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.
If you think something is wrong, or could be improved, post a comment on the peer review page.
Feel free to improve the article yourself!
Interested in reviewing articles of your subject area? Add your name to the volunteer list.
For easier navigation, a list of peer reviews, without the reviews themselves included, can be found here. A chronological peer reviews list (not sorted by topic) can be found here.
This article has been through here once before, but has undergone considerable tweaking since. I'd like to submit it for featured article. Comments, please. Denni☯ 20:49, 2004 Aug 28 (UTC)
I just created my first wikipedia article, inspired by Ben Goldacre's [recent] "Bad Science" coloumn for The Guardian. I'm reasonably proud of the accomplishment, but am uncertain that I've attained the heady heights of NPOV. My POV, clearly, is that she is a fraudulent quack. Would it help to attribute the criticism to Goldacre rather than incorporate it into the factual exposition? --Si 22:24, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)
It was a little bit too overtly political when I came to it this morning. I've done some work on it; however, it may require further attention. Crocogator 18:36, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)
The bulk of the article seems to be a portrayal of the issues surrounding socialized health care in the U.S., with an undercurrent of justifying use of the phrase that should be the main topic of the article. The article quotes no sources for the following assertions:
"The United States is the only nation in the developed world that does not provide subsidized healthcare for all citizens"
"A large proportion of its citizens, however, feel that..."
"A large proportion of the uninsured are lower-income children, who have a higher risk of preventable death than middle- and upper-income children and, to a degree, healthcare costs are responsible."
The article also makes statements that are essentially content-free due to their vagueness or tautological nature, and some are POV in their choice of what to emphasize. They include:
"On this controversial issue, political beliefs occupy a wide range."
"Some propose" X, "while others believe" rebut X, affirm Y (and alternatives Z through RR are not remarked upon)
"Even some liberals believe that..." (pattern here is: Even some STEREOTYPICAL_LABEL believe that AUTHOR'S_FAVORITE_IDEA)
In addition, I think much of this background stuff (especially the second paragraph) is extraneous and belongs better as a "See also" link at the bottom of the article. I'd like to see some information about who coined the term, in what contexts it has been used and with what persons or groups it has been identified, how popular it is in political discourse, etc. In short, the article should focus on not just the idea behind the phrase, but its origins and use.
It seems to me that this article endorses the POV of "pro-life" groups in the US that equate abortion to murder, which is a whole another issue, separate from the debate whether healthcare should be universal or restricted. Etz Haim 22:18, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)
The article was very pro-Aum POV before some edits I made yesterday, and still needs a lot of work. A quick perusal of the group (now known as Aleph)'s website shows that our article ignores some major doctrinal points. This is to say nothing of most of the other sites on the web about the group, which bare little or no resemblance to the Wikipedia article. - Nat Krause 05:31, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Obviously a major subject, but the article is organized poorly and much too long (40+k). I have placed some ideas on the talk page, and may be tinkering a quite a bit in the next few days. I'd love some help, especially from a Brit and/or other non-Americans. Tuf-Kat 21:43, Aug 26, 2004 (UTC)
Someone put up a request for this article and I have obliged. Someone deleted my section heads, but otherwise no editorial changes have been offered. Anyone have any comments on it? Ave atque vale! PedanticallySpeaking 20:12, Aug 26, 2004 (UTC)
I like the article and have very little criticism to make. Having heard those two words many times at an age at which my ideas of constitutional law were not well formed, I'm glad to learn at last what it was about. And I have some degree of sympathy for the concerns it tried to deal with, which raises a point that the article might want to cover: at the moment, it's not so much conservatives who worry about treaties and executive agreements as it is anti-globalists. This group, generally left of center, worries a great deal about loss of national rights by means of trade agreements. Also, is there any more to say about what treaties can and cannot do? The Supreme Court has ruled against certain direct abuses of the bill of Rights, but the limits don't seem clear. Perhaps the only law is a small amount of case law, and no more can be said? Finally, has any legal distinction been made in this connection between treaties and executive agreements? (Raising this many questions after saying I had hardly any criticisms is evidence that it got me thinking.) Dandrake 20:31, Aug 27, 2004 (UTC)
