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.
I've been working on this page for a bit, I think it is about "ready". Just looking for general comments, typo/spelling checks and a good read through.
Grinner 11:45, Sep 30, 2004 (UTC)
For a non-expert, it reads a little funny, in that it is described as two sports: "rugby union" and "rugby league", which may or may not have anything to do with "rugby football". I think the wording has to be a little more cumbersome, "There are two major associations for the sport of rugby football: the rugby league and the rugby union." or similar. -- Mpolo 12:21, Sep 30, 2004 (UTC)
Needs to go under POV check, factual check and more... squash 04:16, Sep 29, 2004 (UTC)
Maybe the Linux kernel type could be called "module-loading monolithic" linking directly to Linux_kernel#Architecture. The prices should specify if that's street or manufacturer's suggested retail price. SUSE should probably mention the possibility of a support package. Might be worth a footnote that Fedora can be set up for NTFS support, but that it is considered experimental. (Is it not experimental on SUSE?) -- Mpolo 08:45, Sep 30, 2004 (UTC)
The price section makes it too US-centric. There must be a better way of doing that! - Ta bu shi da yu 14:08, 30 Sep 2004 (UTC)
The row titled "Target audience" seems problematic. Paul August 14:29, Sep 30, 2004 (UTC)
Not sure whether this is the right place to announce this (please advise). There is a vote in progress on Talk:Human concerning the placement of the taxonomy box, and the identity of Human and Homo Sapiens. dab 16:20, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)
The Aussies of Wikipedia have collaborated together to raise the quality of this article about a very important Australian event. Would any interested parties like to review and comment? - Ta bu shi da yu 13:02, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)
I've just gone over this, added categories and standardized the old-fashioned image markup, and made some minor expansions. Wondering if anyone has anything significant to add. Smerdis of Tlön 16:29, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)
I've expanded this article, but it needs to be checked over by someone with expertise in chemistry. Also, the examples given need to be double-checked for accuracy. -- FirstPrinciples 06:49, Sep 27, 2004 (UTC)
Just need another set of eyes to look over the article for clarity and errors. --BrandonR 04:33, Sep 27, 2004 (UTC)
Tightened up text. Question....in one paragraph you mention that the engines were converted to oil and in the next paragraph you mention that they park kept the integrity of the steam engines. Which is it?
Needs fact-checking, especially the history section. Was cardboard invented to soak up sweat in hats? I don't know, that's why I'm asking here! Rhobite 02:12, Sep 27, 2004 (UTC)
The material in this article is less clear and less complete than it should be. Somebody familiar with Japanese history and the Japanese language should review it to make sure it is accurate. --[[User:Eequor|ηυωρ]] 12:03, 25 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Mostly edited by myself. Can anyone see any inaccuracies or incomplete infomation? - Ta bu shi da yu 01:22, 25 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Well the image copyrights are worrisome. The image page of the first image says: "This image is copyrighted. The copyright holder allows anyone to use it for any purpose, provided that we abide by their terms." What are their conditions? But at least that one is with permission. The others are fair use and quite troubling. Also, the discography is very disrupting to the prose, and to be a featured article would have to be moved to a separate article and the prose expanded. - Taxman 03:00, Sep 26, 2004 (UTC)
The images are all taken from the Universal website, which I got copyright permission for. I still have the terms and agreements, which I can place on the site. Incidently, only one of the images is fair use. I have gathered copyright permission for the rest of the images! - Ta bu shi da yu 04:39, 26 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Well make sure to include those terms in each image pages description section. The terms may or may not be compatible with a GFDL encyclopedia, no matter how pretty she is. - Taxman 15:54, Sep 28, 2004 (UTC)
Started and edited mostly by myself. Biography of one of the richest men on the planet and owner of Formula One. I'd like to make it a featured article. Ðåñηÿßôý | Talk 23:18, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)
This is a merge of white noise and the previous page on signal whitening. Both pages were subtly wrong before the merge, and the whole mess needs a thorough review, and possibly a rewrite. -- The Anome 08:12, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Pokemon articles seem to be about nonfictional animals
Beedrill, Butterfree - these articles have nothing in the first paragraph that states they are fictional. This seems to me like "Sherlock Holmes was one of the world's greatest detectives, and may have killed the arch-fiend Moriarty"... I think the whole pokemon constellation needs a look with this in mind. I'm not that sure what a pokemon IS, but it isn't a real thing...66.245.208.146 04:13, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Well I fixed those two. Just simply note in the intro that they are fictional characters. The fans of these things won't appreciate that, but they have to reallize that not saying they are fictional first thing is being misleading. You don't need peer review for these, just go fix them. Since this listing is not what this page is for, I'll remove this to Wikipedia:Peer review (to be deleted) in a couple days, or you can first. - Taxman 17:38, Sep 24, 2004 (UTC)
Any suggestions? [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality (talk)]] 03:33, Sep 24, 2004 (UTC)
A lot of good work. Very close to a featured article in my opinion. Nominating it there is likely to get objections from people that don't want another political article on the main page and don't understand that featured and on the main page are two separate things. - Taxman 14:52, Sep 25, 2004 (UTC)
A few specific items I noticed
Overall it faces a difficulty of covering a bit too much of the less important topic. For example the campaigning for congress section is very detailed considering he lost and in comparison to his successful bids for Lt Gov. and Senate getting only a few sentances. The campaigning for congress section is also difficult to undersand and follow for anyone not already familiar with the details. Maybe it should be in news style to give the important details up front.
Way too many one sentence paragraphs.
Sponsorship of legislation section is only one sentence. It should be merged somewhere else or expanded a bit.
The committee assignments listing could stand be moved out, perhaps to another sub article such as politics of John Kerry or similar.
Unlikely to get through WP:FAC on the simple objection that it's an edit war battleground. Same reason George W. Bush wouldn't get through - David Gerard 15:26, 25 Sep 2004 (UTC)
I was surprised nobody had done any of these fictional mecha as a wiki page already. I did most of the information, but I would like a)for others to help contribute to the information on each machine and b)to make sure that there are multiple viewpoints expressed. One thing to ask - if you do add info on one of the units that does not have it already, please add the vitals of the units, like I did on the first ones. AngelHedgie 22:30, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)
I didn't do anything with this article, but I did fix the lead sentence of Striker pack... - Ta bu shi da yu 12:35, 26 Sep 2004 (UTC)
This article contains a number of shaky explanations, which might not even be correct, particulary in Water#The ideal properties for life. Large amounts of the article may be improved by better writing, and overall it doesn't seem to flow as well as it should. --[[User:Eequor|ηυωρ]] 03:35, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)
It doesn't flow as well as it could, eh? That's a bit of a worry about an article about water... - Ta bu shi da yu 03:37, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Much better, but still needs improvement:
We still need a references section for where you are getting your information from. Also, there is unattributed information in this article that needs to be clarified.
"Experts predict more trouble ahead because of the world's growing population, increasing contamination through pollution and global warming." Which experts?
"40% of the world's inhabitants currently have insufficient fresh water for minimal hygiene. More than 2.2 million people died in 2000 from diseases related to the consumption of contaminated water or drought." Where are you getting this information from?
This article still has too many short sentences that should probably made into longer paragraphs. On this article I'm not that fussed about this point, but if it could be resolved it would be great.
No information about large bodies of water like lakes, oceans, etc. Just a brief overview with a picture of something like waves would be fine.
What about things that live in water? Surely that's important!
