Note:Peer review is the process of review by peers and usually implies a group of authoritative reviewers who are equally familiar and expert in the subject. The process represented by this page is not formal peer review in that sense and articles that undergo this process cannot be assumed to have greater authority than any other.
Wikipedia's peer review is a way to receive ideas on how to improve articles that are already decent. It may be used for potential good article nominations, potential featured article candidates, or an article of any "grade" (but if the article isn't well-developed, please read here before asking for a peer review). Follow the directions below to open a peer review. After that, the most effective way to receive review comments is by posting a request on the talk page of a volunteer.
Nominating
Anyone can request peer review. Editors submitting a new request are encouraged to review an article from those already listed, and encourage reviewers by replying promptly and appreciatively to comments.
Add {{subst:PR}} to the top of the article's talk page and save it.
Click within the notice to create a new peer review discussion page.
Complete the new page as instructed. Remember to say what kind of comments or contributions you want, and/or the sections of the article you think need reviewing.
Save the page with the four tildes (~~~~) at the end of your request to sign it. Your peer review will be automatically listed within an hour.
Avoid re-editing your own nomination. This makes your nomination disappear from the List of unanswered reviews, resulting in delays in it being picked up by a reviewer. If this has happened, add your peer review to Template:Peer review/Unanswered peer reviews sidebar by clicking here.
Please consider reciprocity and every time you nominate a review, respond or add to another review (current list here), so that you won't have to wait too long before someone comments on yours.
To change a topic
The topic parameter can be changed by altering the template {{Peer review page|topic=X}} on an article's talk page. The topic (|topic=X) on the template can be set as one of the following:
arts
langlit (language & literature)
philrelig (philosophy & religion)
everydaylife
socsci (social sciences & society)
geography
history
engtech (engineering & technology)
natsci (natural sciences & mathematics)
If no topic is chosen, the article is listed with General topics.
All types of article can be peer reviewed. Sometimes, a nominator wants a peer review before making a featured article nomination. These reviews often wait longer than others, because the type of review they need is more detailed and specialised than normal. There are some things you should know before doing this:
Have a look at advice provided at featured articles, and contact some active reviewers there to contribute to your review
Please add your article to the sidebar Template:FAC peer review sidebar, and remove when you think you have received enough feedback
Step 3: Waiting for a review
Check if your review is appearing on the unanswered list. It won't if more than a single edit has been made. If you've received minimal feedback, or have edited your review more than once, you can manually add it to the backlog list (see Step 2: Requesting a review, step 6). This ensures reviewers don't overlook your request.
Please be patient! Consider working on some other article while the review is open and remember to watch it until it is formally closed. It may take weeks before an interested volunteer spots your review.
Consult the volunteers list for assistance. An excellent way to get reviews is to review a few other requests without responses and ask for reviews in return.
Your review may be more successful if you politely request feedback on the discussion pages of related articles; send messages to Wikipedians who have contributed to the same or a related field; and also request peer review at appropriate Wikiprojects. Please do not spam many users or projects with identical requests.
Note that requests still may be closed if left unanswered for more than a month and once no more contributions seem likely. See Step 4.
Step 4: Closing a review
To close a review:
On the article's talk page, remove the {{Peer review}} tag on the article's talk page and replace this with {{subst:Close peer review|archive = N}}, where |archive=N is the number of the peer review discussion page above (e.g. |archive=1 for /archive1).
On the peer review page, remove {{Peer review page|topic=X}} and replace this with {{Closed peer review page}}.
When can a review be closed?
If you are the nominator, you can close the review at any time, although this is discouraged if a discussion is still active.
If the review is to determine whether an article can be nominated for GA, FA or FL status, and a reviewer believes it has a reasonable chance of passing these, they may close the review and encourage a direct nomination (see here).
If a review is answered and the nominator is inactive for more than one week.
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.
I am the main author of this article, and I'm wishing to receive instructive guidelines on how to further improve this article. It is very comprehensive and already fulfills many criteria, but is slightly long. What exactly to cut, I'm not entirely sure. Critical review is needed. - Calgacus05:37, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Lead is too short, should be expanded. preferably by merging the material from Overview section into it (lead is supposed to be summary/overview after all). You may want to create at least stubs for red links at {{History of Scotland}} so it looks better. ToC is somewhat long, but as you have templates and pictures to fill the empty space, I presonally don't mind. At 104kb lenght, this is indeed long; again, I wouldn't mind but my experience shows other do, so consider creating subarticles and moving some content there. Pictures would be nice especially for the first half. Inline citation use is impressive. I can see this becoming a FAC after this PR. Good job.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul PiotrusTalk22:42, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you Piotrus. Table of Contents is rather messy, you're right. Some of the red links cover some pretty obscure topics. I've been creating new stubs for these already (yes, there were more red links). I'll take your advice on this one, create new stubs, and remove red links when there is no possibility of doing this. What size do you think could be acceptable, baring in mind it's best to keep it as I can? :) - Calgacus23:02, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for helping. High Middle Ages is a proper noun. I never checked the wikipedia Wikipedia:Naming conventions for this when I named it, but I have now, and can't see anything that tells me the current title is not in convergence; but I did name the article after the fashion of related articles, such as Spain in the Middle Ages, Britain in the Middle Ages, High Middle Ages (to which High middle ages is a redirect), etc. I think reducing it to 32kbs would be counter productive; the reference section alone takes up a huge proportion of that. I've seen featured articles that are double the 32kbs length. What do you think would be an acceptable reduction? Is it possible to create a daughter article for the bibliography (I'm serious)? - Calgacus23:02, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Calgacus, I wasn't aware that "High Middle Ages" is usually treated as a proper noun. Sorry. In that case, I think nothing's wrong with the title. There have been suggestions to place long sources as subpages, to free up space in the article itself, but these have not gained consensus yet. Check the WikiProject Fact and Reference Check for discussions on this, and see this section in particular. JoaoRicardotalk14:50, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
OK. I did a lot more work on the article based on the suggestions made. I nominated it for the featured article status, here Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Scotland in the High Middle Ages. Thank you JoaoRicardo and Piotrus. All the people who I know here that know something about the topic have said the article is great. So, if it ain't gonna get featured status unless it gets down to the 30-40 regions, then I don't wanna waste my time. I cut about 35kbs off it already. If I really had to, I could probably get rid of another 15 or so, but it would really hurt the article's quality, so it probably wouldn't get featured anyway. - Calgacus04:51, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've cleaned up most of the links, and made a few very minor changes. The addition of the new quotes are a good touch. The first sub-heading title is a little long. More facts about his voting record and tendencies might be nice. Also, any important legislation he has [co]authored. Turnstep01:08, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That is a good idea. I did add links to his voting record, issue positions, and interest group ratings. His web page has a link to "LEGISLATION I have Sponsored and Co-Sponsored" which contains a bunch of press releases announcing many statments, a handful of commemorative resolutions, and announcements of seven bills. I guess I'll add those in. --James S.01:55, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
How about a clearly marked link to the documentation, early on (not in "external links") in a paragraph about how to install, and another paragraph about how to operate? --James S.10:56, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
As a short article is perfectly fine, but I think it would benefits a lot from expansion:
The box says "trojan horse", and I remember some criticism for this reason; something about it may be added
I don't understand the mention actually at all because bo2k can be the army placed inside a Trojan horse, but it definitely has nothing to do with the horse. --Easyas12c18:49, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There is no detail about how the system works: is the network protocol the same as BackOffice? Does the computer to be controlled need any special setting or installed software?
The last sentence of the lead says "As of 2005, there is still an active development community of BO2k."; the word "still" gives the idea that developing it is active but not so much as it used to be; if this is true, it is worth mentioning.
As for the trojan horse, my point is that, as mentioned in the Back Orifice article, some people have related this program with trojan horses. It may be good to 1. say that some people believe that, 2. tell the reader that BO is not a trojan horse by itself but can be used for that, and 3. other programs can be used for that. However, since this is already said in BO article, this one may just contain a mention and a reference to the other article.
As for the comparison, that depends on how much these systems differ (which I have no idea about, personally). As a start, the features of BO2k that are not present or underdeveloped or uncommon in other system may be mentioned here. - Liberatore(T) 10:38, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The article is quite fine and reads well. It just needs some copyedit. I just want to know if there's anything that can be improved before nominating it for featured article. Thanks. Gameiro19:35, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've just been through the article as requested on cleanup. It's a very good article, well done. I just have a few comments on it:
In the section "The return of the King and the independence of Brazil" you say "the adhesion of Lisbon". This sounds wrong, but I'm not sure what you mean by it to correct it. If you suggest some other words I will try to pick one that sounds right.
You say "corte" often. Is this the same as the English "Court"? If it is then it may be better to use "court".
I think it would be better understood if you used Dom rather than D.
You sometimes use both Portuguese and English names (such as Pedro and Peter.) I think it would be better just to use one or the other.
You say that John VI went to Caxais. Is this the town in Northern France? If it is then the English spelling is Calais.
Also, if you are planning to make this a featured article it will require more references. I recommend the Cite.php feature as the most easy to use, but you can choose.
I've corrected "the adhesion", "D." is now "Dom" and English names are now standardized. As for Caxias, it is a town near Lisbon. The Cortes are different from the English word Court, they are more like an assembly or a parliament. Thanks. Gameiro15:02, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This template was created to bring the two series together as they crossed over. Before using it on any page of either of those two series, a review would help determine if the work is good or not.
If the font gets smaller, then the bold caption and table headings will not work. Also, the smaller the font the less readable it is. The reason for them to be combined into one box is that the movie Freddy vs. Jason bridges the two series together into one. There are two templates (Template:Nightmareseries and Template:Friday the 13th) out there now that, when used together on a page, are just as large in combination as this one. Those templates are currently on two pages, Freddy vs. Jason and Freddy and Jason universe timeline. This one could be used instead. Also, the two current templates are nearly unreadable since the font is so small and the words so crammed together that it is almost a blur. Lady Aleena | Talk04:25, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not a big fan of large templates that are intended to repeat the same information on multiple pages. This template in particular is so huge that it takes up almost an entire page. I don't think this is a good trend. Sorry. — RJH15:55, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
A load of shit. Way too big in size and is going to take too much of the page size. You need to condense it more, or create two tempates, one on Jason one on Freddy, and put both templates where both are relevant or just one or the other for articles that only really relate to one of them. Just what the fuck were you thinking. Roger Danger Field16:27, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Your lack of decorum and foul tongue is entirely inappropriate for this forum, knave. Kindly return to the steaming heap from whence you crawled. :-/ — RJH15:52, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There is no need for personal attacks, just because I got to the point. My point was by no means a reflection on the person themselves. You might also want to note that this not an internet forum in the traditional sense, but a system of commenting. There is one type of person on the high seas of internet nerdom worse than someone who makes there point in a slightly different manner to everyone else's, and that's a blatant flamer who thinks they hold a non-existent moral high ground. Thank you though sir, I'll attempt to be more diplomatic next time. Roger Danger Field19:47, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
My apologies then, but I found your employment of expletives a tad distasteful. You also appeared to be directly insulting the contributor with the expression, "Just what the fuck were you thinking." I didn't believe that either was necessary to present your critique. Thank you. — 18:53, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
Okay, I get the picture. I will stay away from creating anything in the future as well since it seems that my ideas all seem to be disliked. I will try to get this template deleted. Lady Aleena | Talk22:45, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This was just unlucky - there are lots of existing articles that could use your help. Roger Danger is a troll so don't worry about his comments. Stay positive, keep an open mind about editing and I'm sure you'll find something that really sparks your interest and which receives a good response from the commmunity. Cedars00:27, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You're bound to run into objections while toiling in wikipedia, Lady Aleena. There are a lot of opinionated people here. But you shouldn't let that discourage you. Keep trying and I'm sure you efforts will be appreciated. Thanks. — RJH16:01, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This article was recently peer reviewed by the CVG project. I feel that this article has shown some improvement over the past month, but it could still use some work. I would like to know what needs to be fixed, expanded, improved, deleted, edited, and so on. I am hoping that us editors can get this article featured in the not-so-distant future. Anything and everything would be appreciated. Deckiller00:30, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The current formatting of the "Story" section is a bit awkward. Just think of someone who knows nothing of this game series (like me) reading the article for the first time. Every time he finds a new concept, he has to go to the List of terms and come back here. This is not practical. It is much better to have these concepts explained in the plot, remove all the wikilinks, and have a single link at the bottom of the article to the list of terms. The section "series controversy" needs more sources, and could also be expanded. I would also like to see a section on the impact this video game had on audiences and game critics. (But with sources, please; no "it is widely regarded as" ;-))JoaoRicardotalk15:11, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes; originally, when the page was split, the cricicism and impact was included but that, along with 5-6 good citations, was lost from the main section during the split. I'll get on with it ASAP. BTW, I've been trying to keep on top of the cruft being added, including evil weasel words ^_^ Deckiller19:49, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Good work! I think you have an excellent start here. I don't know much about the subject area, so I'll just comment a little on the presentation. It's a little short, and a little dense. I'd look to unpack it, which will help to solve both of those problems (anyplace that you have a one- or two-sentence paragraph, it's a good sign that you need to add some explanatory information). Remember that your audience is the general public, which may not be accustomed to so much technical Catholic stuff, so more explanations wouldn't hurt. In that spirit, you'll also want to expand the lead section, I think. Best of luck! -- Visviva03:22, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Nice, well-written text. I second Visviva's opinion above that the theological principles (like the difference between these two kinds of love) should be made more clear, or a source must be provided in which these topics are more thoroughly discussed (like another Wikipedia article). However, I must point out that, no matter how great the article is, it will be very hard to get it through FAC right now. I would wait some months or even some years. An ideal article on this topic should cover not only the encyclic itself, but also the reaction it arose in the catholic people, and maybe even the counter-reaction by the church if applicable. But this is still too recent for that.JoaoRicardotalk15:03, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you both for the feedback. Does the current text do a sufficient job of outlining the meaning of the the theological terms? There are links to the relevant articles which discuss the terms (agape, eros, logos, etc) in more detail, and I would not want to have too great an exposition in this article about the encyclical. Someone recently added some "key passages" - I am not entirely sure our article ought to have long quotations: any thoughts? -- ALoan(Talk)11:24, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've been working on this for awhile, and I think it looks pretty nice. I know Minneapolis is the biggest city in the state, but I do believe this article doesn't cover enough of the rest of Minnesota, so if anyone has any ideas to expand on non-Minneapolis stuff, please let me know. In any case, I think this is very near ready for FAC. Tuf-Kat17:12, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Looking good! Two notes:
I think there needs to be a section (if there is enough info) on music education with discussion of it at the university level at least.
In addition, the paragraph that mentions the Andrews Sisters fails to mention why they are important to music in Minnesota.
I have again reworked this article and have combined sections together. The last time this article was placed under peer review it received little attention. I hope to renominate it for FA status in the near future. Any feedback would be greatly appreciated. -- Underneath-it-All03:54, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It would be helpful to include the same type of family background information that was in the Kylie Minogue article. At first I was left wondering whether they are even related. — RJH (talk) 20:39, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe you should cite this: "Singles "I Begin to Wonder" and "Don't Wanna Lose This Feeling" were also substantial successes on the U.S. dance charts."
"In February 2006, Minogue made headlines". "In September 2006, Minogue's cover". "In November 2006, Minogue" Be consistent: here you wikilink month and year; in other cases you don't. Per WP:MoS, we wikilink only year-date-month.
Maybe it would be better to merge "family" with "childhood and beginning". But again this may be my personal preference.
Apart from these minor things, it lloks to me ready for FAC. I do not judge the prose, because I am not a native English speaker, but again I don't see any serious prose deficiencies.--Yannismarou18:33, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the feedback. I have fixed the date inconsistencies and added a reference for that one sentence. I merged parts of the family section with the childhood and beginning section. -- Underneath-it-All20:54, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As this article develops for (hopefully) FA status, I was wondering if we could have a general review of what should be added, what needs to be changed, and so on. Some of the prose needs a large polish, which I plan on getting to. I look forward to some feedback! Deckiller03:30, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It seems a little unbalanced. There are 6 paragraphs dedicated to 2000-present and only 3 for 1985-1999. An image of them playing or in uniform would be a good addition. Also, I don't think the helmet design paragraph belongs in the introductory section. Just some comments. :) GfloresTalk06:05, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
After talking with Gflores, some changes have been made: pics have been added, typos have been corrected, second lead paragraph taken out due to redundancy, and so on. Deckiller23:00, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I went through and checked out the recommendations from the old FA nomination, which was basically a peer review by itself. I think we're ready. Deckiller19:59, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have recently done a lot of work on this article, with what I have done bordering upon a complete rewrite, and I believe that it is now more close than ever to featured status. Thus, I would like to hear any suggestions, to see if I can improve this article any further. Karrmann05:53, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Excellent article. I attended a talk at an art school by a former Taurus designer, who brought along a sample copy of the Ford "Human Factors Design Guide." This document had criteria to be used to evaluate designs, for example, controls should have distinctive shapes so as to be operable by touch without looking, and seats should provide for a variety of shifting positions on long trips. As a long time Taurus owner, I believe these principles contributed to the positive public response of the Taurus during its heyday. I would love to be able to find a copy of this document online. I'd also like to see some comments about reliability history and repair costs of the Taurus lines, since a big part of the ascendancy of Japanese sedans in the marketplace has been their reputation for better build quality than American cars. Finally, I'd like to see some mention of how the automotive press has responded to the renaming of the 500 as the new Taurus. I wonder if the professional reviewers have been as skeptical as I have about the very significant difference between the 500 and what I think of as the philosophy and patterns that went into the best aspects of the Taurus. VisitorTalk05:32, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
4u1e's comments
Very informative article, with a good, logical top level structure and plentiful references.
Introduction of terms: There's quite a lot here that probably won't make sense to readers who are neither North American nor interested in cars in general. For example, from the lead: 'Fairmont-based' - Is Fairmont a place, or a car, or what? I know it's linked, but for something like that I don't need to know much detail about it, just that it's another Ford model. Actually in that case, is it even worth mentioning that the LTD is based on the Fairmont? We're only talking about the car the Taurus replaced, so perhaps it's not worth mentioning the Fairmont at all? Suggest finding a non-North American victim guinea pig who has no interest in cars to read through the whole article and point out the terms that make no sense to them. These can then be introduced at their first appearance (i.e. "North American automobile manufacturer, General Motors").
Can you specify in the lead where the car was/is sold? I see that it was later sold in the Asian/Pacific market, for example, but from the lead one might think it was a US -only model.
From the lead: 'Milestone design' - in the US or worldwide?
Is the balance of the lead right? The model has existed for 20 years, but the longest part of the lead considers the death of the model name and its recent resurrection. Should there be more material on its history in the lead?
Redundancy. For example: "even prompting Honda..." in the lead could be simply "prompting Honda..." and "development started as early as 1981" could be "development started in 1981". See Tony's useful guide on this topic and see if it can be applied throughout the article. A longer example is the first para of 'Fifth generation', I reckon you could cut the length of that para by about half without losing any content. Much of the second para then repeats the same information. Have a go at chopping it down a bit!
"with Ford selling nearly 7.5 million examples during its 20 years of production—a longer bestselling run than the original Ford Model T" I know this statement is referenced, but I'm not quite convinced by it:
- What is meant by bestselling run? I guess in the US, rather than worldwide? Overall or in its market segment? And does it mean length of time as the bestseller, or just a bestseller (i.e in the top 10 for sales)?
- The Taurus's bestselling run (i.e. as the bestseller) was from 1992 to 1996 (five years, inclusive), in the US. Again, in what market segment?
- I find it hard to believe that the Model T wasn't the bestselling model in the US for longer than five years: "[In 1914] Ford produced more cars than all other automakers combined. The Model T was a great commercial success, and by the time Henry made his 10 millionth car, 9 out of 10 of all cars in the entire world were Fords" (from Ford Model T). A quick google didn't throw up more exact evidence one way or the other, so strictly speaking I'm arguing from personal incredulity here.
- If that's true, however, the 'bestselling run' referred to above couldn't literally mean the length of time for which the car was the bestseller in the US
- It also couldn't refer to the total numbers sold, since that's 15 million Model Ts, against 7.5 million Taurus
- So does it really mean simply the length of time for which the car was sold in large numbers? The Taurus was sold for 20 years (longer now) against 19 years for the Model T. However, the Model T was essentially the same car for its 19 year run, where several different models were given the Taurus name over the 20 year period, so that's not really a direct comparison. And if this is what is meant, it's not terribly notable, either. Looking at List_of_bestselling_vehicle_nameplates, I can see over 30 other mass production (i.e. bestselling) cars with longer production runs, several of which are Fords and several of which are for the North American market.
If my argument above is right, I suggest the statement is removed as not being very notable. It could be replaced with a more precise statement regarding the model's position compared to other North American Ford models (i.e. something like 'has the third (?) longest production run of any North American Ford model')
"Most Tauruses were built either in Chicago, Illinois (until April 23, 2004, at which time the plant was retooled to build the Five Hundred) or in Ford's Hapeville Plant in Atlanta, Georgia." This sentence appears towards the end of the final para of the lead, which is otherwise all about the ending and revival of the Taurus name. Should it be moved to another part of the lead?
The thoughts behind the writing are generally clear, but I'm finding quite a lot of cases where the wording is strictly ambiguous or incorrect. For example, from the first few sections:
-"the Ford Fusion, a midsize car closer in size to the Taurus". Closer in size to the original Taurus (described as a midsize vehicle) or the 2006 Taurus, a full size vehicle? Suggest this is clarified.
-From 'Development': "Originally, Ford, as well as General Motors, had its engineers, as well as the exterior and interior designers work separately without any input from each other.". Strictly speaking this says that the engineers worked separately from each other, which I guess is probably not correct! Should it be: "Ford, like General Motors, had its engineers, exterior designers and interior designers work in separate teams, with no input from each other."? Also, I'm not too keen on "Originally" here. Does it mean at the origins of Ford? Or at the origins of the Taurus? I guess it is neither and so should probably go or be replaced by a more precise statement on when this practice was in place.
-"As a result, many American cars at the time had their interiors seem "mismatched"". Again, strictly this says that only the interiors were mismatched (with what?), whereas presumably it means that the interior and exterior designs of the cars were mismatched? Suggest "As a result, many American cars of that time had interior and exterior designs that did not match." Does this point also relate to the engineering of the car? If not, is the inclusion of 'engineers' in the sentence from the previous point relevant?
-"The premiere for the Taurus was a resounding one". This can be re-written more simply as "The Taurus' premiere was resounding", which should presumably actually be "The Taurus' premiere was a resounding success"? (Which might in itself be considered peacock-y).
I'm not going to try and pick out all similar instances - you should be able to spot them youself if you read through the article very carefully (perhaps aloud?), considering whether each sentence is completely unambiguous and means exactly what you want it to. I suggest you also find a good copyeditor and get them to go through the article, with an especial eye to precision and clarity of phrasing. If you don't know any good copyeditors, you could either try the League of Copyditors (but they tend to be incredibly busy) or otherwise find someone on Wikipedia whose writing you find particularly clear and ask if they can help you. I also suggest finding someone who does not have an interest in cars, because this will help with the point made earlier about use of 'jargon'.
The development methodology. The first para of 'Development' says that for the Taurus Ford "employed a new strategy of teamwork that would prove to be revolutionary", but later in the same para it says that Ford used "a development method similar to that [...] used when developing the Escort". These two statements seem to contradict each other. Was the methodology new for the Taurus or not?
"...and even BMW 5 Series automobiles" My emphasis. Why is the 5-series picked out in this way?
"If the Taurus failed, Ford would not have been able to survive it, and would have had to file for Chapter 11 bankruptcy." This can't be a fact, because it didn't happen, so is presumably someone's opinion. If so, perhaps it should be attributed to that person, to make it clear where the view comes from.
The Sable appears in the second paragraph of 'First generation' without having been previously introduced. I guess from context that this is a rebadged sister model? Suggest that it is introduced fully earlier in this section, or possibly even in 'Development' if it was a significant consideration in the development of the Taurus. (Update: The mysterious Sable is finally explained in the section on the 'Fifth generation' so perhaps that bit should be moved nearer to the start of the article).
In 'First generation', the second and third paragraphs seem to overlap in content. Would it be better to make the second para about the exterior design, and include all the material about the aerodynamic styling of the car there, and make the third paragraph about the interior styling? Since the point about 'mismatched' interior and exterior styling was made earlier, it would also be nice to have something here about how successfully the interior and exterior of the Taurus were matched.
In 'First generation', the model designations (L, GL, MT-5 etc) are used in a paragraph about engines before they are explained in the following para. Better to move the fifth para to a position before the fourth para? SHO remains unexplained until even later and is never spelt out. What does it stand for?
Should the 'story' nature of the explanation of the origins of the SHO be made clearer? According to the source used it is only "The story that is most widely accepted among SHO owners", rather than a fact.
What is "a set of ground effects"? I would guess that it's what I would call the airdam at the front and the skirts at the side and rear? I'm 100% sure they don't produce any ground effect - the car will rarely be going fast enough, for one thing, and with no underbody shaping what you're really talking about at best is a (small) amount of front lift reduction from the airdam. I would strongly suggest using another term for this. If it really is normal, everyday usage in North America to call such a styling package 'ground effects' then I suppose it could stay, but it doesn't sound very encyclopedic and I feel it's a very misleading term.
First para of 'Second generation'. 'Taurus' is in italics twice in this section, but nowhere else in the article. Suggest the italics are removed - the name appears too often to italicise it consistently.
Minor slip: "The new second generation SHO gets its own distinctive front fascia" should be in past tense.
2nd generation SHO station wagon: It seems obvious that this was only ever a one-off special, with nothing to do with Ford, which makes the statement that "This model never got past prototype form" seem a bit odd. Perhaps that whole sentence could be removed?