A controversial subject. I think it's missing something, but I'm not sure what. I've probably worked on it for too long, so some fresh eyes would help. Some NPOV touch-up would probably be good. Thanks! -- style 13:11, 2004 Aug 25 (UTC)
Opening paragraph should say what the current status of the theory is. Consensus against, consensus in favor, more evidence needed? Gdr 18:14, 2004 Aug 25 (UTC)
Good point, fixed, although it's hard to say exactly what the consensus of medical science is about a widely-ignored theory. -- style 00:04, 2004 Aug 26 (UTC)
What's the "dirty needle theory" doing in the opening paragraph? That's a theory about the spread of HIV, not its origin. Gdr 17:14, 2004 Aug 26 (UTC)
I see what you mean, but the OPV AIDS hypothesis involves both the origin and spread of HIV. Because HIV had multiple (4) origins, and some of the variants (i.e HIV-2) have spread little whereas HIV-1 is a global epidemic, the reasons behind the spread of HIV is just as important as the actual viral point of origin. But I'll remove the sentence, as it is only confusing to the main issues and doesn't necessarily compete with OPV (although it does provide an important alternate explanation). -- style 08:29, 2004 Aug 27 (UTC)
Wow, nice article on something I'd never heard of. Only thing I can think of is more direct in article citations such as (Pascal, 1990 pp 100-102). That makes an article that much more reliable, NPOV and credible. Also, more sources in general if possible, especially from the journal articles mentioned which discredit the theory. But more sources from both sides would help. Currently the article seems to lean towards supporting the theory, as the criticisms are dismissed a bit. - Taxman 13:48, Aug 27, 2004 (UTC)
Thanks! I wasn't sure how much detail was wanted in citations, so in future I'll be more specific. As to more sources, unfortunately I don't have access to the critical journal articles in question and am talking about them second-hand; but I'll try to add whatever I find on the web. -- style 14:12, 2004 Aug 28 (UTC)
I would like for this article - not to mention the related ones I’ve written around it - to be as helpful and factually accurate as possible. With that aim in mind, I’m posting it here for scrutiny. Kael (Aug. 25)
A good article, with only a bit more work needed. I'd suggest adding the the Guide dog section, and I hope you can also clean up some of the red links. While I understand your purpose in doing so, it's probably not a good idea to put uncreated links in the See also section, since there isn't anything to see. Keep up the great work! Denni☯ 21:19, 2004 Aug 28 (UTC)
I seem to be the only person left editing this article. While I have not removed any information, I have done some substantial rewording, including on potentially controversial topics -- I would be grateful for comments on (N)POV. Dbachmann 10:14, 24 Aug 2004 (UTC)
If I understand rightly, this is an overview of a whole subject area, whose more detailed articles are listed in the navigation box. Could you make it more like the format recommended at Wikipedia:Summary style, with links to the main articles for each section? Put the important stuff first, move the section about the name to near the end. It would be nice to have a brief example to show how the comparative method works. It would also be nice to have a sentence or two about the range of languages in the family (the details and the full list can be left to other articles of course, but a summary would explain why the concept is so important). Gdr 17:56, 2004 Aug 24 (UTC)
I'm not sure it is a summary article. I'm not entirely happy with the navigation box, because it lists some loosely related concepts (Aryan invasion). As I understand it, there are articles about the Indo-European languages, the Proto-Indo-European language and Indo-European religion, but neither explains the term Indo-European itself. So the job of Indo-European is (a) to explain the term and (b) to explain what is known about the people (apart from the language). Hence the emphasis on the history of the term, but you may be right in that maybe it really should be made a summary article, with links to eg. languages, proto-language, origins, religion, history, i.e. replacing the navigation box? Originally, my concern was with politics/POV, but I think I will give this a try.
I am done with re-organizing the article into a summary and would welcome comments on any of the articles in Template:Indo-European. dab 13:58, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC)
On the article about Thessaloniki, user Crculver has added the following paragraph:
For a time in the 9th century the city appears to had some population of speakers of Old Church Slavonic. Saint Cyril and his brother Methodius were born in Thessaloniki and the Byzantine Emperor Michael III, saying that "the inhabitants of Thessaloniki speak Slavonic quite well", encouraged them to visit northern Slavic regions from there as missionaries.
which I consider misleading. In particular, it is the first sentence mentioning speakers of Old Church Slavonic which I think is the source of the controversy. For more details, you may refer to the talk page of the article.