No mention of the recreational use of water. Again this is important.
Suggestion: what about the dangers of water? Again an important aspect of this substance.
What about things like water on other planets? Again, an important aspect of our understanding of water.
This long article covers the race fairly well, but I think the lead section could be trimmed/better organized, and the rest of the article could use some tightening up. Gentgeen 00:22, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)
There's a lot of good info here, but it's lacking structure and balance. Just a few things:
Lead section is way to long.
Part about the movie should be spun off.
Pictures are lacking. At least one action photo, and a map of the circuit would be needed, I think. A "Le Mans start" picture would also be great.
The "Le Mans start" is certainly not so important that it should be the first topic dealt with.
The history is very unbalanced. We get the top 10 for 2002 and long descriptions for various years, but the 1920s are dealt with in a single sentence. My suggestion would be to move very long descriptions to separate articles ("1968 24 hours of Le Mans" or so), and keep a global story here. Of course certain races need to get more attention than others, but keep it brief.
The list of winners is quite long, you may consider moving it to a separate "List of" article. I any case I would convert to a table. This looks better and allows you to search easily for marques and drivers.
This article was the subject of a pretty vicious edit war earlier this year. A couple months ago, it was selected for improvement by Wikipedia:WikiProject Science and was much altered as a result. Before trying for FA status, I'd like some neuroscientists, MDs, psychologists, computer scientists, philosophers, and other interested Wikipedians to give it a look-over for completeness and fact-checking. Sayeth 16:17, Sep 21, 2004 (UTC)
I'll leave it to more knowledgeable people to comment on the body of the article - just thought I'd note that I thought the web site linked to in the first external link - the human brain, a learning tool is a bit weak. I'll let you know if I can find anything better Jerry cornelius 15:48, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)
I changed the first link to one of my favorite sites with lots of great info on the brain. Sayeth 02:46, Sep 29, 2004 (UTC)
Seems shaky. Is this really considered a special form of medical practice? If so, this needs work. If not, this needs deletion. - KeithTyler 20:39, Sep 20, 2004 (UTC)
My wife is a doctor, and yes, all the information in the article is essentially correct. I'm not sure there is much more to say about it but what is there already. And that's ok for this topic in my opinion. Not every article needs to be 14 printed pages. But again, this is not the best place for this listing. Requests for expansion may be better if that is what you want. I guess I'll have to come up with a better way to explain the aim of this page. - Taxman 13:38, Sep 21, 2004 (UTC)
I added some stuff. Legitimate article, probably could use redirect from hospitalist. Alteripse 14:29, 30 Sep 2004 (UTC)
This is my first new article of any substance (though I recgnoize it is not very substantial). It could really use some people's thoughtful suggestions. Be gentle; I'm a relative newbie. Taco Deposit | Talk-o Deposit 21:12, Sep 19, 2004 (UTC)
I like the idea! I think the best things you could do would be to add a sentence to each entry explaining how and why it was used, preferably with a reference. I've added an entry on E$$o as an example. You could probably also add a link from at least most of the pages you've linked to. --G Rutter 19:21, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Thinking of submitting this as a featured article. The only part I can think definately requires some expansion is the "breastfeeding in public" section especially the laws, adding information about countries other than the US and the UK. Would appreciate people checking it over and any comments anyone has on the talk/my talk. violet/riga(t) 09:58, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)
This article is pretty much feature quality--up until around World War II. The sections on the postwar years need significant expansion; as it is, the gist of it is, "He founded Disneyland then died." Once that's taken care of, this'll be an easy Featured Article candidate--it's really well-written and detailed, one of those articles almost anyone could learn something from Szyslak 09:22, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Needs sources with ISBN reference. Should be rather easy to find. Davodd 06:28, Sep 23, 2004 (UTC)
This topic is about to get a lot of attention with the release next week of a live version and an upcoming cable special. The article is pretty good right now; if somebody had a legal picture of the album cover (hint, hint) and somebody else did a good copyedit scrub I think it'd be ready to go to FAC. Jgm (originally requested) 23:24, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)
I've recently made some expansions to this article detailing the complex insertion and deletion operations. It'd be helpful if someone who knows about red-black trees could help check for accuracy, and if other people could help with readability, clarity, and so on. Thanks. Derrick Coetzee 18:26, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)
I've only had a chance to start looking at this article; I haven't combed through to check the individual sections for accuracy. I think it looks like a good reference, but that standing alone, the article is more appropriate to an algorithms book than an encyclopedia. The article started out very sharply; there were a few links to simpler topics, but no real explanations of background material, the motivation for creating red-black trees, why we are making the decisions we're making, or where red-black trees are used.
I tend to think that articles like this should start off with nontechnical material, and become more technical as the articles go on. A beginning section might want to expand on why red-black trees are important (they're used in filesystems, they're efficient at certain types of operations, etc.). Since the article is very technical, I think that information should go before a description of "what they are". The second section might loosely cover technical background material (with copious links). After that, the article could go into an intuitive description of red-black trees, and why they're more efficient. Lastly, you go into the algorithmic details.
With an article structured like that, if someone without enough technical background to understand the page comes across it, they can still gain something before they get lost. I really think that Wikipedia, since it's aimed somewhat at a general audience, gives us a great opportunity to communicate our intuitive understandings of technical terms, and move away some from the style of current textbooks (where you define something, and then explain what it is).
Anyway, I know I'm pretty verbose. I added a short "Background" section (I forgot to log in at the time, I'm afraid), and I'd be happy to give more specific comments, or discuss things, if you're interested. Good luck with this article, and have fun! -- Creidieki 06:08, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)
I know this might sound silly, in the insertions bit could you illustrate case 1 and case 2 with an diagram, like you've done for case 3? - Ta bu shi da yu 06:56, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)
This needs significant NPOVing (still). I've done quite a bit and made known why I've done all my edits in the talk page. Anyone want to assist here? - Ta bu shi da yu 15:51, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)
It isn't looking bad at this point, but I'd like to see it get up to FA standard. Any feedback/assistance would be appreciated. Come on Australia, help us get another article featured. Ambi 14:22, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Good article, could do with a lot more information on past presenters. Merrick and Rosso come to mind. They were a cack! Out of interest, are you affiliated with the station at all? - Ta bu shi da yu 15:24, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)
I wish. ;) I didn't write this, either. I was just discussing it with User:Chuq earlier, and decided I'd post it here in order to gain some feedback, so we can get it up to scratch. Is there anything you could add? Merrick and Rosso were a bit before my time. Ambi 15:30, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Before your time? Say what? They were only on a few years ago before moving to Nova... to be honest I don't have too much I can contribute. The only thing about Merrick & Rosso is that they once accidently switched off the entire radio station when Merrick was mucking about with the studio equipment. It was amusing mainly because they didn't actually switch off the 'mikes, and the entire nation heard the producer running around swearing at them while he tried to work out why they weren't on the air. Apart from that, they also produced a "best of" compilation called choice cuts... that had me in stitches! Sorry that I can't help further. Maybe a general alert to JJJ listeners might help. Maybe you could get Triple J to help you out! They're a pretty dynamic station so they might be able to help. - Ta bu shi da yu 15:40, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)
I think that the presenters could do with their own sub-stub articles. There is additional information I could add about some of them but there isn't really space. It would shorten the Triple J article, to make more space for info about the station itself. Ideally, we would get the article featured on the front page and enter that as a Beat the Drum entry! More pictures would also be good - I have contacted Triple J about using pics from their site, am waiting to hear back... -- Chuq 00:25, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)
This article is a potential candidate for Featured Article, and I'm sure you'll learn a few things while reading it. Please have a final check before we submit it to FAC.