Third generation: Did the design team really spend "sleepless nights" on the design, or is this a figure of speech? It's reported as reality, which I suspect is probably a bit misleading. Perhaps give a direct quote instead?
"specially tuned every panel so that it was acoustically pleasing, and so passengers could tell human tones from mechanical tones" I'm not quite sure what this means, can it be clarified?
The Vulcan engine should be wikilinked at its first appearance.
Wikilink Mercury Sable at first appearance (which partly answers my point above!)
Based on those two points, probably do a sweep checking for wikilinking throughout the article.
'Initial discontinuation': The term "foreign sedans" is an interesting one! I guess you actually mean Japanese sedans? Although I think the article as a whole has a fairly North American point of view (as suggested by some specific points above), I guess most readers will understand what is meant by this. Is is right, though? I assume the foreign sedans are built in North America by Japanese owned firms? Are they really foreign, then? Just a thought (from a Brit - our entire car building industry is foreign owned, so I probably have a rather different perspective on it!) In any case, it might be useful to specify which sedans. The Toyota Camry, presumably? Any others? Also, how was the Taurus performing against other domestic sedans? The current wording suggests that it was only 'foreign' cars that were a problem.
The third para of 'Initial discontinuation' gives both sides of the argument about whether Ford should have 'saved' the Taurus or not, but repeats the 'for' argument ("mostly due to the fact that it was believed that the Taurus was just left to die by Ford" and "because some believed that if Ford wanted to save the car, they could have easily done so") . Suggest only one of those is needed, and both could probably be written more neutrally.
"letting the Taurus widdle away". I don't know about the US, but in the UK 'widdle' means 'piss' (as in urine or to urinate). You might want to change the wording!
"After Mulally took position as Ford's CEO" - Who is Mulally? (Update - he's actually introduced in the next paragraph, so probably just shift that introduction to the first para)
Phew: That's a lot of comments! I actually think it's a fundamentally sound article, but it needs some work on the writing, on POV (mildly US centric) and on neutrality in places. Hope that's helpful! Give us a shout if I've been unclear anywhere. Cheers. 4u1e13:57, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Final comment (sorry): Some points from previous peer reviews also do not seem to have been addressed. In particular, Pc13's comments about the "design revolution that saw the end of the 'boxy' cars" and the loss of four wheel disc brakes from this review4u1e14:04, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I created this because the main article Saffron was still 70 kb long. I hope this will help achieve summary-style there. Any comments (especially on the lead, which I know needs to be substantially reworked to suit the new subarticle) would be welcome. Saravask23:23, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The "Usage" section followed immediately by the "Culinary" section with only the word [edit] inbetween leaves an odd blank area, especially with an image right below the "Culinary" heading. --maclean2508:24, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I tried removing the "Usage" heading and making "Culinary use", "Medicinal use", and "Colouring and perfumery" major headings. Also, I notice that neither (Deo 2003, p. 1), nor (Grigg 1974, p. 287) from "Notes" have made it into the reference section yet.--maclean2510:10, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks — good eye. I added Grigg and Deo in. I noticed that you promoted subheadings in the "Usage" section and eliminated the superheading altogether. What this meant to address your own previous comment?Saravask16:50, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Overall an excellent, well-written and nicely formatted article, at least in my opinion. I couldn't find any other significant fixes that need to be made. I looks close to being ready for FA. — RJH15:44, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hi All - I request your assistance and advice on raising this article to FA status. It would be fabulous to have an article regarding one of the greatest glories of ancient India's civilizations on FA. I've expanded the text data and added pictures, but there is a lot of scope for improvement before it becomes FA class. Jai Sri Rama! Rama's Arrow21:05, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, looks good upon cursory glance. A few initial notes:
Use non-breaking space between numbers and their units (i.e., 665 [[candela]]s)
Use – to separate numerical ranges (i.e., in fiscal year 2000–2001)
Consider reading through WP:MOS in all its hideous entirety — I know it can be a bore, but it'll get these minor issues cleared up w/ less muss.
Clarification I know a lot of material has been added from one source, but I've taken care to avoid a blatant copyvio. I'll be making further revisions with your help to incorporate more from other sources. Rama's Arrow21:53, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hi All - All the images have been put under fairusein|Lothal license. Only one, the painting portrayal on the top of the page is under questionable copyright - I'm afraid it calls for deletion. Thankfully I have a bunch of personally-taken photographs of Lothal that I can upload here by the weekend. Rama's Arrow19:17, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This looks like a great article already; it should probably be submitted to FAC soon. However, IMHO some sentences need to be broken up in order to make them easier to read. For example:
"Lothal has of one of the world's earliest dockyards, connecting an ancient course of the Sabarmati river on the trade route between Harappan cities in Sindh and the peninsula of Saurashtra when the surrounding Kutch desert was a part of the Arabian Sea."
I'd personally break this up to read:
"Lothal's dockyards — among the world's earliest — were located on an ancient course of the Sabarmati river. This river served as part of a trade route between the Harappan cities in Sindh and the peninsula of Saurashtra, at which time what is now the surrounding Kutch desert consisted of inlets of the Arabian Sea."
Please consider merging the "Archaeology" and "Excavations" sections — they treat the same material and are each short sections. Saravask18:17, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hi - (1) "Archaelogy" is a section talking of Lothal's discovery, associated discoveries in the Gujarat region in terms of Indus valley civilization, and an archaelogical summary of city history. As opposed to that "Excavated City" discusses the sites that a traveler will see in Lothal, of what parts of the city have been excavated, etc. It is better that this section follows the "Charting history" and "Attributes" section, which explains how Lothal people built their place, and that "Archaelogy" be the best first section, leading into a detailed account of history, civilization and the present remains.
(2) I've renamed "Culture" to "Attributes..." becoz culture will often exclude the scientific achievements, economy and industry in its meaning. Also "Excavations is not good" becoz Excavation proper means digging up, nothing else. "Excavated City" is good title to describe the present resurrected remains of Lothal.
Thanks for your help on the grammar. I will introduce fresh re-writes on Monday and Tuesday.
OK. No problem — thanks for the explanations. I think this is FA material; the fact that most of my comments are on minor issues speaks to this. Hope I'm not nitpicking too much. Since you're the main contributor and have worked hard on this, I have no problems w/ your title naming. Good work. Saravask06:08, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment — I don't think it matters whether all the footnotes point to one source or not; as long as it adheres to WP:NPOV, WP:WIAFA, WP:MOS, WP:NOR, etc., it shouldn't matter. I'll be glad to support even if no other sources are used. Of course, the images do need to be taken care of before FAC. Saravask21:53, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I will introduce a major round of revisions, fresh information, new images, expansion and re-organization from February 13 to 17, and I believe this article will be ready by February 18. Jai Sri Rama! Rama's Arrow14:21, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
pre-WP:FAC review requested
It's very well done, so I'll comment on some deeper points. The biggest issue seems to be that the referencing is heavily focused on one source. I'm sure it was the best source you had, but are there any additional current papers/works that shed significant new light on the issue since the 1985 book? The article doesn't mention any differences of scholarly opinion which I know is quite strong for the Indus Valley civilization in general. Perhaps that doesn't significantly affect this topic, but there's got to be some. Is Lothal's importance or reasons for/manner of downfall disputed at all? If you really wanted to take it to the next level some historiographical analysis would be included. Are there any significant criticisms of the ASI's methods/conclusions that would impact the information in the article? Is there any work on Indus Valley topics by Pakistani researchers that differ from the conclusions presented? Another detailed point is the intro to the 'Civilization' section states the people made significant contributions to human civilization in the era. That's a pretty strong statement and implies they made developments that were adopted elsewhere and did not just adopt what had been discovered by others. It also seems to imply or at least leaves open the possibility that the contributions had lasting effects on later civilization(s). Is there evidence to support either of these points? That paragraph could use expansion anyway as it is a bit short at two sentences. So yes I'm a tough critic, but the quality of the work so far leads me to believe you can meet these points too. - TaxmanTalk16:41, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Reply
Sources: This is the official ASI publication which is being used as primary references. I've looked on E-Britannica and some other books and websites on Indus Valley, but none deal with such consummate detail on the subject: Lothal. I can't find any other source that provides such technical detail and explanations on Lothal. I've incorporated data from secondary sources, but this is very specialized (maps, topographical analysis, script) and minor.
Difference of Analysis: I have not included any topic that does not directly concern Lothal. I do not know of any Pakistani work that deals with anything but the broader topics regarding the Indus Valley civilization and the sites in Pakistan; Pakistanis for obvious reasons have never conducted their own research in Lothal. There certainly appears to be no conflict of theories, explanations. There is scholarly debate about how the civilization was wiped out, but there is factual, archaeological evidence provided via the citations in this article that corroborates the details on flood and late Harappan culture regarding Lothal only - I will add the technical details directly after I complete my reply. There is no known critique or counter example of ASI research methods regarding Lothal.
Civilization: certain things like the world's earliest-known dock, 8-12 horizon division have been proven to have occured before anybody else. These are appropriately cited. On this basis was the 2-line opener to the section written. There is also a connection with ancient Vedic customs explored. I didn't intend it to be a large intro.
Citations: please note that since a lot of info comes from one source, I've often put one citation for a bunch of facts coming from the same page. I can say with confidence that there are no technical details or assertions made here that are not cited. The "Lead"'s facts are cited within the article.
I believe there are several theories that look at the disappearance of the Indus valley civilisation. Looking at only the flooding theory, seems incomplete, imo. Otherwise this is a good article. btw, I was wondering if lethal and Lothal have the same etymologicl roots ;) ... --Gurubrahma12:03, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
So here's the deal: I had this requested for a peer review before, the article looks pretty good - aside from the need for citations. This really is a request, but please consider this a recruitment as well! Are you good with military history? Please help edit - I have had some external factors inhibiting me from editing that article like I should have! Please see the first archive here. εγκυκλοπαίδεια*20:01, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Good article. A couple of things. You should try to avoid wikilinking words in section headers (like 20th century) and don't overlink too much. I found 19th century and United States linked over 5 times. It's unnecessary. It's a good article overall, though. :) GfloresTalk22:14, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I would be grateful for comments on this page which has had a lot of work done on it, in particular to remove the peacock words which made it sound like a "tourist brochure" and to sort out a consistent use of English and Scientific names for fish, birds etc. A couple of people have suggested it should be put forward for a featured article but I'd really appreciate your comments first.Rod14:13, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The introduction is a bit short, generally they should be two or three paragraphs summarising the main points of the article. There are external links spread throughout the page that should probably be at the end. Unless everything in the article is based on those two books in the bibliography, you should cite sources (WP:CITE). Joe D(t)14:25, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Some ideas:
create a section covering the ecological interest of the lake, and place all info on that subject there
create a heading for "leisure use" and then make all the various section headings (birdwatching, fishing etc) subheading of that
go to English Nature's Nature on the Map site, where you can find the SSSI citation sheet - this will give you lots of info, particularly on the lake's biodiversity, which could be added
The CVLBirding website also has lots of good info on the lake's wildlife which you could plunder
Eliminate redlinks - a stub article on Ernest Greenfield is better than nothing at all
I personally like OS grid refs cited as close to the start of the article as poss - see Cheddar Reservoir for a suggested style.
Thanks for the useful comments. I've expanded the introductory paagraph a bit - do you think this is enough? I've improved the grid ref as suggested & put it in the into. I'm not sure about an ecology section & a leisure use section as surely information on fishing will be relevant in both sections. I will go & find the SSSI sheet & take another look at CVLBirding. Thanks again & keep em coming Rod20:29, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Some more ideas:
You could include a list of the location names at the lake e.g. bays, islands etc. CVL Birding has a guide to these, I think
A list of rare vagrant birds recorded over the years would be of interest - CVL Birding can help with that too
There is a Chew Conservation Committee and a Chew Biodiversity Action Plan. Bristol Water should be able to provide more info about these
The publication Natural History of the Chew Valley By Rowland Janes has lots of good info about the lake (local libraries will have a copy)
Maybe something about public transport routes which pass by the lake?
I've tried to do many of the edits suggested including rearranging the sections etc. I've also asked other with local knowledge to help. I've asked for permission to use a map which shows the differnt areas, bird hides etc. I've also tried to do an info box table thing + map showing the location but it's not very good (my first attempt at this) could anyone help?Rod00:03, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Great work. One thing to note - if permission is given regarding the map, make sure that permission-giver understands the nature of Wikipedia's licensing, otherwise the image could be deleted by admins. User:Jimfbleak can tell you about this subject. SP-KP00:18, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
OK, having taken a better look at the page it seems there is very little about the construction, and that paragraphs that are about the construction are actually more about things like the prior archaeological surveys. Should mention things like compulsory purchases and who actually built it (the picture suggests it was Bristol Waterboard Co.). Is the dam concrete, earth or both? Joe D(t)03:14, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Following your comments about construction, I've gone back to the books & added the construction company, compulsory purchases (act of parliament), & concrete & clay construction - hope it all makes sense Rod20:25, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think this article needs a local map to illustrate the areas of the lake, where bird hides, bridges, access points are etc. I have sent requests to the owners of the maps at: [1] and [2] to ask if these could be used but had no response. I don't have the knowledge/software to do this & wondered if anyone else could help? Rod11:11, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've tried to clean this article up as much as I can, but I really think that it could use some more work. A plot overview should be added, as well as a few other things. Add and correct as much as you can to make this a good article. (Ibaranoff2404:58, 25 January 2006 (UTC))[reply]
It's good with what it has, but really the plot description is entirely too short. The plot section should be at least several paragraphs, and preferably in some depth with critical analysis. Also the page needs inline references. Thanks. — RJH16:37, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
According to the WikiProphet, it is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than to write a good NPOV article on Islam. However, I have tried and rewritten the article from scratch, so any errors in it are mine and mine alone. It covers a decisive battle fought by Muhammad in 624. I would love feedback on it, so I can eventually nominate it for a Featured Article. (Currently there are none on Islam) Palm_Dogg00:03, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
An important article, on a topic not known to most people in my part of the world. Should help counter systematic bias. Already well written, but balance seems off for a truly great featured article. I have several suggestion below.
Most of references and quotes seem to be taken from historical source material. Although good quotes, and excellently footnoted, is their independant archaeological evidence for this battle? I assume not, lost in the sands of time, but clarify. I do not doubt the battle took place, but the specific names involved and numbers seem too exact for a historical (not religious) article. Example, are the Muslim graves recorded and countable?
First paragraph should be a summary of the key points of the article. In this first paragraph, the battle details are too detailed. Suggest summarize first paragraph and transition to the more important second paragragh; why this battle is so important.
The second sentence of the article, It was fought on Friday, March 17 624 CE (17 Ramadhan 2 AH), although a few sources place it in 623 seems out of place and too detailed. Important for elsewhere in the article, not the first paragraph.
How about this re-write: The Battle of Badr (Arabic بدر) was a key battle in the early days of Islam between Muhammad and his pagan opponents in Mecca. Prior to Badr, the Muslims and Meccans had fought several smaller skirmishes, but this was the first large-scale battle. Muhammad was leading a raiding party against a Quraishcaravan when the much larger Qurayshi army surprised him. Retreating to a strong defensive position, Muhammad's well-discplined men managed to shatter the Meccan lines, killing several important Meccan leaders, including Muhammad's chief opponent Amr ibn Hisham.
Background section is obviously key....
First paragraph is great. Terrain, climate, population, tribes, religious diversity, all get their needed discussion.
But why two paragraphs on the life of Muhammad? Muhammad was born in Mecca... and Muhammad claimed... There is already a link to the main Muhammad article. They are good paragraphs, but needed for this article?
Consider a direct jump the last sentence: In 622 C.E., Muhammad and his followers were forced to flee Mecca to the neighboring city of Medina due to...... This migration is called the Hijra and marked the beginning of Muhammad's reign as a secular chief, in addition to religious leader.
If this becomes a featured article, many-many people with no background in Islam, Mecca, Medina, or Muhammad will read it. Thus consistent terminology is critical. Even after several read thoughs, I was confused by some shifting terms.
Article uses the different spellings of Quraish vs Quraysh and Quraishi vs Qurayshi
A section title is "The Ghazawāt", which is never explained. Two sentences later, a link to ghazw appears. Same root-words, same meaning? Can something be expanded?
What is the Badr? Name of an area? town? building? area wells? oasis? The use of the term implies Badr is a roadside inn with a series of wells. Correct?
Article says, army was approaching the wells at Badr and Badr was a traditional caravanserai, which was a roadside inn where caravans could rest and recover from the day's journey.
Later Article says, Badr was the name of a series of wells located on a small slope on the eastern side of the valley of Yalyal.
The simple battle box, and my summary of the article says the battle was between Muslims of Medina and Quraish of Mecca. However consistent terms seem to shift. Is this to avoid repeating the same phrase, or reflects a subtle difference I failed to see?
From the first paragraph, many different phrases are used, which to a causual reader will imply there are 3 or 4 sides to this conflict.
Muslims and Meccans had fought
Muhammad was leading a raiding party against a Quraish caravan..and...Qurayshi army.
The Quraysh army... launched an assault on the Muslim ranks
Muhammad's men ....shatter(ed) the Meccan lines
Just to drive home the point, is the Quraysh army the same as the Meccan Army? The terms are used interchangably in the article.
See the major section header.... The Muslim plan vs the The Meccan Plan
Should it be the Muslim Plan vs the Quraishi Plan or Medina Plan vs Meccan Plan ?
The article has two uses of Quraishi Muslims to refer to a sub-set of people. I am confused by the term Quraishi Muslims. Is this an aspect of a civil war and brother against brother, or a typo?
Three of the Ansar emerged....only wanted to fight the Muslim Quraish'
In the middle of the article, the Aftermath, Casualties and Prisoners section, the term Meccan Quraish is used for the first and only time. I am lost, why now call out Meccan Quraish? Did I miss some discussion of non-Meccan Quraish?
the Muslims took a number of Meccan Quraish prisoner.
Article says At this point, both armies began firing arrows at each other. Muhammad gave orders for the Muslims to employ their ranged weapons, and only engage the Quraish when they advanced. I truely do not understand what the sentence is trying to say, nor the tactics. Both sides were firing arrows
(a ranged weapon). Then Muhammad ordered for his troops to emply ranged weapons (which they already were). Does engage in this sentence mean hand-to-hand melee combat? Wendell04:23, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Wow. Most of your points are valid, so I'll try and fix them. Briefly: Many of the Muslims (Including Muhammad) WERE Quraishi. In addition, there were a group of non-Quraishi Muslims called the Ansar. Finally, there were a group of nominal Muslims in Medina (Usually called "The Hypocrites") who thankfully did not play much of a role at Badr. Long story short this can be EXTREMELY confusing, so I'll try and clarify. I also didn't want to use the word "pagan" when describing the Quraishi Meccans, since that was a term only attributed to them by the Muslims. The battle was in many respects part of a civil war, which I will try and flesh out. In terms of Quraishi records, to my knowledge there are none. Badr is in Saudi Arabia, which is not exactly hospitable to archeologists, especially ones who want to dig up the bones of Muslim martyrs. Palm_Dogg04:30, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
(grrr...edit conflict)
The dates given: March 17 624 CE (17 Ramadhan 2 AH) should be wikilinked to explain what "CE", "Ramadhan" and "AH" are, especially since they are not set up to auto-date format.
For the infobox
The image caption says "(Minus Muhammad" should be "(minus Muhammad"
Dewiki "624", it adds little to the article
"The Muslim Conquests" is a redirect to "Islamic conquests" - should be fixed.
The Islamic conquests page itself is confusing in this context, as it states that they "began with the death of Muhammad" which makes it odd that the Battle of Badr is considered part of them.
Hijaz is probably better as Hejaz
"(Present-day Saudi Arabia" should be "(present day Saudi Arabia"
"by name in the Quran." - the quran is the scripture muslims abide by. The quran is the guidance for mankind. The quran was revealed to the prophet muhammad(pbuh) by Angel Gabriel, by the permission of Allah
Muhammad section:
A bit long, as this is about a battle, and we already link to the main Muhammad article.
Unwiki lone years
The highway image seems very out of place here. Maybe replace with the "battlefield today" image below?
Good use of images throughout
The "Islam" infobox appears very low on the page - maybe move it up or simply remove completely, as there is already a different infobox at the top.
The legend inside the "Map of the battle" image is too small to read easily. Consider enlarging it or removing it from the image.
Wiki non-common terms where they first appear, such as "hadith" and "caliph" (although this seems to be the exception)
Dewiki common terms not vital to the article, especially in the opening section. I might unwiki "defense" and "fresh water"
"(Which is similar to" - same as above, watch the uppercase inside the opening parens. Uppercase is only needed to start a sentence or for proper nouns.
Image caption "The cover of a contemporary Muslim discussion on the battle" needs rewriting.
In the "Badr in history" section, bullets are used, but they don't always mix well with left-aligned images. Consider moving the image to the other side of the page here.
Excellent footnotes and references.
"Casualties and Prisoners" should be "Casualties and prisoners"
Add "Islamic conquests" to "See also".
(Listed in Alphabetical Order) should be de-capitalized.
"In keeping with the film" makes no sense when talking about the film
Looks like the broader issues of content have been adressed at some length above (and this is rather outside of my area of interest); I'll briefly comment on some (minor) technical issues that are likely to come up in a FAC nom:
The "See also" section should be kept minimal, in favor of working the links directly into the text. In particular, anything that is linked in the body of the article should not be listed there.
The succession box at the bottom is somewhat questionable. Was his life devoid of any events between Badr and Uhud?
When the Quran is cited in a footnote, the translation used should be indicated.
Hi, I copyedited through the whole article. My last edit was to change the structure slightly, into a "Background," "Battle" (with subsections), "Aftermath/Implications," "Modern Cultural References" format. I hope you find the last change helpful; I'm confident the copyediting made a difference and the introduction is a bit more comprehensive now. Kaisershatner17:14, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Remember that some users only have 800x600 screens, so reduce the size of those panorama images and the sizes of images that are near each other (especially in the "Coed College" section but also the last two images and table in "Land Grant Pioneer"). The lead should also be expanded to at least two well-developed paragraphs summarizing the article. All that said, again, good work. --Spangineer(háblame)16:53, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I turned my monitor down to 800x600 and rearranged the images. I've rewritten the lead section to include two paragraphs. Thanks for your comments, Spangineer. — Lovelac704:55, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Lovelac7, glad to hear you're going to help work your magic on the MSU history page. I’m here to help. I've taken it upon myself punch up some of the footnoting to keep the NPOV dogs from yelping. Most notable, is FN#10 re the State Board of Ag Report. I know the quote is absolutely correct because I copied it to a Word page, but lost the copy. The only Q is re the exact name of the Board's report -- I'm pretty sure I'm close, the name I have is consistent with similar reports I've tracked through GOOGLE -- and I guessed the age based on the year quoted and the founding date of the Board of Ag (1961). I'm traveling to E. Lansing this week and will get the exact name and page number. So by early next week, I'll tighten that up. BTW, I like the sepia tone.Pulley1205:37, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
By the by, Lovelac7, re your Marshall Hall photo, 2 things: 1) somehow “The Spartan" (Statue) is in front of this photo, and 2) the shot you have is actually the side of the building and not the front (you’ll note, there’s no entrance in your photo).Pulley1205:44, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I fixed the caption. I must of had a picture of Sparty in that image box before. As for the side view of Marshall Hall, the building is very hard to photograph from the front, since there is a tree right in the way. I do have a front shot if you think that'd be better. Lovelac714:23, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
To all interested Wikipedians: I am moving next week and so I will have limited access to a computer. If you have any comments, let me know below, and I'll work on them when I get settled. Then we'll take this article to FAC. Lovelac703:36, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I removed my comments regarding the limiting of (1st president) Joseph R. Williams' influence in the original college (i.e. he didn't, per se, hire faculty). That is, b/c of a follow-up visit to the campus archives, it's hard to limit exactly how influential he was -- his fingerprints were all over the early college. So that it appears, he even had influence over hiring of early faculty (as some sources hint) although he didn't actually do so... so I'm leaving well enough alone. I think the article's fine as is, right now, on that score, unless Lovelac7, or anyone else, has suggested changes on that score Pulley1208:50, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Most of this article was written by me and M.C. Brown Shoes. I'd like to get some input about what could be improved in the article, and whether it is comprehensible for someone not as familiar with the band. I guess it is too short to become FA (the band only was around for 9 nine months really), but I'd still like to get this article as good as possible, so pretty much any suggestion is welcome. This article was previously peer reviewed (archived here) in September 2005. --Fritz Saalfeld (Talk) 11:57, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
All articles are eligible for FA status, and this looks like a pretty good one.
Lead - looks good, but consider expanding just a bit
Comprehensiveness - looks good, but consider adding more on musical style
Sales - looks good, but consider adding some chart data to the discography section, such as the peak US position
Pictures - 1, 2, 3, 4 (free pics would be good, if possible, and the first pic (in the box) is of very questionable utility -- what does it illustrate? all fair use pics need a fair use rationale specifically aimed at this article)
Audio - looks good, though I suggest adding one or two more (I know they only released one album, but it might be useful to show some variety in their style) and integrating the sample somewhere in the article, rather than a stubby little section
References - 4 (may not be possible, but consider trying to find one or more print sources, especially a scholarly, broad-focused work)
Discography - looks good, but there's no need to have subsections for such a small discography
Format/Style - 2, 3 (why include the fansites in external links?; as noted, remove the subsections of discography and integrate audio sample into article, remove the parenthetical "sees" (e.g. "See critical reception of Maybe You've Been Brainwashed Too for more details"))
Overall, I think it's very well done. With the suggested tweaks to format/style and rationales for images, I think this would be ready for FAC. Tuf-Kat17:41, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks a lot for your suggestions. As far as the sample goes, a link to it is also included in the article when the part is mentioned, is there another way to incorporate it better? And the fansites are included because the official homepage doesn't have much content (it's basically just a dead forum), while the fansites have lyrics, discographies, galleries, some audio, etc.