I worked on this article all night last night (Aug 22), and the section Career Summary was the only one left partially intact. This is my first article, also, and someone completely discarded the in-depth discography I had created. If I've done this wrong, please tell me. Also, this Michael/Dispute was added and none of the information was changed, only the deletion of the discography. Is this the problem? -K1da1
We have a vandal here called Michael. Well vandal is really the correct word, but it'll do. Basically Micheal likes to make stuff up. He adds loads of info to music related articles none of which is true. He edits from AOL. Checking his edits for factual correctness, is just too difficult. People tried but they couldn't keep up with him ( It's much easy to write rubbish than it is to check if it's true or not) So he was banned. Now because he edits from AOL we cannot block him from editing without blocking the whole of AOL. So what we do is revert everything he writes. It's unfortunatee that you have got caught up in this but if you also are an AOL customer, it's possible that you were mistaken for him. Add the discography back in under you logged in name (you can get it from the page history) and all should be well. Theresa Knott 22:34, 23 Aug 2004 (UTC)
I've worked on this article for about 2 months now. I think it's good and could be a featured article... only problem is it's size, but it deals with a historically very important and well documented city, and I think it's comprehensive enough to overcome this. I've just come back from vacation there and can add more pictures later. But before I make a self-nomination for featured article status I'm putting it here to see what concerns people may have. Hopefully you can help me fix any problems. - Asim Led 19:22, 23 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Yes, it's greatest objection is likely to be its length. So continue moving material into sub-articles and leave summaries in the article. Especially the government, communications and media, culture, tourism, and the municipalities sections. All contain information hard to justify in an overview of a city. In addition many other facts are included that would be hard to justify as encyclopedic such as the quotations. Also the Historical population section still has some NPOV and grammar troubles, specifically with the sentence "Combined with horrific living conditions forced upon by the besieging forces, the result was...". I would fix that, but I'm not sure what was supposed to be combined. There's for starters. In general, that is an amazing amount of information on a city. Great work so far. - Taxman 20:00, Aug 23, 2004 (UTC)
Seems to me that this article has been pushed into pretty good shape, conceivably being a prospect for FAC. Before that, it needs some independent examination. (Clearly, it needs an illustration, and the sort of thing is abvious. Haven't found a good one in the public domain yet.) Dandrake 01:13, Aug 23, 2004 (UTC)
I've added one. Theresa Knott 09:32, 23 Aug 2004 (UTC)
The red dot (Mercury, I suppose) appears outside of its orbit (or out of the ecliptic) in one frame, kind of above the sun and to the left. But the image explains the concept pretty well. Mpolo 18:46, Aug 24, 2004 (UTC)
This is my first ever entry. I need some suggestions to help improve, espcially concerning the format/style. Thanks! Cacophony
Try looking around wikipedia for other great articles on musicians and emulate those. Strive to reach the impossible ideal as discussed in Wikipedia:The_perfect_article. Especially the part regarding citing your sources in a 'References' section or similar. If you haven't used any, that would be a great start, to research and add more material. Also consider adding a 'See also' section to link to similar articles. Wikipedia's best articles have a freely licensed image reflecting the topic too. HTH - Taxman 19:38, Aug 23, 2004 (UTC)
Needs a picture, ideally a photo of Hardin performing. Needs a category. The opening paragraph needs to explain why he is worth writing about. What is his significance? Was he a virtuoso? Innovative? Popular? The rest of the article should back this up. Did he influence other musicians? What is his legacy? Gdr 11:30, 2004 Aug 24 (UTC)
I was told it would be a good idea to put this here, before I run it for a Featured Article again. Any of you who actually saw this film in its original cold war context would be of great help. -Litefantastic 16:41, 22 Aug 2004 (UTC)
There are three rock operas on this page. they are all 'the first rock opera'... can someone more familiar with Frank Zappa's and The Who's music edit this page to make it factual? I think only the FIRST one should be called the first, but I'm not sure what is and isn't 'rock', "opera", or 'rock opera'Pedant 07:18, 2004 Aug 22 (UTC)
this article is locked in an edit war, could use some level heads and neutral Points of View... maybe especially from wikipedians outside the U.S.A. Since this is a highly visible page, it seems to me unsuitable to keep it protected. See what you can do to help reach consensus. Thanks.Pedant 08:48, 2004 Aug 22 (UTC)
It's always been pretty good, but never great. Went through WP:FAC once but didn't pass - criticisms were that it was too disorganized, inconsistently used British and American spellings, used informal and colloquial language, etc. I've contributed a lot but everyone needs an editor! Thanks a bunch. Ðåñηÿßôý | Talk 07:26, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC)
This article seems rather one-sided. It is almost uniformly critical of the theory, and the single contributor who has written most of it seems fond of rhetorical flourishes that have no place in a neutral source. This article needs to be cleaned up by someone more persistent and knowledgeable than myself.
Seems to me that what it needs is an advocate for the theory. As it stands, the POV is pervasive, but mere copy editing wouldn't do enough to improve it. Dandrake 08:39, Aug 24, 2004 (UTC)
Also could do with the "To do with..." sentences being turned into full sentences. ··gracefool |☺ 09:21, 24 Aug 2004 (UTC)
It's a great Primus album, and deserves a much more in-depth and neutral entry from someone more qualified than myself. 12.25.45.101 19:02, 19 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Just finished reading the book, so I've tried to precis it down, focussing on the horse rather than the jockey / trainer owner GWO 12:26, 19 Aug 2004 (UTC)
This article was on the "new additions" list a day or two ago. I think it has the makings of a "featured article". It seems reasonably comprehensive to me, but really it needs other reviewers. There are two photos now though, as well as a diagram! If there's not much comment, I'll move this to FAC. zoney | talk 23:18, 18 Aug 2004 (UTC)
I read it too, and liked it. But it needs more info on history and all around expansion before it is FA quality. --mav 06:13, 19 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Perhaps the GWR broad gauge/standard gauge dual gauge railway needs to be brought forward in prominence - I should find out if it was the first. There isn't much more one can write about history of it! Apart from that - I can't see how one would expand other sections! Could you be more precise? zoney | talk 10:32, 21 Aug 2004 (UTC)
"railroad engineers... ...had responded, in general, that 4 feet, 8-1/2 inches was slightly suboptimal, and that something around 5 feet 0 would have been better."