Pcarbonn 20:04, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)
I'm confused with the diagram. What does it mean? Could you add more information onto the actual image itself? Could we also fix up the 1 sentence paragraphs? Some of the paragraphs could be fleshed out, say for instance "The Mpemba effect is the surprising phenomenon whereby hot water can, under certain conditions, freeze faster than cold, even though it must pass the lower temperature on the way to freezing." - give a bit more info (not the entire article it references, just some more info to make it more complete). Also, the history seems tacked on as an afterthought. I mean, there's water->History->Mythology and water->Water in practice->Water in religion... get my drift? Otherwise, this is a really well researched, well-written article! I would be happy to support it if you can sort out these things (especially a structural organisation). - Ta bu shi da yu 15:49, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Does anyone out there in Wikiland know anything about this guy? I've read some of his books, but I don't think I can help things more than what you already see. -Litefantastic 14:10, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Hi, requests for expansion should go on that page to help make the various wikipedia projects more useful. This page is for bringing mostly written articles up to featured article standards. Thank you - Taxman 23:38, Sep 20, 2004 (UTC)
I'm not sure if this is the right place for this, but the Wallace page says outright that White was a Soviet spy, while the thrust of the White page is that he was not even a Communist. Can anybody with knowledge of this stuff look them over? johnk 05:25, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)
I've been working on creating good articles for all the 9/11 hijackers (and related persons). How can it be improved? Quadell(talk) 03:11, Sep 16, 2004 (UTC)
I basically wrote this as a stub - I could use the insight of another electronics engineer with power electronics experience, especially to expand on protection schemes. Please edit it as you see fit!
It would be helpful if there were some more information about the book before the spoiler part; perhaps some of the information from the later sections which indicate notability, give information on the adaptations, etc. could be moved up. I generally stop reading as soon as I get to the spoiler part, especially since the warning seemed to cover so much. If you could have a vague plot outline and other nonspoiler information, and then put the spoilerful plot summary at the end, I think that would be more useful. Also, "to" should not be capitalized in the page title. -- Creidieki 17:19, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)
I'd like to get this up to FA level, if that's possible (not sure if the topic is deep enough). Would love suggustions on style/organizing, more information to add, or anything else. Lyellin 18:09, Sep 14, 2004 (UTC)
This looks like a very interesting building! How does it compare to the rest of the campus, and to the city? I assume a "nationality room" is an otherwise ordinary room decorated in some way that suggests a particular culture; is that true? Perhaps a picture would help here. AlexG 22:21, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)
DOH! I forgot to do the write up for that section. I'll get on that soon. Thanks! Lyellin 13:34, Sep 16, 2004 (UTC)
Just added a bunch of information about the room project/process- hopefully that will improve it some. Lyellin 17:44, Sep 17, 2004 (UTC)
To throw in my two cents, I can't help wondering what the tallest building is. Just so the comparison can be made. I'd say that, considering everything from fractals to foreskins have been FA, this is well within the realm of possibility. Not there yet, though... Also, try adding some brief blurbs about each of the rooms. -Litefantastic 14:15, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Do you think that might get it to be too long? Lyellin 06:38, Sep 17, 2004 (UTC)
No, it wouldn't be too long; whenever somebody says something is the "second-largest", the immediate reaction is to wonder what beats it. This article is nowhere near too long. My other point would be that reading the article, I don't really know what goes on in the other 39 stories. Could you elaborate? [[User:Meelar|Meelar(talk)]] 06:48, Sep 17, 2004 (UTC)
I meant with a blurb about each of the 26 rooms :-). I added in the floor information- see if that helps. I'm still looking for the name of the other building. It's in Russia.... Lyellin 17:18, Sep 17, 2004 (UTC) I just added in the info regarding the tallest building. Lyellin 17:51, Sep 17, 2004 (UTC)
A few comments -- Please add a source on the statement that the philosophy department is "one of the top three in the world" (either an external link or a link to a Wiki article would be fine). I'd also be interested to see a source on the usage of Floors 37-42 (I'm a CMU student, and I didn't know what those floors were for). Also, what are the "proposed rooms" -- have those still not been finished? Were they once proposed and then discarded?
The article needs a few references -- where are you getting this information? I'm sure the University of Pittsburgh library has a few books about this; even if you don't have time to read through them, you could email a librarian to ask for titles, etc.
The list of nationality rooms is useful; I'd like to see more information about how the building is used, though. Statistics on numbers of classrooms, square footage. I'm told that the astronomy club has antennas/telescopes/etc. on the top? The University of Pittsburgh uses the Cathedral for a lot of its official stuff (postcards, etc.; pretty much any picture of campus). Has the building ever been used for anything besides academics (giant parties, important events)? Has it ever appeared in any movies? Have there been any large pranks involving it? Has there ever been a suicide?
Anyway, I think there's a lot of stuff here to make an article on. I made a few changes, mostly copyediting. Let me know if you'd like me to take a look at it again at some point. Have fun! -- Creidieki 05:36, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)
I wrote this article, but English isn't my mother tongue, so please review style, spelling, grammar. Needs also more on the reception of the painting and its significance in the history of modern art. Other suggestions are welcome too. - Karl Stas 11:38, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Same goes for the sister article Olympia. Karl Stas 19:36, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Sort of self descriptive, but I think it should be longer. -Litefantastic 00:35, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)
What about those who merely smoulder? Seriously, since lists will never be featured articles, I doubt this is the correct venue for this article. Davodd 11:21, Sep 14, 2004 (UTC)
Agreed, listings like this just make the page too long and take away from its focus. Please move this listing to Wikipedia:Requests_for_expansion - Taxman 23:38, Sep 20, 2004 (UTC)
Added an imcomplete notice at the top. I think this list should be divided by type of publications they appeared and/or preferred type of tobacco(like cigars, pipes, etc.). More on how this list may be improved in Talk:List of fictional people who smoke. Revth 04:46, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Could someone look into this? I'm concerned about the section Pokémon#Controversy.
The controversy section is probably the most compelling part of the article for the non-Pokemon enthusiast. That part could use one of the following: an image of the Pokemon swastika card and external refereces to the anti-Muslim and Satanic claims. Right now is uses semi-weasel language ("some"). Davodd 11:27, Sep 14, 2004 (UTC)
I think I read an article that a Muslim leader somewhere in East Asia (Indonesia?) throw out the accusation of Pokemon being an evil influence. I think it is fair to mention this, of course I have to first find the article itself. Revth 05:14, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)
As long as the facts mentioned can be backed up, I don't see any problems with this section. Mgm 19:23, Sep 23, 2004 (UTC)
I've created this article, drawing info from others and adding as much as I can think of. Would appreciate others taking a look, especially if they're looking at the Twin / Multiple birth article as listed below. violet/riga(t) 18:58, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)
I've reworked the twin article adding lots of things and bringing in information from identical twin (which I now think should just be a redirect). It may even be worth merging twin into multiple birth. I think this could work its way towards being a featured article but I'm pretty much out of things I can think of adding. Would appreciate any comments, additions or changes. violet/riga(t) 18:41, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)
I've made a few changes to twin (as you will have seen). Although twin is a special case of multiple birth, I think the two articles can sensibly be kept separate. -- ALoan(Talk) 16:01, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)
I noticed - thanks! My reasoning for placing twin into multiple birth was such that there may well be a large section of information duplicated between the two articles. The latter is quite small compared and perhaps just needs more work itself. violet/riga(t) 16:24, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)
I have listed some proposed improvements on grammar as well as proposals for reworing the existing text and elaborating on certain parts of it, please comment on it. --ÆvarArnfjörðBjarmason 10:13, 2004 Sep 12 (UTC)
I think this has the potential to be much bigger, but I've just about racked my brain dry. I think that just about anyone could make a contribution. -Litefantastic 02:00, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Could probably add a thousand more, even a hundred thousand more. There are hundreds of thousands of historical novels set in various periods, often with protagonists being mainly fictional but with real people in the background and sometimes also very much in the foreground. You are spreading your net far to wide. Jallan 02:32, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Guilty as charged. And yet, perhaps someday somebody might need to know these things. It can't hurt to try.