I hadn't any luck before trying to find any free images, or mentioning of the band in scholarly work, but I'll try to take care of the rest. Thanks again, and any other suggestions are still welcome. --Fritz Saalfeld (Talk) 21:00, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This article is a rather important topic to me, and I've been working on it for a period of several months, however I'm not sure where to go from here other than finding a few more good references and citations. At this point, it needs some new sets of eyes, particularly those not terribly familiar with the topic. Is it understandable to the layman? Does it make sense? Do you have any questions unanswered after reading it? Thanks! Scott Ritchie06:39, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Very nice, but it is notable that almost all of the diagrams relate to US gerrymandering (perhaps it is most prevalent there?). It may be worth saying that some countries prevent it by having an independent commission to draw up the boundaries (in the UK, the Boundary Commission). -- ALoan(Talk)12:04, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
A couple of brief observations:
The introduction says the term is derived from the name Elbridge Gerry. The caption to Image:Gerrymander.jpeg says "a salamander, from which the term gerrymander is derived". Which is it?
The title "Proposed reforms targeting gerrymandering" reads a bit like a newspaper or ticker headline and hence sounds as though it is referring to a particular set of proposals put forward at some (unspecified) time and place. Playing around with different versions, I can't come up with a brief description, but I think it might be worth finding a new title. Reforms which have been proposed to target gerrymandering, changes intended to make gerrymandering.. ugh, this is hard!
Most of the section about Northern Ireland is dated, but the "particularly famous example" explained right at the start of the section is not. Just to within a decade would probably be enough (although obviously a particular year or term would be lovely).
Nice catch on the name - it's actually derived from both. I think the word is portmanteau - I'll try and update it. As for the title, I like your suggestion of "Reforms which have been proposed to target gerrymandering" the most and will put it in. As for the Irish bits, I'll try and find someone knowledgable in Irish history to flesh it out more. Thanks for reading and commenting! Scott Ritchie08:10, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
One thought on an excellent article: "Among western democracies, only Israel and the Netherlands are free from gerrymandering in the national government, as they employ electoral systems with only one (nationwide) voting district." Maybe replacing "free from" with "not suspetable to" would sound better. As it is, it somewhat pessimistically suggests that all nations with electoral districts participate in gerrymandering. While i personally feel that the statment is probably not incorrect, to make such statements on an FA would require doeznes of specific citations; one for each state. youngamerican (talk) 04:12, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your comments, they were helpful and inspired some changes. As for whether it's a snark at the field of spatial analysis, I can say no as I've never heard of it and I'm not quite sure how it's related. Thanks! Scott Ritchie09:08, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry about the confusion. Basically, it is the process of using computers (and other means) to analyze space in regard to demographics, statistics, land-use, etc. While sometimes the use of a computer to generate voting districts can be a little impersonal, it also is a good tool to find groupings. It just had a tone that anything using computer spatial analysis would be automatically negaitve. BTW< the article is looking great. youngamerican (talk) 18:21, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Myself and a number of other people (mostly, if not entierly, the other people) have been working to make Red vs Blue a featured article. We beleive that the article is currently ready for a peer review, the next step towards nominating it for a featured article, and would appreciate your imput. Thank you. Dr. B06:35, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sources are cited inline currently with embedded HTML links (and, considering that RvB is an Internet phenomenon, 95% of the information that you'll be able to find on it will be on the Internet in one form or another). Is this style not generally preferred for featured articles? Wikipedia:Citing sources didn't make it clear that one style is superior to the others in general, but I can change things around if one style is in fact considered preferable. -- TKD10:02, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
On second thought, some material does come from DVD audio commentary, so if that is to be cited inline, we might need to change styles. Of the other styles mentioned in Wikipedia:Citing sources, is there one generally preferred over another? -- TKD11:33, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It would be cool to see a list of non-BG/Coag maps that are used in RvB, and the context of the episodes that they're used for. KrazyCaley01:25, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Such a list in the article would probably be difficult to fit in. however, creating a separate page that lists the different maps used and what they were used for is a possibility.Dr. B03:54, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps even a single table would be enough, since a lot of that information is already in the episode summaries. -- TKD11:33, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've made a sub-sub-section on the maps, under filming. Maps I'm not sure about are in comments, so they can be filled out and put in properly.--Drat (Talk) 10:50, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think some more screenshots are needed, lower in the article, to break things up. Some two-character ones like Grif & Simmons, and Church & Tucker, and perhaps Sheila & Lopez.--Drat (Talk) 13:39, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, we don't want to use too many, as that'd undermine a fair use rationale. We have the main characters. Maybe a screenshot or two from Halo 2. Might fit well near the Filming section. -- TKD06:18, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
What about location establishing shots? I still think maybe one two-character shot, like the first scene, would be neat.--Drat (Talk) 07:38, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
By location-establishing, do you mean showing maps other than Blood Gulch/Coagulation? We could probably do one of those, though I'm not sure that it's essential. I've added two images, one showing Grif and Simmons in the Warthog in episode 6 (to show post-production editing techniques), and one from Halo 2, to illustrate visually the differences from Halo footage. I think that those can easily be justified under fair use. Shots of other characters (especially the minor characters) are probably justifiable in the characters auxiliary article. -- TKD22:52, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I only just remembered this. We also need people to take a look at the character and episode guide pages. Check the template at the bottom of the RvB page.
Might it be a good idea to have an episode guide for the Red vs Blue videos that occur outside the main storyline, and possibly to move episodes 28.5 and 45.9 there (along with adding material for the PSAs and such)? I used to think that it wasn't necessary, but since we mention PSAs in the lead, it might be good to list them off somewhere, just for the sake of comprehensiveness -- TKD07:52, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps make another episode summery page for all PSAs, put a link to the page next to the summeries for each season (At the bottom), and link to it from the infobox?Dr. B09:47, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This article has been significantly worked on over the years, and has seen several peer reviews and a few FACs in the past. I think it's closer than it's ever been, now that there's far more references and all of the image problems have been cleared up. I just generally want an overall analysis of the article to see just how close to FA status it is. There's still some sections that need referencing, and I plan to look for references soon. Unfortunately, two major contributors in the past (User:JonMoore and User:Cool Hand Luke) haven't been around for a while as far as I know, so some of the content they contributed will be hard to find references for. Anyway, I just want to see how close to FA status this is, since I feel it's just so close!
We could improve the flow of the geography section. As it stands, there are a few short and/or irrelevant sentences which need to be expanded, clarified, and/or merged.
We should really state how often the lake stink phenomenon occurs, if possible. Cities closer to the lake probably enjoy the smell constantly, but in my experience Salt Lake City (more accurately, the suburb I live in) experiences this problem relatively infrequently, perhaps a few times a year. Currently, as well as before my edits, it sounds as if the city has an unpleasant odor all the time. I found a source.
The lake effect has a major impact on the climate,[3] and should be mentioned in the climate section. Right now it is only briefly touched upon in the sports and recreation section. Of course we have discussed this before, but I just wanted to mention that this info would be useful in this article as well as Great Salt Lake, I am not trying to nag by any means. :) Oops, I was using Firefox's Find feature, but I was not searching for the hyphenated lake-effect, so I missed that in the climate section.
I'll add a few citation-needed tags as necessary, and try to dig up some sources, but for now I'll just ask that sources be added for the population numbers in the lead. --Lethargy12:28, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well-sourced article that I've worked a lot on over the last several months; considering FAC and placing on peer review to see where it needs improvement as part of that process. AUTiger ʃ talk/work19:19, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The orginal article was contributed all at once by an anonymous editor. Google select phrases from this contribution and other large anon edits to check for plagarism.
The article tips very close to pro-aquarium boosterism POV. There should at least be some mention of dissenting opinion. Criticism has been leveled at the aquarium on the following topics: 1) long-term viability of an aquarium, 2)Ethics of keeping baluga whales/whale sharks in captivity 3)proximity to the Chattanooga Aquarium. I personally disagree with these criticisms, but you might want to address them before some vandal does.
Revise some POV and non-encyclopedic wording: "dramatically", "star", "close to home"
Consider adding more on the political process behind the creation of the aquarium, the controversy over what some have characterized as Bernie Marcus's take-it-or-leave-it approach, and the city's hopes of a broader boost for Atlanta. There should really be a detailed paragraph at least on each of the sections of the aquarium. You might also work a bit toward a more logical and ordered presentation of the topics if that's possible.--Pharos12:44, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the feedback.
Footnotes appear to just be a proposed policy; as far as I can tell, the current reference section is generally acceptable.
The original article is not plaigarized, at least not from a source that is online and indexed by Google. I have cleaned up some of the encylopedic wording. I will try to find some criticism regarding the long-term viablity and closeness to Chattanooga, but as I recall, that was mostly about a city-driven aquarium prior to Marcus' donation of the aquarium as a private donor/funder. I'm loath to single the GA out for criticism on the belugas and whale sharks since that is something that applies generally to all aquaria (same sort of critics that oppose zoos and all animals in captivity) though a line or two and link to an article on that controversy is probably in order.
As to a 'take it or leave it approach', I also do not recall that being a major controversy or even critism of Marcus. Will work on expanding the exhibit descriptions and the city's hopes. I'm not sure what section order would be more logical that the current version which seems to lead with those things most important about an aquairum (collection, exhibits, etc) and then progresses to other interesting facts.
I just wrote an article about this medicine, and I'm really not sure what to do next. Are there any other sections I should write or areas that need expansion? Also, I'd appreciate some non-medical reviewers to comment on its accesibility to lay people. Thank you. — Knowledge Seekerদ07:13, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The history section could be expanded. For instance, for which company was Dr. Shetty working for? What were the results of clinical trials? How long did the approval process take? Were any patents issued for this drug? etc.
In the chemical structure section I'd explain what a thiazide is, since you refer to it quite prominently. The "sulfa" allergy mention should go into toxicity instead.
The pharmacodynamics is a bit on the short side, and doesn't mention anything about bioaccumulation. Maybe you should consult some of the original literature in order to gather more info on the subject.
I'd reformat weblink references to at least provide a "last accessed" date. See WP:CITE for more.
The article reads well but in general "feels" a bit short. Unfortunately I'm not the person to ask about "layperson readability" but a general guideline is to define obscure terminology in the article itself. I'll get around at some point in doing a high-res structure for the article. The current one looks a bit blurry, IMO. Good luck! -- RuneWelsh | ταλκ11:29, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your thoughtful review! I explained about thiazides, moved sulfonamide allergy to toxicity, and put the date accessed on the links. I'll do my best with the history, although history is notoriously difficult—especially for medical topics, where "history" has a special meaning and severly confounds searches. It's not easy to find information about the development of non-major drugs like metolazone. I was actually quite pleased I found out what I did, but I will keep working on it. I'll add some more to the bioaccumulation section as well tomorrow. I agree that the article is a bit short; I just don't know what else to add to it. I can write about its melting point and dosing regimens and so on although I don't think it's that useful—and I don't want to just add "filler". Perhaps I'll try to put the results of various studies in. I'll keep working. — Knowledge Seekerদ07:57, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If you have access through databases of medical literature you could try to search for Dr. Shetty's publications. Also try a search on the US Patent Office website under Shetty's name or the IUPAC name of the drug (NOT the commercial name). That ought to yield something. Most common dosing regimens may not be completely out of place. For additional chemical info I think there's an infobox provided by WikiProject:Drugs for that purpose. -- RuneWelsh | ταλκ04:42, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The bit about how his name should be pronounced doesn't need its own section - I'd use either a sentence in the intro or a footnote for this. I prefer it when years aren't wikified but don't think there's any policy on this. File:Yemen flag large.pngCTOAGN (talk) 15:42, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've had another look at the article and don't think it's ready for PR; it doesn't meet the "nearly FA standard" criterion at the top of the page. It could do with some sources for "...should be written and pronounced as Rury" and "...believed to..." (both times). At the moment it reads more like a story than an encyclopaedia article: phrases like "...treated so gingerly..." and "not believed to have had any issue" seem a bit weird to me, unless they're common phrases in Ireland in which case by all means keep them in. File:Yemen flag large.pngCTOAGN (talk) 15:59, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It's been a while since the last peer review, the article has undergone a little change since then, I've added one image (still yet to trawl through the photos taken this year to see if there's anything usable), and I'd like to see this article moved as close to Good Article (at least) as possible. Besides the lack of images, the only main concern was a lack of pages linking in, and unfortunately without spamming I'm not sure how many articles I could validly add a link in.
In particular, I'd like to know which GA criterion the article currently passes, and which it fails (I appreciate that there's a lack of reliable sources, although I wouldn't mind being told where I might look for more). Confusing Manifestation01:06, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Article about a top division football (soccer) club from England. I've been making gradual improvements to this article for about as long as I've been wikiing, and would appreciate any comments, particularly from non-football fans. It could probably do with a few fresh pairs of eyeballs for copyediting too. For comparison, Arsenal F.C. and IFK Göteborg are FAs about football clubs. I realise the article could do with a photo of the team in action, and I'm looking into it. Oldelpaso15:57, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Good writing I think, and good references/notes, so my list is just minor bits here and there:
Intro - Decide if Manchester City is singular or plural - both 'is' and 'play' are used (only took notice in intro). Links to and short descriptions of the leagues and cups won for people not familiar with English football. Current player names listed doesn't give any info, unless comparing the many foreign players to the "English triumvirate" of old (perhaps not that relevant compared to most other Premiership clubs, though)?
History - Needs subsection headers. Explanation/mention that the Second Division was the 2nd league - I know it's obvious but it could be confused for the current Football League Two. What is the Revie Plan? The sentence "first ever European trophy winners to be relegated to the third tier of English football" is confusing whether it is "third tier" or "english" that is the focus, move "English" forward in the sentence. FA Premier League needs to be mentioned in the history section, preferably a paragraph on the new league system in 1992 and in which division/league that left Man City. Minor details on the stadiums moved to "Stadium" section; i.e Commonwealth Games 2002 (duplicate info), and that it is on a lease contract. From "Their rise was rapid; from being [...]" and the rest of that paragraph could be moved to intro to explain the general situation of the club in the past 5 years or so. Move the QPR goal situation to its place in history or maybe as a part of the "supporters" section, incorporated into a paragraph on how the club is perceived?
Misc - Update player squad (or the update date at least), perhaps sort managers like the players - it just seems so long with a straightforward list from 1889 to present. Links to competitions in honours section might be good too, and the new/old format mentioned in honours should be properly explained, perhaps in a footnote (see Arsenal FC).
Finally, the lore around here (Denmark) is that while United might be the popular club on the world market, City is the club of people from Manchester - is there any truth to that, and can any sober sources be found on that subject? Poulsen18:07, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your comments.
Intro: Hopefully I've caught and changed all the instances of the singular to the plural. I've added links to the competitions, but I think descriptions might be excessive or offtopic. I'll look at adding a couple of sentences in the History section where appropriate. I've jettisoned the bit about current players, you're right in saying it doesn't add anything.
History: subsections added. I've changed the wording in the second paragraph to hopefully make the level of the Second Division clearer. I created a stub on the Revie Plan and linked it. Changed the word order to first ever European trophy winners to be relegated to English football's third tier, is that an improvement? The Premier League is already mentioned: City were founder members of the Premier League upon its creation in 1992.... Duplication of stadium details removed. I'll have to think a bit more about what to do with the last subsection.
Misc: I've moved the list of managers to a new article List of Manchester City F.C. managers, and only kept a couple of notable ones, in the syle of the players. The squad and date is now up to date, and the competitions have been linked to. Footnote explaining the division name changes added.
I think there's truth in the statement that City is the club of people form Manchester, but then I'm biased ;-). I'll look for a reasonably NPOV source, but I expect that most sources will be heavily biased one way or the other. Oldelpaso20:31, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
About the English third tier thing, maybe the sentence "when they became the first English winners of a European trophy to be relegated to the third tier of English(or national) football." The thing is to establish early in the sentence that it is only counting English clubs, not the rest of Europe, hope I'm not too nitpicky.. Come to think twice on the United vs. City thing, maybe I read it in Peter Schmeichel's biography - I'll check it when I get the chance (in couple of days). Poulsen20:52, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Intro is a bit too specific - should be more general rather than mentioning specific players etc., who should be in the History section.
Needs a bit of copyediting - a little too much use of the passive voice when the active would be better. I've done a quick one for style, will do another one in due course for grammar and wording.
More on the club's rivalry with Man United? I know Manchester derby exists but surely it warrants more than a single line in this article too.
No mention of Denis Law and his goal sending down United?
Having said that, history is just about nudging the limit for an article, so if you're going to add a significant amount I would suggest splitting it off.
Ballet on Ice - why was it called that?
Use "crest" (which is the logo in general) as opposed to "badge" (which is the logo when it appears on shirts).
After adding suggested parts to the History section I'll transfer it to History of Manchester City F.C. and figure out which bits to keep in the main article, no point delaying the inevitable. Expanding the bit about the coat of arms may require a trip to the library, I'll see if I can find anything. The Ballet on Ice would be best illustrated by a photo, but the chances of finding a copyright free one are close to nil. Oldelpaso21:29, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Intro:I'd expand this to three paragraphs and have some more on the club's history here. The "known for their loyalty and good humour bit" looks like it could do with a source, but then my bias on this subject is well known :-)
History: It looks better with the subsections, but if you're thinking of putting this onto FAC I'd merge the first two as the people on there like a good whinge about articles with too many subsections. You'll get similar complaints about the Colours and badge section as well, so if you can find a way to expand or merge it it might be worth doing so. The 1999-present section could be better: I don't see why a 9th place finish and an own goal against QPR need mentioning - there must be something more notable to write about? File:Yemen flag large.pngCTOAGN (talk) 05:15, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
re the last paragraph of the history section: I want to keep some mention of City's reputation for unpredictability and shooting themselves in the foot, but it doesn't fit easily in either the History or Supporters sections. Oldelpaso21:35, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
User:Oldelpaso, who responded to the American football peer review, has asked me to take a look at this article. I have to point out that when it comes to soccer articles, I don't have the perspective of a typical American. I understand phrases like "four points clear at the top of the table" because I lived in Europe and have read about European soccer on Wikipedia. However, that phrase would not make sense to most Americans. I don't think that's necessarily a problem, because this is not a "basic-level" article like American football should be. There is one Anglicism I might change, though: in the U.S., "silverware" means what you call "cultery." It looks a little funny to see it used to mean "trophies."
I think the article is pretty solid. I have touched up the grammar a bit. I would put the second sentence in the past simple tense. Also, the sentence that begins with "In the 1950s, a City team..." is grammatically confusing. On the plus side, I love the phrase "despite its melancholic theme is belted out with gusto as though it were a heroic anthem."
The last paragraph in the "1999 to present" section is probably misplaced, as it discusses pre-1999 events. I also agree that there should be more info on the rivalry with "Man U." I know, for example, that in Glasgow, soccer allegiances often correspond to religion. Do certain types of people support each of the Manchester teams?
Only two questions came to me in reading the article:
Are West Gorton and Ardwick in Manchester?
Why was Marsh a "crowd-pleaser" if he wasn't any good?
Qwghlm and CTOAGN - I've split the History to History of Manchester City F.C., I perhaps now need to condense it some more in the main article, and rewrite 1999-present. I've not found much to expand the colours and crest section yet, though I've not yet had the opportunity to go to the library.
Mwalcoff - I've made changes for all the points you raised. Oldelpaso20:43, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Several editors recommended that this page undergo a peer review before being considered as a featured article. Other than footnotes and links within the body text, there are likely other issues with this page that have escaped the attentions of the authors. McPhail14:48, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It is a good solid article. Suggestions for improvements include:
Shorten the intro sentence to something easier to read. For example, try splitting it into two sentences. The part mentioning where and when he was born is background info not necessary for the definition.
Do not rely on the gerweck.net as a reference, especially when more trustworthy sources say the same thing, like the slam.canoe.ca.
Let's just remove the word "every" (and "has" while you're at it) from the sentence "he has also wrestled for every major American promotion, including the..."
give a dollar figure for the "200 pesos" for us not familiar with how much that is. I'm not sure how to properly cite pesos - is it $200 MXN - for Canadian dollars it is CAD$200.
Work on the transitions in "Career", specifically for "AAA" to "WWF" (how/why did he switch?). Treat "Career" as a narrative of his career.
Consider creating a new section entitled "Early life" for his street gang/navy experiences. If possible, please reference his navy experience to an offical us.gov source as I am not entirely convinced of this piece of info.
Convert "Finishing and signature moves" and "Managers" to tables and integrate into the text, like Saffron#Chemistry. Also, add years of service to the Managers table
I'm not a big fan of lists of quotes. Consider removing them, especially if it is suggested at FAC.
Add years for "Championships and accomplishments"
What is the difference between "Championships and accomplishments" and "Championship succession"
Please peer review this article. It was nominated for FA but many users suggest it be peer reviewed before it is nominated for FA. So please peer review this article as it seems to have many problems. Thank you Street walker08:50, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comprehensiveness - 2, 4 (needs critical reception, major trim of non-major fact)
Sales - looks good
Pictures - 1, 2 (needs fair use rationales, more free pics would be nice)
Audio - 1, 2, 3, 4
References - 1, 4 (reference formatting, needs some kind of print/scholarly sources)
Discography - looks good
Format and style - 2, 3, 4 (songs in quotes, albums (and films) in italics, external links seem excessive, needs content under "Biography", copyedit/major trim)
Please this is sooo not ready for peer review yet ... i've got a massive (like a 75kb+ larger version) article revamp in the works currently. ALKIVAR™10:10, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I guess we can review this version... i can copy any improvements over to my version and relist for peer review once my integrated rewrite is done. ALKIVAR™22:03, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I created that article after breaking off from the Miami, Florida article and expanded it, added images, etc. I want to find out what else do it need to try to make it into a featured article. I know it need work with footnotes, something I don't really know what to do. What else should I expand this on before I try to nominate it for FA status. Thanks --Jarandawat's sup21:32, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I would suggest breaking it up more chronologically; I tried to add nineteenth century and edited some of the section headings. Before, they weren't in a proper hierarchal structure. Perhaps information can be found about the early history of Miami, perhaps even before the colonization by Native Americans (geological history)? I would also suggest delinking all years that don't have a date/ month attached with them per Wikipedia:Make_only_links_relevant_to_the_context#What_should_not_be_linked. The Image:N030791.jpg and Image:Miami PanAm Terminal 1944.jpg don't have the correct copyright tag, and Image:ZangaraMugshot.jpg would probably be best to use the tag {{mugshot}}. A couple of the other images have tags that should be updated but can be used. Many of the sections could benefit from being more thorough, especially towards more recent events that only have a cursory description. I would finally suggest correcting the lead, which should more be a summary of the history of Miami, not how the name came about (see History of New Jersey, History of Arizona, or History of Alaska). AndyZ18:31, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It would probably be best removed from this article, especially since the image is misplaced into the 1800s instead of the 1930. AndyZ20:37, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Can a caption be placed for the image of the button; otherwise readers (like me) won't understand the reason for the inclusion of the button. AndyZ20:52, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
In some places, the article also has to be made more thorough. Perhaps something about the geological history of Miami be added. The late 1900s and the Twenty-first century sections are lacking; what about the drug wars and Hurricane Andrew that are briefly mentioned and then nothing else is said? A couple of the numbers in the article should probably be cited; for example like: 600,000 men trained in South Florida, which in itself isn't very pertinent to the subject anyway. AndyZ21:10, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This article is about the poem that is used current by Mexico as their national anthem. This was a fairly decent article, but I added some things to it, added recordings, and trimmed the lyrics down. However, I do ask that before I sent this to FAC, if the following can be checked:
Accuracy of the article
Freely licensed photos of anything that will relate to this article, especially for the composer of the musics and lyrics
Copyright check for the sound files (three in total)
Alright. I've always been wondering if the story of Bocanegra and his girlfriend is actually true. It seems that the period of time he was locked up varies depending upon who's telling the story (I've personally heard accounts giving different times, such as one week). However I have to admit I don't know much else about that particular incident. Also, I'm quite certain the anthem as been shortened at least more than once. IIRC the official version changed during the Revolution and once more when the "Ley sobre el Escudo..." was published although the specifics elude me right now. In any case I'll see what I can do on the references department. I'll query some databases and see what comes up. Stay tuned! -- RuneWelsh | ταλκ21:29, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
In the Lyrics competition section. The first external link there is broken. Also, there shouldn't be any such links within the text, only footnotes. GfloresTalk18:35, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Not specifically my area of expertise but the article seems rather more glowing than I'd expect. Jackson has faced considerable criticism recently for Indian Removal and the spoils system, and even during his time over the National Bank, but those sections seem to spend single sentences on this aspect. A documentation of a more critical POV needs to be incorporated into the article as well. There's not much in the way of the "polarizing figure" that the intro promises. Also, wording like "the irate redcoat slashed" and "the ripe old age of" is much too coloquial and charged, and should be rooted out. The notes section should be moved to the bottom, above References. "Physical characteristics and health" should go nearer the top (bottom is couterintuitive) and be cleaned up; much of it appears trivial to me. The intro could stand for expansion, as well. Hope this is helpful Dmcdevit·t08:26, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
At first glance, it seems to me that this article is in great need of re-organization. The entire "Presidency" category seems to be a large lump of tidbits that need to be expanded upon (and some, like the bit about the 1824 election, also need to be re-categorized). I'd like to see more information on what Jackson did in terms of policy during his presidency, instead of a series of events. Perhaps the "Presidency" section should be split into a section for important events and a section for policies.