There we go, the Irish 5 ft 3 in (1600 mm) gauge is best :o) zoney ███ talk 00:03, 24 Aug 2004 (UTC)
A general article about the Great Jubilee of 2000. Could someone look it over for completeness and POV? Unfortunately, the only free photos I could find are a bit small... Mpolo 19:58, Aug 18, 2004 (UTC)
Maybe a brief treatment on the significance of the 'holy door' being opened during Jubilee years?Pedant
Nominated on Article of the Week but removed as clearly not a stub. However, there were the following comments: -- ALoan(Talk) 19:39, 18 Aug 2004 (UTC)
This nomination blatantly violates the rule that nominated articles should be nonexistent or stubs. I nominate it anyway because Keyes is in a contested U.S. Senate race, and the article on his opponent, Barack Obama, is being featured. On Talk:Barack Obama, several people have expressed concern about the appearance of partisanship on the part of Wikipedia. I think it would be advisable for us to feature the article on Obama's opponent, and a period of intense review seems to be the best way to make sure it's worthy of being featured in its own right, not just for the sake of balance. JamesMLane 16:26, 18 Aug 2004 (UTC)
If you know it violates the guidelines, then why nominate it here? List it at peer review or FAC. - Taxman 19:02, Aug 18, 2004 (UTC)
This is clearly not an appropriate article for AotW. From a quick skim of Alan Keyes, it looks close to being ready for Wikipedia:featured article candidates, so why not nominate it there instead? Alternatively, Wikipedia:peer review would give it some polish if it needs some. Barack Obama managed to get featured without being an AotW. (And before I am accused of partisanship, I am in the UK and know next to nothing about either of the gentlemen concerned: however, just because one of them has a featured article does not mean that the other has to as well.) -- ALoan(Talk) 17:43, 18 Aug 2004 (UTC)
The only expansion it needs is in the areas of his UN service, Maryland Senate runs, and possibly presidential runs. Unfortunately, these are the areas I'm least equipped to research, at least w/o finding a decent biography of him--and school starts soon, so I doubt I'd have time anyway. Anybody? [[User:Meelar|Meelar(talk)]] 18:10, 2004 Aug 18 (UTC)
Also the intro mentions his distinguished foreign service. That needs to be made NPOV, either by adding objective mentions of what made it distinguished, or removing the word distinguished. The mention of buying office supplies, etc in the post nomination section seems a little un-encyclopedic. It could just be said: "while preparing a campaign office and preparing his campaign, his conservatives stances ...". - Taxman 22:14, Aug 18, 2004 (UTC)
Just did some major rewrites following a long, dark stretch of inciherence. Is it moving in the right direction? Fishal
Looks good. There are some problems in the section "Negative views of Civilization," though. I'm not sure if feminists and Marxists have an issue with "civilization" as an abstraction, just in the way the present one developed alone the lines of patriarchy or capitalism. Feminists would probably deny that this was a natural progression; Marx might have, but I don't think he equates civilization with capitalism. I think the views of primitivists (like John Zerzan) should be centered in that section, for they critique civilization as an abstraction, rather than in a specific historical context. --Tothebarricades.tk 03:04, 19 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Looks good. I see one or two edits to do on it and its talk page, but on the whole it seems a good prosepct for WP:FAC. Don't forget to get a suitable illustration, whatever that might be. (Something Sumerian seems sensible.) Dandrake 01:46, Aug 23, 2004 (UTC)
For the upcoming battles on the Fascism and especially the Nazism article, I plan to remove the word "reactionary" from the article. All my facts are placed here for your reading enjoyment--Talk:Nazism/Revolutionary not ReactionaryWHEELER 16:41, 18 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Interesting points, but we shouldn't be basing our articles off Nazi propaganda. "Reactionary" and "Revolutionary" are words with many connotations, and I feel that both should be avoided. The first one, I don't like in any context, and the second as a noun, rather than an adjective... --Tothebarricades.tk 13:33, 22 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Revolutionary viz. evolutionary. Nazi ideology is reactionary (and even millenarian) in that it attempted to preserve and revive various 'Germanic' components from the past and was very much against the (conventionally-viewed) 'revolutionary' political parties (SPD and KPD). On the same token, its racist doctrine and racialist policy was, in a sense, revolutionary. It all depends on the context provided. The vague manner in which this polemic has been phrased, it is largely a play with semantics, and as such, valueless. El_C