I disagree, it can hurt to try, at least on this page. This page has a stated goal of getting articles up to featured article standards. A better place for this, just like the list article above is Wikipedia:Requests_for_expansion. Listings like this just make the page too long and take away from its focus. Please move this listing - Taxman 23:38, Sep 20, 2004 (UTC)
I put together a brief article on the Waved Albatross, a breed that nests in the Galapagos Islands. I tried to get the scientific information correct, but could somebody double-check it? Thank you. — RJH 18:25, 11 Sep 2004 (UTC)
I've just written a small article on Griko, the Greek language spoken in the Magna Graecia region. Anyone who is interested may contribute to this by adding linguistic, ethnographic, or other information. Thank you in advance.
Was reading through this article and noticed it is not featured. It is a well writen article covering many aspects of the painting - history, sitter, the aesthetics. Even if it is not quite feature-worthy yet, please add constructive criticism to help make it such. --[[User:OldakQuill|OldakQuill]] 10:22, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Refer to Wikipedia:Peer review; there's just too many things that need work. I've noted a few of them on the article's talk page, and have started to try and fix them. I agree that such an important painting deserves a featured article, but it's not there yet. • Benc • 21:42, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Agreed. It needs some fairly significant copy editing and structuring. Eudyptes 22:15 30 Aug 2004 UTC
I have added a couple of restructuring suggestions to the todo on the talk page. I may come back and implement these is time allows. Filiocht 08:39, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)
I did a total rewrite on this a month ago, and think I did a fairly decent job - and I think the others who have helped afterwards have too. Still, I would like to bring it up to the standard of a Featured Atricle - so all the attention you could give it would be good I think. Perhaps someone could find some non-copyrighted images to place in the article as well, all the images I've found so far has been copyrighted and my attemts to contact the owners has not meet with success. Some more info on the danish and american patterns would be good as well, and perhaps a few words on it's use in the Werhmacht during WWII if someone knows anything. WegianWarrior 07:50, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)
The usual, Beatles song article, have expanded it... Johnleemk | Talk 16:05, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Well written and excellent information about the origin and development of the song. Maybe too much, because not much else is covered. Especially how did it do in the charts/sales? What about this ban? Was it permanent? Did it impact anything? How was it famous? Similar reactions in the US or elsewhere? - Taxman 04:12, Sep 9, 2004 (UTC)
The charts in those days did not include individual songs unless they were released on singles. I've added more on the ban. (It took me ages to find anyone that said anything about the ban beyond just that "the BBC banned it, how could they?" or for the satanic conspiracy theorists, "the BBC banned it, see, the Beatles were evil.") Unfortunately the ban's become so famous that it's drowned out other items of interest about the song — I can't find anything related to the American public's response. Johnleemk | Talk 16:04, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)
"The ban remains in place until today" oh yeh? True it hasn't played on Radio One, but it has been played (partially at least) on BBC radio three, specifically on an arts program in the early 70s evaluating the musical abilities of the Beatles.
Ogg 12:04, 11 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Well, that's the exact problem I'm having. People focused too much on the ban, and never mention when it was lifted. I'll need to ask some Beatle-maniacs about this. Johnleemk | Talk 07:52, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)
There are two minor problems. The first is that there's some confusion about the length of the final chord; Martin mentions 15 bars, while a quote from McCartney says 24 bars. As both are direct quotes, one deserves a [sic], to indicate a mistake that is being quoted in context. The second is that a number of elements are being quoted as occuring "at the end of the song", and it may be helpful to include what sequence they actually occur in, which I recall as being in the following order:
The end of the third verse, with "four thousand holes", etc., concluding with "I'd love to turn you on..."
The second orchestral crescendo, including Mal Evans counting the measures
The E Maj piano chord, which continues for over 30 seconds and includes a squeaky chair and the air conditioner hum
About two seconds' worth of a dog whistle
The sped-up chatter in the runout groove
Also, we may wish to check sources as to how the Beatles kept that final chord going. Boosting the gain was one way, but there's a semi-famous photograph of George Harrison underneath a grand piano manipulating it somehow...perhaps inserting the mic directly into the piano itself. All my sources are at home, so I'll have to check later. - Beatlemaniac Scooter 19:29, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Okay, William J. Dowlding's Beatlesongs gives nothing for the last chord other than the engineer pushing down the input faders at the moment of impact. However, I got a date for the Tara Browne crash, so I'll put that in. - Scooter 04:38, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)
The article clarifies which part comes after the other, but not at the same time. The elements are all addressed in the order they appear anyway. Johnleemk | Talk 14:29, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)
George Harrison had recently bought the sitar from Ray Man, Ethnic Music Instruments, in Covent Garden. The company still exists, but is now in Chalk Farm. The song has a strong Bob Dylan influence on it. The Beatles had been listening to "Blonde on Blonde"
Ogg 11:07, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)
I am nominating this for AotW in the hopes that we can get it ready in time for the (likely) expiration of the Assault Weapon Ban on September 13th. It would be great to have it as FA for that day. It's sort of o.k., now, but it isn't great. Jimbo Wales 00:03, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Doesn't fit normal guidelines, but clearly needs alot of work, and with His Lairdship Jimbo's support seems like a shoe-in. Here's hoping the assault weapons ban goes out w a bang, Sam [Spade] 00:22, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Oh dear: I fear this is in the same category as Alan Keyes (removed the other day) in that Wikipedia:Peer Review it is more approraite place for it. -- ALoan(Talk) 09:27, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC)
I've started some work on the article. It turns out it had the wrong definition for the ban this whole time! AWB banned on weapons with TWO or more characteristics, not one like the article said, which is a big difference. Wodan 17:09, Aug 24, 2004 (UTC)
Hmm, I'd have to agree with ALoan - per the guidlines of this page, this should go to peer review. - Taxman 19:58, Aug 24, 2004 (UTC)
Agreed, this is not a candidate for COTW, its already too substantial. —siroχo 19:33, Sep 3, 2004 (UTC)
In the spirit of "we're all equal" this nomination should be deleted from here and moved to peer review. This article is in no way a stub. Davodd 18:19, Sep 5, 2004 (UTC)
Well the navigation box and the article text implies that the assault weapons ban is a part of the act you reference. That should mean they are different and likely should not be merged. The two articles do mention different dates which I'm not sure which is correct. It does also have horrid POV problems, with many many comments against the ban, some with no attribution at all. - Taxman 03:35, Sep 9, 2004 (UTC)
I'm considering working this into a featured article. What more does it need, besides references and a picture or two? Johnleemk | Talk 13:04, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)
It's a little on the brief side. It could use more detail on the various internecine maneuverings of the 70s and 80s. I've been meaning to write about this and perhaps I will increase its relative priority on my to-do list. - Nat Krause 12:03, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)
I originally wrote this article but would like to ask for help from professionals.