The "Physical Characteristics and Health" section should definitely be at the beginning of the article, not the bottom.
I think this article needs to be re-categorized desperately; after that happens, it shouldn't be too hard to see the gaps in the article. --DMurphy20:57, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I like the idea of splitting the page into "first term" and "second term," but right now there's no second term section. Also, the 1824 stuff should be in the section above the First Term section. And the article really does have some holes in it - nothing at all on the Petticoat Affair other than a link to it in the Later Life section, and also very little about The Hermitage. I'd like to see some info on his physical characteristics that's actually confirmed by another source too. --DMurphy14:39, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm refiling a peer review for this article. We started a sort of cleanup drive a few months ago in order to improve it, and the article has really come a long way. Many editors have done a lot of work on it. I'd like some response to how well the article shapes up, and what needs to be fixed (I'm already looking into the {{fact}} parts). Thanks. The ikiroid (talk·desk·Advise me) 22:25, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Remove the "For a treatment of the English language using the IPA..." paragraph from the lead. It's irrelevant to a general article on the International Phonetic Alphabet.
History section is too short. I think it should also adress a few of the most important revisions, for example the 1989 one. Also, the most recent addition (labiodental flap) could be mentioned (it is only alluded to in some footnotes).
I think this article would also need to cover the policy governing changes and additions to the IPA. It is my understanding that linguists can propose new symbols (on the basis of their own research), and that these proposals subsequently are voted on by the IPA Council. However, any details are unknown to me, and it would be nice if this article covered this procedure.
The section on Educational initiatives seems very vague to me. 'There is some interest' -- where? 'The rationales for such projects' -- it would be better to specifically name some of them. Also, there are some well-known projects based on rationales 1 and 2 (for example the UCLA Archive), but I would be curious to know a project based on the 3rd rationale given ('universal language acquisition').
The statement "The labiodental nasal [ɱ] is not known to exist as a phoneme in any language." is rightly marked with {{fact}}; in fact, I think Constance Kutsch-Lojenga has argued for its existence in some central African languages she worked on; I'll try to find a reference for that.
The section on "Unicode and tonal symbols" seems out of place to me. I would expect it in one of our articles on Unicode, but not in our most general article on the IPA. It's too specific.
In "Other phonetic notation" (shouldn't that be notations?), it might also be good to mention a few well-known historical phonetic alphabets, such as Lepsius' Standard Alphabet and Westermann's Africa Alphabet.
I must say don't really like the See also's for Dutch and English, especially because both currently are requested to be merged into their respective "X phonology" articles. Besides, why only these two languages?
Comments. I can't speak to the content, but the structure needs some improvement. Per WP:LEAD the lead should be 3-4 full paragraphs summarizing the most important facets of the topic. The prose overall is very choppy. Part of this is from the short paragraphs that should either be expanded into a full idea, merged with related material, or removed. Some of the problem is also from having so many lists. Convert lists and bullet points to prose wherever possible — I don't really see any that couldn't be done, the charts already summarize the material that isn't ideal to be in prose. - TaxmanTalk14:49, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
User:Ikiroid had asked me for more detail on what the lead should cover, and I'm not sure I can help more specifically. That would have to be handled by those that know the subject well to prioritize what's most important to cover and to summarize the article. The current lead does seem to do that pretty well to me at least. The biggest thing left I can see, as I mentioned above is the flow of the prose throughout the article needs to be improved. - TaxmanTalk03:55, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
One thing I think should be added to the lead is a sentence or two on the history, since the lead should function as a short summary of the article per WP:LEAD. — mark✎13:40, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program, and might not be applicable for the article in question.
Per WP:CONTEXT and WP:MOSDATE, 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.
Per WP:MOSNUM, when doing conversions, please use standard abbreviations: for example, miles -> mi, kilometers squared -> km2, and pounds -> lb.
Please reorder/rename the last few sections to follow guidelines at WP:GTL.
Per WP:WIAFA, this article's table of contents (ToC) maybe too long- consider shrinking it down by merging short sections or using a proper system of daughter pages as per WP:SS.[2]
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.
There are a few occurrences of weasel words in this article- please observe WP:AWT. Certain phrases should specify exactly who supports, considers, believes, etc., such a view. For example,
it has been
correctly
might be weasel words, and should be provided with proper citations (if they already do, or are not weasel terms, please strike this comment).[3]
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 inbetween. 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.
This has come on quite well in the 7 months since the last peer review and my last edit. What do you think - should I take it to FAC? The usual "inline reference" merchants will have a field day, I suppose: anything else? -- ALoan(Talk)13:11, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Some comments and questions. Overall a good article. I realize that not every point can be address or expanded, some of these topics may be out of scope or require data that simply does not exist. Wendell19:44, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Requests for article clarity:
The Grand Cross was actually instituted in 1813 along with the Iron Cross, this needs to be addressed.
Suggest article cleary state if this award is only for the Army or could be awarded to Navy / Air force personel? Some WWII examples show the higher classes award to all branches of the Military. Was this always true? Only for higher classes? The article says the 1813, 1870, and 1914 series had a Grand Cross was intended for senior Generals of the German Army which confuses the issue. Also, the article says Iron Cross was also used as the symbol of the German Army
Can the article clarify the exact criteria to receive the iron cross? Has it changed over time? The WWII section says awarded for bravery in battle as well as other military contributions to a battlefield environment. Does that apply to all the years of its use? The noncombatant version and War Merit Cros also confuse the issue. Could staff officers win the award with excellent planning?
The lead paragraph discusses no military decoration to honor or bravery has been issued since 1945; which partially addresses the award criteria in a reverse manner.
Is there signifance to its very simple design, unadorned, and is made from relatively cheap and common materials.'? Strictly as a guess, was that all that was possible in 1813, but it started a tradition?
Could German non-Prussians receive the award in the 1813, 1870 and 1914 series?
Any information on how the 1813, 1870 and 1914 series were worn?
From the article, Following the end of the Second World War, the government of West Germany permitted its military veterans to wear it, although German law prohibits the wearing of an Iron Cross with a swastika. In 1957 the German government issued new Iron Crosses to World War II veterans, altered to display an Oak Leaf Cluster (similar to the Iron Crosses of 1813, 1870 and 1914) in place of the swastika. I gather all WWII Iron Crosses had the swastika , so I assume between 1945 and 1957, no one could wear or display their award. I am missing something?
Just a suggestion, I do not know if it would work. Consolidate the discussion and list of famous award holders. This section could also be expanded to counter balance the Hilter and Goering examples, with more typical examples (panzer aces, etc).
To clarify the statements that apply to all awards of the series, I suggest a Traditions section. This section could contain (if appriopiate):
Award criteria requested above
Historical connection between German Military and crosses already in the article (Teutonic Knights, Frederick the Great, etc).
The section on Entitlements
The discussion of Iron Cross as a symbol of the German Army (with some exceptions)
The simple design aspect
Potential topics for a Featured Article:
How were the awardees selected? Nominated by commander? Nominated for a single specific action, or what? Decided by who or what?
Could it be award posthumously? Was this common?
In WWII, could SS personal receive the award? What about Waffen-SS ?
Does any information exist on the number awarded in the 1813 or 1870 series?
Five million were issued in WWI. What percentage of the Military got one? Was it a common award?
In WWII, 2.6 million were issued. Why the decrease? I assume WWII had more people in the Military, so the percentage award dropped. Any signifiance?
Any stats on the number of living recieptants in 1945? How many replacement awards were issued to living veterns in 1957?
What is the post war tradition of the award?
In Germany, is it legal to buy, sell, wear or display the award by someone not the awardee? Are un-official replica's common?
There were at least 7 million manufactured for WWI and WWII. Is there a collectors market? In general, did allied soliders treat them as trophies (horrible but sometimes common in war) and bring captured ones back to their homeland?
Any common traditions: awardee buried with the medal? passed down from father to son?
Article expansion suggestions:
The 1813, 1870, and 1914 series had 2 common grades, and the Grand Cross of the Iron Cross. The WW2 series had 2 common grades and many advanced grades. Any significance worth discussing (besides vanity)?
Any year-by-year information exist for the numbers awarded in WWI and WWII? Could any trends be established? Was it more awarded when Germany was winning or on the offensive?
Any East front vs West front award numbers available (for either WWI or WWII)?
Any famous (or infamous) units have unusually high percentage awarded?
I assume the Iron Cross was only issued for the wars specifically listed. What about other colonial actions that might have occurred in the 1880s thru WWI? Why not authorized?
Dunno, seems a bit overkill, all that. If the article becomes that extensive, some of it should be broken into separate articles, no? Guapovia16:31, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hi again! :-) Very nice article. I don't think it needs copyediting; at least I didn't stumble upon anything; it reads smoothly. Some people will probably mention a lack of inline references; maybe you could add a few, especially in the "environmental problems" section (the Bellona criticism seems to link with the "Buch Cato" reference (is that the author's name?), and the last sentence to the Gwynn et. al. reference). The "Geography" section could be renamed to "Geography and climate" since half of it is about the climate... Other than that, my only gripe is that there are too many images! I would suggest creating a page commons:Bjørnøya containing a gallery of all the images (including those that are not shown in the article), put a {{Commons}} template in the external links section, and use less images from "Geography" onwards. Really a pity that no:Bilde:Bjornoya2.jpg appears to have a "non-commercial only" license... (well, I don't really understand Norwegian, but that's what I gather from that text). If we could get a GFDL release of that or an equivalent map, it would make an ideal head image for that "Geography" section. I just noticed that you had linked a map in "External links". That map seems to be from here. They state there that "the maps may be used as a source of information, or they can be re-used in publications, web pages or presentations." I suggest you contact Stein Tronstad and try to clarify whether we may use this map under a free license (GFDL, Copyrighted free use, PD, or some such). I think we might have a fair chance that they indeed agree to this, maybe even for other of their maps. Lupo10:54, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Forgot two minor points on Image:Bjornoya map.png: can you remove the black border (it somehow reminds me of an obituary notice), and how about coloring the island in red? At thumbnail size, the island is all but invisible to me. Although the text is still readable, I had to actually visit the image description page to see where the island was. Lupo11:02, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the feedback.
Inline references: I would prefer not to. I am a little annoyed about that obsession with inline references that dominates FAC nowadays. That type of references is a scientific practice which I don't enjoy seeing here, because it suggests a credibility that many of our sources simply don't have. But if that request comes up on FAC, well then I'll stick them in to please the critics.
Images: have removed a number of them. Would move them all to commons if I knew how to do it. (Anybody?)
Section header: thanks for the suggestion, have renamed it
Map: will try to contact them and get a permission
Location map: that's already the third version now. Problem is, it's a small island with lots of water around it, so necessarily the island will be a little difficult ot locate.
Images: try to alternate between left and right justified images, IE (medium text size, 1024x768 screen resolution) leaves a big white space after the "History" heading because there are two images in a row.
One-sentence paragraph: "The polar night..." sentence just sounds like a piece of trivia thrown into some otherwise well-written prose. Try finding a place for it in an existing paragraph or maybe expand (ie. timezone, etc.). Other possible topics for this section can include type of rock, location & composition of mines/minerals.
One-paragraph sections: "Flora and fauna" can be expanded to two paragraphs (one for animals, one vegetation), bring back a image of the flowers (the article could use something other than a drab, gray image of rocks), consider merging "Environmental problems" and "Flora and fauna" and re-naming "Ecology and environment" (without sub-headings).
Trivia: "Miscellaneous" may need to be integrated in the article to qualify for "brilliant prose".
This article has improved a lot in the last month, most notably with the inclusion of a lot of relevant images, very detailed references for almost all the facts quoted, and standard sections as per country pages. The language has also been NPOVized to a great extent. So, I think we can move this into FAC, but before that, I'd like to hear other people's opninions in avenues for improvement. Thanks. --Ragib05:22, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The only remaining point, IMO, is reducing size from 49kb to lower 40s, which is a reasonable figure for articles on nations. Rama's Arrow 05:28, 13 March 2006 (UTC) -> Done , size now 46KB, which should be ok --Ragib03:16, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
With all respect, given the high level of referencing in this article, this advice is rather arbitrary and/or infeasible — as long as the article stays on topic and summary style is used, arbitrary length cutoffs shouldn't matter (FAC objections based on such cutoffs have been repeatedly over-ruled by the FAC Director — see Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Chetwynd, British Columbia for just one great example). Also, note that this article is 37kb when only the "References" and "External links" sections are cut out — this is much less than the 44kb Australia. Saravask23:47, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Also, please check that there is no glaring difference between the account of the Bangladesh Liberation War/genocide in the Pakistan article and this one - Pakistan is also prepping for FAC. Rama's Arrow 05:42, 13 March 2006 (UTC) ->Actually, Pakistan's page describes it in one sentence in the history section and the text in this article is just an elaboration. Since Bangladeshi history starts at this point, an elaborated treatment of the war in a whole paragraph is needed, and done here in a crisp, brief manner.--Ragib03:16, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The name of Bangladesh in the Bengali script sounds like bangladashe(the Bengali script is a perpetual problem). Also, the map in the infobox is not correct.The green patch depicting Bangladesh in the infobox map appears to have skewed to the left.
The portion where the highest point in Bangladesh is described (in Geography and Climate section) appears somewhat confusing, it takes time to make out what the writer is trying to say.--Dwaipayanc05:51, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The Bangla script problem is actually a client side issue ... it happens with all indic scripts. Actually, this is correctly rendered in a unicode enabled browser. I assume that you are looking into it from Firefox/XP. In any case, to view unicode Bangla text correctly, that indic text support needs to be enabled in Windows XP. The text renders correctly in IE, and also Linux/Firefox and other browsers.
I agree that the highest point is debated. Keokeradong was always thought to be so, but a satellite survey about 2 years ago showed that's not correct. But whatever that is, I agree that the text should reflect that clearly. Thanks for the observation. --Ragib06:09, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I agree abt the genocide part, there is need to be careful there. Also, a previous review mentioned the lack of attention given to Ershad, which still remains a problem.--ppm05:59, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The cultural section needs a lot of work. Some of the prose is South Asian English, not English English, and some of the sentences are clumsy. Frex, "Contemporary Bangladesh keeps producing a substantial amount of litearture of all forms." That makes literature sound like the jute harvest. It would be better to say something about the number of newspapers, magazines, and books published, literacy, readership, and perhaps to mention the names of some well-known contemporary writers. Is there an article on Bengali literature?
The history section contains a lurid sentence which runs something like "Rape of Bangladesh was one of the worst genoicides in history, as bad as the genoicide in Cambodia" and there's a link to an emotional website. It was horrible, inexcusable, vile ... I hadn't realized that it was so terrible ... and I shudder to think that the perpetrators are still living at their ease. Still, it wasn't as bad as Cambodia, where Pol Pot managed to kill 25% of the population. The West Pakistanis didn't manage that in Bangladesh. Now perhaps "bad" is measured by population numbers, but that's a clumsy scale to use ... wiping out 100% of an Amazon tribe of 1000 people would seem "less bad" than killing 2000 people out of a population of 10,000,000. Perhaps you should leave out the judgements about more or less bad and just present the facts ... that's horrifying enough.
There is an article on Bangla literature, which last time I checked was a copy of the relevant portion in the entry Bangla. In general, increasing culture makes the article longer, specially when we are already missing art and architecture there. Maybe we should shorten history?--ppm06:10, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The article needs to be written in summary form and you would need to trim about ~5 kb of content.
Article needs a copyedit (->Does it still need it? we've tried to go through every error, so how is it now?--Ragib03:16, 6 April 2006 (UTC))[reply]
Please don't compare the country with another (Greece). It needs to be a summary of the article. (Done--Ragib03:16, 6 April 2006 (UTC))[reply]
At the bottom of the article is a table on Holidays which virtually replicates the page on Public holidays in Bangladesh. One of the two tables should be removed - probably the one on the main article - and the information merged into the last paragraph of the Culture section which mentions Eid. Green Giant 06:58, 13 March 2006 (UTC) (Done--Ragib03:16, 6 April 2006 (UTC))[reply]
Just something I noticed right away were three links in the middle of the history section that need to be converted into references or something. Looking at the page in the printable version makes the section look ugly with the URLs present in the paragraph as opposed to at the bottom like the references. Pepsidrinka04:11, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for pointing that out, I've changed them to refs/notes format. I couldn't notice them in the normal view ... the printable view suggestion is great indeed. Thanks. --Ragib08:07, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Another thing about the references; try keeping a consistent pattern with regards to the punctuation. I don't know if there is correct format, but have the references preceding the punctuations (e.g., commas and periods) or have them after them. Right now, some of the references come after a period and others come before a comma, it just looks un-professional. Pepsidrinka04:20, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Nice article. Good amount of content. Two quick points now, I'll add more later.
The article needs a copyedit to bring a better tone and style. For example, the second paragraph in the lead, just uses the words "east" and "west" to refer to East Pakistan and West Pakistan respectively. It has phrases like "ruled by the west" that need clarification. (Done--Ragib03:16, 6 April 2006 (UTC))[reply]
A page representing the highest wiki-tradition, a truly encyclopedic page, The page has all the ingredients to migrate to the status of a featured page. It is really heartening to note that as of now the page has no redlinks, as such the user shall have the luxury to dig deep into the contents covered in this page. I am re- reading the page very carefully, and shall surely come back with more comments, if required. --Bhadani08:05, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The only red link in Bangladesh now in Khanjan.I don't know what is that. Please try to make it blue! And as you guys have already discussed in the Bangladesh talk page, the article would be splendid with some more photos, especially on the cultural aspect. A photo of a rice field with farmers is so much representative of our mental picture of gram bangla (the rural Bengal). Have you thought about adding something on Transport/ communication in Bangladesh? The picture of that long bridge over Jamuna will be excellent.Bye.--Dwaipayanc19:29, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I think the "Education" section should stay. Also, given the quality of this article right now, it should be put up at FAC immediately, so that more critique would be available. Other than that, minor issues: "$" should be converted to "USD" or "US$", non-breaking spaces ( ) and – need to be used consistently. This looks great — good luck. Saravask23:47, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Absolutely agree with Saravask. Bangladesh should be put up at FAC ASAP.The article is great. If you see this FA you will see so many red links and a lack of photos.Compared to that and other FA like This Charming Man, Bangladesh is already superior, though potentially more controversial especially in the history section.Putting up for FAC will attract more critique than this peer review and faults, if any, can be mended quickly. Please go for FAC. Bye.--Dwaipayanc09:07, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Everything looks good except the subdivisions section. The problem is the main article links break up the prose and make for very short, choppy sentences. Consider merging that section with politics too. - TaxmanTalk21:29, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
How is the article right now? I've commented in bold replies to most of the points raised above, so please take a look and let me know. Thanks. --Ragib03:16, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Looks great. You have my vote at the FAC. It could help with a mild copyedit. I'll try doing some if I find time. On random inspection, I found two things that need fixing.
I added a reference for this statement. It's not widely disputed anyway (as opossed to numbers killed), numbers vary only from 8-10 million--ppm03:21, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Also, I'd like to see something about the disputes over illegal immigration from Bangladesh into India in the article - there are large numbers of Bangladeshis in India, legal and illegal, and also many going to Pakistan. Rama's Arrow19:37, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, but the article India does not have anything on this issue. If it's not an important enough topic in the India article, why is it crucial here?--ppm02:15, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If there are an estimated 10 - 15 million Bangladeshis in India as a result of systematic illegal immigration, obviously its something relevant and important to Bangladesh. India has some lines on its expatriate community, but the illegal immigration problem from Bangladesh is not characteristic to India (while it is to Bangladesh, as these people are its citizens). Please note that 15 million would make roughly 10% of the present population, so I think you can't really ignore this. Rama's Arrow15:43, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'll see if I can find a reference. In any case, we must be careful not to depict other South Asian countries in India's terms.--ppm03:56, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
okay i added a sentence in demographics covering this, along with more important immigration/refugee problems that concern Bangladesh--ppm22:46, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've made some major edits to the page including copyediting. A few red links are introduced, it should be made blue, 1 citation needed, and the highest point mentioned. I've removed the =Education= section as per the Wikiproject countries which does not list it. I've also merged =sports= under culture and pruned away victories over Pakistan etc. The only thing remaining is the =History= section. Up till this point in 1966, its president Sheikh Mujibur Rahman was jailed and in 1969 was released after unprecedented popular uprising. the section is well summarised, but after that it becomes too detailed. Regards, =Nichalp«Talk»= 13:06, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
(citation and highest point provided--ppm05:54, 10 April 2006 (UTC))[reply]
The first map, which was previously quite deformed as Dwaipayanc noted, is now fixed. I think (unfortunately, in a somewhat biased way) that this is now ready for FAC. One particularly good thing about this article is that it's throughly fact-checked and footnotes are used extensively. Sheehan (Talk) 08:46, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
A controversial subject related to Scientology. Following a recent rewrite, the article is looking much healthier and much better referenced, with 80 footnotes (!). I'd like to get it up to Featured Article status in due course. It would be very helpful if anyone could take a look and see whether there are any issues that need to be addressed. -- ChrisO23:55, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It looks pretty good to me; thorough and reasonably balanced. But I was a little unpleasantly surprised to see Campbell, Williamson and Van Vogt mixed up with that stuff. — RJH23:44, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This article is really detailed for such an obscure topic. I haven't contributed to the article at all, at least content-wise. I just happened to stumble upon it wandering through the Wikipedia. It has references, pictures with acceptable copyright status, and all the requirements to be a Featured Article, with one problem- the article's main (and probably sole) editor, appears to be a German speaker, and therefore the article needs a thorough copy-edit and grammar check, which I unfortunately do not have time to do myself. I am fairly fluent in German, so I can finish translating the picture description pages, which are left in untranslated German, but the English grammar copy-edit is beyond the slim time I have available. Please help! This is an awesome article and could realistically be an FA within a month. RyanGerbil1022:55, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Not to bad, I enjoyed reading the article. One thing I did notice though: Image:Finnmark coa.png has no source information. This concerns me because it is listed as copyrighted. Unless a source for the image can be provided the picture will end up deleted sooner or later, and may prevent the article from acheiving featured status. TomStar8105:52, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
As it turns out, the coat of arms did have acceptable copyright status, the picture was simply using an outdated copyright tag. I have updated to copyright tag to one of acceptable legal status. RyanGerbil1003:34, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've been working on expanding this article for the past week or so, and would like comments on it. I'm thinking of nominating it as a FAC sometime in the future. Scott511419:12, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If you are thinking about nominating if for FAC, then the following at least should be done:
Expansion of lead
Expansion of history: has anything else significant happened at the turnpike?
Use inline citations to cite the distances used
Provide some of the km #s for some of the mile #s (this is done for most, but is missing for some)
I would suggest changing external link to external links even though there is only 1; but it is just a matter of preference for now
The primary problem the article would face with an FAC nomination at this time is questions about the completeness. This is admittedly a subjective measure but the article currently looks to be somewhat skimpy. Some things that that could be added to the article to help are the posted speed limits on the turnpike, where are rest spots located, and do they provide any types of facilities (restrooms, gas stations, ...). What type of construction wass used on the Turnpike (Is is an asphalt surface or concrete)? Are there any points of interest such as historical markers or turnouts with scenic views along the turnpike? The article should also provide some information on the Kansas Turnpike Authority such as the number of employees, is it part of the state government or a seperate entity, and the names of senior executives. Good luck on your efforts to bring this up to Featured Article status. --Allen3talk23:43, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
As pointed out above, the article can be more comprehensive. In addition to the suggestions above I would like to add these potential aspects:
maps (this is possibly the way to describe a road - the location map in Kansas is a good start but it needs a legend and a north arrow).
For the "History" section, who built it in 22 months? private sector? Who paid for it? feds, state, or private money?
For "Tolls", how do they know how far each car has driven?
Also, the "Exit list" table is rather large, it might be best to put that last so the sections that follow do not get missed. --maclean2519:44, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This is on PR for an unprecedented 3rd time (1 | 2). Since the last PR, it has undergone substantial change, not in the content, but in the style of writing and summary. Please give your comments on how it can be imrpoved. --May the Force be with you! Shreshth91(review me!)15:36, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The most glaring thing I see is that the whole section "Critical analysis" has no citation at all except a silly one to the Jessica Lal case. Unless you cite it, it is incredibly POV. In general, I see a dearth of citations. You have obviously taken the effort to get all this stuff from somewhere. Why not cite the source? — Ravikiran17:32, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You wouldn't say there was a dearth of citations on the rest of the page now would you? I'll be look ing into the critical analysis section soon.--May the Force be with you! Shreshth91(review me!)15:42, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This is the second Adelaide suburb to be edited to such a standard. Help would be appreciated through copyediting, link suggestion and general feedback. Examples of earlier suburb featured articles: Waterfall Gully, South Australia (nominated and worked on by myself) and Yarralumla, Australian Capital Territory.