I think this could be a featured article at some point: too often, when this subject arises, someone will briefly refer to one selected aspect of the issue as if it was the only aspect worth mentioning. This article is the only treatment I've seen that gives a comprehensive, neutral overview of all aspects. Now, I think it could use some review for POV, etc. (See the questions at the end of its Discussion page.) Thanks! Neow 18:47, Aug 17, 2004 (UTC)
A few issues: 1. The "who is to blame" section doesn't seem to add anything to the article, and is full of weasel words and/or POV. I'd remove it. 2. No definition is given for "civilian"--is there a distinction between a Sadr militiaman and a collateral damage victim? How is that distinction made? Other than that, not bad. [[User:Meelar|Meelar(talk)]] 19:43, 2004 Aug 18 (UTC)
I wrote this about a month ago. I'd like other people to look at it, I'm afraid my inherent sympathy may have made it POV despite attempts to make it at least reasonably objective. I'd like it to be a featured article some day, but it needs some work, preferably not all from me. --Tothebarricades.tk 03:45, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)
I wrote this a little while ago and it has not since been edited by another person, so if anyone has some improvements or articles that should link to this one, fire away. - Centrx 23:00, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Opening paragraphs are rather confusing. Make clear the three elements: (1) the participants; (2) the law they challenged; (3) the judgement. At the moment these are all mixed up. It would be nice to set the case in a bit of context (by linking to an article about the line item veto act, if one exists, otherwise by writing a paragraph about why it was passed). What happened next? Needs the code for the case, and a category. Gdr 11:38, 2004 Aug 24 (UTC)
This article claims ammonium hydroxide is fictional, but seems to have been written too quickly to be coherent. What of this article is correct? --Eequor 02:33, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)
It's pretty much all correct, albeit worded awkwardly. Notice how it speaks of the Bronsted-Lowry theory, which completely explains how the Arrhenius theory, which only applys to certain chemical doesn't work. Actually, where does it say what you claim? The article is fine. -- KneeLess 07:16, 18 Aug 2004 (UTC)
I think the "fictitious" refers to the text 'It is sometimes convenient to refer to these ions as "ammonium hydroxide". However this is a wrong way...' This certainly sounds as if it's saying that a molecule "ammonium hydroxide" doesn't really exist, but is just a convenient way of talking about aqueous ammonia, and an inaccurate way as well. OTOH the ammonia article explicitly says (under Properties) that a small amount of NH4OH exists in solution. At least one of these ought to be amended. I sure can't say which. Dandrake 19:55, Aug 19, 2004 (UTC)
I have renovated the Cricket page from ground up. A final coat of polish is needed to clear up any misunderstandings etc. [[User:Nichalp|¶ nichalp | Talk]] 20:56, Aug 15, 2004 (UTC)
This should be on FA. Excellent, excellent article. I had a bit of a look through it, and couldn't see any problems. In regard to the series as a whole though - one thing I just noticed - in Test cricket, there's just a link to the history of cricket article, without any summary. Having both wouldn't hurt. Anyway, I'll see what I can do about filling some of the minor player/team gaps later. Ambi 01:34, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)
For the uninitiated, it would be nice to have a brief 'walkthrough' of a game of Cricket -- perhaps of a well-known match? I'm am unfamiliar, and though I can read the rules, I still cannot really envision a game and how it would play out. Certainly not necessary, but would be a nice addition. Otherwise, you've done a fantastic job. -- ccheaton
A section for test match spectating culture? with mention of streakers, reading newspapers/books, etc.--Clawed 12:21, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC)
This article just had major surgery to cure some POV ills. It could use a fresh inspection. It also sorely needs more info on the history, the ideology, and criticisms of Progressivism, if anyone here happens to be familar with or interested in the subject. See the talk page for details. -- Beland 09:20, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC)
I got sucked into this on a copyedit request, but the article seems to be almost a fan page for the theories of Dorian Aescher, who, after some research, seems to be obscure and uninfluential. The article also refers to the "pandecimal metric system," which gets no hits on Google except on the Wikipedia article itself. The pandecimal system is referred to by Aescher as "Tempus Spatium," so I don't know where the anonymous author got "pandecimal."