I would appreciate any psycologist/psychiatrist, etc. to edit or improve or even totally rewrite the article( with insights , phsycological comments, etc). I feel that this article and the book( Waking the Tiger) is very relevant. Thanks. --Jondel 01:12, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Is the first paragraph of Copyleft sufficently NPOV? In particular, should the use of the phrase 'intellectual property regime' be replaced by 'intellectual property law'? 'Regime' is generally but not always perjorative, but I don't believe that is the case when speaking of a body of law. Anybody know if there's a specific legal meaning? Google reveals the phrase 'intellectual property regime' seems to be used in a neutral sense, for example in the Australian Government's announcement of the Australia-United States Free Trade Agreement. Regardless, in the context of the sentence, which is to describe the point of copyleft, any of these sorts of laws are frowned upon. Does this make it ok? On the third hand, what I really mean by the phrase is 'intellectual property body of law' and I believe this really is the established meaning of the phrase 'intellectual property regime', which reads better. I haven't had to deal with NPOV before so it seems safest to ask. (As far as the rest of the article goes, I don't know that it's ready for peer review.) -- kop 23:09, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)
the very term intellectual property its self is POV and is in many ways quite undefined. It's better to specify what you mean; e.g. say copyright, trademark or patent, which are properly defined terms. Intellectual Property regime, is not POV in the sense that you worry about, however; it's standard usage by people who talk about "intellectual property". Mozzerati 21:54, 2004 Sep 8 (UTC)
Um, the first sentence doesn't make any sense anyway! - Ta bu shi da yu 01:16, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)
I'm not sure if I can add requests unilaterally or if it should be discussed with other editors first, but I think this article could use some outside eyes. Recently, a college prof made some complaints on the talk page, and in response, the article has more than doubled in size in about a month, with only two major editors in that time. Some possible problems are that it may be just too big, and may be too repetitive, both internally and with the general crusade article. Thanks! Adam Bishop 23:26, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)
If it's too big, then move parts of the article into seperate articles. The siege of antioch and battle of jerusalem should both be seperate articles. The material should go progressivly from broad view to detail. So the Original crusade article will have high-level overview, the First Crusade article will have enough detail to tell the story in summary, and individual parts then in seperate articles. There will be overlap between the articles, that is expected and normal as you zoom in from high-level to detail level.Stbalbach 00:54, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)
The history description in the section "Unemployment" seems to rest on the Phillips_curve / NAIRU theory of a trade-off between inflation and unemployment. Economics not being my specialist field, I still feel this being something of a contested issue. Could someone take a look at the section and possibly de-POV it? Alarm 13:38, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Yes, that was pretty egregious. I made an attempt at a fix. Even Phillips didn't posit such a strong causal relationship. What the section really lacks is what was done, if anything, to attempt to reach the employment goals. And was the action the real thing that caused the unemployment to go down? The section reads like an essay without having any sources cited. - Taxman 03:25, Sep 11, 2004 (UTC)
Yet another Beatles song article rewrite. Comments? Johnleemk | Talk 18:28, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Made a couple of small copy edits. Just wonder if the story about the sixth chord doesn't belong in the Working in the studio section? Otherwise a really good read. Thanks. Bmills 12:04, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)
needs French speaker to correctly pluralise the term, it is currently pluralised as agents provocateurs
also some examples from the war protest movements in the late 20th century?Pedant 16:32, 2004 Sep 3 (UTC)
It's also the name of a reasonably well-known company specialising in ladies' undergarments here in the UK, but I'm not sure that warrants a mention in the article... Angmering 00:16, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)
The plural form here is quite correct. In the future, for short passages, I advise you to consult Wikipedia:Wikipedians/Translators and ask the members. ;) --Liberlogos 08:11, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Can somebody else help us decide the NPOVness of the article, and comment on other areas that need sprucing up? Johnleemk | Talk 10:29, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)
I think this one is getting very good. Probably not quite a featured-level yet, but I'd appreciate suggestions on what it would take to get it there. -- Jmabel 21:11, Sep 1, 2004 (UTC)
More prose would be an obvious start. Also, might there be a way to reduce the space the lists take up, or possibly move them to another list article? IMO, the article will be drastically long if you add more prose but keep the lists. Johnleemk | Talk 06:47, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)
TNX. Guess that's all I'm getting. Feel free to delete or archive the request. -- Jmabel 04:57, Sep 9, 2004 (UTC)
Just rewrote the article completely. I want to put this on WP:FAC. What do you guys think? Is it featured-level yet? How could it be improved? Johnleemk | Talk 14:27, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Another excellent piece. I've taken the liberty of doing a couple of minor edits - just tidying up some phrases here and there, such as swapping "in Abbey Road at Studio 2" to "at Abbey Road in Studio 2", stuff like that. But aside from that, as I said, another great article! You'll soon have more featured Beatles songs than Emsworth has featured nobility! :-) Angmering 15:29, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)
I believe it should be IN Abbey Road, it's In Abbey Road Studios, and the album is also called "... in Abbey Road"Pedant 16:35, 2004 Sep 3 (UTC)
Hmmmmmmmm, well I'd respectfully disagree. "In Abbey Road", in my opinion, makes it sound like you're in the middle of the Road itself... Now, of course "at Abbey Road" doesn't sound that much different (in fact "at Abbey Road Studios" would probably be better, although I didn't add the Studios in my original edit because I thought it was well-known enough not to need it...). In my experience of reading articles on albums, television programmes and films, they are nearly always made "at Pinewood Studios", or "at the Record Plant" or "at BBC Television Centre" and so forth, with "in" being used to clarify exactly where. (Although of course if it were a film, you'd probably say "on" Sound Stage so-and-so, but I digress!). Angmering 18:15, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Forgot to mention — this is now on WP:FAC. Johnleemk | Talk 07:46, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)
I have just created this article, as I felt that the topic warranted coverage here, but was too long to fit into any of the existing BBC television articles. I am quite pleased with it, but a little worried that it may seem too unwieldy or just plain dull, so I'd welcome some other opinions. Angmering 15:23, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)
The lead needs work (especially the last phrase, which seems trite). Additionally, you may want to add wiki links to supporting articles (drama, broadcasting) and consider changing the article name to something that reflects its content better, i.e.: History of BBC television drama. Davodd 17:53, Sep 5, 2004 (UTC)
Hi - thanks for the comments. I've tried adjusting the lead section, which you were right about. Instead of the trite last phrase I've tried replacing it with a more specific example, which I hope works better. As for moving it... Personally I think it's okay as it is, but of course if others think it should be moved to the more specific title then that's what should be done. I've linked in drama and broadcasting as you suggested, both in the main part of the text and as part of a new 'see also' section at the end. Angmering 20:46, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)
I think I've more or less completed this article. Please have a look; I'm not sure whether I've put everything in sufficient context. - Mustafaa 03:20, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Well it needs comparison to the other languages it is geographically and/or linguistically close to. What makes it different? Also the intro has way too many red links. If you know what those things are, try to create at least the Perfect stub article - Taxman 17:12, Aug 31, 2004 (UTC)
The first draft of this article is now complete. Please have a look.