Brilliant as always. I can't fault the individual sections at all, but it seems like there's something small missing compared to Waterfall Gully. I think it's that - were it not for the "residents" section, one could almost be mistaken for thinking there were no residents in Mount Osmond. I think where Waterfall Gully explained quite well what the community was like, Mount Osmond seems in a way to be, whilst explaining everything else beautifully, missing the people somehow. Am I making any sense? Ambi13:13, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'll go for a walk tomorrow and take some photos of some Mount Osmond homes and find a way to fit them into the article - the community is just like the rest of Burnside: secluded, conservative and wealthy (similar to Norfolk Island in being an 'isolated self-governing state within a state' as one Adelaide columist put it last weekend). - Gt13:56, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It's that vibe which you got across really well in Waterfall Gully, but which just isn't quite there here. I'm not sure quite how you'd go about it, but I'm sure you'll come up with something - you usually do. Ambi20:02, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have been active in writing articles on towns, too. Here are links to my two FACs to draw lessons from: Dawson Creek and Chetwynd. I got "reminded" there to put info on schools and media into the article. I've also got dinged for not using enough maps (I find locational/red-dot maps and street network maps to be the most useful). In addition, the election boxes could be expanded (they currently only show the booth percentages for that area, how about relating it to the electoral district? number of voters? voter turnout rate?) Most importantly the box requires a year - don't assume the reader knows which election it is referring to that they know what year the last election was in (and, no, many readers will not read the text but only glance at the colourful box). I noticed there is no mention of a local government (outside the infobox). Isn't there a mayor and council that govern/administer the area? A simple telephone call to the government office can answer where the drinking water comes from and where the sewage goes. --maclean2519:04, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There are no schools in the suburb, the City of Burnside is mentioned twice as the Local Government Area (both in the infobox and the introduction). The suburb itself has no representation apart from the Burnside Council. It really is quite small. I did correct the politics section though, to show which election year. - Gt01:09, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ambi, would you mind taking another look? I've swapped around some stuff/added some new images... I think all she really needs now is a copyedit/map. - Gt02:03, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The suburbs that surround it only need to be in the table and not in the intro as well. It looks good otherwise. Maybe the picture in the table could be tweaked a little as well and a street/reserves map would be good (altough hard to find). ...maelgwntalk01:28, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thankyou for the comments! I was looking into a map but have little experience/knowledge in dealing with vector imaage programs (to create one). If someone else wishes to, that'd be great. michaeltalk11:50, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm rather fond of this article about an interesting figure in Indonesian anti-colonial history. I'll be interested in suggestions - any parts that need more (or less) context in order to be understandable? Suggestions for improving the prose? Thanks! CDC(talk)23:44, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It is a good article. Some potential points of improvement could include:
making the narrative details more balanced in terms of level of detail. Many of the early sections are very broad in scope while some of the middle sections give details of the subject's experiences.
A couple more images would be nice.
More context of his autobiography would be good, like how it has been interpreted and used by scholars or how long it took him to write.
"the death toll from sickness and starvation was very high." might need a reference.
To make the headings parallel switch "From Jail to Jail" to "Autobiography"...so it goes "Biography", "Political beliefs", "Autobiography" . --maclean2522:07, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your suggestions! They're much appreciated, especially the note about the uneven levels of detail; a similar thing had occurred to me, so if someone else noticed it, maybe I should fix that.. Images are tough - there's just not much out there. I've been considering a map giving an overview of the key locations of his life, as a way of illustrating his wanderings. CDC(talk)23:09, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Kemps should be nominated because of the great card game it is! Seriously, i have a load of info and edited the page. I've checked it over myself for mistakes. Albeit the work done to it i think there may be a few kinks to sort out. Kemps is a forgotten card game and i think a good way to 'renew' its existance would be to feature it on wikipedia's main page.
Nominaladversary22:28, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The article is too short. Most of the page is taken up by the massive table. The title of the article is spelled wrong...:-P. It could do with a strong input by other.Nominaladversary22:37, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Big table. Look at it with different screen resolutions and browser text sizes. It does not fit on the screen in some settings (including mine). Width must be set to 100% or <600px. Also, expand the intro to discuss what being a pancontinental organisation means to a political party. What is the point of being pancontinental? Advantages/disadvantages? Also, references are a requirement for featured status. Perhaps a simple link to each party's website will be adequate. If the references get too long try formatting it as a paralell list like Kerala#References. --maclean2510:22, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This is very informative, but the table is just way too large. I would suggest this data needs to be broken down by region, and displayed in a series of tables with countries along the top side and the pancontinental organizations running on the left side.--Pharos13:05, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That breaks the left-right effect, and eliminates the ability of someone to quickly scan to see what the "equivalent" party is between country x and country y The Tom16:27, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It might not be quite ready. The lead section seems a little too short. For FA standards it needs to be a really good overview of Welsh. I'm sure more can be said about the status of Welsh, and perhaps different sub-sections about laws and usage could be made. Although the original author must have thought the language's status is important, it might be better to move this section down the page, so that we get to grips with the language itself first. The history and development section seems way too short to do justice to Welsh. You may want separate paragraphs, even sub-sections, for each stage of the language, and fully outline the literature and setting of the language in each period. A timeline would be a great addition to this section (I added something similar to Aramaic). Otherwise, da iawn! --Gareth Hughes17:13, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It's good. It'll need references before being ready to become featured though. I also think a section on the use of welsh in culture would be good. I know Super Furry Animals had an (international) hit with Mwng which was all Welsh. What literature is written in Welsh? Other things like that. The history section is a bit short. In addition to what Gareth said it could also cover the history of the use of Welsh as well as its development - when did it become an official language of Wales and so on. The later section on education could also possibly be merged into the history. Pob lwc (I hope that means what I think it means...) --Cherryblossomtree16:55, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I actually like the numeral table very much, but if it could be condensed and floated, it'd be much better IMHO. At worst, it could be split. Circeus21:37, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Generally informative, but the numerals table, for example, might as well be removed since it's already explained in prose (including the phonological notes). The "Welsh in..."-sections are also questionable. More prose, fewer lists and ditch the trivia, to put it simply. / PeterIsotalo16:13, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm a nitpicker of the highest order:
Lead should be two or three kinda meaty paragraphs long. Potential paper versions of Wikipedia will probably contain only leads, so it should be a standalone summary. See Wikipedia:Lead for guidelines.
Status
I'm with Gareth here: putting at least the history section before the current status would make more sense.
Paragraphs at the start of this section are short and choppy.
The "Welsh is very much a living language." sentence is misplaced; it should go before the stuff about how many speak it as a first language.
This section jumps around between where it is used and how advocacy and government policy has affected usage. I'd group everything together by those two topics to make it more coherent.
Pictures should be rearranged: having pictures on both the right and left nearby can lead to bad formatting for lower resolution users. Also, the way it pushes the "History" section heading over is kinda unattractive.
History
I'd list the periods in the first paragraph before going into detail on them. Either that or section the periods off and expand each.
Avoid using links as a way to avoid defining something that's perhaps obscure to the reader. For instance, "...used by the famous Welsh poet Dafydd ap Gwilym" is preferable to just "...used by Dafydd ap Gwilym."
Somewhere a link would be helpful is for the "non-conformist churches". I'm a German American, so I'm totally ignorant about this.
External links - You have enough to break them up thematically
References will be a must for FA, and I'm with Cherry blossom tree that Welsh in popular culture would be a good addition so long as it's more than just a list. Well, I promised nitpicking, and hopefully I delivered. — Laura Scudder☎23:42, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Is this a generic name for an object, or is it a product produced by a specific company? If the latter, this needs to be made clear, and it will need to cite some outside sources, not produced by that company, that discuss the product. CDC(talk)23:24, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It is the name for a specific product. I am searching for outside sources from the Departments of Transportations that are using this unit currently. Once I have found this information, I will edit the article and post to this page. Would it be best to internally cite the documents, or is it sufficient to attach them in the links? I have edited the article to (hopefully) resolve the first issue mentioned. Please let me know if there's more that needs to be done to resolve the ambiguity. JaKaL!14:14, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That helps, thanks. On sources: If this is a notable product, it has probably been reviewed in a trade publication read by traffic managers or engineers. A large academic or public library would have such a thing. Cite reviews specifically, if they say anything interesting. This is critical; without this kind of external review, the article reads like the datasheet or technical marketing materials produced by the product's maker. On that note, the bulleted points in the Performance and Power Supply sections probably aren't necessary; a few key points from them could be included in paragraph form, but I don't think it's necessary to say what kind of batteries this thing uses.
To be honest, in my opinion the most useful way to cover this topic for our readers would be to include it as part of a larger discussion of this type of traffic counter, or traffic counters in general. There are probably other similar devices, with only relatively small technical variations. I notice that traffic counter is a red link right now. CDC(talk)18:10, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
To make the article more encyclopedic, tell the reader about its origins (when/why/where it was developed), and more about the data output (screenshot of results graphs, what have the results used for - in real life, not theory). Also, CDC makes some excellent suggestions above. It appears the article was written from info obtained from the external links listed in the article, in which case those are "References". "External links" simply list further suggested readings. --maclean2520:32, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This is an article for a little-known disorder that until the Internet came along, it was difficult to even find information about. I'm concerned about proper referencing and linking to sources, and the overrall organizational layout of the article. I've tried to cover all areas thoroughly, and to check spelling and grammar, but would appreciate a review of the writing in general. MamaGeek Joy19:27, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Articles should be change to References. I think the External links (if you used them) should be merged into the references also if used. AndyZ01:30, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Just looking at it quickly, I would love to see the list of "Underlying Causes of Hypotonia" to be divided into to type: Bacterial infections, viral infections, congenital diseases, neurological disorders, etc. Also, all the subheds should be in sentence case (Swift Brown Fox >> Swift brown fox). Good luck! jengod04:07, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I find the writing to be very good. I, a non-expert, was able to understand it. Some specific comments:
To take the referencing to the next level incorporate footnotes into the article using this system: m:Cite/Cite.php (see Chetwynd, British Columbia as an example of how this system works.
The footnotes should remove the external links used in the article body.
In the headings only capitalize the first word (for example "Developmental Delay" → "Developmental delay".
I agree with you that the article needs lots of help. At first glance, it reads like it was written by people not very clear about the difference between a disease and a clinical manifestation or presenting complaint, nor easily able to distinguish hypotonia itself from other frequently associated neurological problems. There are a few glaring problems:
In several paragraphs, beginning with the paragraph below the TOC, it looks like hypertonic is mistakenly used for hypotonic. I gave up editing in this paragraph because I got less and less confident that I understood the intended points, and it began to seem in need of more than just honing the precision of the words.
There is a section in which it is claimed that strength and tone should be clearly distinguished, though in other parts of the article it is implied that especially in infantile hypotonia the two aspects of function are often indistinguishable or lumped together for clinical purposes as "hypotonia". To the extent that "the floppy baby" is a common vivid synonym for unsolved infantile hypotonia, it contradicts the claims of the other paragraphs.
The irritating misuse of symptom for objective manifestation occurs throughout the article.
Still plenty of typos and basic spelling and usage errors.
You might post a request for content help among the editors who would consider this an ordinary and well-known topic with an extensive knowledge base and research literature going back a century (rather than a "little-known disorder until the internet"-- this surprised me-- whole books on the topic were written before the internet was imagined). I tried to clear up some confusions in the early paragraphs but we have a number of editors with real neurological expertise at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Clinical_medicine. alteripse19:14, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, I am requesting WP:PR for this article not so much in an attempt for FAC, but because I feel it needs more focused NPOV input both from those within and without the topic area (scientific theory and experimentation, especially on controversial subjects). The article seems to be in a stable (though abrogated) state for now, but earnest disputes continue. - Keith D. Tyler¶18:43, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes it is quite short. Her biographical background is quite terse; there is nothing about her family or background influences she might have had that led her to this practice. I think that by presenting both points of view, the debate concerning her test could be expanded without damaging the neutrality. Is she still continuing her readings while attending the university? Thanks. — RJH16:00, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I currently find it neutral. However, the article can be significantly expanded and as that happens POVs will emerge. Here are two other csicop articles [4] and [5] to help that expansion out. --maclean2508:56, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Fremantle Prison is a world heritage site with an extensive and interesting history. The article has been edited by a prison tour guide currently employed at the prison and has benefited by the many great facts and images donated by this Wikipedia editor with lots of personal knowledge of the site. Many other editors have also contributed their knowledge to bring this article to where it stands today. Any feedback on how we may improve this article in an attempt to gain featured status is welcome. -- Longhair08:17, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I am glad a tour guide helped with this. First-hand knowledge of a subject really adds a special level of understanding that you just cannot get from reading books. Here are some specific comments:
I would like to know more about its origin.
what does "transportation ceased" mean? Does this refer to the transferring of prisoners from Britain to Fremantle?
"The water was of very good quality..." is an opinion so it needs a reference.
Avoid empty sections like "History" and "Prison operation".
A floor layout plan would be nice.
The "1900s" and "Prison art" are weak, they could use some discussion/details.
This article has come a long way since I first got at it and I feel that I've worked on it to the point where need help seeing its faults and how it can be improved. I would like this to eventually become Featured. A few more pictures would be nice. ==Impact== is not yet satisfactory either. Should there be a list of photographs taken by him? POV is also a concern. How does it read? The article's just not getting enough traffic (what else should link to it?). This needs more eyes. -- Rmrfstar00:36, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This is a self-nomination. About two weeks ago, a newbie to Wikipedia nominated this for featured article prior to any peer reviews, references, etc., and the article rightly failed. (A bit of that discussion can be found here [[8]]). As Collins is my favorite singer, I didn't like having that fail mark appear at the top of the talk page and spent the weekend fixing it up, listening to the suggestions made during the original nomination, adding references and deleting questionable material. As such, I would like to submit it for peer review.
The original article had no references and over half the page was a long list of albums, band members, etc. (See here [[9]] for the article at time of the original nomination). Now that it is clean and referenced, I would appreciate any suggestions on how to improve the article further. As well, I would like another pair of eyes to review it for any spelling/grammar mistakes as well as to ensure NPOV.
I also enjoy Phil Collins. I like what you;ve done to the article--its really an article now. When i first viewed the page the picture was surprising. I think that the info on the page could be ordered differently, like start out with Child Hood, which you did, but then put all of his music career in one place, rather than jumping around. I think that it should be cleaned up a bit, its filled with a bunch of paragraphs. Furtheremore, there is a gap between his childhood and music career, might wanna fill it in. Other than that great job on the article! I'll see if i can fix any grammar, spelling. Nominaladversary23:02, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Nominal, thanks so much for the suggestions. I was torn with how to set up the music section, and had kept with the original theme of Intro, Genesis, Solo, but I see your point with making it chronological. Do you think it would work best if the category was "Music" and put into years, i.e. 1970-75, 1975-1980, etc.? That probably would work, as I've seen it done on other pages, and I might try some samples of that. I played with the whole childhood thing, and if you compare prior edits, you can see I've moved his time in the band Flaming Youth all over the place trying to find a more appropriate location. I might switch childhood to "Childhood and Early Career", considering he was 18-19 in Flaming Youth and 19-20 when he joined Genesis. Finally, I removed the South Park information you mentioned on the Talk: Phil Collins page. I didn't like it either, and was waiting for someone to comment before I deleted it. Thanks again for your suggestions! I'll play with the article some more to make it more chronological. --Ataricodfish03:27, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Nominal, I tried playing with the years idea, and it doesn't work well. As Collins never left Genesis, it's difficult to make both chronological (it's not like John Lennon and The Beatles, or just about any other music group whose lead singer has a solo career, where there are two distinct periods of time). However, I have dissolved the "Other Projects" section into the rest of the article, so that part doesn't jump around any more (That had gone from 1969 to 1996 in a few paragraphs, but now it flows better).--Ataricodfish07:34, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
According to the criteria I've come up with here, this article fails:
Lead: 2, 4
Comprehensiveness: 3, 4
Sales: 2 (something outside US/UK?)
Pictures: 1, 2
Audio: 1, 2, 3, 4
References: 1, 3, 4
Discography: Appears to meet them all, though consider adding at least some singles (maybe Top Ten only)
Format/Style: 4 (basically good, but needs copyedit, further reading section ought to be a list, consider doing something about "urban legend" section)
Tuf, Thank you for your review. This list has been most helpful. I will try to note my changes here, and request your advice in regards to pictures.
LEAD: I considerably expanded the lead to include major awards, brief history, etc., while keeping it within 5 paragraphs. I haven't changed the photo yet, which I will address below.
Looks good.
Cool, thank you.
COMPREHENSIVENESS: I think I have a great deal in the article except for the critical/praise section. Critics seem to hate him, yet he still wins awards. It's a paradox which I don't know if I could write without a musical background and without showing point of view.
Try searching for reviews and such that characterize his style (negatively and positively). Consider consolidating a number of opinions, cited to those who believe them, and putting them in a section or two near the top. The section can include style, influences, critical reception and the like.
I will begin some work on this, finding reviews in Rolling Stone, etc. This will take a little more work, and will update as I move along with this.
SALES: I found a press release, and referenced this, as to his total solo sales. The discography, in an older edition, originally included unsourced sales information which contradicted the article, so I got rid of it all. I did find RIAA information for the single sales and sourced that in the discography.
Looks adequate now, though he's mainstream enough, you ought to at least make a good effort to find some more countries' charts to represent. Canada, Australia, Germany, Japan, etc -- not a requirement, but worth looking at.
I'm going to put this on the backburner for now, as I am satisfied with how the page currently looks for sales information, but I hope to add other countries as I obtain the information.
PICTURES: I'm confused with what to do here. I had pictures and someone took them off recently citing me with copyright violations. However, I used official promotional photographs from Collins official website and provided more copyright information than the photos that were left on. Although I can understand that the childhood picture might have questionable copyright (although its one of the few photos his biography does not supply copyright information) and won't argue that, I don't understand why [[10]] and [[11]] were taken off since they're marked as promotional on the website and, especially the first photo, is used regularly on Allmusic.com, Billboard.com, etc. without references. I would like to use [[12]] and, if the BBC photo can't be used, then one of the other promotional photographs on the site. I obtained the promotional photos from [official site], and they're marked promotional. I properly sourced the photographs, which I learned from similiar photographs on The Beatles featured article; [[13]] & [[14]] are two examples. Am I doing something wrong using promotional photographs and providing the source?
I really don't know much about the details of copyright law, but as I understand it, "promo photo" as a fair use justification only applies to photos that actually come from a press kit. In any case, Collins is famous enough that it might be possible to find a fansite with a photo or two the webmaster would be willing to freely license. If he's ever performed at a USO show or other wise for the American military, you can try a .gov or .mil search and maybe find a public domain photo. The photos you've got now are probably justifiable as fair use, but they need a rationale, specific to their use on the article Phil Collins, explaining why they qualify as fair use.
Hmm, that probably won't work. I don't believe Collins ever performed for the US military/gov't (at least, my search couldn't find anything), and some photos I found on British .gov sites have copyright notices and links to the holders on them, so they're no good. As for contacting a webmaster for photos, that won't work well, either. I used to run a website, and I obtained my photos by going to the official websites and obtaining promo ones, much like I did here before being marked for copyright violation. I might use photographs from the albums themselves as a temp solution until another solution can be found.
Still no luck obtaining photographs. I'm currently writing to both the official website and the record label to see if I could obtain any official photographs for the site. Hopefully, in the meantime, someone else could upload a photograph which falls within standards.--Ataricodfish21:29, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
AUDIO: I'm trying to avoid personally adding audio to the site, after all those RIAA lawsuits across the US. But I agree that Audio would be a nice addition.
Well, I wouldn't support it as a FA without some sound samples, but maybe someone else would be willing to upload them if you make the rest of the article excellent.
Reviewing the Wiki policy, and having seen 30 second samples on tons of websites, I have uploaded 30 second samples which I believe would be appropriate into the main article. The songs range from his first as lead singer of Genesis through his most recent solo single, five songs in total, modeled after the format in the Marilyn Manson featured article. I believe the audio requirement should be satisfied now.--Ataricodfish21:07, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
REFERENCES: I've cleaned this section up MAJORLY. The references are now in order and were modeled after the references on the site you provided [[15]].
Try making a separate "references" section with each source listed once, and then a distinct notes section for page numbers and the like. A couple print sources that are not biographies would be very nice as well, such as general treatments of rock or pop or British music or whathaveyou -- I might be able to help with that.
I will work on this next.
DISCOGRAPHY: I was confused with this comment, as you said I should add singles information, but this was already there. I have recently added RIAA cert information for the singles, also.
The singles are in Phil Collins discography, but since he's a pop artist whose most famous recordings are probably more singles than albums, there ought to be some kind of list of his most well-known songs in the Phil Collins article. I suggest just those singles which charted in the Top Ten or something similar (aim for about a dozen or so of his most famous songs, selected along an objective criterion).
Ah, I understand now. I have put Collins UK and US #1 songs on the main page. The problem with Top 10, 20, 40, etc. is that Collins had a large number of hit singles, and I'm trying to avoid the "list" feel which the article previously had.
FORMAT/STYLE: I changed the "further reading" section to a list, as recommended, and cleaned up the "urban legend" section a little bit. I'm doing proofreading here and there as I find it, but I think my eyes have begun to grow used to my writing and I'll probably need more independent eyes.
The "Other Projects" section makes the layout confusing, since it jumps around. I suggesting integrating into it into a single biography section. And I really think the whole urban legend section should be merged into the article on the song, and a link with a sentence or two description in this article. The "Band" suggestion ought not be a list, I think, since there's a separate article anyway. Either write a couple paragraphs about his bandmates have changed over time, and how that has affected his sound, or just work a link somewhere into the lead. On copyediting, see the specific suggestions on the Featured Music Project page, I note some passive voice ("Collins was asked by", "songs have largely been forgotten"), movies not in quotes, sentences overly long ("Still, it appeared that Collins’ grasp on the pop charts had begun to weaken"). Try looking at each sentence and trying to make each one more concise. Tuf-Kat06:31, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I got rid of much of the passive voice in my most recent review, and tried eliminating redundent words (I saw I used "also" a lot), so I think the article is much "tighter" now. I moved the "Other Projects" into other sections, as Nominal above also commented on this, and deleted the "Urban Legend" part as much of it overlapped the In the Air Tonight article. The format is much better now, and once the comprehensive part is completed, I think the article will be ready.--Ataricodfish06:55, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This collaborative article have been listed for peer review to further improve the article after nearly an entire year of contribution by several Singaporean Wikipedians. Need checks on conventions used. Slivester06:49, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Self-nomination What I believe is a thorough article on a now-defunct institution, the McLaughlin Planetarium in Toronto. Extensive references (done in the new Wikipedia style) plus an annotated image of the planetarium projector model that was used, and "before" and "after" images. ;-) I have covered off all that I can find about this planetarium in my researches. Comments welcome! Captmondo04:51, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think this is a very impressive article, and it is fortunate that someone has taken the time to put this on Wikipedia, given that this building may not be with us much longer (and its use as a planetarium has already started to fade from our collective memory). I went ahead and made a few minor edits (typos, punctuation, etc.) rather than listing them here. My only substantive comment is that I find the footnotes to be very intrusive and distracting -- I would prefer that numbers, rather than words, be used to indicate footnotes in the body of the article. But that's just my own personal view, and others may disagree. Otherwise, great article. Skeezix100017:43, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I understand what you are saying with regard to the new footnote formatting. But I gather that this is one of the preferred formats these days, a good example that just made Feature Article status is the article on Paul Kane. I gather the "old" numbered format is still valid, but wanted to keep up to date and switched to this style. I may be wrong and it may be overkill in this case, but we'll see what happens when I push it in the future as a Feature Article Candidate. Thanks for the feedback, and personally, am glad that there is now some decent reference on what was once a notable Toronto landmark. Cheers! Captmondo19:20, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Nice article. Just three points:
There are several ways of doing references. Numbered references are one possibility, symbolic references (like you used, and like I used on Paul Kane) are another, and the new built-in <ref> mechanism is yet another way of doing it. (See m:Cite/Cite.php.) Which method is used is largely a matter of taste, although numbered references without using <ref> require manual maintenance of the numbered list at the end to make sure the numbers match up with the in-text numbers.
I think the extended discussion of the projector belongs to its own article, maybe at Planetarium projector. As far as I can see, it's a standard planetarium projector as used in many other planetariums world-wide. If it is in some ways a special projector, that should be pointed out.
Was it really from the "Kombinat VEB Carl Zeiss Jena"? If so, it was from Jena, East Germany, not West Germany. (The "Kombinat" is a dead giveaway, you find that only with east-German companies. Also the "VEB" ("VolksEigener Betrieb")). See also [16].
Thank you Lupo for the critique. The company name is correct, so I must have been mistaken in attributing it to a West German firm. What you say makes some sense though, as the image of that same model of projector that I used for illustrative purposes is from a planetarium from a formerly East Bloc country. The projector was not in itself unique, but it was (so I gather) one of the better ones of its generation, and modern planetaria use a different technology, much less reliant on mechanics. But I take your point, and will move some of more technical details to a new Planetarium projector entry as you suggest. (Incidentally, I found in my general researches on the McLaughlin Planetarium, this article, which would seem to be a good starting point in terms of general background information on this subject). And as for the references, I think I will keep them as is, since it is not wrong/broken. Thank you for your comments—much appreciated! Captmondo18:33, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Done! The Planetarium projector is basically an extended stub, but will work on that and build it up over the next little while. I have found sufficient references to build that article into something (hopefully) of comparable quality to this one. Captmondo19:34, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I went through this process because it was suggest to me, however, I'm looking more for a peer review than a possible nomination, although if it was nominated that would be great as well. Nonetheless, I want to politely ask if those that have time can review the article and correct any grammar and spelling mistakes, as well as accuracy. Thank you for your time; I truly appreciate it. JonCatalan03:29, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've done a light copyedit and spell check of the article. It looks good, though it strikes me as being a bit wordy (since this is my own writing style, it is hard for me to edit it effectively! ;-) There are plenty of assertions that really ought to be backed up by proper footnoting; the references are good but not extensive, if I were you I would also look to any available reputable online sources as well. A few other largely minor points:
Is the General von Richthofen you mention at one point Wolfram von Richthofen? If so, please Wikilink.