Otherwise, the article has some good, if convoluted, information about attempts at creating decimal/metric time systems, but I think that pandecimal bit needs a once-over from someone familiar with decimal time and/or futurism and futurists. The problematic section is in the talk page. --Dablaze 05:45, Aug 15, 2004 (UTC)
We have lots and lots of information on the UN in the main article and in subtopics, as well as a large category tree. But what is missing? Help composing a to-do list for bringing this large article up to featured article standards. [[User:Sverdrup|User:Sverdrup]] 02:59, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC)
As someone mentioned on the talk page, the Reforming the UN section needs a lot of NPOVing work. Markalexander100 05:53, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Thinking of nominating this for featured status. Anyone interested in helping? Seems to be a very good start. Alanyst 02:52, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC)
The opening sentence seems a bit odd- it defines the slide rule solely by contrasting it with an instrument that replaced it. How about someting saying what the slide rule is, not what it isn't? Markalexander100 05:56, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Good suggestion. I have revised the intro. Anything else? Alanyst 15:00, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Good article. I like it. A few notes: The history section needs to be expanded. When were they first used or developed, and what were the precursors? Also the section on standard linear rules says 2 or 3 significant figures of precision are possible, but I thought with custom, longer units, higher precision was possible? I remember looking at the Guiness record for the longest slide rule. In addition a picture of a circular slide rule would be very good to show the contrast. I had never reallized there were circular slide rules. Mention of the cultural impact of slide rules being so widespread and then replaced so that current students only learn about them as a history lesson might be appropriate. I think the slide rule is the MIT or MIT math club symbol too. - Taxman 20:39, Aug 19, 2004 (UTC)
I rewrote this article. Did some research into the issue a couple of years ago as a part of my undergrad thesis. The article could use some copy editing. Additionally, I think it would be a good idea for someone who also knows the issue to give it a good once-over. –Floorsheim 03:43, 14 Aug 2004 (UTC)
I did some editing. --Nabla 12:48, 2004 Aug 14 (UTC)
I've added a diagram, though my explanation might need some tweaking. [[User:Theresa knott|]] 20:08, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC)
And a beauty it is! What software do you use? (I need to do a few myself...). Oh! the text is good enough IMO --Nabla 00:19, 2004 Aug 21 (UTC)
I used Serif DrawPlus for that one, but I've done quite a few with the drawing tools that come with microsoft word (no kidding - honest) If you are interested take a look at my image gallery [[User:Theresa knott|]] 00:25, 21 Aug 2004 (UTC)
In the picture, the circle should be labelled "visible universe", not just "universe". Something's wrong with the formatting of 10^-32. Gdr 18:13, 2004 Aug 24 (UTC)
Did a little internet research and fixed this article to save it from deletion. Please check for accuracy. Also, there are a couple of rough spots that could use some copy editing. –Floorsheim 03:43, 14 Aug 2004 (UTC)
I'd like to nominate this for featured status, but I want to make sure it's good enough. What needs to be done? [[User:Meelar|Meelar(talk)]] 19:19, 2004 Aug 13 (UTC)
It's quite good. I would agree with mav and say the Administration table absolutely needs to go into a separate article. Additionally I'd like to see more on the platforms he proposed in campaign and especially in the beginning of his presidency. He is notable for being one of the presidents with the fewest platforms he proposed getting accomplished. Notably his national health care and all other major proposals that I can recall being unsuccessful. - Taxman 17:00, Aug 17, 2004 (UTC)
I don't know if this is worth adding to the article but I will note about Bill Clinton's skin problems (redness) caused by Rosacea that plagued him throught the end of his term in office.--Clawed 12:09, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC)
I just expanded this one quite a bit, from being a stub. I'd like suggestions on disposition and subject, what needs to be expanded etc. [[User:Sverdrup|User:Sverdrup]] 22:27, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Almost all my own work (non-existent Talk page), so any fresh eyes would be a help. The less you know already, the better. ;)Markalexander100 05:41, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)
IMO the initial image is misleading. At first I thought that Isan was the yellow area...--Nabla 11:17, 2004 Aug 12 (UTC)
Excellent article. I'd like to see a little more comparing Isan to the rest of Thailand (especially in the "Economy" section--how prevalent is agriculture there, as opposed to elsewhere) and more on Isan's image in the rest of Thailand. Also, a section mentioning the biggest population centers wouldn't go amiss. But overall, a fine article that might be worth putting up for featured status. [[User:Meelar|Meelar(talk)]] 18:24, 2004 Aug 12 (UTC)
Thanks: I've clarified the image's caption, and I'll work on Meelar's points. Markalexander100 05:45, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC)
This is an article on what appears to be a fringe movement in physics/new age religion. As of right now, the article is poorly written and very non-NPOV. If anyone can improve it, please do so. Otherwise I'm putting it on the VfD. –Floorsheim 00:59, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)
This was at WP:FAC, but I should've put it here to begin with. ··gracefool |☺ 22:28, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)
The statement about the Hurd is wrong, for one. Just for starters, it was not started in 1984. Suggest time on Wikipedia:Peer Review. Dan Gardner 04:22, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)
It's awfully short. →Raul654 05:13, Aug 11, 2004 (UTC)