--mike40033 02:21, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)
A very nice article. You might consider using the name polychoron for a 4-dimensional polytope. As well as (or maybe instead of) the animated image of the 24-cell, I'd like a static image showing several slices (Wikipedia has a general bias against animated images because they don't transfer well to print). The article needs to be integrated with the other content at Wikipedia, so that all the related articles can benefit from your work. In particular, some of the material would fit well in the articles polygon, polyhedron, polytope, Platonic solid, Archimedean solid, and others (in some cases the other article should have a summary, with a link to regular polytope for the full story, but in others, e.g. "Polytopes in nature", I think other article should have the details, with merely a link from regular polytope.) Gdr 13:00, 2004 Aug 30 (UTC)
I started this article as there used to be a large cult following surrounding this short lived failed soda by The Coca-Cola Company. After the Coca-Cola article was featured a few days ago, I wondered why we didn't have an article on this cola at all. I'd love to have more OK Soda fans contribute to this, and eventually get it up to featured status. --DropDeadGorgias(talk) 01:14, Aug 30, 2004 (UTC)
Very thorough job. Needs: I would consider putting a caption under the logo since unlike GE, McDonalds and Coke, the OK brand is not a household name; I think you should mention that "OK" also is a reflection (a mirror reflection almost) of "KO," Coca-Cola's ticker symbol; and it would be nice to have something with an ISBN # that details the OK brand. Davodd 16:14, Sep 9, 2004 (UTC)
Thanks, I've added the logo caption and the detail about the ticker symbol. I looked on amazon, and while a fair amount of marketing books talk about OK Soda as a part of Coca-Cola's history, none of the books are really about OK Soda. I could include captions from the books, but there are probably copyright issues. Any other ideas for ISBN material? --DropDeadGorgias(talk) 15:34, Sep 15, 2004 (UTC)
I was also surprised that there was no information on the McDonald's Arch Deluxe, also an example of failed rebel advertising in the mid-90s. I'd love to hear other people's opinions on this article, and any suggestions they might have. --DropDeadGorgias(talk) 01:14, Aug 30, 2004 (UTC)
This article is about an important, historical and historic, political documentary on the 2003 Quebec general election. I have written all of this article and worked on it for hours. It is now one of my proudest achievements (so, in featured article candidates-speak, it is a self-nomination). I wish to sumbit it for featured article candidates someday, and I now would like your opinion. I feel that there is close to nothing that could be added to it (realistically, humanly speaking) and I wish to know from those who agree and those who have suggestions on what to add to it and maybe make it even better. Thank you; I look forward to be reading your comments. --Liberlogos 05:59, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)
I just did a major edit to this to add a lot more history and statistics. It is my first ever post on Wikipedia. If anyone has any interest in rugby, or Australian sport, or would simply like to help me, if you could just read through the post and give me some pointers it would be great. Thanks alot. --Jimm dodd 03:45, Aug 29, 2004 (UTC)
This article has been through here once before, but has undergone considerable tweaking since. I'd like to submit it for featured article. Comments, please. Denni☯ 20:49, 2004 Aug 28 (UTC)
I just created my first wikipedia article, inspired by Ben Goldacre's [recent] "Bad Science" coloumn for The Guardian. I'm reasonably proud of the accomplishment, but am uncertain that I've attained the heady heights of NPOV. My POV, clearly, is that she is a fraudulent quack. Would it help to attribute the criticism to Goldacre rather than incorporate it into the factual exposition? --Si 22:24, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Good for you for getting involved. Being an Ohioan, I'm not familiar with this woman. Is she one of those perennial guests that plague the chat shows? (We have a number of them here as well.) As for her criticism of her as a quack, has anyone else besides Goldacre raised this issue? Because dieting is such a fiercely disputed issue, I'd attribute criticism to your columnist rather than stating it flat out. I also wonder if you had any solid biographical data, such as how old she is, where's she from, where's she's worked? Stylistically, you could combine some of your sentences, something like "She claims to have degrees from . . . when they were actually issued by so and so, unaccredited schools not recognized by the Education Department, etc." Makes it flow better. Certainly a worthy start. Glad to have you aboard. PedanticallySpeaking 16:49, Aug 30, 2004 (UTC)
Firstly, sorry for the delayed response. I've been in Edinburgh for the Festival, and forgot that the rest of my life (including Wikipedia) still existed. As regards her status as a quack, the fact that she works in the field of nutrition doesn't have a bearing on the outright fallacies brought out by Goldacre in his second column. For example:
"Several of you are fans of Ms McKeith, and wrote to express how upset you were that I had childishly attacked her reputation, and not her theories. Well. Let's pick a quote at random. Chlorophyll is "high in oxygen". And the darker leaves on plants are good for you, she explains, because they contain "chlorophyll - the 'blood' of the plant - which will really oxygenate your blood." Here we run into a classic Bad Science problem. It may be immediately obvious to you that this is pseudoscientific, made up nonsense (and from the TV personality the Radio Times described as "no nonsense", no less). If it's not obvious nonsense to you, then, OK, just this once: the real science. Chlorophyll is a small green molecule that uses the energy from light to convert carbon dioxide and water into sugar and oxygen. Plants then use this sugar energy to make everything else they need, like protein, and you breathe in the oxygen, and maybe you even eat the plants. You also breathe out carbon dioxide. It's all so beautiful, so gracefully simple, yet so rewardingly complex, so neatly connected, not to mention true, that I can't imagine why you'd want to invent nonsense to believe instead. But there you go. That's alternative therapists all over."
Outright scientific rubbish, when coupled with a fraudulent academic history and various papers prepared but enver submitted for peer review add up to make, in my opinion, a quack. However, I never alleged that she was a fraud in the article - I merely said that was my POV. In the article, I only reported the fraudulent history by a series of objective and verifiable facts. I didn't even mention the scientific controversies, though now that you've mentioned it I might.
On style, the rephrase which you suggest ("She claims to have degrees from . . . when they were actually issued by so and so, unaccredited schools not recognized by the Education Department, etc.") is actually rather misleading, since it suggests that what she got were not really degrees when, legally, I think they were. Correct me if I'm wrong, of course. That the Ed Dep doesn't recognize them shows that they're not educationally valid degrees, not that they're not degrees per se. However, I accept the stylistic note --in general-- =) thanks for the tip. There are certainly improvements to be made.
And yes, she is one of those "Media Medics" (wheeeeeee look mummy I coined an alliterative phrase!). Thanks for your support and welcome =) --Si 21:03, Sep 4, 2004 (UTC)
It was a little bit too overtly political when I came to it this morning. I've done some work on it; however, it may require further attention. Crocogator 18:36, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)
The bulk of the article seems to be a portrayal of the issues surrounding socialized health care in the U.S., with an undercurrent of justifying use of the phrase that should be the main topic of the article. The article quotes no sources for the following assertions:
"The United States is the only nation in the developed world that does not provide subsidized healthcare for all citizens"
"A large proportion of its citizens, however, feel that..."
"A large proportion of the uninsured are lower-income children, who have a higher risk of preventable death than middle- and upper-income children and, to a degree, healthcare costs are responsible."
The article also makes statements that are essentially content-free due to their vagueness or tautological nature, and some are POV in their choice of what to emphasize. They include:
"On this controversial issue, political beliefs occupy a wide range."