I couldn't understand what you were trying to say in this line "The same arguments applied by Geoffrey P. Megargee in his book, Inside Hitler's High Command, which were directed to Germany's generals can be used in Soviet memoirs describing the battle." I tried to understand it in the context of that paragraph, but either I am dim or some additional context is needed or its meaning needs further clarification. There were a few other sentences like this in the article, which is why I think a more ruthless editor than myself is required. ;-)
I don't have the book, but I find it interesting that the photos that you use are available for use at the express wish of the author. This will come under closer scrutiny if you decide to make this a Feature article candidate, so you may need to bolster this further by adding more info to the images with regards attribution. You might also want to see if there are Red Army photos available online, as they would be free to use.
Many former battlefields have become the source of archeological digs of late. Has any been conducted of this particular battlefield (and if so, did it turn up any new information?)
I note from doing a casual search on Google that this battle is the source of a board game. For completeness sake this ought to be mentioned.
Response:'
Yes, you are correct, and I will link to Wolfram von Richthofen's article immediately, as well as provide the full name. As for the reference to Megargee, I should probably just reword the entire sentence and take out the reference to his name. As for the images, you are absolutely correct, and I'll have to work that out. As for anything online, a lot of links refer either to the Third Battle of Kharkov, or have the two mixed up - that board game is an example. It explains the Second Battle of Kharkov as what is normally regarded as the third (Manstein's recapture of the city in 1943). As for the rest, I'll get to work immediately, and I really appreciate it. Thank you for helping me out! JonCatalan22:27, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Love the article and the subject. Wish I knew more and could help write not edit (nit-pick). These are just comments. Wendell04:59, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Wiki stuff
Is there a wiki-link to Winter Counteroffensive? Perhaps a sub-section of the Battle of Moscow
Article says seven local offensives. Any wiki-links?
Article discusses Operation Blue and Battle of Stalingrad differently, but wiki-links them to same article.
Article says Most military historians have implied that the Soviet Army of 1942 was not prepared to conduct major offensive was not prepared to conduct major offensive operations against the well-trained German Army. Obviously needs a cite
Article includes a picture includes a T-34, with the statement "Not at Karkov." Why include it?
Big comments:
First time I really read this article and tried to understand the battle. I knew Kharkov was a great victory for Germany, but did not know the details. Spent some time on this article, know alot more. But the article needs work.
I got really confused about progression of the battle in days. I think the article skips around time. Would suggest sub-sections for each day or group of days. See Operation Market Garden
North vs South aspects of the battle. Needs clarity, see notes below.
Encirclements. Were the Soviets trying to encircle Kharkov, and were in turn encircled? Is it ever said so clearly? Why else did the Soviets have a North and South attack?
Beevor puts Soviet losses in terms of prisoners as 240,000 .... around 207,000, both killed and captured How do these numbers compare to the committed Soviet forces?
Conclusion section addresses the big picture. Perhaps add an Aftermath section to address unit condition, size/shape of front, time to re-fit, or something.
Last sentence of opening paragraph: 2nd Kharkov opened the path for the eventual operations which led to the Battle of Stalingrad and Operation Blue 2nd Kharkov ended 28 May, Operation Blue started 28 June, Just a month later. Sentence seems to imply something different, longer time delays, additional operations, or something.
Sentence by sentence breakdowns.
Article says Although Timoshenko had limited success at Smolensk a year earlier, his attempts would ultimately lead to the disaster which Smolensk is now known to be.Battle of Smolensk (1941) says nothing of the sort, but discusses a hard fought action.
Is it fair or POV to compare the Soviet's one of seven local engagements which became a campaign around Kharkov versus Germany's massive effort to reinforce...the major area of operations for the German strategic summer campaign of the year. Based upon these phrases alone, it is clear that the Soviet's efforts were doomed. Worthwhile discussing? Why did the Germans not do better? Or am I missing something, and the article needs expansion?
Article says The Soviet forces faced massive resistance from the opposing German defenses, which was slowly knocked out by concentrated air raids and artillery strikes, along with coordinated ground assaults against fortified positions. Who was knocked out, Soviet forces or German defenses?
The attack started 12 May: lets keep track of the days, and South vs North
The first two paragraphs seem to discuss the North Soviet attack. I did not know that until the third paragraph starting talking about the South Soviet attack.
Soviets inched forward ... By day's end (12 May) the greatest penetration by Soviet forces was ten kilometers. Is this a statement of fact, or evidence of a poor attack? Its important later, when the Germans crush and move 10km forward.
The day also saw.....the release of three German infantry divisions and a single Panzer division for use in the defense of Kharkov.Bock had warned Paulus not to counter-attack ....although this was later reconsidered when the Soviets broke through the Volchansk area.
I have lost the logical connection. Did all this happen on Day One?
Was Kharkov threaten by a 10km advance? Is the break thru at Volchansk consistent with 10km?
Or is the article skipping around days? Why is Volchansk never mentioned again?
The first 72 hours (12 May thru 14 May?) saw a battering of the German Sixth Army, with 16 battalions destroyed. Paulus called for a series of holding actions, although the Germans still preformed localized counter-attacks. By 14 May Stavka's army had made impressive gains while German actions in certain areas had taken their toll, and several shaken Soviet divisions were forced to withdraw from their attacks. Only Soviet tanks, held in reserve, were able to put a stop to the German counter-attacks, with much loss of life.
Now I am really confused. The first 72 hours ... seemed to have jumped forward in time.
Paulus called for holding actions, although Germans still executed local counter-attacks. Only Soviet reserve tanks were able to stop the German counter-attacks. Are these German counter attacks the localized ones of the previous sentence, or the one Bock warned Paulus about in the last paragraph.
On 14 May the Germans continued to pound Soviet positions in the north, exploiting the gains they had made on 13 May
Skipping back in time....
What gains did the German make on 13 May? Did they move forward, or just destroy attacking Soviet forces?
By the end of the day (14 May, I guess from 4 sentences ago) the 28th Army could no longer operate in an offensive manner against German positions. So the Soviets were still attacking until then? What were the German gains on 13 May?
Aided greatly from air support, Kleist was able to crush Soviet positions and advanced up to ten kilometers in the first day of the attack. Same 10km advance, but this sounds positive, while the 10km Soviet day one advance sounded negative. Any reason? POV? differences in terrain?
By the end of 24 May the Russian forces had been successfully surrounded by German formations Which Russian forces? The original discussion of Six Armies under two Fronts? Some sub-set?
Response: I linked to the winter counteroffensive, as suggested. Any wiki-links to the local offensives will have to come later, when I have more times to search around for them. The rasputitsa link fixed, and Stalingrad is considered part of Operation Blue, but in all actuality Operation Blue did not envision an investment of Stalingrad under weeks after the operation began. The only reason they link to the same article is because there is discussion on the merging of the two, and most historians consider Stalingrad as Blue because it was, without a doubt, the largest sector of the offensive. As for the sentence in question, I fixed it up a bit because referencing to a multitude of books, at least IMHO, would not be effective, so I offered some justification. As for pictures, frankly, I don't have enough pictures; the two I have relevent to the battle I fear I will have to take off and ask them to get deleted, because there will be copyright issues; so the faster those pictures are replaced the better; unless, I'm wrong. There aren't many photographs of the battle that are open, and I so the only thing I can do is put up images of slightly relevent topics, although they were not directly in Kharkov at the time...unless, there's a better idea, which there most likely is.
Now, for the big comments. An encirclement would certainly be a welcomed thought for the Soviets, but the pincering of an area doesn't necessarilly imply that the original expected outcome was a full fledge encirclement, although many times it does end as such. But taking an enemy on on both flanks is a sound idea, as opposed to only one, where the enemy can simply move reinforces from the opposite location; in other words, it's an alternate to hitting piecemeal, IMO. As for the casualties, I don't know if comparison to the men originally introduced into the battle would help the issue; Beevor has been accused of POV in his books, at least where anti-communism is concerned, while Glantz is reknown for his use of Soviet archives, although there are a lot who doubt his figures as well - unfortunately, them two are the only sources I have that have pin pointed casualties enough to be of any service; although I certainly do have other sources, they don't go into too much depth. Finally, the German counter-attack on the 17th did introduce a final German push into the Izium salient, which would eventually open the path for Operation Blue; undoubtfully, the loss of so much personnel in May was a major reason why the Germans found it so easy to rip through the Soviet frontlines upong the launching of Operation Blue, and that's what I tried to imply. As for organizing the artile a bit better, I'll work on that - give me the weekend to finish it all up.
Now, for the sentence by sentence breakdown; I don't know where the author got those numbers. According to The German Army, by Matthew Cooper, and most other sources I have, the Germans claimed around 100,000 dead by the end of 1941, which seems different from the 250,000 claimed by the artile at Smolensk. Although not all of those were implied dead - rather casualties - you could only assume that at least 1/3 of those were deaths, which certainly seems to high. As far as I'm concerned Smolensk was a debacle for the Red Army, where they faced the crushing of their defense of Moscow. In fact, it's argued by more than one author that Moscow would have fallen had the Germans not stopped and instead sent their strength north and south [to Leningrad and Kiev, respectively]. I would certainly not doubt that strength of Soviet resistance, but I don't think the fact that they had suffered a major defeat can ever be forgotten. Nonetheless, I will change the wording a bit.
Well yes, in retrospect it is obvious that the Soviets were doomed. The Russians thought that the major offensive would occur against Moscow, as opposed to Stalingrad or the Caucasus, and so naming the battle as a local counteroffensive for the Soviets and a major effort for the Germans is not really a POV issue, as far as I see. It's just different perspective from two different sides; I don't think the Soviets ever envisioned that the 6th Army would be so reinforced. Nor did Timoshenko, as outlined by the article, even know about Operation Frederikus, which was ironically, the German operation to destroy the very salient he attacked out of. In other words, the Germans were prepared to strike for an opening blow against the Soviets, which would straighten the front for the eventual launching of Blue; the Soviets did not see their operation as the preamble of what would lead into a major summer offensive, AFAIK.
German defenses were knocked out; sorry for that terrible mistake. Was is now changed to were.
This next sentence quoted refers to the fighting. As far as written sources put it, the German resistance was brutal, as opposed to Soviet resistance on the 17th of May. I can reword the sentence and attribute less POV, which is what I think you're implying. Well actually, now that I look at it, it seems you took it out of context. The "inched foward" refers to Soviet movement of second echelon troops, not to offensive movements. In fact, this is what the entire quote should be, "The fighting was so fierce that the Soviets inched forward their second echelon formations, preparing to throw them into combat as well. Fighting was particularly atrocious near the Russian village of Nepokrytaia, where the Germans launched three local counterattacks. By day's end the greatest penetration by Soviet forces was ten kilometers." I don't see any POV issues over the penetration ranges; it simply states the greatest penetration of Soviet forces; whether the penetration was good or bad can be considered irrelevent; what is relevent is that they has suffered so many casualties, and were facing so much resistance, that they thought the slow movement of their reserves was necessary.
For the next sentence, I think it was use of two sources, which may use different names. I'll have to take tomorrow after class, and this weekend, to work around and edit that, as well as reordering the sequence of battle, and perhaps making more subsections for the battle.
For the next sentence, "The first 72 hours saw a battering of the German Sixth Army, with 16 battalions destroyed," is the topic sentence. The rest of the paragraph explains the sequence of battle for the next 72 hours. The counter-attacks stopped refer to the localized counter-attacks, which I guess I need to establish, although I assumed that it would be understood since the sentence comes right after the sentence which explains the localized counter-attacks. But, I'll change it.
For point #5, I changed the sentence around a bit. I admit, I re-read it and was confused myself. I think I meant the localized-offensives and upon rereading it that's what makes the most sence, so I reworded it a bit to make more sense, although I figure that it'll make even more sense once I finish any reorganization of the article. Point #6 I think deals with the same, so I hope that answered that question as well. As for point #7 I think I answered that before. I said the greatest Soviet advance was 10kms deep, and then this was later illustrated as a spectacular gain,; "By 14 May Stavka's army had made impressive gains", although now that I read it, even that's confusing...so I just reworded that as well.
And finally, point #8. Yes, the Russian forces sorrounded refer to Russian forces that had partaken in the offensive and were in the salient at that time. I guess I have to underscore that as well.
So, you can't begin to believe how much this criticism helped, and by the end of this weekend I hope to have worked out the major problems outlined by your review. If anybody has any information on pictures, I would love to hear it. But, if I can ask that all further review can be held until I finish with the reorganization to avoid flooding this with commentary while I work on the article. I'll leave a message here when I'm finished. Again, thank you a lot!
I corrected several links for Russian generals, corrected Ewald von Kleist's name and link. The action has been broken into several subsections. I tried to use my judgement as to where the action changed from one side to another. I rather like how it's turned out. Cheers, Guapovia16:59, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
My fellow writers at Wikipedia:WikiProject Tropical cyclones have agreed this is a good article, and suggested that it be put up for peer review before a possible featured article candidacy. I consider it to be extremely complete for an event this long ago, but I'd appreciate any feedback, particularly on issues I might not have noticed. Jdorje03:04, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
We're looking to nominate this for Good Article sometime soon. Are there any problems we should clear up beforehand? In particular, does the reception section look okay? Are the other various sections well-explained? Is it generally clear what we're doing here? :) Thanks for your time. --Masamage02:15, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, thank you! I totally forgot about the image-work. I'll get that done this afternoon when I'm on my own computer. --Masamage19:22, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I shrunk the Senshi image, added the Fair Use stuff for everything, and now we're working on hunting down sources for the logos. --Masamage18:21, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Looking at cult television, Sailor Moon is listed as an example of cult TV - if we could reference that and add it into reception, then maybe it might cut down on some of the confusion of the bit where Sailor Moon is popular, yet unpopular. Do we need to expand on the whys and wherefores of Sailor Moon being compared with Barbie and Mighty Morphin' Power Rangers? Anne Allison's chapter in particular discusses MMPR as a success localisation story compared to PSSM. From hanging around GA/R for a while, I can say that sections without any inline citations are looked upon badly.-Malkinann20:58, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Here's some suggestions:
In the lead, in the last paragraph, video games is linked as [[video games]], when it should be linked as [[video game]]s. The word tokusatsu is linked, but not explained; you did well explaining where the term "Sailor" originates.
This article needs to go through copyediting to remove weasel words, such as the word "many" in the last paragraph in the lead; just how many are there?
In the "Story" section, you introduce Usagi Tsukino without presenting her as the main protagonist. I know she is, but that doesn't mean everyone will. Try to start the section from an out of universe perspective, such as "Sailor Moon's story begins with the main heroine..."
In the beginning of the Characters section, knowing that they are in order of appearance may be considered trivia that does not necessariy need to be known. The next thing said is to check the individual character articles, but all the names are linked and bolded, so this is obvious without this notice; the western-order of names notice has been phased out of most articles and it's become common (especially with the WP:MOS-JP) to name Japanese names in western ordering, so this too I think can be taken out. Also, bullets make it look too listy, and lists tend to be looked down upon in potential GA articles. There are two alternatives: 1) Write in a paragraph or two where you go through all the main characters by name and what they do, or 2) Write it in ;[[Character Name Here]]: format and expand some to make it more readable and less listy.
In the manga section, the phrase "nearly a dozen" is used; try to be as specific as you can get; again, avoid weasel words. Next, you link Nakayoshi; point out that it's a shōjo manga magazine. While I realize there is a main article for the manga, the manga was still the source material and thus should be a worthwhile section on this page. First, it's best not to leave lone sentences, as is with the end of this section (which is also missing a comma between "completed" and "Takeuchi"). Possibly try to expand this section a bit more. I say this since the Anime section below it is much larger, yet the manga came first and thus should be of more focus.
In the Anime section, the phrase, "Sailor Moon has since become one of the most famous anime properties in the world." is unsourced; either tag with {{fact}} or find a source; otherwise remove it. In the third paragraph, the word "numerous" is used; be specific. You're missing a comma in this paragraph in the final sentence between "North America" and "only"; copyedit the article for grammar as well as with spelling. The next sentence, "All of Sailor Moon was animated traditionally" seems odd to me; possibly reword it. There are 5 links in this section that do not have pages, all of them people. I'm sure with a series this popular there is at least a minor amount of info somewhere on them, possibly at Anime News Network or the Japanese wiki I find is always a good resource. GA and FA articles should have very little red linked pages, or none at all. Consider making stubs for all the red linked pages in this article.
In the English adaptations section, there are two unsourced lines; GA articles should have none of these.
In External links, the {{ja icon}} should be placed at the end of the link.
This article is specifically deficiant in categories. I know of at least 5-10 that would work well. Try to look at other articles that have similar genres and try to include as manga categories as possible. This makes the scope of an article look greater and more important.
Lastly, the number of inline citations is centered in the Reception section, with only 9 of the 24 being used in the article; there are sections without citations that need them, though I believe this has already been adressed.
Take care of all these things, put it through some rigorous copyediting, and the article should improve greatly.--十八00:48, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I've been pluggin' away at this. Let's see what we've got.
Fixed everything you mentioned in the lead, story, and character sections. The character bits look weird in this format; one long, skinny line each. No more info can be removed, and I hesitate to add much more; what would you suggest?
Expanded the manga section and removed its weasel words. Does it need anything more? I also disagree about adding that comma. :P Some comma uses are required, some are forbidden, and some are a matter of taste.
Fixed almost everything in the anime article. I ended up just relegating most of the redlinked people to the anime page itself and leaving them out here. I also really don't want to replace the word 'numerous' with something more specific, because just about every song was written by two or three people, and hunting down all the overlap would be an absolute nightmare. Not sure what to do about that.
I believe I have some sources for the English adaptations section and will plug them in.
Fixed the external links thing.
Category:Sailor Moon is in a ton of categories, so we just put this one into it. Is that not the way to do things?
Sorry for the late reply; for some reason I didn't see the update.
Re: Characters; I agree, which is why I suggested you add more to the characters section than just one liners. I've done this before in the Kanon and Air (visual novel) articles, so I don't think it's too much to ask for a little bit of expansion. It would also be more useful for the readers who don't want to leave this article to learn more, but having read enough feel satisfied with what is supplied.
My suggestion for a comma between "completed" and "Takeuchi" had nothing to do with taste; a comma should be there because due to the way the sentence is worded, it's more natural to pause at "completed".
Re: Anime; all right, it's fine then to keep "numerous" if nothing else will fit. I'm just saying, it might come up again in the future with a different reviewer.
Final note: A lot of good work has been done, but it still needs work. I think I have exhausted my reviewing abilities for this article as I beleive I've adressed all the salient points for a GA promotion. Perhaps try to get another neutral editior who is involved with WP:Anime to add suggestions.--十八11:13, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There are a few occurrences of weasel words in this article- please observe WP:AWT. Certain phrases should specify exactly who supports, considers, believes, etc., such a view.
correctly
might be weasel words, and should be provided with proper citations (if they already do, or are not weasel terms, please strike this comment).[?] <-- This may be where we talk about how, with the anime, they are correctly termed series(es) as opposed to seasons, as this has come up on Talk:Sailor Moon once or twice, maybe we should find something to cite this.
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.”
The series/season reference is actually the Wikilink itself, somewhere in there, to an article explaining the difference and the tendancy to misuse the terms. --Masamage06:49, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You sure? clicking on metaseries gives me "The series Tenchi Muyo! and Sailor Moon have been comics, multiple TV series, and movies, but they do not have a rigid single continuity. Though the latter does have Continuity within the same form of media.", which doesn't explain it to me, and clicking on seasons gives me an idea that each 'cours' of Sailor Moon should be only 13 episodes long, which clearly isn't the case! -Malkinann07:11, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rar, it's the second one, but it's been modified since I last looked at it. The relevance is not as clear now. :/ --Masamage07:13, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've put a {{clarifyme}} on that part because it's come up on the talk page a couple of times. If we can find a reference, then we could put it on the TV program article. -Malkinann07:47, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's not a particularly great article, but it has been improving incrementally for some while—getting better organized, more fully referenced, etc. The talk page tells a history of obscure quarrels and opaque debates (which, if you're familiar with Pynchon himself, may seem oddly fitting). Right now, I'd just like to attract a few fresh brains and see if a new perspective or two could be helpful.
This article is already pretty good, but it has no references, and also needs some cleanup and a few redlinks fixed/removed. --Janke | Talk18:12, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It looks pretty good, but could use some appropriate references using {{ref}}/{{note}} tags. Some comments:
I see the article carries history commentary throughout the text rather than having a separate history section. But in this case I think it works.
The "scales and gauges" could do with an explanation of how the guage naming scheme came to be. Also the use of guages throughout the text precedes the actual explanation. Maybe you could move the "scales and gauges" section near the top and put the long table under its own section?
The sentence, "Some older scale models reach very high prices", in the general description, is out dangling on its own. It could use some expansion and maybe a percentage comparison. (Plus a reference.)
Finally I'm tempted to suggest moving the list of manufacturers near the end to its own page, but I'm not 100% on that. I do think they could do with some brief comments about the guages and trains they support, or some such thing.
It's an important show in the history of British comedy, and it would be nice to get it featured, but I'd first like to see what could be improved. smurrayinchester(User), (Talk)13:22, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Many problems need to be tackled before this article becomes featured:
No spoiler warning.
Done.
Fawlty Towers influence should be changed to influence from Fawlty Towers, since it discusses influence from the broadcast, not to it.
Done.
No references.
No inline citations.
I've added some, but a lot seem to be the same couple of sources (IMDb and BBC). Is this OK?
It's ok, as long as the things that need to be referenced are referenced.
The lead should contain general information about the article's topic, and the plot should be given its own section and heavily expanded and worked on in order to allow readers with no knowledge of the subject to easily understand what is going on.
Many weak, 1-sentence paragraphs clutter the article.
I'll take a proper look tomorrow, but I notice immediately that several of the links to episodes lead to articles unrelated; the film 'Touch of Class' and the film 'The Anniversary' etc - should be fixed. --Loopye05:07, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The article may or may not be complete; it has languished for some time and very few edits have been made. A peer review would be appreciated. --RogerK02:37, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think that this article was written before Wikiproject Films came into existence, and as such it was written with an introduction. If, however, you feel that it should be rearranged, please do so. RogerK05:45, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It's a good article, though it would be considered too short to be considered for Feature Article status in its current state. Providing additional information as to how and in what context (social/political) the movie was made in would give it some of the extra depth it needs. Also, placing this in the director's overall output, and how it is typical (or not) would be helpful. Would also be good to add any references you can find to contemporary critical reaction, as opposed to the more current references you link to. Another suggestion: since the Tony Hancock reference is not directly related to the film, I suggest you put it in a "Trivia" or "Parodies" heading instead (am pretty sure there was a Goon Show episode that parodied it as well). Cheers! Captmondo14:20, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
OK, so I think this article (self-created and largely self-written) is fairly comprehensive; I think that it's basically been properly configured and referenced by inline citations, and I would really like to get any other feedback on it that anyone thinks might improve the article. Eventually, I'd like to nominate it for featured status. Also, is there anything else I could/should possibly put in the intro? It currently seems a little short to me. Thanks. Absecon 5916:32, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above suggestions have now been largely attended to. Could anyone provide further feedback concerning what could or should be improved for this article before it might be nominated for featured status? Absecon 5915:32, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Old Request for Peer Review
Hi. This page has been largely self-created, and I'm wondering what anyone else can suggest to improve this article, besides the somewhat-obvious suggestion of "find more print sources of information." This is difficult, as the U.S. Mint in New Orleans has not been directly discussed much in writing. Much thanks for all feedback. Absecon 5900:06, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think the mention of Hurricane Katrina in the lead of the article is rather irrelevant; the lead generally sums up the entire article rather than presenting new ideas. Also, though it is rather difficult to correct, the article is simply just a history of the mint and then a long list of statistics of coinage (which should be properly referenced by using inline citations). AndyZ00:10, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your feedback. Two questions: (1) What exactly do you mean by the "inline citations"? (2) What else would you have in the article besides a history of the mint and the statistics of coinage? If I'm leaving out something you'd like to see, please let me know what you've got in mind. Absecon 5910:16, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I believe I've done the first three steps for making a featured article, so now it's time for peer review.
My comments:
I'd like to keep the history section in the main article, even though it's somewhat large, because I don't people to have to leave the page Well, I've noticed that a lot of articles have their history in a separate article, but I think MSF needs the history in the main article
I've had comments about the number of references that are available online...I don't like it either, especially since the MSF.org site construction seems to be very...unstable. Unfortunately, there aren't that many books about MSF (in English), and emails to MSF about obtaining more sources went unanswered.
First off, this is a great article. Very well sourced, good prose, very few grammar or spelling issues, etc. For minor rewordings that I thought would be appropriate, I went ahead and just made the changes. If you think any of my changes were mistakes, just let me know.
Now there are some ways I think the article could be improved, to help it get to featured status.
About moving the history to another page, I agree that it would probably be better to keep the article together. If you wanted to move it out, you could still include a history section (about half as long) with a {{mainarticle}} header thing. But I don't think it's really necessary.
The history section could be organized better. I would recommend a header paragraph, briefly summarizing the entire history, at the top of the section, much like the paragraph at the top of the "Field mission structure" section. Then the part at the top about the Red Cross should be a subsection, perhaps called "Predecessors". (Although then it should include more than just the ICRC. Are there any other historical organizations with similar goals?)
About the Red Cross, it says "one could view. . .". That's accurate, but it's a so-called "weasel word". It would be better to say "However, some have criticized this consistent neutrality. . .", and include a footnote that says "For example, see X-reference and Y-reference".
I personally agree that the Nigerian policy toward Biafra was an unconscienceable, genocidal policy consisting of frequent massacres and atrocities. However, we have to be careful about NPOV. Most of the section is admirably NPOV, but a few sections strike me as borderline: "deliberate starvation and slaughter", and "Kouchner witnessed these atrocities". I'm not sure what to do about the above. Do they need to be reworded, and if so, how? But it's worth looking at.