Objection/Comment. Not sure if this can ever be much of an article to feature. I mean you've got what vapourware is (two lines enough?) and then it's just examples. If there is a way to expand it, I suppose it is an interesting topic to feature - non-techies may not be familiar with it. But it should be moved to vapourware (just kidding). Zoney 14:51, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Not sure whether this article belongs here, but since it's my first attempt at a complete article I thought I'd list it here and see what happens. I don't expect this article to be all that popular, but any feedback of any kind would be appreciated. Paul August 20:07, Aug 11, 2004 (UTC)
I found the article interesting and informative and it told me clear information about something I knew nothing about before, so I consider it to be a success! Very well done for a first attempt I would say, and well-written too. The only slight niggle I had was with the last sentence of the intro: "Perhaps best known as the founder of Massilia (modern Marseilles)". It's not entirely clear to me what this means - presumably that a group of Phocaeans founded the city, but this doesn't seem to be made entirely clear in the article. Angmering 21:06, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Thanks for the feedback, and for your kind words. As to your confusion about Phocaea being "best known as the founder of Massilia (modern Marseilles)" - Yes, it means, as you suppose, that Phocaeans founded the city. Can you suggest alternate wording that would make this more clear? Paul August 17:11, Aug 12, 2004 (UTC)
Hmmmmm, it doesn't really need that much changing. Perhaps something like: The Phocaeans' most lasting legacy was the foundation by a group of their people of the city of Massilia, now modern day Marseilles in France. How does that sound? Angmering 17:55, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Was recently shot down as a FAC, with very valid comments (Thanks!). The biggest problem is size: c. 70KB long, caused doubly by the subject matter and lack of planning. Would appreciate help and suggestions from people with more editorial experience about how to chop it down into smaller articles. (Lack of dilligence note: I haven't yet done a survey of other grammar pages, so please don't hesitate to point me to other well done examples.) Any feedback appreciated, TIA, etc. Kaustuv 09:18, 2004 Aug 11 (UTC)
New method of generating non-static Infoboxs (AKA Taxoboxes). I've found that within WikiProjects, infobox designs "drift" between articles as time passes. This may be one mechanism of handling this. Appreciate any feedback. -- Netoholic 06:59, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)
I would like feedback on this article. Anything is appreciated. Specifically, I want to ensure that even people who have never heard of this game before can understand it. Is there any information that you think should be added? Does anything not make sense? --Slowking Man 05:27, Aug 11, 2004 (UTC)
This is one of the articles I'm most proud of so far, and I wouldn't mind putting it up as a candidate for featured articles. However, I don't think it's quite there yet. I'd appreciate any feedback that anyone can give. Ambi 23:20, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)
I wrote this article a week or so ago, and have been thinking of putting it up as a featured article candidate as I'm quite pleased with it - although it may be a little too similar to Quatermass and the Pit, which I recently successfully self-nominated there, in that it's another 1950sKneale / CartierBBC Television production. Anyway, I thought I'd put it up here to see if people had any suggestions for polishing / corrections, etc. Also, although I think I managed to keep it NPOV, it might need a neutral eye going over it for that too. Angmering 20:46, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)
No worries about having two similar articles nominated as long as they are good, as this one is. One thing I noticed is an unsubstantiated claim - "While the vast majority of the audience were taken aback at the brilliance of the production and..." - how is that possible to know? I submit it is not, so that should be written as factually as possible. Overall the writing seems a bit too folksy or colloquial for an encyclopedia article. A few informal sentences converted to encyclopedia style would fix much of that I would think. - Taxman 13:23, Aug 18, 2004 (UTC)
Yes, the FA and recent main-page feature. It's a mess; poorly sectioned, rambling narrative, not quite long enough for such a riveting subject -- no meaty details about uses in any of the great elephant campaigns, though it touches on many. No deep discussion of the differences between the kinds of elephants mentioned, nor links to biology/species articles... other comments welcome. Up for FA status review. +sj+ 20:13, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Could use some review from you "rad boarders" and skaters that really know skateboards,
also could use some massaging of some of the descriptions from someone with a talent for clear writing.
Also a skateboard tricks section describing tricks, possibly prefaced with a 'skateboarding can be dangerous don't try this without proper safety equipment' disclaimer - as well as a list of what safety equipment is recommended.Pedant 21:57, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)
I might as well kill two birds with one stone. I've been trucking along on writing soap articles with little help, and this is something I just can't do on my own. I think with the former, I've done a good enough job that all it needs is someone with some more expertise in the field to add to. Guiding Light, however, needs much more history and plot synopses. The show is rich and has been airing on radio and TV for over 65 years. There's much on the radio version, and early TV, but nothing of the last fifty years, and the stuff that is there is meager and was added by myself. Can someone help me? Message me on my talk page if you are interested. These are very important pages in the history of television and should be given care accordingly. Mike H 19:06, Aug 7, 2004 (UTC)
Some causes for morning sickness suggested by this article are somewhat dubious (increased sensitivity to odors, toxins from vegetables). Fact checking is needed. Eequor 22:07, 7 Aug 2004 (UTC)
am also looking for the origin of the "Stranger with a Kind Face"
(aka Niagara Falls! aka Slowly I turned...")
as seen on I Love Lucy and in a 3 stooges movie.