"Some propose" X, "while others believe" rebut X, affirm Y (and alternatives Z through RR are not remarked upon)
"Even some liberals believe that..." (pattern here is: Even some STEREOTYPICAL_LABEL believe that AUTHOR'S_FAVORITE_IDEA)
In addition, I think much of this background stuff (especially the second paragraph) is extraneous and belongs better as a "See also" link at the bottom of the article. I'd like to see some information about who coined the term, in what contexts it has been used and with what persons or groups it has been identified, how popular it is in political discourse, etc. In short, the article should focus on not just the idea behind the phrase, but its origins and use.
It seems to me that this article endorses the POV of "pro-life" groups in the US that equate abortion to murder, which is a whole another issue, separate from the debate whether healthcare should be universal or restricted. Etz Haim 22:18, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)
What a bizarre title! The topic here is universal health insurance, a legitimate and important topic. Although the rest of the content isn't bad, the title is not explained until the last paragraph, and it's a crappy paragraph. I've never heard the term and I've been interested in the topic for decades. It's stupid. It's like entitling an article on the gun control debate "second amendment genocide" because African-Americans suffer disproportionately from gun deaths. The author didn't even back up the allegations of differential early childhood mortality with links or references. No one except the creator of the article would ever think of looking for this topic under this title. What is the procedure for retitling an article? Alteripse 14:45, 30 Sep 2004 (UTC)
The article was very pro-Aum POV before some edits I made yesterday, and still needs a lot of work. A quick perusal of the group (now known as Aleph)'s website shows that our article ignores some major doctrinal points. This is to say nothing of most of the other sites on the web about the group, which bare little or no resemblance to the Wikipedia article. - Nat Krause 05:31, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Obviously a major subject, but the article is organized poorly and much too long (40+k). I have placed some ideas on the talk page, and may be tinkering a quite a bit in the next few days. I'd love some help, especially from a Brit and/or other non-Americans. Tuf-Kat 21:43, Aug 26, 2004 (UTC)
Someone put up a request for this article and I have obliged. Someone deleted my section heads, but otherwise no editorial changes have been offered. Anyone have any comments on it? Ave atque vale! PedanticallySpeaking 20:12, Aug 26, 2004 (UTC)
I like the article and have very little criticism to make. Having heard those two words many times at an age at which my ideas of constitutional law were not well formed, I'm glad to learn at last what it was about. And I have some degree of sympathy for the concerns it tried to deal with, which raises a point that the article might want to cover: at the moment, it's not so much conservatives who worry about treaties and executive agreements as it is anti-globalists. This group, generally left of center, worries a great deal about loss of national rights by means of trade agreements. Also, is there any more to say about what treaties can and cannot do? The Supreme Court has ruled against certain direct abuses of the bill of Rights, but the limits don't seem clear. Perhaps the only law is a small amount of case law, and no more can be said? Finally, has any legal distinction been made in this connection between treaties and executive agreements? (Raising this many questions after saying I had hardly any criticisms is evidence that it got me thinking.) Dandrake 20:31, Aug 27, 2004 (UTC)
Thank you for your kind words. You are right to remark about the "anti-globalists," which would be appropriate terminology for today. But for that time, "conservative" seems more apt and "anti-globalism" is not a term Bricker or those sympathetic to his goals would recognize. The Republican party barely accepted the idea of a United Nations at the time, especially in the Midwestern wing that John Bricker represented. These are the folks who nearly got Robert A. Taft nominated in 1952 rather than Dwight Eisenhower. I'll check into the case law regarding treaties and executive agreements. I expect it to be rather slim, as the Supreme Court has tried to steer clear of the whole issue of Presidents and treaties in recent years--for example, when Goldwater sued Carter over recognizing Red China and dropping recognition of the Taiwanese the Court refused to decide the case on the merits saying it was a political question--but I could be mistaken. I'll have to look at the Guantanmo cases for they dealt with treaties and the reach of the Constitution; they could be relevant. Ave! PedanticallySpeaking 15:34, Aug 30, 2004 (UTC)
A controversial subject. I think it's missing something, but I'm not sure what. I've probably worked on it for too long, so some fresh eyes would help. Some NPOV touch-up would probably be good. Thanks! -- style 13:11, 2004 Aug 25 (UTC)
Opening paragraph should say what the current status of the theory is. Consensus against, consensus in favor, more evidence needed? Gdr 18:14, 2004 Aug 25 (UTC)
Good point, fixed, although it's hard to say exactly what the consensus of medical science is about a widely-ignored theory. -- style 00:04, 2004 Aug 26 (UTC)
What's the "dirty needle theory" doing in the opening paragraph? That's a theory about the spread of HIV, not its origin. Gdr 17:14, 2004 Aug 26 (UTC)
I see what you mean, but the OPV AIDS hypothesis involves both the origin and spread of HIV. Because HIV had multiple (4) origins, and some of the variants (i.e HIV-2) have spread little whereas HIV-1 is a global epidemic, the reasons behind the spread of HIV is just as important as the actual viral point of origin. But I'll remove the sentence, as it is only confusing to the main issues and doesn't necessarily compete with OPV (although it does provide an important alternate explanation). -- style 08:29, 2004 Aug 27 (UTC)
Wow, nice article on something I'd never heard of. Only thing I can think of is more direct in article citations such as (Pascal, 1990 pp 100-102). That makes an article that much more reliable, NPOV and credible. Also, more sources in general if possible, especially from the journal articles mentioned which discredit the theory. But more sources from both sides would help. Currently the article seems to lean towards supporting the theory, as the criticisms are dismissed a bit. - Taxman 13:48, Aug 27, 2004 (UTC)
Thanks! I wasn't sure how much detail was wanted in citations, so in future I'll be more specific. As to more sources, unfortunately I don't have access to the critical journal articles in question and am talking about them second-hand; but I'll try to add whatever I find on the web. -- style 14:12, 2004 Aug 28 (UTC)
I would like for this article - not to mention the related ones I?ve written around it - to be as helpful and factually accurate as possible. With that aim in mind, I?m posting it here for scrutiny. Kael (Aug. 25)
A good article, with only a bit more work needed. I'd suggest adding the the Guide dog section, and I hope you can also clean up some of the red links. While I understand your purpose in doing so, it's probably not a good idea to put uncreated links in the See also section, since there isn't anything to see. Keep up the great work! Denni☯ 21:19, 2004 Aug 28 (UTC)
Thank you for the feedback. I did add to the guide dog section, in addition to putting a stub tag on it, but I'll be circling back soon enough. Kael
How about adding things on how construction standards changed to better accomodate blind people? I know traffic lights that play a music when it's safe to cross and fences with automatic doors that open up when a train arrives. Revth 13:34, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Maybe some treatment of web accessibility for the visually impaired? some info here: www.w3.org/WAI ... if you write some of that up, I'd be happy to massage it a little. I don't really have time right now to do morePedant
Both good ideas - although I think accessibility for the visually impaired should be a separate article. Kael
I seem to be the only person left editing this article. While I have not removed any information, I have done some substantial rewording, including on potentially controversial topics -- I would be grateful for comments on (N)POV. Dbachmann 10:14, 24 Aug 2004 (UTC)
If I understand rightly, this is an overview of a whole subject area, whose more detailed articles are listed in the navigation box. Could you make it more like the format recommended at Wikipedia:Summary style, with links to the main articles for each section? Put the important stuff first, move the section about the name to near the end. It would be nice to have a brief example to show how the comparative method works. It would also be nice to have a sentence or two about the range of languages in the family (the details and the full list can be left to other articles of course, but a summary would explain why the concept is so important). Gdr 17:56, 2004 Aug 24 (UTC)
I'm not sure it is a summary article. I'm not entirely happy with the navigation box, because it lists some loosely related concepts (Aryan invasion). As I understand it, there are articles about the Indo-European languages, the Proto-Indo-European language and Indo-European religion, but neither explains the term Indo-European itself. So the job of Indo-European is (a) to explain the term and (b) to explain what is known about the people (apart from the language). Hence the emphasis on the history of the term, but you may be right in that maybe it really should be made a summary article, with links to eg. languages, proto-language, origins, religion, history, i.e. replacing the navigation box? Originally, my concern was with politics/POV, but I think I will give this a try.
