso ni, daigaku wo yamete shimatta
Ignoring my parents' worries, my brother dropped out of college.
New method of generating non-static Infoboxs (AKA Taxoboxes). I've found that within WikiProjects, infobox designs "drift" between articles as time passes. This may be one mechanism of handling this. Appreciate any feedback. -- Netoholic 06:59, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)
I would like feedback on this article. Anything is appreciated. Specifically, I want to ensure that even people who have never heard of this game before can understand it. Is there any information that you think should be added? Does anything not make sense? --Slowking Man 05:27, Aug 11, 2004 (UTC)
This is one of the articles I'm most proud of so far, and I wouldn't mind putting it up as a candidate for featured articles. However, I don't think it's quite there yet. I'd appreciate any feedback that anyone can give. Ambi 23:20, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Yes, the FA and recent main-page feature. It's a mess; poorly sectioned, rambling narrative, not quite long enough for such a riveting subject -- no meaty details about uses in any of the great elephant campaigns, though it touches on many. No deep discussion of the differences between the kinds of elephants mentioned, nor links to biology/species articles... other comments welcome. Up for FA status review. +sj+ 20:13, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Could use some review from you "rad boarders" and skaters that really know skateboards,
also could use some massaging of some of the descriptions from someone with a talent for clear writing.
Also a skateboard tricks section describing tricks, possibly prefaced with a 'skateboarding can be dangerous don't try this without proper safety equipment' disclaimer - as well as a list of what safety equipment is recommended.Pedant 21:57, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)