This article was written nearly entirely by me, so I would appreciate comments from people knowledgable about OpenVMS on its accuracy, and also help to expand some of the missing sections (for example Record Management Services).
I think this article may be a bit of information overkill. It is loaded with all the information neccessary to understand the Act short of reading the actual text, but it is very lengthy. Could I get some feedback on this?
Description: I've recently done a major rewrite on the article about the [Krag-Jørgensen]] rifles, but I'm sorely lacking in knowledge about the danish and american service patterns of this great rifle to do those sections as detailed as the norwegian ones. I sorely need input / help to make this article as good as I wish it to be.
The bio section has way too many one-sentence paragraphs. It needs more detail; as is, it reads like a timeline. [[User:Meelar|Meelar(talk)]] 20:04, 2004 Aug 7 (UTC)
I would like to elicit general comments and impovements with a view to moving this article into Featured status. In particular, any comments on how to write biographies that don't sound like a shopping list. Any ideas for getting better illustrations - tricky since Moore is in copyright which I guess doesn't apply to photographs of his public works, but it would be nice to show some of the early, smaller direct carving sculptures and they can be difficult unless lit correctly.
I think this would be suitable for nomination. Perhaps more mention of artists who were influenced by Moore? [[User:Meelar|Meelar(talk)]] 19:40, 2004 Aug 15 (UTC)
Thanks for the input. Its usually easier to find the backward influences rather than the forward influences, but I will have a think about it. -- Solipsist 18:19, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)
The project is currently working on reviewing (and fixing) 68 or so articles. As a motivational aid, there's an "Article of the Day" scheme. This WikiReader is meant to be for a general, non-specialist readership, so any general peer review is relevant and very welcome.
Notes: If you find problems that you can't fix (or it's too much effort), it would be very helpful if you could place a note on the Talk: page. Articles need to be checked for 1) Accuracy (Factchecking: Are there any mistakes? Is the writing precise? Are sources cited?), 2) Completeness (Any obvious omissions? Does it need illustration?) 3) Quality of writing (Copyedits: Grammar and spelling, phrasing, structure) 4) Neutrality (Is it written from the NPOV? Do we document all relevant points of view?) — Thanks!
Via the Village Pump, we have developed this idea of a "To do list" for each article. We are now ready to launch it, but would like final peer review of the idea.
Pcarbonn 21:35, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)
I wikified this section and fixed a few infelicities. I tried not to destroy the tone, which is perhaps too informal but nevertheless entertaining. I hope it doesn't get bowdlerised into mediocrity. -- Heron 12:16, 7 Aug 2004 (UTC)
I buffed up the main text, but I agree with Equor above. I don't know WHAT is going on with the "History Behind Christmas" section. sfahey,8/18/04. Sfahey 22:10, 18 Aug 2004 (UTC)
I've also done some tidying, but lost the will to live around 'Christmas in the media'. That's still one section before Christmas#History behind Christmas which needs the most attention. The article suffers a little from 'committee editing' (or is that anarchy editing), but it is getting there. -- Solipsist 21:06, 24 Aug 2004 (UTC)
There is a lot of good material here, but it lacks consistency and focus. It is not getting a lot of comments and I would like to get it to featured article quality, but I'm not sure it is ready to be nominated as a FAC.
I've made a lot of changes and additions over time to this article. However, given that its a subject close to my heart, I'm not certain that I've been appropriately neutral. I'd appreciate anyone looking it over and altering anything that comes across as POV. --ALargeElk | Talk 12:35, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)
One reaction: I expected to find an article about Samaritans, the people of whom the parabolic Good Samaritan was one, and of whom there are, I believe, a few hundred remaining. Ideally there should be at least a stub on the ethnic/religious Samaritans with a disambiguation between the two articles. (And the other one would have a cross-link with the one on Sarmations, which ought to be brought into existence now that "King Arthur" has put them on the map. Figuratively speaking.) Dandrake 20:28, Aug 19, 2004 (UTC)
I created the section under Field Marshals for Turkish marshals. If anyone has any information on those Turkish officers who were Field Marshals before or promoted to that rank during World War One (before November 11,1918) please feel free to add to the article. Of course people are also interested in post-World War One Marshals so you should add those men also (Mustapha Kemal was promoted on 9-19-21). I am only interested in those men who were professional generals; there were also honorary Marshals created who were heads of state of other nations (kings, etc.)
Other users should get into the fold on recent Russian history. Our articles in this area are very underdeveloped. And I'm not getting very far very fast being virtually the only one making major contributions to them. To start, History of post-Soviet Russia article should get some more attention after the recent rewrite. 172 07:40, 24 Jul 2004 (UTC)