I am done with re-organizing the article into a summary and would welcome comments on any of the articles in Template:Indo-European. dab 13:58, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC)
The article is a bit weak on examples. Here's a few:
(1) almost all Indo-European languages use a variant of the word copper/kupfer to designate that metal because the main source of easily-mined copper was Cyprus.
(2) almost all Indo-Eurpean languages use the word salt/sal/saltz to designate sodium carbonate because an important source of easily-found salt was Salz (now Salzburg).
(3) almost all Indo-European languages use variations of the words papa/mama to designate mother/father
There must be dozens more examples.
Ogg 12:21, 11 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Sorry, but your examples miss the mark: (1) and (2) are borrowing by some languages (not all IE, maybe?) after the divergence from Proto-IE and (3) was proposed as a universal correlation based on onomatopeia (/m/ = sucking noise and /p/ would be the first consonant babies can produce). One classical example is father/pater/pitar (English/Greek/Sanskrit). _R_ 11:02, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)
On the article about Thessaloniki, user Crculver has added the following paragraph:
For a time in the 9th century the city appears to had some population of speakers of Old Church Slavonic. Saint Cyril and his brother Methodius were born in Thessaloniki and the Byzantine Emperor Michael III, saying that "the inhabitants of Thessaloniki speak Slavonic quite well", encouraged them to visit northern Slavic regions from there as missionaries.
which I consider misleading. In particular, it is the first sentence mentioning speakers of Old Church Slavonic which I think is the source of the controversy. For more details, you may refer to the talk page of the article.
I worked on this article all night last night (Aug 22), and the section Career Summary was the only one left partially intact. This is my first article, also, and someone completely discarded the in-depth discography I had created. If I've done this wrong, please tell me. Also, this Michael/Dispute was added and none of the information was changed, only the deletion of the discography. Is this the problem? -K1da1
We have a vandal here called Michael. Well vandal is really the correct word, but it'll do. Basically Micheal likes to make stuff up. He adds loads of info to music related articles none of which is true. He edits from AOL. Checking his edits for factual correctness, is just too difficult. People tried but they couldn't keep up with him ( It's much easy to write rubbish than it is to check if it's true or not) So he was banned. Now because he edits from AOL we cannot block him from editing without blocking the whole of AOL. So what we do is revert everything he writes. It's unfortunatee that you have got caught up in this but if you also are an AOL customer, it's possible that you were mistaken for him. Add the discography back in under you logged in name (you can get it from the page history) and all should be well. Theresa Knott 22:34, 23 Aug 2004 (UTC)
I've worked on this article for about 2 months now. I think it's good and could be a featured article... only problem is it's size, but it deals with a historically very important and well documented city, and I think it's comprehensive enough to overcome this. I've just come back from vacation there and can add more pictures later. But before I make a self-nomination for featured article status I'm putting it here to see what concerns people may have. Hopefully you can help me fix any problems. - Asim Led 19:22, 23 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Yes, it's greatest objection is likely to be its length. So continue moving material into sub-articles and leave summaries in the article. Especially the government, communications and media, culture, tourism, and the municipalities sections. All contain information hard to justify in an overview of a city. In addition many other facts are included that would be hard to justify as encyclopedic such as the quotations. Also the Historical population section still has some NPOV and grammar troubles, specifically with the sentence "Combined with horrific living conditions forced upon by the besieging forces, the result was...". I would fix that, but I'm not sure what was supposed to be combined. There's for starters. In general, that is an amazing amount of information on a city. Great work so far. - Taxman 20:00, Aug 23, 2004 (UTC)
I like some of the recent work, continue on that path, moving some of the excess detail out. I hope you have maintained it in subarticles. Removing good info from wikipedia is never good I think. Also, the sections on historical population need some sort of reference, such as a book or webpage those figures came from. The 2002 population listed there differs from the figure quoted in the intro section. - Taxman 20:00, Sep 10, 2004 (UTC)
Seems to me that this article has been pushed into pretty good shape, conceivably being a prospect for FAC. Before that, it needs some independent examination. (Clearly, it needs an illustration, and the sort of thing is abvious. Haven't found a good one in the public domain yet.) Dandrake 01:13, Aug 23, 2004 (UTC)
I've added one. Theresa Knott 09:32, 23 Aug 2004 (UTC)
The red dot (Mercury, I suppose) appears outside of its orbit (or out of the ecliptic) in one frame, kind of above the sun and to the left. But the image explains the concept pretty well. Mpolo 18:46, Aug 24, 2004 (UTC)
This is my first ever entry. I need some suggestions to help improve, espcially concerning the format/style. Thanks! Cacophony
Try looking around wikipedia for other great articles on musicians and emulate those. Strive to reach the impossible ideal as discussed in Wikipedia:The_perfect_article. Especially the part regarding citing your sources in a 'References' section or similar. If you haven't used any, that would be a great start, to research and add more material. Also consider adding a 'See also' section to link to similar articles. Wikipedia's best articles have a freely licensed image reflecting the topic too. HTH - Taxman 19:38, Aug 23, 2004 (UTC)
Needs a picture, ideally a photo of Hardin performing. Needs a category. The opening paragraph needs to explain why he is worth writing about. What is his significance? Was he a virtuoso? Innovative? Popular? The rest of the article should back this up. Did he influence other musicians? What is his legacy? Gdr 11:30, 2004 Aug 24 (UTC)
There is lots more stuff you could include:
He married Susan Moore, before (or possibly after?) he wrote "Suite for Susan Moore"
She was the main star of The Young Marrieds, a soap opera which was the highest rated show on TV then
There is controversy about that song. Some say that its heroine, Susan Moore, was Tim Hardin's wife, although her real name was Morss, and she was from Vermont. Others say the song was written in Greenwich Village before he knew her, and the name was a coincidence. In 1970 Hardin recorded an album for Columbia called "Suite for Susan Moore." It was produced by Gary Klein, the same man who would produce "John R. Cash." He would also record a very powerful version of Leonard Cohen's "Bird On the Wire." Hardin would appear at Woodstock, but descended into a sad world and died December 29, 1980 in Los Angeles at age 39, of a heroin overdose. It was never established if it was intentional or not, but it is said that he had earned $22 million in his lifetime, and lost every penny of it--along with his wife and family--by the time he died.
His best songs have a wounded vulnerability about them, suggesting some unknown hurt in early childhood. The third most frequently-recorded cover is "Hang on to a Dream", which you don't even mention. It's his best song I think. It was also sung by Graham Parker in concert, but he never recorded it. Please mention Johnny Cash's cover.
.gif?lang=en){kind=small}