Now the term "genocide" is a special case. On the one hand, it's emotionally charged and can be seen as taking sides. On the other hand, it's a word with a specific meaning, and no other term can easily be substituted. The Biafra incident is referred to as a genocide, and I don't know whether that's appropriate or not (although I personally think that's an accurate term for the situation). The killing fields of the Khmer Rouge are referred to as "genocide"; I agree, but neither the Khmer Rouge article nor The Killing Fields article uses the term, I don't believe. The Bosnian Genocide may be different, since that's the name of the article, the UN did call what happened a genocide, and that's the most common term for the event. And the Rwandan Genocide article uses the term constantly. Again, I'm not sure I know the answer, but I'm raising the question.
You translate most French terms in the article, but "Groupe d’Intervention Médicale et Chirurgicale d’Urgence" and "Sécours Médical Français" are mentioned without translation. What do they mean?
Should "Code of Conduct for the International Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement and NGOs in Disaster Relief Programmes" be italicized? Quoted? Linked? It's quite a mouthful. Should it have its own article?
The "ongoing missions" section is strikingly short compared to the history section. Is more information available about where MSF is right now and what they're doing?
I've analyzed only through "Ongoing missions". I'll post more later. Again, this is a terrific article, and I'm saving up my lunch money for when it gets featured. :) – Quadell(talk) (bounties) 14:26, 13 January 2006 (UTC) (numbered issues--CDN9916:03, 13 January 2006 (UTC))[reply]
1. I've added two pictures (one in Biafra, other in Darfur). The Ebola, "ID'd victims" and "sreb footage" images may be appropriate, I'll add them and look for more this weekend. I'm going to try not to put in too many pictures of starving children, or else it may turn out sappy.
3. That does sound good...I'll try to do something to that effect this weekend.
4. added "...some, like Kouchner...", and this is expanded on in the next section.
5. changed a couple words "deliberate starvation/slaughter" --> "conditions" and "atrocities" --> "events" make them more neutral I think
6. changed reference of genocide by Khmer Rouge to "executions" instead (that's the term given in The killing Fields)
7. translated; GIMCU was described as "awkwardly named" in French so I translated it as "Group for Urgent Medical and Surgical Intervention," which seems sufficiently awkward for English.
8. The Code...for...Programmes was italicised, and it's linked to in the references. Should it link to the IFRC website directly from the text?
9. Ongoing missions; well, there's almost too much information for this section, I'm just trying to determine which missions are the most significant and should be put in. I'll try to add more this weekend (I'm at work now); --CDN9916:03, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The Therapeutic Feeding Centre may be a good idea, although it probably won't be very long. I just added "ongoing" information to the article, which is somewhat large now.. Is it absolutely necessary to move the History section to its own article?
For some reason I can't open those photos on the computer I'm using now, but I found some aerial photos of refugee camps here. Would those aerial photos be appropriate? --CDN9917:30, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
First, I have to agree with a previous comment from another reviewer - this is already a great article. Now for some comments and thoughts. First, I think the first sentence of the history section "Organisations for the protection of human rights..." is partly misleading. Strictly speaking, human rights are of only secondary concern for most of the organizations which are listed there. Most of them "only" provide basic humanitarian aid, which means they try to protect human life and health, alleviate human suffering and protect a minimum level of human dignity. There are other organizations like AI which care primarily about human rights. So I think the sentence should be reworded accordingly. Next point, I don't like the term "gag order" regarding the rules of engagement of the Red Cross. Maybe a rewording to "...seen by some as being similar to a gag order..." might be more appropriate. Then it should perhaps be mentioned that France openly supported Biafra, and so the ICRC was already at odds with the French Red Cross (and the Swedish Red Cross as well, for that matter) over disputes regarding neutrality. Another interesting fact is that Biafra was like a modern Solferino for Kouchner. Next point: the sentence In 1982, Malhuret and Rony Brauman (who would become the organisation's president in 1982), brought financial independence to MSF and introduced fundraising-by-mail to better collect donations. leaves the question open how they did it. Did they have good connections to wealthy donors? Did they provide financial support from their own pockets? Maybe it should be more clear. What I miss somehow are some more general information about the organization. What are the approximate numbers of both volunteer and permanently employed staff? How is the organization organized, from a legal and structural point of view? How is the leadership organized, apart from the position of the president? What's their annual budget, and how do they raise their money? I will provide some of the information on your talk page but I'll leave it up to you to add it to the article, to preserve its structure and consistency. All in all, a great article already as said before. Best Regards, --Uwe19:22, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've added to the article with respect to all of Uwe's comments and information. I changed the phrase "survivors of the executions" to "survivors of the mass killings," but I can't think of a better way to reword that. I added a few more photos, though there's still some candidates to possibly add. --CDN9915:53, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This article has come a long way and has a lot of detail on all past series of Australian Big Brother. I'm submitting it for peer review in an effort to fill the gaps on content and seek any other advice and suggestions on overall article appearance. Thanks. -- Longhair04:57, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It seems a bit untidy, but I can't say how it is untidy. It may be a bit big - I'm wondering if subarticles could be a possibility. Andjam00:54, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I did some copyediting and added some comments to various parts when I had questions after reading the article. Seems like an interesting game! Scott Ritchie07:05, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This article is a brand new article that popped up about a week ago. Several users from WikiProject Florida and I have decided it'd be a good candidate for Featured Status and thus are putting it through peer review for that purpose. All suggestions are welcome, including formatting, spelling, grammar, copyright violations, images, and missing information. Thanks. -- PRueda29 / Ptalk29 / Pcontribs2916:31, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Some good stuff here. Suggestions:
The signal flags are minimally relevant, and add nothing; same for the pirate flag and the flag of Florida; There are plenty of images already, such that it's pretty cluttered. All of the flags should go.
The References section needs work; use a proper bibliographic citation format, with title, publication, author, etc... I also like having footnotes or Harvard style citations within the text, so I know what sources were used for what parts; others may disagree on this. See WP:CITE and related.
I strongly prefer writing out most round numbers using words; so "six hundred soldiers" not "600 soldiers". As I recall the Manual of Style agrees.
More details on the growth of recreational boating in Florida would be good; I don't know specifics, but it's certainly a huge industry there. All we have now is "Florida may well hold the record for the number of pleasure boats..." - that's not an encyclopedic way to say it, and it's not very informative. When did this start? Any notable government initiatives to help it grow? How much is spent on pleasure boating?
There was a pretty low-traffic peer review of this article before, Wikipedia:Peer review/3D Monster Maze/archive1. Thereafter, it had went through a FAC which failed, and a lot of modifications have been done to address the concerns raised. In the current state, one of the original FAC objectors is happy about the article enough to say it has "much potential" on the FAC if resubmitted again. Since there are still some issues I am unsure of (note also that I am not a native English speaker), I would be happy to have your help. Please be sure to read the article talk page, not just the article itself, before commenting/helping.
--BACbKA10:40, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I made some minor copyediting in the article. Here are some comments:
Statements about the game being "one of the most fondly remembered games on the retrogaming scene" and such cannot be stated as fact. There is no way to verify that a game is "fondly remembered". It is best to atribute this opinion to someone else in the article ("John Doe says that this is one of the most..."), providing this someone is notable enough, or provide other means of asserting the game's popularity (maybe availabilty of websites or of ROMs downloads?).
Those lines IN CAPITAL LETTERS in the Gaming section JUST LOOK INELEGANT. ;-) Even if the text was in all-caps in the game, I think it's OK to change it here.
The paragraph about first-person shooter vs. first-person adventure is a bit tricky. I don't think the article should label one source as incorrect in the way it does. It's better to find some notable source that says that this is a FPA and ascribe the opinion to this source, otherwise it may be labeled as original research.
The "Impact" section is a bit out of place. It's mainly about other games, and when it does talk about 3D Monster Maze it's in the form of peacock statements, other than the FPA vs. FPS issue addressed above.
The "Critical acclaim" section has too many quotes. It's better to choose a significant one to appear fully, and summarize the others.
The "fondly remembered" refers specifically to the referred material (reviews and the references). I'll try to reword it in the way you suggest.
The capital letters probably will be fine indeed to re-format in another font, maybe just emphasis. I still think they should be caps in the image annotation (accessibility etc.), what do you think? Following Maclean's comments and changes below, I would like to stick to the caps still, until more people feel the same as you do on this issue. The ugliness is precisely the part of the experience of the old game, along with the very low resolution of the graphics. --BACbKA12:27, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
As for the FPA/FPS business, I am a bit uneasy about what is going on here myself. Basically, the whole categorization business on Wikipedia is sometimes original research, because for various issues (like this one), the inclusion criteria is blurred (to say nothing of the "who's considered Jewish" question)... I have seen personally no source classifying 3DMAZE as an FPA, but the editor who had added the FPA thing clearly was referring to the FPA definition used on Wikipedia (whether that one is original research or not is another story).
Thank you for that peacock link, I didn't remember javing read it. Do you think the "landmark" is such a term? I thought it is a pretty neutral one, but one that does giving the credit to 3DMAZE for being an epochal event in the history of the computer games. The mission of the section is to do that mention, and do it with enough historical context. Do you think it's redundant altogether? If not, do you have a good idea how to re-word it? (Please note that I'm not a native speaker, and as such may not perceive enough "peacockishness" in the terms used etc.)
Regarding the critical acclaim I don't have in mind something distinctly better yet, but I'll try to move along the lines you've suggested.
This is on its way to becoming a featured article. It just needs some cleaning up of the writing (which I will help with) and some refining of the discussion, specifically with the "Impact" and "Gameplay" sections. Perhaps this paper can help. I disagree with JoaoRicardo's recommendation against CAPS - I would side with keeping them as printed as they are quotes - but if they tell you otherwise at WP:FAC do what they say. Also, the "critical acclaim" section may need to be re-formatted to something be more neutral. I realize this is more of a historical curiousity than a commercial product, but the article needs to distinguish between its commercial hype and its neutral critiques. --maclean2519:19, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have edited the 3D Monster Maze article. Please review the change and revert whatever you do not agree with. Several comments/questions:
I did not believe the spoiler template was necessary as there was no surprise plot twists. It is a pretty simple plot.
I'm confused on how the game can end. When you are eaten, game over right? Does it go on forever if you are not eaten? what is that bit about the appeals? Are there different levels?
In the "Impact" section please provide a reference for the first paragraph for the "had a significant impact..." or "made it a landmark game in the history..."
thank you very much for your edits. The language sounds much more encyclopedic following your edits. While you suggest to revert whatever I disagree with, I would like to hear your opinion on the points I had slight reservations about. Sorry for not answering right away, I have been a bit busy outside wikipedia last week.
The spoiler is there as per the Wikipedia:WikiProject_Computer_and_video_games#Style recommendation. I do agree with you that there excitement from anticipation of the game doesn't diminish when reading it; the only place with "surprise" factor might be the sudden self-reset in the "appeal accepted" case. I'm not putting it back, unless they ask me to.
The only reason I had the scrolling game legend (ROLL UP, ROLL UP, SEE THE AMAZING TYRANNOSAURUS REX KING OF THE DINOSAURS IN HIS LAIR. PERFECTLY PRESERVED IN SILICON SINCE PREHISTORIC TIMES,HE IS BROUGHT TO YOU...) repeated in the image annotation was accessibility reasons. I think that accessibility is an important thing in an encyclopaedia, although I agree with you that the text gets perhaps a bit too much weight. Maybe here is a good place to downgrade the caps and leave it as is? On the other hand, I have just added the text to the image page; so whoever really is in desperate need of the text might find it there. Thus, it would be possible to leave it your way, or, maybe, you have a good idea how to leave a small hint (tagged with some accessibility-related markup, which would diminish the text under the regular stylesheets??) that the image page has the full text?
With respect to your game end confusion, I am sorry to not having expressed myself correctly. You would have to start again if eaten (with 0 score), unless you appeal and have the appeal accepted. If you exit, you have to continue in the next maze with accumulating score. You're welcome to exact the text accordingly; I thought it's clear already.
Regarding the impact/landmark first sentence, I was basing it on the 2nd and 3rd references from the Refs section (SU25 and SU18). Do you feel that it should be reworded as in "the 1st 3D game... according, for example, to (ref1) (ref2)"? I've got the references annotated accordingly in the references section and referenced elsewhere in the article (the same claim has already been referenced in the lead section); I was afraid to overreference to the same thing. Maybe, I should move the references from the lead section over to the other sections?
{{Main|History of computer and video games}} was my attempt to relate 3DMAZE to these other games. I had a feeling that this section does a good job of putting it into the historical context. I noticed that some of the game description articles are more about gameplay and technology, but I find the history perspective quite encyclopaedic as well, and hence had it in. Would you mind me just putting it back as an answer to your request to relate the games?
Also, could you please look at the talk page? I would especially like a native speaker's opinion on the 2nd-person language issue raised there.
P.S. I've put back the Main... into the Impact section, and also reworded the 1st sentence a bit, so as not to imply any additional significance of the impact beyond precisely what's written and referenced. --BACbKA12:22, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I Just finished up the main body of this article on a relitivly small engagemet of the French and Indian War. I'm hopeing a peer review will bring some suggestions on how the article can be improved and hopfully bring some more info on the subject. I'd like to see more info on some of the personalities that don't have they're own page to link to, and some more detail on how the battle developed...Mike McGregor (Can)18:13, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The article looks good to me. I have made some minor formatting corrections. Maybe it could be expanded with the importance of this battle within the war. JoaoRicardotalk16:21, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
A map would go a long way towards providing a better sense as to where are of the landmarks referenced in the article are located. Though it is not in itself something that will keep the article from becoming Featured, there are plenty of "red links", which is particularly frustrating since many of them refer to places and there's no links or map to reference them against. The article is also on the short side; suggest adding more info as to the events and preparation that led to the battle, more info on the context of this battle in general to the Battles of the French and Indian War (some possible ideas: was this the only naval engagement? why was this battle so one-sided? are there any interesting archeological studies of the battle area and did they find anything new?) You might also want to investigate some additional online sources of info to flesh out the article further. Good job though! Captmondo15:06, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There's a map by Puochot that i've seen in a couple of books that would be useful if i could find an electronic copy. Thomas Davies apparently also has a map detailing Amherst's route: [17] does any one know how I would go about getting a scaned electronic copy of this? is it free? it would be Public Domain correct?Mike McGregor (Can)16:11, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Since the map was created in the late 1700s, it should fall under the rules of Public Domain, which is basically the end of the author's life plus 70-100 years, depending on the country of origin. Getting a scan of it is another thing entirely—though you might want to see if it appears in one of the historical map listings you can find under External References under Map. And though I can't currently track it down, I believe there is a place somewhere on Wikipedia where you can request others to make a relevant map for you. Hope that helps a bit! Captmondo16:20, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think this is a very good article. I am not familar with warfare in this era. Giving some historical warfare context section would help modern readers, but I do not have a good suggestion and that topic needs its own article. You can see my specific questions Wendell20:10, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The seige last 5 days, from 19/20 August til 24 August. How could a small fort with wooden stockades, five cannons and 200 soldiers hold out for 5 days, against 50+ British guns? Especially when British "hot shot" started fires within the fort? Bravey? Strong defensive position?
Where there any ground engagements (assaults) from 20 august til 25 August? I gather no, since the British casualties are so small.
If 375 out of 400 French forces were killed or wounded, why did the seige not end until Pouchot ran out of ammunition for his guns and asked for terms?
Where any men within rifle range? (Again a map would help) What is the relative range of rifles vs guns in this era?
The fort would have been in range of cannon fire but the "rifles" (actually muskets) had an effective range of just 100 or 200 meters.
A small fort could take a pounding from cannon and hold out (a) because the cannon were relatively small field pieces being dragged by an army operating in a wilderness area and from small boats and (b) because the wooden palisades of this type of fort could easily be fixed in lulls in the bombardment. Lafarge Dodger22:48, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I just decided to get some opinion on this article. the conflict itself was pretty limited so the article probably might not be as lengthy as other war-related ones, but it still looks concise enough. After all I don't find that a FA should only be of a minimum length and brevity is a good thing IMO. Anyway the images are mostly PD and I have ensured that all issues concerning the factual accuracy and neutrality have been properly addressed. I would appreciate any help provided in improving this article and hopefully lead to a FA status. Thanx. Idleguy07:24, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Overall, the article looks quite good! A few suggestions you may want to consider:
The footnotes need to be properly numbered, and any external links in the body of the article should be given their own notes. As it stands, if the article is printed, there is no way to determine what the numbers refer to.
A number of the links in the "See also" section are already given in the text, and should be eliminated if possible. This section should, in general, be of minimal size.
The "Further reading" section should either be merged with the "References" section, if these works were used in preparing the article; or, alternately, moved to the very end.
The "Kargil War in the arts" section should have a few sentences for each item, to avoid the appearance of a trivia list.
Some of the sections, "Protection of National Highway No. 1" in particular, seem a little short. I don't know if any more tactical information about the combat operations involved is available; but short sections tend to be a common cause of objections on FAC.
Many of these points are specifically oriented towards getting the article through FAC; there's no urgent need to rework it if that's not your intention. Hope that helps! —Kirill Lokshin17:50, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Good article, have watched it develop from when it was a POV disaster zone.
Further reading section should probably come after the references section.
I'm yet to get into details, but have one first question, Was the war officially declared? To the best of my knowledge, it was not officially declared (unlike the other Indo-Pakistani wars). So this fact needs to be mentioned in the article explicitly. I'll read the article in detail later and hope to comment some more. Thanks. --Ragib08:59, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
True, it wasn't officially declared as a war by anyone but "Kargil War" seems to be the more popular usage, especially so after the end of the conflict. I am planning to add that piece somewhere in the article, that a "war-like state" only existed as per the Indian PM. tx. Idleguy09:11, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
What if most of the external links were not used as sources (either major or minor) for the article? The BBC link for instance is one where the information in that news story wasn't used to add anything to the topic but was added to show the impact on civilians, however minor they might be. Another one links to a picture gallery. Basically they are just external links and have had nothing in developing the contents of the article. Tx Idleguy04:04, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Those kinds of explanations are great could be part of the footnote.. it would add a whole new dimension, a guidence to further reading. --Stbalbach18:23, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There seems to be a lot of issues with this article.
This article definately has an Indian bias towards it and can be written in a more neutral tone. I suggest a collaborative effort with Pakistan-based editors.
Brochure-type language in =Location=
Who discovered the inflitrators? Shephards did (and they were never given any recognition)
Mention how India used the media to its advantage.
Captain Vikram Batra's heroics is absent.
Mention why India suffered so many casualties
Mention why India used fighter planes instead of helicopter gunships. (There was a controversy over this)
I heard reports of Israeli aircrafts being flown into Sri Lanka to supply India with air power in the case of a war. Please verify.
There were some transcripts between the Pak army chief and the Chinese. Extracts could be added.
The pilot was FLight Lieutenant Natchiketa. IIRC
A few days after the war some jehadi elements wanted to cross the LoC. A massive pileup was planned but they were barred by the Pak army from crossing.
Thanks for the review Nichalp. After requesting the peer review I found out that there was still a lot of details to be added in the war portion and have been editing it since. Unfortunately few, if any, editors from Pakistan have turned up to objectively edit this though asking them directly should help.
Some clarifications are not provided though it is assumed. For instance the "hot pursuit" was not taken up because India did not want to violate the LOC (that India did not want to violate the LOC is mentioned in the article) but this was only implied in meaning and I'll try to fit in the rationale in the article.
Natchiketa was the original pilot after whom Ahuja went after. But the pilot whose body was mutilated was indeed ajay ahuja, and it was this incident that caused a stir. So it is indeed Ahuja's dead body.
I've mentioned the use of media and will soon be adding the impact it had in tilting world opiniong as u said.
Your point no. 6 and no. 11 are contradictory. plz elaborate.
India has an almost clandestine defence relationship with Israel which is almost hard to link but I'll look in that as well as providing more links to transcripts and other valid pointers given to improve this. Thanks Idleguy03:45, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
FYI I believe the transcript was between Musharraf and Mohd Aziz when they were in China and not with Chinese officials. That transcript is included in a sublink in the external link in the india today site. But for the sake of easy access I'll include it in the main. Idleguy04:19, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Natchiketa was the original pilot after whom Ahuja went after: Yeah, he was the first to be shot down, I just wanted you to add his name. IIRC, India's fatalities were somewhere around 1,000. have you crosschecked the figures? =Nichalp«Talk»=04:50, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Probably I'll link the details on the indian arial assault in Operation Safed Sagar and include the naems of the pilots etc. in that article. The casualties list admittedly is a bit tough to be 100% sure of with many claims etc on both sides and I've included the official stats. The 1,000 casulties figure is correct when counting the injured and the dead and I'll make the appropriate changes. Idleguy07:25, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
As a quick note, the caption to the main photo appears to be inaccurate - unless it is being used in the direct fire role against Pakistani soldiers at the same altitude (which isn't likely as this would typically represent a miss-use of towed medium artillery), the Indian artillery gun appears to be in a travel configuration, at least while being photographed. --Nick Dowling11:14, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This article has been improved beyond all recognition in recent months, and is one of the better sports articles on Wiki. I remember adding the Debut of National Teams in one day, and now it's a part of a much larger, much more comprehensive section. With only a few more content it could be as close to perfect as Wiki could get.. Good luck to everyone on this doktorb | words10:12, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Also this article http://ezinearticles .com/?FIFA-World-Cup---A-History-1930-to-1958&id=234631
"Unofficially, FIFA recognized Uruguay as World Champion." Source?
I cannot find it right now, but I remember several books and newspapers printed before 1970. In 1970 was that the people begin to talk about Brazil as tri-champion and the previous tetra-championship of Uruguay (1924,1928,1930 & 1950) was forgotten.
Also the same article http://ezinearticles .com/?FIFA-World-Cup---A-History-1930-to-1958&id=234631 applies
"and up until two months before the start of the competition no team from that continent had promised to send a team." Source?
"In the final, Uruguay beat Argentina 4-2 in front of a crowd of 93,000 people in Montevideo, to become the first nation to win a World Cup." Source for the number of people?
"For each tournament, FIFA decides the number of spots awarded to each of the continental zones beforehand, based on the relative strength of the confederations' teams (and, some may argue, political considerations)" Who argues that? NOOOOO. Wroong. It's based on marketing. South America has 3 world champions and only 4 places...
"However, FIFA stated that in future final tournaments will be hosted by a single nation." Source?
"The decision to award the 2006 World Cup to Germany was controversial, as it was widely expected that the tournament would take place in South Africa." Who expected it? Give some source that lots of people expected this (like some newspaper saying "Lots of people expected that...") and then atribute the opinion to the source. Don't express opinions in the article.
"However, FIFA has also hinted that continental rotation may not be used beyond 2014." Source?
Maybe the History section could be expanded a bit. How about notable incidents or problemas that happened along the World Cups?
You're right, JoaoRicardo. Some of these statements should be supported by references, the rest just removed. Speaking about incidents, do you mean something like the Hand of God goal? Conscious09:27, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Conscious, that may be included, although it wasn't exactly what I was thinking. I don't know which facts to suggest because I know nothing about soccer and the world cup, but maybe reviewing the specific articles for each world cup wields something interesting. JoaoRicardotalk12:20, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I just did that. Some things that caught my eye.
Political influence in World Cups: Mussolini in Italy 1934, the Football War of 1970 fought by military dictatorships,
Football World Cup 1938 says there was an outrage by South Americans country upon the Cup being held in France, because they believed it would alternate between Europe and South America. It might be interesting to include this and discuss the predominance of these two continents in the tournament.
How was the decision to cancel the 1942 and 1946 Cups made? Was there pressure from the countries hit by the war? Was there pressure from other countries outside the war to organize the Cups anyway?
How did media coverage on the event changed during this time?
Changes in the way the competition is organized, qualifying criteria, semifinals, quarterfinals, rules etc. Eg: Football World Cup 1958 says "substitute players were not allowed at the time"; match between Austria and in West Germany in Football World Cup 1982 in which they simply made the goals necessary and then "just kicked the ball around aimlessly", which led to a subsequent change in which "the final two games in each group were played simultaneously"
I know this is a tricky one, but is there any consensus as to which are the best and the worst editions of the World Cup?
I believe there was something on it in the previous revisions... "Successful national teams" deals with Europe vs. South America to some extent.
and
I'm not sure if much can be found, but worth trying.
That's just how football was changing. Accidents like Austria vs. West Germany happen until now, btw ("Nordic Victory", Denmark vs. Sweden at Euro 2004)
Never heard of things like this.
Thank you for your help with an outside view, JoaoRicardo, especially as you say you "can't stand sports". (That doesn't mean we're finished.) Conscious09:00, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I feel like an image should be added in the lead. Also, the sections seem out of place. The results table seems out of place. I think it'd be better if all the article text (media coverage, selection of hosts) be higher up and then the results table and records. Something like that. GfloresTalk03:04, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Before FAC, it might be better to have a good editor copyedit this once again to polish the language.
>> In the Olympic games of 1924 and 1928, Uruguay won the football gold medal, in the first intercontinental football competitions[1]. These victories led the FIFA to choose Uruguay as the home of the first FIFA sanctioned World Cup.
I believe another reason was that Uruguay was celebrating the centenary of their independance at the time. Can you check whether your sources consider it important enough to be worth a mention ?
>> The World Cup is now a truly global event, with as many as 197 nations entering qualification for the 2006 edition.
After finding a very short and barren article about Thurman, being a very popular actor, I did a massive rewrite on the article and would like a peer review and any ways to improve/expand it.--Fallout boy03:21, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think that to be a featured article, this needs to be more than just a listing of the films in which she acted. It needs a more critical analysis of her roles, skills and techniques. I.e. what she brought to the films. Also something about how she selects roles would be good. Apart from a few run-on sentences, though, it looks like a pretty decent article. Thanks for your work on this. :) — RJH23:21, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Images in Major Roles could be placed better. Filmography is quite long. Maybe make it select, or form a double table.But yeah, its quite good!Forever young22:29, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Second Peer Review: Since the last PR four months ago this article has gone through numerous changes. All suggestions from that PR have been made myself and other articles. In addition I have made many other other changes to the article to make it closer to a FA article. I have added more references as well as removing unessasary fair-use images and adding fair-use rationale for those that remain. I have also made changes to the order of the sections for better flow and copyeditted the parts of the article than need it. More suggestions on how to improve this article in order to work it up to FA suggest are appricated. SorryGuy00:37, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I see a lot of problems with the article, but I'm going to make just my more broad critical comments right now.
{{Infobox Book}} should be used for a summary of information at the beginning of the article.
I would disagree with this. That infobox would make sense for use with each of the books themshelves however the job of this article is to cover the whole topic, not just the books. That includes the movies, plays, video games, and CCGS. This is for articles only about books from my point of view. SorryGuy02:27, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The lead is insufficient and covers the wrong information; it briefly covers the book itself, then discusses the movie adaptations in greater detail than the book. Much of the lead is seems to be a "See Also" section, directing the reader to numerous other related articles rather than summarising the book.
I would reference you to the above. The lead maybe needs one more book sentence but this is not an article just for the books but the whole topic. When working on the synopis I found an easy way to expand the opening. It still needs a few changes and adjustments but it now covers the books much better. Comments would be nice.SorryGuy02:27, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The One Ring is an important plot point, but it does not illustrate the book itself very well. A scanned image of a book would fit much better at the top of the article.
Much of the "Synopsis" covers events from The Silmarillion, The Akallabeth and other works; very little actually summarises the book itself. Previous events can be mentioned, but a summary of the plot of The Lord of the Rings, the book at hand, should be far longer. Also, don't be afraid to "give away the ending" by summarising; that's what the spoiler tags are for.
Agreed. It seems that the earlier editors of the article agreed to divide it up but it is indeed time to combine them once more. I found what I think is a much better division method. Let me know what you think. SorryGuy02:27, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"Books and volumes" covers in great detail the writing of the books; this is interesting from a Tolkienite perspective, but would be extremely boring to someone unfamiliar with the subject. It should be included, but reduced in size and moved much farther down the article.
The opening section of "The Books" deals broadly with many subjects but covers some in too much detail (such as the books not being allegory) while relegating important aspects such as the influence of Saxon mythology to single sentences. (Christian themes are also heavily overplayed in this section, at least when compared to other influences on Tolkien.)
"The Verse of the One Ring" probably shouldn't be in this article but in a sub-article. It also may be a copyright violation to reproduce the poem in its entirety.
"Praise" is far shorter than "Criticism" despite the book being widely acclaimed and rarely criticised. The section lengths give the impression that the book is unpopular.
The section on "early efforts" is just fine. However, there's far too much on the trilogy. It makes it seem like the live-action film trilogy was the most important adaptation of the book. (Ibaranoff2420:00, 24 April 2006 (UTC))[reply]
"Lord of the Rings Derivates" is a bit POV, and would be better titled as "Influence on the Fantasy Genre". It should also be longer, as The Lord of the Rings is the defining moment in all of fantasy literature.
Referencing is extremely incomplete with entire sections unreferenced.
Some of the sections have nothing to reference though. Summaries and the like can only reference the books themshelves. SorryGuy02:27, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, done with my quick critique. I'll try to work on some of this when I get a chance (which won't be until Tuesday), but I don't think more in-depth critiquing can occur until the article imprroves significantly. —Cuiviénen, Sunday, 23 April2006 @ 01:18 UTC
Agreed with Fritz Saalfeld; being a member of WikiProject Middle-earth, I did go ahead and fixed the capitalisations in headings. Just from quick skimming: with the subheadings in the Adaptations section, I suggest removing 'The Lord of the Rings on...' as stated by MoS here: "Avoid repeating the article title in headings; use 'Voyage' instead of 'Voyage of the Mayflower' in an article titled 'Mayflower'.". Just simply put 'Film', 'Music', etc. As for the books section, perhaps you should rename 'The Books' section simply 'Books' or 'Series'. Also by MoS, I feel like there is an overuse of subheadings. Subheadings are used when there is an overflow of information that splits into different subtopics, but perhaps to limit the number of subheadings, you should cut down on some of the information. On the other hand, it looks great despite its problems. :) (I'll look more closer at the article later, so expect a more indepth constructive critcism to follow up). —Mirlen17:58, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have fixed the Adaptations to reflect the MoS. I have also found the following ways to reduce the number of sub-headings:
Removed the One Ring verse due to copyright issues and the fact that it already has its own article. I added the link to that article in See Also
Changed Art so that it did not have an empty heading with a sentence more of prose.
With a little work Publication and Publication history can also be merged.
Once more with a little work Praise and Criticism can be merged together under a new heading Critical response. If I were to make these changes do you feel that I would not need to remove information from the article?
I am also working on finding someone to improve the Sysnopis part as it has been a while since I have read the books. SorryGuy20:46, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I propose removing Image:Tolkien ring.jpg. Article would look much cleaner without it. Its also not directly related to the article but is only part of the plot in the books. This article is about the books. If you guys want to keep it then I would suggest moving it atleast to "Synopsis". – Tutmøsis(Talk)23:39, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I also did a couple of other tweaks in the first two sections (including the intro). But there is overload of wikilinking in the rest of the sections, especially the book titles. Also, regular words like 'fairy tales' do not need to be wikilinked. Also, I feel like the adaptations section is rather long, since the focus of the article is on the books, not the adaptations. —Mirlen13:50, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, the article looks much better than it did when I first looked at it. I still have a few major gripes and some minor ones.
Much of the beginning of the "The Books" section consist of randomly assorted trivia, most about influences on the writing (which should be summarised and put in their own section), but in a rather rambling and uncohesive pattern. It is currently by far the worst section of the article.
I still have an objection to "Criticism" being longer than "Praise" as the Lord of the Rings is widely praised and rarely criticised, yet the relative section lengths make it seem the other way around. Praise should be made longer and/or Criticism better summarised. (Most of the criticisms are quite similar and could be merged together.)
Some sections, notably "Games", remain largely unsourced. If this article is to become featured, sources must be found and assertions about fans' opinions verified.
Art is hopelessly stubby. I've tagged it with {{expandsection}}
Influences on the fantasy genre is also very short and lacking in citations. As The Lord of the Rings was the defining moment in the fantasy genre, certainly more can be said about its influence.
Inline links should be converted to footnotes.
That's it, I think. Probably also needs a thorough copyedit, but that can come after the article is otherwise high quality. A few images (maybe a screenshot from the movies, one from one of the games, etc.) wouldn't go amiss, either. —Cuiviénen(talk•contribs), Saturday, 13 May2006 @ 01:38 UTC
A Notes section should be used to store all inline citations in, see Wikipedia:Footnotes. Also, the lead need expanding greatly based on the length of the article, the lead should summarize concisely the entire article into one or two paragraphs, see WP:Lead. I'm not too keen on the amount of tables in the article either. Looking good so far, though. — Wackymacs20:29, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the tables take up a lot of space but so far are the best way to organize the numerous factors. Maybe I should try reducing the table text size to 90% or 80%. (SEWilco20:32, 16 December 2005 (UTC))[reply]
While it is a somewhat lengthy article, the section on "past changes in sea level" seems unfortunately short and could stand some expansion. I'd like to see coverage of prior geological epochs. I also see too many bulleted lists in the text: those should either be converted to tables or to prose. Also doesn't the article need to cover deluge events, such as the Black Sea deluge theory and possibly the Mediterranean. Otherwise it's looking good. Thanks. — RJH22:05, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Events on geological time scales is a good idea. I'll see what can be done with the lists. The Mediterranean event should be in a recent geological period. (SEWilco04:56, 19 December 2005 (UTC))[reply]
Just a note, it has long been suggested that this should be broken up into two articles, one at sea level rise covering modern changes and probably the last interglacial transition, and one at sea level change (presently a redirect to "sea level rise") dealing with processes on geologic time scales. In talk, such a division has generally been seen as agood idea, though no one (myself included) has been eager to work on breaking it up. Dragons flight05:45, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, but I wasn't watching either page at the time and I complained when I finally noticed (not the first complaint, I might add). Subsequent discussions favored breaking them up again. Dragons flight07:02, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The article has improved significantly since its previous review seven months ago. With an aim towards reaching FA quality, several editors have suggested it was time to request additional peer insight. Now that the second season of the show has concluded, the article has stablised, and has no serious content disputes. It is now very well-sourced, more than comparable to other TV series articles which have reached Featured status, e.g.:
As a long-time editor on the article, I'll be presumptive and say that we would welcome any suggestions for further improvements or additions which can be made. --LeflymanTalk08:22, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If you notice the "Awards" and "Characters" section of those listed featured articles, they are attempted differently than that of Lost's sections. This article simply has a list of nominations and wins; this seems to ruin the flow of the overall article. Basically, convert the list, or most of it (similar to Arrested Development's section), into paragraphs. The "Cast and characters" section (which should become just "Characters" with a "Casting" subsection) should also do pretty much the same.
The list of awards has been compressed into a shortened paragraph, which now follows Ratings. It could actually be expanded slightly, now that the new Emmy nominations have come out, but I'll leave that to the discretion of other editors. I've not yet looked at converting the cast section into prose; I'm hesitant to tackle it, as Lost features such a exceptionally large cast, and I'm not as familiar with how the series was cast as perhaps some others.
Per lead section guidelines, the lead section should contain more paragraphs. For a show of high universal caliber like Lost (or at least the size of the Lost article demonstrates that), there can definitely be more to the lead section than as of now.
The "background" section has been combined with the initial paragraph, as they naturally flowed into each other.
There are two citations needed that, well, need citing.
Not any more :) The unverifiable one has been removed, and the other cited; a new one has shown up, which I hope the editor who added it will provide a source for.
"The streaming of Lost episodes via ABC's website is currently only available to viewers in the United States" "In issue #6 of Marvel's current The Thing series..." "The Canadian punk/rock group Moneen features a song on their new album The Red Tree ..." -- These phrases do not heed Wikipedia's Manual of Style in that they contain words ("currently", "current", "new") signifying an unspecific time. The words in the first and third phrases can simply be deleted, although I am not knowledgeable about the time stance on the second statement.
Moreover, the extensive use of "new" needs to be deprecated.
I've removed or altered the relative-time specific words in the above; however some uses of "new" are unavoidable, such as in "fellow new series", "new television distribution methods", "new episodes".
Put a space between these two sentences: "The trial, expected to last from May to June 2006, has caused a stir among network affiliates who fear being cut out of advertising revenue.The streaming of Lost episodes via ABC's website is currently only available to viewers in the United States."
Done.
For the "In the news" subsection in "Lost in popular culture":
When did Numbers air? At least, state what year it premiered, depending on...
Done.
Did this happen after the U.S. airing, the U.K., etc.?
How many qualify as "many"? Actually, I think the original wording was "numerous" but that sounded like a bit of a pun.
The reference for "by October, thousands had tried them for the multi-state Powerball lottery" does not support the statement made and renders "thousands" a hyperbolic number.
Powerball is played in 27 states (and Washington, DC). The 840 figure in the first source is a count of five of the participating states. I added an additional reference with quotes from more states.
The "on television" and "on print" subsections should have references for each of its statements; this should not be too stressing as the "references" are technically in the statements theirselves.
I'm not sure I agree here with the need to have a citation for every single statement, as including a particular broadcast date or issue number, is the reference in and of itself. Having said that, I did add a reference to the Thing #6. This article already has significantly more footnote references (57 at last count) than nearly any other similar one. (Compare to Doctor Who with 16, or West Wing (TV series) with 32.)
Per WP:MOS#Headings, headings generally should not repeat the title of the article.
The category "Lost" should probably be higher in the category list, should it not?
"Lost's pilot episode was the most expensive in the network's history, reportedly costing between $10 and $14 million." --Put "USD" into the price part of the sentence.
Done.
Per WP:WIAFA, this article's table of contents seems too long. In my opinion, I suggest editors should make a "Themes and other characteristics" section or similiar (like Arrested Development's page) and place the items from "Episode structure", "Thematic motifs" and "Mythology" into the section; "Filming location" might also be able to enter the section, but it can stay put probably. Also consider changing the "Thematic motifs" title into "Symbolism", "Use of symbology", etc. However, you can also use summary style to create subpages for "Thematic motifs" and "Mythology" (these two seem to be more than begging for it), then create a succinct paragraph or two for the sections on the original Lost article.
I'm not so sure the TOC is actually "too long" -- as stated at WP:WIAFA, an article should have "a substantial but not overwhelming table of contents", which I believe this TOC to be. I'm partial to "Thematic motifs" as a heading, since that term more accurately describes the usage of such elements in the story -- plus, the section does not describe "symbolism" and would teeter even further into Original Research, if it were reoriented to "explain" what the supposed symbols might be. The language there is carefully construed to try to be as neutral to making claims as possible. A subpage for the Thematic Motifs might not be a bad idea; however a fear of many long-term editors would be that (like so many of Lost's sub-pages) a purely "theoretic" article would become an even greater magnet for fancruft -- we already have to regularly prune the latest speculative injections by well-meaning fans. (See the extensive discussions at Talk:Lost (TV series).
A few references need inline citations.
Remember that the Nielsen Ratings used are not spot on (far from it). For the most part, the article notes that, except for "Lost's second season premiere was even stronger: pulling over 23 million viewers, setting a series record." A better reference might be able to clarify this statement.
I'm with you on the Nielsen's not being an accurate measure, however, it's the one that is accepted by the industry and media, and is the basis of advertising revenue-- until someone can figure out a better/more exact method of counting viewership, the Nielsen numbers are the ones we have to go by.
"Discredited theories" needs to be deprecated or placed into "Mythology".
It was included to recognize that Lost generates a great deal of speculation. Initially, some editors attempted to include examples of fan theories, which we removed as (obviously) original research. The section is a compromise to provided sources debunking some of the more outlandish theories, which were specifically brought up by the series' creative team.
The placement of the sections hurt its flow. My suggestion (which also takes the previous comments into account) is to go for: Background, Characters, Season synopses, Filming location, Distribution, Music, Themes and other characteristics, Ratings, Awards, Licensed merchandise, In other media, In popular culture, References and External links.
I moved the sections to improve the flow, specifically because some fans are afraid of "spoilers" (which includes cast lists). Hence, the first section is information about the series, as a whole: it's creation, ratings, locations, etc. This is followed with information about the story: characters, themes, mythology. The Popular culture, merchandising, etc. are left for the end, as it is more in keeping with "trivia" (which it might be noted this article does not include a separate section for.)
Thank you, those are all great comments; I have some minor disagreements with some of the suggestions, but I'll leave that to other editors for input.--LeflymanTalk01:46, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for adhering to most of my comments and suggestions and I can understand your disagreements--that's fine, I'm not a stickler. Slof22:06, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have worked very hard on this article, and I am overwhelmed. It desperately needs to be significently chopped up and made more useable, and I am not quite sure what is needed and what isn't. HELP! :) What keeps this from FA status? Please look especially for trimming and such. Judgesurreal77703:50, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Per WP:MOSNUM, please spell out source units of measurements in text; for example, "the Moon is 380,000 kilometres (240,000 mi) from Earth.
Per WP:MOSNUM, at Units of measurement, numbers with SI units of measure should have conversions in US customary units and vice versa. These conversions should keep to similar values of precision. For example, "the Moon is 380,000 kilometres (240,000 mi) from Earth". Note that the converted unit of measure uses a standard abbreviation, while the source unit is spelled out in the text.
Dates should use either 0 or 2 commas, depending upon the subject of the article; American-related articles should use 2 commas, while British-related articles generally used 0 commas. For example, for two commas: In January 15, 2006, this and that happened, while for zero commas, use: In January 152006 this and that happened.
Per WP:WIAFA, this article's table of contents (ToC) maybe too long- consider shrinking it down by merging short sections or using a proper system of daughter pages as per WP:SS.
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.
This article is a bit list-weighty; in other words, some of the lists should be converted to prose (paragraph form). For example, see "Deleted Scenes".
This article can use copyediting to ensure that the it exemplifies some of Wikipedia's best work. For example,
From "Origin of remake": there is a typo with the extra ]
And after the success no and required
being crushed by Kong, as the gorilla no comma is necessary
Fay Wray, the original Ann Darrow, was planned to appear and say the: 2 errors; was planning to, and says/said that
and perhaps other copyediting fixes for grammar/spelling are needed.
This article is a constant source of vandalism, as Gallant is relatively outspoken, with many taboos to her name. The Ottawa Citizen mentioned this article in a piece they did on how Wikipedia is helping fuel rumours, and the Runge newspaper chain of the Ottawa Valley has asked me to comment on the situation. Go ahead and fire away at this semi-protected article, let's see if we can continue existing efforts to whip it into shape. -- user:zanimum
So no comments on this article's style? Does it look okay? -- user:zanimum
There is quite a bit of non-working wiki-coding, including the image which doesn't exist on the top and the notes section on the bottom. The lead section could use some work and some brief expansion. Personal life should be shifted upwards to the beginning, considering that it contains her early life. Some more details certainly can be added about her early life. AndyZ22:49, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oh geez, didn't see that that code had gone wrong. Don't know where the pic went, it was properly licensed. So the early life should be first, it shouldn't be in order of what's most important to most readers? -- Zanimum
The "Personal life" section could be used to give details on her influences and motivations. The "Political career" section does a excellent job at mentioning her controversies but does not give much in terms of context. For example, why the heated exchange with Bill Graham (what was the setting that made her blurt out the anti-gay remarks)? Also, the article needs to be more balanced. The article says that she thinks Christians are being persecuted in Canada and she equates abortion with beheading of war hostages. This needs to be balanced out with the context of why she said that - no excuses, but explanation/analysis. Was she trying to provoke or rally somebody? Biographies are typically done in chronological order. So an early life section usually comes first - but has much less detail so the article emphasizes the political aspects. --maclean2500:25, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Some suggestions; generally, this seems a long way from neutral right now. I'd never heard of her, so maybe some ideas are off, but here we go:
One way to partially address maclean25's comments would be to include more about other positions, both elected or not, in and out of government, that she has held before becoming an MP. What did she formerly do for a living?
A neutral discussion of her political beliefs, outside of specific times she's said outrageous stuff, would be good too. The article needs to cover times she's not in the "spotlight", as well.
I'd trim the big quote in the last paragraph; the first sentence gives the idea, and is sufficient.
This article is one of many of the Wikipedia's "good articles". I hope that with the help of many other wikpedians we could help each other get this article up to featured article status. Tarret15:29, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes it's a pretty good article. It could use some discussion of standardized connectors and what happens at the interface. Also my experience has been that fiber cables, unlike copper wires, are vulnerable to sharp bending, which can break the fiber. So some comments on physical handling would be beneficial. Thanks. — RJH16:29, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This is a technical issue so the history isn't as important. Images should be added to the manufacture process to see how it is done. Extra headlines (especially in Optical description) would help break up the long text. Matthew kokai08:48, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I belive that the 16mm article needs more infomation then is all ready there and should aim to please people in the industy and lay folk alike. Kylehamilton14:24, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You might take a look at the order in which the paragraphs are arranged. The third paragraph ("Double-sprocket 16 mm film...") appears to have been inserted between the second and the fourth, resulting in the 4th paragraph lead-in making no sense. Inserting a couple of section headers might help the overall organization as well. The article does need to have some references added with in-line tags (C.f. Template talk:Ref), but otherwise it looks like good work. Thanks. — RJH22:39, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've been working on this article for the past few days, salvaging a so-so article with fuzzy information to a rather coherent article, pulling info mainly from Nordisk familjebok (Swedish encyclopedia now in the public domain). As there aren't many non-Swedish sources of this, I'm requesting a peer review for this one so that there's at least one good English source on Christopher Polhem to refer to. Feel free to add any English sources stating the same information as the Swedish ones to the references section. Obli (Talk) 17:25, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
It's a decent enough article, although I think it could probably stand further expansion. The text gets a little comma-happy in a couple of places and needs some fine polishing by an editor. The one place where I thought there might be an issue is in the "Other accomplishments" section. The bulleted list there should be replaced by normal prose. Thank you for your work on this. :) — RJH16:14, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No specific comments. But there is a lot written on Polhem (including a major work by Sten Lindroth and critical editions of Polhem's letters and other writings in several volumes), and before it could be featured it should utilize recent research. You should probably begin with the article in Svenskt biografiskt lexikon, which is more up-to-date than NF and gives you more references to continue with. u p p l a n d08:56, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I personally adopted this page as a pet project back in May 2005, because at the time Suharto was taken to a hospital seemingly on the verge of dying. Since leaving the hospital, his profile has lowered considerably. I believe the time is good for a thorough and more deliberate series of edits, as it's advisible to have it polished up before he gets ill or dies and interest and traffic spikes up again. --Daniel04:43, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Great job on this article! It looks well-referenced, and it seems admirably NPOV. It needs a lead image though. If you wanted to make it featured, I'd put in in-line references, but if that's not your goal, I wouldn't worry about it. Quadell17:39, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The lead image has been a problem, since the old image was ruled not fair use and deleted. I can't seem to find any portrait of him from the Library of Congress. Definite help needed on finding a decent fair use or public domain image. --Daniel03:45, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm a now-and-then editor of this article, so I can't provide a fresh perspective, but... in reverse order (ha!):
Seems there should be more aside from prosecution efforts and health problems to say about his post-presidency years.. I haven't followed his activities closely, though - has he spoken much about Indonesian politics or anything since he stepped down? Does he endorse presidential candidates?
Last para of the "politics and dissent" section: Explaining increased scrutiny of his human rights record as a result of lessening Cold War tension reads like original research to me. It's a reasonable link, and one I find persuasive. but might benefit from a citation if possible.
The comment about Hamenkubuwono's role, perhaps instead of Suharto, in the 1949 seizure of Yogya needs a cite, since it says "many sources believe". I think this was added recently - how legit is it?
So like, what else is needed to make Suharto a featured article? If there's nothing else I would like to nominate it. --Lemi405:40, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I completely rewrote this article yesterday. It's my second pretty much sololy written FA attempt (the other, Vanilla Ninja, succeeded about six months ago). I think it's complete and ready to take to the FAC page, but something's telling me it's missing something. I'd like some feedback on it, so any changes can be made. Thanks.. Hedley01:32, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Years and months are overlinked throughout the article. See date formatting for when to link these and when not.
I think the first couple of sections (up until Following the split) should be subsections of a History section.
Trivia sections should usually be avoided. Try to put the things into other sections (most seem like they would easily fit into History)
Some other things might need some explaination. For example, in the lead it says the band was "often criticised by the media", but it doesn't say for what they were criticised. --Fritz Saalfeld (Talk) 16:29, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
One thing that can be done to improve this article is to better represent criticisms of the group. The Hollaback Girl article offers a great example of how to represent criticism of a musical act. Cedars00:45, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
First I must say that the version now is great work, but of course it could be better.
I agree with what has been said already.
I also think we should dump the trivia section. Two of them belong to the articles about Rene and Lene and should be moved to these articles. One could be moved to the history section. For the rest I suggest that we make a new section which should be about Aqua's impact on popular music. Aqua's Aquarium album spawned a wave of copycats, which for some reason almost all were from Denmark. Some new bands are descibed as making Aquaesque music. Even though "Barbie Girl" is now considered to be one of the worst songs ever written (by some polls) many covers and different versions of the song has been made. "Barbie Girl" is one of those songs that will never really die.
I don't believe that the license for Image:Aquaeuro011.PNG is correct. It is not a "music video or promotional video". It's basically a screenshot from a TV program.
Yes, merge the "Trivia" section with the body of the article. If something is important but does not fit anywhere then re-consider how the article is organized. Currently the article seems to be a narrative of the band's existence. Perhaps try to develop a section that analyses aspects of the band (for example, "Music videos" -which I note is already present-, or "Influences" or "Style"). Could the Barbie lawsuit be expanded beyond the three sentences in the body? All quotations need direct references. For example, "advised the parties involved "to chill"." and "it was the "best thing to do". " Do not be afraid to show where you used your references. Things that probably should be referenced for easy fact-checking include chart positions and critics' opinion. Do not use contractions, like "the Aquarius album didn't just follow one formula". Is that Sliding Doors image really the best image for that section? Have they always sung in English? Even in Europe? Watch your adjective language (for example, "and achieved huge success across the globe" is huge necessary? --maclean2520:07, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Per the criteria I've been working at here, this article may fail:
Lead - 2, 4
Comprehensiveness - 3, 4 (critical reception?)
Sales - Appears to meet them all, some chart data in discography section might be nice
Pictures - 1, 2
Audio - 1, 2, 3, 4
References - 1, 3, 4
Discography - Appears to meet them all (chart data here would be good)
Format/Style - 1, 2, 3, 4 (cites for "musical style", why the fansite in external links?, trivia section needs to go, songs in quotes, albums in italics)
Note that I'm not working on this anymore. It seems another user has took over, and I've for the best part left Wikipedia. I will comment that some of Miatch's additions look like guesswork, though - Aqua weren't influenced by Eurodance, and weren't created as a Eurodance act. A lot of the musical influence stuff is very inaccurate. Hedley23:41, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
![[10]](/wiki/Image:Earlycollins.jpg%7CEarlycollins.jpg){kind=link}
![[11]](/wiki/Image:CollinsBBC.jpg%7CCollinsBBC.jpg){kind=link}
![[13]](/wiki/Image:077.jpg%7C077.jpg){kind=link}
![[14]](/wiki/Image:Beatles.jpg%7CBeatles.jpg){kind=link}
